Is cIV too balanced?

[Dinner]

It seemed that most Civ 4 games were won either due to geographical advantage or because one player came in with a massive invasion at just the right time (I.E. the victim was at war with someone else already). Either that or some rushed to gun powder and then outclassed everyone else.

[Cort Haus]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
1. This city spamming, surely you are referring to ICS - Infinite City Sleaze/Sprawl? When did the name change?

Just now.

2. What gives you the impression everyone did that? In SP lots of people made it a point not to play that way, and IIUC in MP it was generally considered verboten. House rule kind of thing.

What gave you the impression that I was under the impression that everyone did that? I didn't even imply that Oerdin was one of those people - I merely asked him whether he was.

[Cort Haus]

Originally posted by Oerdin
It seemed that most Civ 4 games were won either due to geographical advantage or because one player came in with a massive invasion at just the right time (I.E. the victim was at war with someone else already). Either that or some rushed to gun powder and then outclassed everyone else.

What's to stop these things happening in other versions?

[Arrian]

Originally posted by Oerdin
It seemed that most Civ 4 games were won either due to geographical advantage or because one player came in with a massive invasion at just the right time (I.E. the victim was at war with someone else already). Either that or some rushed to gun powder and then outclassed everyone else.

This differs from earlier versions how?

-Arrian

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Cort Haus


Just now.



What gave you the impression that I was under the impression that everyone did that? I didn't even imply that Oerdin was one of those people - I merely asked him whether he was.

1. so did you make up a new name for it for a reason, or were you not aware there was already a name for it?

2. I got the impression cause you pounced on oerdin as a potential sleazer, and implied that lots of people who prefer Civ2 (I have to plead agnostic, as Ive not played Civ 4 yet) did so cause they couldnt sleaze anymore. My memory is that most folks in the Civ2 community wanted ICS dealt with. And I dont recall much opinion that Civ3 was bad cause you couldnt sleaze, though not everyone liked how they dealt with it, or all the other changes.

[Cort Haus]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
1. so did you make up a new name for it for a reason, or were you not aware there was already a name for it?

It was just a metaphor deployed for rhetorical purposes, lending an rhythm and style to the sentence by enabling one verb to serve two nouns simultaneously. Or something. I am aware that ICS is the traditional description.

2. I got the impression cause you pounced on oerdin as a potential sleazer, and implied that lots of people who prefer Civ2 (I have to plead agnostic, as Ive not played Civ 4 yet) did so cause they couldnt sleaze anymore. My memory is that most folks in the Civ2 community wanted ICS dealt with. And I dont recall much opinion that Civ3 was bad cause you couldnt sleaze, though not everyone liked how they dealt with it, or all the other changes.

I wasn't pouncing on Oerdin, so much as leaping to the defence of the Civ 4 designers in the face of his (so far unexplained) assault.

[Solver]

Originally posted by Arrian
Hrm. Faulty memory? Possible. Could you get a riot but no flip in such a situation?

-Arrian

Yeah, they could riot and in fact do so multiple times since they can't flip. So it's either a case of faulty memory or you had messed with the options

[Patroklos]

The game's super modable, yay! But you have to learn all sorts of stuff to mod it, boo!

As game graphics get more advanced, this will unfortunetly be the case. Even I could make CIV3 units, and that is saying something.

CIVIII was great for modding, provided what you wanted to do wasn't hard coded. THAT was the worst thing about that game (infinate rail movement).

[Arrian]

Originally posted by Solver


Yeah, they could riot and in fact do so multiple times since they can't flip. So it's either a case of faulty memory or you had messed with the options

I prolly got a riot but no flip.

-Arrian

[Solver]

Originally posted by Patroklos
As game graphics get more advanced, this will unfortunetly be the case. Even I could make CIV3 units, and that is saying something.

Graphics skills are only required for a subset of modding. in Civ4, if you have programming knowledge, you can improve the AI or add new game concepts which are basically only limited by your programming skill. There's a lot you can mod without touching graphics.

[Heresson]

Originally posted by Rufus T. Firefly
What you're on to here is that Civ 2 drew a higher quality of forum participant than civ 3. The heyday of the games forums was during civ 2's popularity, while the heyday of the OT was during the time when the Civ 2 players moved on from the game forums and came here. Those drawn to the site by civ 3 first ruined the game forums, then ruined the OT -- not to cast aspersioons or anything.

CIV newbies are bad too. Will9

I do think Civ2 is superior, and I do think CIV >> Civ3.
Civ3 simply sucked.

I do not agree it is too balanced - in my two first games and only games, I managed to create peacefully (mostly) giant empires with 40% of the world population or so. Other civs are dwarves compared to me.
But what's true is that the game is static. No-one attacks me or anything. What I dislike in all the new games is that they concentrate on fancy graphics, while the game itself deteriorates.

[Will9]

Originally posted by Heresson




CIV newbies are bad too. Will9

I'm not part of the Civ4 crowd. I'm part of the Warlords crowd.

[Krill]

CIV v1.00 isn;t well balanced as it turns out. 1.61 is OKish. Walords is slightly better. One wonders if the trend will continue with BtS?