I managed to found at last why Civ 2 is the best

[Naokaukodem]

Not only Civ2 is better than Civ4, but it is also better than Civ3.

Why?

That's what I tried to figure out, failing to do so. But I think that now, I have the answer.

First, I have the nostalgy of Civ2. Not only I like its sounds and graphics, (icons), but this is not the same game. While we could think that Civ3 or 4 are just Civ2 version better, I'm saying it is wrong, because it is not the same game at all.

To begin, beside the technical aspects of civ2 making it appropriate to the game, like the units being simple icons, the map generator was very different. It allowed to create very different worlds. We felt the diversity and the potential of the world. The fact is that the scale of the map was bigger and the continents/islands were bigger. (they were more undifferencied as well, for a better diverstity of maps) Plus, the AIs were less close from us and less agressive. It allowed us to develop better. That's all the story of Civ2: we were more free to develop our civ, for a better experience "I start from nothing to reach step by step the level of a living empire". Finally, the land was more fertile, or we could terraform it in a better way, making terraforming a stronger point. Bref, starting possibities were just better balanced, in fact at a quasi perfection. That was just making Civ2 a totally different and better experience as it was, just by the starting conditions.

Now a point I already debated in this forum, being about the frontiers. The world of Civ2 felt a lot more "wide open", free of exploration, without them. The cities one was implenting were determinating the frontier, and it was perfect as it was. We could even dispute a crop square with the AI, putting units on them without declaring war. The overall feeling of this was that we were in a savage land ready to be explored + conquered/pillaged. It was fun. Civ3 and 4 frontiers put too much limit to the player aspirations, the more when the two systems allow pretty the same things. The only thing we could not do with Civ2, is that one could not explicitely forbid the access of one territory to an AI. But it was not a need to impose frontiers to everybody, it would have been just necessary to implement the recognition of one cultivated squares as being one's property by the AI. With a good city squaring, the result would have been pretty the same.

Last but not least, the difficulty. It is just plain ridiculous to have so much difficulty to conquer a single city. The simple fact to have a superior technology, at a T time, even short, should suffice to conquer easily some cities. Not for the sake of it, but for the sake of this feeling described above: feeling of freedom and freedom of action. One is not obliged to conquer a city, but do as so only if has the power to do it and the COURAGE to do it.
About the AI being agressive: as well, it seems stupid to have to anticipate at this point the behavior of the AI. It is not the normal unfolding of a friendly playing game as Civ(2). You should not need to play a game, being beaten at this point, and begin over a random number of times. Everything should be progressive, as in a good old Nintendo game. Peace, folks. I'm disappointed how the complaints of some random big and/or well mouthed dorks influenced the game developpers at this point. They totally screwed up the things and blew away the real interest of the game.

Don't fool yourselves - I'm not addressing this post to those "Civ Dorks". I'm addressing it directly to the developpers, who have better than anybody else the capacity to understand it.

Civ4 may be a good game for you, but it was simply not the kind of experience I was expecting. I'm talking here not of a type of game, but a true experience: an overall feeling that does not discriminate any object.

This is this experience I would have wanted to live with Civ4, no matter how. "qu'importe le flacon, pourvu qu'on ait l'ivresse" (no matter the bottle, provided one have the 'intoxication') But it was far from being the case.

 

[Raloth]

I was just about to post this exact same thing!

To be fair, Civ IV is a great game. It's just not the game I wanted it to be. I remember playing my first game of Civilization I way way back when I was only 6 or 7 years old when I found it sitting on a shelf at home. My mom warned me that it was very complicated, but I didn't care. I had absolutely no idea what I was doing. On my first game, easiest difficulty, I was overrun by catapults. But it was a blast! There was this feeling of mystery about it that I loved. The first Emperor game (the highest difficulty at the time) my mom and I tried, we encountered the German-tank-in-3000 B.C. bug. It was awesome.

Civ II came and was even better. After playing Civ IV I have my own theories about why it was better. I do agree with you -- it offered more possibilities. My mom is in her room playing it right now, and she frequently survives on deity without declaring a single war! More emphasis was played on civilization and not warfare.

I was also a huge fan of Alpha Centauri. The customizable units were a great idea, and it's nice to see some of that coming back in Civ IV's unit promotions. AC also had a feeling of mystery. I remember my first Transcendence victory...when I didn't even know such a thing existed. It was very, very cool. So too was the terrain elevation system and the way in which it would affect nearby tiles, and I'm surprised they haven't added this to the main franchise yet.

