civ 3 and 4 cheats

[OzzyKP]

Originally posted by Provost Harrison


Would that be sentence? You lot love 'self-pwning' don't you?

[Provost Harrison]

Standard colloquialism. No problem there...

[OzzyKP]

Damn Brits...

[TCO]

Where is a good review of civ4?

[OzzyKP]

http://civilization4.net/3/169/

[Straybow]

Originally posted by TCO
DD, so the various problems with Civ2 were fixed with Civ3? Or did it take until Civ4? All the rehoming and all that booshwa is fixed?

They removed caravans from the game. Say no more.

[snoopy369]

My dad loved caravans... I found them highly annoying

[Straybow]

I love your dad. But not in the gay way.

[TCO]

hated caravans. what a micromanagement with little enjoyment thing. Not buliding the city. not killing people.

[Arrian]

The main exploit that people were trying to fix was ICS (infinite city strategy). CivIII tried, but pretty much failed - the corruption-based system just didn't do the job and was annoying as well.

CIV (CivIV, whatever) has done better. The maintenance-based system works better, and isn't annoying (at least not to me). There is also a hard restriction on distance between cities (can't be within 2 tiles). Expansion is still good, but plunking down cities as fast as you can, packed as close as you can is now a bad idea.

For more, I suggest you check out the on-topic forums.

-Arrian

[TCO]

I like ICS. The game is about expansion. Didn't like the endgame after ICS (so I conquered). But I like the process of ICSing. I never agreed with that moniker anyhow. Besides, how do you create the megalopolis if they won't let you put cities next to each other?

[Arrian]

Interesting... someone who liked ICS. I haven't encountered too many of those. CIV is designed (in part) to encourage fewer, but more powerful/important cities.

That doesn't mean you don't expand. It means you don't expand without some planning to counter the economic impact (cities cost you gold per turn in upkeep - how much depends on several factors). If you expand as fast as you can w/o paying attention to the cost, you can crash your economy. Whereas in CivII and CivIII, that just wasn't going to happen. More was always better.

Regarding the megalopolis... I dunno, but it's possible you would really like the new "cottage" improvement in CIV. It's a terrain improvement, but if you work it, it grows (cottage - x - x - x - town). It produces commerce. They are basically suburbs, and look like them. Thus, if you have a bunch of cottages between your cities, it might look like what you're thinking of...

-Arrian

[Dis]

Originally posted by Arrian
Interesting... someone who liked ICS. I haven't encountered too many of those. CIV is designed (in part) to encourage fewer, but more powerful/important cities.

That doesn't mean you don't expand. It means you don't expand without some planning to counter the economic impact (cities cost you gold per turn in upkeep - how much depends on several factors). If you expand as fast as you can w/o paying attention to the cost, you can crash your economy. Whereas in CivII and CivIII, that just wasn't going to happen. More was always better.

Regarding the megalopolis... I dunno, but it's possible you would really like the new "cottage" improvement in CIV. It's a terrain improvement, but if you work it, it grows (cottage - x - x - x - town). It produces commerce. They are basically suburbs, and look like them. Thus, if you have a bunch of cottages between your cities, it might look like what you're thinking of...

-Arrian

yeah I think of cottages (which grow into towns) as suburbs as well. Or smaller cities near the big city.

The only thing the game can't mirror is something like Dallas/Ft. Worth or Minneapolis/St. Paul. Or ST. Louis/East St. Louis. But you can just say 1 civ4 city is equal to both of those cities combined.

[TCO]

Probably you guys don't like expanding (I won't call it ICS--screw Yin) because you are happiness wimps. Just punch those blackheads with military to keep them in line!!!

[OzzyKP]

Just try Civ4 and see what you think.