Yes, at least outside cities or fortifications this is true for Civ1 and Civ2. It has not been changed until the release of Civ3. There and in Civ4 the unit with the best defense values fights (and dies) first when attacked. It is no longer possible to destroy a whole stack that easily (nukes may be an exception).
CIV IV vs CIV III
- Thread starter Crimson1
- Start date
- Status
jkp1187
Unindicted Co-Conspirator
And don't forget Civ 1, you'd get back-stabbed by Gandhi and Abe Lincoln for just lookin' at 'em funny.
Yep, even if you destroyed every city but one, A1 declared war on you sooner or later.
Wejer
Mentor
Only thing I was disaipointed at first with Civ IV was diplomacy. It took some time getting used to, and then it was fine. Not perfect, but bearable at least.
ZzarkLinux
Engineering Programmer
My liking of Civ 3 is simple (and just an opinion)
Civ 3 is like a "power-gamer" type of game, since there's a lot to know and practice.
I want action
I want tons of extra details. I want tons of responsibility. Civ 3 delivers.
Civ 4 is just too "watered-down" for me.
Yes there are many aspects of the game in Civ 4, but they're less "action-packed".
"Research religion tech, build missionaries" just isn't as fun as fighting turn-by-turn for survival...
Civ 3 Military:
You are always in a losing position, since AI has large bonuses, huge swarms, tons of cities.
Your military is weak for most of the game.
Brains, tactics, strategy, the kitchen sink are required to win.
Civ 3 Turnsets:
You control every detail of your empire. Great responsiblity = Great power
You control every detail of your hundreds of units. Great responsiblity = Great power
You control every detail of your dozens of cities. Great responsiblity = Great power
Civ 3 Scale:
You're always struggling to manage your military.
You're always struggling to manage your empire.
You're always struggling to win.
Civ 4 Military:
Everything is balanced. Just build the required counter unit / catapult. You win.
Civ 4 Turnset:
There's just not much to do each turn.
Change 1 build, move 5-10 units, Make 1 trade...
Civ 4 Scale:
Less detail / smaller scale means that "action" is harder to find, and doesn't last as long.
Don't get me wrong. There's tons of great ideas in Civ 4.
They just weren't implemented as well / challenging / fun as they could have been.
Civ 3 is like a "power-gamer" type of game, since there's a lot to know and practice.
I want action
I want tons of extra details. I want tons of responsibility. Civ 3 delivers.Civ 4 is just too "watered-down" for me.
Yes there are many aspects of the game in Civ 4, but they're less "action-packed".
"Research religion tech, build missionaries" just isn't as fun as fighting turn-by-turn for survival...
Civ 3 Military:
You are always in a losing position, since AI has large bonuses, huge swarms, tons of cities.
Your military is weak for most of the game.
Brains, tactics, strategy, the kitchen sink are required to win.
Civ 3 Turnsets:
You control every detail of your empire. Great responsiblity = Great power
You control every detail of your hundreds of units. Great responsiblity = Great power
You control every detail of your dozens of cities. Great responsiblity = Great power
Civ 3 Scale:
You're always struggling to manage your military.
You're always struggling to manage your empire.
You're always struggling to win.
Civ 4 Military:
Everything is balanced. Just build the required counter unit / catapult. You win.
Civ 4 Turnset:
There's just not much to do each turn.
Change 1 build, move 5-10 units, Make 1 trade...
Civ 4 Scale:
Less detail / smaller scale means that "action" is harder to find, and doesn't last as long.
Don't get me wrong. There's tons of great ideas in Civ 4.
They just weren't implemented as well / challenging / fun as they could have been.
Hammurbabble
Warlord
- Joined
- Jan 31, 2008
- Messages
- 239
The only useful thing that could come out of this discussion is ideas about what to include in Civ5, and then you have to be careful. Some of the reasons given for being disappointed in Civ4 strike me as unavoidable, mainly the ones involving performance and requirements. (That's the gaming world these days, folks.) Others -- well, some of the things that people are complaining about and liking better about Civ3 are exactly the ones I didn't like about it. "Fix" those in Civ5, and you have a much worse game IMO.