Then Civ III came. Something just didn't feel quite right. Sure, it was a good game, but it wasn't the game I loved. Civ IV seems more of an advancement of Civ III, and it's really hard to say why it's not the same. So many things were done right. Cultural borders are the greatest thing to have happened to this game. Banishment of the silly 6/12 population caps without aquaducts/sewers for the health system is equally great. The AI is smarter and shows it too. What has changed?

A few things. The biggest for me: the graphics. Strange, I know. I do not like the Civ III graphics. I do not like the Civ IV graphics. I have a fairly beefy computer, but it's so discouraging when such things as moving a unit or watching a battle slow to a crawl. IMO, Alpha Centauri was the perfect blend of quality and speed. However, despite this, one frustrating, inexcusable annoyance plagues my experience. I should not have to wait a second after moving one unit to move another. The snappiness of Civ II is gone. When a unit is moved, there is a noticable delay before it goes to the next one or brings up the 'End of Turn' display. This has nothing to do with the speed of my computer. Yeah, it's OCD, but it really turns me off that I can't quickly tap left three times in a row and have my ship actually move three squares like I could previously. It's also frustrating to have so much eye candy on my screen that I can't even tell what improvement is on a tile.

Some other things. The game no longer feels as complex, although some of that is probably my browsing of the boards. It's no fun to know the exact equations behind trade and commerce! More significantly, it's no fun that to get the most of your cities you should know the equations behind trade and commerce. I'm leading a civilization, not a mathematical equation. But speaking of math, it's very disappointing the game still uses 1.5 for diagonal distances instead of 1.414. That simple change would make distance more intuitive and help remove some of the formula problems.

Maybe it's a bit soon, but here are some things I'd like to see in a Civ V:
-A remodeled AI. Civ IV has the best AI yet, but it's boring. It's too susceptible to early rushes. Equally boring is that on higher difficulty it requires early rushes. Make the AI go after other victory conditions than a space victory.
-Remodel the way military units are constructed. Take a nod from RTS games. A city builds buildings, and in turn buildings build units. Units should take much longer to build. However, a city can devote its normal building resources to dramatically speed up unit production. This lets us have our cake and eat it to. If you want to war-monger, great -- go nuts! Peaceful builders like me would be able to get our ten size 30 cities with every structure and still mount an effective fighting force, although not that of the war-monger.
-Return the old settler mechanic. I much preferred it when my settlers also improved terrain. It might not be as realistic, but it was much more fun.
-Return the wonder to wonders. In my opinion, Civ IV actually has too many wonders. This is probably part of the reason why they got rid of the ability to suddenly change projects and keep all of your 'shields'. Wonders right now are a dime a dozen to the point that I don't even care about building them.
-Bring me back the snappy response to my game. Tone down the graphics (or perhaps have a separate toned down version that is equally stylistic) to allow this. Style these days does a lot more than quality.
-Give me back the tiny tiles of Civ II. This is mostly a graphics thing, but it helps the gameplay.
-Put in the elevation system from Alpha Centauri. It was just plain cool.
-I want my palace back! It never offered anything for the gameplay, and I usually ended up turning it off, but it was fun for the minimal amount of work it was. This was one of those things that helped add to the mysteriousness of Civ I.

Civ IV is sooo close to being something amazing, but it's been led astray from the original philosophy. I do not think Warlords will solve the problem, but it may help. I want to play a Civilization, not a war machine.

 

[Sub]

I feel the same way. I can't quite figure out why, but I could never get into Civilization III and especially Civilization IV.

I think one of the things that puts me off about Civ IV is that it's rediculously hard to conquer the world.

 

[JustAnotherUser]

I just wanted to say...

Me, too.

 

[armchairknight]

While I don't share your opinion, I think this well illustrates the fallacy of the widely held belief that newer is always better. Progress/change isn't always a positive experience.

Sub, how many people have ever conquered the world? Can you really say it's 'rediculously' difficult?

 

[T.A JONES]

The two long posts are both on point in my opinion, from a Civ3 standpoint heres where we differ and agree

My mom is in her room playing it right now, and she frequently survives on deity without declaring a single war! More emphasis was played on civilization and not warfare.

The auto pilot feel is what you just mentined. Your just not drawn ( in many ways) into the action.I bet this was a crippler to loyal stratigists and expierenced (older)players. Basicly the guys who were used to really being in the drivers seat, one wrong turn or touch of the mouse wheel and you got blood soaked hands. I could orca straight mass alliences or be the victim of their wrath. Hundreds of different units everywhere dropping payloads of casulities all around. Its enjoyable to watch all the death caused on your watch by a few simple yes or no's, or nothing at all. Civ4's black'n out AI vs AI blood baths did little to please me ether.

