Discussion in 'Civ4 - General Discussions' started by alvan, Oct 4, 2007.
Meh, MP, who needs it? I like to try winning in all sorts of ways. MP is too war filled.
^^ it's actually really fun if you get a game going with some people you know in RL... and less war-like I'm sure.
ah, good point. unfortunate that none of my RL friends play civ! boo!
I voted "Learn to Play."
Have I ever lost units to animals? Sure, plenty of times, it happens. Is it ever a big deal? Nope, because I plan accordingly. If players want to spend hammers building things that can't kill animals, then that's the player's problem as opposed to an actual game issue.
However, a check box never hurt anyone so if this was made into an option, players who refused to adapt to animals could simply handicap the AI even more so it wouldn't be so hard for them.
I'm kind of on the fence, because I like animals making the early game more interesting and fun, but they do get annoying every now and then.
How about giving scouts a chance of withdrawal like some cavalry units? They should be adept at using their surrounding terrain anyway. Unless I'm remembering wrong and withdrawal chances don't do anything when you are defending...
Well, I can see arguments from both sides... certainly early settlers had it hard at the hands of mother nature. Whole legions were known to disappear into dense forests and never be heard from again. Perhaps mosquitos and tsetse flies make more realistic mass-killers?
Never, this is a great board and everyone is welcome and respected.
Now beat it, kid!
I like the early game play with animals. I don't think it would be the same game without them. I think we can all remember the cities we lost to the loan barb, lol
I liked the idea of changing them to inflict collateral damage and retreat. Sort of like siege units.
I'd give scouts a 25% chance for defensive withdrawl.
They wouldnt represent a serious menace vs military units tho.
They'd be really BIG mosquitoes and tsetse flies. The graphics would be fun.
I think the game needs giant squids.
yes but that would mean that you just need to train a couple warriors and send them "grind" (ala MMORPG) animals.
What would be the point of having them attack militry units ? Once a warrior is at 50% he's basically immune, may as well make them only attack lone civilian units or simply remove the animals altogether.
Or maybe I didnt get the point, in this case please explain, thx ahead.
The point would be that you would have to have military units, because the animals would otherwise just eat unescorted settlers.
Animals are really just placeholders until Barbs show up.
As for them being "grind" animals, that's fine. Change it so that an animal doesn't spawn if an animal is already within a 3 tile radius or something.
For other thoughts, I'd suggest to review the whole thread. That's what I was replying to, anyway. Old posts.
I like Wodan's collateral damage style of using animals, but since there is no real chance of losing the early scout units, experience points shouldn't really be given out since there's no real danger.
Hmm, no XP would cause people to complain. Wrecks everybody's "medic scout" plans.
Bears are clearly ridiculous, but the animals really do give a sense that the world is alive in the early game. I tried a few games with barbs off and hated it, outside of my borders everything seemed dead and barren. I modded all of the animals down to strength 1 movement 1, so that my warriors can stand up to them but I am still deterred from sending out unprotected settlers/workers and I'm happy with that compromise.
I think settlers and workers should have a defense strength 1 with no bonuses. Then they at least have a small chance of surviving an animal attack. Come on, even a lowly worker could pick up a rock and throw it at a wolf, which might or might not work.
Separate names with a comma.