How many Civ2ers are still playing Civ4?

[StarLightDeath]

Your opinion doesn't count until you play on the ladder and you actually play some serious games against good players. Considering that all the C3C players hate it too, I'd say there's something wrong with the game. If you don't play on a duel mirror map then games are going to come down to land. Anything larger than duel size will totally negate war at all against anyone even half way decent. This game is so easy to defend that you'd have to be a total moron to die on a tiny map, and even on a duel size map for that matter. I predicted MP would die in 6 months and that was 2 months from now, and I predicted people will see what I saw 2 months ago. It's happening and more and more I see posts about the same stuff I complained about from the beginning. MP will die along with this game and only the most die hard civ players are going to continue this game on a competitive level and besides them only casual gamers will be left that are more intersted in wasting some time and playing sim city. I'm sorry if you find the economy of this game, let alone culture, complex because there's really nothing to it. Then again I must remember who I'm talking to and not be surprised considering your track record in civ2.

[atawa]

I always thought the only reason to play games is enjoyment. If you dont have it stop playing and whining about how bad it is. If you do enjoy it have fun

Apolyton is repating itself....again

[Deity Dude]

Originally posted by StarLightDeath
Then again I must remember who I'm talking to and not be surprised considering your track record in civ2.

Coming form you I'll take that as a complement seeing as you have backed away from my numerous challenges for 1x1x deity Civ II game.

[VetLegion]

Having played a number of singleplayer games so far, I can say what I like. Actually, the list of things I don't like is shorter: I don't really like combat at the moment, and I find it very difficult to wage war with AI's that are technologicaly on-par with me. I play on Monarch, so it may be just my lack of expirience talking.

I have only played one multiplayer game so far, and it was funny. We chose a duel map, first I was shocked how small it was, then I expanded too confidently and then the barbarians killed me

Analysing Civ games is my great entertainment (check out: http://www.civilizacija.net/eng_cont...ison_table.htm), but it is still too early for me to give any definite verdicts, as I only have 10 games or so under my belt.

[trev]

Civ4 is a great game, that suits a builder well who is strong enough to defend himself. It is however a more difficult game to master than the earlier versions of civ because of the need to balance more variables, and to me it is a challenge that I intend to master at sp and mp. It is a pity that some players quit in frustration because they cannot quickly move to the highest levels and win and then whinge and complain that the game is terrible. I played civ2 and also civ3, winning at sid, and I must say this is a more challenging, addictive and frustrating game than both those.

[StarLightDeath]

Civ4 is a great game, that suits a builder well who is strong enough to defend himself. It is however a more difficult game to master than the earlier versions of civ because of the need to balance more variables, and to me it is a challenge that I intend to master at sp and mp. It is a pity that some players quit in frustration because they cannot quickly move to the highest levels and win and then whinge and complain that the game is terrible. I played civ2 and also civ3, winning at sid, and I must say this is a more challenging, addictive and frustrating game than both those.

I was 46-5 on the ladder when I quit. You need to shut your mouth ***** till you know what the **** you're talking about. This game is challenging only to idiots who haven't realized how low the ceiling in this game is due to the over-restrictive cap system. The game has already been mastered by alot of players on the ladder and it is actually very easy to do which will result in all games coming down to RNG (Which is a seriously flawed system in this game) and land (Which has 10 times the affect on players as in previous civ games). I said this 2 months ago, but don't take my word for it, go ask some of the top ladder players if what I say is true. Try playing a game without hills and without enough fresh water to irrigate land against someone who does have those two key resources and you'll understand why against anyone half decent the game is lost before it started.

[deity]

Originally posted by trev
Civ4 is a great game, that suits a builder well who is strong enough to defend himself. It is however a more difficult game to master than the earlier versions of civ because of the need to balance more variables, and to me it is a challenge that I intend to master at sp and mp. It is a pity that some players quit in frustration because they cannot quickly move to the highest levels and win and then whinge and complain that the game is terrible. I played civ2 and also civ3, winning at sid, and I must say this is a more challenging, addictive and frustrating game than both those.

Couldn't agree more Trev.

Therein lies the essence of Civ4. You fingered it well.

So many get daunted by the frustration to easily win and just chuck in the towell, blaming the game...

But it's obvious that a bit of talent is now needed to play Civ well, rather than finding exploits... it's now about playing out a more realistic development of civilisations rather than quick world domination.

[StarLightDeath]

Frustration over losing? Actually it's frustration over the simplicity of the game. I find it amazing how so many people tout how complex the game is when the main thing Firaxis focused on was simplifying the game and trying to bring in new players. Considering the fact that the current marketing trend is to promote graphics over gameplay, I'd say your "too complex" theory is sorely lacking a base. By all means though try to show me how complex this game is.

[trev]

The game is unsuitable for duels, because in duels the civ that focuses on early aggression successfully wins, reducing the game to a frustrating simplicity. BUT in a game with many players the early aggressor will be handicapped by the inbuilt city cost system that penalises growth in numbers of cities without developing the cities first. A player therefore who concentrates on duels and ladder games will find a frustrating simplicity, but a player who is playing serious multiplayer games against multiple opponents will find the underlying layers of complexity that make this game so addictive, challenging and frustrating. I would suggest that the critics play against a minimum of 4 opponents on large maps and experience this frustrating complexity for themselves

[StarLightDeath]

BUT in a game with many players the early aggressor will be handicapped by the inbuilt city cost system that penalises growth in numbers of cities without developing the cities first.

That statement right there just proves you don't know what the hell you're talking about. Not to mention that starting position plays a huge part in a larger game. Obviously you haven't played any cton or FFA games on ladder yet because the very first thing that happens is people rush you. It's either one way or another in this game. Either you have no one near you and you will never bother with war because war in this game is only useful in the very early stages, and once catapults come around don't even bother because the defender has too many advantages, or you have tons of people around you and the game comes down to who has the best resources. If everyone has iron the game is just a mass axeman fest. There's only 2 units before longbows that are useful and that's catapults and axeman. If there is no war you are reduced to a massive build game where land determines who gets the wonders first and who can irrigate their land the best because of the fresh water rule so land plays a bigger role in the point system (which is flawed in and of itself) and is a completely unbalancing feature in this game.

[rah]

What percentage of duels vs 4+ player games have you played?

[StarLightDeath]

I'm going by what the top cton players are saying and the average players. I actually haven't touched this game in weeks and it's been off my harddrive now. Doesn't matter though, people didn't see what I was talking about until over a month after I had originally said it. You'll figure it out eventually too. It just takes time. I even I was enamored by the game at first.

[rah]

Well since my computer was not up to snuff, I've only played a limited number of turns in SP frustrated since I can't see the terrain. I should have a better computer soon and I'll have to review your thoughts after I've played a few games. They usually contain some sound reasoning. While it's always good to see what others are saying, it's nice to form my own opinion from experience.

I was just curious when you were playing MP, if it was mostly duels or true MP games.

[VetLegion]

Is it a moderator curse or what? Ming also had problems, UR had problems...

[rah]

No, it's because we're old men that don't play shoot em up games (since our reflexes have greatly diminished) so we never worried about needing high end video cards.
And we're too old for SIMS........