Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

What do you think of how Civ4 treats War?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    I do feel like there isn't enough time to actually use a given era of units before the next era arrives. Things move rather fast. Epic, as I understand it, adjusts the # of turns but also increases the costs of things, so while you may have longer to use a given unit, you will not have more of said unit...

    I'm not sure about the pacing of the game yet. First, because I've only played about 8 games (5 all the way through), and second because I've only worked up to Prince level.

    -Arrian
    grog want tank...Grog Want Tank... GROG WANT TANK!

    The trick isn't to break some eggs to make an omelette, it's convincing the eggs to break themselves in order to aspire to omelettehood.

    Comment


    • #17
      IMO, some of the defense bonuses of cities shold be transferred to other terrain types. What I would really like to see is large armies of combined arms going at each other on the open fields, or in valleys, or coming out of forests, and whatnot.

      At the very least, I'd like to see large armies. Like Arrian said, even in Epic, since the costs are scaled as well, you have to make do with fewer units, which is less fun.
      THEY!!111 OMG WTF LOL LET DA NOMADS AND TEH S3D3NTARY PEOPLA BOTH MAEK BITER AXP3REINCES
      AND TEH GRAAT SINS OF THERE [DOCTRINAL] INOVATIONS BQU3ATH3D SMAL
      AND!!1!11!!! LOL JUST IN CAES A DISPUTANT CALS U 2 DISPUT3 ABOUT THEYRE CLAMES
      DO NOT THAN DISPUT3 ON THEM 3XCAPT BY WAY OF AN 3XTARNAL DISPUTA!!!!11!! WTF

      Comment


      • #18
        More units is less fun, in my view. With fewer units, each one counts for more, so those promotions mean a lot. If you aren't making any use of XP-increasing factors, then you won't see the full scope of this. Also helps if you are warmongering to play an Aggressive civ, as the free Combat I promotion on half the unit types opens this up even more!

        All that would occur with more units is to make each individual one less important. Remember, the enemy would have more units, too! So it's a wash.

        If you REALLY want more units, though, you should band together with like-minded folks and work on a More Units mod. All you have to do is lower unit costs and increase unit support, including how many units the AI builds and maintains, relative to how you've changed the costs.

        You CAN get to the game you want, if this one isn't it, but you will have to do a bit of work to get there. No strategy game has ever been more moddable, so there is no excuse for missing out on the gameplay you want.

        For the vast majority of gamers, though, the reduction in unit numbers plus the new combat model that relies A LOT LESS on luck factors, and gives you all those nifty promotions, is a HUGE step up from all previous Civ combat models.


        - Sirian

        Comment


        • #19
          I understand that, and look forward to the mods that I or others would undoubtedly create.

          I remember having similar complaints about Warcraft 3 compared to Warcraft 2 - fewer, but upgradeable, units, and more of an RPG feel. I guess I'm too much of an old-school strategy person to appreciate this.
          THEY!!111 OMG WTF LOL LET DA NOMADS AND TEH S3D3NTARY PEOPLA BOTH MAEK BITER AXP3REINCES
          AND TEH GRAAT SINS OF THERE [DOCTRINAL] INOVATIONS BQU3ATH3D SMAL
          AND!!1!11!!! LOL JUST IN CAES A DISPUTANT CALS U 2 DISPUT3 ABOUT THEYRE CLAMES
          DO NOT THAN DISPUT3 ON THEM 3XCAPT BY WAY OF AN 3XTARNAL DISPUTA!!!!11!! WTF

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by Sirian For the vast majority of gamers, though, the reduction in unit numbers plus the new combat model that relies A LOT LESS on luck factors, and gives you all those nifty promotions, is a HUGE step up from all previous Civ combat models.
            - Sirian
            I agree that more units does not make a better game. It's the strategy and AI that are intriguing to me. Too many units can mean tedium.

