Return Of The King To Civ Gaming

[Dulaak]

Slaving is just a system of rushing production. Basically you lose population in exchange for quick shields. I think something like it existed in SMAC but I don't remember. Either way it's really powerful. The sad thing is though is that the game is so bad that if you take slaving away then there's NOTHING you can do to get ahead of other people. Basically you need a ****ed up and overpowered civic to help differentiate players, albeit very little. The game just sucks, plain and simple.

Do you use AIM or anything? ALso, I don't know of any games really at the moment that we could go to. World in Conflict I hear could be good but who knows. Most games these days are following the same trends of dumbed down gameplay with suped up graphics in their never ending quest to make games less complicated and easier for beginners. I would love to find a new game if one existed.

[StrategicKingVa]

just ICQ and msn messanger with my e-mail address as strategicking@hotmail.com
cant even find my ICQ# on this stupid thing

[Dulaak]

I added you on MSN but I don\'t see you as online.

[Dulaak]

World in conflict sounds really stupid. No buildings and no resource gathering which means that there is absolutely no economy in the game. I\\\'m not sure I see how they\\\'re going to differentiate players in this, especially since it seems that your units just magically regenerate themselves to you as reinforcements. I think starcraft 2 is the only hope at this point. Everything else is just too dumbed down and simplified.

[MasterDave]

Strategic King VA, unless money is really tight, I would suggest giving Civ4 a try. It is not the perfect wargame (I am a fairly avid World in Flames and AH gamer away from the computer), but I do like it quite a bit for sinlge player and for my allegedly lame-ass, weak, pathetic, heretical, causual, noob five to ten player games. I have been happily "wasting" saturday afternoons for a long time now with an Apolyton group of fellow "weak players enjoying a broken game."

Who knows, you might actually like the game despite the hatred of some of these hardcore 1v1 Civ2 guys.

A very Deep RTS that I am really enjoying is Supreme Commander. Another RTS that I have been playing this last year and really like is Company of Heroes. World in conflict looks like a very pretty game graphically, but I am also somewhat dubious about gameplay that is described by Marketing hacks as "simplified."

[snoopy369]

Civ4 is definitely worth a try. Please don't let Eyes (dulaak) discourage you, he's made it his life's work to disparage Civ4, and although a few of his reasons are sound most of them are a bit, err, extreme.

Don't expect it to be an RTS, but it is a very enjoyable game if you play it as a TBS, MP or SP; and in general it is considered superior to Civ2 for MP from what I've seen (though I never played Civ2 MP). There are- and always will be- a few diehard people who really like Civ2's gameplay, but the majority have moved on to the more balanced game.

[Dulaak]

YAY! Another idiot joins the discussion giving his opinion about something he clearly knows nothing about. Notice how he didn't refute anything I said and so simply fell back to the classic strategy used by all Civ4 fanboys, "it's not civ2 so you don't like it." News flash moron, the majority of people from Civ2 and Civ3 either didn't move on to the new game, or played it and quit. I also love how you call it more "balanced" when the whole problem with Civ4 is how ridiculously unbalanced it is and how it is nothing but military production non-stop. Did I mention you're an idiot?

[Beta]

Originally posted by rah
Having a twin brother growing up was fantastic for Avalon Hill games. *drool*

Some of them were made into good computer games.

My brother was 4 years older - but no matter. I still have a huge collection of AH and SPI games. Of the AH era, my faves were 1914 (One of Dunnigan's first games btw), Anzio, Jutland, Panzer Blitz, and of course, Stalingrad and Battle of the Bulge.

[Beta]

Originally posted by Dulaak
Did I mention you're an idiot?

Did you mention you're an idiot? Is that what you're asking? Nope. No need to. Was pretty clear off the top.

[Beta]

Originally posted by MJW
But do the fact that Civ4 is broken everyone would have the same empire in high-end MP. The only reason why it's playable is because weak players imblance the game. If it were not for that it would be unfun. The reason is simple. Games are balanced for SP. The AI wastes mass amounts of time in peace. In high-end MP humans don't waste time. Everything other than war does not have time to pay off. This makes war and rushing overpowered. The only reason why this does not happen to you is because your play group is weak.

Originally posted by Dulaak They\'ll never understand MJW. They didn\'t back in Civ2 either. Basically Civ4 MP can be summed up as Slavery. It\'s that simple. You either use it and abuse it or you die. The guy who can slave the best usually has the best chance of winning. Nobody builds buildings in Civ4MP. In fact, you\'ll be called a newbie and kicked out of the game if you start building buildings. Therefore, the game is broken. Firaxis has yet to figure out that economy should fuel military, but instead they have opted for an incredibly simple and basic game with very little room for options. As MJW said, it\'s balanced for SP, not MP and Civ4 is probably the worst game in the Civ series in that regard.

Are you guys truly as stupid, or shortsighted, as you seem, or is this just trolling?

In a one vs one game, yes, who in their right mind would bother with peace? Goes without saying. And yes, slave and catapult your way to victory .. or defeat.

In a true 'multi' player game, not so fast. You want o take out your neighbour. Great - do your slaving and attacking thing, while the other 3 or 5 or 7 civs sit back in their lawn chairs, have a cool beer, and chuckle. You so don't get the intracacies of the 'larger' game, and where civ truly works.

[Dulaak]

Did you mention you're an idiot? Is that what you're asking? Nope. No need to. Was pretty clear off the top.

Wow. Ming, this is what I meant when I said weak. You need to bring in a stronger crowd than this or this place really will go under. I've heard better from grade schoolers...seriously.

[Beta]

Oh - you're right. I admit it. Your "Did I mention that you're an idiot" was certainly in a class by itself.

[Dulaak]

There's not much else I could say to a guy like Snoopy. I feel it will be easier for Snoopy to understand my meaning if I simplify and streamline my system for insulting him. Previous attempts proved to be far too complicated for him to understand. This is a more balanced approach I believe.

[Pinchak]

And while we are at it, why isn't Adolph Hitler a game leader?

I mean, he did almost save the human race from inevetable destruction in 2012.

[StrategicKingVa]

My favorite Avalon Hill game is Russian Campaign. I am the self pro claimed best in the world, although my test sample is only 5 people.....but of thoose I was the best dang it!
I love 3rd Reich as well, even wrote a column in the General to refute their so called best Italian set up as seriously flawed.
And of course Wizards Quest is a good game with a little altering of the dice rolling...(we play 2 carpet bombs a game each player..rerolls and give each player a card #1 to 6 that can be played instead of rolling...)
We used to play tournament style Aquire, but I stop playing with these players because they were so dang bad I was pulling my hair out at the silly decisions they made, mostly to screw me.....
Sink the Bismark would be an unbelievable game on the computer.
D-Day, if you have the nerve to launch or withstand that first turn, is a cool game.
AND OF COURSE, CIV1,2,3 AND 4 HAD ITS BEGING AS AN AVALON HILL GAME ABOUT 30 YEARS AGO THAT WAS SIMPLY FANTASTIC...called CIVILIZATION...!!!!!