the early game is the most fun.

Discussion in 'Civ4 - General Discussions' started by dh_epic, Aug 29, 2006.

  1. Aussie_Lurker

    Aussie_Lurker Deity

    Joined:
    Jul 21, 2003
    Messages:
    7,785
    Location:
    Adelaide, South Australia
    @Skirmisher. I should clarify-I don't mind if AI civs 'gang up' on more powerful civs, but only if it would 'make sense' to do so. In Civ2, I remember alliances being formed against me involving civs I had little or no contact with-and who had little or no contact with one another. Also, civs I had always been on the best of terms with throughout the game would ally against me! That just sucked because it was an arbitrary 'get the big guy'. I mean seriously, the US might cop some verbal abuse from friendly nations, but you don't see these friends forming military alliances against it! My point is that, if a nation is already cautious or displeased with you, then you being much larger and/or powerful than them should sour relations even further. If a group of such cautious/displeased nations decided to band together in a mutual alliance against them, then that would be perfectly fine-but it should be effected by mitigating factors, such as how much contact all the nations involved have. So 2 civs who haven't been in contact for over 1000 years should not suddenly 'come together' in an alliance against the biggest civ, and nor should a civ who has had no contact with the biggest civ in a 1000 years or more. As for smaller/weaker nations being more prone to internal strife. Well this is true too, but England and the US were both incredibly powerful at the time they suffered major internal upheaval. My real point is that ALL civs should have to deal with problems from both within AND without their nation-which would help to prevent the kind of runaway successes which often make the later ages so dull. Hope that makes more sense.

    Aussie_Lurker.
     
  2. Charles 22

    Charles 22 King

    Joined:
    May 21, 2004
    Messages:
    944
    Location:
    Dallas, Texas
    It's only regular infantry you can't build, which is like no longer being able to build axemen because you have macemen, so it's not like the modern era rips you off. If you really want reg. infantry again, you can sever the resources that allow mech infantry.
     
  3. magfo

    magfo Chieftain

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2005
    Messages:
    64
    A lot of talk and we're losing the subject here.

    Some say that the end game isn't so bad, some (like me) say it's ok but way worse than the early game, which is lovely.

    I think that there's quite a lot of players out there who at least to some degree agree that the game gets less fun in the end. It doesn't really matter how many percent... just that they exist shows that there can be improvement, right?

    I would love to see changes in future games. I think workers/improvements need to be changed. I think that trade routes need to be changed. You should trade more with your close neighbours and your friends, thus strenghtening relations. You should be able to research different paths leading to different goals. One could be "Able to irrigate desert squares", another "Fish plantations, giving +1 food/gold in coastal squares" etc. A civ with a lot of deserts will strive for one, another for the other. And in the end one civ will have researched more from one part of the tree, whilst the other found that the other path was more suitable. One tree more pointedly leading towards nukes and destruction, the other leading to more peaceful and creative goals. Simply: The aim shouldn't be for every civ to research every tech and work every damn square of land exactly the same way.

    (Also, trade routes are pretty broken as it is. Early in the game you shouldn't be able to trade across infinite reaches just due to there being rivers and coastal squares connecting two cities. A minimum should be that fog of war kills trade, because in the fog the bandits lurk...
     
  4. LoopyLewis

    LoopyLewis Warlord

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2005
    Messages:
    155
    Location:
    UK, Sunny Southport
    I actually prefer the later game! :crazyeye: More units, more buildings, more money - now I can create war without having to worry about the core of my empire.

    The early game for me was IMHO too quick. I'd rush through it until I had an army ready (usually by musketman or mid-game UU's like Redcoat). Admittingly, now that I discovered the wonders of slavery I'd say it's more interesting and I take my time now, but it still isn't as good as mid-late game. (Noble player here btw :) )
     
  5. Zechnophobe

    Zechnophobe Strategy Lich

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2006
    Messages:
    1,867
    Location:
    Goleta, California
    In regards to the late game. I actually think that things are pretty good until you get to Flight, especially Bombers via Radio.

