The big list of things I hate about Civ4

[NOVD]

I wouldn't say "commie" considering that the state property civic isn't all that great. The game definitely comes off as pinkish liberal, though. The lack of terrorist options and the unique religion bonuses is also pretty pussy-ish.

State property pwns. Much better than free market or envirementalism.

Well, at least it doesn't give happy faces and stuff like that. No distance maintenance costs and +1 food from workshop and watermill isn't really supportive of state property.

Anyway, why is State Property better? I usually go for Free Market for the extra trade-route. I play financial civs though and stuff like harbors. The distance from capital maintenance isn't that large for me and I get more money out of free-trade. I haven't found the +1 food from workshops/watermills to be that much use. I never really experimented with it much though.

[EDIT: nevermind. I was completely under-rating watermills.]

 

[Avé]

I never played a Civ game, but I did play SMAC.

Civ 4 is so underwhelming, it has no non-warfare depth or complexity, the thing plays like Empire Earth/AOE in a turn based format.

 

[chaedwards]

Anyone here tried the freeware Civ Evo? www.c-evo.org

It's based on Civ 2, but with some nice improvements. My favourites are:
AI does not cheat, it's on a level playing field with you. You can also download and develop your own AIs
Can design your own units a la SMAC
New cities require a town hall built there before collecting taxes.

Giving me my fix as my spec are nowhere near Civ 4

 

[DarkUnderlord]

Civ Evo?

Oh wow. Definately trying that out.

 

[bryce777]

Those all sound super annoying. The resources requirements in civ III just made me think "WTF, these guys are morons!".

Actually, the religion thing they would never get away with, due to claims of stereotypes.

From the first one, obviously they are pro slavery.

 

[Seven]

Those all sound super annoying. The resources requirements in civ III just made me think "WTF, these guys are morons!".

Actually, the religion thing they would never get away with, due to claims of stereotypes.

From the first one, obviously they are pro slavery.

Have you been waiting a whole month just to reply to this thread?

Quotes man! Quotes!

 

[bryce777]

Those all sound super annoying. The resources requirements in civ III just made me think "WTF, these guys are morons!".

Actually, the religion thing they would never get away with, due to claims of stereotypes.

From the first one, obviously they are pro slavery.

Have you been waiting a whole month just to reply to this thread?

Quotes man! Quotes!

jeez dude. It was like the third thread down...pretty sad that means it's been a month.

 

[Wyrmlord]

Now, don't get me wrong, I like the game a whole lot BUT..

• Emancipation unhappiness. Now, I can see this kind of thing making civilizations with slavery unhappy, but if your civilization has never had slavery, then why the hell should it piss people off if you haven't adopted it? Plus it's way too damned powerful, especially on Noble setting and higher. You adopt the civic which does good things for your people, while at the same time cripples every other civilization's production? Who the hell balanced this?
• The United Nations. Okay, you become the leader, right? Why the heck don't the votes represent your civics? If you've been a theocracy forever, why do you get to allow votes for all the hippy shit civics? Why not force your way of thinking on the rest of the world? Furthermore, why can't you just say, "Hey, fuck you guys! I'm sticking with Theocracy!" when the vote doesn't go your way? Sure, it would make a lot of civilizations more preturbed at you, but why not have the option?
• Civics that don't reflect what they do. The later day civics hardly represent their names. Universal Suffrage allows you to finish production with money? Huh? How does allowing everyone to vote give you that?
• Nukes really suck. They just reduce population in a city down to 2 and kill nearby units. Shouldn't a nuke pretty much wipe a city off the map?
• Ocean travel LATER in the game. This kind of ruins island hopping games, which are the kind I really enjoyed in every other civilization game ever. By the time you're ready to travel across the ocean, you and most other civilizations are heaps of advanced unless you're playing easy settings. Plus, if you're playing a team game and one guy is on an island with enemies and the rest of the team is elsewhere, it's a royal bitch to back them up.
• Units and things with requirements. Don't get me wrong, I like the idea of this feature BUT I'd love to know why I absolutely need coal for a railroad or why I absolutely need iron for swordsmen. Trains can run on oil once you get combustion, right? After all, no train runs on coal these days. I'm also convinced they made swords back in the Bronze Age, they were just shitty compared to the iron and steel ones. It would make sense to allow swordsmen with bronze working, but don't make them as powerful as the iron working ones. Furthermore, axemen should get more powerful once iron working gets invented.
• Needs better documentation on unhappiness. Once you've built all the happy buildings and your people are bitching about crowding and other things, it would be nice if the game offered some suggestion on what to do about it.
• War unhappiness. In the older civs, only rebublics and democracies suffered from war weariness. You'd think if you were under a theocracy, war would not only make people less upset about war, but it would make them happy fuckers. After all, you're spreading the good word to heathens and infidels, right?
• Religions are too similar. I know, I know.. Firaxis didn't want to piss anyone off with the religion thing but.. Guess what, all religions are different and each one offers different things to different cultures. Why not have the Christian "Idle hands" philosophy create a bonus to production? Why not have Islam lower the science rate while increasing the furvor of the military units - or bring back PARTISAN units? Why not have Jewish religion increase the wealth yield of a civilization? Or Taoism increase the effectiveness of melee units and keeping people neither happy or sad? At least that would allow options with religions!

