Is there life after Civ2?

[rjmatsleepers]

I note with interest that as of this morning there have been 14 people voting in the hall of fame poll in Civ2 and exactly the same number in Civ4 (including 2 people who post in Civ2 from time to time).

I suspect that says something about Civ4.

RJM

[Von Bert]

we are no so good in numbers.. and we can count just up to 2 maybe ?

[EyesOfNight]

Civ4 has been a pretty big failure when it comes to MP.

[rah]

I don't know about that. We've been getting quite a few for our saturday night games.

[Six Thousand Year Old Man]

I like Civ4 a lot. Much better than CtP, for example.

Is it as good as Civ2? I don't know.... too early to tell. Civ2 is awfully good, but seems awfully dated now. And I know most of the exploits and strategies (everything from oedo years to ICS to 3 arrows/size 2... ) inside-out and backwards, so it's not as interesting to play Civ2 now.

[rah]

And as you infer CIVII is a forumula. All the civs are the same, and while there is some variety based on terrain, huts, you're still using mostly the same tech path every game. The same strategy.
Where with IV every game seems to be different. AND with more players, the dynamics can change too.

The only problem i have is the double attack potential in the simul move. BUT i wouldn't go back to turn based because then you'd have to limit the number of players which lessens the fun.

[EyesOfNight]

That statement right there rah pretty much sums up the type of player that plays civ4. You're a casual player, and that's fine, but for competitive play Civ4 killed it. You won't even find duels anymore on the ladder, it's just a bunch of average players playing big games. The fact is Civ4 had very very little potential in terms of what was allowed. It's basically like playing Deity on steroids. A fact which has forced every single good player from civ2 and civ3 to quit the game and go to other games.

[rah]

We expect different things from games. Duels is not my idea of MP. It wasn't for civII and it's not for IV.
I considered myself well above average playing II. I still have more to learn in IV.

So not every good II player has moved on.

I am not a casual player. Our games are quite competitive and bloody. What more could you want in a game.

Most of the great players in II relied on the same tricks.
Without those tricks in IV, they're just not great players anymore. Duels are not games. When you have 8+ players a game, you have to modify your strat on the land, your civ, your neighbors, your skill and your luck.
There are some poker type elements involved. The game is much deeper in versatility then II. For those that say the game has killed their enthusiasm, I just laugh. They just don't want to learn.

Just one man's above average opinion.

I'll always have a soft spot for II, but IV is a much better GAME.
We've already have about a 20 player group with more showing interest every week. With a pool that sized, we should have no problem getting 6-12 people for every game.

Of course if you played in it, you would probably be considered just an average player.

Just because I'm older and think ladder type competition is just a 'dick length' thing doesn't mean I'm not competitive. Among our group we know who the better players are and who's not. We just don't keep anal score.

But again, that's just my opinion and you are welcome to yours. I'm sure I would have agreed with you when I was younger and worried about length.

[Bloody Monk]

Originally posted by rah
We expect different things from games. Duels is not my idea of MP. It wasn't for civII and it's not for IV.
--

But again, that's just my opinion and you are welcome to yours. I'm sure I would have agreed with you when I was younger and worried about length.

That's funny and good writing, too. Thanks, I needed a good laugh this morning.

I don't have a system that will allow IVplay...but this makes me wish I could give it a try. Sounds like it would be fun. Like the poker games we all played half a century ago, the point was not who won the most (or lost) but the fun we had in the doing.

Monk

[Kataphraktoi]

Originally posted by rah

I am not a casual player. Our games are quite competitive and bloody. What more could you want in a game.

Im not familiar with either of you and the argument, but im guessing the literal meaning of competitiveness here is how serious the game is played, for example calculating out the best aproach to a city(serious) as opposed to just putting a city down(casual). I know players who play very 'bloody' games who are very casual.

[rah]

We are not casual.

[EyesOfNight]

Rah's "competitive" games are about as competitive as a geriatric game of golf. It's like saying women's doubles league tennis is more competitive than men's professional tennis and that professional tennis is just a dick length competition. Anyone who enjoys a game like civ4 where those who try to gain a lead are punished is not a competitive player.

[rah]

I take offense to that. Our golf games are probably more competitive then your crappy ladder duels.

And just because some people can enjoy a game that doesn't rely on knowing tricks that others don't, early rushes since it gets to complicated if the game lasts too long, doesn't make us any less competitive.

I've played in co-ed bowling leagues that were probably more competitive than horse rush ladder game duels. And those length competitions were really bizzare.

And speaking of bizzare, how did you come up with equating civIV with womens doubles and II with men's professional. You need help.

[EyesOfNight]

The fact that you think it's just a horse rush competition shows how little you know about the game. You'd do well on civ2liga I think. There you can fit in with the rest of the idiots that think it's a good idea to build on mountains.

[rah]

Just one example. The one that I knew would annoy you the most. (which it obviously did)
And if you can't see any benefit from building on a mountain in a 2x prod game, then you're the brainless one.
Yes, most of my cities are not on mountains but I have no problems building on gold or iron. It's silly not to considering the defense and free food. I'll build my cap on gold whenever the circumstances are right. (assuming a deity game where you start with 2 settlers)
I thought you said you were good at this game.