Least favorite time to War

If it's some jackass that traveled half the world through his worst enemy and two other people he hates just to waste your time, no...

PreLynMax said:

I'll have to admit, warring in Civ 4 is.. tedious. I usually always rage quit when the war bells come, and I find no fun in it. Is that wrong?

Click to expand...

Playing the game how you want to play it is not wrong, unless you're breaking rules in some competition.

Still, if you hate it to that extent why not use the always peace setting?

TheMeInTeam said:

Playing the game how you want to play it is not wrong, unless you're breaking rules in some competition.

Still, if you hate it to that extent why not use the always peace setting?

Click to expand...

I do that now and then. Monty still comes around regularly in a snit and makes threats of annihilation. It gives me great pleasure to reply a la Monty Python - "I blow noxious gases in your general direction" with a big grin. (wording slightly modified to avoid violating forum rules)

Montezuma isn't such a bad guy. See picture.

The worst time is when the enemy has Flight.
See also picture.
Surry (at pleased) declared war and his airforce was a huge pain in the butt until
I had guided missiles + battleships.
The war continued until it was game over.
I was half way harvesting the 12th GG.

attackfighter said:

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.

Click to expand...

Attackfighter are you just a troll, or what? Because it seems like every time you post on here it's to complain about how much Civ IV sucks. If you hate it so much just create a "Civ IV rants thread" like the one they have on CiV forums.

ANYWAY, I voted Ancient, it's really boring with only a few units at your disposal. Modern Era can get tedious, as well,though this is partly because I haven't played many Modern-Era wars, so I don't know much about using the units.

Modern war wouldn't be tedious at all if the hotkeys all worked (tried them in kmod and confirmed that they do work) and it didn't indeed lag to all heck (this happens at least as badly in kmod if not a bit worse). I can still select 10+ units in front of how the game keeps up. Very slow. There is 0 excuse for the UI in a TBS to be so slow. Civ needs good competition, because civ itself has slipped.

I have never experienced any really bad lag waiting for the AI to move. But then I don't play on HUGE worlds, and my machine is reasonably new.

I chose "Never! (Defy Resolution)". Cause I thought it was funny.

I can't see why medieval doesn't dominate this poll. And why ancient has such a number of people who hate it. The early rush is fun and in the right situations, the early rush can do wonders. I've always liked being able to take somebody elses capital to jump-start my economy.

Having just catapults to take down defenses and then dealing with longbows without a significant edge is not my most favorite thing.

I chose Ancient, in particular when all I have is Warriors and perhaps Archers. If I have Chariots or something like that, it's not too bad, but I tend to put off military tech in the ancient times.

I like medieval, especially early medieval. Longbows can be annoying, but macemen are enjoyable, as are pikemen, war elephants, and Knights. There's a good variety of units then, and you can get some good tactical positioning battles as well on the right maps.

I've almost never had a serious late war in Civ4, though. One time in Vanilla 1.52 IIRC, playing a mod that was supposed to require 1.61, but that's about it. It was fun, though.

Ataxerxes said:

I can't see why medieval doesn't dominate this poll. And why ancient has such a number of people who hate it. The early rush is fun and in the right situations, the early rush can do wonders. I've always liked being able to take somebody elses capital to jump-start my economy.

Having just catapults to take down defenses and then dealing with longbows without a significant edge is not my most favorite thing.

Click to expand...

On the higher levels, the early rush can fail against all planning if the RNG decides you should lose the game. Think those 10 axes can take that 2 archer defended city? Declare and think again; now it has 5 archers by the time you can attack, and you get unlucky and lose all but 1-3 axes and can't follow up on the next cities...of which the AI still has more than you. And bonuses. Even if you win that war, the cost is already so enormous that you will have only worsened your position by rushing, if not lose outright.

Medieval is what I picked, though I'm not sure it's how I actually feel now that I think about it. War in that time period is often a bad idea, but not always. When it isn't, you can actually make decent gains w/o horrid losses and/or pick up multiple vassals (which is usually game over).

Ataxerxes said:

I can't see why medieval doesn't dominate this poll. And why ancient has such a number of people who hate it. The early rush is fun and in the right situations, the early rush can do wonders. I've always liked being able to take somebody elses capital to jump-start my economy.

Having just catapults to take down defenses and then dealing with longbows without a significant edge is not my most favorite thing.

Click to expand...

Truthfully this kind of surprises me, too. I've been out of Civ 4 for a while now, but I distinctly remember rushing pretty much being the end-all, be-all strategy for 85% of players. I mean, Quechas, Immortals, and War Chariots are routinely considered the best units in the entire game (and the first of these was/is banned from Hall of Fame games), simply because of their rushing potential. Axe rushing was so prevalent that Firaxis themselves made copper less common to help bring it in line, and from people's descriptions, anything beyond Civil Service may as well not exist because the game should already be in their pockets by then.

Then again, I'm a Noble player who's never tried multiplayer, and has had a special resentment for this tactic for pretty much as long as it's been around. So maybe I'm just bitter.

Least favorite time to war: between turn 1 and turn 500
Most favorite time to war: between turn 1 and turn 500

Tip: don't war on even numbered turns ... the odds are against you.

Ataxerxes said:

I can't see why medieval doesn't dominate this poll. And why ancient has such a number of people who hate it. The early rush is fun and in the right situations, the early rush can do wonders. I've always liked being able to take somebody elses capital to jump-start my economy.

Having just catapults to take down defenses and then dealing with longbows without a significant edge is not my most favorite thing.

Click to expand...

There are a lot of cases where the early rush isn't viable. If their cities are on a hill it can be frustrating. Sometimes rush distances are kinda far

The AI starts with archery on higher levels so if your strat resources are a bit far, then you have to work on a really tight schedule. You might not simply have an easily hookable strat resource.

You can also inadvertently help someone else. If you kill someone; a third party may rex into the land that the person you killed would have taken. At least with classical warfare, horse archers or catapults are a lot more reliable and you can conquer more developed cities. I remember playing one of those threads titled "Easiest Immortal Map ever" where a certain AI became a monster once I rushed my neighbor out of the game. I was never able to catch up to him in tech; only won because I conquered around him and kept him at friendly.

Of course, if they really are really close and would shut you in, rushing becomes very effective.

Medieval war still sucks the most, but capitulation often becomes an option.

I think they could've done with adding Longswordsmen into the Medieval Era, with a +10% versus cities bonus. It might have made things more interesting.