Welp, that's the "Off the Top of My Head" list.

This is such a nonsense collection of faux-pas criticisms that I am having a hard time believing this guy is not a troll.

Is this the kind of discussions Codex used to have five years ago? Seriously?

 

[Emotional Vampire]

Now, don't get me wrong, I like the game a whole lot BUT..

• Emancipation unhappiness. Now, I can see this kind of thing making civilizations with slavery unhappy, but if your civilization has never had slavery, then why the hell should it piss people off if you haven't adopted it? Plus it's way too damned powerful, especially on Noble setting and higher. You adopt the civic which does good things for your people, while at the same time cripples every other civilization's production? Who the hell balanced this?
• The United Nations. Okay, you become the leader, right? Why the heck don't the votes represent your civics? If you've been a theocracy forever, why do you get to allow votes for all the hippy shit civics? Why not force your way of thinking on the rest of the world? Furthermore, why can't you just say, "Hey, fuck you guys! I'm sticking with Theocracy!" when the vote doesn't go your way? Sure, it would make a lot of civilizations more preturbed at you, but why not have the option?
• Civics that don't reflect what they do. The later day civics hardly represent their names. Universal Suffrage allows you to finish production with money? Huh? How does allowing everyone to vote give you that?
• Nukes really suck. They just reduce population in a city down to 2 and kill nearby units. Shouldn't a nuke pretty much wipe a city off the map?
• Ocean travel LATER in the game. This kind of ruins island hopping games, which are the kind I really enjoyed in every other civilization game ever. By the time you're ready to travel across the ocean, you and most other civilizations are heaps of advanced unless you're playing easy settings. Plus, if you're playing a team game and one guy is on an island with enemies and the rest of the team is elsewhere, it's a royal bitch to back them up.
• Units and things with requirements. Don't get me wrong, I like the idea of this feature BUT I'd love to know why I absolutely need coal for a railroad or why I absolutely need iron for swordsmen. Trains can run on oil once you get combustion, right? After all, no train runs on coal these days. I'm also convinced they made swords back in the Bronze Age, they were just shitty compared to the iron and steel ones. It would make sense to allow swordsmen with bronze working, but don't make them as powerful as the iron working ones. Furthermore, axemen should get more powerful once iron working gets invented.
• Needs better documentation on unhappiness. Once you've built all the happy buildings and your people are bitching about crowding and other things, it would be nice if the game offered some suggestion on what to do about it.
• War unhappiness. In the older civs, only rebublics and democracies suffered from war weariness. You'd think if you were under a theocracy, war would not only make people less upset about war, but it would make them happy fuckers. After all, you're spreading the good word to heathens and infidels, right?
• Religions are too similar. I know, I know.. Firaxis didn't want to piss anyone off with the religion thing but.. Guess what, all religions are different and each one offers different things to different cultures. Why not have the Christian "Idle hands" philosophy create a bonus to production? Why not have Islam lower the science rate while increasing the furvor of the military units - or bring back PARTISAN units? Why not have Jewish religion increase the wealth yield of a civilization? Or Taoism increase the effectiveness of melee units and keeping people neither happy or sad? At least that would allow options with religions!

Welp, that's the "Off the Top of My Head" list.

This is such a nonsense collection of faux-pas criticisms that I am having a hard time believing this guy is not a troll.

This is such a nonsense faux-pas fanboy whining that I am having a hard time believeing this guy is not a troll.

 

[Wyrmlord]

Fanboy?

I don't like Civ IV; I think it's a game fun for a few free afternoons before it gets really boring, but are these even sensible criticisms?

I mean - why are religions similar? Why don't nukes finish off the city? Why are there arbitrary unit requirements?

Are these Andhaira questions? Don't you at least talk about things that actually have to do with the gameplay?

 

[someone else]

This is such a nonsense collection of faux-pas criticisms that I am having a hard time believing this guy is not a troll.

Crazy place isn't it?

