CIV 4 - "Where's the Beef?" a Meat and Potatoes take on the game

[yendorII]

OK but how many microcosms must there be before the base system is flawed because if I can name one and I am not all that knowledgable then I guarantee that a dozen people on this board could name a hundred more EACH. My point agian is what makes your system so good that you would have it imposed on the rest of us who play the game instead of just modding it for yourself, the one who actually wants it.

 

[stuntpope]

Jeez,

The first game of civ 4 I played. I declared war on an enemy thinking that it would play like civ 3 and the first thing he did was to cut off my copper supply so I couldn't build any more axemen. I've learnt that lesson now and won't suffer the same fate again.

That's as good a supply rule as I would want for a game on this scale. And an impressive AI response to my attack considering the past.

As for the pace, I haven't tried epic yet but even on normal, where it plays a bit faster than previous civs, you get periods where you're using every tech available and others wher things rush by. Civ was always like this. Play one game where all the action is neolithic and the next where it's all medieval.

Personally, I love what they've done with this game.

 

[zeeter]

Okay I am no military historian and in fact havent heard of Friedrich Paulus however I do know some civil war history. Shermans march to the sea was very succesfull. Sherman was able to go through the south right in the middle of the harvest and therefore there was plenty of food sitting in (silos? did they have silos then? sorry I know its stupid to those who know.) He made his march all the way to the atlantic like he said he would much to the suprise of many people. As far as I know(which granted isnt all that much compared to some of the peps on this board) Shermans army suffered no lasting effects from going without his supply train.

I agree with your point, yendor, however my limited civil war knowledge leads me to the following conclusions. Sherman's march was towards the end of the war. He was fighting against whatever remnants of the confederacy that were left. While he was "occupying" the south, there wasn't a whole lot of structure down there, so it's not like they had to worry about a bunch of fanatical rioters or anything like that.

As stated, my civil war knowledge is limited. In fact, it's based solely on Gone With The Wind, Cold Mountain, and a few things my Uncle has told me. So if I'm wrong please keep the flames at a constructive level.

 

[Nuh Uh]

Good god. First of all, your example is not in breach of said rule. Secondly, I didn't make the rule up. Its the standard rule of most all war games. The halving the strength logic being, the unit is now faced with 2 opponents - survival against the enemy and survival against the elements. Its like being surrounded. Its not difficult. This isn't rocket-science. But, if I want to split hairs with ANY game rule, I can. Again, such game rules are mathematical expressions of ratio based upon basic, averaged, logical suppositions of circumstance.

 

[Nuh Uh]

Stuntrope - that's not a SUPPLY RULE. That's a PRODUCTION RULE. Please people, I enjoy DEBATE and DISCUSSION - if its relevant. You like it - that's great. All of us wargamers think the game, as it stands now, sucks (that doesn't mean we don't like it or think it has great potential), and with very well defined clear points (as noted). Afterall, I wouldn't want to make anyone THINK for the love of MIKE, and so THATS WHY SUPPLY SHOULD BE AN ADVANCED OPTION. You have a problem with an ADVANCED OPTION you don't have to use? Crikey.

 

[zeeter]

You know what I want? Facing. I think I should get a +25% against a unit that is facing the wrong way. That would be easy to program, now that the game is 3D. And if that unit is faced the wrong way AND out of supply I'd get a hella advantage.

There should also be modifiers to the supply thing. If I'm the Romans and attacking the English and the land that my unit is on is in English territory, but the culture of that land is only around 52 percent English and 48% Roman I should suffer much less of a supply penalty, as 48% of the people there are on my side and would be trying to feed my army.

Also - why is there no weather in the game? I should be able to move my carriers into a sea square that is covered by clouds so as not to be seen. I should be able to start an attack against a superior neighbor during bad weather so that he can't use his airpower against me. A neighbor entering my territory should suffer attrition during winter months. Maybe the game could change seasons with every turn. One turn - spring - muddy and tanks don't work real well. Summer - normal. Fall - muddy again. Winter - Attrition.

 

[yendorII]

Ok All of us wargamers think the game, as it stands now, sucks.



Reeeeaaaaallllllyyyyyyy????? Where are all of these wargamers? I'll repeat myself.

but dont try and make grand pronouncments that come off as being the majority opinion when you have no basis for the belief that it may be.

Where are all these people who agree with you, my problem is that I dont see any. If I thought that a majority of civvers were in favor of this I would shut up but you have been going on and on like God himself is backing you and I have seen no evidence of anyone agreeing with you. Perhaps there is another thread where these mystery gamers are hidden? If so please link to it for me.

 

[yendorII]

zeeter its a decent idea about weather except the shortest turn increment in the game(exluding a scenario or custom created game) are one year. The assumption is is that in that one year period you probably attacked in spring and summer and camped in fall and winter.

 

[zeeter]

zeeter its a decent idea about weather except the shortest turn increment in the game(exluding a scenario or custom created game) are one year. The assumption is is that in that one year period you probably attacked in spring and summer and camped in fall and winter.

ok...I was being sarcastic.....

