What am I missing? I've seen folks beat off about this for years and I'm finding it boring as hell. Automate the workers, research everything, zerg. It's not world changing gameplay, it seems to have a bunch of micromanagement, and the interface sucks. What am I missing that I'm not in love with it?

 

I love this game. The micromanagement is a plus for me, not a minus, and strategically wise it's much much better than games like Age of Empires. Try playing random everything in a warlord+ diff level. It's much harder than it looks.

 

Yeah it's easy if you play on the first difficulty level. The learning curve is fucking steep past there and just automating workers and researching and zerging won't do shit for you.

 

Civ 3 is better in my opinion, but Civ IV is still pretty good. When I can play it that is >_>.

 

I have Civ4-Beyond the Sword, and the game gets tough. Fast. I've only just mastered noble level (4.) I'm going to move up this week. So don't be surprised if I'm cranky for the next few days.

I like the level of detail, and the demanding style. There's a lot of variables and differing pressures inside and outside your kingdom.

 

Yeah I could see where it'd get bitchy later on in the diff levels. Playing the second level, so far it just seems dont piss anyone but the weakest off, and stay in good terms with the stronger and there you go. Maybe some of the scenarios will change it for me.

EDIT: Something else I had a question about. I got a city whose borders are big as hell, a ton of nice resources... but it's juust outside where the game will let me "work" the tiles. Do I have to stick another city center there, or is there a way to be able to get them with that city? Seems like the game's giving me tiles that are pretty close to the settlement center. I got roads to the resources, it's inside my border, etc.

 

You have to stick another city there to work them, though as long as they are in your cultural zone, you can still get the overall civ benefit of the luxury if you improve them. If however, they are out your zone, then you have to just plop down another city - Civ IV did away with colonies...

I don't like Civ IV. For literally six years, Civ III was my game of choice. The AI was pretty basic, and the only way it got more difficult was that the developers just threw more and more free stuff to to the AI at the getgo - but it never actually got harder on a tactical level - just faster paced until every turn on Sid-mode had you sweating bullets.

I feel that in Civ IV, a group of guys sat around a table and came up with a bajillion ideas that would make Civ III better. Each individual one did in fact did do just that. The change of pollution to health, the more specialized civs, resources... even getting rid of colonies was a good idea, as those things were fairly useless, impossible to connect, and easy as shit to pillage. Realistic perhaps, but utterly boring.

The problem then, is that Civ IV is a giant clusterfuck of good ideas. And while the AI is better, it ruins the aspect of it being, at the end of the day, a game. I like micromanaging an empire and being its divine God as much as the next bloke, but quite frankly, having to decide whether each individual batallion ought to be hill fighters, urban defenders, rangers or medics takes the thing to a new level of who cares? The new tech tree, while interesting in the multiple routes you can take, seems to do nothing more but to drag the game out, when all's said and done. And naval warfare is still a giangantic waste of time...

If you've just been introduced to Civ, and are giving it a go, get Civ III instead. Micromanaging is a little more heavy handed in some areas, but it's more general, giving you more time to focus on the shit that really matters - waltzing battery after battery and division after division across your enemy's territories. And what the AI lacks in overall finesse, as long as you have the self restraint to not use a couple of insanely game breaking tactics (LOL BOMBERZ + CAVALRY), then I find it to be a much more rewarding game experience than it's newer counterpart.

 

I have it on my laptop but it crashes almost immediately after I research Iron Working--sending the game into the next Era. Can someone help me figure it out? I bought the game long ago and enjoyed gameplay up to that point, but the constant crashing pissed me off.

Any thoughts on how to fix it?

Oh, and the original Civilization owns all.

 

Unlike many of you, I enjoy getting to micro manage just about every aspect of my civilization. Once you get to the harder levels it really does require a lot of planning or else you'll find the computer with tanks vs your rifles. I do agree that navy is a complete waste of time still, and that the tech trees for units could use some work. Overall though I still consider it a great game.

 

Disagree. You can earn 30+ gold per turn without much difficult. Also, being able to ruin cities defenses without losing units is important.

Even in Warlord diff. level, civs might attack you even if they're only cautious towards you. Sure, you can give everybody a bunch of gifts and have them pleased, but will you win that way?

 

I've heard a few people say that they love Civ 3, but that Civ 4 doesn't do it for them. I've also heard a few more saying the opposite. Haven't heard very many people say they don't like either.

Perhaps the aim was to have it so that there'll be something in the Civ series for everyone, instead of just plain improving on the predecessor.

 

To me, Civ 4 is better than Civ 3 because of the mods. Comparing vanilla, I'd say 2 was actually the best of the series, probably.

Seriously, though. I'm a glutton for punishment. Sinking into rulesets and feeling that burn at the bottom of my left lung when I realized that the flaw in my mathematics just ruined my dreams of empire? I like that shit.

 

Honestly, I could never get into the civ games, way too much micromanagement for me. I prefer Call To Power II, allows you to automate the city and worker issues. When you get 40 cities going, this is very useful.

 

I picked up the complete edition yesterday at Zavvi's for £8, now I'm wondering, should I just start with the latest expansion or with the base game to get to grips with it?

Also Tragedian, can you recommend any mods in particular?

 

Unless you're already familiar with the game, wait before you buy expansions. While great, they can be overwhelming. Master the basic (which is a huge game by itself) and then expand.

 

ViSa for Warlords, Amra complete for BtS. It's a toss-up as to which is better-- Amra's more professional and better balanced (and has the virtue of including BtS), but ViSa has a surprising amount of content. Like, damn. And it's not badly balanced, either.

 

I have Civ IV Warlords on my Mac and Civ Revolution on the PS3. I've have to say that I much prefer the PS3 version because it is so much simpler. The interface is better as well.

I can see the appeal in all the micromanagement, particularly if you're going to get deep into the game and play it for years on end. But I like my games a bit shorter and less complicated than that. I've mastered up to Lev 4 on Civ Revolution. I only played Civ Warlords at Lev 2 and then was done with it.

Honestly the perfect game would be a blend right between the two (which kind of sounds like how others have described Civ III). I like that you can manipulate terrains and working units in the computer version. But I like the more automated system in the PS3 version...

Either way, both are awesome games.