Civ 4 Rants Thread

[Lone Wolf]

The Civ-world didn´t look any longer properly to me. Civ 4 (and later Civ 5) presents the world like a view on a toilet-brush.

It's not a toilet-brush, it's a perspective view on a flat table The terrain itself isn't actually curved.

I do prefer the Civ3 aesthetics, though.

Strangely enough, I like what the FFH art team did with Civ4.

Anyway, while SoD's were first coined in Civ3, the suicide catapults failed to prevent them.

 

[ork75]

I personally prefer CiV over CIV. I enjoy both games, and just recently installed CIV on my new computer, but many of the mechanics of CiV G&K appeal to me more than those of BtS, especially around combat.
Just recently I was having a lot of fun with C2C and RFC, and also at the same time a CiV game with max civs on the Europe map.
My major complaint with CIV has to be the leader/civ selection and differentiation. While RFC improves on this with the Unique Powers, the traits just feel repetitive and make it seem like the only differences between various leaders are through UUs and UBs.
Also, I think that the more dynamic AI of CiV is superior to the somewhat static AI and personalities of CIV leaders and civs.

 

[calibur]

I've never played V so I can't accurately fight any of your comments directly regarding that, but
try playing, unrestricted leaders, same map, same civ, same opponents as toku (agg/pro) and then as Hammurabi (agg/org) or Wang Kon (fin/pro) and see how different the game is, simply due to that one trait being changed.

 

[ork75]

I guess, but it is still far more similar than changing a civ in CiV G&K. I really enjoy the variety.

 

[gps]

Also, I think that the more dynamic AI of CiV is superior to the somewhat static AI and personalities of CIV leaders and civs.

Really? Here's what Jon Shafer says about his own Civ V AI:

They were all crazy, and in the exact same way. In the months after the game was released I modified their behavior to be more predictable, but it was too late to completely change course. The biggest takeaway from this is that the only thing which matters in a game is the experience inside the player's head. It doesn't matter what your intentions are or what's going on under the hood if the end result just isn't fun.

...

Another problem with my AI was the randomness, which is something I've already talked about at length. The computer opponents were weighted towards a variety of possibilities, with a healthy serving of RNG (random number generator) on the side. This meant they floated from one "strategy" to another without any real cohesion behind those decisions. This approach is nice in theory, but if you want a strong AI there are times when you need to force it to behave in very specific manner.

http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/jonshafer/jon-shafers-at-the-gates/posts/404789

 

[calibur]

lol

"Out of everything related to diplomacy, leader requests are probably ATG's "sexiest" bullet point."

It seems he has learned from his mistakes, and his successes

 

[Jim Crow]

Maybe the thing with piling 400 tanks upon eachother could make for a good way to achieve space race victory, "stairway to heaven"

I'm a Civ III player btw, tried IV once but it was to modern for me

 

[Funky]

I'm a Civ III player btw, tried IV once but it was to modern for me

Try again now, it's eight years old meanwhile.

 

[GKey]

I cannot recall odds at 100% in any Civ game ! :O just 99.9% ...

I had it several times since we talk.

Spoiler :

Guess, why this one is worth of posting here?

Spoiler :

 

[Pangaea]

Bloody hell though, that would have pissed me off to no end.

 

[GKey]

Nah, I actually like this.

Would be nice if someone could explain the math behind this.

Let's say that was actually 99.95 not 100%, means chance to lose this was 5/10000.
How did we get such number? Losing actual fight means losing 10 rounds, what's probability to lose each round?

 

[PieceOfMind]

Warrior needed 3 hits to be killed.
Therefore it would win if it took 0, 1 or 2 hits only.
For the warrior to win, the axeman needs to take 10 hits

Probability that warrior wins each round = 100%-79.0% (reading from ACO info) = 21.0%
so let p = 0.21

So Prob(warrior wins) = Pr(0 hits) + Pr(1 hit) + Pr(2 hits)
= (10,0) * (1-p)^0 * p^10 + (10,1) * (1-p)^1 * p^10 + (10,2) * (1-p)^2 * p^10

(where (a,b) denotes the combinatoric function a choose b)

= p^10 * (1 * 1 + 10 * 0.79 + 45 * 0.79^2)
= 0.21^10 * (36.9845)
= 0.000006169 = 1 in 162000
Or in other words the odds were 99.9994% and you lost.

Hope I got all the maths right.

 

[mrt309]

Civ IV is so addictive that i can't do anything else although i have many things to do. I keep playing even if i am hungry or thirsty. When someone asks me if i have a bad habit, i say yes i play civ IV. This is my biggest rant.

 

[Pangaea]

Or in other words the odds were 99.9994% and you lost.

I've started calling it the Random Middle-finger Generator. I think it's more accurate

 

[GKey]

Time to fill lottery, I guess.

 

[Odin2006]

Warrior needed 3 hits to be killed.
Therefore it would win if it took 0, 1 or 2 hits only.
For the warrior to win, the axeman needs to take 10 hits

Probability that warrior wins each round = 100%-79.0% (reading from ACO info) = 21.0%
so let p = 0.21

So Prob(warrior wins) = Pr(0 hits) + Pr(1 hit) + Pr(2 hits)
= (10,0) * (1-p)^0 * p^10 + (10,1) * (1-p)^1 * p^10 + (10,2) * (1-p)^2 * p^10

(where (a,b) denotes the combinatoric function a choose b)

= p^10 * (1 * 1 + 10 * 0.79 + 45 * 0.79^2)
= 0.21^10 * (36.9845)
= 0.000006169 = 1 in 162000
Or in other words the odds were 99.9994% and you lost.

Hope I got all the maths right.

*Insert Civ2 references to Phalanxes beating battleships...*

 

[Lemon Merchant]

The only rant that I can think of at the moment is catapults.

You can bombard a city forever without taking any damage to your cats, but as soon as you attack with them, they become suicidal.

 

[cvaldivia93]

Okay, so I finally registered on this awesome site tonight as I just want a sanity check. Was playing a pretty good Civ IV game at the moderate difficulty (me and AI supposedly evenly matched). I had a decent points lead, and finally launched my ship fully loaded. The only competition was the Mali, who had two legendary cities with a third climbing, but not dangerous enough to be worried about. So RIGHT AFTER I LAUNCH, that third city suddenly got about a 5,000 point culture jump. Now, lest you think it was just, say, him getting a Great Artist or something, his other legendary cities also got a jump. The top one suddenly was at about 75,000 points, whereas it was at about 62,000 before I launched. Has this ever happened to anyone else before? I ended up having to declare war on him (and asking the other AIs to join me), but I ended up losing by 2 turns. ARGGGHHHH!!! I was feeling so good about things, and then all was dashed. Can anyone else out there feel my pain?!

 

[Iranon]

Feel good that the game was close and exciting to the end?
I find narrowly losing more fun than riding a won game home.

If it makes you feel better... play on and take/raze the legendary cities anyway. The nominal winner had its five minutes, not so pretty now!

 

[calibur]

Perhaps he channeled commerce into culture?