Unpopular Opinion Thread

Peasley

Warlord
Joined
Jul 3, 2012
Messages
105
The premise is simple: what Civ 4 opinions do you have that are contrary to the community hivemind?

I'll start: I don't like the look of Blue Marble. I think that it makes the game look to dark and cluttered.
 
I don't like BUG mod for the same reason. Ugly and cluttered and most of the new stuff doesn't get used anyway.
I also like that America's bonuses come late because that's the best part of the game, not the early eras (just play with your phone or something if the turn times are too long). Sometimes, I'll even play future era start games just so I can conquer the other civs with my navy seals more quickly.
 
I think using bug to see what can be traded and who is planning war is kind of cheating.

I don't think philosophical is top tier. Second tier, sure. But half of its bonus (universities) blows, and the latter half requires a ridiculous amount of knowledge of the game. Completely ridiculous knowledge. And even then it seems to be only ok. It also requires many neighbours to trade with too (because bulbing without trading what you bulbed is not very strong), and ideally something that your civ can access only (which is at odds with trading, but still requires neighbours 90% of the time, to invade, like with cho-ko-nu or landsnechkt engineer plays). None of that sounds as good as the always useful financial, which works isolated, surrounded, newb or experienced, whatever. I think philosophical getsits love because a lot of people just play pangaea, so they always have their neighbours to trade with when they bulb or make a weird window.

Also, I think whipping courthouses is a good play much of the time. They are at full strength whether cities are large or small, and under the whip, they are small. I definitely think they are better than wealth. On this last one, I am open to a true analysis of hammers and gold saved/made, and giving a 1.5x value on gold made early (by wealth hammers).
 
Of course, I'm only just barely an immortal player (again, after too long of a hiatus from this, the best game ever made). So... take my opinions with a grain of salt. Also, I'm drunk atm.
 
I think new players should start with Vanilla rather than BTS, I think both Vanilla and even Warlords are absolutely worth playing and I don't even think BTS - despite all its added features - is necessarily the best version of Civ IV. I like the added leaders and civs, but many other added features are badly designed, sloppily done or totally unnecessary and kind of spoil Soren Johnsons's elegant original design. Want a streamlined version of Civ? Play Civ IV Vanilla rather than Civ V. (Btw. I am even less enthousiastic about the other Civ versions final addons: to sell the unfinished and bug riddled C3C as "Complete" feels like a cynical joke, and I also don't really see how shifting around pieces of art or constantly having to readjust trade routes in Civ V BNW really adds to the game experience. For me it totally bogs down game progress and makes an already boring game even more tedious.)
I also think that randomness and minor imbalances are OK and add realism to a strategy game about world history (especially in a game originally designed and for me mostly played as a single player experience).
But maybe most controversial: I don't think the AP victory is an all bad mechanic. ;)
 
I like building infrastructure. I'm good at this game and can win on high levels (but I play with very unique settings that make the game more challenging) and so I do the usual stuff - tons of whipping, etc, to win, but I just don't like it. I get bored when it's turn 240 and I've been at war since turn 75, every. single. freaking. turn. It gets really boring. I enjoy the games where there are wars but then there are periods of peace. Wars are fun... but hundreds of turns of them are not.
 
I seldom use slavery, and never use it once technology and conditions make it too unrealistic despite it being by far the most powerful civic.
 
I don't do 2:move: mounted SoD's. It's always siege and infantry, for me. (Does this come from playing slower game speeds, or am I missing something important?)
 
Mounted units are awesome, Tristan
 
Mounted units aren't as straight-forward in use. Early game, horse archers can just take cities without siege support, but then you get into the middle ages and you need siege to take a city, unless you can do tricky forking manouvers to throw off the AI, but even then you'll probably only be able to burn a few marginal cities and not hold any.

After gunpowder and walls/castles are ignored, mounted units can once again take cities by themselves, if you get them early enough, and that's why cuirs and cav are popular.

Me personally, save from horse archers I don't like trying to take cities with mounted units alone. I really do love mounted units for their field-fighting abilities, however. Nothing really beats them in the field, and it's lots of fun blowing up my enemy's stack with knights. They actually make great defensive units as you can wipe out your enemy's siege weapons with ease.
 
I think it's silly that gunpowder ignores castles without actually having to bring them down with cannon. Come at my fortification with a Musket, when I'd firing my Crossbow out a slit, see how far you get.
 
I think Toku is good. When there's a Holy City or three Gold site within tocking distance, AGG is an economic trait.

Also, gifting him Alphabet to be the only one allowed to send in missionaries whilst he himself isn't much of a REXer makes him my favourite neighbour.
 
I really like the Aggressive trait. I can do more, with less.
 
Unpopular opinion? Pretty much anything I say. :lol:

Actually, I find Marathon speed to be a crashing bore The only speed that I can play is Epic.
 
Unpopular..hmm let's see :b
Cha > Fin
Marathon & Quick = why does this exist?
More than 1 worker/city = waste
Rexing = bad strat
Isa = most fun leader (if not isolated..)

Was that bad enuf?
 
I agree with Fippy that rexing and worker numbers are overrated. I think the common wisdom is that you want enough workers that you can build every useful improvement when the city is ready to work that tile. But I think that's merely the obvious upper limit for how many workers you should have, as it fails to take into account the opportunity cost of the actual worker itself, and tile swapping / micro techniques.

But how dare you call into question quick speed :ar15:

My personal ones:
- Mouseketeers are a top 10 UU.
- GP farm cities are unnecessary and usually inefficient.
- Globe Theater is extremely overrated.
- Oracle is extremely overrated.
- Navies are useless besides subs and transports.
- ORG is a bottom tier trait on pangaea maps.
 
- GP farm cities are unnecessary and usually inefficient.

Having just had a GP farm that I'd describe as above average (four food resources, several wet grasslands) and gotten very little out of it (what with a bureaucapital spamming Wonders and popping out a couple of GPros, and the National Epic pollution causing a couple of GArts - end result, I had to research Philosophy and Education), I'm becoming inclined to agree. (Exceptions: two out of PHI, Gold or Marble; Culture games.)
 
I never use State Property. Like, literally never- I can't think of a single time in any game where I've ever switched to SP. :crazyeye:

Then again, back in my uber-noob days I didn't see the point of Slavery and ran Serfdom for the whole game, so give me time, I guess... :lol:
 
Top Bottom