Classic Game Club #35: Civilization IV (a.k.a. I don't want anyone to sleep)

Sometimes you need to sleep on a problem. I teched, built units, and couldn’t get past the border. Ramses had too many units. He only had maybe a dozen in the first city, but as soon as I crossed the border every single unit in the empire could get to me instantly.

Overnight I had an epiphany. Bombers and fighters can destroy improvements. Destroy his roads and rail. Make it so only the units at his city can get to me, make it a winnable fight.

It took an embarrassingly long time to get this.

EDIT: Well, no. Except it doesn’t work. Bombers can’t destroy roads. Yay.

When all else fails, tanks. Lots and lots of tanks.

And machine guns. I had 6, all but 2 were destroyed with the attack as soon as I crossed the border.

But they did their job, and now I’ve taken the first two cities, and am in position to threaten the capital.

One the first counterattack is parried there wasn’t much left. Ramses threw everything at that one punch. Waiting for a critical mass of tanks did the trick.

What difficulty did you end up playing at Craig? I remember when I returned to it after a years long hiatus I had to lower it from what I used to play. I never played at the highest levels - too hard to get wonders, and I love wonders.

Monarch I think. Basically the level where I get no bonuses, and the AI doesn’t either.

I’ve got a stable lead. Mamas Musa is close tech wise, but I can out produce anyone. 20 cities will do that.

I’ve got thoughts that I’m waiting until I wrap to write up.

Normally it would be about final thoughts time now, but with the move happening in a few days I’m inclined to wait until it’s all done before wrapping this one up. Plus that gives me time to punt on my pacifist culture win and go kick the AI in the teeth.

The summer of 1969. Peace had long since passed out of living memory, and into myth and legend. Generations of Sumerians had been born, and died, having never tasted anything but warfare. They had, fortunately, been spared the worst of it. No foreign army had stepped foot on Sumerian soil in 500 years.

But they had emerged a changed people. Once they had dreamed of peace, of reaching the world with their culture, of writing their names on the stars, they had to sacrifice some of what they once were. Though Uruk remained a cultural force, slowly it waned to Timbuktu. Their scientists were no longer always first to the most important innovations, for a time. But slowly, inexorably, they had pushed back the phantoms of the past. Others who had disturbed the Sumerian peace were given final rest. The Khemer were first, and longest, fight ended. The Egyptians, facing the strong armies of seasoned warriors crumbled quickly once the initial onslaught was over. By the time Mansa Musa joined the fight, none could compare. The Khemer lands had become fully Sumerian, and had allowed their people to assert dominance in technology. Tanks transformed into modern armor, and infantry to mechanized.

The conquest of Mali was completed in 25 years. In 1969 peace was signed. Mali had been reduced to a single island in the ocean. Left as a reminder of the fate of those who would defy Sumeria. Any enemy would fear the silent roar of our stealth bombers. 1969, the year of peace.

And then in 1970 we declared war on Sitting Bull because we had dozens of tanks and infantry, and simply wanted to take the narrow ithsmus on the continent, so we could build a canal (fort) to allow our ships to cross without having to spend 6 turns going around either the north or south. Also connect the north part of the continent with the south with our territory.


At this point the culture was off the table for everyone. Mansa Musa had a shot at the dawn of the 20th. Timbuktu was already legendary, and he had a second city that was all but certain before the end. A third city had a shot, but it was far from certain. But my conquest had paved them over, and so Uruk would end the game as the only Legendary city. The mid game had forced me to build up units, delaying me buildings and losing some wonders. Plus the maintenance meant all my surplus gold had to be funneled to research.

When I declared war on Sitting Bull I had 3 realistic options. Conquest, science, and diplomatic. I controlled the UN, and had 56% of the population. I only needed 1 friend to get the UN victory, and could nearly do it alone (I would perpetually wind up 5 votes short by myself). I never made an effort, but a cursory push towards Victoria could do it (she always abstained, as did Mansa Musa).

Conquest? I controlled 58% of the land. The threshold is 43% pop, and 64% land. Sitting Bull had 17%, so taking even half his land would net me an easy conquest.