Civ IV seems more of an advancement of Civ III, and it's really hard to say why it's not the same. So many things were done right. Cultural borders are the greatest thing to have happened to this game.

the culture borders that was started in Civ3 I guess your saying you like the closed border style. I though a entirly different approach was needed . Mybe punishing tresspassers with unit confiscation or Embassy fines placed on Civs for release and negotions of units under certain diplomatic relationships. They could have stopped the AI from tresspassing Why put up imaginary wall. I don't think it was so groundbreaking anyway. If your going to cheat and exploit a RoP your rep gets hammered in Civ3. Thats not enough for me to kick ass legitly but I can see it being to light in muliplayer Hmmm I guess that was there reason.

A few things. The biggest for me: the graphics. Strange, I know. I do not like the Civ III graphics. I do not like the Civ IV graphics. I have a fairly beefy computer, but it's so discouraging when such things as moving a unit or watching a battle slow to a crawl.
I should not have to wait a second after moving one unit to move another. The snappiness of Civ II is gone. When a unit is moved, there is a noticable delay before it goes to the next one or brings up the 'End of Turn' display. This has nothing to do with the speed of my computer. Yeah, it's OCD, but it really turns me off that I can't quickly tap left three times in a row and have my ship actually move three squares like I could previously. It's also frustrating to have so much eye candy on my screen that I can't even tell what improvement is on a tile.

This snappyness is so key to a epic long strategy game I can't believe your the first person Ive seen to comment on this. Im playin with fat stacks right now. but still I get a little delay between each hit of the key and movement of the unit.!!! Civ3 has this memory rapid tap you speak of. Its essential not having to wait that split second every freakin move. It drove me crazy. Ive never played Civ2 but I can't see how Civ2 could have been any faster then 3, still I agree so much with the overall point you bring up.

Comparing the graphics, if you prefer Civ2 to 3 then thats cool, there both the same faster engine. They power a streamlined, no heavy gloss or gimmicks ride.
Its funny the extras that took away a lot from old strategyboard layout ended up taking out the responsivness to, another element in contageus gameplay.

All you got a do is look at games like checkers and chess do they have to be exotic or in fancy details to make someone concentrate more on his opponent? Its fast action and indepth strategy played out on a simple looking board. Whats so special about a computer for this aproach not to work? You don't have to drown a cool concept with eyecandy just cause you can.

Who needs bannanas falling from trees neatly into a basket to know they are in the bannana biz?. If you havn't played Civ2 or 3 you don't no what those trees swaying in the breeze are really costing you.
How can wait times for moving each piece make a better strategy game?

They went out to make a better game in the wrong way, a completly new game,like that monoply rip off the game of life by MB, it was fun to, when I liked overdone gameboards and little gimmicks to play with . Most people prefer the simple monoply board approach and ideas over the other time wasting crap.
Civ4 is a entirly different game then Civ3 and Civ2. I believe 2 and 3 designed such excellant startegy pinnicles. Im not surprised a sequel that dropped so many of these original aspects of the winning strategy would be left with a entirly differant game all together. One thats not anywhere near the same game these previous fans had enjoyed.

btw About the AI in Civ4, its been crippled in trade and surrender(big parts of game) also many other depts, Civ3 is better in many ways. I heard Civ2 was not even comparable to ether. I ran out breath( room) but one only has to read a few threads here to find out other AI weakness.

 

[covok48]

Ahhh these arguements again. I hear them in defense Civ 2 and 3 (but especially 2) often. When you boil them down to the real reasons why they liked previous versions of civ you'll find the following reasons:

1) I can't infinate city sleaze anymore! I actually have to think before I polp down/ capture my 1XXth city.

2) There are no more AI loopholes anymore that I can exploit for tons of gold/ research/ military units & victories in order to rack up my civ score to 300 million billion!?

3) What, the AI players are only half-retarted (instead of fully ******ed like they were in Civ 2/3) and are not easily overwhelmed by painfully predictable human strategies that win every time their tried at any level? Aww man this game is too hard!

I can't wait till the 5th, 6th, and 7th installment come out 10-15 years from now and people have to recall the good 'ole days of Civ IV.