    Let's face it, Bombers are by far the strongest military unit you can build, especially against the computer, who has no idea how to defend against them. Not only that, but bombers aren't really very expensive.

    Pros:

    1) Completely eliminates the distance and movement problems associated with conquering people.

    2) Unlike other tech bumps, Bombers are completely unstoppable by an empire without Flight.

    3) The combination of the above two means you can use a slight tech lead to conquer entire opposing civs in the time it would take them to get up to speed with you.

    4) Bombers are cheaper than tanks. This means that the one aggressive counter to them costs MORE than they do. (Sam infantry are defensive counters, and it's a lot easier to mass your entire empires bombers than it is to amass your empires Sam Infantry)

    5) They obsoletize Artillery style units... in a major major way. A Fragile unit that needs to be adjacent to the target? Or one that is almost unkillable that can be 8 squares away, and doesn't die when it does collateral damage?


    All things considered, they are too fast, and too cheap.

    Also, once you get them, the entire rock-paper-scissors paradigm is completely messed up. I really like the balance the different medieval units have with each other. It creates for interest choices made during game play. You get a sort of similar feeling with Infantry, Marines, and Sam Infantry, and even Tanks and Helicopters... but the actually flight units just brush away the rest. It's very unfortunate.
     
  6. Holycannoli

    Holycannoli Deity

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2006
    Messages:
    2,406
    Yes, and it's always bothered me that SAM infantry can defeat bombers at all, since bombers fly high altitude missions and SAM infantry use shoulder-launched missiles. They can probably take out WWII-era bombers but not stealth bombers?

    But that's a problem of there not being enough modern-era units, and not being able to differentiate between WWII-era aircraft and modern aircraft. You have to have SAM infantry able to counter them all as a result. We have no mobile anti-air mechanized units, no anti-air flak cannons, no early warning coastal radar, no AWACS etc.

    CivIV does represent the importance of air superiority though. So it's a good start.

    Man, if they put me in charge of coming up with modern-era units for the next patch I'd go overboard :) There's so many modern-era things I'd love to see in CivIV.

    (I also think we should be able to mine mountain peaks. Why are those tiles completely unusable? Are they trying to tell us that huge mountain ranges never contain anything worth mining? Why was this changed from CivIII?)
     
  7. Zechnophobe

    Zechnophobe Strategy Lich

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2006
    Messages:
    1,867
    Location:
    Goleta, California
    I'd honestly take a heavy hand with Flight to fix it. I'd probably halve the operational range of Fighters and Bombers, or thereabouts. 6/8 is a long ways. Maye 4/5 instead? Make the value of Carriers a bit greater as well.

    Perhaps a better fix would make it such that the fighters/bombers have a chance of missing their targets like they do with land improvements. Maybe decrease the number of targets a bomber hits with collateral damage to 2?

    Maybe just hike 'em up to costing 200 instead of 140. I dunno.
     
  8. Blueberry

    Blueberry Chieftain

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2004
    Messages:
    65
    Location:
    Norway


    I don't know about the rest of you, but I sure as h### can't build no Sams or Marines.
     
  9. Charles 22

    Charles 22 King

    Joined:
    May 21, 2004
    Messages:
    944
    Location:
    Dallas, Texas
    Maybe there's a glitch. I'm not sure I've played into warlords deep enough to see much action with mech infantry, but if what you say is so then "both" sam's and marines would disappear with mech's and that's just a major mistake. It sure wasn't that way with vanilla. I'm sorry I now realize I hadn't played warlords deep enough or long enough to see mechs take these out, but surely the highly competent staff wouldn't do some stupid like that would they:crazyeye: ? Hmm, another reason to stiff us for another $30 xp.

    Hey Blueberry, By 7am monday I will have got far enough in my current game to confirm your observation. I will get back on this thread when I do and let you know what I find. If there's anyone else who already knows this for a fact feel free to type. I just find it pretty unbelievable, but then again the memory problem resolved in one of the vanilla patches cropped back up again with warlords, so I guess anything is possible.
     
