looks cool I guess.

I've never played Civ 4. Was it actually worth playing? I just thought it was people being stupid and giving 96% scores to a less complicated game than civ 2.

crabapple

United States397 Posts

February 19 2010 00:06 GMT

#28

awesome. imo civilization's greatest need is to make it not soooo long, and so that players can play with each other more. the connection is all there and possible, but it's really the turnoff onto most players b/c it's so timeconsuming and slow to develop, especially when waiting for other ppl's turns.

i really would like for civilziation to get big, not just on single player. it has so much depth and strategy in it. my problem was always not being able to play and enjoy it together with friends. it was always with the computer on single player mode. which is not bad, but the multiplayer aspect is lacking mainly b/c ppl are turned away by some aspect of the game... they are the length and speed imo.

on a positive note, changing to hexagons is a great change.

writer22816

United States5775 Posts

February 19 2010 00:13 GMT

#29

And I just got into playing Civ4 lol

{CC}StealthBlue

United States41117 Posts

February 19 2010 00:24 GMT

#30

If stacks are not allowed it will be interesting to see how one can defend cities etc. Naval combat will certainly be odd as well.

Manit0u

Poland17660 Posts

February 19 2010 00:27 GMT

#31

I always turn 'stack attack' off in options in civ iv

FragKrag

United States11556 Posts

February 19 2010 00:28 GMT

#32

lol nobody will have any spare time this year ;_;

TheYango

United States47024 Posts

February 19 2010 00:30 GMT

#33

On February 19 2010 08:45 Piy wrote:
looks cool I guess.

I've never played Civ 4. Was it actually worth playing? I just thought it was people being stupid and giving 96% scores to a less complicated game than civ 2.

Civ 4 was not less complicated than Civ 2. That's just plain ignorance. There is ONE mechanic in Civ 4 that's less complicated than Civ 2, which is the combat mechanic, and detractors blow that SINGLE point out of proportion. There are of course still arguments for how Civ 2 is better than Civ 4 (and I wholeheartedly believe them for the most part) but simplicity is not one of them.

Was it worth it? Yes. The core game experience was less than Civ 2, IMO, but it's made up for by the fact that mods for Civ 4 far outclass anything that's previously existed in the Civilization series before. I would go so far as to say the Fall From Heaven mod alone is good enough to bring Civ 4 at least on par with Civ 2 as an overall experience.

zer0das

United States8519 Posts

February 19 2010 01:25 GMT

#34

Civ 4 is a far better game than Civ 2. To say otherwise means you've probably never played Civ 4, or are looking through rose tinted glasses. Of course, I'm sure a lynch mob will be on my doorstep shortly.

Kwidowmaker

Canada978 Posts

February 19 2010 01:48 GMT

#35

On February 19 2010 09:24 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
If stacks are not allowed it will be interesting to see how one can defend cities etc. Naval combat will certainly be odd as well.

[speculation]
The stats of armies could be determined by what units you put in them, and perhaps in a non-linear way :D