 

[Raloth]

Ahhh these arguements again. I hear them in defense Civ 2 and 3 (but especially 2) often. When you boil them down to the real reasons why they liked previous versions of civ you'll find the following reasons:

1) I can't infinate city sleaze anymore! I actually have to think before I polp down/ capture my 1XXth city.

2) There are no more AI loopholes anymore that I can exploit for tons of gold/ research/ military units & victories in order to rack up my civ score to 300 million billion!?

3) What, the AI players are only half-retarted (instead of fully ******ed like they were in Civ 2/3) and are not easily overwhelmed by painfully predictable human strategies that win every time their tried at any level? Aww man this game is too hard!

I can't wait till the 5th, 6th, and 7th installment come out 10-15 years from now and people have to recall the good 'ole days of Civ IV.

That's not what I'm arguing at all. Personally, I hated infinite city sprawl. I much prefer the styel of IV in that regard. I also like the direction the AI has gone, but it hasn't gone enough. What I miss is that nostalgic feel Civ II gave that I had even after I had owned it only for a few weeks. It just had that 'pop' that the new iterations miss by a tiny little bit.

 

[vilemerchant]

It was a great game but there were just too many exploits for it to stack up today. The late game involved wars entirely waged with howitzers ramaging around your enemies territory on railway tracks. Don't want to get counter-attacked? Park stealth bombers on your stacks and if the enemy doesn't have stealth themselves your howitzers are now invincible. Your enemy would waste probably half it's hammers (or shields! on these ridiculous fleets of ships only to suicide them into your cities with coastal fortresses.

Don't get me wrong, i LOVE civ 2, it is the single greatest value for money purchase of my life, but can anyone really honestly say they'd prefer to play it over civ 4?

 

[covok48]

Well I can definately see where you're coming from Raloth. I feel the same way about Civ I. However, IV has duplicated that feeling instead of lessened it. Civ II just had way too many exploits.

 

[T.A JONES]

Ahhh these arguements again. I hear them in defense Civ 2 and 3 (but especially 2) often. When you boil them down to the real reasons why they liked previous versions of civ you'll find the following reasons:

I should mention upfront I am not a typical Civ3 player. The modding in Civ3 puts most arguments aside, any thing you can complain about (in regards to important aspects) I can show you someone who agrees and implimented ala mod in conquests.

1) I can't infinate city sleaze anymore! I actually have to think before I polp down/ capture my 1XXth city.

city sleaze I like that, but I don't no what you mean. For me a city is just an expanse of territory and another chip on the table in the overall scheme of things. Why do you put me down for wanting to conrol more chips? Is your way of managing a empire with ten citys so much better. Civ3 has ways to mange vast stacks of chips Excuse me for knowing how to mulitask

2) There are no more AI loopholes anymore that I can exploit for tons of gold/ research/ military units & victories in order to rack up my civ score to 300 million billion!?

Whats all this about points? Is that how were suppose to win? how do they help me culture when a Civ has 80 citys pumping out tons of the crap plus units, how are points going to help me kill all of those suckers. espicially when they ally against me.

3) What, the AI players are only half-retarted (instead of fully ******ed like they were in Civ 2/3) and are not easily overwhelmed by painfully predictable human strategies that win every time their tried at any level? Aww man this game is too hard!

A mad rush works well in both games only you can't keep all your gains in Civ4
Still they never did any good on a early blitz in Civ3 anyway, majorly pissed and no production when freshly conquered.

I can't wait till the 5th, 6th, and 7th installment come out 10-15 years from now and people have to recall the good 'ole days of Civ IV.

Hell no I can't wait for Civ5 cause I know they'l learn from all the mistakes in Civ4. Im hoping they'll go back to what put them on the map.a real full blown strategy not a fuzzy lil tour of history from behind the glass.

 

[zeise]

I totally agree with many points raised here, in fact you've just convinced me to re-install civ 3, maybe 2, and play again. i like the fact that you think before you place a city. but i'd like to think about the fact that im building and Empire not a country the size of Scotland. Face it, even if you take the Cities to be an entire area, Scotland(where i live), has more cities, more regions and certainly hundreds more towns. civ IV feels more like a small scale skirmish. r

Neaither did i ever use the same tactic, such as the aforementioned howitzer (rarely used at all to be honest). I liked to build a nice balanced realistic army. But in civ IV my armies tend to always be to similar, and easy to take a city(which can now be devatasting) just take enough artillery. Recently i had a game where i sent 6 Longbows, 2 axemen and a bunch of catapults to take a city with 6 Infantry, and some SAMs. Arillery is too good no.

