I'm sick of the broken diplo !

[Chiyochan]

In other words, you want to turtle.

Stop doing that.

Then you will win.

I'm sorry, but you're not using the diplomacy system as it was designed to be used. Learn how to use it properly, and you won't have people declaring war on you when you don't want war.

youre a freaking nuisance!

I 'turtle' and win all the time! the problem is this diplomacy crap is not fun, its annoying, the only way to get past it all is to just hold enter and auto NO every time someone asks, I have no problem doing this. their moods dont mean jack to me and i rarely ever get declared upon. it dosent stop it from being a rediculous pain in the neck!

Mod, for this, please.

 

[NP300]

Civ 3 and 4 are wargames and thay do that part well except for the bog down that 4 makes, but other then that thay do poorly.

I have played Civilization since Civ 1, and I think Civ 1 and Civ2 were wargames to a much greater extent than Civ III and IV. In Civ 1 and 2 I almost always played in Always War mode. That's because I found that the AI would always break the peace treaties. And it would always park units by my cities, which prevented me from working those tiles and from moving my units around my cities. Either the AI would backstab me with those units parked by my cities, or I would have to take them out so that I could work the tiles.

So in effect Civ 1/2 were Always War for me. The AI in Civ 1 and 2 was dumber and you could get away with being at war with everyone. War also gave you the benefit of getting all the technologies the AI had by taking some of their minor cities; instead of setting you back as in Civ4, war allowed you to catch up to the AI in Civ1/2.

In contrast, in Civ3/4 it is possible to play an entire game peacefully. The AI will respect your borders (more or less). And always war is much harder in Civ3/4 because the AI is greatly improved. The Civ3/4 AIs send stacks of doom instead of sending units peacemeal like the Civ1/2 AIs.

 

[Spitefire]

(Combat Compromises and AI) The units in civ 1 and 2 could be sent peacemeal as you say and still do alot of damage and stacks of doom were more likely to get your stack crushed so its like apples and oranges setting them side by side like that, the so called advanced AI is also not really good to argue for the same reason the comp didnt need to send stacks to win so it was not programmed with that insentive im sure if the combat system worked the same now as it did then the AI would not send stacks as that would to easly risk getting every unit killed with an unlucky roll of the random.

(How many ways to win?) In civ 1 and 2 the victory conditions made sence win by killing/subjigateing all threats or ensureing that your death on this planet ment you could come back later and try again and with a major tech lead theoretically and survival (?).
However the new ways of winning hardly make sence with how thay are applyed in 3 and 4 Diplomacy makes no sence as you cant order all your allies to assist you in war/spying/Subdueing economys so at best you get yourself a nice title and a bunch of would be freinds who wont help you do anything (this could be fixed but the company folks arnt intrested). Culture victorys are badly applyed aswell (civ 3) haveing lots of culture is a little ineffective if it is all in your land (civ 4) haveing 3 citys get super large borders and topping out the fort moddifiyer hardly make me want to surrender and run screaming into the night, and the worst part is that thay removed the one aspect that might almost make Culture seem logical as a possable victory if applyed right and that would be for the population to tell you to go off yourself and join someone else or make there own if you did really poorly (only encountered it a few times and i was the one getting a city half way around the world far from my borders all because my populace was happy as hell and theres was in the horsehockyter).


(of War and Tech) In civ 4 the ability to steal tech dureing conquest was yanked in order to unnatrally discorage rampant war makeing seeing as thay crippled the players ability to get anything done in the short term without useing a big stick (or if you like war engine) when you can force your enemy to surrender without overwhelming force of arms you let me know, and giveing in to there demands to stop the war counts as you surrendering. (In the real world there many many ways to stop a foe that is stronger then you both on a national scale and a personal scale).

Well that was long winded of me.