Apology

[Griselda]

OMG what happened to the Zulu!

[Timon of Athens]

Well, for me Civ IV has proved the ceasing moment for all other gaming activities. Before I got my Civ IV copy I spent a lot of time playing GTA San Andreas, NHL 06 and other stuff besides - even Civ-CtP from time to time. Then came Civ IV, and although I never liked Civ III, the new game quickly grasped all my gaming time. I'm quite addicted, and I would play more, if my law studies wouldn't keep me from it.

The game hasn't grown stale yet, since I'm only on Prince Level now and trying to beat the AI there. Didn't manage it yet, but I sure will soon. MP is a lot of fun too, together with a friend of mine I'm able to control things on Prince yet. I actually never tried a fully human run MP - might be great fun too, but for this opportunity I know not enough people, and gamespy wasn't worth a shot post-patch. Maybe here @RBCiv we could get a group going, but I deem it's quite difficult due to the different time zones.

Like Sulla and Kylearan I'm really looking forward to the upcoming RB Civ events once the patch is delivered. Will be fun !

Regards,

LT

[jeffelammar]

I'm with Kylerean, Lee and some of the others.

I'm impressed with Civ4. I love many of the mechanics. Religion is a nice addition, and the game is beautiful.

BUT, I just can't play the game. I start a game, look at the page and just cannot make myself take the effort to play. That is the fundamental problem for me. It feels like work rather than play.

The only Civ I'm doing right now is SGOTM, and when that is done, I'll take a few months off from civ. Hopefully that will cure the Civ3 burnout so I can again enjoy this game that took so much work and really does seem to be good.

OTOH - I have a friend who hated Civ3 and just didn't want to play it. He bought Civ4 and is fully adicted.

It is a tribute to the greatness of this line of products that so many of us found Civ3 to have such long legs, but it is hurting Civ4's playability.

[VoiceOfUnreason]

OMG what happened to the Zulu!

OK, I'll bite... what did happen to the Zulu? Stomped by player? stomped by AI? stomped by somebody else in an SG? They climbed up the tree into a magical land with unicorns and a harp? This last seems unlikely.

[pholkhero]

In fact, if you look in our own archives here at Realms Beyond, Charis opened the first RBD succession game in December of 2001. First-ever RB usage of the weed smoking, the original dotmaps, "OMGWHTTZ!" and many other firsts.

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread...adid=12626

[Bezhukov]

I think it's definitely CivIII burnout, as can be seen in all the CivIV SG's stuck in the same CivIII variants. Thankfully, I took a year off from CivIII, so could see CivIV with fresh eyes.

I think the sheer breadth of new stuff in CivIV is intimidating people a bit too. New mechanics, new maps, new scenarios, its all a bit overwhelming I guess. I don't know, I love it, but its been strange how little of the game has been explored even now in the SG's, while people seem content to stick to the same old narrow variants and strategies.

I also suspect some became a little too attached to their CivIII exploits, and are at a loss playing CivIV, as not only do the old exploits no longer work, but due to good design, there are fewer new ones to discover.

[Sirian]

I love it, but its been strange how little of the game has been explored even now in the SG's, while people seem content to stick to the same old narrow variants and strategies.

I haven't been reading many SGs. The GOM AW game is the only one I'm currently watching (sorry to all the active RB SGs).

I have to wonder, though. How can anything in Civ4 be "the same old" anything from Civ3? The mechanics are different. The games will play out differently. I can't imagine being disapproving of people for trying out the old and familiar in a new setting. By definition, that's new stuff!

AW is totally different in Civ4 because the AI is now coded to handle it. It may not perform perfectly, but it is SO much better at it now that it has awareness of the situation to even a modest extent, that it as far from the Civ3 experience as you can get under the same name.


I would hope that we could all be supportive of one another, instead of finding fault in what others are saying, thinking or playing. This goes for everybody across the board.

Relax. It's a game. It's a relatively new game that was designed to have longer legs. You either enjoy the core gameplay, in which case you can play it over and over on different maps and continue to have fun, or you do not, in which case no amount of variety is going to sate your needs.


Some of you guys may benefit from slowing down a bit. I've been with Civ4 for two years now and can fire it up and enjoy it, but I'm not pressing. I'm not (always) pushing the difficulty envelope, or any other envelope. I try to mix up my games: one third challenging, one third exploratory, and one third relaxation -- taking it easy.

Maybe that's the secret? Pacing. If you only enjoy one of these three tracks, you'll not only reach its end in fewer games, but for lack of "breaking it up" will even reach its end in fewer games of that type! I think those of you already feeling some Civ4 burnout are shooting yourselves in the foot.


- Sirian

[Gotag]

I'm sorta in the middle here. I like the game quite a bit. It has a lot of pull still and there are a enough new ways to play to keep me coming back but....

Forgive me if this is somewhat confused but it is difficult to articulate.

Some times, I feel as if the unseen hand of the game mechanics is greater then my ability to work around them, especially at the higher difficulties. IE: regardless of my choices, Civ traits, good, bad start, or AI civs, the game(s) tends to play out in a somewhat similar fashion.

The mechanics to prevent ICS, city maintenance and distance unit support costs (and later WW) so over shadow the aformentioned choices and random events that there does lend a "been there done that" feel to the game. I am pretty confident that it is not just my particular play style that is the cause of this, as when I look as SGs they seem to have the same issues.

