I don't understand how you can combine a) favouring Civ2 over the other games and b) claiming that Civ4 has too many units to choose from. Don't you see a contradiction there? Where are the Alpines, AEGIS, Cruise Missiles, Crusaders, Dragoons, Fanatics, Partisans, Paratroopers, Diplomats, or Caravans in Civ4? I honestly don't see your point.
the difference is alpines, aegis, Cruise Missiles, Crusaders, Fanatics, Partisans, Paratroopers, Diplomats and Caravans each do something that no other unit can do. in civ 4 i had to choose between a good 20 different units or so in the pre-gun powder era (I have warlords expansion too), and they all did the same thing, except for cavalry units that had the 2 movement.
Personally, I disliked the Civ3 artillery system a lot. It made the game too easy. There was little challenge left once you figured out how to use artillery efficiently. Of course, if you liked it that way, then Civ4 artillery won't be your cup of tea.
really? what difficulty did you play civ 3 on?
If that was the modus operandi of Firaxis / Sid Meier, then Civ2 (the game that you prefer) wouldn't ever have been designed the way it was- There ws nothing wrong with the top-down display of Civ1, why change it? There was nothing wrong with the way wonders were announced, why change it into playing movies? There was nothing wrong with attacks from sea being difficult, why introduce marines?
Personally, I'm glad that Firaxis tries to improve even those aspects of the game that are *not* broken.
the only change was in the way the display looked, there was no change in how the map worked, all they did was to doll it up and im all for it.
the wonders being announced? again very superficial change.
Let me put it this way ... if 2 days of playing were enough for you to determine that you can never enjoy this game, then it's probably better to just sell it and return to the games you know.
I think you've fallen into the "It's not the same as the game I love" trap and aren't able to climb out. In this situation, it might actually be better to just give up and return to the games you know. Or perhaps shelf it for the time being and return when you're a bit more open-minded with regards to changes.
you think? thank you for the advice.
Well, so I guess games like chess and Go shouldn't have been made then? Actually, the same is true for Civ1. The amount of new things to learn in Civ1 was *far* greater than for any other game of the seires, provided you already knew Civ1. Civ1 required a *lot* of time to get it right. It just had a really lousy AI, so that players could play the game without understanding it well, and still beat the higher difficulty levels. If Firaxis followed your supposed standards, then Civ1 should have never been made.
Btw, on which difficulty level did you play Civ4?
chess, really easy to learn how to play, not comparable with civ 4 (chess, 7 types of units, no terrain, no production i could go on, civ 4 around 80 types of units). as they say, it takes a few minutes to learn but a life time to master. you cant say the same thing for CIV4. which was my point to begin with actually.
go, never played it. if civ1 is really easy, and my "supposed standards" is not to over complicate games, then how do you exactly come to the conclusion that "then Civ1 should have never been made" exactly?
never mind, dont really wanna know.
Personally, I appreciate the complexity of Civ4. I've played this game for months now and there are still things that I have never done, and still strategies that I have yet to learn (specialist exonomy for example). This is what keeps the game fresh. I wouldn't *want* it dumbed down to a level of simplicity that I can grasp the whole game on the first two days. Such a game would become boring pretty fast. Civ4 hasn't become boring for me yet, because of its complexity.
But as I said, complexity isn't everyone's cup of tea. It doesn't seem to be yours, so you're probably actually better off playing other games.
im not saying they should "dumb it down" as you put it, it dosent really take a genius to study all the different kinds of new units and city/terrain improvements, dose it? it just takes someone with more time than i have.
Im sure with this many units, there are many of them nobody ever uses (besides maybe building 1 or 2 of each just for the heck of it)
which difficulty level, I think prince or something, one of the easier ones, I wanted mostly to check the game out and learn it properly first.
I killed 2 neighbouring civs before i stopped playing, I think I had just discovered whatever it is that enables the making of grenadiers.
I have obviously stirred up all kinds of emotions with this thread, but hey its just a game fellas. go easy on the thinly veiled "youre a dumbass cause you dont like the game i like" insults.
I know many of you didnt go that route, Im talking to the ones that did. or were done talking.
instead of the measly +1. Maybe then it will be worth building. But honestly I am considering just removing it and changing the value of Stonehenge to something a bit more useful.
