Civilization IV

[Defeatist Elitist]

So, how many of you guys play this game? For me, play is an understatement. I practically live Civ IV, and I think about it pretty much all the time. I mostly play offline, and only play online against my friends, so I can't really determine how good I am, but I think I'm pretty average, as I can basically always win on Noble, and know a few tricks. I also basically only ever play Giant Earth Map Mod, or Revolution DCM, largely because the BUG GUI is soooooooooooo much better than vanilla BtSs.

So, you guys play at all?

[Anouleth]

I used to play a little bit and I really enjoyed it. I wasn't really that good though >_> I usually played on the easy settings.

[Esau of Isaac]

Civilization IV is great. Civ V felt pretty dumbed down in multiple ways, but the combat in that one was better than its predecessor.

Anyways, I've probably invested more time in this game than just about anything. I lurve it. >__>

[HongLei]

I love this game and wish I had more time to play it, it has to be one of my favorite games right up there with fire emblem

[Original Alear]

I really need to try the advanced civs, as right now the only one I've played is...Civ Revolutions, which is kinda dumbed down or so I've heard. (on the bright side, games are much shorter so you get to try out factions and different strategies more quickly)

On a side note, I'm not particularly impressed with Baba Yetu, the opening theme that took home gaming's first Grammy award last February.

[Iced]

I just started a Monarch Carthaginian campaign the other day actually, not going all that well though. Rome has pretty much blocked me from the rest of the continent while they finish their conquest of everything except the Mongol and Celtic homelands which is only connected to the main continent by a one tile wide strip. if I don't get to the new world soon I'm pretty sure I'm next.

As for multiplayer I have 3-4 friends who I play it with a lot (that or AOE2), unfortunately one of them is ridiculously warlike and will declare over things like me culturally annexing some pigs on his border, completely conflicting with my strategy of having an army just formidable enough to deter people from attacking me while I horde science and production.

Another friend just plain sucks and caused the barbarians to become the head of Buddhism once.

Edited March 17, 2011 by Iced

[Defeatist Elitist]

Civilization IV is great. Civ V felt pretty dumbed down in multiple ways, but the combat in that one was better than its predecessor.

Anyways, I've probably invested more time in this game than just about anything. I lurve it. >__>

Same here. Civ V had so many good ideas, but also had a lot of problems. I think a lot of what I didn't like came from the removal of commerce and seperation of culture, gold and science, as well as the saminess and unimportance of terrain, but enough, this will not be a bitch about Civ V thread!

And yeah, I spend way too much time in this game. One of my friends started a scenario in 1940 and won in like 1950, but spent 81 hours on the game...

I really need to try the advanced civs, as right now the only one I've played is...Civ Revolutions, which is kinda dumbed down or so I've heard. (on the bright side, games are much shorter so you get to try out factions and different strategies more quickly)

On a side note, I'm not particularly impressed with Baba Yetu, the opening theme that took home gaming's first Grammy award last February.

Definitely try Civ IV, it's one of my favorite games of all time, and has lots of fun stuff you can do.

Also, I actually really love Baba Yetu

I just started a Monarch Carthaginian campaign the other day actually, not going all that well though. Rome has pretty much blocked me from the rest of the continent while they finish their conquest of everything except the Mongol and Celtic homelands which is only connected to the main continent by a one tile wide strip. if I don't get to the new world soon I'm pretty sure I'm next.

I've always found that colonizing new continents is less helpful than just dominating my home continent. Is this a predownloaded scenario or something, or just a random game?

As for multiplayer I have 3-4 friends who I play it with a lot (that or AOE2), unfortunately one of them is ridiculously warlike and will declare over things like me culturally annexing some pigs on his border, completely conflicting with my strategy of having an army just formidable enough to deter people from attacking me while I horde science and production.

Another friend just plain sucks and caused the barbarians to become the head of Buddhism once.

Haha, I mix your friends and your strategies. Sometimes I just do something like rushing Praetorians and spamming them everywhere, but often I run a skeleton army and just super tech up until Janissaries or some other UU and just blast everything away.

[Iced]

I've always found that colonizing new continents is less helpful than just dominating my home continent. Is this a predownloaded scenario or something, or just a random game?

So have I, but I really can't expand at the moment, besides a city in far east the east I'm trying to develop as a staging ground to capture the archipelago next to it.

It looks like I'm pretty much screwed too, I started playing it and Rome just declared war on me. I just can't match their production with only 4 cities. (I actually rather enjoyed playing a small civ for once)

My northern borders are fully fortified with longbowmen in forts and I've since captured the city south of me, but their starting to send doom stacks and I just can't compete. My navy is extremely powerful though, that's something I guess.

