I'm going back to Civ III

[Winston Hughes]

but the point always comes clear if the "King" agrees and comes in as clean up, or relief 'pitcher' I should say.

Clean up? You mean he actually writes sober, coherent & reasonable arguments about what he sees as civ4's weaknesses?

I have no desire to offend you, but I find your "civ4 is crap, and everyone who likes it is an elitist/noob with no coherent arguments, and 'they' are trying to silence me" style of debating to be both irritating and unproductive.

So you don't like the game; by all means explain where you think it needs improvement. But please stop claiming that it's made only for GOTM players (which makes no sense at all, and adds nothing to the debate), or that you're being shouted down by those who disagree.

Try comparing the excellent debate between King Flevance and bardolph to your innumerable lengthy and repetetive posts on the subject, and the angry responses you tend to illicit from civ4 fans.

bobalot: remove the 'turd', 'fanboyism', 'vomit inducing' and 'civ4 sucks' type comments from your review and you might actually get some measured responses from the civ4 community. As it stands, you're simply inviting the kind of defensive responses that TAJones tends to provoke.

 

[T.A JONES]

Clean up? You mean he actually writes sober, coherent & reasonable arguments about what he sees as civ4's weaknesses?

Ya that he does. I do respect his grammer skills though hes on your page about my occasional tantrums Its better we see eye to eye on the bigger picture. Anyway how are you better? My secretary had the year off you lil grammer elitist
I can level with you, The truth hurts sometimes so I shouldn't revel in it like I've done in the past. Ive also helped more positivly here. You havn't seen it yet but will one day. Im easy target for being the last to sum up but Im sure not to blame for instigating it all.
On my critisms, You give to much credit my way for attracting what I distain. Look no further then the game for the root of both.
I can see why you didn't pick apart my reasoning and chose grammer. The grammer I admit to and always have edited for quoting convinience, the reasoning is sound and carried throughout.

Relex on the grammer elitism, if it didn't go as well as planned you should have used your wizidery on the page's arguement and not added more flame to a fire you accuse someone else of starting. Oh wait with conductive reasoning like that, I doubt you'd be any good anyway. Its easier to critize then be construcive right?

 

[mrt144]

when has grammar come into this at all? why are you using that as a strawman?

 

[T.A JONES]

when has grammar come into this at all? why are you using that as a strawman?

Where does being drunk or incoherent belong? Its OT defamation but still, I need real examples. This is his best contribution in debating, a failed job of deflating.

Why is this a Strawman arguement? He sees a time to attack the messenger to dilute the message. He wants me to debate what? my arguments soundness? Well he never specifys anything but the most broad "Its not GOTM fault, your just being silly" (to put it nicly)
I clearly gave reasons to state my view but it was "to long" for him. I would prefer his was full of evidence to support his claims but he spent the whole time attacking my delivery and trying to belittle instead. Like on repeating myself? So what? I get responses I answer them. How do you responsed to this? ( with a smile, like your post, before the mod came and spanked you)

So back to debate class with the strawman thing guy, whos the only one to be warned during these disscussions. He had nothin to attest but structure of content how could I misrepresent?

 

[King Flevance]

Sorry, been away for a second. Me and some friends got hung on another Rise of Nations kick. I got my head stomped a couple times and stomped heads of my own a couple. PLus we have modded the game to play alot longer than normal. 1 game lasts us onaverage at least 5 hrs. A couple lasted 7+.

As to this first part:

In the classical and renaissance era, siege weapons are without question the most effective units for attacking cities. No other units even come close. You think this is by accident? The units of civ 4 are all designed with a role. "City Attack" is one of those roles. Catapults (and Trebuchet) are tailor-made for this role. They are city-attack units. How is it "cheesy" to use city-attack units for the role of city attack?

Using catapults when attacking cities is not "exploiting a weak AI," since I would do the same thing when fighting a human opponent. The only difference is that a human opponent is more likely to have a large stack waiting for me when I reach the target city.

You forgot I was refering to cheese in Civ 3. As the cheesy tactics used in it are what got us here today. The tactic in 3 was to exploit the AI with artillery. Mainly, due to its inability to understand it. Which means it is a flaw in the program, thus cheese to use it against the program. It is not a "weakness" but a flaw. A weakness would be if the AI didn't build enough artillery but knew how to use it.

