OTers... Will you buy CivIV Warlords?

[The 777 Hoax]

No, cuz Civ4 sucks. I can't believe I wasted 40 bucks on that.

Civ3 is way way way way better.

 

[amadeus]

Not until I buy a better computer.

 

[ComradeDavo]

I must say from what i've seen Warlords is looking pretty good!

No, cuz Civ4 sucks. I can't believe I wasted 40 bucks on that.

Civ3 is way way way way better.

Wrong in so many ways!

 

[De Lorimier]

No, cuz Civ4 sucks. I can't believe I wasted 40 bucks on that.

Civ3 is way way way way better.

I don't want to be rude over a video game, but are you out of your freaking mind?

How is CIV3 superior?

 

[Chairman Meow]

Meh. I have yet to buy Civ4. Not worth the $40 or so to me, since I rarely boot my computer into Windows, so I wouldn't play it that often. And, there's always the annoyance with the copy protection - I don't want to pay $40 for a CD that I can't make a backup copy of.

 

[MjM]

How is CIV3 superior?

Maps are bigger and better layed out.

Civ4 is too much about graphics.

The Civilopedia in Civ4 is absolutley horrible. Too many little pictures, and not enough words.

The Warplay is too much "Rock paper Scissors", not as much strategy.

From what I see, civ3 story writers are more talented.

Civ4 is a memory hog for your system.

Civ3 has a more Empire feel. In civ4 you rarely have more than about 6 cities unless you are counqering the world. Very unrealistic, and makes turns much less eventful.

There are too many worker actions in civ4, and making all resources on equal grounds (ie: trading) is too much.

Religion was overhyped, and isnt even a large part of the game.


Thats off the top of me head, we can go into it more if you'd like

 

[shortguy]

The Civilopedia in Civ4 is absolutley horrible. Too many little pictures, and not enough words.

The Warplay is too much "Rock paper Scissors", not as much strategy.

Civ3 has a more Empire feel. In civ4 you rarely have more than about 6 cities unless you are counqering the world. Very unrealistic, and makes turns much less eventful.

There are too many worker actions in civ4, and making all resources on equal grounds (ie: trading) is too much.

I'll agree with you on the civilopedia, and somewhat on the worker actions, but the warplay is better in Civ III? More strategic? What part of "rush to military tradition and steamroll with cavs" is strategic? Or, if you're a bit behind, then you do the whole "infantry/cavalry/artillery shell the heck out of them" bit. I think IV has much better warplay.

 

[MjM]

I'll agree with you on the civilopedia, and somewhat on the worker actions, but the warplay is better in Civ III? More strategic? What part of "rush to military tradition and steamroll with cavs" is strategic? Or, if you're a bit behind, then you do the whole "infantry/cavalry/artillery shell the heck out of them" bit. I think IV has much better warplay.

Dont you also shell the heck out of the enemy in civ4, with the artillery? Another thing on that, much to overpowered. Hitting every unit in a stack and destroying cities so easily.

You dont need to use calvary, and you may not have all the resources. Another thing in civ4 is that the resources seem much to plentiful.

 

[boarder]

Undecided, I just dont like civ4 as much as 2 or 3 for some reason.
All civved out I guess.

 

[Brian_B]

Dont you also shell the heck out of the enemy in civ4, with the artillery? Another thing on that, much to overpowered. Hitting every unit in a stack and destroying cities so easily.

You dont need to use calvary, and you may not have all the resources. Another thing in civ4 is that the resources seem much to plentiful.

You can't bombard units with land based artillary in Civ 4, just weaken tile/city defense bonuses. However, you CAN bombard units with fighters and bombers so it amounts to the same thing if you build a large air force.

 

[Lambert Simnel]

get a laptop all of them can be solved by doing that

Hmm. Reasonable idea, but....

I do have a laptop, and used to play quiet a bit of Civ 3 on the way to and from work, but (a) Civ 4 doesn't run on the laptop, and (b) because my commute has changed I get significantly less roomy trains nowadays, and there's no real room for playing something like Civ

 

[ComradeDavo]

Maps are bigger and better layed out.

Civ4 is too much about graphics.

The Civilopedia in Civ4 is absolutley horrible. Too many little pictures, and not enough words.

The Warplay is too much "Rock paper Scissors", not as much strategy.

From what I see, civ3 story writers are more talented.

Civ4 is a memory hog for your system.

Civ3 has a more Empire feel. In civ4 you rarely have more than about 6 cities unless you are counqering the world. Very unrealistic, and makes turns much less eventful.

There are too many worker actions in civ4, and making all resources on equal grounds (ie: trading) is too much.

Religion was overhyped, and isnt even a large part of the game.


Thats off the top of me head, we can go into it more if you'd like

I completely disagree with you I loved Civ3, and Civ4 is even better in my opinion!

 

[joycem10]

Unless the vid card requirements change, I'll remain off the CIV IV bandwagon. I'm not going to spend $50 and waste a day installing a card just to play a computer game.

 

[Chairman Meow]

Unless the vid card requirements change, I'll remain off the CIV IV bandwagon. I'm not going to spend $50 and waste a day installing a card just to play a computer game.

By the way, what are the video card requirements for Civ4? I never looked into it.

 

[Bartleby]

I won't buy it. I've reverted to III

 

[Masquerouge]

Oh yeah, I'll buy it

 

[Urederra]

I don't plan to buy Warlords, not because Civ IV is a bad game, but because I feel cheated by Firaxis/T2. Why? I have already explained in this thread which got closed because people started misbehaving.

If you don't want to go though the whole thread, I sumarize for you. My impression is that Warlords is the second half of Civ IV. It has a good culture system, the religions and stuff, but it looks like they saved the warmonger meat for the second half of the game, (I don't feel like calling it a "expansion" when I see that most of the additions are in the warmongering side).

I that thread I said:

• There is not military great leader in the vanilla version, they saved it for warlords.
• Fewer naval and air vessels. (EDIT: Compared to Civ III)
• Naval and air combat is dumbed down.
• The great wall is saved for Warlords. (Itza is not the same since it does nothing extra against barbarians)
• Always war option is unplayable in latter games because of war weariness.
• Ancient military units are OK, modern ones are underdeveloped.

And the more news they release, the more confirms my suspicions.

• The three new traits have wormonger bonuses.

So, yes, I feel cheated because it seems the game is unfinished and they are selling it in two halves. Sorry, but if they told me that the game was going to cost me $100 I wouldn't have bought it.

 

[Chukchi Husky]

Sega did that for Sonic 3.

 

[The 777 Hoax]

Maps are bigger and better layed out.

Civ4 is too much about graphics.

The Civilopedia in Civ4 is absolutley horrible. Too many little pictures, and not enough words.

The Warplay is too much "Rock paper Scissors", not as much strategy.

From what I see, civ3 story writers are more talented.

Civ4 is a memory hog for your system.

Civ3 has a more Empire feel. In civ4 you rarely have more than about 6 cities unless you are counqering the world. Very unrealistic, and makes turns much less eventful.

There are too many worker actions in civ4, and making all resources on equal grounds (ie: trading) is too much.

Religion was overhyped, and isnt even a large part of the game.


Thats off the top of me head, we can go into it more if you'd like

Exactly. Saved me a lot of typing