grommit5
Warlord
maybe serious was the wrong word. I take very little serious, ask my wife. i found it hard to finish reading the post when all i could think the whole time was MORON. (sorry mr. moderator)
Rant : The annoying BS factor of CIV IV
- Thread starter Hooliday
- Start date
About your warring Gandhi--yup, I've tried that and had loads of fun. In fact, I think Gandhi might well be the most versatile leader in the game.
Haven't tried Montezuma yet, but I had a great game with Shaka, in which he set out to win the space race, and did!
Rant on...
Haven't tried Montezuma yet, but I had a great game with Shaka, in which he set out to win the space race, and did!
Rant on...
Bleys
Deity
Are you talking about BTS or Vanilla, because I agree that Vanilla had a rather huge "AI cheesy BS" factors, but BTS seems to have addressed some of the very issues you seem to be ranting about.
Anyway, I think one of Civ IVs strongest factors is the ability to use a larger number of viable strategies and still "win", whereas many other games of this type eventually boil down to "the only way to beat the highest levels is XXX strat", and its usually correct. Civ IV has multiple paths to success on almost every level of play. Sure, things that "work" on lower levels dont work as well on higher ones, but even in that case, most players should be able to incorporate some of their own "style" into a winning plan, based on bits and pieces of strategies they learn here (or figure out for themselves, I suppose).
Anyway, I think one of Civ IVs strongest factors is the ability to use a larger number of viable strategies and still "win", whereas many other games of this type eventually boil down to "the only way to beat the highest levels is XXX strat", and its usually correct. Civ IV has multiple paths to success on almost every level of play. Sure, things that "work" on lower levels dont work as well on higher ones, but even in that case, most players should be able to incorporate some of their own "style" into a winning plan, based on bits and pieces of strategies they learn here (or figure out for themselves, I suppose).
Morgrad
Attack Rodent
- Joined
- Feb 12, 2007
- Messages
- 367
Morning! Take it easy guys. It's still just a rant.
Stating "it's just a rant" doesn't legitimize any of what you said, nor does it address any of my comments. Also, I hadn't realized you didn't wish to participate in the discussion after the initial post.
Hehe, I was drunk and high last night I wrote that 
My thinking in civilization expands much further than a lot of people seem to think. You can't beat the game unless you don't. Don't you agree? I've enjoyed most the comments so far. What would you want to debate about?
My thinking in civilization expands much further than a lot of people seem to think. You can't beat the game unless you don't. Don't you agree? I've enjoyed most the comments so far. What would you want to debate about?
Well, I must admit that Montezuma IS cool.
With him, I won my first Prince game, and earlier, I took him on a ride on a Settler level. And I even won a MP game with him. Him and Gandhi are all nice. While I have few favourite leaders (Montezuma), I still play new leaders. When I finish the game with Roosevelt, I don't take Organized nor Industrious civ. Because I like variety.
While I admit that praets or war chariots, or immortals can be too powerful... but what? I don't want to forbid myself playing with those. Sometimes, it's fun to have some upper advantage to give yourself a headstart. A headstart while playing Persia is to give a ride with Immortals. A headstart with Roosevelt is early peaceful expansion and spamming wonders. Both ways CAN win the game.
Let's look at Hatshepsut. It's clearly an early game leader. If you don't exploit your War Chariots, then you just wasted your unique trait.
I play Monarch. And I didn't finish it LEGALLY. My wins are cheesy (cultural win with almost no army and tedious Diplo win). I try to get this "insight" that will allow me to win the game. But it's too often that I launch a too late attack or I have an insufficient army. Or I just fall behind the AIs. But I do try. Sometimes hopelessly, but I try.
I just too often do not think in categories: "Do I really want that?". I do not realize that an extra settler can leave me weaker. But I still try to learn. And given the fact I'm still just a 13-years-old, I think I can manage well.
With him, I won my first Prince game, and earlier, I took him on a ride on a Settler level. And I even won a MP game with him. Him and Gandhi are all nice. While I have few favourite leaders (Montezuma), I still play new leaders. When I finish the game with Roosevelt, I don't take Organized nor Industrious civ. Because I like variety.