I know all about how the AI controls its units. Hehe, sort of hard not to on this forum. Although, I did spot this:

This AI weakness has less to do with the mechanics of how to use a particular unit, and a lot more to do with troop concentration, mobility, and calculated risks.

So the downfall of 3 was not a weakness in the AI but a flaw as I described. So it would be cheesy to exploit that flaw. Which it seems is what alot of people did because "they just couldn't help themselves." However, they claim it is because "That is how the game is suppose to be played." But it is not. It is a tactic used to exploit this flaw.

I'd be interested to see this mod. I don't think the tech layout for religion is bad, though, for 3 basic reasons:

1) It's almost unheard of for the same civ to found both Hinduism and Buddhism, due to the fact that they are parallel, rather than linked.
2) Researching techs on the way to Islam is generally done at the expense of military techs, making the discovering civ vulnerable to conquest.
3) Confucianism and Taoism lie on a completely separate path; one that is highly desirable and leads to critical mid-game techs.

Perhaps one day within the next year I will finish my mod. I am really slow at it but this board can generally get me in the 'modding mood'. All religions will be founded in the mod most likely before/right at the Classical Age. The only thing the tech tree does is provide the way to begin to work at getting a religion. Most likely spiritual civs will end up with one the fastest. However, once you get 1 it is going to be hard to also gain a 2nd. But if enough non-spiritual people put off religion, Spiritual civ could pick up too. However, alot of stuff about religion is going to be modified as well.
Here is a link to a rough draft of my idea that I posted about quite a while back. (Some of it has been altered but the core idea behind it is still the same.) Alot of the stuff I have been modifying in it is from other people's ideas as well as making it 'flow' better inside the game.
Here is a link to the entire thread. There are alot of good ideas inside.

But the game isn't realistic in terms of a game. When I am playing civilization, I am playing civilization and I know it. I would like the AI to know this too. It is a game and they need to be worried more about who will invade them and who won't more than what religion everyone has chosen as their state religion. I am more likely to backstab someone with my state religion than I am someone else for the Holy City. Yet, they trust me.

I don't think the AI works this way. The AI tends to build a military when it has the means to do so, and when it has a tech advantage. I've had "friendly" civs declare war on me just as often as "annoyed" ones. The "friendliness" of a civ usually affects what kind of trade options are available, not whether or not it will build a military or declare war.

It does work that way. I doubt you have been attacked by "friendly" AI as much as "annoyed". Only a handful of all the civs will attack you under friendly status.

Spoiler :

Reference Link

Only some of the AI will declare on friendly status. Some, (about 1/3) you are garaunteed safety with pleased.

I'd rate a holy city with a shrine as equivalent to 2 good wonders. There are some really good wonders out there. I'd be hard pressed to say that a shrine is more valuable than, say, the pyramids.

Also, there's no guarantee that all religions are spread equally. If a holy city springs up in an area where another religion has already spread, it's going to take a lot of missionary spam to get that religion going, and that's IF you have open borders and non-theocratic neighbors.

I would rather have +1 gold per city with a main/half decent religion shrine in itin it, ability to see into all those cities, and +4 modifiers from a few AI over the pyramids. I can wait for representation through Hereditary rule. The only downside is the GPP types involved.

As to the late religions, they can still spread easy as it generally 'pops up' in newer cities. Which is usually full of low developed cities. Not always but usually. But I see aiming for Islam as a worthless strategy anyways. You can get all the others in a decent amount of time for it to matter.

Well, to me their being annoying is just something I have to tolerate. I have no choice in the matter. I don't always care for the friends I make in the game because they don't know what fair trade is. Playing MP will make you see just how greedy the AI is compared to other players.

And yet, human players are still able to beat the AI. How is this possible?

It isn't about winning. If it were, I would just pay cheiftain and I wouldn't have to worry about needing to trade anything. I could just race to the finish. My arguement is that I have to constantly "eat it" on every deal in a solo game. No matter what nation I am dealing with, no matter our relations, I have to suck it up and be a chump that has no idea how to negotiate to get any decent trades. They always want an arm and a leg for an arm in return on their part.

