Civ 4 - Excited? [UPDATED pt.2 - Game is out & now PATCHED! Share your thoughts.]

mrtauntaun · Oct 31, 2005

One thing i do not like about the game is the map size. Even huge is small, no where near the size of Civ 3 and previous. I set up for continents, and there were only two continents. One was just a big island. WTF?!?!?!
I want CONTINENTS!!!!! Not one huge chunk of rock and a couple of islands.

talinthas · Oct 31, 2005

my main complaint with the game is that it is too dang short. I should _not_ be able to finish an entire game of civ in one sitting.

mrtauntaun · Oct 31, 2005

Have you tried the Epic setting on a higher difficulty? The first game I played was Noral on Chieftan, I think. That was pretty quick. But with Epic combined with AI actually meddling in my affairs due to higher difficulty, THAT game took awhile. Although, I'll likely never play one of those super long games of old, due to the lack of usable map space.

Simplicity · Oct 31, 2005

I think the "Terra" maps are supposed to be even larger than huge...
I'm not certain about that since I've never played them yet though.

DaveMage · Nov 1, 2005

mrtauntaun said:
One thing i do not like about the game is the map size. Even huge is small, no where near the size of Civ 3 and previous. I set up for continents, and there were only two continents. One was just a big island. WTF?!?!?!
I want CONTINENTS!!!!! Not one huge chunk of rock and a couple of islands.

I was wondering about that. I've reduced my opponent/AI civs to 4 or 5 just to have some breathing room on the huge map.

Maybe I'll try the setting that has less ocean and more land - low sea level or somesuch.

talinthas · Nov 1, 2005

epic doesnt make the game longer, it just makes you progress slower. it's not all that fun =(

mrtauntaun · Nov 1, 2005

While it does make the progress slower, it does make for a longer game. That works for me. On normal noble, I was still cranking out techs a 2 or 3 turns apiece. Epic has a better feel for me.

Vigilance · Nov 18, 2005

I just wanted to say (besides the fact that the game rocks) that everyone should play the game on Terra (called New World in some of the manuals oddly enough).

It gives a much more "real world" map, with a lot more islands to be discovered and importance of sea power and exploration.

And of course the kicker is that there is a "new world" waiting to be discovered on every Terra map.

All the Civilizations start on one continnent, while the New World is loaded with Barbarian cities and villages/goodie huts.

I find Terra makes much more interesting games than the Continents map.

Chuck

John Crichton · Nov 18, 2005

Vigilance said:
I just wanted to say (besides the fact that the game rocks) that everyone should play the game on Terra (called New World in some of the manuals oddly enough).

It gives a much more "real world" map, with a lot more islands to be discovered and importance of sea power and exploration.

And of course the kicker is that there is a "new world" waiting to be discovered on every Terra map.

All the Civilizations start on one continnent, while the New World is loaded with Barbarian cities and villages/goodie huts.

I find Terra makes much more interesting games than the Continents map.

Chuck

Sounds like fun! I'm still getting the hang of the regular game but my current one has me winning the race to sea where I've found the only 2 islands and colonized. That was a nice in-game rush.

Thanks for the tip.

Joshua Randall · Nov 18, 2005

Random question... is there an option in the game to slow down the rate of advancements -- either a toggle to do just that, or a way to require more beakers for each advancement.

I enjoy Civ the most when it's in the early Renaissance tech era, so I'd like to be able to "shut off" scientific advancement after that point (or at least drastically slow it down).