But anyway, i'm just going prattle on some more so ill end it here and grumble to myself about the good ol' days. Hope this don't sound to Negative.

 

[Naokaukodem]

I never did "ICS" or even AI loopholes exploit. I just never thought it was usefull. And it was not in Civ2. Maybe it could be fun. I don't have anything against it. (except that it is boring to do)

The fact is that some "community" just couldn't stand it, among a variety of things, like territory exploring by the AI, and other MINOR stuff. That triggered MAJOR changes in the game design. This is a pity that the developpers took attention to the bad persons. "Communities" can be evil.

As to the snappyness, I fairly agree: this is an important part of the playability, and of the feeling too: you have to see your empire growing smoothly, that's a part of the adrenaline.

About the difficulty, again I say it changes the overall feeling of the game. But most importantly, it mistakes the legitimate player who is not aware of the agressivity of the AI, and does not want to be, as the AI is just 'stupid' anyway, what gives a "game of AI" (unfun) rather than an experience. (blowing)

 

[armchairknight]

Dissatisfied with Civ IV, but hanging out at the Civ IV forum? Seems odd. Instead of complaining in a forum of a game you're not liking, how about rejoicing in a forum of a game you actually like?

 

[T.A JONES]

Dissatisfied with Civ IV, but hanging out at the Civ IV forum? Seems odd. Instead of complaining in a forum of a game you're not liking, how about rejoicing in a forum of a game you actually like?

Here we go I love this stuff No sooner have a few valid opinions hit the fan you'l get the posts basicly inflicting whatever sarcasm, taunts you name it they can.Civ3 appreciation can't be put down and held in one forum. It seeps into this place everytime one trys to maim its name. Why do you care so much? Its a thread were people can voice their opinions you got something to add do it but don't subject your one sided philosophy over on this thread Theres plenty of others for you to dilute

 

[Sisiutil]

Sorry to disagree, but I think Civ IV is far superior to Civ II, even though I loved II and played it addictively for nearly a decade.

The biggest improvement is definitely the AI. Yes, the Civ IV AI still pulls some boneheaded maneuvers, but it's not nearly as easy to exploit as the Civ II AI.

Case in point: load up Civ II. Take a unit, move it to a mountain somewhere roughly between you and and AI civ, and fortify it there. Declare war. Watch the AI civ go nuts and suicide a good portion of its army trying to dislodge that one unit.

Now try this in Civ IV--you'll have to use a forested hill instead. The AI Civ will waltz right by that unit, rightly ignoring it, and come straight at you.

Civ II had other problems that, while I regularly exploited them, I am glad are gone or toned down in Civ IV. Battleships were ridiculously overpowered, as were tanks and howitzers. Terraforming was cool, but probably the most unrealistic element of the game. Certain Wonders were too important; if I missed building Leonardo's Workshop, I'd often abandon the game right then and there, because it was such an unfair advantage.

And sorry, Raloth, but I HATED Alpha Centauri! The grey, dull landscape was ugly and drab; I longed for the bright earth tones of Civ. And don't get me started on those gross little barbarians...er, worms. The game-winning wonder got built in one city instead of several and took forever and a day. It had some cool concepts, like the leaders/factions and their preferences, but those have become more fully realised in Civ IV.

Ah, Civ IV. I love having several routes to victory. I love how I don't have to play through a boring end-game to 2050, with most of the world (except one tiny rival city) conquered, just to build all the remaining wonders and launch my spaceship to max out my score. (In fact, in Civ IV, you get rewarded for finishing early!) I love having worthwhile national wonders I can take my time building. I like how the different leaders have distinct advantages, disadvantages, and playing styles. I love not having to click on 3 dozen "city is in revolt" pop-ups just because I changed governments. Speaking of which, I love mixing and matching civics. I love the UUs. I love the promotion system. I love having to scrounge for strategic resources.

I love this game.

Are there some things I miss about Civ II, that I thought it did better? Sure. I liked Civ II's wonder movies. I liked how catastrophic it was for a civ if you captured its capital. I liked being able to send a caravan of food to a starving city. But these are minor points.

Now hey, nothing against you, if you preferred Civ II, go play it. More power to you. But like armchairknight said, you probably oughtta go hang out with like-minded people.

 

[zeeter]

Let me go out on an island here and say - I didn't like Civ2. It was basically an expansion of civ1 with more units. Way too many units. It's been a while, but I don't remember any new concepts coming out of Civ2. It was nice that we could mod units and build maps easily. But if you're not a modder that's kind of irrelevant.