Science? In 69 I had the Apollo Project done, and 2 components made, with several others in production. By the 90’s only Victoria even had a single component made.

Well I did what I do. I took enough land to make my bridge, stopping just short of the victory condition (63.05%). I then declared peace. I wanted to go to Alpha Centauri. The turns from 1982 to 1996 flew by. The last techs came through, and my major cities cranked out the pieces.

I finished in 1996, and launched. 10 turns to complete the journey. I simply ran out the timer. In 2006 Sumeria reigned supreme.

Thoughts on the mechanics later today. I have lots to say.

Please do.

So first things first. The pacing on Civ IV towards the late game is horrendous. I’ll come back to this point, because it’s a biggie.

So what does Civ IV do right? Does it deserve its hallowed classic status? Is the game still fun? Is it better/ worse than Civ V?
The answers are: Lots, absolutely, I lost sleep from it, and its complicated.

On a very basic level we all know what Civ IV gets right. Moment to moment you are always doing something, planning things that ripple through out the course of a 25 hour campaign. ‘Just one more turn’ is a meme for a reason. Every time you press the End Turn button, watch things play out, you are given a new set of tasks. New options to explore. You always feel that you are just a few turns from doing something big. Be it getting the settler built, a new technology, having a city grow, finishing a resource tile, and so on. Each press of that little red button opens up new options, a new set of choices. And in the early game those turns fly by in a matter of seconds. Centuries pass by in minutes, and growth happens quickly. What you lack in city management, you make up in sending your scout exploring. Hey! A goodie hut! Maybe I’ll get writing from it!

There is also an insidious aspect to the one more turn phenomenon. After you end turns, it automatically brings up the build queue for a city that has an opening. By mid game nearly every turn has one or more cities completing something.

You can not save until after completing these tasks. This is a surprising way to push more turns, to be honest. I realized that, as I was playing, that I would be planning to quit for the night, and would end turn and go to save. But I’d have to manage my cities real quick, and at that point the turn is already nearly over (barring being at war), may as well finish this turn too. Oh, hey, I need to manage this city before I can save, but now the turn is about over… and so on. Making city build queues un-exitable is a design choice that helps feed more turns.

But turn by tun it is easy to keep going. There is a never ending stream of short term tasks that you can feed into long term goals. It is rare, once you get your second city up, to have nothing to do for a few turns, no goal to achieve. You are also given lots of small levers to manipulate the growth of your Civ. Most to small effect, but they add up over time. Tweak your research output here, dabble with specialists there, small adjustments that, over the course of 100 turns, make an impact.

It is a wonderful system to give the tools to provide exactly what you feel you need at the time. A city that lacks hammers? Put a few specialists instead to give you some.

It also breaks down once you reach a certain scale, suffering the same malaise that the late game in general does…

So here’s the big hammer drop. Once you start getting to the late game, much of the systematic elegance gets buried under a deluge of busy work. I have, in the past, knocked Civ IV as having a problem with doomstacks. I fully stand by this criticism, but think the problem is a bit more widespread than that. Which is to say, the doomstack is not the root problem, merely the most visible symptom of a deeper issue.

The issue is that as your empire grows the scale gets off, the pacing dies a death of 1000 paper cuts. The same things that make the early game interesting fade into irrelevance. Sure I could micromanage specialist allocation, and tiles worked, but by end game it is simply easier to ignore the marginal gains. What does the extra 3 research mean, when I’m generating over 1500 a turn? The extra few hammers I gain are washed away by the cumulative bonuses. Once you get Factories and electricity is really the point where managing your cities in all but the broadest context is pointless. I no longer care if it takes an extra turn or two to build the University in Memphis, I’ve got 20+ cities cranking away. Sub optimal choices harm me little.

Which is fine, to an extent. I don’t need or want to tweak every single city every turn, I just don’t want that completely pointless either. Mostly I’m just sad that several entire interesting systems are shuffled off into irrelevance.

So what is the problem with scale? It’s that, across the board, by mid to late game you have so many things to manage that it drags the game pace down. At peace this is in a manageable fashion. Sure turns take a bit longer, but still only 1-2 minutes apiece. Things may become a bit tedious in spots, but you can manage it. Sure it can get a bit tiring finding things to keep your workers busy with, but you might need them once Railroads open up, right?

