Anybody playing Civ IV, lately

[ShadowBadass]

Ok so i turned on civ iv for the first time, since civ V was announced, last night. Must say just cant get into it any more. I loaded up a game in the modern era with hundreds of units. It just looked so massive and much to manage. I am really hoping that this, the unit count, will be kept down in Civ 5, especially late in the game. And it sounds, so far, like the unit count be keep down; making the game more manageable and funnier.

I was one that focused on economy for the first part of the game, unless i needed a strategic spot, and then once infantry was discovered start producing a massive military. But i just couldnt stand how sometimes it would take 10 - 30 minutes to go through a turn. I am really excited about Civ V and unit restrictions. If they just kept Civ IV and added the resource limit and troop limit, that would we fine with me. But i am looking forward to all the new stuff as well.

Does anybody else find themselves having a hard time still finding an interest in Civ IV with the expected changes coming to Civ V? And what is the biggest change you think is coming?

[eireksten]

I'm currently playing Civ4 on play-by-e-mail with a few friends For once I manage to stop and think about what I'm doing, and I hope it won't get out of hand in the modern era either.

But yeah, when I fire up single player games, I quickly start daydreaming about Civ5.

[dromedary]

I've fired up a few games and every time I do I end up thinking about how much better I hope Civ 5 will be. After reading about the new combat system to Stacks of Doom have started to annoy me.

[rts312]

Well if that's what you want, then i have good news for you! It's been announced that units will not be able to stack in Civ 5, meaning that only one unit can be placed on every tile. The developers are focusing more on the individual unit than the whole army.

[timewatch]

Nope. Everytime I play, I get bored around the modern era. Its the same. Start a war. Spend the first few turns in my city defend against AI onslaught. Once the AI has exhausted all its attacks, just take my super stack of doom and take out AI cities one by one. Nothing the AI can do to counter. Tedious after awhile becuase late game has lots cities.

[ShadowBadass]

Well if that's what you want, then i have good news for you! It's been announced that units will not be able to stack in Civ 5, meaning that only one unit can be placed on every tile. The developers are focusing more on the individual unit than the whole army.

yes i realize this that is why i made specific reference to these things.

[ShadowBadass]

Nope. Everytime I play, I get bored around the modern era. Its the same. Start a war. Spend the first few turns in my city defend against AI onslaught. Once the AI has exhausted all its attacks, just take my super stack of doom and take out AI cities one by one. Nothing the AI can do to counter. Tedious after awhile becuase late game has lots cities.

yeah totally agree.

[kingdmen]

Yea, I can't play Civ4 anymore!
I get all excited to start playing it, but each time (ever since the announcement of Civ5) I end up getting either really bored, or really frustrated.

Can't wait for Civ5, bloody hell. 1 week straight of my life will definitely be wasted in my room.

King

[tryx42]

I played Civ4 and the expansions to death. I can pretty much predict how the game is going to play out by where my first city is, who is near me, and who founds what religions. It can still be fun up until the maceman era but after that it is just pushing buttons since there are almost no surprises to how the game will end.

I own CivRev as well but couldn't stay interested in that past the first two weeks. However, I'm sure I am likely to give it another chance before Civ5 comes out. They say the developers learned something from that game so maybe I missed something. At the very least, I'll be able to have more information on the features.

[Sid Meir's older brother2]

I've fired up a few games and every time I do I end up thinking about how much better I hope Civ 5 will be. After reading about the new combat system to Stacks of Doom have started to annoy me.

Just stack of doom them back, it's not rocket science. Which btw, I'm still trying to acquire having just passed the medival era.

[dromedary]

I'm not saying it's hard, I'm saying it's boring.

[GreaseMonkey]

Another thing that I'm hoping they change is the rules for the ICBM and Tactical Nukes. These should be the mother of all weapons, and as such there should both be advantages of using them against your enemies whilst there are also disadvantages of storing them and using them. If you are the first one to use nukes then there will be civil unrest in your civilization.