            I would say Civ 4 epic mode is paced at about Civ 3 standard mode. What I was looking for was a longer game, sort of an epic epic mode. I've only been playing standard size Pangea maps for the first 3 games to get the feel, the last two being Prince level. The 3rd one, which I just started, currently 1000AD, I am in a good position for domination, just had a great start, rexing, Pyramids, Great Library (built with engineer from Pyramids), and am half way through taking over the Russians. So, after a 2050 points victory, a big space victory, I'm postioned for my first domination win.

            How easy a domination win on a huge map is an issue, and might keep some from playing the larger maps. Perhaps epic needs to be scaled to increase turns based on map size? Perhaps 1.12X (750 turns) for large, and 1.25X (850 turns) for Huge? Or, that can be just part of the difficulty. It's harder to dominate a large or huge world, as it should be. Maybe that is something that could be addressed in a patch, or wait for a mod, but I like playing the "out of the box" game.

            This is one reason I've been playing Pangea, you don't have to get bogged down in naval logistics. Playing Pangea makes one appreciate the old adage "never star a land war in Asia".

            Comment


            • #21
              I just won a domination victory on a duel map vs 3 AI's on Noble. It was pretty fun. And I like the fact that I can't just build 4 warriors and rush the neighbour civ from the beginning. I did blitz my first victim though.. just had to build some swordsmen for the job I didn't have catapult techology yet..

              ..man i LOVE CivIV..

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by Shaka II

                I would say Civ 4 epic mode is paced at about Civ 3 standard mode.
                Wow, I have a very different take on that. I find Civ4 standard to be slower than Civ3 standard. Perhaps this is because I played most of my Civ3 in its first year. Check out this game and tell me that it wasn't FLYING by at breakneck speed! Civ4 QUICK is not even this fast, and this was on a LARGE map with low sea level!




                - Sirian

                Comment


                • #23
                  I don't know.

                  At first I felt similar: Game moved too fast, not enough time, etc.

                  however, the last couple of games have really kinda gelled for me. I've come out the gate just wanting to lay waste to everything in my path.

                  Pacing was good, use of units was pretty good. I haven't personally seen much use for the 'musketman' unit yet, preferring either rifles or grenadiers, but other than that, everything is feeling like 'normal'.

                  It took some time to get my head around the facts at hand that I didn't need to research everything on the tech tree. I didn't need to capture all those enemy cities. Supremely wide spacing is perfectly acceptable, raze the border town, capture the capitol (whatever city sites have the best land)

                  Oscillating warfare, staple of Civ III, is probably not the way to go in CIV IMO. Smaller empires in Civ III were just waiting to be consumed later. They are dogs backed in a corner with a longheld hatred for you in CIV. It took some time to a: accept this, and b: come up with ways to utilize the knowledge.

                  I don't play on larger than standard maps, though. Hardware probably would go up in flames.
                  One who has a surplus of the unorthodox shall attain surpassing victories. - Sun Pin
                  You're wierd. - Krill

                  An UnOrthOdOx Hobby

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Against the AI I think its to easy to wage war really, if you want to invade you can always follow the same formula. Garrison the couple of cities that are most likely to be attacked heavily and leave a couple of mobile units in the core of your land to fend off pillaging. Then build a "stack of doom" with maybe 10-20 units, containing bombarding and collateral damage units, counter to mounted units, strong melee units.

                    This way it is very unlikely that the AI will be able to resist, it of course demands that you have built up so you are on par with the enemy troopwise. But since you concentrate your troops better you are at a tactical advantage all the time, you can heal damaged units while the full strength ones protect them. Most of the time you will only have to replace the bombarding units who are sacrificed for collateral damage when taking cities.

                    In general it goes at a pace slow enough that your own production can keep the reinforcements coming steadily. Pillaging is always an option if you find it taking to much time. This could be countered by a strong simultaneous assault by collateral damage units, followed by a massive assault on the stack. But I have not seen this done efficiently enough by the AI yet, basically the AI should get a little smarter in tactics.
                    It's candy. Surely there are more important things the NAACP could be boycotting. If the candy were shaped like a burning cross or a black man made of regular chocolate being dragged behind a truck made of white chocolate I could understand the outrage and would share it. - Drosedars

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by Sirian


                      Wow, I have a very different take on that. I find Civ4 standard to be slower than Civ3 standard. Perhaps this is because I played most of my Civ3 in its first year. Check out this game and tell me that it wasn't FLYING by at breakneck speed! Civ4 QUICK is not even this fast, and this was on a LARGE map with low sea level!




