Civilization V - Page 2 - Video Games - Video Game Systems Forum

For me, I hated that the game forced you to build a few megacities instead of a lot of smaller towns like I like to play. With civ 3 there was a lot more land so there were differing strategies with your expansion, in civ 4, you are highly punished for being an expansionist civ. Plus there wasn't enough land to go around in civ4. Most games I played I was having a hard time getting ten cities in my territory and every city above 5-6 was getting so ridic. expensive. It also made armies smaller and lame. Combine that with defensive bonuses in cities and I had a very frustrating civ4 experience. O nice... my whole army couldn't take his capital? ok I quit.

Quote

02-22-2010 , 03:18 AM

#28

Freakin

bacon wannabe

Join Date: Sep 2004 Posts: 17,153

Quote:

Originally Posted by litlebullet

yeah, at a certain point if you didn't use collateral damage or artillery/boats then you'd lose your stack against their 80% city with mech infantry.

I'd generally play with largest map sized pangeas to have lots of room for expansion and guaranteed conflict/dipolomacy.

Quote

02-22-2010 , 03:59 AM

#29

aao

crazy theorist

Join Date: Jun 2008 Posts: 16,869

Sooooooo looking forward to this.

Quote

02-22-2010 , 11:42 AM

#30

JayTeeMe

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Jan 2008 Posts: 29,409

Civ 4 BTS> Civ 4 Warlords > Civ 4

That's what really annoys me. They put stupid flaws into the game so i have to buy the expansion packs. Everything about Civ 4 is great except for the naval game which is way underdeveloped. (Combat system A+).

4>3>2>1

I'll put civ 2 as one of my top 5 all time games but if you go back and play it now you realize how much greater 3 and 4 are.

Quote

02-22-2010 , 12:11 PM

#31

thebigeasy59

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Oct 2007 Posts: 19,436

ready.

Quote

02-22-2010 , 01:39 PM

#32

Blarg

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Jun 2004 Posts: 53,529

Wow combat system A+? It's the worst one I've ever played by far. I liked the rest of the game though. But the combat was terribad.

Quote

02-22-2010 , 02:07 PM

#33

Shoe

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Jul 2004 Posts: 11,869

Quote:

Originally Posted by Blarg

Wow combat system A+? It's the worst one I've ever played by far. I liked the rest of the game though. But the combat was terribad.

You mean you don't like helicopters losing to a guy with a sword?

Quote

02-22-2010 , 02:13 PM

#34

JayTeeMe

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Jan 2008 Posts: 29,409

Quote:

Originally Posted by Blarg

Wow combat system A+? It's the worst one I've ever played by far. I liked the rest of the game though. But the combat was terribad.

Civ 2 had the worst combat system. If you beat one unit, the whole stack was destroyed! I really liked civ 4s ability to customize your units.

Quote

02-22-2010 , 02:45 PM

#35

JMa

veteran

Join Date: Mar 2005 Posts: 3,328

IMO the worst part about Civ IV was the spy thing.

Quote

02-22-2010 , 03:01 PM

#36

DonkJr

Pooh-Bah

Join Date: Mar 2005 Posts: 5,324

People always complain about old units killing new units (swordsman v. helicopter), but it really is not that big a deal. Remember when Indiana Jones destroyed a tank all by himself in the Last Crusade? That's a horseman destroying a tank!

Last edited by DonkJr; 02-22-2010 at 03:03 PM. Reason: A special German tank!

Quote

02-22-2010 , 03:25 PM

#37

Lord Gimik

banned

Join Date: Nov 2008 Posts: 2,223

Just think of modern era swordsmen as ninjas.

Could a ninja destroy a helicopter with .1 strength left? (In flames, barely staying up)

I'm guessing one time in a hundred (which is all we're really talking about here) Jackie Chan would absolutely take that chopper down.

Quote

02-22-2010 , 03:44 PM

#38

Blarg

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Jun 2004 Posts: 53,529

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shoe

You mean you don't like helicopters losing to a guy with a sword?

lulz, yeah.

If they had made the combat something like Steel Panthers, or X-COM, or Fallout or Heroes of Might and Magic -- there are all kinds of tried and tested great combat systems out there to draw on for ideas -- they might have had a combat system up to the level of the rest of the game.

Quote

02-22-2010 , 04:03 PM

#39

ThaSaltCracka

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Sep 2003 Posts: 66,878

Quote:

Originally Posted by Freakin

why should you be able to conquer capitals with mech infantry only? Obviously you need some air support and/or artillery. Thats standard warfare.

Also, it should be hard taking over cities, I don't want the AI running riot in my territory either!

Quote

02-22-2010 , 05:26 PM

#40

moronchad

banned

Join Date: Oct 2008 Posts: 1,662

What's the online play like in this?

Will be the buy/ not to buy factor for me.

EDIT- What was it like in previous titles.

Quote

02-22-2010 , 05:45 PM

#41

Lord Gimik

banned

Join Date: Nov 2008 Posts: 2,223

1, 2 and 3 had no multiplayer of any real value.

4 had decent multi-player, but newbies got DESTROYED. It was more for playing with friends.

Quote

02-22-2010 , 05:50 PM

#42

jonnyd

hey guys

Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 28,318

ahhhhhhhhhhh what a time sink.. this thread is making me want to reinstall civ4 lol gg life

Quote

02-22-2010 , 05:50 PM

#43

jonnyd

hey guys

Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 28,318

has anyone played civ revolution on consoles? i know its a bastardized version but is it playable?

Quote

02-22-2010 , 06:15 PM

#44

Freakin

bacon wannabe

Join Date: Sep 2004 Posts: 17,153

Quote:

Originally Posted by jonnyd

has anyone played civ revolution on consoles? i know its a bastardized version but is it playable?

I played it on iphone and it's pretty stripped down. It's ok to pass time but I wouldn't play it on a console IMO

Quote

02-22-2010 , 07:16 PM

#45

ThaSaltCracka

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Sep 2003 Posts: 66,878

Quote:

Originally Posted by moronchad

What's the online play like in this?

Will be the buy/ not to buy factor for me.

EDIT- What was it like in previous titles.

honestly, this game doesn't need online play.

Quote

02-22-2010 , 07:21 PM

#46

YouR_DooM

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Jul 2009 Posts: 7,829

Quote:

Originally Posted by ThaSaltCracka

honestly, this game doesn't need online play.

why not ? Do you prefer AI over friends ?

Quote

02-22-2010 , 08:30 PM

#47

Blarg

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Jun 2004 Posts: 53,529

Too slow paced for online IMO. At least for most people.

Quote

02-22-2010 , 08:36 PM

#48

zaephyr

old hand

Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 1,781

yeah lol

I remember playing earth 18civs in IV and in late stage when i wanted to do domination it took me 1h for like 3 turns.

Quote

02-22-2010 , 08:47 PM

#49

Lord Gimik

banned

Join Date: Nov 2008 Posts: 2,223

Quote:

Originally Posted by Blarg

Too slow paced for online IMO. At least for most people.

Play on "Blazing" speed on Civ4 and you'll be bitching that it's way too fast paced.

You get like 45 seconds per turn. Once the clock runs down to 0, your turn is over whether you like it or not.

Quote

02-22-2010 , 08:51 PM

#50

Blarg

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Jun 2004 Posts: 53,529

Dunno that most people would enjoy that, but I guess some must. Most would probably get a game better suited to that rather than trying to cram a round peg into a square hole that way.

Quote

Page 2 of 54

First

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 12 22 52

Last

Post Reply Subscribe

...

Page 2 of 54

First

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 12 22 52

Last