I've been playing Civ since 1992. Civ1 was the first computer game I ever became addicted to. I loved, loved, LOVED it, but there were certain problems with it that I felt needed fixing, to wit:
1) The cheesy and grossly overpowered way you could buy enemy cities with a Diplomat unit while stealing their technology wholesale;
2) The exploit that let you warmonger as a Democracy when clearly that wasn't intended. The Senate would only override you and make peace if peace was offered, so all you had to do was refuse to talk to the AI and you could go on indefinitely. (War weariness was largely solved if you had both Women's Suffrage and Bach's Cathedral.)
3) The limited goals of the game; basically, conquer the world, or conquer enough of the world to reduce all competition and then build a spaceship.
4) The problems with micromanagement of huge numbers of cities.
5) The combat system -- all-or-nothing do-or-die, stack-annihilation on the defensive, units that were strong on defense but useless to attack with and vice-versa, absurdities like a fortified phalanx sinking a battleship, etc.
6) The poorly-conceived government-type and revolution system, which lacked flexibility.
7) Infinite City Spam. (Actually this isn't true, because I never discovered this exploit. But for those that did, it was something that needed fixing.)
8) Very limited diplomatic options.
9) The lack of any national borders. Enemy units could come and camp on important tiles, making it impossible for your cities to work them, and you couldn't do anything about it unless you wanted to declare war.
So -- my judgment of the two games (III and IV) rests largely on how well each of them solves these problems, without losing the Civ feel.
1) Both games eliminate this exploit, but I feel that IV-BtS does the best job of implementing espionage. (Espionage didn't even exist in IV-vanilla, of course.)
2) Both games eliminate this exploit, but I feel that IV does a better job of relating civics/government to warfare. Not perfect, but I wouldn't want to go back to III's system.
3) IV, but not III, solves this problem very well. In III, you're still doing the same-old same-old. It's basically a war game and nothing else. Of course, if that's what you want . . . but to return to that would be a step back IMO. In IV, you can win by destroying everyone or by conquering a huge chunk of the map, but you can also win by developing the highest culture, or by skilled diplomacy, and winning the Space Race no longer requires you to qualify (in effect) for a Domination win. It's a much more versatile game.
4) Here we find something curious. Neither game does a perfect job of solving this problem, but obviously IV comes closer -- and yet that is exactly one of the things that our III-lovers don't like about it! The lack of an "epic feel" that you get from having a bazillion cities. The more cities you have, the more micromanagement will be necessary, inevitably. So, this is one change from III to IV that I personally feel was very good, but that obviously some people posting to this thread don't like at all.
5) Both games improve the problems with the combat system, but IMO IV does a much more thorough job of it. Losing the bifurcated attack-defense strength business was long overdue. The promotion system is wonderful. Lack of combat between ships and land units is logical and right. Air units are far better handled in IV than in III. The only thing that I think could (with some amendment) be resurrected is artillery bombardment. But the specific way artillery was handled in III wasn't quite right, either, where artillery could be captured but never destroyed.
Here's how I think it should be done. A siege unit that attacks a stack should bombard the stack without taking any damage itself -- unless there's a siege unit in the defending stack. In that case, the two siege units duke it out, but both attackers and defenders take 50% normal collateral damage (this representing an artillery duel -- they're mostly concentrating on each other). If you attack an artillery piece with a non-artillery piece, you fight normally just as it is now.
That's fairly minor, though. An awful lot of the problems Civ games have traditionally had with the combat system have been solved, especially in BtS.
6) III's government system is an improvement in I's, but IV's civic system is much, much better! That's one of the things I really liked about SMAC, that you didn't reflexively lump (for example) the economic side of Communism with the political side. But I like IV's civic system better than SMAC's, which often presented penalties for civic choices that were too severe.
7) Both games solve ICS, but III does it in a clumsy and ham-handed way, by having corruption and waste eventually reduce any new city you gain to uselessness. IV's solution is much more elegant and fun.