While I admit that praets or war chariots, or immortals can be too powerful... but what? I don't want to forbid myself playing with those. Sometimes, it's fun to have some upper advantage to give yourself a headstart. A headstart while playing Persia is to give a ride with Immortals. A headstart with Roosevelt is early peaceful expansion and spamming wonders. Both ways CAN win the game.
Let's look at Hatshepsut. It's clearly an early game leader. If you don't exploit your War Chariots, then you just wasted your unique trait.
I play Monarch. And I didn't finish it LEGALLY. My wins are cheesy (cultural win with almost no army and tedious Diplo win). I try to get this "insight" that will allow me to win the game. But it's too often that I launch a too late attack or I have an insufficient army. Or I just fall behind the AIs. But I do try. Sometimes hopelessly, but I try.
I just too often do not think in categories: "Do I really want that?". I do not realize that an extra settler can leave me weaker. But I still try to learn. And given the fact I'm still just a 13-years-old, I think I can manage well.
Hooliday,
I actually rather liked your post, but probably for the wrong reason!
I would like to make a few comments --
First, I am one of those players who can't seem to break emperor. I always play random civs and change maps, on purpose to get as much exposure as I can to different types.
I agree with you that people do regenerate maps and reload. I get tired of people saying 'I won on immortal' and find that they have set the settings of the game to make it as easy as possible.
However, it appears to me that Civ is easy for you, and I've run into this phenomenon with other people and other games, that a game that is natural and easy to one player just doesn't understand how hard it is for others. And I think this is a central part of your rant.
I play a lot of games. I'm an above average Civ player (Monarch) and chess player (1800 ish at my best). I'm not nearly that good at bridge; I absolutely love bridge, but for the life of me I can't get it right.
Conversely, there is a particular complex strategy game that I won the world championship with twice. I hadn't even played that often, but within a short period of time, I became a major factor in strategy decisions, was contacted by the game designer, etc.
I don't know why these things happen. One of my sons has the talent to be a real good chess player, perhaps a 2400 or better -- but he doesn't have the inclination. He comes over, I sit and go through things, he never plays, but can walk over to the board and correct everything I've done in a matter of seconds. Yet, he isn't outstanding in most of the things he does. It hardly seems fair , but it just seems to work that way.
And I think we have us and you with Civ. In reading your rant, it seems to me that you are saying that if we understood the long-term strategy of the game, we could win; and we should learn these strategies but instead a lot of us are using 'crutches' (early rushes, wonder-laden strategies.
I agree with you. But what you may not realize is that this 'strategy' really is obvious to you and it isn't to the rest of us. Short of exploits (for instance, I view pre-chopping as an exploit), I would be happy with ANY strategy that would allow me to win a random game on a random map on emperor.
So, here is my proposition to you: I think I understand what you are saying. But I think you don't recognize that these strategies that are easy to you aren't to us. So, instead of ranting, HELP US! Instead of telling how easy what you did was, tell us exactly what you did and how you did it! Trust me, a lot of us would appreciate it.
My understanding isn't that you have a problem with rushes or culture victories per se, but with the canned strategies that produce victories using those methods (I don't want to put words in your mouth, this is my take on what you are saying but I may be wrong here). I don't have a problem with that. However, I view that having culture victories in your arsenal as being useful. For example, I see a lot of people complaining that Saladin is one of the weakest leaders in the game; however, he is very well suited to a culture victory, perhaps one of the 3-5 best. So if the random leader generator gives me Saladin, I eye having a culture victory.
Best wishes,
Breunor
I actually rather liked your post, but probably for the wrong reason!
I would like to make a few comments --
First, I am one of those players who can't seem to break emperor. I always play random civs and change maps, on purpose to get as much exposure as I can to different types.
I agree with you that people do regenerate maps and reload. I get tired of people saying 'I won on immortal' and find that they have set the settings of the game to make it as easy as possible.
However, it appears to me that Civ is easy for you, and I've run into this phenomenon with other people and other games, that a game that is natural and easy to one player just doesn't understand how hard it is for others. And I think this is a central part of your rant.
I play a lot of games. I'm an above average Civ player (Monarch) and chess player (1800 ish at my best). I'm not nearly that good at bridge; I absolutely love bridge, but for the life of me I can't get it right.
Conversely, there is a particular complex strategy game that I won the world championship with twice. I hadn't even played that often, but within a short period of time, I became a major factor in strategy decisions, was contacted by the game designer, etc.
