BF2S Forums [Civilization 4] Complete Edition WAS on Steam for $10.00 USD

anyone wanna start a game

civ 5 is out in september

civ is the most overrated game series ever. pile of shite.


    *  You may post 11 seconds ago

AussieReaper wrote:

Civ IV was the worst in the series.

Except for Civ IV: Colonization, and even then, the original was better.

"This game has gone out of sync"

CIV, CIV 2, CIV Alpha Centauri and CIV Call to Power. After that it's been getting worse. Been following CIV V progress and they don't seem to care what "veteran" players have to say about the game, so it's probably going to be like CIV IV with better graphics and even more cheating AI.

Dang, that's a good deal. Too bad I already have all of Civ 4 :b

I torrented this about two years ago

iNeedUrFace4Soup wrote:

Am I really missing out on anything significant if I only get Civ4? Also, is multiplayer good or completely unnecessary?

Yeah you'll miss stuff like technologies, buildings, units, corporations etc. I think Beyond the Sword best CIV IV expansion pack. I haven't played CIV IV in ages, though.

Multiplayer is good as long as you can play it, they never fixed the "out of sync problem" in CIV IV. It's very common problem in online games if you have AI's there too.

Aries_37 wrote:

civ 4 is good..what don't people like about it?

Well, diplomacy is far from good, it's pure shit and it has improved very little since CIV II.

6 longbow men defending a city with walls that happens to be on a hill is still capable of defending against tanks (experienced this while playing against my friend. It was nice that AI took down 4 tanks with 6 longbow men). How many new CIV's does it take to remove this nice "feature"?

Unit strengths are out of balance, once unit is fortified, it's too difficult to kill. Terrain gives too much bonus for defenders. Three well boosted (xp) mechanized infantries can defend against whole army if they happen to be on a hill that has some forest on it.

Phalanx can move just as much as marine, cavalry can move just as much as mechanized infantry/tanks.

Artillery can't bombard (other than city walls)... and I have no idea why they removed unit bombarding ability from artillery in the first place. Aircraft can't kill, only damage... I have no idea why they removed the ability to kill with aircraft.

What's the point of fortress? It used to be handy, in CIV IV it's quite pointless. It's better to defend in a forest/hill, forest/river than building a fortress and defending there.

No limit for stacking units in the same tile, this kills strategy and creativity of players. Just lump every type of unit in the same stack and it's good.

Out of sync problem. Damn, that's one fine plus for CIV IV.

I could make a long list what is actually bad in CIV IV.

Though, CIV IV is still better than average empire/nation building games out there.

Edit: once again typos, grammatical failures and stuff...

Last edited by BLdw (2010-05-08 13:51:41)

BLdw wrote:

Aries_37 wrote:

civ 4 is good..what don't people like about it?

Well, diplomacy is far from good, it's pure shit and it has improved very little since CIV II.

6 longbow men defending a city with walls that happens to be on a hill is still capable of defending against tanks (experienced this while playing against my friend. It was nice that AI took down 4 tanks with 6 longbow men). How many new CIV's does it take to remove this nice "feature"?

Unit strengths are out of balance, once unit is fortified, it's too difficult to kill. Terrain gives too much bonus for defenders. Three well boosted (xp) mechanized infantries can defend against whole army if they happen to be on a hill that has some forest on it.

Phalanx can move just as much as marine, cavalry can move just as much as mechanized infantry/tanks.

Artillery can't bombard (other than city walls)... and I have no idea why they removed unit bombarding ability from artillery in the first place. Aircraft can't kill, only damage... I have no idea why they removed the ability to kill with aircraft.

What's the point of fortress? It used to be handy, in CIV IV it's quite pointless. It's better to defend in a forest/hill, forest/river than building a fortress and defending there.

No limit for stacking units in the same tile, this kills strategy and creativity of players. Just lump every type of unit in the same stack and it's good.

Out of sync problem. Damn, that's one fine plus for CIV IV.

I could make a long list what is actually bad in CIV IV.

Though, CIV IV is still better than average empire/nation building games out there.

Edit: once again typos, grammatical failures and stuff...

Diplomacy is probably quite bad. Not really noticed it as I quite like being at war.

But otherwise have never experienced any of the other problems. Have you patched your game?

6 longbows defending against tanks? Even on Deity I've never seen this. Firstly walls do nothing against gunpowder. Longbows are like what? Strength 8? How many bonuses does it take to get anywhere near the 30+ of tanks? You'd need like 500% defensive bonus, which simply doesn't exist. Once tanks/artillery roll out everything dies, you pretty much need antitank and your own tanks to survive.

