Archon_Wing
Vote for me or die
- Joined
- Apr 3, 2005
- Messages
- 5,255
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...
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?
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?
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.
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 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 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.