Slax
Prince
If military leaders were not produced by military victories, then it would have broken that cyclical, self feeding growth in military strength (of C3C).
Have they killed the fun for warmongers
- Thread starter ThERat
- Start date
Harry Haller
Warlord
- Joined
- Oct 24, 2005
- Messages
- 123
Is it possible that you need to give it some more time? My initial feelings about the game were a lot like yours, but I have come to like and appreciate a lot more as I have finished more games.
Although I am not an "always war" player, I do enjoy a fair amount of combat in my games. I find the combat system much more enjoyable in civ IV than in previous versions. Once I got the hang of using cannons and artillery in combination with my other troop types, I rarely lose very many of them. I do lose a fair number of catapults, but they are cheap to build and they spare you the loss of your other units. I really like the combined arms approach to the game, from both the attacking and defending perspective. I think the designers did a good job of developing a system in which you will get the best results by combining seige, air (when available), and troops, and that you can't just take over the world with big artillery stacks. I also like the fact that your maintenance costs increase as the number of cities increases. So it's not enough to be able to not just run your armies over your opponents, but you also have to manage the cities that you have captured. I like this kind of balancing. I also really like the unit promotions and being able to specialize units for specific combat roles. I'm actually kind of surprised that anyone who wants to spend more time in warfare would prefer civ III to this game. Then there was the whole issue of war weariness and riots, which is managed much more intelligently in Civ IV, I think.
I do agree with you about the movement restrictions on galleys. It is a bummer to be sitting there on your own little continent and to have to wait so long to be able to cross even narrow gaps of ocean. I also did really like the armies concept in Civ III.
Although I am not an "always war" player, I do enjoy a fair amount of combat in my games. I find the combat system much more enjoyable in civ IV than in previous versions. Once I got the hang of using cannons and artillery in combination with my other troop types, I rarely lose very many of them. I do lose a fair number of catapults, but they are cheap to build and they spare you the loss of your other units. I really like the combined arms approach to the game, from both the attacking and defending perspective. I think the designers did a good job of developing a system in which you will get the best results by combining seige, air (when available), and troops, and that you can't just take over the world with big artillery stacks. I also like the fact that your maintenance costs increase as the number of cities increases. So it's not enough to be able to not just run your armies over your opponents, but you also have to manage the cities that you have captured. I like this kind of balancing. I also really like the unit promotions and being able to specialize units for specific combat roles. I'm actually kind of surprised that anyone who wants to spend more time in warfare would prefer civ III to this game. Then there was the whole issue of war weariness and riots, which is managed much more intelligently in Civ IV, I think.
I do agree with you about the movement restrictions on galleys. It is a bummer to be sitting there on your own little continent and to have to wait so long to be able to cross even narrow gaps of ocean. I also did really like the armies concept in Civ III.
Wodan
Deity
Slax said:
It's interesting to note that, while you can use "cultural" leaders (i.e., current incarnation of great people) for other purposes, you can also use great people increase your chance of getting more & faster great people. In many respects, this is the same self-feeding mechanism as the old leader concept.
One thing which I agreed with on Civ3 was how you couldn't get military leaders from victories produced by your armies.
Wodan
Some good thoughts, thERat. I agree with some and disagree with some.
1. Why were MGLs taken out? I can appreciate the addition of all the others. Heck, I can even understand taking out armies, as a key element. But why remove military great leaders? They are very true to history. And, balanced appropriately (which doesn't seem too hard), they would seem to add an additional aspect to the game.
2. Yep, the start is slow. That's fine. There are some interesting decisions to make, though, IMO. And I personally like the slower roads until a later tech. Having decisions to make when working tiles (do I irrigate the sugar now, knowing I'll want to build a plantation later -- or just wait?), windmill vs. mine, etc. helps shape your future empire. I like that, even though I don't really understand it yet.
3. Broken artillery removed. YAY! I was one of the pioneers of the 50:1 kill ratio and I'm glad it's gone. Yes, it was satisfying in its own way, but it led me to just greater and greater levels of exploitation. I like that war now has casualties and can't be done with one army for all time. It's a good change.
4. I'm still ambivalent on this one. I don't like the way they hide hps and other valuable information, though.
5. Fast end game? What? Just because I don't have rifles when a war begins and a few turns later I have infantry and a couple later tanks, that's bad? I agree. It's not balanced. The late game, after about Gunpowder, for me, is gone before I notice -- it's especially true for military, where knights are replaced by tanks in very few turns. I'm yet to build a cavalry, even with several war-heavy games. Industrial Age techs should be a fair bit more expensive, IMO. 2-turn techs ain't fun -- there's no anticipation and no feeling of accomplishment.