 

[Nuh Uh]

You know what I want? Facing. I think I should get a +25% against a unit that is facing the wrong way. That would be easy to program, now that the game is 3D. And if that unit is faced the wrong way AND out of supply I'd get a hella advantage.

There should also be modifiers to the supply thing. If I'm the Romans and attacking the English and the land that my unit is on is in English territory, but the culture of that land is only around 52 percent English and 48% Roman I should suffer much less of a supply penalty, as 48% of the people there are on my side and would be trying to feed my army.

Also - why is there no weather in the game? I should be able to move my carriers into a sea square that is covered by clouds so as not to be seen. I should be able to start an attack against a superior neighbor during bad weather so that he can't use his airpower against me. A neighbor entering my territory should suffer attrition during winter months. Maybe the game could change seasons with every turn. One turn - spring - muddy and tanks don't work real well. Summer - normal. Fall - muddy again. Winter - Attrition.

Well, assuming you are serious, its a matter of scale. This is not a RT game, obviously, but 'surrounding the enemy' is possible. You can't have an enemy "facing the wrong way" when it (the enemy) covers miles of land.

About foreign cities. If you 'capture' a city, that city would feed your army.

About weather, you could have averaged weather effects and weather as per latitude. For example an especially wintery year, and northern arctic weather as the average when HIGH in the northern latitudes. Yes - I agree.

 

[yendorII]

oh LOL sorry, my mistake I'm not real good with sarcasm. LOL

 

[Nuh Uh]

Zeeter - trust me - the wargamers think it sucks. And, just because you play it and like it and don't know what I'm talking about, it doesn't mean the game can't be improved. Nor does it mean that YOU are a Civer any less than I am for playing the game. So are you going to be like a fly here - you just wanting to be annoying and argumentative for some strange reason?

 

[yendorII]

I am not trying to claim that my opinion is worth more than yours I am just trying to say that yours isnt necessarily worth more than mine. Also I am trying to figure out where you get your info as most of the people who have posted in this thread have disagreed with you on this issue.

BTW its Yendor not Vendor or even Zeeter lol.

 

[zeeter]

oh LOL sorry, my mistake I'm not real good with sarcasm. LOL

Actually, though, it would be kind of neat to have every turn be a different season. I realize the year thing and four seasons and all, but still. We suspend belief over the whole spearman vs. tank thing - why not follow a belief that every four years is winter?

 

[Ravinhood]

Well thanks for the 'beer and pretzel' logic, Sir Winky, who believes he speaks for 'the majority'. Can you say, obtuse?

Sure Vendor, but I don't know what the point is. The army didn't die, but it was surely encumbered.

And you go on and on like a pompus fool. Nobody here is agreeing with you. There haven't been any significant threads of the past about your silly niche supply rules. Yes, I'd say that's pretty majority there, we don't give a rats patunia for your supply rules. Now, why don't you runalong and go play something else. It's not going to happen and it's not going to change in the Civilization game.
That obtuse enough for yah? I win, you lose. next opponent!

Oh and your first Gaff: [All of us wargamers think the game, as it stands now, sucks ] What you proposed made me obtuse, you yourself have fallen into the same catagory with that statement by using the word "all". I win, you lose, next opponent!

 

[yendorII]

LOL it would be kinda annoying though to stop you attack on a civ ever four turns dont you think? Especially with as hard as it is to attack in cIV now anyways.

 

[zeeter]

Zeeter - trust me - the wargamers think it sucks. And, just because you play it and like it and don't know what I'm talking about, it doesn't mean the game can't be improved. Nor does it mean that YOU are a Civer any less than I am for playing the game. So are you going to be like a fly here - you just wanting to be annoying and argumentative for some strange reason?

It seems that the only people here who are annoying and argumentive are those who disagree with your views. If you're going to be insulting people and name calling, then expect people to be the same way back. I started this conversation with you hours ago, and tried it as a civil conversation. However every person to whom you've replied that hasn't agreed with you has been ridiculed by you.

 

[Nuh Uh]

Actually, though, it would be kind of neat to have every turn be a different season. I realize the year thing and four seasons and all, but still. We suspend belief over the whole spearman vs. tank thing - why not follow a belief that every four years is winter?

That makes sense.

 

[zeeter]

LOL it would be kinda annoying though to stop you attack on a civ ever four turns dont you think? Especially with as hard as it is to attack in cIV now anyways.

Yeah, it would definitely disrupt the flow of the game.

 

[Nuh Uh]

How old are you? Do you read what I post? Either you are immature and just like to annoy people (me), or you aren't familiar with dialectical and critical thinking. There is very little if ANY room for "OPINIONS". So either way, you are just wasting space on this thread, and I really don't appreciate it very much. Why don't you stop it? Or is my first thought correct? Don't worry about what I think about you or what others who may read this thread think about you (or me), because NOTHING that I'm writing about has anything to do with personal opinion.