Least favorite time to War

I don't like warring in the...

  • Ancient Era ("Damn hills!")

    Votes: 25 21.4%
  • Classical Era ("They are getting Iron for Pig... FML")

    Votes: 4 3.4%
  • Medieval Era ("Wonder if I'll fall asleep by the time defenses reach 0")

    Votes: 25 21.4%
  • Renaissance Era ("Where the hell did you pull those Rifles from?")

    Votes: 2 1.7%
  • Industrial Era ("We're doing fine on our own... No you're not!")

    Votes: 1 0.9%
  • Modern Era ("Holy crap it lags so bad... just gonna nuke everyone")

    Votes: 12 10.3%
  • Future Era ("I still haven't won yet??? Nuke everyone!")

    Votes: 5 4.3%
  • I am a pacifist, thus I dislike any of this savage behavior

    Votes: 6 5.1%
  • There is no bad era; you're all peacemongering cowards

    Votes: 25 21.4%
  • Never! (Defy Resolution)

    Votes: 12 10.3%

  • Total voters
    117

Archon_Wing

Vote for me or die
Joined
Apr 3, 2005
Messages
5,255
For me it's probably classical or medieval; I simply don't know how to get enough units/tech without crashing my economy aside from Horse Archer rushing.

But in the end, while medieval attacks are slower, you also can just capitulate them plus your own cities usually have decent econ by then. Having to hunt down their last cities to rid them of their culture in my new prizes is painful.

The other reason is that aggressive neighbors usually find the classical era to attack you if you failed to bribe them elsewhere. :lol:
 
Classical isn't great but if you have elephants a dozen of them with catapult support will kill everything. Apart from that I rarely war before rifles, unless there is an aggressive neighbour in which case I usually be-line horse-archers if there are no elephants. I also hate modern era wars cause my laptop sucks, just too laggy (I agree that nukes make things manageable).
 
Voted modern cos of lag and too many units to push around. Medieval may be the slowest and objectively worst but I like the dynamics between the units best.
 
Any time I'm behind! :p

I like ancient because there is generally few units and it's much more about the strategy of getting the right counter in the right spot. If you're going to war in ancient you're probably ninjaing some workers, a city, or something such.

Modern is my least favorite. Not as much about strategy and more about who can spam out the biggest stack of doom.
 
Unfortunately, for me it's Ancient and Classical. However, on Prince and down I'm never opposed to a Warrior Rush. Warring in those periods is by far my weakest point and I'm mediocre at war in general. Voted Classical.
 
You peace-mongering cowards!

Pre-catapult wars are a crap-shoot, especially against Protective or Creative Civs that just love to locate their cities on hills. That's annoying and you don't have a real counter for it until Construction. There's also that lull period right after Feudalism but right before Engineering when your enemy has solid garrisons and you can't crack them without burning a couple catapults per city.

Of course, with proper planning and target selection, these problems can be overcome. :D



EDIT: What? There's a future age in this game, and you can fight in it? WTF?
 
I voted Medieval. I always hate that point when I can see my opponent's cities start to pop up to 40-60% cultural defense and I know I will need ample suicide siege for a conquest. I think the biggest reason why is I just don't like the siege mechanic in general in CIV. I much prefer ranged bombardment over suicide collateral damage attacks.

I also dislike the implementation of Renaissance warfare in the game even though it is my favorite period of warfare in history. The advent of gunpowder weapons was a massively important shift in warfare but the game just doesn't reflect that very well until rifles and cannons. It feels like a period of several hundred years of Renaissance warfare just doesn't really exist in game.
 
I voted Medieval. I always hate that point when I can see my opponent's cities start to pop up to 40-60% cultural defense and I know I will need ample suicide siege for a conquest. I think the biggest reason why is I just don't like the siege mechanic in general in CIV. I much prefer ranged bombardment over suicide collateral damage attacks.

I also dislike the implementation of Renaissance warfare in the game even though it is my favorite period of warfare in history. The advent of gunpowder weapons was a massively important shift in warfare but the game just doesn't reflect that very well until rifles and cannons. It feels like a period of several hundred years of Renaissance warfare just doesn't really exist in game.

The addition of an early gunpowder-based siege unit between the catapult and trebutchet on one side and cannons on the other would solve this in a jiffy. The musketman is generally more useful and long-lived now, especially since grenadiers were delayed in BtS.
 
I like early wars, when iv only got 2 warriors and a archer and and trying to take their workers and keep them from taking my citys.
 
Definitely ultra early rushes . It verges on exploit if you get lucky with copper or horses in your BFC . I hate losing and rushes pre-writing (for scouting purposes) are a huge crapshoot ( cities on hills) that pretty much mean game over if you fail.
 
Early war is the only fun war. Any later than classical age and you're just spamming units amidst endless lag. This is why civilization 4 fails - 75% of the content is unplayable, unless you want to spend half your time waiting for the AI to move their units.
 
For me it's a tossup between ancient and (tech-parity) late industrial/modern.

In ancient times, I'm too busy setting up my first few cities. I hate it when Shaka shows up with a stack of impis when my cities are still defended by warriors.

Late industrial/modern wars can be fun, but only if you have a tech lead. Good luck trying to get your troops anywhere close to Zara Yaqob's legendary city protected by bombers and fighters.
 
EDIT: What? There's a future age in this game, and you can fight in it? WTF?
It even has the most techs of the game.

I like industrial-modern pre-nukes and medieval best.
 
My least favorite time is right after Macemen. If I'm first to Macemen, then I can fun for a while, but then everyone else gets them too along with Longbowmen. It's quite a grind after that. Trebs help a little, and Knights are fun in the open field, but really not much warring can be done until Riflemen/Cavalry.
 
Early war is the only fun war. Any later than classical age and you're just spamming units amidst endless lag. This is why civilization 4 fails - 75% of the content is unplayable, unless you want to spend half your time waiting for the AI to move their units.

There's an option to skip those. Nobody forces you to watch all the AI moves.
 
Top Bottom