I recently played two emperor games. I chose random civs for myself and got Mali and Mansa in one and Japan with Toku in another. My start with Mali was one of those dream beginnings, whilst Toku's was not so good. My immediate neighbour in the first was Cat in Russia, in the second was Louis in France.

Now with that great start, I quickly put the boots to Cat. Soon though, I had to stop my advance as I was quickly going to find my units on strike. So I consolidated, teched up a bit then finished her off and then nibbled the other neighbours and brought the game home via a space ship win. I could have also won via conquest or domination.

With the poor start, the early part of the game was much more difficult. I had to wedge cities in where ever I could, all the while getting crushed by Louis's culture. With no real choice, I had to scrap and slowly ate him up (much later then Cat in the first game) but again, I found myself going broke but this time, I pushed through the support wall and despite a few strikes, I finished him off with a larger empire then the first game. I then consolidated, teched, diploed and nibbled and brought the game home via a diplo win. I could have won the space race too if I had wanted in addition to conquest or domination.

There just seems to be no way to run away with the game. In Civ III a good start, good play and a kindly RNG would allow the player to romp home. A poor start was a struggle. In Civ IV, there just seems no way, short of exploits, to romp home. You can still struggle of course.

The patterns seem to be too fixed. Land grab followed by eat weak neighbour(s) till cost become prohibitive (which regardless of civ seems to be very close in terms of number of cities) followed by consolidate, courthouse everywhere, tech, nibble or put the boots to them until WW cripples you, then consolidate and tech again followed by diplo or ship, or when you have the means to combat WW, finish them off. It also seems to happen around the same time in every game.

I wish there was a leader trait that had a bonus against WW and another that had a bonus with city maintanence costs. Perhaps unbalancing?

Now don't misunderstand. Civ III had plenty of warts. It too could be guilty of sameness in play especially at the high difficulties. However it seems to me the sameness was due to it being a superior way to play, rather then the player being forced that direction via the ruleset. (Does that even make sense???) It also had some huge flaws with respect to the AI and techs and of course ICS.

BTW, I've always been curious why to combat ICS you simply didn't give larger cities production/science/income bonuses. Say size 3 +1 shield/coin/beaker, size 6 +2 ect... or even more? Maybe start at size 5 or 10? Whatever would balance a larger city vs a number of smaller ones. Then it would be the players option whether to grow up or out and have both be equally valid. Some distance/# of city costs of course, since denial of room for the AI would override most other considerations if this didn't exist.

Anyway, that is my $.02. Great game and you and Sulla have much to be proud of.



Gotag

[Sirian]

I've never been a fan of stronger city maintenance constraints for the highest difficulty levels. It's an unnecessary form of piling on in Civ4. This is one of the few areas (and truly there were few) where my counsel simply wasn't heeded.

The available gameplay paths on Emperor+ are necessarily few as a result, in all the ways that you have spelled out, Gotag. None of this is news to me. It is simply evidence that supports my original beliefs.

You have to keep in mind, though, that Soren's very clever city maintenance system DOES resolve a problem that nobody has ever resolved in the genre before: the snowball of extra territory. Civ3 tried with its corruption system, setting a total amount of useful territory beyond which you are simply collecting useless holes in the ground. That vision of limiting snowballing was loosened almost a dozen times, literally made looser with every patch and expansion and expansion patch. Once they loosened it too far, though, it only loosed the military snowball effect, because there became something to gain from owning extra territory. That approach was doomed either way.

This one is much more promising, but BECAUSE this thing is so new, it is perhaps understandable that judgement calls would have to be made based on various theories, then wait for the evidence to prove which theories were the most correct and adapt things in those directions.


We will probably have to adapt it ourselves, in an RB-Official mod that rewrites the top three or four difficulty levels into something more constructive and well balanced, but at least that is possible.

I'm in no particular hurry, though. A few of our players (mostly those with some or a lot of Civ3 burnout) are chafing on these bonds already, but most are not. Letting more data and evidence roll in means more likelihood of getting this right on fewer iterations, which is always one of my goals. (I'm big on getting the analysis right the first time, where possible, even if it means moving a little more slowly.)


The vast majority of customers are situated between Warlord and Monarch, which is a healthy place. I feel very good about that. The fact that I'm not working on the expansion, and haven't been, has had the side effect of keeping me away from Civ4 in general, except for official RB games, and the patch delays have halted that too. I haven't played, except for MP, in two months. Really, until the patch, working out any ideas for what to do with the highest difficulty levels has to wait -- for a host of reasons. Once the game STOPS being a moving target, I can identify remaining weaknesses that affect RBCiv in a significant way and patch around them. I have always hoped that wouldn't be necessary, but always expected that it would.

Anybody who tires of the narrow confines of Emperor+ in the near term should at least make a point of checking back in with us in a few months. Or, better, stick to variants played on Prince and Monarch, where you can get a challenge without the economic predestiny.


- Sirian

[Atlas]

The patterns seem to be too fixed. Land grab followed by eat weak neighbour(s) till cost become prohibitive (which regardless of civ seems to be very close in terms of number of cities) followed by consolidate, courthouse everywhere, tech, nibble or put the boots to them until WW cripples you, then consolidate and tech again followed by diplo or ship, or when you have the means to combat WW, finish them off. It also seems to happen around the same time in every game.

You could try the always peace variant *shrug*. I actually really like this variant since it presents some really interesting challenges, and precludes the sword and fire as a path to victory. I do however understand what you mean

However it seems to me the sameness was due to it being a superior way to play, rather then the player being forced that direction via the ruleset. (Does that even make sense???)

This makes sense to me.