UBs

[Thedrin]

I find that by the time I get to Horseback Riding most civs have plenty of spearmen. If they don't have bronze they have a lot of archers with good city defence bonuses. Using Keshiks I found the casuality rate to be very high. When I try mass building I run my economy into the ground. Axemen are a quicker, more efficient way of taking cities - compared to Keshiks their promtotions allow their city taking abilities to improve much faster. Keshiks could be useful for tearing up infrastructure but I go to war primarily to gain cities. It doesn't suit me to rip apart improvements and sitting a couple of axeman on the AIs intercity road network disrupts their economy enough.

[Qwertqwert]

Originally posted by Thedrin
I find that by the time I get to Horseback Riding most civs have plenty of spearmen. If they don't have bronze they have a lot of archers with good city defence bonuses. Using Keshiks I found the casuality rate to be very high. When I try mass building I run my economy into the ground. Axemen are a quicker, more efficient way of winning wars. Keshiks could be useful for tearing up infrastructure but I go to war primarily to gain cities. It doesn't suit me to rip apart improvements and sitting a couple of axeman on the AIs intercity road network disrupts their economy enough.

What level are you playing on?

[Thedrin]

Monarch

[Qwertqwert]

Well on easier levels (since I believe Noble is most popular) the best way is clearly going for Keshiks.

[Thedrin]

I won't dispute that. As I tried to go up the ranks (I'm not intending on going any further for a long time) I found that reducing my military in the early stages by using the most generic units - axemen, archers and the odd spearman made it easier to handle the increased costs. I imagine if I ever try to go higher I'll remove archers from that list.

[MasterDave]

I think my favorite building among these is the Terrace, followed closely by the Obelisk. In a new city, the first building I usually want to create is either a barracks, something cultural, or granary. Now, by combining the latter two, the question is reduced to whether or not I need military quickly out of a new city. I really like the new Incas with Financial, Industrious, and Terraces!! My beloved Quechas lose their Combat I, but otherwise I think that they could easily continue being my favorite civ.

I like the obelisk very much because it allows you to get a great prophet early, which is critical for those of us who grab an early religion in Multiplayer, where you often cannot count on getting Stonehenge or the Oracle in a more competitive situation. Getting a great prophet early often means the difference between running 90 or 100% science in the early game or 60-70% as your empire grows.

[Nacht]

Why would you ever want a barracks as first improvement in a newly conquored city?!? Sure, you have better unit producing cities back home?

[LordShiva]

Is there anyone else who's a little uncomfortable with what looks like going further down the whole UX path (unique units, unique buildings, etc. What next, unique civics, techs, GP?)? I admit my position isn't entirely rational, but I've seen something like this happen before, and destroy a perfectly good franchise in the process - Warcraft. WC2 was awesome, but then WC3 came along with it's fewer units, greater differences between Civs, "Heroes," magic, experience points, etc., amounting to the RPGing of my beloved series. I hope Civ4 (or 5) doesn't do the same with the Civ series (if not RPGing, then RTSing).

Maybe I'm not making any sense.

[Qwertqwert]

Originally posted by Nacht
Why would you ever want a barracks as first improvement in a newly conquored city?!? Sure, you have better unit producing cities back home?

Well it's a sensiable 2nd...

[Qwertqwert]

Originally posted by LordShiva
Is there anyone else who's a little uncomfortable with what looks like going further down the whole UX path (unique units, unique buildings, etc. What next, unique civics, techs, GP?)? I admit my position isn't entirely rational, but I've seen something like this happen before, and destroy a perfectly good franchise in the process - Warcraft. WC2 was awesome, but then WC3 came along with it's fewer units, greater differences between Civs, "Heroes," magic, experience points, etc., amounting to the RPGing of my beloved series. I hope Civ4 (or 5) doesn't do the same with the Civ series (if not RPGing, then RTSing).

Maybe I'm not making any sense.

I don't understand how it could be RTS'd, regardless if it gave unique civics, techs, and GPs. Infact it actually seems like a good idea to me.