If you build
Tactical Nukes- Gain x amount of war weariness (despite no Overt Action), plus 25% war weariness if these weapons are based in a city next to another civilizations borders

ICBM- Gain x amount of war weariness across your whole civilization

When you use it there should be adverse effects to the city that was bombed:
Although the city still retains the National/World Wonders it has built (for end of game score purposes), all benefits of having them are rendered obsolete

The cities population is reduced between 70% (if you have a bunker) and 90%, and the population cannot recover until all fallout has been cleaned and even then production and food gathering will be adversely reduced for x amount of turns due to damaged infrastructure and sick workers and bad farm land.

I'm really hoping that rogue city states or barbarian nations can get hold of nukes, it certainly would make for interesting endgame as you and the other civilzations convene in the UN

[dromedary]

Another thing that I'm hoping they change is the rules for the ICBM and Tactical Nukes. These should be the mother of all weapons, and as such there should both be advantages of using them against your enemies whilst there are also disadvantages of storing them and using them. If you are the first one to use nukes then there will be civil unrest in your civilization.

If you build
Tactical Nukes- Gain x amount of war weariness (despite no Overt Action), plus 25% war weariness if these weapons are based in a city next to another civilizations borders

ICBM- Gain x amount of war weariness across your whole civilization

When you use it there should be adverse effects to the city that was bombed:
Although the city still retains the National/World Wonders it has built (for end of game score purposes), all benefits of having them are rendered obsolete

The cities population is reduced between 70% (if you have a bunker) and 90%, and the population cannot recover until all fallout has been cleaned and even then production and food gathering will be adversely reduced for x amount of turns due to damaged infrastructure and sick workers and bad farm land.

I'm really hoping that rogue city states or barbarian nations can get hold of nukes, it certainly would make for interesting endgame as you and the other civilzations convene in the UN

Wow, I really, really like this idea of nukes causing war weariness. That's a great way to limit stockpiles without some arbitrary limit.

[tryx42]

Another thing that I'm hoping they change is the rules for the ICBM and Tactical Nukes. These should be the mother of all weapons, and as such there should both be advantages of using them against your enemies whilst there are also disadvantages of storing them and using them. If you are the first one to use nukes then there will be civil unrest in your civilization.

I think it would depend on your civics choices. I’d much rather see civilizations who have cultivated a militaristic population be unhappy with being at peace. I’d also rather libraries and schools cause war weariness over nukes. There could also be propaganda centers and indoctrination schools to reduce war weariness. In prior Civs, you’d have to change your form of government before going to war if you selected a peace loving one.

I remember nukes being used on me and by me more in Civ3. Nukes gave your workers something to do other than sit around. I always thought nukes in civ4 were more there for a player who enjoyed using them. They are completely optional and besides being in the position of someone completing the space race before you or decimating a city with a big stack they really weren’t useful.

I think since they say diplomacy and peace will have many more benefits than they used to, there will already be enough deterrents against nukes and I’m almost sure that since the advisors are back that going to war won’t be as easy late game.

It is hard to imagine a barbarian city lasting to the modern era. I would like to see terrorists become the new barbarians late in game. It is sad to say the desire to randomly have units cause havoc in an empire you have painstakingly built is a good thing. However, I think I’d be happy to see anything that made the late game more interesting and less predictable.

[dromedary]

It is hard to imagine a barbarian city lasting to the modern era. I would like to see terrorists become the new barbarians late in game. It is sad to say the desire to randomly have units cause havoc in an empire you have painstakingly built is a good thing. However, I think I’d be happy to see anything that made the late game more interesting and less predictable.

Depending on how you look at I suppose you could see something like North Korea being a barbarian city...

[Procylon]

Depending on how you look at I suppose you could see something like North Korea being a barbarian city...

Or much of the middle east for that matter. The wars in Afghanistan and the Swat valley are little more than attempts to smash the barbarian hordes back.

[ShadowBadass]

Or much of the middle east for that matter. The wars in Afghanistan and the Swat valley are little more than attempts to smash the barbarian hordes back.

Oh... Somalia would be a good one.

[Procylon]

Oh... Somalia would be a good one.

Definitely. They are actually pirating ships these days. lol

I would too if I lived in Somalia.

[xcrissxcrossx]

Note to devs, add Mogadishu (biggest city in Somalia) as a modern age barbarian city.

[ShadowBadass]

Definitely. They are actually pirating ships these days. lol

I would too if I lived in Somalia.

sh1t i wouldnt pirate a ship i would stow away!! haha

[Procylon]

sh1t i wouldnt pirate a ship i would stow away!! haha

And when you get to your port of call they will be like "And where are you from? Somalia? Yeah... lets go ahead and get you back there..."

