War, what is it good for? - Absolutely everything!

[Dis]

come on. Why tone down warfare because it was so effective in civ3? I can understand the need to balance. But fun trumps balance.

Consider this a petition to bring nukes back to their former glory. Signed: Dis

[Solver]

Nukes were a complete joke in Civ3. They're almost a complete joke in Civ4 - make them stronger in GlobalDefines.xml

I don't get all the people who say warfare got toned down. It just was made not the only right choice and actually strategic for a change. In Civ3, waging war was always the right choice. You war, you get more cities, and if you gain more cities, you get stronger, even a crapload of tiny and nearly worthless cities makes your stronger. Plus you can wipe out whole civilizations with almost no losses.

And Civ4 toned that down? Hardly. It just added drawbacks to war (oh the horror) and made it actually possible to play without warring. As far as I see it, though, warmongering style of play is just as possible as always in Civ4 - only it requires some more planning and strategy.

[Enigma_Nova]

Which will invariably get whines from people who are used to doing it brainlessly.

[MoonWolf]

I feel it's toned down when it comes to that you don't have to be so much at war as in Civ3 (like the others here points out), but when the war is there, it's actually toned up as you need to take so much more considerations cause of the new combat system.

[Dis]

Originally posted by Solver
Nukes were a complete joke in Civ3. They're almost a complete joke in Civ4 - make them stronger in GlobalDefines.xml

I don't get all the people who say warfare got toned down. It just was made not the only right choice and actually strategic for a change. In Civ3, waging war was always the right choice. You war, you get more cities, and if you gain more cities, you get stronger, even a crapload of tiny and nearly worthless cities makes your stronger. Plus you can wipe out whole civilizations with almost no losses.

And Civ4 toned that down? Hardly. It just added drawbacks to war (oh the horror) and made it actually possible to play without warring. As far as I see it, though, warmongering style of play is just as possible as always in Civ4 - only it requires some more planning and strategy.

for the most part I like the combat system. It does take some planning. But it still doesn't feel quite right. The ability to conquer large numbers of cities just isn't there (my army deserts me because I can't support them at 0% science)

But perhaps that is realistic. Even at their heights, the Mongols and Alexander really didn't control that many cities did they? And how much control did they really have? I doubt it was that much.

it's still every man's dream to conquer the world . Okay maybe just Hitler and myself. But in this case I understand realism is more important than gameplay.

[MoonWolf]

History shows that every empire will collapse at some point, especially those that requires expansion to exist (like the Roman Empire). Converted to civ-terms, that means you need to conquer new cities to raid them for gold to be able to support your empire as you never earn enough gold to be in the plus side. Instead you must use from you reserve thats only income is from rading cities (and pillaging)

[baboon]

Toned down? I'm pretty much at war all the time.

And about nukes, well I never used them, doesn't fit with my philosophy of liberating people from their current dictator and have them join my 'Reich'

[AL_DA_GREAT]

Originally posted by MoonWolf
History shows that every empire will collapse at some point, especially those that requires expansion to exist (like the Roman Empire). Converted to civ-terms, that means you need to conquer new cities to raid them for gold to be able to support your empire as you never earn enough gold to be in the plus side. Instead you must use from you reserve thats only income is from rading cities (and pillaging)

I like that tactic that you described here it is a very fun way to play. war rocks!!!!!!!!!1

[Dis]

I never seem to get much money from pillaging. Usually 1 or 2 gold. Maybe I'm doing something wrong.

[ghen]

defense got a bonus in civ4, that doesn't mean warfare was toned down though.. you can get alot more units on the map now with the right civics which makes for interesting stacks.

[Solver]

for the most part I like the combat system. It does take some planning. But it still doesn't feel quite right. The ability to conquer large numbers of cities just isn't there (my army deserts me because I can't support them at 0% science)

That just is not the case. I've played games where I conquered many civs and achieved domination. And that's on Standard or Large maps. It takes time getting used to, but in another two months, those who like to do so will be reaching their domination and conquest victories.

[player1]

Well, nukes are more or less worthless, since more often then not you get Satellites before Fissions and be able to build SDI before M. Project for just half price of one nuke.

[Dis]

SDI is far too cheap.

[Solver]

It's not just that, it's that nukes do no worthwhile destruction. Go change them to kill more population and units.

[Mujadaddy]

No, I think the nukes are fine... It's just the SDI is too easy to get... and too cheap ... and too effective...