Civilization 4: The Best Strategy Game?

[Soniku]

I say: Definately.

Really it's not any single part that does it for me but the way all of them are put together... and I don't even mind the whole spearmen beating tanks thing.

I mean, what happens when the tank drivers stop for a lunch break? Those evil spears sneak up and turn them to shish kebab, thats what And there are always mechanical problems with tanks. Even if it is really a little mistake or unwanted thing, I like to think the way spears can still sometimes have a tiny chance of beating tanks is for realism

 

[zarakand]

Out of curiosity what was the book?

 

[bassist2119]

If I were alot smarter, I'd probably like MOO3 better than Civ4.

 

[catchsomezzz]

Jagged Alliance 2 does it for me. It has all the great elements of a great strategy game... plus personality!

Once in a while, I still load it up to play, and it's the only game that can claim that spot for me. The newest mod v1.13 just released earlier this month is just icing on the cake.

Civ4 would be a very close second. Time will tell if Civ4 will also be a game I load up from time to time, years from now, just for nostalgia's sake.

 

[Warspite2]

I say CIV4 is the best, but don't forget about GalCiv2, that game is the ONLY game which gives it a run for its money.

 

[Xenocrates]

Someone said Civ 3 is better! He's a heretic; burn him

Does anyone remember the UFO series? That was a gem.

Recently Rome TW is great; I used it is my English classes to teach vocab such as the present simple. The students love it.

I think Civ 4 is the best though, all in.

 

[Gigi Duru]

Out of curiosity what was the book?

It is "The ant revolution" by Bernard Werber (a French SF novelist, I don't know whether he is known abroad).

The idea was that the guy kept losing because he always focused mainly on one aspect and neglected others, thus always had (at least) one weakness. Quite metaphoric for the book (and a little exagerated, once he lost by plague which cannot actually happen, though it existed in Civ I), but a good point anyway.

Finally the game helped the guy to look and find a weakness of the opponents he was facing in real life... but I won't say any more because the author wrote it better than me anyway.

 

[Wodan]

I say CIV4 is the best, but don't forget about GalCiv2, that game is the ONLY game which gives it a run for its money.

I bought GalCiv2 based on recommendations of folks on here, and either something bizarre in my settings or something. The AI just did stupid stuff. Even after cranking up the skill level. Basically, I beelined to better ships. Then, I send a couple over and parked in orbit of an enemy planet. Then, blow away ships as they appear. The AI either wouldn't research better ship weapons or else wouldn't properly upgrade his ship types.

It would be like... an AI continuing to build Warriors all game, while you're sitting outside his capitol with an axeman (except the axeman can't capture the city, like gunboats). You just wipe out the warriors all day and leisurely go about building new cities, settling the world, and researching, until you build an assault force to finally conquer his capitol.

Any idea what I was doing wrong?

Wodan

 

[Codeman]

as i only play civ i can not answer to other games. i will however say if there is a bettter game i can not play it. i have a hard enough time keeping my civ time from taking over real life. if i had a better game than this civ my wife would probably leave me, and i would get fired from my job.

civ 3 is a classic to me. as far as i'm concerned it was the best of it's day and the creators improved on that for civ4. i loaded civ3 a couple weeks ago and was bored. i missed the depth of civ4. i still think civ3 is a great game, but prefer civ4.

i also enjoy chess, when i find someone who is willing to play that is. sore losers...

 

[carl corey]

I don't want to hijack the thread, so we can take this to private messages if you want more info, Codeman. I'm in a similar situation with you at chess where I'm pretty much stronger than any of my friends, since I'm the only one dedicating some time to actually learning chess so it's not really a "fair fight". Actually there are two that are about the same strength as me but we don't live in the same city anymore. :sigh: So I've started playing online correspondence chess. Different from over-the-board chess, but still lots of fun and a good way to learn new things. If you're interested I could point you to some sites.

 

[Drakan]

The best strategy game of all time for me still remains SMAC. The deep immersive storyline is so compelling. The graphics in comparison to Civ IV are very crude but the strategy is far superior IMHO. Even almost ten years after its release you can still devise and implement new strategies. That I think is the best compliment one can give to a Strategy Game. One can easily check at Ebay the crazy prices this game is selling for (the expansion pack: Alien Crossfire).

Rome: Total War is an excellent game but the AI is seriously lacking. Hopefully Medieval II: Total War will polish this up as well as beefing up the Turn Based campaign. I'm eagerly awaiting for its release in November.

Also Civ III Conquests will remain high in my book.

Civ IV has just something that bores me after playing two hours. And I still believe the graphics are childish and far too big.

 

[DvD-IT]

there's the pure tactical gold that was Z: Steel Soldiers.

I'm surpised someone actually KNOWS that game. Anyway, I think Z was much better than Z2. Steel Soldiers lost the simplicity (3D is also a factor) and maybe the humour, and the originality of Z (though many referred at it as a C&C clone). Or maybe it's just because I was younger and Z looked like magic to me, back to those days. Today it's still great to play some IPX games.

On-topic, I tend to prefer turn-based strategy games lately. Yet I still enjoy the atmosphere of the great classics, like M.A.X (surely one of the best turn-based, warfare oriented strategy game) and the Command & Conquer serie. I think Red Alert 2 was the best of them all.

Dunno how to answer to the topic question. If an objective answer of 'what's the best strategy game' means a strategy game that encompasses every aspect, every kind of flavour, every point of view, every management-style of past, present and future, and depict all of them in the easiest way, yet keeping the deepness and the coherence of all of them together, well duh. cIV is the one who gets closest to perfection.

As for a subjective opinion - my vote goes to Command & Conquer - Tiberian Dawn, no doubt.