8) The improvements in this area are pretty much linear as the games have followed each other. Hopefully V will continue that progress.
9) The implementation of national borders in III was a big improvement over I, obviously, but still left much lacking. The way the borders are handled in IV aren't perfectly realistic, but in terms of gameplay they make perfect sense.
People will disagree with me on some of these, but that's my point -- that disagreement isn't factual. You'll all agree on the facts here, it's just that you'll find some of my facts to be bad when I think they're good.
And that's what this disagreement comes down to. Some people see changes that were meant to be improvements, as the reverse. Those people will not be satisfied with V unless it undoes those changes. But I, and I think lots of others, DO see them as improvements, and will be severely disappointed.
I've been playing Civ since 1992. Civ1 was the first computer game I ever became addicted to. I loved, loved, LOVED it, but there were certain problems with it that I felt needed fixing, to wit:
1) The cheesy and grossly overpowered way you could buy enemy cities with a Diplomat unit while stealing their technology wholesale;
2) The exploit that let you warmonger as a Democracy when clearly that wasn't intended. The Senate would only override you and make peace if peace was offered, so all you had to do was refuse to talk to the AI and you could go on indefinitely. (War weariness was largely solved if you had both Women's Suffrage and Bach's Cathedral.)
3) The limited goals of the game; basically, conquer the world, or conquer enough of the world to reduce all competition and then build a spaceship.
4) The problems with micromanagement of huge numbers of cities.
5) The combat system -- all-or-nothing do-or-die, stack-annihilation on the defensive, units that were strong on defense but useless to attack with and vice-versa, absurdities like a fortified phalanx sinking a battleship, etc.
6) The poorly-conceived government-type and revolution system, which lacked flexibility.
7) Infinite City Spam. (Actually this isn't true, because I never discovered this exploit. But for those that did, it was something that needed fixing.)
8) Very limited diplomatic options.
9) The lack of any national borders. Enemy units could come and camp on important tiles, making it impossible for your cities to work them, and you couldn't do anything about it unless you wanted to declare war.
So -- my judgment of the two games (III and IV) rests largely on how well each of them solves these problems, without losing the Civ feel.
1) Both games eliminate this exploit, but I feel that IV-BtS does the best job of implementing espionage. (Espionage didn't even exist in IV-vanilla, of course.)
2) Both games eliminate this exploit, but I feel that IV does a better job of relating civics/government to warfare. Not perfect, but I wouldn't want to go back to III's system.
3) IV, but not III, solves this problem very well. In III, you're still doing the same-old same-old. It's basically a war game and nothing else. Of course, if that's what you want . . . but to return to that would be a step back IMO. In IV, you can win by destroying everyone or by conquering a huge chunk of the map, but you can also win by developing the highest culture, or by skilled diplomacy, and winning the Space Race no longer requires you to qualify (in effect) for a Domination win. It's a much more versatile game.
4) Here we find something curious. Neither game does a perfect job of solving this problem, but obviously IV comes closer -- and yet that is exactly one of the things that our III-lovers don't like about it! The lack of an "epic feel" that you get from having a bazillion cities. The more cities you have, the more micromanagement will be necessary, inevitably. So, this is one change from III to IV that I personally feel was very good, but that obviously some people posting to this thread don't like at all.
5) Both games improve the problems with the combat system, but IMO IV does a much more thorough job of it. Losing the bifurcated attack-defense strength business was long overdue. The promotion system is wonderful. Lack of combat between ships and land units is logical and right. Air units are far better handled in IV than in III. The only thing that I think could (with some amendment) be resurrected is artillery bombardment. But the specific way artillery was handled in III wasn't quite right, either, where artillery could be captured but never destroyed.
Here's how I think it should be done. A siege unit that attacks a stack should bombard the stack without taking any damage itself -- unless there's a siege unit in the defending stack. In that case, the two siege units duke it out, but both attackers and defenders take 50% normal collateral damage (this representing an artillery duel -- they're mostly concentrating on each other). If you attack an artillery piece with a non-artillery piece, you fight normally just as it is now.