[LordShiva]

Originally posted by Qwertqwert


I don't understand how it could be RTS'd, regardless if it gave unique civics, techs, and GPs. Infact it actually seems like a good idea to me.

Well, we already have the more zoomed in map and big trees, taking away some of the epic feel. Then there's the right click to move. And the big RTS-style bar at the bottom of the screen.

And with more UX, I feel we're moving closer to games like RoN, AoM, etc., where playing as different civs is almost like playing a totally different game. People begin to develop favourite strategies best suiting their style of play, and then play those more often and do that much worse playing one of the other civs. I'm beginning to see some of this myself - while I still make it a point to choose a random civ, I do let out a little "Sweet!" when I get Caesar, and an "Oh, crap" when I get Persians or Gandhi. I tend to abandon the latter games more often.

[Nacht]

Originally posted by Qwertqwert


Well it's a sensiable 2nd...

Not for me, but I think this is not really on topic.

[Qwertqwert]

Originally posted by LordShiva


Well, we already have the more zoomed in map and big trees, taking away some of the epic feel. Then there's the right click to move. And the big RTS-style bar at the bottom of the screen.

And with more UX, I feel we're moving closer to games like RoN, AoM, etc., where playing as different civs is almost like playing a totally different game. People begin to develop favourite strategies best suiting their style of play, and then play those more often and do that much worse playing one of the other civs. I'm beginning to see some of this myself - while I still make it a point to choose a random civ, I do let out a little "Sweet!" when I get Caesar, and an "Oh, crap" when I get Persians or Gandhi. I tend to abandon the latter games more often.

An RTS is a strategy game in which things are constantly happening, if you leave to go to the bathroom (and don't pause) the game keeps going. A TBS (Like Civ) is a game in which you take turns and have all the time you want to make a decision.

[Azuarc]

I see Shiva's point on the RTS'ing, and also what WC3 did for Warcraft -- note that the follow-up to WC3 was World of Warcraft, an MMORPG. I doubt we'll ever see Civ become a true RTS, but it has incorporated a lot of elements of it. If the tech tree ever gets merged into building construction or if food becomes a means of supporting units rather than a measurement of city size, I'll be scared.

[dregor]

Originally posted by LordShiva


Well, we already have the more zoomed in map and big trees, taking away some of the epic feel. Then there's the right click to move. And the big RTS-style bar at the bottom of the screen.

And with more UX, I feel we're moving closer to games like RoN, AoM, etc., where playing as different civs is almost like playing a totally different game. People begin to develop favourite strategies best suiting their style of play, and then play those more often and do that much worse playing one of the other civs. I'm beginning to see some of this myself - while I still make it a point to choose a random civ, I do let out a little "Sweet!" when I get Caesar, and an "Oh, crap" when I get Persians or Gandhi. I tend to abandon the latter games more often.

I'd have to respectfully disagree on all points. The map works magnificently to keep an epic feel to me. Being able to see the rolling nature of the hills, the jaggedness of the peaks, a city perched on a coastal hill looming over the water... much more epic than a flat map. The "big trees" are just representations, in the same vein that 1 visible unit can represent a batallion of infantry. Right-click to move, I have no idea how to even argue this one, I'd never even considered a problem with the mechanic. And the bar at the bottom strikes me as about equal to that of civ3's just with a different aesthetic quality to it. If anything it feels more simcity than RTSish.

The differences between civs are what makes the game great IMO. People will have favorites and disliked civs regardless of what is added in terms of uniqueness. Even if there was no difference between each civ say for the leader portrait people would still have favorites. You say you abandon games more often than not if you get dealt a leader you don't like already, but that's a fault of yours, not the game. I personally play on random because I like to try and adapt my playstyle based on what I'm given, and go with it. I still have favorites of course, and ones I enjoy less, but I know that there are people that like the ones I don't and dislike the ones I do. I personally dislike Rome somewhat because they seem overpowered to me, which is disappointing because I love roman history