Go to war, though? Prepare for 10 minute turns. Everything blows up when at war. Maintenance costs are too low, I think. There is very little to stop you from having stacks of 20 in most of your cities. And the AI does. That means that war is this protracted slog. Especially at technological parity (or near parity). Kill 10 units, they shift 10 more to the point of attack. It is a war of attrition, where the first city or two can take 20 turns or more to take out.

Managing the 20-30 units involved in an attack every turn gets tiring. It’s not so much that the doomstack is bad on a conceptual level, its that managing one takes time away from the rest of the game. Suddenly that constant progress of techs, buildings, improvements is replaced by the grinding siege. Every war an exhausting meat grinder of Verdun before one side is exhausted. The interesting elements of unit composition become subsumed under sheer weight of numbers.

The doomstack isn’t bad because having a lot of units in a single tile is bad, its bad because the ability to have a near endless supply of units with no real costs makes fighting take way too long. Maintaining 10-20 units per city should be prohibitive in cost, it should negatively impact tech progress. And it does, but only in the most marginal ways. Never did I find I had to lower research below 70%, unless I needed a bunch of cash in a hurry to upgrade units when a new tier was available.

It’s a problem that most large strategy games have, to some degree. Civ is not unique in this, and not the worst. It, however, is bad enough.

Getting a few tiers of tech ahead though, and marching a doomstack that can take cities in a single turn? That’s ok :) Tech parity makes wars unfun is all.

So what about the features I had never seen before? Glad you asked!

So the big additions were Warlords and Espionage. There is more, but those are the most notable changes.

Let me get this out of the way. I ignored espionage almost completely. Were it not for the fact that Sumerian special buildings generated espionage I could replace ‘almost completely’ with ‘completely’. Oh, sure, I made a few spies. I poisoned the water in my rivals a few times, that was cool to choke out my rivals economically. Oh, sorry, did you like your capitol at 14 population? Well I dropped it to 8. Sorry. But in general it was something I ignored, as did the AI until the late game. Once I had already ‘won’ then I saw an increase in destroyed improvements, stolen tech, and such. I just never found a spy as useful as another soldier. Destroying improvements is almost laughably useless in the late game. Sure it’s annoying busywork for me, but has no realistic impact.

Take everything I said about espoinage and apply it to corporations. Except they come even later in the game, and so was even more useless. Neat idea, not practical.

Warlords, though, I liked. It wasn’t a big thing, but by the end of the game Bellisarius, El Cid, Lysander, Hernan Cortez, and Horatio Nelson were kicking ass and taking names. Bonus experience, plus free tech level upgrades, provide a nice buff, and make units slightly less disposable. By the end Lysander and Bellisarius were each over level 10. They would ruin your day.

Overall the changes from the expansions were mostly low impact. Not bad at all, I certainly would keep the warlords around, but nothing that changed how I remember playing too much.

Next up, later tonight, is diplomacy and the inevitable comparisons to other games. Yeah, you can guess which games I’ll name drop and probably be right.

Ok, delayed by a busy weekend.

Diplomacy. Hoo boy, how to evaluate this. First off, it’s pretty bad. How bad? Depends on what other strategy games you’ve played. When I last played Civ IV I had yet to play a bunch of what are now my favorites of the genre. The weaknesses were, to be blunt, invisible to me. Sure it was basic, exploitable, and infuriating at times, but it was also genre standard. Nothing notably worse than most contemporaries. Most.

But playing now it strikes me as how bad it really is. And unlike espionage it is unavoidable. And really it suffers the same problem that espionage does, namely that I have since grown to love Paradox games. I know, shock, I’m going to be reviewing this in light of the fossil platypus. But how can I not? Europa Universalis and Crusader Kings rewrite much of what I know about strategy games.

So diplomacy is fairly limited in Civ IV. You can trade resources and technology. You can make demands (though it is a pointless affair). You can make alliances and enemies. Nothing outrageously bad, just basic. However the AI is just maddening. Not as bad as the cascading denunciations of Civ V, but when Mansa Musa gets all huffy when I deny his demand for 750 gold (nearly my entire treasury) despite the fact I could curb stomp him?