6. Diplo is a LOT harder for a warmonger, agreed. Shouldn't it be, though? I do wish friends were a bit less capricious and diplomacy isn't balanced in that the AI can come demand things from me that I would *NEVER* trade and then get mad, but I can't do the same to them. And there are others. I do think it's a game with rules that we can figure out and "play", but I think it swung way too far the other way from the Civ3 whores who would do anything for enough cash (or even promised cash). "Don't like me enough? OK, charge me double, or triple, but some trade should be available." And the Open Borders rule seems to be "Always with an AI; rarely with the human" and demand the human cancel open borders with everyone else at every opportunity (not that I can do the same). I think Diplo is still quite weak in Civ4.
7. Prebuilds -- good riddance. And with storing hammers now, you can even slip in quick builds and not lose everything. I like the way it's done. Yes, it means tech is more important for getting wonders. But no civ (even a deity AI) gets an unfair bonus on building wonders. A few can be snagged here and there. This they got almost perfect, IMO.
8. At the very least, Police State + Rushmore + Jail should completely eliminate war weariness. I would have also expected some other civics to potentially have impact on war weariness, like a jihad civic in religion or something else. Complete freedom from ww should only be possible with a fair number of other concessions, though, IMO. AW should be hard and I'd be pretty happy if it added 3 difficulty levels -- make Warlord AW the default level!
9. They have spies? Oh, yeah, I built one. Pretty useless, IMO. Of course, I thought the same thing about Civ3's espionage system, too, for the first year or so I had the game. Maybe the Civ4 version has something to it. Too early to tell, IMO.
In a larger sense, though, I agree that warmongery has been ... severely curtailed. I think they set out to do that as war was too strong a choice in Civ3 (where it was -- whatever the problem, it can be solved by declaring war, almost literally). The jury is out on whether they succeeded or not. I feel that went overboard and war (other than very late in the game) is mostly too weak. You can win, but it costs too much. OTOH, I've seen people suggesting war is the only way to win at the higher difficulty levels. <Shrug> Jury is still out, I guess. But very early victories are a thing of the past. And I do think that's good. It's just that the tech snowball is now significantly stronger (IMO) than the war snowball. (First to tech means free tech means new civic for faster teching for the next tech, etc.) Definitely a builder's game is my opinion of Civ4 so far. Which, to me, is kinda boring. ("Woohoo. I discovered Chemistry." just isn't the same as "Woohoo! I captured Rome!" to me.)
Add in complacent AIs (do they EVER declare war on anyone but the human? I've seen one instance in about 10 games) and the builder path appears to me to be pretty firmly entrenched as the "leading" path. But building can be a good game, too.
I'm still adopting a wait-and-see approach. In my mind, vanilla Civ3 was slightly tilted to the warmonger, PtW was, too, a bit more so. C3C was HEAVILY titled to the warmonger -- WAY too much so, IMO -- killed my interest in C3C fairly quickly, actually. Civ4 appears to me to be tilted to the builder -- too much so in my opinion. We'll see if that initial impression holds up.
Good to have a bit of rational discussion amongst the flames. Thanks for the thread (and for letting me vent a bit).
Arathorn
1. Why were MGLs taken out? I can appreciate the addition of all the others. Heck, I can even understand taking out armies, as a key element. But why remove military great leaders? They are very true to history. And, balanced appropriately (which doesn't seem too hard), they would seem to add an additional aspect to the game.
2. Yep, the start is slow. That's fine. There are some interesting decisions to make, though, IMO. And I personally like the slower roads until a later tech. Having decisions to make when working tiles (do I irrigate the sugar now, knowing I'll want to build a plantation later -- or just wait?), windmill vs. mine, etc. helps shape your future empire. I like that, even though I don't really understand it yet.
3. Broken artillery removed. YAY! I was one of the pioneers of the 50:1 kill ratio and I'm glad it's gone. Yes, it was satisfying in its own way, but it led me to just greater and greater levels of exploitation. I like that war now has casualties and can't be done with one army for all time. It's a good change.
