How many Civ2ers are still playing Civ4?

[StarLightDeath]

So who is still playing Civ4? I haven't played ladder in well over a month and I uninstalled the game a couple weeks ago. I also see on C4P everyone saying the same **** I did 2 months ago about the game. Every single prediction I made has come true. It is bad enough that Fried has made a post on C4P stating all the wonderful reviews written about the game and trying to show how his stats prove the game is a major success. It's actually pretty hillarious, it's like watching a spokesman for Firaxis do damage control...which is basically what it is. Do you guys think it's as big a piece of **** as I do?

[Deity Dude]

I personally like the game. Most Civ II'ers I know that can actually get IV to run don't play II anymore. I still play both but more IV than II.

I guess that means I'm an idiot.

[War4ever]

i find IV to be so much like III......... i have yet to MP, but the SP part of the game didn't really capture me, i think some of the ideas are "more realistic" but at the same time, implemented unrealistically

i find it very easy to manipulate , but i guess civ 2 was no different

[Deity Dude]

try MP sometime - no cut and dry strategy like Civ II

[StarLightDeath]

No cut and dry strategy? Obviously you don't play at a very high level. Use Inca and go mass axemen and get catapults. That's it. That's all it is now. The only time strategies must be changed is if a map doesn't have copper or iron on the entire thing. Also, Civ4 is nothing like Civ3. Civ3 was ten times better than this and I hated civ3. Every C3C player hates this game. Try reading the CIv4 players board sometime. The stuff they are complaining about on there I was complaining about a month and a half ago.

[deity]

Civ4 I enjoy thoroughly.

The production values are high; it's fast and it's interesting, with many variables. I prefer diplo-games with 6 or 7 players as I do with Civ2. I played a bit of Civ2 today which I still thoroughly enjoyed but it's way slow as turn-based.

Most of my time will be playing Civ4 with the odd bit of Civ2 every now and then. (Civ3 I hated and never will play again)

[Ming]

I own it... and it is just sitting there. I still don't have a computer that can play it reasonably. My plans to buy a new computer have fallen through. A moron (without insurance) ran a red light and totaled my car. I've had to buy a new car instead... sigh...

[StarLightDeath]

You aren't missing anything Ming. DrSpike plays this game too and he agrees with what I say. He's top 10 right now too. Basically the first part of the game is all warrior rushing. Second part is all axeman rushing. Third part is all catapults and axemen. On top of it, if you're smart, just build a bunch of catapults in your cities and you'll never die because they have to bombard down your defenses first. Basically it comes down to whoever moves first because of the simul turns and the stacked combat, which means the defender gets an extra turn unless the guy double moves and attacks without lowering the culture defense. If you play on a map like hub or even a tiny map, the game becomes more about what resources you have and who can get the most wonders. It's really impossible to die in this game unless you are a complete idiot. In addition, the scoring system is completely ****ed so that on maps that have alot of water the land mass score is negated because water doesn't count for land mass. Everything about this game is taking out options and simplifying everything out of the game. I'm going to play AOE3, I never should have wasted so much time on Civ4 in the first place since I knew it was a bad game in the first week.

[deity]

Good idea Eyes, stop banging on about Civ4 and play something else

All you duellers and war gamers really are missing out on something by not playing the full MP role of Civ, where war is but a part of your civ's history.

It's not about building an army and striking first.

The way you play the game is what's boring, not the game itself.

[StarLightDeath]

Try playing 1v1 on a tiny hub map and then talk to me about what's boring. The combat system is the worst system ever developed. It is completely and utterly flawed. Without combat this game is nothing more than a dumbed down sim city.

[Hydey]

just started my new pc so I will be loading civ games including 4 onto it in no time

[deity]

Originally posted by Hydey
just started my new pc so I will be loading civ games including 4 onto it in no time

Tell me when you do Hydey. There are quite a few Civ4 players around, many from Civ2 area. Trev and I play all the time. There are 2 diplo-games with Civ2 players you know and lots of new Civ4 players, particularly Aussies.

Get AIM and MSN Messenger btw for setting up games - many don't use icq now. Some use XFire but I don't like that.

And Merry Xmas old man...

[Ljube]

The game does seem better suited for single player builder style and for diplogaming.

[Hydey]

Originally posted by deity


Tell me when you do Hydey.
Get AIM
And Merry Xmas old man...

civ4 up and firing
got aim
bah humbug

[Deity Dude]

Before I ever bought the game I made a prediction. I said if the game didnt allow for crankning out settlers and horsemen ad infinitum Eyes would declare that it sucked. IT doesn't and Eyes declared it sucks.

If you are a small map 2x2x king dueler, You won't like this game. If you play it on tiny duel mirror maps you take all of the other strategy out of the game and limit it to something it was designed to be.

If all of the 2x2x kinger's don't like it, I would seriously consider the source.

This definitely isnt a game where you build 50+ cities, most of which are nothing more than a fort. This isn't a game about horse or knight rushes.

Its a game about culture, religion, economics, struggles for resources, etc etc etc.... and, when necessary, war.

Remember, the name of the game is "Civlization" not "War"