That's fairly minor, though. An awful lot of the problems Civ games have traditionally had with the combat system have been solved, especially in BtS.
6) III's government system is an improvement in I's, but IV's civic system is much, much better! That's one of the things I really liked about SMAC, that you didn't reflexively lump (for example) the economic side of Communism with the political side. But I like IV's civic system better than SMAC's, which often presented penalties for civic choices that were too severe.
7) Both games solve ICS, but III does it in a clumsy and ham-handed way, by having corruption and waste eventually reduce any new city you gain to uselessness. IV's solution is much more elegant and fun.
8) The improvements in this area are pretty much linear as the games have followed each other. Hopefully V will continue that progress.
9) The implementation of national borders in III was a big improvement over I, obviously, but still left much lacking. The way the borders are handled in IV aren't perfectly realistic, but in terms of gameplay they make perfect sense.
People will disagree with me on some of these, but that's my point -- that disagreement isn't factual. You'll all agree on the facts here, it's just that you'll find some of my facts to be bad when I think they're good.
And that's what this disagreement comes down to. Some people see changes that were meant to be improvements, as the reverse. Those people will not be satisfied with V unless it undoes those changes. But I, and I think lots of others, DO see them as improvements, and will be severely disappointed.
julienheadley
Chieftain
I just read this entire thread and I found it very interesting.
I've played civ4 obsessively for the past few years and lately I've come to the point where it's just not very fun. Comments about blandness (too many wonders, etc.) seem to hit home for me. I'm wondering if I should give civ3 another shot.
When I first started playing civ4 I thought it was obviously better. More freedom and creativity, less micro-managing . . . but I find the game experience of civ4 to be an endless series of tedious decisions. Each one bringing a tiny advantage and you have to make all those advantages add up. It's like work.
My games frequently grind to a halt because there's too much to think about and I can't continue. I have to take a break. But I put up with all of this because there really is creative gameplay. Depending on the board, your civ, and your opponents, there are vastly different strategies that can win. I just don't know if I can put up with it anymore. I remember playing civ3 and I *couldn't wait* to get down that next city. I didn't even care about corruption. I put it down. Now I just sit there and look at the board and look at my cities and try to figure out what the best move is. I don't know. I don't think it's worth it.
Some of the things I don't like about civ4 are:
-Unit promotions. It's just one more decision that's tedious and a waste of time. I got too much to do to worry about every little unit and what the best development path is. Really I would get rid of units altogether! But that's another topic. (You could have the game play the same way without units. For example, you could have squares improved by citizens who work them, rather than workers. You could "build" military, and then just say "attack this city", rather than having to move a million units around.
This is a giant digression.
I am all for reducing complexity. I do not feel complexity makes a game interesting. I feel it makes it tedious. I want strategic opportunities without tedious decision-making. There's a sweet spot there. It's possible.)
Where was I? Religions. They suck. I never join a religion because I don't want people mad at me. Diplomacy, also, is annoying because for optimal game play you have to check every turn what is available and how much you can get for everything. And if you have a war advantage it's incredibly hard to figure out how often you can demand tribute and how much you can get. The game should just tell you. I don't wanna do 500 games of research.
Corporations now . . . and spies. There's too much. The game is too big without being interesting. If I finish, it's 60--100 hours of tedium.
I've kind of been wanting to post this letter for a while now. Maybe I'll make this thread my own personal rant site.
I've played civ4 obsessively for the past few years and lately I've come to the point where it's just not very fun. Comments about blandness (too many wonders, etc.) seem to hit home for me. I'm wondering if I should give civ3 another shot.
When I first started playing civ4 I thought it was obviously better. More freedom and creativity, less micro-managing . . . but I find the game experience of civ4 to be an endless series of tedious decisions. Each one bringing a tiny advantage and you have to make all those advantages add up. It's like work.
