Naokaukodem
Millenary King
- Joined
- Aug 8, 2003
- Messages
- 4,285
It happens that playing Civ5 and Civ6 in multiplayer bores me to death.
Whereas Civ3 and Civ4 were exciting.
Is that because of one unit per tile ? I would say maybe not only, but in major part. The other parts are the philosophy that results from it.
One unit per tile makes up for more taboo wars, and a peaceful and boring construction, with tendencies (like number of techs or number of science beakers per turn) that are sneaky, insidious and slow like a chronic disease. (to me) I feel in a unbearable slackness and quit after a while. Very disappointing.
As to single player, I usually try to beat it on Deity to never put my title back on the line, like in Civ3 and 5. Steamrolling early on Immortal in 6 (with Scythia), and I don't remember in 4. [only thing I remember is that in 4 in higher difficulty levels, disavantageous culture "wars" and the subsequent city capture were annoying me greatly to the point I didn't bother the challenge. (not talking about city maintenance obscurantism that could have been easily fixed)]
So yeah, single is not a big deal to me all things considered, since I experienced Civ2 taking my country and beating its real life historical enemies (thx culturally linked starting locations), which was, all in all, the major pleasure I took from Civ series ever in single player, as much patriotic I was at the time, then there was nothing left to do, especially when the uniques came and the obliteration of the culturally linked stating locations. The game did take a turn from role-playing into pure strategy and exploits. (one of the 4 X of 4X isn't it ?
)
But this was still tone down in Civ3 and 4 multiplayer because in those there was action. While it was still strategic, the turn timer and the army management turned it into a really exciting action game, if not rapturous. The total opposite of Civ5 and 6.
What do you think.
Whereas Civ3 and Civ4 were exciting.
Is that because of one unit per tile ? I would say maybe not only, but in major part. The other parts are the philosophy that results from it.
One unit per tile makes up for more taboo wars, and a peaceful and boring construction, with tendencies (like number of techs or number of science beakers per turn) that are sneaky, insidious and slow like a chronic disease. (to me) I feel in a unbearable slackness and quit after a while. Very disappointing.
As to single player, I usually try to beat it on Deity to never put my title back on the line, like in Civ3 and 5. Steamrolling early on Immortal in 6 (with Scythia), and I don't remember in 4. [only thing I remember is that in 4 in higher difficulty levels, disavantageous culture "wars" and the subsequent city capture were annoying me greatly to the point I didn't bother the challenge. (not talking about city maintenance obscurantism that could have been easily fixed)]
So yeah, single is not a big deal to me all things considered, since I experienced Civ2 taking my country and beating its real life historical enemies (thx culturally linked starting locations), which was, all in all, the major pleasure I took from Civ series ever in single player, as much patriotic I was at the time, then there was nothing left to do, especially when the uniques came and the obliteration of the culturally linked stating locations. The game did take a turn from role-playing into pure strategy and exploits. (one of the 4 X of 4X isn't it ?
)But this was still tone down in Civ3 and 4 multiplayer because in those there was action. While it was still strategic, the turn timer and the army management turned it into a really exciting action game, if not rapturous. The total opposite of Civ5 and 6.
What do you think.