4. I'm still ambivalent on this one. I don't like the way they hide hps and other valuable information, though.
5. Fast end game? What? Just because I don't have rifles when a war begins and a few turns later I have infantry and a couple later tanks, that's bad? I agree. It's not balanced. The late game, after about Gunpowder, for me, is gone before I notice -- it's especially true for military, where knights are replaced by tanks in very few turns. I'm yet to build a cavalry, even with several war-heavy games. Industrial Age techs should be a fair bit more expensive, IMO. 2-turn techs ain't fun -- there's no anticipation and no feeling of accomplishment.
6. Diplo is a LOT harder for a warmonger, agreed. Shouldn't it be, though? I do wish friends were a bit less capricious and diplomacy isn't balanced in that the AI can come demand things from me that I would *NEVER* trade and then get mad, but I can't do the same to them. And there are others. I do think it's a game with rules that we can figure out and "play", but I think it swung way too far the other way from the Civ3 whores who would do anything for enough cash (or even promised cash). "Don't like me enough? OK, charge me double, or triple, but some trade should be available." And the Open Borders rule seems to be "Always with an AI; rarely with the human" and demand the human cancel open borders with everyone else at every opportunity (not that I can do the same). I think Diplo is still quite weak in Civ4.
7. Prebuilds -- good riddance. And with storing hammers now, you can even slip in quick builds and not lose everything. I like the way it's done. Yes, it means tech is more important for getting wonders. But no civ (even a deity AI) gets an unfair bonus on building wonders. A few can be snagged here and there. This they got almost perfect, IMO.
8. At the very least, Police State + Rushmore + Jail should completely eliminate war weariness. I would have also expected some other civics to potentially have impact on war weariness, like a jihad civic in religion or something else. Complete freedom from ww should only be possible with a fair number of other concessions, though, IMO. AW should be hard and I'd be pretty happy if it added 3 difficulty levels -- make Warlord AW the default level!
9. They have spies? Oh, yeah, I built one. Pretty useless, IMO. Of course, I thought the same thing about Civ3's espionage system, too, for the first year or so I had the game. Maybe the Civ4 version has something to it. Too early to tell, IMO.
In a larger sense, though, I agree that warmongery has been ... severely curtailed. I think they set out to do that as war was too strong a choice in Civ3 (where it was -- whatever the problem, it can be solved by declaring war, almost literally). The jury is out on whether they succeeded or not. I feel that went overboard and war (other than very late in the game) is mostly too weak. You can win, but it costs too much. OTOH, I've seen people suggesting war is the only way to win at the higher difficulty levels. <Shrug> Jury is still out, I guess. But very early victories are a thing of the past. And I do think that's good. It's just that the tech snowball is now significantly stronger (IMO) than the war snowball. (First to tech means free tech means new civic for faster teching for the next tech, etc.) Definitely a builder's game is my opinion of Civ4 so far. Which, to me, is kinda boring. ("Woohoo. I discovered Chemistry." just isn't the same as "Woohoo! I captured Rome!" to me.)
Add in complacent AIs (do they EVER declare war on anyone but the human? I've seen one instance in about 10 games) and the builder path appears to me to be pretty firmly entrenched as the "leading" path. But building can be a good game, too.
I'm still adopting a wait-and-see approach. In my mind, vanilla Civ3 was slightly tilted to the warmonger, PtW was, too, a bit more so. C3C was HEAVILY titled to the warmonger -- WAY too much so, IMO -- killed my interest in C3C fairly quickly, actually. Civ4 appears to me to be tilted to the builder -- too much so in my opinion. We'll see if that initial impression holds up.
Good to have a bit of rational discussion amongst the flames. Thanks for the thread (and for letting me vent a bit).
Arathorn
dh_epic
Cold War Veteran
War is still very possible, and much more fun. Reconnaisance matters, and you have to choose which units you send wisely. Also, war is more than building a big stack and launching it at a city. You sometimes have to deviate, take down reinforcements, take out a valuable resource, or try to split you opponent's attention between cities. Never had to do that in Civ 3.
But if it's fun for you to build a few units and win the same way every time... then yes, the game is less fun.
Edit: At the end of the day, war is still the best strategy. It not only still gives you a significant advantage economically (eventually, once you manage to settle the maintainance costs), but it gives you the power to stop any opponent you want, take any wonder you want, and grab any religion you want. It just so happens that a small or peaceful civ can win if they are smart and manage to stay out of war.
But if it's fun for you to build a few units and win the same way every time... then yes, the game is less fun.
Edit: At the end of the day, war is still the best strategy. It not only still gives you a significant advantage economically (eventually, once you manage to settle the maintainance costs), but it gives you the power to stop any opponent you want, take any wonder you want, and grab any religion you want. It just so happens that a small or peaceful civ can win if they are smart and manage to stay out of war.
