Eejit
Chieftain
Yes, numbers don't lie, and more than 1 in 2 players disagree with you.
Indeed. And probably more. Those enjoying the game are more likely to be playing it rather than whining on forums about how dey tuk ar religin!
Yes, numbers don't lie, and more than 1 in 2 players disagree with you.
Except that only 2 of now 5 Civs have been Micro focused.
Civ 1 and 2 were not very Micro focused and much more Macro. Civ 3 was Micro insanity, 4 was a little less.
So with Civ 5, that makes 60% of all Civ games more Macro than Micro.
That makes the Civ franchise a Macro based franchise.
You could easily argue that this makes Civ 3 and 4 less Civ than Civ 5.
well.. at least a third of the fans are unhappy... if you think that´s ok - good for you.Yes, numbers don't lie, and more than 1 in 2 players disagree with you.
well.. at least a third of the fans are unhappy... if you think that´s ok - good for you.
@vandyr
Your post shows a lot of lack of knowledge of both games ,especially of civ IV ( that or you should had played it in a level where it actually chalenged you ). Oh ,and in civ V you can actually rely on brute force and empire spamming, probably even more than in civ IV , because the thing that makes empire spamming less desirable in civ V ( ) is far less constricting than civ IV version ( maintenance )
If you think that is a representative sample of the playerbase and not just some grumpy fanatics, good for you.
I never played civ V below prince and normally have been playing it between king and Immortal
Happiness is not cripling enough as a measure of how it stops big empires ... it still leaves you with a army, you can still tech, you can still generate cash, you can still increase your army. Compare with civ IV maintenance and you will see the diference ... happiness in civ V will not stop me of making a army and stomp the AI out ... at best it will make the fight harder, but if you can either tactically outbeat the enemy, use better quality units or bring numbers, that is not a issue. That was my point.
Sure you can offend more then 150 people and call them fanatics and what else, or you can just agree, that they changed the complexity of the game too much to the casual side, so that they have angered many people.
I never played civ V below prince and normally have been playing it between king and Immortal
Happiness is not cripling enough as a measure of how it stops big empires ... it still leaves you with a army, you can still tech, you can still generate cash, you can still increase your army. Compare with civ IV maintenance and you will see the diference ... happiness in civ V will not stop me of making a army and stomp the AI out ... at best it will make the fight harder, but if you can either tactically outbeat the enemy, use better quality units or bring numbers, that is not a issue. That was my point.
Sure you can offend more then 150 people and call them fanatics and what else, or you can just agree, that they changed the complexity of the game too much to the casual side, so that they have angered many people.