My games frequently grind to a halt because there's too much to think about and I can't continue. I have to take a break. But I put up with all of this because there really is creative gameplay. Depending on the board, your civ, and your opponents, there are vastly different strategies that can win. I just don't know if I can put up with it anymore. I remember playing civ3 and I *couldn't wait* to get down that next city. I didn't even care about corruption. I put it down. Now I just sit there and look at the board and look at my cities and try to figure out what the best move is. I don't know. I don't think it's worth it.
Some of the things I don't like about civ4 are:
-Unit promotions. It's just one more decision that's tedious and a waste of time. I got too much to do to worry about every little unit and what the best development path is. Really I would get rid of units altogether! But that's another topic. (You could have the game play the same way without units. For example, you could have squares improved by citizens who work them, rather than workers. You could "build" military, and then just say "attack this city", rather than having to move a million units around.
This is a giant digression.
I am all for reducing complexity. I do not feel complexity makes a game interesting. I feel it makes it tedious. I want strategic opportunities without tedious decision-making. There's a sweet spot there. It's possible.)Where was I? Religions. They suck. I never join a religion because I don't want people mad at me. Diplomacy, also, is annoying because for optimal game play you have to check every turn what is available and how much you can get for everything. And if you have a war advantage it's incredibly hard to figure out how often you can demand tribute and how much you can get. The game should just tell you. I don't wanna do 500 games of research.
Corporations now . . . and spies. There's too much. The game is too big without being interesting. If I finish, it's 60--100 hours of tedium.
I've kind of been wanting to post this letter for a while now. Maybe I'll make this thread my own personal rant site.
julienheadley
Chieftain
Chopping forests. I *hate* chopping forests. It's such a pain.
I *hate* chopping forests. It's such a pain.
littlej
Chieftain
It took me a while to adjust to Civ 4 after Civ 3, I just couldn't get over the fact that there wasn't going to be Off & Def numbers (I figured it would be just build one type of unit and crush everyone). But now that I've been fully converted to Civ 4, I don't think I could go back.
Light-Giver
Warlord
- Joined
- Nov 20, 2007
- Messages
- 221
thats in both civ 3 and 4Chopping forests.
I got civ IV at the same time i got a new laptop which is twice as fast as my old pc (only downfall is my internet is only as fast as my wireless router) but civ 4 for me isnt slow at all so it works great, I love all features and the 3d fighting is so much better than 2 2d guys sitting there repeadedly hitting eachother untill the health bar goes down. I like how you can upgrade units and there is almost no limit to how much xp it can get. I also like the idea of a set strengh with no attack or defence values but units more sutable for defence than attack or vice versa.
Also the civ 3 multiplayer sucks, there are only 1 or 2 games going on at 1 time its a rair event to see a game start,and civ 4 multiplayer always has at least 2 games STARTING at 1 time
I like this over other games cause it requires thinking, runescape is all about sitting on your ass for hours ling clicking , and clicking, and clicking, then click to move, then click and click, and click. WOW you just sit there and press a number to attack, yes its huge, but its to huge and slowly sucks you in cause you have to stay up all night to lvl up. With civ 3 or 4 you start over each time and you dont need to spend months to "lvl up".
julienheadley
Chieftain
julienheadley
Chieftain
that's where i was about a year ago. but the games just take so *long*. obviously i could play faster but the results would be worse. i don't know. if i do pull out civ3 i'll post my thoughts.
Ace of Gold
MAKE WAY FOR THE BAD GUY
for bts there are 10 games going on at 1 time.
I dought any online multiplayer games are starting for civ 3
LordKestrel
King
Biggest things I like about Civ4 are the Pollution -> Heath change and the Unhappy change. Oh, and the way Corruption works, no more 1-shield only cities.
Infantry#14
Emperor
- Joined
- Dec 26, 2006
- Messages
- 1,600
One thing good about civ 3 is that the game can be modded easily for ppl w/ no programing knowledge.
When I first got Civ IV, I thought it was much better than Civ III, surpisingly because I thought it was easier to ply. Thinking Civ IV was amazing, I uninstalled Civ III, gave the CD away, and gave Conquests to my friend--huge mistake.
