BTS: Patch 3.0.3.1 ?

[ZEE]

this is absolutely ridiculous if you ask me.

from all the crazy bugs and glitches, to the micromanagement strategy-headaches required to defeat the new AI, this game has become VERY un-fun to me.

I WANT MY CIV BACK!

[Kloreep]

Originally posted by AAHZ
this is absolutely ridiculous if you ask me.

It is kinda funny that patches are delayed by 2K QA and such, only to come out and introduce new bugs like this.

Originally posted by AAHZ
from all the crazy bugs and glitches, to the micromanagement strategy-headaches required to defeat the new AI, this game has become VERY un-fun to me.

Micromanagement required? What difficulty do you play on?

[ZEE]

Originally posted by Kloreep
Micromanagement required? What difficulty do you play on?

Prince-Monarch. What I mean is i constantly have to re-assign all my city's citizens to ensure that all the tiles being worked are up to my specifications and peak usefulness. I spend WAY too much time figuring out what to do with my workers. City placing is so vital and critical now that it has changed my entire exansion strategy forever. If i screw up my building priorities i will get blitzed/fall way behind, take your pick. then you add all the EARLY crippling maintence before the economy gets rolling and the crazy bugs and glitches and then i sit back and say to myself...

what the hell am i doing this for anyways?

keep in mind i have routed a protective empire twice the size as mine on Monarch level (Native Americans) in the classic/medieval era, so dont think i am not capable of winning. Every game, however, has just become a tremendous chore no matter what strategy i adopt and all the bugs just kill whatever interest i may have had in this game to begin with.

[Blaupanzer]

Poor AAHZ. If the AI doesn't make him work at winning, the game is boring. If he does have to work at it, the game's no fun. Kind of a glass half-empty approach with no middle ground. What do you miss the most, AAHZ?

[Kloreep]

Sounds like me with Civ3, AAHZ. Overflow was not handled at all in that game, which eventually drove me to become a compulsive micromanager. Thankfully Civ4 handles overflow, and well, so I feel like I can step back and just let things even out over time.

Frankly though, it's a little ridiculous to play above Noble and then state that the game requires MM to win. Why not try a lower difficulty in which you require yourself to MM less?

[ZEE]

by Blaupanzer
Poor AAHZ. If the AI doesn't make him work at winning, the game is boring. If he does have to work at it, the game's no fun. Kind of a glass half-empty approach with no middle ground. What do you miss the most, AAHZ?

you pretty much nailed it, actually. i have been searching for my Civ middle-ground since Civ 2.

by Kloreep
Frankly though, it's a little ridiculous to play above Noble and then state that the game requires MM to win. Why not try a lower difficulty in which you require yourself to MM less?

bragging rights.

[trev]

I have very little trouble winning on Monarch and I do very little micromanagement, I never use auto-workers, or units, but mostly only check cities occasionally for what squares worked or specialists used, so it is your tactics that are the problem if you cannot win at that level with minor micromanaging.

[joncnunn]

I wonder how much of the "bragging rights" is related to:

Civ II -> "Monarch" is closest to even
Civ III -> "Prince" is closest to even in theory but wastes so many science beakers to overflow that Monarch is actually closer to even.
Civ IV -> "Nobel" is closet to even and AI no longer wastes beakers or hamers to overflow (because there is very little to be wasted)

[Paddy]

Originally posted by Kloreep


It is kinda funny that patches are delayed by 2K QA and such, only to come out and introduce new bugs like this.

...........

you said it