I did play civ2 exclusively after it was released, mostly because I was tired of trying to remember the technology quiz answers in Civ1. Yet Civ2 didn't have the "magic" of Civ1. I remember playing Civ1 and saying to myself, "I'm building a civilization." I'd build a wonder and it meant something to me because of the rich history that was included with the game.

Civ2 was also just a glorified war game. Most people that hate the 3rd and 4th installments of the game do so because there are more peaceful paths to take that sometimes hinder their war plans. Culture flipping could totally disrupt an invasion in Civ3. City expenses can totally cripple a civilization in Civ4.

Yet these are all aspects of realism that Civ2 didn't have. I loved how in Civ2 you could send a settler halfway around the world and plant a city right in the middle of your rival's civilization. Totally unrealistic.

Civ4 is, to me, the closest that the developers have come yet to recreating civilization building. That's really what the game is all about.

 

[T.A JONES]

Here we go I love this stuff No sooner have a few valid opinions hit the fan you'l get the posts basicly inflicting whatever sarcasm, taunts you name it they can.Civ3 appreciation can't be put down and held in one forum. It seeps into this place everytime one trys to maim its name. Why do you care so much? Its a thread were people can voice their opinions you got something to add do it but don't subject your one sided philosophy over on this thread Theres plenty of others for you to dilute

Let me apoligize I can't become a hated member here just cause I still enjoy a previous sequal. What Im sayin is I feel a one-sided only opinion is pointless. many avenues should be expressed in the Civ4 forum.

Civ3 forum is a great place to check out mod development Civ4 is suppose to be the future. we can never forget are past when disscusing are future right? Im saying don't be ignorant to people who disagree with Civ4's makeup. They come to a side where there heavily outnumbered(I didn't say by real strategy fans) but Civ4 fans anyway. They give valid opinions of what worked better for them in Civ3 or2 and what dosn't in 4. They have been getting hammered on for speaking up. They shoudn't be knocked down. Thats when other members have to step in. Ive seen to many arguments drag on and ridiculous measures taken when things don't turn out ones way(usually the home teams) let them speak or present your case. lets be tolerant of each others opinions

 

[Grinder]

Not only Civ2 is better than Civ4, but it is also better than Civ3.

So you're nostalgiac, but CivIV has more options, more routes to victory and much more of everything else. There's an old quote that was often put to me in a woodworkshop a few decades ago, "Never mind the quality, feel the width" - and Civ IV falls into this catergory with aplomb in that it fufills many user requests and upgrades whilst still retaining much of what made Civ good.

Civ4 may be a good game for you, but it was simply not the kind of experience I was expecting. I'm talking here not of a type of game, but a true experience: an overall feeling that does not discriminate any object.

This is this experience I would have wanted to live with Civ4, no matter how. "qu'importe le flacon, pourvu qu'on ait l'ivresse" (no matter the bottle, provided one have the 'intoxication') But it was far from being the case.

How can anyone experience the same thing again with the same materials/environment/etc? CivIV will alway suffer in this respect. CivII was the true refinement of a classic genre, how else could anyone top that? All else is bound to be debatable. To follow your quote, I'd rather have a bottle of Jack Daniels than pure ethanol any day.

 

[armchairknight]

Let me apoligize I can't become a hated member here just cause I still enjoy a previous sequal. What Im sayin is I feel a one-sided only opinion is pointless. many avenues should be expressed in the Civ4 forum.

Civ3 forum is a great place to check out mod development Civ4 is suppose to be the future. we can never forget are past when disscusing are future right? Im saying don't be ignorant to people who disagree with Civ4's makeup. They come to a side where there heavily outnumbered(I didn't say by real strategy fans) but Civ4 fans anyway. They give valid opinions of what worked better for them in Civ3 or2 and what dosn't in 4. They have been getting hammered on for speaking up. They shoudn't be knocked down. Thats when other members have to step in. Ive seen to many arguments drag on and ridiculous measures taken when things don't turn out ones way(usually the home teams) let them speak or present your case. lets be tolerant of each others opinions

It's all good T.A. It was just a question. I'm sorry if I offended. I certainly didn't mean to. What I was trying to say, was that life is too short to not have fun when fun can be had. That's all. It just seemed to me that more happiness might be had in a forum where you would undoubtedly encounter more like-minded individuals and less 'here we go agains'. Cool?