I like every element of 4 over 3. I particularly like the elimination of A/D. I love being able to attack pillaging horses with spears. It makes the game much more versatile, and it means you can use your defensive pieces, instead of just letting them sit there.
I don't miss armies. I always thought they were kind of bulky and unnatural. A stack of troops functions more like an army now, anyway.
I like 2-move workers and settlers. They make the early game much more enjoyable, and it plays faster, not slower.
I do agree attacking towns is much harder now. I have absolutely no problem with that. I used to build a stack of Gals and run wild. It's sort of fun, but also predictable. There are other ways. It's just a matter of adjusting.
I don't miss armies. I always thought they were kind of bulky and unnatural. A stack of troops functions more like an army now, anyway.
I like 2-move workers and settlers. They make the early game much more enjoyable, and it plays faster, not slower.
I do agree attacking towns is much harder now. I have absolutely no problem with that. I used to build a stack of Gals and run wild. It's sort of fun, but also predictable. There are other ways. It's just a matter of adjusting.
Slax
Prince
Arathorn said:
The patch thread mentions tweaks to the AI. Maybe this will mean some additional AI on AI action.
Volstag
Chairman of the Bored
I'm on the fence. In Civ III, warfare and conquest was almost too easy. With the correct forces you could blitz an entire civ in a matter of turns. It really was the silver bullet for almost any losing situation. Whenever I was in dire straights in Civ III (score/tech wise), I'd just rough someone up, or stir-up a world war, etc. I find conquest in Civ IV to be more "realistic", and a lot more costly... but I'd be lying if I said I didn't miss the utter carnage of Civ III.
Paladin1410
Chieftain
- Joined
- Oct 19, 2005
- Messages
- 8
About the whole issue of multiple religions being useless to a warmonger I'd just like to say ??? Religion === Happiness === WW counter? With all seven religions in a city I can build seven temples = 7 happy faces + 2-3 cathedrals (one pr. 4 temples) = 2-3 happy faces + 7 happy faces for free religion (1 pr. religion in city) === 16-17 happy faces? Quite a lot of WW countered right there... Did I miss something here?
Volstag
Chairman of the Bored
ThERat said:
But, at the same time, any luxury will effectively reduce war weariness. Conquering towns with happiness resources in the vicinity might help alleviate some of this problem. There's also jails, but they aren't available 'til later in the game.
Perhaps the only feature that I have noticed that has been surface recognizable in terms of improvement is the combat system (still needs work, IMO), and in as much as it curtails that prepubescent notion of 'wargame' with 'the stack of doom' doomed concept, I'm happy.
ZubieMaster
Warlord
- Joined
- Mar 11, 2004
- Messages
- 102
The Last Conformist said:
I'm trying a game with increased AI aggression switched on to try to get used to this new combat, and I find the movement changes to be making a huge difference. 1-move units in Civ III could still quickly reinforce a town 3 tiles away. In Civ IV I'm spacing cities 4-5 tiles apart due to maintenance costs, so that's 2-3 turns to reinforce. So I have to maintain a large garrison in each border town to guard against sneak attack. At the same time I am fighting an all-out war on the other side of my fledling empire, and to advance you need like twice as many units than defenders to capture a city. Unit costs are thru the roof, so I keep having to turn down research. I will be lurking big-time in AW SGs to see how the good players are going to do it.
Arathorn said:
Ditto. Seems like the way to successful war now is build up your infra then attack late in the game with a tech lead, tanks v. rifles or something. To me that's just not as satisfying as a good game-long slug-fest where you earn it in tough spots against better troops. I would have rather the AI get better at using units (such as arty) than turn warmongering's success into "I built more temples than the AI".
dh_epic
Cold War Veteran
ZubieMaster said:
My experience is 100% different. The earlier you can have a successful war, the easier it is to achieve domination. My best conquest started with horse archers and ended with cavalry. A more challenging conquest started with cho-ko-nus and knights, continued with cavalry, and ended with a grueling battle between air fighters and SAM infantry.
I've played games where I end up with a tech advantage by the gunpowder era, but there's simply not enough time to do a proper conquest at that point, unless it's a smaller map. You might be able to take out one or even two civilizations, but you'll ultimately run out of time.
Still, I've found that what's true of Civ 3 is still true now: the best strategy is a mixed one. Use war to expand your territory and take out your competition. then sit back and win the space race, on the strength of your economy.
