the "once and for all!" topic

Then what are you doing on a Civilization forum then eh?

I know there are better games out there, but Civ is still the best Turn Based Strategy game out there

Besides that, this website is about Civ and how we all play it. This isn't Metroid, Starcraft and Any Other Games IGN rates as cool fanatics

We're all Civvers here. If you don't like it, find another website, because you are on the wrong site

But regardless of how much I like StarCraft, Super Mario Galaxy, and Metroid Prime 3...

I STILL MISS CIVILIZATION IV!!! BOOHOO!!!:cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry:
 
No matter how much I love Civ4 and how great it is and how much better it is than CivII, CivII is still the greatest of the two. Thats because you have to compare games to when they came out, and I have trouble finding anything quite as ground breaking as CivII. With all the flaws it had (and it had inumerable balancing flaws) it is important to remember that the gaming industry was a lot more amateurish at that time (more games where developed by a small group of people rather than a corporation).
I only have to look at a screenshot of CivII to remember the awe that that game created and the legend that is has become. Civ4 simply does not do that to me, although the Ocarina of Time does - but not to the same extent.
#126 You need a hash to say something

#127 You're wrong
 
... but here it isn't. i really liked the idea of that thread, as i like "1000 clues you've played civ too much". but seriously, this is just crap.

#129 Phil/Ind doesn't exist because it is overpowered (seriously overpowered I mean..)

#130 Both SE and CE work.
 
#0 - If I were a moderator, every irrelevant post in this thread would be deleted, I'm looking at you AfterShafter

#130 - Completely ignoring your military is the biggest gamble you can take

#131 - Founding a religion helps out a lot, spreading it helps out even more.

#132 - It's not a great idea to place your capital on a resource

#133 - It's not a great idea to place a town in an area without hills early in the game

#134 - Flood plains are great tiles to have in your cities radius

#135 - Expanding into jungle is a risk

#136 - You're unlikely to enjoy the game on a huge map with the default settings; Halfway through conquering 1/4th of one of three landmasses and you will have just discovered future tech

#137 - Always use siege

#138 - Financial is a good trait to have for almost all strategies

#139 - If you find yourself favoring war over the other victory conditions, welcome to the club.

#140 - Get at least 6 cities early in the game, big maps and raging barbarians can help this. Another way is to take some cities if you do not have enough.

#141 - Always micro-manage your workers, the only automated action that's acceptable is "Trade Routes", but you'll find doing this manually is more efficient, and the other way is just if you're really lazy.
 
nossr50 said:
#130 - Completely ignoring your military is the biggest gamble you can take

that would be #131

#132 - It's not a great idea to place your capital on a resource

It often is a bad idea founding any city on top of a resource

#133 - It's not a great idea to place a town in an area without hills early in the game

You mean City by town don't you? And no, BFC with nothing but grassland makes a great science city.

#135 - Expanding into jungle is a risk

Why?? I don't get it. Jungle coveres usually grassland -> great science city. risk? i dont see any. Only a lot of work for those workers...

-----

#142 Try to avoid founding early religions (Buddhism, Hinduism, Judaism) except if you thought well about it and it fits your strategy (in a Culture attempt, for example).
 
... but here it isn't. i really liked the idea of that thread, as i like "1000 clues you've played civ too much". but seriously, this is just crap.

#129 Phil/Ind doesn't exist because it is overpowered (seriously overpowered I mean..)

Overpowered with a capital O

#133 - It's not a great idea to place a town in an area without hills early in the game

You mean City by town don't you?

Beaten to it!

Why?? I don't get it. Jungle coveres usually grassland -> great science city. risk? i dont see any. Only a lot of work for those workers...

Agree. And that's what they get paid for, not?
 
Diamondeye said:
Overpowered with a capital O

huh!? never seen that written with a capital O. But I try to write my posts as correctly as I can (as my language skills allow)

Diamondeye said:
Agree. And that's what they get paid for, not?

But for sure!

Btw, like your sig :D
 
huh!? never seen that written with a capital O. But I try to write my posts as correctly as I can (as my language skills allow)

When I write like that, It's nota faulty spelling, it's because it's THAT overpowered, it needs to be typed in capital letters. Since the forum automatically corrects CAPSed words to only Capital starting letter, Oerpowered with a capital "O".

Btw, like your sig :D

Well, thankyou. It's really silly, but I can't find anything better atm. :crazyeye:
 
FYI: I wrote my suggestions very late at night after a long game of FFH so forgive my mistakes..

It often is a bad idea founding any city on top of a resource

I agree

You mean City by town don't you? And no, BFC with nothing but grassland makes a great science city.

Yeah, but advanced tactics like specialized cities and others are exceptions to the rule. I know I always have some cities in purposely bad locations for one thing, to get a lot of another thing (Research/Productivity/Resources). I just didn't have the brain power to word it correctly when I posted.

Why?? I don't get it. Jungle coveres usually grassland -> great science city. risk? i dont see any. Only a lot of work for those workers...

There are always exceptions, I didn't say "Never expand into jungles". Let me rewrite it here...

Expanding into jungles is a risky maneuver that will offer a lot of benefits in the long run but not many in the short term. Plentiful workers are needed with many cities in jungle terrain because you need to cut down the jungle and improve the city before it will benefit you.

And I do agree, jungle towns are great and I was being too vague and offering a complicated word of advice aimed towards new players.
 
I think the point was, however, that if you're going to have a "once and for all" topic, presenting things as if they were always true when they are only true some of the time is going to end up confusing people.

For example, your "#133 - It's not a great idea to place a town in an area without hills early in the game"... Some people have already pointed out the advantage of a commerce city in such a situation. But there are others that are equally valid. For example, you might have numerous Elephants nearby. You might have grassland/plains copper/iron. There are other ways to get the hammers that you need besides hills. So sometimes it is a great idea to place a city without hills nearby early in the game.

Bh
 
#145: Yes, there should be more religions. Try downloading the bazillions of mods here that introduce new ones before complaining...
 
nossr50 said:
Expanding into jungles is a risky maneuver that will offer a lot of benefits in the long run but not many in the short term. Plentiful workers are needed with many cities in jungle terrain because you need to cut down the jungle and improve the city before it will benefit you.

first, in your post I thought you wrote that you didn't use the appropriate words. now you say AGAIN that jungle-cities are risky but they aren't. they're costly. they COST lots of work. if you work, say 50% unworked tiles, then its not because you founded your cities in a 'risky' terrain, it's because you don't train/capture enought workers. before civil service comes in, my workerforce mines tundra hills, just to get ressources eventually, because it's the most useful thing for them to do...

r_rolo1 said:
it is wise to let another civ to do the jungle clearing for you and then conquer their cities. Their worker-turns , our profit

yeah, that's the reason for most warmongerering. why build wonders? why found cities? why build cottages (good question) and let them mature slowly? - why not just wait and see and harvest the sweetest fruits out there?? :D
 
Lord Olleus said:
I believe that mining tundra hills is useless, a mine will only make a resource pop if it is being worked. That is, unless you were talking about hooking up uranium/coal/aluminium as soon as you discover the tech for it.

The description says you have a chance to discover ressources. It doesn't say you have to work it. I cannot say for sure that the ressources I pop are all from worked hills. Does anyone know for sure?
 
Back
Top Bottom