Terxpahseyton
Nobody
- Joined
- Sep 9, 2006
- Messages
- 10,759
The Civ 4 "Huge" is not actually huge.
Which Civ is superior?
- Thread starter kochman
- Start date
I was commenting on my lack of crashes with the most memory-consuming civ4 settings, not on the comparative size or lack there-of of civ4 maps.
Terxpahseyton
Nobody
- Joined
- Sep 9, 2006
- Messages
- 10,759
They absolutely ain't.
Disgustipated
Deity
I recently went back to Civ4 to play Rhye's and Fall mod, something I didn't do before. Civ4 is such a welcome relief than the restrictive nightmare Civ5 is. I loved having the freedom to build a road any damn well place I want to without worrying about costs. Or the freedom to build any building I want. Or the freedom to put units any place I damn well feel like (except mountains and marshes, but it can't be perfect)
Civ4=freedom. Civ5=restrictions.
Civ4=freedom. Civ5=restrictions.
CELTICEMPIRE
Zulu Conqueror
Civ 3 has most freedom, as you can put (most) units on Mountains.
It's been so long since I played 3 (maybe 9 years) I don't remember that. I always liked it even if people on this board have a tendency to flame it (relative to 4). Ofc, it was my first civ as well, so I might not have realised all the drawbacks of the design at the time.
Try the AND mod, which had several different types of roads and railroads, as well as the ability of moving onto mountains and even building cities on them once certain techs are reached.
Although all the roads and railroads cost money (except for the first type of road), they're all dirt cheap.
Similar threads