And really, that’s it. The AI will make constant demands on you, and it’s a bit silly. Gold is one thing, but demanding my newest tech? Does anyone ever really do this? It’s basically a RNG determining that you’re going to suffer a relations penalty. And it doesn’t seem to be linked to any greater strategic goals. The options are shallow, and only meaningful when trading tech or resources. It’s just unsatisfying. I never feel as if there is anything but playing at the margins. And the AI war declarations? It feels random. The first time I had war declared I had positive relations with both aggressors. Friendly even with Ramses.

Compare this to Crusader Kings or Europa Universalis which has the richest, and best, modelling of diplomacy and espionage in games that I’ve encountered. There you have tools to manipulate relationships between your nation and others, to plan and subvert using intrigue. Playing sides off eachother in order to weaken rivals, or to strengthen an ally. There long term relations have more meaning and impact. It takes more effort, but that effort is commensurately rewarded. It also can generate memorable and exciting moments. I vividly recall being able to subvert the HRE as the Ottomans by manipulating the balance of power of the leagues, isolating Austria in a war, and collapsing their military allowing a Savoy led Protestant league to declare a League War and utterly achieve victory within a year. 50 years of diplomatic maneuvering, planning, and subterfuge came together in one glorious and memorable encounter.

Now it would be patently unfair to expect anything so rich and rewarding in Civ IV. They are, after all, different games with different focal points. Even so the diplomatic AI for Civ still feels perfunctory. It is not a system, so much as a facilitator for other systems. After having experienced a deeper system it feels like a major step back to go to a game where diplomacy basically boils down to swapping resources and giving gifts to bribe the AI into liking you. The effects of trading, of agreements are small enough that you never are able to form some strong ties. When an RNG demand for tribute can overrule dozens of turns of diplomatic efforts it makes attempts to use diplomacy feel pointless.

It’s why the UN victory is my least favorite. It basically boils down to giving a bunch of gifts to other Civs to bribe them to vote for you. Very unsatisfactory after hundreds of turns. It feels disconnected from everything else.

I’d also love a diplomacy option that says ‘stop sending spies to destroy my buildings/ improvements or I’ll curb stomp you’. Having espionage actions have no impact on relations seems silly.

And here I arrive at my final thoughts on Civ IV. It is a game that is, at once, still immensely enjoyable, but one that pales in light of games I’ve played in the last 10 years. Having replayed it I stand by my thoughts that Civ IV and Civ V are substitutes but not replacements. Each does things better than the other. While I know Tom has gone to town against 1 unit per tile, I do feel it is a net improvement in game pacing. However I am, ironically, more willing to concede the point after having savagely tearing apart the stack of doom. 1UPT is a net improvement, but not an ideal one. The reason is the root cause is not unlimited unit stacking, but rather how waves of units drag down game pacing by making turns take 8-10 minutes or more. Instead of a rigid 1 unit, a more graduated series of increasing costs. Making costs of unit maintenance scale more aggressively would help, as this would naturally curb unit explosion. Build too many units and it chokes the economy. As is the mid to late game your economy is large enough to make maintenance a non issue. Once you hit the renaissance any checks on unit numbers are effectively gone. Perhaps adding an additional cost for stacks of units. Say that, perhaps, each tile can support some base number of units with no cost penalty. desert maybe only 1, grasslands 3-4, or whatever. Each unit above that limit adds 1 coin in maintenance per unit above the cap. So the first unit costs +1 gold. The second +2, for a total of +3. Go three above? The third unit costs 3, for a total of +6.

Obviously I’m spitballing here. I’ve no clue the balance, or what the penalty values should be. And I’m not even sure this is the right approach, however I do feel it would be superior to both Civ IV and V. Both solutions are horribly flawed, for different reasons. Though, in honesty, I’d rather use V’s, as it is much less offensive to game pacing.