                      - Sirian
                      I see that your technology development was very fast in this game, but it seems like you would have plenty of time to conquer the world, which was part of the issue voiced above. That it was hard to win by domination on a huge map.

                      I guess we'll have to wait for more data on this. Let's see how Aeson does on a huge map at deity. A bit of a learning curve with Civ 4 I think.

                      Also, I would hazard a guess that prince on Civ 4 is about the same as Monarchy on Civ 3. It got harder in my opinion, partly because they made it harder to rex, the so called ICS expansion. So, maybe it is harder to grow out fast enough on a huge map to dominate, especially at the harder levels. Rexing now seem to involve chopping wood, and I kind of like that.

                      From what I've seen so far, they've made a masterpiece, but I haven't had quite enough play time to make that call. I'd like to play a Terran map, as well as Highlands and Ice Age, but Pangea is what I seem to like best.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by Shaka II
                        Also, I would hazard a guess that prince on Civ 4 is about the same as Monarchy on Civ 3. It got harder in my opinion, partly because they made it harder to rex, the so called ICS expansion.
                        Also because I keep losing my Tanks to those damn Longbowmen with their +6000% city defense bonus
                        THEY!!111 OMG WTF LOL LET DA NOMADS AND TEH S3D3NTARY PEOPLA BOTH MAEK BITER AXP3REINCES
                        AND TEH GRAAT SINS OF THERE [DOCTRINAL] INOVATIONS BQU3ATH3D SMAL
                        AND!!1!11!!! LOL JUST IN CAES A DISPUTANT CALS U 2 DISPUT3 ABOUT THEYRE CLAMES
                        DO NOT THAN DISPUT3 ON THEM 3XCAPT BY WAY OF AN 3XTARNAL DISPUTA!!!!11!! WTF

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          I had to vote banana, my wars have been sad affairs so far.
                          Gurka 17, People of the Valley
                          I am of the Horde.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by LordShiva


                            Also because I keep losing my Tanks to those damn Longbowmen with their +6000% city defense bonus
                            Those archers inside the city are tough, that's for sure. Last night, the last of the English cities, London, had 4 longbowmen, 4 regular archers, a catapult, spearman and axeman. Nearly wiped out my whole stack of doom.

                            But I think they made catapults and cannons much more useful now? I haven't used them much so far, so will have to examine how effective they are at removing the city defense shield, and causing collateral damage. This may be what is required, a healthy supply of bombard units. The combined arms is very neat though.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              In my last game I tried to go to war ASAP after filling the map with cities. I had about 5 when I started building Swordsman. It was 400 AD when I was ready to go. i did ofcourse build the needed wonders and some financial buildings and science stuff, I went bankrupt the game before it when I didn't build any markets or banks.

                              I think that was ok, in CIV 3 I could do that a bit earlier but usually it was pretty close to the year zero (that's how the Dutch call it)

                              After that time goes by pretty quickly, I intend to keep fighting forever. I'll see how much I can accomplish until end game.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by Shaka II


                                Those archers inside the city are tough, that's for sure. Last night, the last of the English cities, London, had 4 longbowmen, 4 regular archers, a catapult, spearman and axeman. Nearly wiped out my whole stack of doom.

                                But I think they made catapults and cannons much more useful now? I haven't used them much so far, so will have to examine how effective they are at removing the city defense shield, and causing collateral damage. This may be what is required, a healthy supply of bombard units. The combined arms is very neat though.
                                The idea is first bomb with catapults, then attack with catapults because they damage the entire stack. Your catapults will die but they are cheap. After the entire stack has about 20% str kill them with your attackers. This way you knights and stuff never die. Just keep building catapults.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X