Civ IV

[Guest Fishboot]

I thought that one of the best things about Civ 3, and by the sound of it, Civ 4 are the leaders. They let you do all kinds of fun stuff, and the capacity to build armies (more accurately corps, but who cares?) was great. I always use my first leader to build an army, since that lets you go down the military small wonders route, with the academy and the Pentagon. Once you begin cranking out armies at will, you can duff just about anyone up.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Actually, on the highest couple of difficulty levels there's really no way you're going to get to build any pre-modern wonder without rushing it with a great leader. That's part of why early war is so heavily encouraged in Civ 3. It's also borderline necessary because the AI civs will block off your expansion with trash cities and the early game is the only time that all AI civs won't all be at technological parity from tech trading. Between keeping up your expansion (you can build military units while your population is recovering from making settlers so you aren't trading military power for expansion), managing the shape of your civ for corruption purposes, optimizing workers and executing wars the early civ game can be extremely hectic, but it's also decisive.

 

Civ 3 did make it so you could come back with a strong endgame, though, by making control of oil and rubber so important. In the earlier games winning meant having the biggest Civ from square one (never was that cliche more appropriate) and never giving up your lead.

[Calax]

i just hope that the computers don't always cheat, Ive watched a panzer die to a spearman on open plains when earlier in the game i attacked a city with a archer and lost (city was defended by a warrior), then they got steel and i got nothing so it became archers on swordsmen

[The Elite_elite]

then they got steel and i got nothing

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

There's another thing I hate about Civ3. Few resources ever appear in your area. They always are at the AIs' cities, forcing you to try and either trade for them or take them by force so you can build railroads, tanks, nukes, ect.

[Jumjalum]

I find one of the most fun ways to play the game is to have a tiny map with every civ on it.  With every civ about 2 spaces apart from another, everybody is at war almost constantly.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Did you ever play the old spectrum game Chaos? Sounds pretty similar to what a game of that would be like.

[metadigital]

I usually don't see any corruption until maybe twenty shields (but I think more), and even then it's 1

 

It might have something to do with my Nation.  I almost always play as the Germans.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Germans

 

Teutonic ingenuity at the start, I like it!

Quick expansion is usually the key. I also like to cull other Civs early on to keep them in line and prevent them becoming serious competition later in the game.

 

That tends to make the middle and end game more managable. I also tend to work on the principle of attack me once and I might let you get away with it. Do it again and your little Civ is going into the lost civilizations book.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yep, that's the best way to win. Still. Certainly on the highest level, you will not win unless you defend with attack, viz: "Attack is the best form of defence" (as the Prussians used to believe!).

Civ 3 also seems to have TONS more corruption.  You can have two of your best military units in a city, a police station, etc. and you'll still have plenty of corruption.

 

Why is that?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I think they were trying to make increasing the size of your civilization a case of diminishing returns. That's the only explanation I can think of. The problem is, it didn't work - it's still usually the largest Civ that wins the game, which to me is quite boring, especially as I tend to play as a pacifist, and only take territory if I'm attacked first. It's also counter-intuitive - there is some link between the size of a country and its power, but it's not as clear-cut as the game makes it.

 

I'd rather have a 'quality of life' victory - that by getting all your citizens university-educated, with access to all luxuries and very happy, you could win.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You are such a pacifist, Steve! Not that that's a bad thing, except if you're playing a game of world domination ...!

 

I guess you are looking forward to more choice of religious expression in Civ4, so that your citizens can be buddhists ...

[alanschu]

I have high hopes for religions adding a neat dynamic to the game.

 

Although since I really loved the social engineering in SMAC, I am looking forward to the mix and match combinations I can make for my government ideologies.

[EnderAndrew]

I'm looking forward to how religion plays into Civ4. And thanks for the tip on Optimal cities per map.

[Child of Flame]

I still wanna know if I can cause an apocalypse.

[EnderAndrew]

I bet you can in Spore.

[Child of Flame]

Probably, but you know if the made a game out of Will Wright's piss the reviewers and fans alike would eat it up.

[EnderAndrew]

But it wouldn't simply be a means of producing urine. You'll be able to test how alchohol, caffeine, or energy drinks affect urine, as well as asparagus. You'll also be able to fight off urinary tract infections, work on expanding bladder potential, and even have mini-games of aiming urine streams in a variety of different environments the community can develop!

[SteveThaiBinh]

...except if you're playing a game of world domination ...!

 

I guess you are looking forward to more choice of religious expression in Civ4, so that your citizens can be buddhists ... 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I don't always play it as a game of world domination. My preferred approach is to play the game as a simulator, with all the victory conditions turned off - then my goal is for my people to survive and prosper all the way to 2050 relatively intact and with good relations with neighbouring countries. It's a shame the game doesn't have a mode of play which recognises this.

[EnderAndrew]

Except it does to an extent in that you can already do that.

 

Merely surviving shouldn't be a victory condition in my opinion however.

[SteveThaiBinh]

Except it does to an extent in that you can already do that.

 

Merely surviving shouldn't be a victory condition in my opinion however.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yes, it allows it, but it doesn't recognise it. You still get the silly 'you lose' screen at the end. However, it's not a major complaint. The strength of the game is that it does allow you to play in this way, and that makes me happy.

 

However, as to victory conditions, it would be nice formally to turn off the concept of 'victory' and just play as a simulator. Not essential, but nice. Most countries in the world today do not judge their success by how high they are ranked on the global power list.

[EnderAndrew]

So the only change you're suggesting is that they remove the "You Lose" screen?

 

I rather like them telling you that you're a loser!

 

[SteveThaiBinh]

So the only change you're suggesting is that they remove the "You Lose" screen?

 

I rather like them telling you that you're a loser!

 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Thank you. In my next game, I'll be smashing the Russians into ice-cubes and thinking of you. :D

[EnderAndrew]

Normally I play as the Persians or Japanese in Civ.

[alanschu]

Germans > *

[EnderAndrew]

World Wars 2

Germany 0

[alanschu]

That's only because it was German vs World

 

 

Don't see Japan or Persia dominating any world wars either

 

At least Germany needed a two front war with 3 superpowers (U.S. UK USSR), Japan died to only the US

[EnderAndrew]

I choose Persia becaue it isn't an obvious choice. If I recall, they are Industrious, and Science minded, or Industrious and Agricultural. Either way, I prefer growth over war.

 

War is for hot-tempered children.

[SteveThaiBinh]

I tend to play Persia or Ottomans - industrious and scientific both. Less fiddling with workers + cheap libraries. Either that or the Greeks. It'll be a shame when CivIV is released to have fewer civs to choose from, but I'm sure expansion packs will follow...

[alanschu]

Nah, war is for protecting your borders from those ruthless AI players that have no respect for your borders.

[EnderAndrew]

I fling barn-yard animals at them.

 

And then I use the Trojan Rabbit!

[metadigital]

Except it does to an extent in that you can already do that.

 

Merely surviving shouldn't be a victory condition in my opinion however.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yes, it allows it, but it doesn't recognise it. You still get the silly 'you lose' screen at the end. However, it's not a major complaint. The strength of the game is that it does allow you to play in this way, and that makes me happy.

 

However, as to victory conditions, it would be nice formally to turn off the concept of 'victory' and just play as a simulator. Not essential, but nice. Most countries in the world today do not judge their success by how high they are ranked on the global power list.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Depends on what the game is simulating, I think. The simulation you create is a lovely global Shangri-La, but it bears no resemblence to the real world and geopolitics, sadly. So, as a theologian, you excel, but as a meglomaniac, You Lose!