The thing that most impacts my enjoyment is really my experience with Paradox. It’s always hard to go back to a game you once loved years later. Yet for most games in the game club (that I had played before), I still found my enjoyment little diminished. Yet, here more than any other, I had. Civ still has that wonderful hook. The early turns still fly by. But the game felt much shallower, more diminished, than memories served. The simplistic diplomacy, the irrelevance of espionage, and even the superficiality of the historical veneer were laid bare. Other games have done much of what Civ does, but better. If I want turn based combat, I’ll go Unity of Command. If I want historical strategy I’ll go EU IV. If I want turn based strategy I’ll go with Total War, because I love the tactical battles that accompany it. And if I want Civ I’ll play Civ V, because for all its flaws, it does a few things better that make all the difference to me.

Yet none of them have Leonard Nimoy voicing the techs. None have Baba Yetu. Those aren’t nothing, but they also aren’t enough. Civ IV is a classic, but the shine is a bit worn. I don’t know fully how to feel either. Honestly I think that I’ve largely passed Civ by. I probably will get Civ VI at some point, but this was a stark reminder to me that it may not be something I’ll pour 100 hours into. In all likelihood I’ll play 2-3 games, than hang on the digital shelf. Even at its best Civ lacks some things, and some of those things it lacks are going against its DNA. Superficial systems, and shallow historical wallpaper are no longer enough for me. It makes me kind of sad, to be honest. But that’s life.

This is not goodbye to an old childhood friend, but its damn close. I realize that Civ will never again be the game it was for me in 2006. I’ll still visit, I promise. But this time it really isn’t you, it’s me.

Until we meet again.

And that was the brief version of my thoughts! I thought of much more while away from the computer, that I simply could not remember when it came time to write up.

I think while that series of posts were excellent, they depressed me. I’ve been holding onto the fact that Civ IV is awesome if I’d only go back and play it. I fear that the stereotypical 4X game has also lost its luster. I easily poured 1000+ hours into Civ IV and 1000s into the series. I don’t think anything will capture that magic again and that makes me kinda sad. Probably doesn’t help that my 9 year old son has been having tantrums that a 3 year old might have. That doesn’t make life fun.

Thanks for sharing all that, CraigM. I played a lot of Civ4 and Civ5, despite the flaws of each, and still haven’t quite found a TBS that grabbed me as much as those did. I am hoping Civ6 can add a few more pluses and cover some of the previous weaknesses without creating any new ones. I also hope they can produce a balanced base game right from the start instead of our having to wait for several patches or the first expansion to make the game hum.

Will I get lynched if I say that I feel like Leonard Nimoy was only so-so? Half the time, I really think he put the blandest inflection on a lot of those quotes.

Civ IV. One of my most played games. Also the game that for a long time I swore, if ever trapped on a desert island with one game, that would be the one I’d take. Not anymore though. Civ IV is the pinnacle of the three/four games before it (if one includes Civ 2 Test of Time) however it has also been surpassed by other strategy games that do things better. Clearly myself and CraigM play the same games, because as I played Civ IV, I found myself thinking about Europa Universalis, Crusader Kings and even Civ V and thinking about how much I’d like to jump back and play those instead.

To begin the gaming month, I mucked around with a few false starts getting myself reacquainted with the map, the early techs and the systems in general. For instance, I completely forgot about the value of cottages in one game and sent my economy crashing. Another game made me remember I need roads to hook up resources. From there, I set up a game that had tech brokering disabled and raging barbarians enabled. I played on marathon speed as that at least allows for a slightly more drawn out middle game where early gunpowder units might actually see some action. This combination of settings also slows down the early settler rush, forcing myself to ensure settlers are escorted, cities are built with a small garrison, and keeps me busy on turns where all I might do is press enter. Raging Barbarians also has the (intended) consequence of causing problems for the AI early game. Difficult to explain, but I like having an opportunity to settle cities without feeling like I’m engaged in a sprint to push out settlers as fast as possible.

