How many Civ2ers are still playing Civ4?

[trev]

You may well be right in relation to ladder games which are generally duels on small maps to my knowledge, I am talking about multiple players on larger maps, so players will tend to start 20+ squares apart, in this situation, an early rush is not viable and the complexity of the game is apparent. There still are early wars, some of which I will initiate when a person expands my way too early and defends cities weakly, but sensible, well defended expansion results in a complex and enjoyable game.
Now the game has been updated with the 1.52 patch, which incidentally makes it harder to mass attack cities early successfully as injured defenders retain their firepower, and only lose health, not strength now, there are greater opportunities for the games complexity to show itself, and therefore further play of civ4 may adjust your impressions of the game.

[Ming]

Originally posted by trev
Now the game has been updated with the 1.52 patch, which incidentally makes it harder to mass attack cities early successfully as injured defenders retain their firepower, and only lose health, not strength now, there are greater opportunities for the games complexity to show itself, and therefore further play of civ4 may adjust your impressions of the game.

I'm sure this will only make his impression of the game worse... He will claim that any idiot can now defend even easier, and that they have removed the concept of war totally from the game. It seems the only strategy in the games he prefers is an early rush. This will now be even harder.

[StarLightDeath]

Now the game has been updated with the 1.52 patch, which incidentally makes it harder to mass attack cities early successfully as injured defenders retain their firepower, and only lose health, not strength now, there are greater opportunities for the games complexity to show itself, and therefore further play of civ4 may adjust your impressions of the game.

Actually that is a very very good thing that units retain their strength. I argued months ago that the idea of units only being as good as their overall strenght (so a tank once weakened can theoretically really be a warrior with a tank icon) was a serious flaw. However, as you said, defending will be even easier now in many regards because they still haven't fixed the problem that simultaneous moves+stacked attack+culture bonus causes. Whoever moves first in stack attacks wins because catapults cause collateral only attack, not defense. Therefore the defender with culture bonus gains a full turn advantage unless the attacker decides to attack the city without bombardment first. Not to mention that with roads they can attack you the moment you move in. I could go on and on, but the simple fact is that in ctons and FFAs you aren't going to start 20 turns apart. If you do start 20 turns apart then war is totally removed because by the time you move 20 turns to get to the guy he can double the size of his army than what you have. It's basically impossible for you to kill anyone.

I'll also let you in on a little secret from civ2 on why I won alot of games. You see in the very early stages of civ2 I had found before anyone else the power of horsemen and it resulted in alot of very fast kills. That reputation lasted many years even though after that first year I had ceased taking capitals early. The horsemen weren't there to kill, they were there to contain to allow me to grow. It's why every game I would end up with at least 50 cities and why 90% of my games the guy just gave up. In fact, I haven't even used knights in YEARS. I go republic first and play defense while I grow all game. So saying that I play simply for warfare is stupid and shows how little you knew about my play from civ2. Now in civ4 I don't have the choice to grow. Growing is determined by land and anyone who has played Civ4 enough knows that land on anything other than mirror is unbalanced to say the least. In addition, there are only so many irrigatable squares before Civil service and the typical game the irrigation chaining won't be useful which brings us to the cap system. Cities grow very fast in civ4, you don't even have to do that much to get them to grow. I can grow my cities really big, but I will reach the ceilling very quickly that allows you to catch up. I don't think you realize yet that the real problem with this game is the cap system, followed by the broken combat system. Not only have they taken away my ability to outgrow someone, but I have no real way to kill someone outright unless they royally **** up (which isn't often because it's hard to be bad at this game) or my have an early successful rush. There's just no real options in this game to gain a lead. The perfect way to summarize civ4 is that it has all the restriction of Deity in civ2, but the difficulty of Chieftan.

[Sparrowhawk]

Originally posted by StarLightDeath
I'll also let you in on a little secret from civ2 on why I won alot of games.

I think this is not a secret anymore and most of the players from Civ2 are aware of your "little secret".

/me

[Caesar Jon]

I like civ 4. I have only played a brief MP game with DD the other night. I have played numerous SP games on noble and I am still getting killed. Although I did win once so far The ai seems smater to me and is able to battle much better. My game tonight I was leading until Elisabeth moved down a stack of 7 redcoats and 2 catapults and took out Rome. I think I'll spend tomorrow rereading the manual again

[StarLightDeath]

Now they are, but they still can't match how fast I expand and grow. The people apolyton obviously think I'm some sort of war machine that just completely obliterates people when that was only the case early on before people caught up.

[Deity Dude]

It's obvious the opinions of this game fall into 2 categories. Just as the old debate about settings in Civ II seemed to roughly break into 2 categories.

