Civilization 4: Age of Empires 2 TBS edition

[MeteorPunch]

Originally posted by LaRusso
yeah, some whining has already been reported on that issue
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=134764

Why is a valid complaint whining? It's not hard, if you have the horse resource, to build a worker, chop all your nearby forest, which will rush units fast, and easily take out a nearby opponent.

Edit: Conversly though, the defenders could be "forest-rushed" as well.

[The_Aussie_Lurker]

Also, don't forget that the 'Forest Rush' could come back to bite the player in the @$$ later on when pollution starts to bite!

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

[Fidel]

horses can also bite one's ass. enough to prevent a rush? cause a rash at least?

[Zinegata]

Perhaps the Original Poster should have just said "I don't like the game because of so and so reason" instead of going into a comparison with Age of Empires.

A truly "original" game, frankly, is exceedingly rare. In fact, arguably there are no "original" games at all. Rather, game designers simply take existing elements from other games and combine them in a new fashion that proves to be enjoyable to the player.

Even when game designers don't actually take elements from other games, they may accidentally end up re-inventing an element that has already been used by another game. Game designers are thus bewildered when someone suddenly takes potshots at them for "ripping off" another game.

Thus, if there are similarities between Age of Empires and Civilization IV, there is absolutely nothing wrong with it. What is important is that the end product is an enjoyable game.

Sadly, as someone who had yet to buy the game, the Original Poster has not really been able to clearly present logical reasons for his dislike of the game. It is, frankly, more a collection of things he did not like with the game, yet did not offer an explanation on how it had horridly disrupted or destroyed the gaming experience. Making the the Age of Empires comparison, in fact, seems to be little more than a poor attempt at analogy to discredit Civilization IV.

Important Note: This poster had NOT yet bought Civ IV (not yet available in the country -_-),. Also note that this poster had been extremely unhappy with Civilization III, wrote a scathing review of it in Gamefaqs, and nearly boycotted the franchise until he began looking at the new sequel's features. Needless to say, the poster liked very much what he'd seen so far, and is trying to find opinions to the contrary before making the final purchase decision ^_^;;;.

[Boris Godunov]

Is this poster Bob Dole?

[Fidel]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
Is this poster Bob Dole?

this poster does not know that.

[Zinegata]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
Is this poster Bob Dole?

If you're referring to me, I'm afraid not ^_^

[Alexander's Horse]

Hi sean

[Freddz]

Well. horses ARE overpowering. Totally. Just look at me.
In this game when I played Genghis Khan I rushed towards being able to build the Keshik only to find out I had forgotten to see if I had the horses resource.
I found out I didn't.
Then I was totally overpowered in the game by english knights.
It seems so unfair.

[Alexander's Horse]

Boo hoo!

[The_Aussie_Lurker]

I second that 'Boo Hoo' AH. I am currently only ahead in my game because I am playing on Settler!! Yet if I was getting my backside tanned, I would actually LOVE it !

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

[StarLightDeath]

Just a little update. In my past 30 games on the ladder I have lost only 5 games. In the past 20 or so games since I got a real handle on the game I am pretty much undefeated. There are only about 5 people on the ladder who could beat me. I can now march my points right up to 3000 in very little time. I no longer bother trying to take cities except early on. I have a very good grasp of all the strategies and I am completely dominating for the most part. I hate the game even more now as I realize how ridiculous it has become. Rushing is king early on, but if it doesn't work just sit back and build **** all day long. I usually make my long bows strong enough to defend against a nuclear attack and I throw a bunch of catapults in my city. I honestly can say now that I hate this game. I hate how easy it has become. I hate how mindless the combat is and how ridiculous the defense values are. I'm tired of building missionaries and great leaders as I keep looking at how much gold I'm gaining. I find myself focusing less on what the other player is doing and more on what my score is doing. So now I can get 3 times the score as my opponent and i can defend against the apocalypse with just a few longbows or musketmen and I can do every strategy under the sun...and I feel like it is the biggest waste of time ever. Never have I felt so disgusted with a game before. This will probably be the last PC game I ever play because every game out there is taking the path that civ4 and AOE3 have taken. Honestly, it's probably for the best because I can do far more profitable things with my time. If you're an idiot and find building temples and monasteries difficult, this game is for you.

[Fidel]

yeah, you should probably get a job at JPL or something. man, you rock.

[Arrian]

@ StarLightDeath. It's so pathetic, it's funny.

-Arrian

[EEKthedog]

He wasn't dominating at all. He was getting his ass kicked more often than he ever expected would happen.
First when joining he had a 2-7 record. He then resigned and came back under a different name, and still not being able to win the majority of the games.

That lead to "mr. pro in his dream" here to make posts on the ladder forum complaining how noobs can luck out and beat "the best civ player ever". What happened was that some other bloke simply did a better job and came up with strategies he didn't know how to deal with. So much for getting "a very good grasp of the strategies" and "complete domination".