Silly questions, w/poll.

[ColdWizard]

So I heard there was this new civ game out, 4th in the series. I liked 1 and 2 but rather disliked 3. I still play 2 (MGE) but am getting increasingly bored with the very annoying suicidal tendencies of the hyper-hostile AI. Therefore, I put forth the poll question. And now to the silly questions:

1. The AI is allegedly not as hostile as civ2 mge, possibly Montezuma excepted. But how less hostile?

2. Is Civ4 too complex for an increasingly forgetful and slow-witted layabout well entrenched in his civ2 ways?

3. Will my vast experience with CivRev (4 games played) ease a transition between civ2 and 4?

4. Editing xml files apparently allows for customization of the game. How much more difficult is this than editing the civ2 txt files? (Of which I altered minorly the tech tree, and added and altered units, both textually and graphically).

5. Is multiplayer fun? Or will I just get my ass handed to my just like in the civ2 days and thus should stick with SP.

6. Are there fun scenarios to play?

7. What annoying bull**** tricks does the AI play?

8. Is the AI city placement as retarded as it was in civ2? Is there a raze city option as in civ3?

More silly questions may follow, if I can remember them.

[Heraclitus]

1. Depends on the leader. But even with Agressive AI option turned on you will see its much less agressive.

2. No. All you need to realize is that ICS is dead.

3. No, civ rev is in my experience more similar to Civ3 than 4.

4. Not much.

5. Yes, the best in the series. Some MP people are crazy but this is true with any game. If you happen to like roleplay and want to learn how to play better civ check out the Diplo games and see if any spots are open.

6. If you mean scenarios without any game modification, the answer is no (well I really really like the Earth 1000AD scenario and a few others but there aren't many).
If you mean mods with scenarios the answer is HELL YES!

7. The AI is pretty fair, it dosen't cheat much at all. Its also pretty reasonable. It is under certain conditions pretty smart (watch out for the Dagger - an invasion that burns your capital, a particulary nasty trick Blake taught it )

8. Less so, most AI cities are keepers. And you can raze a city. Even better if you are playing BtS with the latest patch you can take a look in the city screen before deciding whether to keep the city or raze it.


PS I recomend you play 2 games of Civ 4 vanilla and then install BtS (its really the best version of civ out there).

[ColdWizard]

So that means I can't build 4 settlers out of my capital before building my first defensive unit?

[rah]

Yeah you could but you'd have to drop your tech rate to 0.

1. Take it from a guy like you that loved 1 & 2 and hated 3. BTS is the best out of all of them.

5. We'd love to have you join us like the old days. You'd probably get stomped the first few games but I know you'd pick it up quick. HUMANS are more fun opponents than AIs, and generally more trustworthy.

[ColdWizard]

Is that team play feature good or unused or what? I liked the old gameleague days where I was the cannonfodder/distraction while my more skilled mates would provide all the real horsepower.

[Blaupanzer]

I think team play is used in MP; Rah will know.

1. The AI is less blindly hostile than in Civ2, unless you are weak militarily.

2. Best game in the system. Rewards concentration, requires some new habits.

3. No. May actually hurt.

4. Editing is simple if you are familiar with formats and structures.

5. Don't MP, but those that do say it's good. As for your ass, that's a skill question.

6. Not really.

7. Tricks for the AI in this one are mostly related to costs for most everything. The higher up the skill tree you go, the cheaper everything is for the AI. Recommend you start BTS on Noble; work up from there. Lots more going on.

8. AI city placement is somewhat better, and there is a raze city option.

Give it a shot.

[rah]

Is that team play feature good or unused or what? I liked the old gameleague days where I was the cannonfodder/distraction while my more skilled mates would provide all the real horsepower.

Team play can be fun and it's quite flexible. You set the teams on the start screen so almost anything is possible. 2v2, 2v3, humans v AI etc.

All teammates can see each others maps and cities. Your research is combined.

The only problem I have with Humans vs Humans teams it that it's basically a race to construction to see who get's cats first, and if one team has ele's and the other doesn't it can get a bit one-sided.
If one team has better land, the games don't last long. Yes this can happen in solo mp games but the difference can be multiplied sometimes in team games.

[Dis]

civ2 *shudders*

at the time I thought it was the be all, end all. I used to hate units being supported from cities (and the resultant unhappiness). Although in reflection, perhaps that was a more realistic model, at least for pre-modern age.

The borders alone are why I love civ4 over civ2. That alone is enough reason not to play civ2 anymore.

[rah]

My only real problem with civ2 was the kill one in the stack, kill the whole stack thingie.
Yes, one elephant just killed 147 legions and 110 cannons.
But as much as I loved civ2, BTS is far better.

[TriMiro]

Compared to the newer civs, Civ II sux. I hated it when:

1. I have a nice big city.
2. The AI makes a city right next to it.
3. The sends one stupid Legion and takes the nice bonus tile that my city was working on.
4. I send 2 Tanks and take it back.
5. My city suffers from 4 unhappiness because I have 2 Tanks outside of it.
6. The AI comes and audaciously suggests that I remove my troops from "his" territory.
7. I say "&*$%@$ you", and prepare my Stealths to wipe out the idiot.
8. The senate then decides that it would really be best if we give up our land and give it to the AI after all. I mean, we should play nice, oil is far more valuable for his Chariots than for my Tanks, right?

There are things that could have been thought more thoroughly in both Civ III and Civ IV, but there are no more such obvious flaws in gameplay.

[rah]

I don't know, the original corruption model in CIV III was so bad it sucked all the fun out of the game.

[Blaupanzer]

Ah, the good ol' days. Civ IV rocks, especially BTS.

[rah]

I find it humorous that 2 people actually voted that civ4 was crap.
If they find it so crappy, what are they doing viewing threads in the civ4 strat area?

When I found out that civIII was crap, I stopped following those forums. I didn't see the point.

Ah, i see it was AAHZ, CEO Aaron. That explains it. They don't need any excuses to whine and complain like little children.

[ColdWizard]

That's why I made the poll public. So that I can weigh the votes of the old civ2 mpers opinions more and count Aahz's vote as opposite

[rah]

Always the sensible one.

So come and join our game on fridays or saturdays nights. We would welcome you. You know where to post when you're ready.