1.) Warring is not fun in Civ IV
Suicide cannons are ridiculous. If one thinks the occasion spearmen beating the tank was ridiculous, the suicide cannons are much worse. I was warring overseas, captured a city with serveral modern armor. Everything seems good, I envision their entire empire falling to my horde of tanks. For Civ IV, however, this was not meant to me. As I moved most of my modern armors out of the city, I see a massive army with cannons and calvary a few tiles away. Once my turn ends, they attack my army, because Civ IV's ridiculous culture borders allow the AI to keep massive swaths of land, so they use their roads to get to my units. Oh well, they can't defeat me anyway--wrong. After about 15 cannons attack my modern armor, they are seriously damaged, and there army of calvary killed all of my modern armor. Wow, looks like I'll have to ship a new horde of modern armor to their continent! Civ IV was supposed to get rid of annoying concepts, but it instead created a new one.
2.) Your so called "empire" doesn't seem anything like an empire. Unlike in Civ III, you can barely build any cities without your economy crashing. Even if you can the maps don't allow you. You probably could fit more cities on the Civ III standard map than you could on the CIV huge map. Playing huge maps, which I love to do because the more civs the better, is almost impossible, esp. in the late game, when the turns take a ridicluous amount of time.
3.) The graphics aren't all that. Sure they are 3-D, but they definentley don't equate for the ridiculous slow speed of the game. The leaderheads in Civ III look better than the ones in Civ IV, as they substitued realism for animation. They also don't have culture groups, which made the civilizations more unique.
4.) Modding may be easier for people who know how to work it, but for the average civ player who just wants to make a scenario, it's terrible. I easily made them for Civ III, but have found it difficult to just make one in Civ IV.
5.) A few little things that I miss from Civ III: The music, popheads, throne room, and interactive adviosrs. Without these, the game just doesn't seem as fun.
I think I'll just go and buy Civ III: Complete. It's only $20--$60 cheaper than Civ IV and BTS.
1.) Warring is not fun in Civ IV
Suicide cannons are ridiculous. If one thinks the occasion spearmen beating the tank was ridiculous, the suicide cannons are much worse. I was warring overseas, captured a city with serveral modern armor. Everything seems good, I envision their entire empire falling to my horde of tanks. For Civ IV, however, this was not meant to me. As I moved most of my modern armors out of the city, I see a massive army with cannons and calvary a few tiles away. Once my turn ends, they attack my army, because Civ IV's ridiculous culture borders allow the AI to keep massive swaths of land, so they use their roads to get to my units. Oh well, they can't defeat me anyway--wrong. After about 15 cannons attack my modern armor, they are seriously damaged, and there army of calvary killed all of my modern armor. Wow, looks like I'll have to ship a new horde of modern armor to their continent! Civ IV was supposed to get rid of annoying concepts, but it instead created a new one.
2.) Your so called "empire" doesn't seem anything like an empire. Unlike in Civ III, you can barely build any cities without your economy crashing. Even if you can the maps don't allow you. You probably could fit more cities on the Civ III standard map than you could on the CIV huge map. Playing huge maps, which I love to do because the more civs the better, is almost impossible, esp. in the late game, when the turns take a ridicluous amount of time.
3.) The graphics aren't all that. Sure they are 3-D, but they definentley don't equate for the ridiculous slow speed of the game. The leaderheads in Civ III look better than the ones in Civ IV, as they substitued realism for animation. They also don't have culture groups, which made the civilizations more unique.
4.) Modding may be easier for people who know how to work it, but for the average civ player who just wants to make a scenario, it's terrible. I easily made them for Civ III, but have found it difficult to just make one in Civ IV.
5.) A few little things that I miss from Civ III: The music, popheads, throne room, and interactive adviosrs. Without these, the game just doesn't seem as fun.
I think I'll just go and buy Civ III: Complete. It's only $20--$60 cheaper than Civ IV and BTS.
