Civ4 looks like revamped Civ2

[Moonbars]

Originally posted by xxFlukexx
The problem with that horse archer raiding script(I think that's what that is) is that you don't know if there is a spearman waiting around for your horse archer, by the time you get close to raiding something, a spearman can see you and gank you. And if the AI uses say 5 horse archers near my city of 6 defenders(a few archers, some warriors and 1 spearman) then they all would go through that and all decide not to pillage when they should pillage as 5 horse archers can make a real big mess fast when there's only one spearman around.

It was just an example of how things could be done off the top of my head.

Take my current game as an example (It's two levels up from Noble) The aztecs can see my city already. it's the only one they can attack by land. They know what units are in it. Over the course of the last 6 turns, they have sent 2 to 3 units in a stack to stand outside the city each turn, and I either attack and kill them, or they suicide into me. I've lost one axemen (he had 79% chance of winning) so far. If the Aztec had HORDED UP his units for 6 turns and THEN attacked me, he'd have taken the city. But no.. a turn-by-turn dribble. the AI is not making any effort to look at the situation. any good AI is based on situational analysis and mapping. it is not hard to say:

"If stength_of_target > forces_available then wait()"

Both situation variables are easy to set - the AI can see my city, in a case where it could not it could do
"if Strength_of_target = unknown then scout()"

forces_available should be built from all the troops the AI plans to send into war against me. it's easy, it's simple, it's not been done.

[Moonbars]

Originally posted by ghen
When a game creates arguments based on in-game developer designed strategy I call that a major win for the company and consumers alike.

I maintain that it makes no difference what order you build things, or what techs you research, at the balanced noble difficulty. All the things you mention are excellent - and good design - but when they only make a difference when competing against an AI that gets twice the beakers you do, what's the point?

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by cycl0ps
on the contrary civ4 is just full of constraints to let the poor AI keep up.

Civ2 had way, way more.

[Atlanteax]

I've been playing Civ since the 1st version.

In my opinion Civ3 offered more in game play (particularly negotiations with other civs, and being able to stack units) than Civ2, despite all the flaws Civ3 had.

In Civ2, it was very easy to ensure that you get all the wonders. Just beat the others to the early ones, and then keep being extra caravans and park them outside of capital, until you have the next one researched, and then boom, next turn it's completed.

Civ4 has been a significant leap in forward progress, where it has, for the most part, addressed all the flaws in Civ3, and managed to add further depth.

.

"Epic" for Civ4 seems to be the same default pace of Civ3.

I am really loving the "Marathon" pace now, as it places greater emphasis in the early time period.

For example, if I'm a Roman, I can take advantage of my advantage with Praetorians for some 50 turns (though they'd still be a force for 100-150 turns overall) to expand my empire at the expense of my neighbors.

Previously, on "Epic" the advantage would only seem to last 20 turns or less, and probably would not have a noticable impact on gameplay at "Normal" and "Quick".

.

Anyone who is truly devoted to the Civ *experience* would go with "Marathon". It shifts the emphasis more towards strategic uses of units (ie Praetorian example) ... and even though production/technology progress noticably more slowly, advantages/disadvantage in regard to production ability and technology levels (and choices) also become more profound. As it becomes harder to "mask" inefficient decisions (which is easily done in faster-paced games).

[TheArsenal]

I can’t imagine playing any other speed than Marathon at this point. I like to have large expansive empires on a Huge Map. I found the other speeds – even Epic - more restrictive, not only because I couldn’t build enough units and didn’t have the time to fight meaningful early and mid game wars but largely because I couldn’t build a strong enough economy to absorb conquered cities taken during that part of the game. I was nabbing a city or two, generally after Guilds, but saving major invasions for Military Tradition.

It’s is far more fun to have time to plan multi-front attacks, including positioning troop ships off enemy shore. No less easy mind you, because the AI builds tons of units, but far more fun.

[Shaka II]

Originally posted by Guynemer
I highly recommend Marathon length. For the first time ever, I fought a protracted, meaningful ancient-era war.

You've just said the magic words "meaningful ancient-era war". This in my opinion is the most fun of playing Civ.

Originally posted by Atlanteax
I've been playing Civ since the 1st version.

In my opinion Civ3 offered more in game play (particularly negotiations with other civs, and being able to stack units) than Civ2, despite all the flaws Civ3 had.

In Civ2, it was very easy to ensure that you get all the wonders. Just beat the others to the early ones, and then keep being extra caravans and park them outside of capital, until you have the next one researched, and then boom, next turn it's completed.

Civ4 has been a significant leap in forward progress, where it has, for the most part, addressed all the flaws in Civ3, and managed to add further depth.

.

"Epic" for Civ4 seems to be the same default pace of Civ3.

I am really loving the "Marathon" pace now, as it places greater emphasis in the early time period.

For example, if I'm a Roman, I can take advantage of my advantage with Praetorians for some 50 turns (though they'd still be a force for 100-150 turns overall) to expand my empire at the expense of my neighbors.