I don't know why these things happen. One of my sons has the talent to be a real good chess player, perhaps a 2400 or better -- but he doesn't have the inclination. He comes over, I sit and go through things, he never plays, but can walk over to the board and correct everything I've done in a matter of seconds. Yet, he isn't outstanding in most of the things he does. It hardly seems fair
, but it just seems to work that way.And I think we have us and you with Civ. In reading your rant, it seems to me that you are saying that if we understood the long-term strategy of the game, we could win; and we should learn these strategies but instead a lot of us are using 'crutches' (early rushes, wonder-laden strategies.
I agree with you. But what you may not realize is that this 'strategy' really is obvious to you and it isn't to the rest of us. Short of exploits (for instance, I view pre-chopping as an exploit), I would be happy with ANY strategy that would allow me to win a random game on a random map on emperor.
So, here is my proposition to you: I think I understand what you are saying. But I think you don't recognize that these strategies that are easy to you aren't to us. So, instead of ranting, HELP US! Instead of telling how easy what you did was, tell us exactly what you did and how you did it! Trust me, a lot of us would appreciate it.
My understanding isn't that you have a problem with rushes or culture victories per se, but with the canned strategies that produce victories using those methods (I don't want to put words in your mouth, this is my take on what you are saying but I may be wrong here). I don't have a problem with that. However, I view that having culture victories in your arsenal as being useful. For example, I see a lot of people complaining that Saladin is one of the weakest leaders in the game; however, he is very well suited to a culture victory, perhaps one of the 3-5 best. So if the random leader generator gives me Saladin, I eye having a culture victory.
Best wishes,
Breunor
MyOtherName
Emperor
- Joined
- Dec 7, 2004
- Messages
- 1,526
Ranting is one thing -- insulting your subject and audience is something else entirely.Morning! Take it easy guys. It's still just a rant.
I'll give my two cents in as well here. I used to play the older civs on harder levels, but lately, as decreasing time to plays limits me, I find more enjoyment in playing on easier levels and destroying the enemy (and I'm looking to win the game, not lose, life is stressful enough without a computer game to be mad at). If I've got some extended time off I might try the harder levels, as I'll have more time to actually really engage in the strategy of the game. For me, its all about fun, and crushing a pathetic enemy using archers with tanks 
.
.
I think part of the fun with the Romans, persians, Egptians is their over powered UU and using this to beat your highest civ 4 score. Theres nothing more enjoyable than getting a domination victory in record time on a huge map with your best ever score. I think my highest ever score was playing the Romans. Not played them in months as it was too much of a walkover.
i can see the argument on land. Why build a city on wasteland if it will never grow above 3-6 in size or will just stagnate. Although im not about to leave a huge area not built on to have barbs popping out of the fog each other turn. I do build cities where i think they will serve a purpose.
I dont think cultural games are for Cowards. I have had cultural victories on monarch where i have wiped out the other 3-4 AI civs on my continent. It then becomes a waiting game for the AI to launch its attack. reminds me of a game called colonization. You build up an empire, troops etc then when you declare independence the home country launches its attack on you.
Would be good for my civ 4 scenarios where you start the game being slightly overwhelmed and on the back foot. You then face the choices of where do you draw the defending line. Bit like battle of the Bulge in world war 2. Americans in retreat against a stronger force. Eventually they had to pick a place to fight and stop the Germans. Although i would prefer to win via conflict not the enemy tanks running out of fuel.
Would be interesting if Civ 4 had an element where you had to Supply troops from your cities. What if new units produced were not fully equiped. perhaps when units leave the cities they would take a fraction of the cities food. As the unit is fighting away from base its supplies run down and perhaps its fighting strength withers too.
You could introduce supply trains. donkeys/ camels in early game to tankers and trucks later.
Probably a silly.
i can see the argument on land. Why build a city on wasteland if it will never grow above 3-6 in size or will just stagnate. Although im not about to leave a huge area not built on to have barbs popping out of the fog each other turn. I do build cities where i think they will serve a purpose.
I dont think cultural games are for Cowards. I have had cultural victories on monarch where i have wiped out the other 3-4 AI civs on my continent. It then becomes a waiting game for the AI to launch its attack. reminds me of a game called colonization. You build up an empire, troops etc then when you declare independence the home country launches its attack on you.