  10. Holycannoli

    Holycannoli Deity

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2006
    Messages:
    2,406
    Well SAMs and marines aren't part of the "infantry" unit line, so they don't become obsolete by a more modern unit. They both just happen to be able to upgrade to that different unit line now as if they were part of that line, a line which is closely related but still different.

    SAMs and marines are really in their own unique lines which consist of only them.

    That's how I rationalize it.
     
  11. Charles 22

    Charles 22 King

    Joined:
    May 21, 2004
    Messages:
    944
    Location:
    Dallas, Texas
    That's what I thought too, but they may had messed up warlords and gave the mech to obsolete both of them, and that would be lame and have to be a mistake.
     
  12. los

    los Chieftain

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2006
    Messages:
    10
    Yeah, but the end is fun to:
    watching the animation as
    your color dominates the map.(Although civ 3 looked cooler).
    That makes it all worth while!
    I also miss everyone kissing yer butt because you won (civ 3)
     
  13. Holycannoli

    Holycannoli Deity

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2006
    Messages:
    2,406
    I haven't gotten to modern era in Warlords yet so I don't know if SAMs and marines become obsolete with mech infantry, but I'd think they don't.

    Hmm, according to Warlords' civilopedia, neither SAMs nor marines upgrade to mech infantry. So now I'm wondering where this idea that they could upgrade in Warlords came from? Because I believed it :)

    I should play a Warlords game up to and through the modern era huh?
     
  14. weasel77066

    weasel77066 Prince

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2005
    Messages:
    488
    Location:
    houston tx
    Most definitely. Watch for for an annoying sound bug which kicks in around the time you DO get SAM infantry. Its a very loud sound blare. Really bad on mine as I have 80watt integrated amp speakers.

    Also, when a marine upgrades to a mech. Does it keep its amphibious promotion? If not then I wouldnt upgrade, but if they do keep promotion ranks, then whats the harm? I guess SAM infantry would be different because of their AA ability.
     
  15. onedreamer

    onedreamer Dragon

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2004
    Messages:
    6,580
    Location:
    Torino - Italia
    Bombers are nice but they are not anywhere near as powerful as you describe them, at least on the levels I play (Monarch +).
     
  16. Goldfish4209

    Goldfish4209 Chieftain

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2006
    Messages:
    25
    Location:
    Little Rock, AR
    This is very true. The game just winds down to building modern armor and mech infantry and listening to the worst music in the friggin world.
     
  17. Charles 22

    Charles 22 King

    Joined:
    May 21, 2004
    Messages:
    944
    Location:
    Dallas, Texas
    Unfortunately it looks like I may never be able to answer the question of marines and SAM's disappearing, as I got a CTD in 1950 and it suggested I reduce my graphics, which I don't think I'm going to do, rather I think I will wait for the patch as my vanilla wasn't having these problems (or go back to vanilla).

    Another peculiar thing I noticed, I just researched computers and it wouldn't let me train modern armor. The requirements are that I need both oil and aluminum, both of which I had. If there was any resource that might had been destroyed it would have been oil and that makes no sense because it let me train panzers.
     
  18. Rathelm

    Rathelm Chieftain

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2006
    Messages:
    92
    You need composites too.
     
  19. Charles 22

    Charles 22 King

    Joined:
    May 21, 2004
    Messages:
    944
    Location:
    Dallas, Texas
    Thanks, I was thinking there had to be some other tech but couldn't figure it out that time, although it's easy enough to see.
     
  20. bonafide11

    bonafide11 Worker

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2006
    Messages:
    3,185
    Location:
    STL
    I don't remember the last time I played a game with tanks, bombers, and mechanized infantry. I usually try to have the game won before then, but even if I don't, I tend to get bored of my games by then. If the game is not won by then, it's well decided who will win. Assembly line is my favorite technology, and I always go for it as soon as possible, but it also slows the game down considerably.

    The end of the game needs MAJOR remodeling to be more exciting. Not necessarily more units, but more distinct units.
     

Share This Page