EDIT: it's a random game, continents I think.

Edited March 17, 2011 by Iced

[Defeatist Elitist]

So have I, but I really can't expand at the moment, besides a city in far east the east I'm trying to develop as a staging ground to capture the archipelago next to it.

It looks like I'm pretty much screwed too, I started playing it and Rome just declared war on me. I just can't match their production with only 4 cities. (I actually rather enjoyed playing a small civ for once)

My northern borders are fully fortified with longbowmen in forts and I've since captured the city south of me, but their starting to send doom stacks and I just can't compete. My navy is extremely powerful though, that's something I guess.

EDIT: it's a random game, continents I think.

Ouch! I don't suppose you have much of a chance of a breakout attack, do you? Do the Romans have gunpowder yet?

[Esau of Isaac]

I really need to try the advanced civs, as right now the only one I've played is...Civ Revolutions, which is kinda dumbed down or so I've heard. (on the bright side, games are much shorter so you get to try out factions and different strategies more quickly)

Civilization Revolutions is ridiculously dumbed down. I actually bought it for both the 360 and DS, and found myself incredibly disappointed rather quickly. There are so many things that are wrong with it compared to the more terrific ones on the PC. I definitely recommend trying out the computer titles, because they're some of the best 4X games ever made.

On a side note, I'm not particularly impressed with Baba Yetu, the opening theme that took home gaming's first Grammy award last February.

I'm sorry, but I want to separate. I'm taking the kids.

Same here. Civ V had so many good ideas, but also had a lot of problems. I think a lot of what I didn't like came from the removal of commerce and seperation of culture, gold and science, as well as the saminess and unimportance of terrain, but enough, this will not be a bitch about Civ V thread!

I'll be honest, I can't remember much about the game at this point. I've not played it in quite a while, and even when I did play it had to do so in tile mode or it wouldn't run. I just remember not liking it in several areas, but appreciating it in others. Like, I loved the combat system's implementation of single-unit-tiles. No more stacks of doom man. NO MORE STACKS OF DOOM.

And yeah, I spend way too much time in this game. One of my friends started a scenario in 1940 and won in like 1950, but spent 81 hours on the game...

Jesus.

Damn, that reminds me, I had a play-by-play I had of a game I did with a few pals from another forum, and it was easily the best time I've ever had on an online game. So much fun. I have to find it, I think I made it into an image. Lemme look for it.

Edit: Found it, finally. It's a beast of an image, though, I'm going to spoiler-tag it:

Oh man, it's actually missing some of the commentary that I made (Kenadian nuked Thebes for me to be able to take it and secure the west coast, for example, which helped build up towards the eventual war because of nuclear buildup), and reading through it I made so many grammatical mistakes. It was years ago don't judge. >__>

Edited March 17, 2011 by Esau of Isaac

[Iced]

Ouch! I don't suppose you have much of a chance of a breakout attack, do you? Do the Romans have gunpowder yet?

The only reason I'm winning is because of my huge tech lead, their economy can't be good with that many cites and the massive army their supporting. It’s pretty much a stalemate now though, there's no way I can start being aggressive, but they haven't a hope of getting though my Musketeers in mountain forts.

That looked like a pretty fantastic game. I had a horrible war with Byzantium once that went on for over 1500 years in a bitter stalemate; your Egyptian war just reminded me of it.

What would you all say at the suggestion of a multiplayer game? (over multiple sessions of course)

[Anouleth]

I'd be interesting in joining in a multiplayer game. I live in England, though, so the timezones might interfere.

[Esau of Isaac]

I'd definitely be interested. We used to have them fairly often.

[Defeatist Elitist]

I'd be so interested you wouldn't even understand how interested I am.

Would you guys wanna Pitboss it up (probably wouldn't work so well, what with us having to find a host, or have someone host the server), or just a regular online game where we would save after every little bit?

[Iced]

Regular online would probably be a lot better, Pitboss gets really annoying after a while, not to meantion flooding my inbox.

[Defeatist Elitist]

Regular online would probably be a lot better, Pitboss gets really annoying after a while, not to meantion flooding my inbox.

Yeah, I can see how it would get old.

So, I guess I'll start pondering shit here then, just to keep the excitement building.

First of all, how many people are interested in playing? It looks like Iced, Esau, Anouleth and me have all expressed interest, and it doesn't look like many others will be dropping into this thread, but you never know I guess.

Second of all, any ideas for map script, and map script options? Same with other game options I guess.

Also, would any of you be interested in using Skype or something to communicate, at least partially, during the game? Or at least something other than the in game chat, maybe I'm just dumb but I always find it sort of unfriendly. 8[ I guess I just don't know how to whisper people, hahaha.

