MeteorPunch said:
My gripe is with the all the penalties given to aggressive civs, the combat system itself, the crap diplomacy, the defensive bonuses, no WW relief until the endgame, huge city/distance maintenence, almost ignored naval/air presense, no artillary bombardment, lack of important military units, cannons coming too late on the tech tree, AI's that hide in their cities, Axemen, markets too late in tech tree (to fund wars), every AI plays the same - goes for Space victory, the slowness of war (hurry up catapults, you're laggin'!), ship transport capacity is too low, newly captured cities flipping to neutral civs...etc. Could go on and on really.
The penalties given to aggressive civs are to counter the rewards for aggression. I find aggression a valid choice in most circumstances, but not always the best course of action. Which is what makes for strategy rather than repetition.
No idea what you mean by "the combat system itself". You'll have to be more specific. Unless you're saying the entire combat system, in which case Civilization (as a series) is not what you're looking for.
Same with diplomacy. Obviously whatever part(s) of diplomacy you don't like (ie. call crap) you have a gripe with, but that's hardly useful information as it's completely nebulous unless you dislike everything about diplomacy... same "Civ as a series is not what you're looking for" in that case.
Defensive bonuses are to help balance building and warfare. There are times when you can still overcome the defensive bonuses, times when you can't or shouldn't. Again, that's what makes for strategy rather than repetition.
There are plenty of ways to address WW even early in the game. WW can be mitigated by how you fight. Poor tactics will lead to more WW than necessary. WW can be negated totally by making peace. WW's effects can be addressed by the Culture slider, city improvements, garrisons, resources, and civics. The Pyramids allows for Police State from very early on in the game.
City/distance maintenance can be huge if you don't plan your empire or conquests very well. They can be minimal if you want to avoid them as much as possible. Somewhere in the spectrum is the "ideal" expansion rate, which will vary from game to game, and even from playstyle to playstyle.
I have no idea how you can say airpower is almost ignored. It's "game over" when used right against someone who can't counter it, and it's the only really effective counter for itself. Naval power is map dependant. On some maps it's the definitive factor in warfare. Others it's mostly irrellevent.
Artillery bombardment is abstracted further in CIV than it was in Civ III and not quite so abstracted as it was in Civ II. It's still there though, just abstracted to avoid huge problems the AI had with it. (And still a touch overpowered IMO.)
What do you mean by lack of important military units? I find most military units important in various contexts.
Cannons can be beelined to, and are rather useful when doing so. Catapults are still useful up to Cannons even if you take your time.
AIs do tend to hide in their cities too much. It makes them tougher to roll, but more likely to eventually beat. The overall effect is that beating all the AI is tougher, because most won't crack easily. On higher difficulties the AI are much more likely to have the "spare" units to send out though, so be careful...
Axemen are a problem? I don't think I've seen that thread yet. Please explain.
Markets can be reached pretty quickly if you put your mind to it. Ancient wars won't have them, but you don't need them if you are playing well at that point. Intelligent use of Cottages and cash from captures should suffice. Later wars will have plenty of Market potential. (Though I don't think they are necessary, as you can fund "deficit" research for a long time if you're doing well in conquests and/or religion.)
The AI are generally better at Spaceship than any other victory condition. They don't so much "go for it" as they are limited to it as something they can compete with. That's just because they aren't that good, especially in relation to themselves. If you look at competitions like the GOTM, usually the players struggling to just win always won by Spaceship/Diplomatic. Domination means you've dominated... Conquest means you've completely dominated. Culture takes a dedicated and not as obvious approach. The AI just isn't good enough to dominate itself, which makes sense. Since Diplomatic victory is actually much more difficult in CIV, and Culture is now even less obvious, that leaves Spaceship as the chance for the "weak". If you want to see more variation, I'd suggest setting a mix of AI difficulties at start.
I've already addressed the "slowness" issue. You can go fast, you'll take more loses though.
Ship capacity is too low? And you said that navy can be ignored. That seems contradictory. You need more ships, which means navy is more important.
I have never had a city I captured flip to a third party. I can't tell you what the problem is, because you've offered no specifics, but flipping can be avoided.
I'll admit, in real life an all-out war effort will ultimately drag a nation to the dirt. However this is a game, and the designers have tried to kill the most fun (imo) way of playing civ.
The designers tried to balance gameplay so that building, warmongering, and various combinations can all be effective. I have no trouble effectively waging war still, Civ III style rushes included. It's just not far and away more effective than building peacefully anymore.
If you find that unfun, you can easily imbalance gameplay by editing the XML.
If someone honestly thinks it's more fun to just build city improvements and defend their borders (much how the AI plays...), great - this game is perfect for you.
That is a poor assessment of what effective gameplay in CIV is. You're advocating playing
like the AI...
) Deity is tough, but doable at least some of the time.