 

[carl corey]

Ah, sorry, I totally got mixed up. Yeah, I liked Z, not Z2: Steel Soldiers. I tried a Z2 demo but found it to be very different. In a bad way. I'll go back and edit that post.

 

[Warspite2]

I bought GalCiv2 based on recommendations of folks on here, and either something bizarre in my settings or something. The AI just did stupid stuff. Even after cranking up the skill level. Basically, I beelined to better ships. Then, I send a couple over and parked in orbit of an enemy planet. Then, blow away ships as they appear. The AI either wouldn't research better ship weapons or else wouldn't properly upgrade his ship types.

It would be like... an AI continuing to build Warriors all game, while you're sitting outside his capitol with an axeman (except the axeman can't capture the city, like gunboats). You just wipe out the warriors all day and leisurely go about building new cities, settling the world, and researching, until you build an assault force to finally conquer his capitol.

Any idea what I was doing wrong?

Wodan

Try downloading the latest patch which is v1.3

 

[DaviddesJ]

There is no doubt that is is, and will remain for some time, Starcraft.

He said strategy game. Not clicking fast game.

 

[carl corey]

He said strategy game. Not clicking fast game.

You'd be surprised how much strategy goes in it if you look past the fast clicking.

Have you ever played a 3 vs 3 multiplayer? An early rush can actually lose the war if the target resists long enough and the other players start taking your team out one man at a time. They actually have to take only one out, as they probably have the better economy anyway. And you may click as fast as you want, but without some coordination between teammates you'll just end up with the largest number of units produced, killed AND lost. And still lose the game. Oh, and use the keyboard. It helps scale down the need for clicking(speed).

 

[Wodan]

Try downloading the latest patch which is v1.3

I will, thanks.

Wodan

 

[DaviddesJ]

You'd be surprised how much strategy goes in it if you look past the fast clicking.

How can you look past it? It's the essence of the game. You could, obviously, design a real-time game that is played much more slowly, so that the speed of reaction and order-giving is not so critical. One might even say that Civ4 is an example of that sort of game (although it certainly does have other flaws as an MP game). But it's not an accident that Starcraft is not like that. The designers chose to emphasize speed and pressure, rather than strategy. There are many things in the game that are have no strategic element---there's no question of what one wants to do, the only question is how fast one can do it. If you were really designing a strategy game, you would take all of those out.

Requiring the game to be played super-fast doesn't eliminate strategy. But it makes it a whole lot less important than in a real "strategy game".

One could equally call Diablo 2 a "strategy game". It certainly does require a lot of planning and coordination. But having a strategy element doesn't make the game a strategy game.

I don't think Starcraft sucks. It's very good for what it is. It's just not a strategy game.

 

[Wodan]

You'd be surprised how much strategy goes in it if you look past the fast clicking.

Have you ever played a 3 vs 3 multiplayer? An early rush can actually lose the war if the target resists long enough and the other players start taking your team out one man at a time. They actually have to take only one out, as they probably have the better economy anyway. And you may click as fast as you want, but without some coordination between teammates you'll just end up with the largest number of units produced, killed AND lost. And still lose the game. Oh, and use the keyboard. It helps scale down the need for clicking(speed).

I enjoyed Starcraft tremendously, especially MP.

What it came down to, for me, was two things:

1) MP play boiled down to a very tight script of exactly what do to. Build X, do Y, collect underpants, profit. You knew exactly what to do and when. They attempted to enhance alternate strategies and did a pretty good job, but all that did was add other options to the "playbook". Each option had its own script, and some scripts were clearly and obviously better than others. Thing was, these "scripts" weren't written down or anything, but the killer players knew exactly what they were. Civ4 suffers from this a bit (e.g., the good & experienced players know exactly the steps to achieve a CS slingshot), but is aided by the considerable uncertainty factors of resources, terrain, wonders being unique, random civ, and leaders (which Starcraft doesn't even have). Also, Civ4 adds in rock/paper/scissors dynamics in regard to what units kill what units, which Starcraft didn't do a very good job of at all.

2) MP weenies kill online play. They drop if they're about to lose, just so their rating doesn't suffer. And, they backstab just for kicks, plus to boost their rating. I've met 8yr olds with more maturity. (Not that everyone online is this way, by far, but the bad apples really ruin the whole experience. You remember that one game out of the dozen enjoyable ones.)

Wodan

 

[carl corey]

DaviddesJ, I don't think you can really compare Diablo to Starcraft in terms of strategy. In Diablo ones you start fighting there's little thinking to do. In Starcraft just massing troops without a clear plan may mean instant defeat. There are choke points to be considered on maps. Drops can break even the hardest defenses. Fake attacks to draw out defenders, sneak attacks - especially against "workers" -, rushes, etc. They all mean different strategical & tactical choices.

Wodan, I'm not sure there's a "script" to follow especially in the 2 vs 2 or 3 vs 3 games, where the combination of arms can really make a difference. It's just too complex for the same thing to work every time. I'm not even convinced you need more "uncertainty factors" to make it more complex. I mean, in chess you have the same armies, you even see what the other person does, and there's still a lot of strategy going around. Maybe it's even better to have more "equal" starts, it allows a fairer competition, don't you think? Nothing like starting with 2 gold and one ivory in your fat cross in Civ to win the game from the start, eh?

About differences between the players' armies: how does it get more different than having completely unique units?! Protoss and Terran are way more different than Gandhi and Toku. You might have a more limited number of options than in Civ, but the differences are more marked in my opinion, especially when you combine arms.

As for online backstabbers, yeah, that sucks. I was lucky enough to play with friends of mine most of the time, so I had no such problems.