Also, I need no justification in this game because it isn't available. I wish there was an option to let the AI know that you seriously will invade if they do not meet your demands. This happens in MP enough. The AI would then have to evaluate if they are ready for war in that turn or not.
I don't simply want an option to say "Gimme this or else I will invade you right now!" I want an option that means "Gimme this or elseI will invade you right now!"

This option already exists. It's called "tribute."

I have fixed my original post with bolded lines. This is not tribute. Tribute in the game obviously means "Hey matey, can I have this?"
Demanding tribute: -1
Saying no to tribute: -1
What the hell is "-1"? LOL. It should be like "-5" or hell make it "-8" THAT models real life more than religion and state does. Would also make people think twice about doing it.

EDIT: also, if you're the micro-manager you profess to be, I think you'd enjoy the specialist economy more than the cottage economy. LOTS more micro there.

I usually run a mixture of both as I tend to use slavery more than the caste system.

Watermills are certainly not useless, and under State Property, can be quite awesome.

Only on a plains by a river do I have use for them. Even then I usually prefer a farm and only 1 hammer and coin.

 

[Sansevero]

King Flevance and bardolph: great discussion in good faith.

(May I call you bona fide master debaters?)

But seriously, I commend your respect and civility.

 

[Winston Hughes]

hes on your page about my occasional tantrums

Perhaps you should take the hint...

Anyway how are you better?

I never say that civ3 is crap, or that people who like it are elitists or noobs, or that it was designed only to please a small group of players, or that people are trying to silence me. Nor do I regard the civ3/4 debate to be a battle that can somehow be won by uncovering the 'truth' and thrusting it in the faces of all those who disagree. Nor do I consider myself to be some kind of crusader with a mission to convert all of those who actually enjoy playing civ3, to make them realise that, in fact, they never really enjoyed it at all.

I have explained my attitude to the two games, and why I think civ4 is a major improvement, on several occasions on this forum. I see little point in relentlessly going over the same arguments, but I'll respond (as I did to King Flevance) when I see something that I agree/disagree with, and if I think I might have something to add.

In your case, I was indeed attacking the messenger, not to undermine the message (otherwise why would I have praised King Flevance?), but because the tone in which you conduct your 'arguments', and the way in which you set yourself up as the hero of the anti-civ4 'movement', seems to me to do more than anything else to ensure that these debates end up as shouting matches.

Those few morons who come on here and post truly vicious insults against both game and player (civ3 or 4) are undoubtedly more offensive, but usually those people at least keep it short and leave in a hurry. You've been offending civ4 fans for what seems like months now, sending forth another torrent of anti-civ4 rhetoric every time a new thread or post comes up. I see nothing constructive in your posts, no ideas or suggestions on how civ might be restored to a state where you'd be happy, just an endless stream of invective against the game, its designers, its players, and anyone who happens to disagree with you. What possible reason can you have for maintaining such a campaign?

Oh, and mrt144 is absolutely right: I didn't mention grammar, wasn't talking about grammar, and am not in the least offended by bad grammar.

 

[T.A JONES]

I never say that civ3 is crap, or that people who like it are elitists or noobs, or that it was designed only to please a small group of players, or that people are trying to silence me.

Jeez whats wrong man?! This dosn't need to much time. You just revealed you age (or lack of it) in a big way but I should address the 'silencing thing' you keep stammering about. So I was defending my opinion stating, Civ3 has plenty choices" from being Bull SH#T by another CIv4 fan. It landed me this.

please stop with the Civ4-bashing, alright? There's no need for it, and it only makes all of us look bad

I don't cry about it. I mentioned it as fact cuz I was in awe.
Is that not a example?, I also made my point.
Its your attacks I find the most amusing that are also making you appear to be quite the hypocrite. In regards to me and others expressing their veiws, you saying no critism on a "Civ4 critics" thread please!, thats real classic Fanbois material. You should be proud. So many bad sides to one character all shown in the same post, this is amazing!

I have explained my attitude to the two games, and why I think civ4 is a major improvement, on several occasions on this forum. I see little point in relentlessly going over the same arguments.

Nobody ever quotes you and why would they? You don't express anything but your preachy rules on how we should behave. This coming from one who admits to attempts at OT defamation.
SO I state my opinon then defend it against Mr Civ legend and this makes me a hero in you eyes. Where do you get this stuff? My meassage, Its been carried the whole length. The only warning has come from the Civ4 side and Im surprised you've been given a pass this long. Lets focus on your own image shall we?