Terrain means a lot between similar units which is exactly how it should be. You can't carry terrain with you. Just go around or force them to come off the hill/ off the forests. Or collateral them with some catapults. Or tech up.

Bombarding is simple- it takes away the city defense % buff. It's pretty damn important. After that you can attack the town to collateral the defenders, makes taking towns a ton easier. Artillery (and catapults etc) is essential for taking towns. Planes speed theprocess up infinitely (creep bombers forward, take a town, station bombers in new town, rinse repeat)

Forts give you the resource if you build it on top of one. i.e giving you a defensive buff while defending the resource. Pretty damn important if you want to protect your one iron/elephant/horse early game.

Stacking units is countered by colllateral and flanking. Setting a limit would make no difference.

Played hundreds of hours of civ4 over a VPN connection, never had any sync problems.

Aries_37 wrote:

Diplomacy is probably quite bad. Not really noticed it as I quite like being at war.

But otherwise have never experienced any of the other problems. Have you patched your game?

6 longbows defending against tanks? Even on Deity I've never seen this. Firstly walls do nothing against gunpowder. Longbows are like what? Strength 8? How many bonuses does it take to get anywhere near the 30+ of tanks? You'd need like 500% defensive bonus, which simply doesn't exist. Once tanks/artillery roll out everything dies, you pretty much need antitank and your own tanks to survive.

Terrain means a lot between similar units which is exactly how it should be. You can't carry terrain with you. Just go around or force them to come off the hill/ off the forests. Or collateral them with some catapults. Or tech up.

Bombarding is simple- it takes away the city defense % buff. It's pretty damn important. After that you can attack the town to collateral the defenders, makes taking towns a ton easier. Artillery (and catapults etc) is essential for taking towns. Planes speed theprocess up infinitely (creep bombers forward, take a town, station bombers in new town, rinse repeat)

Forts give you the resource if you build it on top of one. i.e giving you a defensive buff while defending the resource. Pretty damn important if you want to protect your one iron/elephant/horse early game.

Stacking units is countered by colllateral and flanking. Setting a limit would make no difference.

Played hundreds of hours of civ4 over a VPN connection, never had any sync problems.

This thread may highlight why it is possible to lose high tech units against low tech units (very often against longbow men). This thread gives an idea how "regularly" this happens.

In short, CIV IV has melee, ranged, siege units, mounted units, etc. and boosts against different kind of units. First strike will strike always first so it will deal damage first too. Because there's no different damage values in CIV it allows longbow man to damage tank before tank is able to damage longbow man. So there's always minimum possibility to win, if tank has 80% health left and longbow man has 100% the changes will flip to almost 60 - 40, while tank still being way more advanced than longbow man. Of course this doesn't happen very often, but certainly often enough to be an annoyance.

Whole attacking/defending progress in CIV IV is just endless dice rolls with same damage values. This wouldn't be a problem if there were other damage values for different era units.

It's nice that there's terrain bonus, but I wouldn't like to lose my mechanized infantry against a musketeer that happens to receive 75% (+25 fortify bonus) terrain bonus from forest/hill. Just stack your units with guerrilla and woodsman and you'll understand why terrain bonus has too much value.

Yeah, bombarding is cool, but why I can't kill units with artillery/jets? Why can I only cause collateral damage in CIV IV? Artillery is literally (after some bombarding) a kamikaze unit. Just sacrifice few arties there and then attack. That's kind of lame. Artillery used to be bombarding unit with +1 range.

Forts. In before forts used to have other purposes too than one tile defence/protect. Time wasted on building a fort is usually pointless. In rush games there's very rarely time to waste in building forts and in long games you can take the time to advance slowly anyway so one hex protectionism doesn't reward spectacularly.

Stack of units. If there's a huge stack of units advancing your nation's borders it means you just have to kamikaze units in order to defend. There's very little tactical value if every stack is piled with every kind of unit. There's even less value of tactical value for defender because you can't choose the defending order of your units.

Out of Sync. You're lucky if you have never experienced that in multiplayer. Have you played CIV IV - BtS? Might be that it was problem for BtS only, though. BtS just happens to be way better than CIV IV.

But otherwise have never experienced any of the other problems. Have you patched your game?

Yep.

Editeditedit: I should start reading what I write so there would be no need for me to edit so often.

Last edited by BLdw (2010-05-09 03:04:19)