ThERat
Deity
Some nice thoughts here, thanks for the posts. It's interesting to read the different opinions. Yet, I get a feeling that those who do enjoy those parts I enjoyed about Civ3, have somewhat similar thoughts on Civ4.
And I agree with Arathorns conclusion a lot (very nice post btw )
Especially your thoughts about the AI behaviour. They tend to sit back and gang up against you, never fighting each other. (This is sort of reminiscent of Civ2, isn't it?) They also demand a lot of things that are not so sensical and then get mad if you refuse.
I am glad WW was brought up and at least know, how to reduce it by 75% (rushmore and police state).
In Arathorns duelling deity, they let those phants pillage their land though their units could easily take them out. Weak!!!
And I agree with Arathorns conclusion a lot (very nice post btw
)Especially your thoughts about the AI behaviour. They tend to sit back and gang up against you, never fighting each other. (This is sort of reminiscent of Civ2, isn't it?) They also demand a lot of things that are not so sensical and then get mad if you refuse.
I am glad WW was brought up and at least know, how to reduce it by 75% (rushmore and police state).
This is what I meant with slow movement. One on hand the system forces you to space cities further apart, but unit movement has become much slower. Quick response to a sneak attack is tough and I don't want to fill cities with many units. That's exaclty what the AI does. What I find rather sad, is that the AI won't even attack you if you start pillaging all their land. They shoudl throw all their units at you.ZubieMaster said:
In Arathorns duelling deity, they let those phants pillage their land though their units could easily take them out. Weak!!!
ZubieMaster
Warlord
- Joined
- Mar 11, 2004
- Messages
- 102
dh_epic said:
I think this is kind of what is taking away from the warmonger fun. In Civ III you didn't have to "settle" for a space race win at the end after warmongering your way through, you could continue to battle to a win. I wanted to march on in my previous game but by the time I took my continent there were less than 100 turns left, no chance I could have built up a navy, airforce, and enough units in time to take AI cities with 15 defenders just sitting there in each.
That actually brings up another source of frustration, it seems the AI only tries to deny warmongering wins. The Civ IV AI is great at defending its cities against conquest, but if it's losing the tech or culture race, it doesn't do anything. It should switch to warmonger mode when it sees the space race is a lost cause or something!
Anyway, the point is I did exactly what you said, and for me it takes away a lot of the fun to just "sit back" to a space race win. Of course there is the ability to turn off that win condition or modding, but I think this thread is talking about the game as is, and to that I agree they have killed a lot of the fun so far. BUT there's still a lot to explore about this game and a new patch coming, maybe I feel completely different a month from now!
doggiedaddy
Chieftain
- Joined
- Oct 26, 2005
- Messages
- 64
Wow. As far as warmongering goes, I find that I'm much more willing to go to war now. In Civ III I got my butt kicked constantly. In IV, I have learned how to wage a decent war, and the other rulers are a bit more reasonable when negotiating peace.
As for the original posters other points, I find these are what make the game work. The catapults and artillery are wonderfully revised. I'm very happy with them. This game was designed very well. (aside from the tech problems)
'nuff said.
As for the original posters other points, I find these are what make the game work. The catapults and artillery are wonderfully revised. I'm very happy with them. This game was designed very well. (aside from the tech problems)
'nuff said.
microbe
Cascaded Mansion
- Joined
- Nov 16, 2003
- Messages
- 4,596
thERat, very nice thoughts. Although I haven't thoroughly played the game, I agree with most of them.
1. Leaders: MGL should be retained. I am not that fond of those great people. At first when I heard about them I thought they were also generated randomly (e.g., upon completing a wonder, etc), but it turned out they were quite predictable, which is kind of boring. On the other hand specialists have been greatly strengthened in this game, which is OK but adds a lot more micromanagement (CIV4 Lie #1: less micromanagement).
By the way I read somewhere that Firaxis is comparing CIV3 and CIV4 by saying CIV4 has more great people than CIV3. This is completely idiotic.
2. Game speed
The (intentional) slow expansion feels a bit like RaR. I can't say which one is better, so I'm mostly neutral. I think this might be good to humans at higher level - we all remember how fast deity/Sid AI expands in C3C.
On religions: I think this part is too unbalanced. The early game is all about founding religions, and the middle game is all about spreading them. Religion is overpowered.