While everyone has different taste yet the idea cannons as an answer to "Stack of Doom" was design which civ3 was so famous for (especially when it comes to multiplayer). Civ4 answer to SoD is still a lot better than civ2 (the defender dies the whole stack is removed) even though they still exist in civ4.
The idea isn't "suicide cannons" but that there should to a cost for attacking. (In Civ3 after you have built your SoD you can take one city after another without losing any units) Losing cannon/ Cats was a simple way to add cost to attacks without making the game too complicated.
I still have civ3 on my PC though with great mods like FfH2 I haven't loaded it up in a long while.
Aussie_Lurker
Deity
Fish, would you rather the Civ3 system whereby your outlying cities are so overwhelmed with corruption that you can barely build anything in them anyway? I have actually seen plenty of games where both myself or my opponents have had truly far-flung empires. Try developing a specialist or cottage based economy to help offset the costs of those more far-flung empires. Court-houses and the State Property Civic are also very, very helpful.
If all else fails, try granting independence to some of your more far-flung regions. Sure they're not technically yours anymore, but their Vassal State status means they'll do almost anything you say anyway-provided you treat them well.
Oh, and in BtS, cannons and the like have had some of their power removed. Certain units are very good at doing "flanking moves". This means that, in an attack, these units can cause damage to all the siege weapons in a stack. Thus having large stacks of siege weapons will leave you vulnerable to certain unit types. To be honest, CivIV is the first Civ game where I've truly felt it necessary to bring along a mixed stack in *every* combat-because you just never know what you might face!
Aussie.
If all else fails, try granting independence to some of your more far-flung regions. Sure they're not technically yours anymore, but their Vassal State status means they'll do almost anything you say anyway-provided you treat them well.
Oh, and in BtS, cannons and the like have had some of their power removed. Certain units are very good at doing "flanking moves". This means that, in an attack, these units can cause damage to all the siege weapons in a stack. Thus having large stacks of siege weapons will leave you vulnerable to certain unit types. To be honest, CivIV is the first Civ game where I've truly felt it necessary to bring along a mixed stack in *every* combat-because you just never know what you might face!
Aussie.
Aussie_Lurker
Deity
Infantry#14. Believe me, I have *NO* specialist programming knowledge but-with a little advice from the great people on this site-I have been able to create a few mods of my own. Though I'm a bit weak on Python, a lot of the C++ language is very "common sense". Also, the XML allows you to very, very easily make changes to the game within the parameters available-no specialist knowledge required!
Aussie.
Aussie.
I may just be computer challenged then--I didn't even know what Python or C++ were before the game came out. Yes, BTS did somewhat fix the combat system with flanking. Though this make defenisve wars easier, it still did little to fix the problem on offense, when your units are massacared by a stack of cannons. The vassal and colony system do make diplomicy more interesting, but I'm still missing the huge empires from Civ III. Both cottages and specialist economies do help your economy from crashing (still haven't decided which one I prefer), but even if you are able to expand, it just isn't the same.
BTS did add some intersting features. I love the Apostolic Palace, and relgions are a nice addation overall. I'm not too upset that they didn't make the relgions different, because many people would understandably be offended. I like to play, "Choose your own relgion", so the world's two largest religions actually have a chance to make an impact. Cooporations are probably my favorite addation. I love playing as the Dutch, getting filthy rich due to the power of my cooporations and freedoms (Universal Suffrage, Freedom of Speech, Fee Market, Empincipation, Freedom of Relgion). Peace time during CIV is really enjoyable, it's the war that drives me crazy.
BTS did add some intersting features. I love the Apostolic Palace, and relgions are a nice addation overall. I'm not too upset that they didn't make the relgions different, because many people would understandably be offended. I like to play, "Choose your own relgion", so the world's two largest religions actually have a chance to make an impact. Cooporations are probably my favorite addation. I love playing as the Dutch, getting filthy rich due to the power of my cooporations and freedoms (Universal Suffrage, Freedom of Speech, Fee Market, Empincipation, Freedom of Relgion). Peace time during CIV is really enjoyable, it's the war that drives me crazy.
- Status
Similar threads