In your case, I was indeed attacking the messenger, not to undermine the message (otherwise why would I have praised King Flevance?), but because the tone in which you conduct your 'arguments'

wait a minute whats kissing up to King' Flev on his manners got to do with the message? You dispute everthing he says
On Choices....

Precisely, you don't see it. That doesn't mean it's not there. I've found civ4 to be a much more varied and enjoyable game than civ3, and simply stating that myself and the other civ4 fans are wrong is no way to conduct a debate over the relative merits of each game (especially not on a civ4 forum). Say you loved ICS, say you hate the new maintenance system etc. Just don't say that because you don't see 'it', there's nothing there to see.

On Civ4's fanbase...

This is the thing that bugs me most about these arguments: when either side suggests that those who prefer the other game are somehow less qualified to comment, that they're more biased, or that they don't represent the 'average' civ player.

Oh and on my GOTM and multiplayer expliot opinion..

This is where our paths diverge in a major way. I don't agree with any of that

You can't really be taken for real, can you?
THe other member you praise shared the same veiw with me all along. You coudn't contribute nor discount anything he or I said. You turn to my aproach that was fair, supported and reflecting back instigating accusations directed at my own personal opinon and say Im being mean? (without being warned)

Thanks man. You've become the real comic relief at the end of all this?

 

[Disgustipated]

Is this a joke thread?

Civ4 blows Civ3 out of the water. No damage taken.

complaining about not being able to beat higher levels? Is that how you measure a game? Why not go back to SMAC where you can beat Transcend without too much effort? Or Civ2, or Civ1.

 

[Sansevero]

Oy vey.

T.A JONES, please understand that you're not being criticized for your grammar (which is fine) or for the fact that you prefer Civ III over Civ IV. Personally, I wouldn't even mind if you had just said "I hate Civ IV" without any explanation. But I'd prefer to hear your point of view on the games themselves (I know you've also talked about game mechanics; don't have to repeat yourself here if you don't want to). The facts about the numbers of copies sold or the persistent interest shown in the Civ III mods forum are not very important in this discussion. Would your opinions of the two games be any different if, hypothetically speaking, Civ IV had sold 30 million copies or the Civ III forum were completely deserted? I don't think they would be different, nor should they be. And that goes for anyone here, whichever of III or IV they prefer.

 

[T.A JONES]

Oy vey.

T.A JONES, please understand that you're not being criticized for your grammar (which is fine) or for the fact that you prefer Civ III over Civ IV. Personally, I wouldn't even mind if you had just said "I hate Civ IV" without any explanation. But I'd prefer to hear your point of view on the games themselves (I know you've also talked about game mechanics; don't have to repeat yourself here if you don't want to).

Sure I understand. Your feeling the need to console cuz you think I feel grammer blasted when really Im just confused. See, if you can give me examples of "intoxicated"," incoherent" arguments not a thing to do with grammer then I understand whats beinmg said.
Don't you worry. Im sure your statement wasn't meant to encourage him. btw Ive made a millon suggestions. On this thread I was defending Civ3 to prove its mechanics were suitable and didn't need to be changed in the areas it was. This is giving positive suggestions isn't it? Im explaining clearly what worked well for who and Im gettin blasted for speaking up against those few for who it didn't, Correct?

The facts about the numbers of copies sold or the persistent interest shown in the Civ III mods forum are not very important in this discussion.

I'll repeat what I said about the massive loss of support from Civ3 'preffered' players and that being what I thought was the sharp contrast in sales from CIv4 to Walrords.

I said "No way it would have posted that badly had it the support from custumers who bought in the 1st time when the dynamics where still a mystery."
Thats why I posted that sales report, to make a simple point. Nobody argued this point instead, some guy called it idiotic and the mod warned him to calm down.

Originally Posted by Civ4 Moderator in response to this by T.A JONES
"Why don't you mod civ4 to put ROP rape, tedious negotiation and corruption back into Civ4 then? "

Eight months away from civ3 and I'd nearly forgotten just how irritating those three 'features' were (and you can throw in pollution, checking every civ for new deals every single turn, and the lack of overflows). It was still a great game, but the continuous petty tasks were more than a little frustrating
To my mind, there's nothing in civ4 that's anywhere near as annoying as that lot. Micromanagement is now much more of a tactical/strategic thing, rather than a repetitive job to be carried out each turn. And the new elements (religion, promotions, GPs, sophisticated diplomacy) all present choices to the player, so that your time is spent figuring out how best to build up your empire and deal with your opponents, without having to focus on loads of minor details all the time. Don't get me wrong: I loved civ3. But now I've gotten into civ4, there's no turning back.