Would be good for my civ 4 scenarios where you start the game being slightly overwhelmed and on the back foot. You then face the choices of where do you draw the defending line. Bit like battle of the Bulge in world war 2. Americans in retreat against a stronger force. Eventually they had to pick a place to fight and stop the Germans. Although i would prefer to win via conflict not the enemy tanks running out of fuel.
Would be interesting if Civ 4 had an element where you had to Supply troops from your cities. What if new units produced were not fully equiped. perhaps when units leave the cities they would take a fraction of the cities food. As the unit is fighting away from base its supplies run down and perhaps its fighting strength withers too.
You could introduce supply trains. donkeys/ camels in early game to tankers and trucks later.
Probably a silly.
It might also be interesting if resources supply was limited in some way. I always found it strange how one iron source could produce infinite amount of axemen or swordsmen. There seems to be no development in way mines work. I would love to see early mines and the ability to have advanced mines later on. Same could be applied to farming. Although biology does this really.
I guess you need to draw the line between micro management and game play. Perhaps im just trying to find more ways to add strategy to the game.
Far too many players go for bronze working and chopping at the start. I guess this is why chariots got +100% attack vs axemen.
What if chopping within a city radius required a basic lumbermill or other building to do this and another tech for this. Be a bit like an early factory. I wonder how many would rush for bronzeworking if an extra cost was required. Same could be applied for producing troops. Trouble is those quecha would be far too powerful early on.
Perhaps the tech for finding copper and chopping could be seperated. Then you face the choice.
Lots of ideas probably over talked about already!!
I guess you need to draw the line between micro management and game play. Perhaps im just trying to find more ways to add strategy to the game.
Far too many players go for bronze working and chopping at the start. I guess this is why chariots got +100% attack vs axemen.
What if chopping within a city radius required a basic lumbermill or other building to do this and another tech for this. Be a bit like an early factory. I wonder how many would rush for bronzeworking if an extra cost was required. Same could be applied for producing troops. Trouble is those quecha would be far too powerful early on.
Perhaps the tech for finding copper and chopping could be seperated. Then you face the choice.
Lots of ideas probably over talked about already!!
Civ is a different game, sometimes it's almost fun to lose in a wild re-writing of history.
I play on Noble right now. You're right, I don't understand every detail in the game. But come to think of it, I think I'm glad I don't.
I play on Noble right now. You're right, I don't understand every detail in the game. But come to think of it, I think I'm glad I don't.
MyOtherName
Emperor
- Joined
- Dec 7, 2004
- Messages
- 1,526
What about railroads?
skallben
Diplomat
Sounds like teenage angst.
But hey, welcome to the forums. You have valid points but they are overshadowed by not-so-thought-through-statements.
No matter what game, the ambition and goals one put into the game will allways be a factor ones rate of success. For instance, in my FFH games I like to give myself "objectives" to say colonize a certain island or to exterminate a certain Civ because of the game lore. Not because it is the easiest way to victory but because it makes my game more interesting and challenging.
Breunor: Yeah I beat Immortal, not tried higher because I found FFH but my Chess rating is lower than yours (could possibly improve it further if I would play more and try to learn).
But hey, welcome to the forums. You have valid points but they are overshadowed by not-so-thought-through-statements.
No matter what game, the ambition and goals one put into the game will allways be a factor ones rate of success. For instance, in my FFH games I like to give myself "objectives" to say colonize a certain island or to exterminate a certain Civ because of the game lore. Not because it is the easiest way to victory but because it makes my game more interesting and challenging.
Breunor: Yeah I beat Immortal, not tried higher because I found FFH
but my Chess rating is lower than yours (could possibly improve it further if I would play more and try to learn).skzb
Chieftain
The semi-literate rant that started this and the ensuing discussion have been very useful to me, a new player. Some of the things described ("I MUST have the pyramids") have been good for pointing out some of the ways I've been addressing the game sub-optimally. So, thank you for that.
If anyone could point to a more general discussion of various strategies (what are some factors in deciding how many settlers to spawn how early? What are some things to consider in how to specialize your cities? &c &c) that would be helpful.
Also, uh, what does "UU" stand for?
If anyone could point to a more general discussion of various strategies (what are some factors in deciding how many settlers to spawn how early? What are some things to consider in how to specialize your cities? &c &c) that would be helpful.