If you were a "2x2x king dueler" in Civ II, this game is not really suitable for that type of play and you probably don't like it. If you are playing "duel mirror maps" you probably get bored with it quickly because the strategy is very limited.

People who enjoyed Multi-player games or diplo games in Civ II mostly seem to enjoy this game and most of those enjoy it more. There is a disucssion thread about it right now in the Civ IV forums. IMO it leans heavily in favor of Civ IV with Civ II coming in 2nd and Civ III coming in 3rd. (Similiar to my basic opinion)

Duelers and early conquesters want a quick game skewed towards military offense and rapid city expansion. People who enjoy building civs and don't want an "early war-only" type of game prefer that players can defend their cities early. I personally enjoy the strategic decision of building another city or continuing to improve the ones I have allowing all elements of the game to kick in. Rapid expanders seem to enjoy cranking out cities ad nauseum which this game definitely penalizes.

The biggest problems with 4-5 player games in CIV II, length of turn times, has been effectively addressed. You get pretty far along now in a 4 hour session!

As a side note, I don't play ladder games because I think the scoring system is a horrible way of determining who won the game. But while playing on Gamespy, I see more and more ladder games involving 4-6 players and less and less duels. Whats this leads me to believe is that ladder play isn't dead, its just evolving into something that this game was more suited for.

[rah]

I agree with most of that.
BUT, there will still be room for rushing in 4 player games. There will be those that will risk defense early to expand quicker or get those religions and land developing techs. This will lead to to a potential problem.

While the rusher, if successful, may benefit enough to warrant the expense, the success will basically eliminate a player which could lead to calls for restarting. If this becomes the rule, it would discourage the activity and eliminate it as a strat. When 4 or 5 get together for an evening of civ, you like to keep them all in early on.

I do see many strategic options available in a 4-5 person game that are not there in a small map duel. But since I'm not a big fan of duels anyway, I see some potential for larger games. We'll see. I'm still learning.
But humans are different than the AI and I'm looking forward to playing them after getting a slightly better mastery of the game mechanics.

[Deity Dude]

Originally posted by rah
I agree with most of that.
BUT, there will still be room for rushing in 4 player games. There will be those that will risk defense early to expand quicker or get those religions and land developing techs. This will lead to to a potential problem.

True. I never said early war wasn't a strategy. My point is that it isn't the only strategy. And to be honest in anything but a duel, probably not a very good one. Unless you come along someone who is totally undefended, the cost of taking one of the players out is gonna put you way behind the remaining players.

So RAH, when are you gonna give the world of MP a try?

[SmartFart]

I haven't bought Civ4 yet and since Civ3 sucked so much I have no intention to do it at all.
Any of you guys tried Heroes3 - WoG mp?

[Deity Dude]

Civ IV is not at all like Civ III. I wasn't a fan of Civ III too. I would say IV is closer II then III.

[OzzyKP]

I played a big 4 on 4 team game yesterday. It was a lot of fun (and I kicked some ass too). Thanks to my military prowess my team won.

Team games are really fun. There are so many more options for teams to work together. You can see everything your teammates see, and your tech points all go into one pool so you can research collectively. Plus others can garrison your cities with their units, which is a nice help. When starting out the computer puts team members near each other, so there is a definite feeling of one side vs. another. Its quite nice.

In my game I was on the front lines, right next to one of the best players on the other team. But knowing that my teammates were going to take care of all the building that was needed, I focused just on popping out units. Which I did, and I beat down my neighbor. Then we won.

[VetLegion]

Originally posted by SmartFart
I haven't bought Civ4 yet and since Civ3 sucked so much I have no intention to do it at all.
Any of you guys tried Heroes3 - WoG mp?

Pozdrav

Nabavi Civ4, dobra je igra.

If you don't mind that Civ4 carries some simplification of rules from Civ3 (no ZoC, for example) and that some other fetures from Civ2 were modified so AI could play better now, Civ4 will be cool for you.

I have the game for over a month and I'm still not decided about which opening strategy is best, nor which research path is optimal. In Civ2 I had those nailed down right away and played the same every time. Civ III was a bore.

[rah]

MAN, was I pissed at CIV IV last night.
I had eliminated 3 of the ai players and was pounding the rest. I had them cornered. I had my troops in position to start the final blitz, AND THE GAME FRIGGIN ENDED saying I had won a domination win.
I won but the game denied me the final satisfaction.
The win sequence movie didn't impress me.

I know, I could have played it out, but after it says you've won................

[Deity Dude]

Is this turning into the Civ IV forum for Civ II'ers