Lance of Llanwy
King
- Joined
- Mar 10, 2006
- Messages
- 710
Really the only thing that is truly, bona-fide, 100% better in CIV is conducting a few wars vs. playing 100%(but see below) peaceful. Otherwise, for the most part, it's very balanced. The whole point of CIV is to get away from gambits and strategies that are ALWAYS better than any alternative. Sometimes, certain wonders are extremely helpful...in other situations, they aren't. Some wonders are just always "nice to have", and some(like Chitchen Itza/Chicken Pizza) are unfortunately not very useful. CIV encourages balance, planning and adaptation. You cannot say "I'm going to do THIS, no matter what", you have to say, "Let's see how the map looks, and then I'll figure something out." I haven't played any other Civ game, but I'm not a stranger to strategy games or even turn-based ones.
Well, what I'm saying is this: CIV punishes you for imbalanced play-styles(generally.) If you simply try to do nothing but build, it's not going to be very effective. If you don't build up your economy or push too hard in a war, you will suffer. If you build nothing but axemen, you'll be trashed by chariots(at least in Warlords.) If you pursue the Pyramaids every time no matter your circumstances, you will suffer. You have to ADAPT to play CIV. Maybe if you're neighbors are Gandhi, Hatsehpsut, and Mansa Musa, you can relax and build up. If your neighbors are Montezuma, Alexander, and Napoleon, well, you're an idiot if you think they're going to leave you alone. The notion that it punishes expansion or building or anything but doing too much of one thing, IMO, is absolutely ludicrous. You have to be adaptive and build a little as a war-mongerer and war a little as a builder. Being entirely one or the other just doesn't work.
As far as graphics...it had to happen, and it already has, and it's pointless to cry over spilt milk. If your computer runs it slow, it's your fault. No offense, but you should've been well aware of the demands it places on your system.
In short....it is a far different game than CivIII, and to cast it aside because it's NOT CivIII would be silly...
Well, what I'm saying is this: CIV punishes you for imbalanced play-styles(generally.) If you simply try to do nothing but build, it's not going to be very effective. If you don't build up your economy or push too hard in a war, you will suffer. If you build nothing but axemen, you'll be trashed by chariots(at least in Warlords.) If you pursue the Pyramaids every time no matter your circumstances, you will suffer. You have to ADAPT to play CIV. Maybe if you're neighbors are Gandhi, Hatsehpsut, and Mansa Musa, you can relax and build up. If your neighbors are Montezuma, Alexander, and Napoleon, well, you're an idiot if you think they're going to leave you alone. The notion that it punishes expansion or building or anything but doing too much of one thing, IMO, is absolutely ludicrous. You have to be adaptive and build a little as a war-mongerer and war a little as a builder. Being entirely one or the other just doesn't work.
As far as graphics...it had to happen, and it already has, and it's pointless to cry over spilt milk. If your computer runs it slow, it's your fault. No offense, but you should've been well aware of the demands it places on your system.
In short....it is a far different game than CivIII, and to cast it aside because it's NOT CivIII would be silly...