Also, uh, what does "UU" stand for?
Crowqueen
Token forum woman
UU - unique unit.
As for winning easily, I am trying to go all out for the conquest win on the easy levels. I get frightened if I drop below the AIs and quit to play an easier game. The early difficulty levels are weighted in favour of the human player, but they are still fun for the reason someone above said - seeing Aztec bombers take out American archers is rather quite counterfactually fun. Gives "Montezuma's Revenge" another meaning.
As for winning easily, I am trying to go all out for the conquest win on the easy levels. I get frightened if I drop below the AIs and quit to play an easier game. The early difficulty levels are weighted in favour of the human player, but they are still fun for the reason someone above said - seeing Aztec bombers take out American archers is rather quite counterfactually fun. Gives "Montezuma's Revenge" another meaning.
Gooblah
Heh...
- Joined
- Jun 5, 2007
- Messages
- 4,282
I think the BTS AI has done a lot to improve on some of your points, man. I've assaulted a city with crappy rushes, and where the Vanilla AI would kinda slack off (on the same level), the BTS AI whips a few units, brings some in from surrounding cities, and staves off the rush.
And I respectfully disagree with your point on Cultural/Diplomatic/Space Race victories. I find them insanely difficult. Juggling diplomacy to make sure you don't die, or to make tons of friend is really hard. Pulling through a Space Race can be hard on the higher levels when the AI techs as fast (or faster) as you, and can specialize cities. Pulling a Space Race from a tough setting is really, really hard.
I also agree with you on the entire "using one Civ and one Leader, or overpowered traits to win" thing. I try to challenge myself to use all the leaders and Civs once before repeating another leader. I've found there's no such thing as a poor leader, only poor strategy. And using Rome, Egypt, Inca, Zululand, Persia, etc to exploit a UU and the weakness of any Civ at that stage isn't a statement about skill, its a statement of knowledge on exploitation. Though Duel Conquests with Rome can be fun!
.That's why I like to watch Sisutil's ALCs or Snaaty's Don Deity versus Obsolete's games (no offense to Obsolete or his fanbase). I've found he has unrealistic achievements, like using only Industrious/Philosophical leaders and doing Wonder-rushing. I've always wondered how he doesn't get killed if he has his cities building Wonders, not troops...
Edit: After I hit happy/healthy cap in my capital, I spam settlers/workers there until I have to push the science slider down to 60% with a surplus, or health buildings become available.
And I respectfully disagree with your point on Cultural/Diplomatic/Space Race victories. I find them insanely difficult. Juggling diplomacy to make sure you don't die, or to make tons of friend is really hard. Pulling through a Space Race can be hard on the higher levels when the AI techs as fast (or faster) as you, and can specialize cities. Pulling a Space Race from a tough setting is really, really hard.
I also agree with you on the entire "using one Civ and one Leader, or overpowered traits to win" thing. I try to challenge myself to use all the leaders and Civs once before repeating another leader. I've found there's no such thing as a poor leader, only poor strategy. And using Rome, Egypt, Inca, Zululand, Persia, etc to exploit a UU and the weakness of any Civ at that stage isn't a statement about skill, its a statement of knowledge on exploitation. Though Duel Conquests with Rome can be fun!
.That's why I like to watch Sisutil's ALCs or Snaaty's Don Deity versus Obsolete's games (no offense to Obsolete or his fanbase). I've found he has unrealistic achievements, like using only Industrious/Philosophical leaders and doing Wonder-rushing. I've always wondered how he doesn't get killed if he has his cities building Wonders, not troops...Edit: After I hit happy/healthy cap in my capital, I spam settlers/workers there until I have to push the science slider down to 60% with a surplus, or health buildings become available.
rabidveggie
King
- Joined
- Apr 4, 2007
- Messages
- 697
I use pretty much every combination of traits when I play. I also run a cottage economy because I can. The reason other people run cottage economies is probably because it is as effective as everything else. I sometimes think as you do, people who use civs I don't like are crap. In reality it bring flavor to a game. Part of playing this game is adapting. If someone does use Rome it is up to your ingenuity and creativity to stop the all powerful Praetorian, or Immortal or War Chariot. You might not like a strategy or civ, ut if everyone did what you did it would be boring as heck.
Similar threads
- Sticky