3. Fighting the enemy
I think this change is OK at lower levels, but not sure at higher levels. We all know pretty much the best way to win deity is through military, and I don't know how to do that for CIV4. Maybe someday people will find a way. At this point, it does seem to make the game more difficult.
I love promotions though, at least on a superficial level.
4. Units
Me too miss attack/defense. A single strength is kinda more confusing. You'd have to look at other stats (bonus, etc) to decide whether this is an attacking or defending unit.
5. Late game
No comment on this one as I haven't played a late game yet. But it's always weak anyway.
6. Diplomacy
Yes, I think the No.2 lie of CIV4 is "better diplomacy". There are some improvements (like more consistent, or shall we say, sticky, AI attitude), but I think the trading part is greatly weakened. I love the tech brokering in CIV3. Resources are also weakened in CIV4.
7. Prebuilds
I miss that too. No prebuilds causes more micromanagement.
8. Civics
I love the concept. It's an improvement from government.
9. Spies
Mostly useless. Fewer options than CIV3.
At last, my opinion might change through time. Once I get my new computer I'll play more of it and see. At this point, I don't think CIV4 is as good as some people are claiming it is. There are quite some controversial changes.
I believe that many of those changes were implemented to favor the (incompetent) AI. For example, we know AI doesn't handle wars very well, and by making it more difficult for the HUMAN player, it makes the AI more competitive. This kind of thing can be seen everywhere in CIV4 (e.g., no prebuilds, etc).
1. Leaders: MGL should be retained. I am not that fond of those great people. At first when I heard about them I thought they were also generated randomly (e.g., upon completing a wonder, etc), but it turned out they were quite predictable, which is kind of boring. On the other hand specialists have been greatly strengthened in this game, which is OK but adds a lot more micromanagement (CIV4 Lie #1: less micromanagement).
By the way I read somewhere that Firaxis is comparing CIV3 and CIV4 by saying CIV4 has more great people than CIV3. This is completely idiotic.
2. Game speed
The (intentional) slow expansion feels a bit like RaR. I can't say which one is better, so I'm mostly neutral. I think this might be good to humans at higher level - we all remember how fast deity/Sid AI expands in C3C.
On religions: I think this part is too unbalanced. The early game is all about founding religions, and the middle game is all about spreading them. Religion is overpowered.
3. Fighting the enemy
I think this change is OK at lower levels, but not sure at higher levels. We all know pretty much the best way to win deity is through military, and I don't know how to do that for CIV4. Maybe someday people will find a way. At this point, it does seem to make the game more difficult.
I love promotions though, at least on a superficial level.
4. Units
Me too miss attack/defense. A single strength is kinda more confusing. You'd have to look at other stats (bonus, etc) to decide whether this is an attacking or defending unit.
5. Late game
No comment on this one as I haven't played a late game yet. But it's always weak anyway.
6. Diplomacy
Yes, I think the No.2 lie of CIV4 is "better diplomacy". There are some improvements (like more consistent, or shall we say, sticky, AI attitude), but I think the trading part is greatly weakened. I love the tech brokering in CIV3. Resources are also weakened in CIV4.
7. Prebuilds
I miss that too. No prebuilds causes more micromanagement.
8. Civics
I love the concept. It's an improvement from government.
9. Spies
Mostly useless. Fewer options than CIV3.
At last, my opinion might change through time. Once I get my new computer I'll play more of it and see. At this point, I don't think CIV4 is as good as some people are claiming it is. There are quite some controversial changes.
I believe that many of those changes were implemented to favor the (incompetent) AI. For example, we know AI doesn't handle wars very well, and by making it more difficult for the HUMAN player, it makes the AI more competitive. This kind of thing can be seen everywhere in CIV4 (e.g., no prebuilds, etc).
dh_epic
Cold War Veteran
ZubieMaster said:
I think we're in agreement that conquesting halfway and then settling for a space race victory is kind of lame. But that happened in Civ 3 all the time. In that respect, the game hasn't fallen backwards. It's still the ideal strategy, and the easiest strategy.
They didn't create the "conquest, then sit back" strategy: this strategy has been there since day one. What they did do was kill the easy domination victory.
Civ still has some ways to go, but there's no doubt that this is better than Civ 3. Here's the choice:
1. "conquest then sit back" is the best strategy, and conquest is a huge snowball effect
2. "conquest then sit back" is the best strategy, but conquest is a slight snowball effect if you can outlast the maintainance
I'll always take #2. But I can't help but think that there's something better than both of them. Maybe that will have to wait for Civ 5.