[ShadowBadass]

And when you get to your port of call they will be like "And where are you from? Somalia? Yeah... lets go ahead and get you back there..."

lol no starting a new era of slave trading. jk lol

[Procylon]

lol no starting a new era of slave trading. jk lol

Which reminds me, I would like to see Call to Power's slave system introduced into Civ 5.

[Bhavv]

I hate stacks of doom. Im a city builder and enjoy playing by building cities up. Then Monty comes knocking on my door with 30 horse archers.

[moparfantic]

Like Eireksten, I have been playing PBEM game with a few buddies of mine... used the MODs in most of them.

I was never crazy about the Stacks of doom. But seeing I was able to do it back I (when I could) I didn't mind. This notion of non stackable units (except with Setters or workers??)doesn't make sence.. Stack limits are better IMHO. I saw it as the tiles represented several square miles at least, thus alot of people and gear could fit in them (to a point).

[kingdmen]

Another thing that I'm hoping they change is the rules for the ICBM and Tactical Nukes. These should be the mother of all weapons, and as such there should both be advantages of using them against your enemies whilst there are also disadvantages of storing them and using them. If you are the first one to use nukes then there will be civil unrest in your civilization.

If you build
Tactical Nukes- Gain x amount of war weariness (despite no Overt Action), plus 25% war weariness if these weapons are based in a city next to another civilizations borders

ICBM- Gain x amount of war weariness across your whole civilization

I don't like it. Someone mentioned this should be affected by the type of government your civ has. I still don't like it. Nuclear weapons alone do not cause war weariness. The USE of those weapons is a different story. In these cases, I would say the further away the civ is that you use your weapons on, the less the weariness effect (the closer the worse). This will consider apathy - there wasn't a huge outcry with the use of the A-bombs in Japan in the years that followed was there? (serious question..)

If anything, having a huge stack of these bad boys should give you a coercive leg up in negotiations with other AI civs, and not a negative attribute.

When you use it there should be adverse effects to the city that was bombed:
Although the city still retains the National/World Wonders it has built (for end of game score purposes), all benefits of having them are rendered obsolete

The cities population is reduced between 70% (if you have a bunker) and 90%, and the population cannot recover until all fallout has been cleaned and even then production and food gathering will be adversely reduced for x amount of turns due to damaged infrastructure and sick workers and bad farm land.

I think Civ 4 already has mechanisms to account for wonders and overall destruction of a city that got nuked. I don't remember complaining about it, but to be honest, I don't nuke cities so I never reallllyyy got to see what exactly happens.

I'm really hoping that rogue city states or barbarian nations can get hold of nukes, it certainly would make for interesting endgame as you and the other civilzations convene in the UN

This..I definitely agree with. Somehow, they get a hold of one either through black market dealings, or through makeshift technological development OR being given one by another state . If the UN will have a larger role in diplomacy in this civ, iiiiiiiiii am definitely going to like the way this would turn out.

King

[kingdmen]

I hate stacks of doom. Im a city builder and enjoy playing by building cities up. Then Monty comes knocking on my door with 30 horse archers.

lol - I couldn't agree more.

King

[Procylon]

This..I definitely agree with. Somehow, they get a hold of one either through black market dealings, or through makeshift technological development OR being given one by another state . If the UN will have a larger role in diplomacy in this civ, iiiiiiiiii am definitely going to like the way this would turn out.

King

This does sound great.

Imagine you are playing as America, and the Tehran City State is building nukes and might give them to barbarians, so you go to the UN to try and stop it. But Russia and China, who have close ties with the city state want them left alone, and block everything we try to do to get them to stop.

If we go to war with Iran, China will get seriously pissed at the loss of strategic oil per turn that Tehran gives them, and Russia will be pissed because they loose a customer for their arms shipments.

Meanwhile, Tehran is also getting nuke technology from the PyongYang City State, which also has close ties with Russia and China.

And of course everyone is still pissed at America for invading the Baghdad and Kabul City States, so it can't get any headway in the UN on the true nuke building city states.


This stuff sounds like it could actually happen in real life.