Dragonlord
Fantasy Warlord
Having read most of this thread (with some skimming, I admit) with interest, I can't resist putting in my 2 cents:
I don't agree that Conquests is broken because of the new features. I have been playing it exclusively ever since it came out - I hardly ever play any other game than Civ nowadays, and haven't played Vanilla or PTW once since Conquests!
Conquests has changed the game, yes, and has given some new possible exploits of human vs. AI - but, OTH, it's fixed some old gripes and, on the whole, added more variety, which far outweighs that, IMO.
It's never been a problem to out'think' the AI - to me, it's a matter of personal choice how much you take advantage of that.
Yes, you CAN, for instance, build a huge bomber fleet and annihilate the AI with that exclusively - but to do that, you first have to survive through almost 3 full ages, ending up with enough production capacity to build all those expensive bombers. That is no small feat in itself on higher difficulty levels! And then, if you find that playing style boring - I would - why do it?
I personally try to avoid any 'extreme' styles of play, my goal is to build a well-rounded Civ that dominates the world, with both good infrastructure AND a strong military - and that is difficult enough at DemiGod on up that I will use every advantage I can get and 'take it as it comes'.
Civ Conquests is a great game with far more pro's than cons - especially since many of those subjective cons can be modified in the editor.
Edit: One of the best things about Conquests are the many enjoyable Mods that have been made possible by it! Most of those change the rules extensively anyway, so I'm used to adapting to rule changes - each Mod is almost like a completely new game, and thats what keeps it interesting!
I DO agree, though, that Conquests has major flaws which should be (or should have been
) corrected, notably those defined by Sir Pleb:
1) Invisible units triggering unintended wars
2) The problems with armies
3) Scientific Golden Age not working
4) Barbarians are broken
Though I would change the priorities: The useless Barbarians annoy me the most, and after that the problems with Armies.
These are not subjective but objective flaws, true bugs which should long since have been patched!
Of course, I would also agree that the AI should be able to at least competently use all features of a game (of course!), but I'm not holding my breath waiting for that to be fixed anytime soon...
I don't agree that Conquests is broken because of the new features. I have been playing it exclusively ever since it came out - I hardly ever play any other game than Civ nowadays, and haven't played Vanilla or PTW once since Conquests!
Conquests has changed the game, yes, and has given some new possible exploits of human vs. AI - but, OTH, it's fixed some old gripes and, on the whole, added more variety, which far outweighs that, IMO.
It's never been a problem to out'think' the AI - to me, it's a matter of personal choice how much you take advantage of that.
Yes, you CAN, for instance, build a huge bomber fleet and annihilate the AI with that exclusively - but to do that, you first have to survive through almost 3 full ages, ending up with enough production capacity to build all those expensive bombers. That is no small feat in itself on higher difficulty levels! And then, if you find that playing style boring - I would - why do it?
I personally try to avoid any 'extreme' styles of play, my goal is to build a well-rounded Civ that dominates the world, with both good infrastructure AND a strong military - and that is difficult enough at DemiGod on up that I will use every advantage I can get and 'take it as it comes'.
Civ Conquests is a great game with far more pro's than cons - especially since many of those subjective cons can be modified in the editor.
Edit: One of the best things about Conquests are the many enjoyable Mods that have been made possible by it! Most of those change the rules extensively anyway, so I'm used to adapting to rule changes - each Mod is almost like a completely new game, and thats what keeps it interesting!

I DO agree, though, that Conquests has major flaws which should be (or should have been

1) Invisible units triggering unintended wars
2) The problems with armies
3) Scientific Golden Age not working
4) Barbarians are broken
Though I would change the priorities: The useless Barbarians annoy me the most, and after that the problems with Armies.
These are not subjective but objective flaws, true bugs which should long since have been patched!
Of course, I would also agree that the AI should be able to at least competently use all features of a game (of course!), but I'm not holding my breath waiting for that to be fixed anytime soon...