Is that a mocking laugh or good hearted chuckle? I only ask cuz I can't see whats so funny about a sarcastic response and as reported (and ignored ) majorly confusing statment! Corruption isn't an expliot! Its the same as maintence cost in CIv4 and can be modded tons of ways.

THis guys behavior is only funny cuz he bothers to accuse others of inciting complaints and bad behavior On top he feels by throwing in a ocasional "I love CIv3" here and there, he won't come off sounding like all the other one-sided 'complaint opinions' he says hes morally above. Thats right this guy has much more to offer!

I'll respond (as I did to King Flevance) when I see something that I agree/disagree with, and if I think I might have something to add.

Precisely, you don't see it. That doesn't mean it's not there. I've found civ4 to be a much more varied and enjoyable game than civ3, and simply stating that myself and the other civ4 fans are wrong is no way to conduct a debate over the relative merits of each game (especially not on a civ4 forum). Say you loved ICS, say you hate the new maintenance system etc. Just don't say that because you don't see 'it', there's nothing there to see.

Ok I take it this was something he felt he really needed to add? Comon man ! Lets stop this joke before someone really does die laughung

 

[Winston Hughes]

You just revealed you age (or lack of it) in a big way

the 'silencing thing' you keep stammering about.

I don't cry about it.

Its your attacks I find the most amusing that are also making you appear to be quite the hypocrite.

you saying no critism on a "Civ4 critics" thread please!, thats real classic Fanbois material.

You should be proud. So many bad sides to one character all shown in the same post, this is amazing!

This coming from one who admits to attempts at OT defamation.

kissing up to King' Flev on his manners

You can't really be taken for real, can you?

Thanks man. You've become the real comic relief at the end of all this?

This is exactly what I'm talking about. A string of insults, and a wholehearted unwillingness to pay the slightest bit of attention to what I was saying. And, yes, I did disagree with almost everything King Flevance said, but I don't believe that disagreement must necessarily be accompanied by disrespect.

As for civ3, do you really not understand that it's possible to love a game and yet still find some aspects of it really annoying? I'm not pretending to have liked the game so I can gain some supposed currency in this debate; I genuinely loved it, as I did both of its predecessors. In my opinion, civ4 is the better game by some distance. But I respect the opinions of those who disagree, so long as they show some respect to those who disagree with them, and don't simply launch into torrents of abuse at the slightest provocation.

And what do you mean by "as reported"? The link doesn't seem to go anywhere, and I have no idea what you're talking about. I used the because I genuinely laughed when I read his comment. I wasn't laughing at anyone, just at the fact that after only eight months I had forgotten about some of those things that used to annoy me. How that was supposed to be a 'sarcastic response' I really can't imagine; it certainly wasn't intended that way.

 

[T.A JONES]

This is exactly what I'm talking about. A string of insults, and a wholehearted unwillingness to pay the slightest bit of attention to what I was saying.
How that was supposed to be a 'sarcastic response' I really can't imagine; it certainly wasn't intended that way.

I was talkin about the sarcasm the mod posted here in response to my opinion. Whats it got to do with your taunting?. You that desprate to cry up a storm?. Learn to debate and win points with practice not sympathy.
See heres what im talkin bout, you forgot to fish out my fav discriptive "hypocrite" why is that?

Look again:

Is that a mocking laugh or good hearted chuckle? I only ask cuz I can't see whats so funny about a sarcastic response and as reported (and ignored ) a majorly confusing statment! Corruption isn't an expliot! Its the same as maintence cost in CIv4 and can be modded tons of ways

So ya, Im glad you enjoy others sarcasm so wholeheartedly but stick to debating me on my opinions and tell the moderator when you don't like my presentation

 

[mrt144]

T.A. you're off message again. You're going after the messenger.

 

[T.A JONES]

T.A. you're off message again. You're going after the messenger.

Care to summerize so we can continue?