Started off as Augustus Caesar on an Islands map if I recall. Rome in general has both a useful unique unit and building, and Augustus has a set of leader traits that value both building and warfare. My plan with him was to conquer a neighbour then shoot for space race victory at the end. My nearest neighbour was the Zulu who was clearly crippled by wave after wave of barbarians so made for a ripe target. The map itself didn’t really offer much in the way of coin production so I had to cottage up. Regrettably, cottages take a long time to develop into hamlets etc, and I was bleeding money and my tech slider was steadily decreasing as the gold reserve from the goody huts dried up. I shifted into Praetorian production and levelled them into city raiders, using the theoretical gold from my city conquests to keep my research slider at or above 10%. Regrettably, all I managed to take at the time was one city before I stopped playing. It was at this sort of early-ish mid game point that Civ made me wonder why I’m playing it.

Warfare for one is fraught with problems. It is all well and good having a doomstack, but a doomstack always favours the defender. Attacking a city, I have to mow through the archers first before I can kill off the weaker defenders. It is boring attrition that CraigM hinted at above. My reality was to simply select the least experienced Praetorian and suicide him against the defender. And keep on going through those motions until I can break the defending stack. I know the game encouraged use of combined arms, but combined arms for an attacker is useless when the game will select the best defender to counter it. Of course, I should have had catapults ready. The city I took didn’t have much of a “cultural defence” so I didn’t need to bombard, but did I really want to hit the research for catapults, then basically suicide a heap to try and avoid losses on the rest of my stack. It is a simplistic combat system, and I’d much rather it be hands off much like EUIV, or employ a system like Civ Call to Power.

Diplomacy I thought to be ok. I appreciate the personalities of the leaders and how that personality affects how they will act/react to the player. For instance, Isabella always expects the player to adopt her religion, or die. When I saw I neighboured Shaka, I knew he’d backstab me the moment he could, so it was a simple decision to declare war on him. Having the numbers broken down to show why an AI player likes or dislikes a human player is valuable, and a feature I wish was kept in Civ V. I agree with CraigM’s assertion that EUIV does diplomacy better, but I find that diplomacy in Civ IV was competent at the very least.

Espionage was a waste of time, and detracts from the game. I kept it enabled this game, but I saw no real value with it.

The Civ franchise also has to learn to tackle the problem of the mid game “know you’ve won” scenario. If I kept on playing, I probably would have ended up snowballing my way to victory. The mid game itself needs some fleshing out. The reason I pick marathon is to make good use of the medieval/early gunpowder units. Often times in these games, the middle period just flashes by in a race to the modern era. The age of discovery is exciting, only if playing an isolated start and sending those ships out on the seas to see discover the new world and see what chaos has occurred, where the AI is at tech wise, and what rich city sites exist. In my game, I had discovered a big portion of the world thanks to being on a non-pangean island mass that held 5 other civs. There were a few other nations out there in this game but I had little interest in going further.

I will redo another game soon, now that I have a few days off from work coming up. But Civ IV really has lost a lot of its shine that made me appreciate it all those years ago.

This is basically wheat in Civ 1, something I actively used to hate at the time as it limited my unit spam :P

It is, at once, sad and relieving that a game like Europa Universalis effectively diminishes Civ IV in my eyes. At the time I first played I had never heard of Paradox, let alone EU. However there is no shame in Civ being superseded by what is, arguably, my favorite game of all time (it’s a tight 3 way race). I look at Civ fondly, but am honestly glad that it has been passed by. It has been a decade, I’d hope strategy games have evolved.

I totally did what you named when attacking cities, that is suicide siege units. Getting that collateral damage was crucial to minimizing losses/ decreasing unit heal time. There was a reason I had no veteran siege units, yet some uber infantry.

I never noticed personalities much this time. Probably due to the mostly middle of the road leaders. The most distinct was Victoria, and she’s not a warmonger. That said you’re spot on with numbers. Poor diplomacy with numbers >> poor diplomacy without. I just found the range to be mostly constrained to the middle, -5 to +5. Even Suriyaman, after having nearly wiping him off the map, was willing to trade. Dude, I just committed near genocide on you, yet you’re at -1 and willing to trade? You should hate me.

I get that, but it’s still Spock.

And in Civ V they used depletable resources. I get why those limits could chafe some players, I’ve just come to realize they are more necessary now ;)

Final thoughts time for this one, if anyone feels like following CraigM…