CivIV: Beyond the Sword

[Harovan]

Originally posted by Sirotnikov

(who cares, in 1950 AD, that I stopped trading with them in 300 BC? Nobody in the real world).

Who cares in England and France in the 21st century about the 100 years war that ended in the 15th century?

Who cares in the 21st century, that the christians conquered Jerusalem in the 12th century?

And who cares in the 21st century that the Joos murdered our Savior in the 1st?

[Sirotnikov]

Mel Gibson

[Impaler[WrG]]

+10% Chance of Flame War

[Sirotnikov]

LOLz


Anyways - I'm pretty excited about this.

My computer is a bit weak and I had no cash, so I didn't bother buying Civ 4, and convinced myself not to 'get it using other means'.

So I sort of missed the whole Civ 4 rush, and then Warlords seemed just like a pack of scenarios, and not any which I would like to play. So no interest there.

But my brand new salary is in soon, and the lots of good news (corporations, espionage, 8 new civs) sounds like a good enough push to make me upgrade and legally buy Civ 4

Yay to Firaxis.

[dregor]

Warlords added more to the core game than just a "pack of scenarios".

Anyways, this thread is threatening to go Beyond the Silly.

[MJW]

Originally posted by Dis
you can powergame civ4. just play at settler level.

But then it would be boring because the rush would always be the best idea. Just kill off the AI's one by one.

When I used the word powergaming I mean having fun by finding the best ideas in the game; not hurting youself by going over the top.

[MJW]

Originally posted by Spiffor

Actually, it's increasingly so, over the different episodes in Civ.

In Civ4, the AI is watching if you're going to victory, and will try to prevent it, unless you really are best friends. At the very least, the AI won't trade techs with you if you're shooting for space victory.
And the AI has a "playerlike" memory: i.e it remembers the offenses of the early and mid-game, even though it is absurd from a historical perspective (who cares, in 1950 AD, that I stopped trading with them in 300 BC? Nobody in the real world).


I thought Civ4 had been quite a cash-cow for 2k and Firaxis

Civ4 has been a cash cow. But it still does not change the fact the there are very few empire building games compared to RTS and FPS. The reason why is that those games are balanced. Strategy requires balance or something that can react to you logically. Civ4 does not have balance. It does not have an AI that can react to your plan anyway. Due to how game play works no one ever goes for a space race victory. Also due to how the game works you just need at most two AI's to like you. (Vassal State Strategy). You can check out Sirian's last game of Civ4 to get what I'm saying (he's a better writer than me). Also, Check out uberfish's Saladin no cotteges win.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by MJW
no one ever goes for a space race victory.

I just did. And it's pretty much my default path to victory: I have to make an extra effort not to end the game with the space race.

[Nikolai]

Me too. It's next to always the way I win,

[Kuciwalker]

How are RTS games balanced against the AI at all?

[LordShiva]

Space Race

[Kuciwalker]

All ten new civs should be Rome, and they should have increasingly powerful Praetorians

[Adagio]

Originally posted by Spiffor
I just did. And it's pretty much my default path to victory

The Space Race is too slow, requires much more effort and gives a much lower score than any other victory... not much reason to go for that victory

[Maquiladora]

The dome over the city artwork looks pretty much like the forcefield from CtP.

[Berzerker]

it would be nice if we dont need to fix the game after buying it