Previously, on "Epic" the advantage would only seem to last 20 turns or less, and probably would not have a noticable impact on gameplay at "Normal" and "Quick".

.

Anyone who is truly devoted to the Civ *experience* would go with "Marathon". It shifts the emphasis more towards strategic uses of units (ie Praetorian example) ... and even though production/technology progress noticably more slowly, advantages/disadvantage in regard to production ability and technology levels (and choices) also become more profound. As it becomes harder to "mask" inefficient decisions (which is easily done in faster-paced games).

If I had any doubts before, I think they're gone now. My next game will be marathon.

[Aginor]

Guys, this game is ridiculously good.

Yes, the AI is stupid. This will likely improve with time. Even so, the production advantages at even a Monarch/Emperor level are sufficient to constrain you to an early game of "Big. Technologically advanced. Pick one." Civ 2 never forced this on you, even on Deity. The result of this is that you can't take an early lead and bury everyone...you have to win with strategy and quality play. I'm *still* figuring out how to bleed the last drop of productivity out of my cities over the course of a game, which is why I'm still playing Monarch games at the moment.

Civ 3 did, but its restrictions on your play just made it plain unfun. This game kept everything that made Civ 2 fun, yet constrains your play in a fashion that prevents you from crushing everyone and everything on the map early on, as you could in Civ 2. This means that you have legitimate rivals throughout the game.

As a bonus, your decisions on what to research and are rarely easy anymore. I have a basic overall strategy, but often I am forced to deviate from it due to the unexpected (surprise attack, for instance). Also, in order to win, I actually have to engage in something remotely resembling diplomacy. It's not "No you can't demand my techs, I could crush you like a bug tomorrow, go ahead and attack me, whatever" anymore. There are times when it actually makes sense to accede to a demand, and times when it makes sense to let a god-awful number of techs go just to keep two AIs busy with one another for fifty turns.

Oh, and did I mention that those of us that want to play a shorter game can, while those that still want to play three-week long games can?

It's a well-designed game, and we should consider ourselves thankful that it IS this well designed.

[Kuciwalker]

Civ2 was an absurdly broken game in terms of strategy.

[Hauptman]

Mongo like cIV. Mongo like this joke...

I apologise to Americans who have difficulty understanding English

Mongo think brit man funny....





Would somebody PLEASE program the AI to do amphibios assaults? If i have ONE unit defending a coastal city why do they drop there EIGHTEEN attack units NEXT to the city??? just attack out of the boats at half strength and take it already....

[cycl0ps]

Hauptman,
yeah! funny it is but nobody picked up the 'brains the size of planets' which was aimed at the 0.000001% of the population that reckon they can beat any game at the highest level while they are doing ten other things at the same time.
Nobody said civ2 was perfect but it did have more look and feel of an Empire game. That is if one considers Empires World Wide with any sort of Government. Stupid thing is that Communism and Fascism both failed to produce lasting Empires.
If someone is happy fending off swarms of barbarians then masocist springs to mind.
I still haven't figured out how to get decent terrain I presume the guy that designed it lived in a desert and must have assumed all places were like that.
Only conquest option open seems to be laying waste to everything. I did like Meglomania but it sucks for building Empires.
It ain't a War game? Really! Then why are my cities packed to the rafters with troops. Armies normally cost loads of money - Not in this game. They don't need feeding either and their weaponary never wears out.

[xxFlukexx]

Originally posted by cycl0ps
I apologise to Americans who have difficulty understanding English

I apologize to you that you are a stupid foreigner who doesn't understand English and has a superiority complex. Sorry that you suck at Civ4 and sorry that you don't understand the words "strategy" or "tactics" or understand what a "Strategy game" like Civ4 is.

Just because you lose a game of Civ4 or play at Noble level, does not mean the game sucks, now go back under the bridge where you came from, troll.

[cycl0ps]

Fluke,
thank you for yer enlightened reply. I have noticed the American way of personal attacks when they have lost the plot. The game has a shrinking niche maybe the marketing guys ought to take note of some of the comments. Whole point of the original post was civ4 ain't advanced much over civ2. Other developers have moved on but this is stuck in the 20th century.

[Common Sensei]

What is this thread doing in Strategy & Education? It belongs in Stories/Reviews or even General.

If this was an honest mistake, then fine. However, if the original intent was to "mispost" and troll then it's not appreciated.

I motion for this thread to be moved to a more appropriate subforum. This subform is for discussing the game's mechanics, not for trolling, flaming and posturing.

[Cort Haus]

You're damn right Sensei. We shouldn't be feeding this troll, whose probably just a DL 'avin a larf at our expense - and certainly not on this forum.

maybe the marketing guys ought to take note of some of the comments

If he's not a DL then maybe the OP should take notice of some of the comments here that refute his position. I see he has, in typical flamer fashion, completely ignored the relevant points that have been made against him.