 

[protobob]

This is such a nonsense collection of faux-pas criticisms that I am having a hard time believing this guy is not a troll.

Is this the kind of discussions Codex used to have five years ago? Seriously?

Noob.

 

[Trash]

Saint and his ilk were basically all a bunch of skyways.

 

[The Feral Kid]

That's quite funny because I was thinking the extant same thing the other day, that religions should offer different prons and cons and that the idea of leveling all of them as not to be offensive was wrong. And now I come across this post. What's the purpose of having them in the first place then if all of them are just the same? So I was thinking that Christianity should have offered added productivity (especially under the Protestant branch), Judaism more money etc. The only way this is somewhat addressed at a minimum level is through the religious wonders that can be built only in the Holy city by a Great Prophet, like for instance the Temple of Solomon which adds extra income. Hardly adds any depth though.

Another thing I could never get over it was the fact that attack/defense stats of previous civ games were merged into just one overall strength stat. Such dumbing-down isn't what we've come to expect from the civ series.

I also find most of the wonders redundant and superfluous. They just aren't rewarding enough to be worth the effort.They're not that unique either and there are always ways to make up for having failed to build one. In previous civ games you felt compelled to build certain wonders, but not in Civ IV. Also, making favorite past wonders like the Great Library practically useless for the sake of "balance", or not including Leonardo's Workshop are just symptoms that the overall Wonder aspect - probably the strongest aspect in past civ games - wasn't done right.

The unit upgrade system that allowed you to distribute experience points to serve certain strategic purposes was a good idea, but because of overall gameplay weaknesses its implementation wasn't effective to the level it should be.

 

[NotAnAlt]

Another thing I could never get over it was the fact that attack/defense stats of previous civ games were merged into just one overall strength stat. Such dumbing-down isn't what we've come to expect from the civ series.

Not dumbed down. Replaced with:

The unit upgrade system that allowed you to distribute experience points to serve certain strategic purposes was a good idea, but because of overall gameplay weaknesses its implementation wasn't effective to the level it should be.

 

[L'ennui]

The things I hate most about Civ IV is that it isn't SMAC. No matter how tacky they make it out to be, it will never be quite as good or atmospheric as SMAC.

Sucks to be you, Civ IV.

 

[protobob]

I like Civ4 better with the Fall from Heaven II mod...

And yes, SMAC is awesome.

 

[Lurkar]

So SMAC is awesome, we've agreed...but what about it's expansion?

Also Civ4 - and pretty much all similar games - bugs me in that higher difficulty just means "The AI cheats more"

 

[Hobbit Lord of Mordor]

The complaints Saint makes are mostly lessened by now, if you play some mods they're gone completely.

Some things, like useless diplomacy and the naval side is still true.

 

[Emotional Vampire]

Fanboy?

I don't like Civ IV; I think it's a game fun for a few free afternoons before it gets really boring, but are these even sensible criticisms?

I mean - why are religions similar? Why don't nukes finish off the city? Why are there arbitrary unit requirements?

Are these Andhaira questions? Don't you at least talk about things that actually have to do with the gameplay?

Are you fucking ratarded?

Of course they're fucking valid criticisms.

Of course they have to do with the fucking gameplay.

If a nuke wipes a city off the map, isn't that a fucking gameplay element?

What the fuck?

 

[MaskedMartyr]

I only play Civ4 because its xml/python moddable. I could care less about the game itself.

I wish they would fix Fall Further Plus though, shit keeps crashing when I try to load certain saves.

 

[poocolator]

Holy shit, somebody played the thread necromancer card. On topic: modding is great... when people make mods other than FUCKING LETS ADD ALBANIA DURRRR, LETS GIVE SWORDSMEN BIG PENIS, DURRR, LETS MAKE NAKED SPEARCHICKS, DURRR. Sigh.

 

[Trithne]

Someone needs to get Dale's Combat Mod and MAKE IT WORK IN BTS3.19 FFFFFFFFFFFFF.

 

[LusciousPear]

SMAC was pretty much the pinnacle of these games. Nukes sure were satisfying, and designing your own wonky units was awesome. I only wish combat wasn't so wonky in it.

 

[spectre]

I think being inoffensive, although could have been an issue had less to do with it.

See, Europa Universalis has pretences to being historical, as in, when the game starts the situation and all the stats try and reflect reality as far as they can.

Whereas in Civ 4, we have a game where Aztecs can win a space race, or world war I and II never happened, or there's never been a "Europe" to speak of.
This is reflected in religions, to the extent that they are just templates, and it's up to you what will your buddism look like, will it be more like contemporary christianity, or will it condone slavery and state property?