[Anouleth]

Also, would any of you be interested in using Skype or something to communicate, at least partially, during the game? Or at least something other than the in game chat, maybe I'm just dumb but I always find it sort of unfriendly. 8[ I guess I just don't know how to whisper people, hahaha.

I think Skype would be better.

[Momo]

I bought the game on sale (it and all expansions for ten bux was too good to pass up), but I've not really played it much at all. Seemed like there were a whole bunch of little things you had to keep track of, and all the choices of what to research kind of intimidated me.

[Rewjeo]

I love Civ IV, which I just recently rediscovered. I used to be really good at it, but then my computer decided not to let me play. Now, like three years later, I've just reinstalled it and it's loads of fun.

Baba Yetu is fantastic. The whole album, too.

[Defeatist Elitist]

I bought the game on sale (it and all expansions for ten bux was too good to pass up), but I've not really played it much at all. Seemed like there were a whole bunch of little things you had to keep track of, and all the choices of what to research kind of intimidated me.

Yeah, it can take a little while to figure everything out, though honestly when I started I didn't know anything and just sort of bumbled around.

[Iced]

I bought the game on sale (it and all expansions for ten bux was too good to pass up), but I've not really played it much at all. Seemed like there were a whole bunch of little things you had to keep track of, and all the choices of what to research kind of intimidated me.

The game may seem complicated, but without getting into meta-game sort of things, it is actually very easy to learn.

I'm fine to use voice chat of some sort if you think you can stand my voice.

[Defeatist Elitist]

The game may seem complicated, but without getting into meta-game sort of things, it is actually very easy to learn.

Yeah, the way I learned to play Civ IV was just through starting up games and playing through them until I figured things out.

I'm fine to use voice chat of some sort if you think you can stand my voice.

I'm sure I can handle it.

[Le Communard]

I've considered picking it up before, but really I've always been a III man and its not likely to change unless I actually decide I really need to play Civilization again. Frankly, I've been a Paradox player for too long to really enjoy Civilization that much any more--sure, they're probably better games, but I really don't play games any more and am more interested in those as a Historian. Of course, if someone gives it a really shining endorsement, especially in relation to III, I might get around to giving it a try, but I'm probably just too much a of misanthropic old man at this point.

I do remember some great game from back in the day, though. Some of those Conquest scenarios like the Middle Ages and the Sengoku Jidai were really fun. That, and winning as the natives in the New World.

Edited March 19, 2011 by Le Communard

[Defeatist Elitist]

I've considered picking it up before, but really I've always been a III man and its not likely to change unless I actually decide I really need to play Civilization again. Frankly, I've been a Paradox player for too long to really enjoy Civilization that much any more--sure, they're probably better games, but I really don't play games any more and am more interested in those as a Historian. Of course, if someone gives it a really shining endorsement, especially in relation to III, I might get around to giving it a try, but I'm probably just too much a of misanthropic old man at this point.

I do remember some great game from back in the day, though. Some of those Conquest scenarios like the Middle Ages and the Sengoku Jidai were really fun. That, and winning as the natives in the New World.

I haven't played Civ III, but Civ IV is definitely one of my favorite games, even though I discovered it relatively recently. From what I know of Civ III though, Civ IV requires way different terrain planning, instead of just trying to get X, Y, and Z in every single city, in Civ IV it often pays to specialize your cities and simply use what you find. Also, Civ IV has pretty good limits on horizontal and vertical growth, and you have to be strategic about things and make tradeoffs. Build too many cities too quickly without the proper support and you'll be forced to pay huge maintenance costs, and if your cities grow in population too rapidly, half the citizens will be rioting instead of working. Of course, once you get used to it you can hit nice sweet spots where you're constantly on the edge, or, depending on your playstyle, where you intentionally go over the edge in certain areas. Basically, I like it because it's got a good mix of simplicity and complexity.

[Iced]

I've considered picking it up before, but really I've always been a III man and its not likely to change unless I actually decide I really need to play Civilization again. Frankly, I've been a Paradox player for too long to really enjoy Civilization that much any more--sure, they're probably better games, but I really don't play games any more and am more interested in those as a Historian. Of course, if someone gives it a really shining endorsement, especially in relation to III, I might get around to giving it a try, but I'm probably just too much a of misanthropic old man at this point.

While I really love Europa Universalis and Victoria, Civilisation really has more in common with a board game than anything by Paradox.

The game isn't supposed to be historically accurate or complex at all, it's a (comparatively) simple grand strategy that gets it's enjoyment from it's interactions with other players and the blance between too much of something and too little, there isn't a lot to manage, but what there is perfectly implemented and refined.

Edited March 19, 2011 by Iced