things that don't make sense in gaming

[DrSpike]

Originally posted by Sn00py
One thing I have often wondered: If a game is perfectly balanced, wouldn't that make the game the same no matter what race you were?

I see this has been adequately dealt with already.

[Dis]

so the civs in civ4 aren't balanced? balanced for what? I think I'll make a thread in civ4 about this. I'm curious which 6 civs you consider the best.

Yeah we all know how powerful financial is. But that's because it all fits are gameplay. All of us value research over everything else. That's why no one played Miriam in SMAC.

[DrSpike]

It depends too much on the context with Civ4. Also it's predominantly played as a SP game.

[Dis]

And in civ4 starting position means so much. I think there are some map types that are balanced. But those just don't seem fun to me. Though I haven't tried them, admittedly.

[lord of the mark]

i warned em. Way back when, I warned em. I said unique units and abilities are fundamentally uncivish, that they violate the whole point of Civ, which is that what the civ becomes is constrained only be geography and YOUR choices, NOT by who the civ is.

But THEY said this was necessary for gameplay. That it would add what the series has been lacking. Gameplay over "realism" (and half of them didnt understand that it didnt add to realism)

Well, I hope they like their broken game.

[Nostromo]

Bah! Balanced games are for pansies!

Kasparov could beat you all at chess, even if he started the game without a couple of pawns, a queen and a king

[Kuciwalker]

Civ4 is far more balanced than Civ2. And any imbalance between civs is more than made up for in the increased strategic depth.

[Dis]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
Civ4 is far more balanced than Civ2. And any imbalance between civs is more than made up for in the increased strategic depth.

how so? Civ2 civs were all the same (though some had aggressive marked in the text files to make them more likely to attack)

[DrSpike]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
i warned em. Way back when, I warned em. I said unique units and abilities are fundamentally uncivish, that they violate the whole point of Civ, which is that what the civ becomes is constrained only be geography and YOUR choices, NOT by who the civ is.

But THEY said this was necessary for gameplay. That it would add what the series has been lacking. Gameplay over "realism" (and half of them didnt understand that it didnt add to realism)

Well, I hope they like their broken game.

Gameplay over 'realism'.

[Nostromo]

how so? Civ2 civs were all the same (though some had aggressive marked in the text files to make them more likely to attack)

Don't listen to him, he's drunk.

[Kuciwalker]

There's less balance between civs (obviously) but more balance between strategies.

[Nostromo]

I think you meant:

Civ2 is far more balanced than Civ4. And any imbalance between civs is more than made up for in the increased strategic depth.

not the other way around.

[Kuciwalker]

It's not funny the second time in a row.

[Nostromo]

My second post wasn't a joke.

The different Civ 2 Civs are balanced, since they're all the same. The different Civ 4 Civ are fairly well balanced, IMO. And Civ 4 as more strategic depth than Civ 2, IMO.

[Kuciwalker]

Civ 2 has more balance between civs, but less balance overall because there are obviously optimal strategies.