civilization 4.

why hello there

civilization 4.

Postby Git » Wed Oct 19, 2011 1:07 am

So I know you nignogs like to run about with guns and staves and shoot lazers and pryoblartzs at people and shit, but gentlemen play Civilization. It is the supreme game, and imo civ 4 is the best game made in the past 10 years hands down period. Nevermind the fact that I'm a huge Civ nut, but still...

I would challenge any of you to get a better normalized than I did this game I played a couple months back. I've been trying to beat it, but I won a domination victory on Monarch (no worldbuilder, fags, dont even start) in the mid-late 1800s and it's been practically impossible for me to replicate. It was more or less the perfect storm and I rocked all phases of the game.

Attached is screenshot.

Suck my cvilizated wang, fags. I am the king of civ 4.
Attachments
civ4pwnt.png
User avatar
Git
Reverend of Swagger
 
Posts: 2117
Joined: Mon Dec 11, 2006 4:33 pm
Highscores: 10

Re: civilization 4.

Postby tonavin » Wed Oct 19, 2011 1:31 am

I loved the Civ games, even the crappy DS version, Revolutions. I've yet to play 4 though. HMMM. Lately I've been on a Rollercoaster Tycoon fix, so when that passes I might have to get back into the Civ groove...
tonavin
Reverend of Swagger
 
Posts: 337
Joined: Tue Jan 04, 2011 8:35 pm

Re: civilization 4.

Postby Ingoodhands » Wed Oct 19, 2011 6:34 am

I play revolutions like 3 times a week. Domination is for fags. Culture victory is supreme.
chandos wrote:(However, we are both in agreement that ClumsyD is undeniably gay.)

Git wrote:Don't be Africa.
User avatar
Ingoodhands
Reverend of Swagger
 
Posts: 1069
Joined: Sun Nov 30, 2008 3:38 am
Highscores: 1

Re: civilization 4.

Postby Git » Wed Oct 19, 2011 9:49 am

Ingoodhands wrote:I play revolutions like 3 times a week. Domination is for fags. Culture victory is supreme.


culture victory. really? rofl WE WIN WE R TEH BEST CULCHER! Fuck that. The last game I played I had to burn down a couple of willem van oranje's cities because he was about to get 3x legendary.
User avatar
Git
Reverend of Swagger
 
Posts: 2117
Joined: Mon Dec 11, 2006 4:33 pm
Highscores: 10

Re: civilization 4.

Postby Ingoodhands » Mon Oct 24, 2011 11:04 pm

I thought you bleeding heart types are against war?
chandos wrote:(However, we are both in agreement that ClumsyD is undeniably gay.)

Git wrote:Don't be Africa.
User avatar
Ingoodhands
Reverend of Swagger
 
Posts: 1069
Joined: Sun Nov 30, 2008 3:38 am
Highscores: 1

Re: civilization 4.

Postby Git » Tue Oct 25, 2011 2:42 am

Ingoodhands wrote:I thought you bleeding heart types are against war?


wat
User avatar
Git
Reverend of Swagger
 
Posts: 2117
Joined: Mon Dec 11, 2006 4:33 pm
Highscores: 10

Re: civilization 4.

Postby Sulmar » Tue Oct 25, 2011 8:13 am

I don't see git as a bleeding heart anything
User avatar
Sulmar
Reverend of Swagger
 
Posts: 3468
Joined: Fri Nov 03, 2006 5:14 pm
Location: Oklahoma

Re: civilization 4.

Postby Git » Tue Oct 25, 2011 11:29 am

Sulmar wrote:I don't see git as a bleeding heart anything


im more of a bleeding anus guy
User avatar
Git
Reverend of Swagger
 
Posts: 2117
Joined: Mon Dec 11, 2006 4:33 pm
Highscores: 10

Re: civilization 4.

Postby Sulmar » Tue Oct 25, 2011 5:47 pm

yeah man, that spoon was too big, shouldn't have shoved it up there
User avatar
Sulmar
Reverend of Swagger
 
Posts: 3468
Joined: Fri Nov 03, 2006 5:14 pm
Location: Oklahoma

Re: civilization 4.

Postby Git » Mon Feb 18, 2013 7:57 pm

BUMP CUZ CIV. /discuss. I'm still struggling with Monarch, and haven't made it out of getting barbarianed to oblivion in the next (emperor) difficulty. I'm not sure if I'm missing something or the game is just designed to be impossibru at that point :(

I thought about reading up on other people's strategies but meh. That just seems like the easy way out. Feels like Monarch games are always close, and I need a perfect start to even be competitive late.
User avatar
Git
Reverend of Swagger
 
Posts: 2117
Joined: Mon Dec 11, 2006 4:33 pm
Highscores: 10

Re: civilization 4.

Postby Tenebris » Tue Feb 19, 2013 12:24 pm

The combat in 4 is abysmal. First, the computer has an ENORMOUS advantage. That can be rationalized by the fact that maybe the computer should have an advantage in combat, but it shouldn't take you 4 to 1 odds on open terrain to have a chance at winning. And that's at warlord difficulty. Second, ranged units are more or less worthless. The 'first strike' system is just plain broken. There's zero way to put some sort of tank (e.g. pikeman) in front of a ranged unit for attacking.Third, every other civ game I've played had at least some way to attack units from a distance. All it does in this game is reduce city defenses. Not worthless, but severely blunts siege effectiveness, and that's just a play-style I like. Fourth, there's still horrific RNG. You'll walk through the jungle with your ole level 4 max health warrior killing jaguars and bears left and right and then a 1 strength tiger will annihilate him. Randomly knights will kill full heath tanks. Shit like that. Fifth, the whole units can stack endlessly but only attack one at a time thing is really awkward. Civ 5 has the same one at a time combat but you can't stack units. Just seems to work better.

Now the rest of civ 4 is great. The only other thing out of whack is that religions are a little overpowered and you can be screwed if you don't get at least one. Other than that city management is great, I love the culture thing, wonders are good, the great people thing is great, and the technology is great. Diplomacy is kinda meh, but none of them really get that right anyway.


Civ5 without the expansion is kinda blah. There are huge gaps in unit production. You're stuck with shit tier units for way too long unless you know whatever complicated technology path the game specifically wanted you to play. The diplomacy is bad and there just isn't that much to do besides position units.

With the expansion though it seems as though they added a lot of units to bridge those gaps. They also beefed up diplomacy quite a bit if you like to do that. It's always hilarious when you put 5-6 units on their border and they call you out on it on the diplomacy screen. The spies are interesting as well. They let you steal technology and see what's going on in the city they're stationed at(i.e. what's building, what's been built, what specialists are there). This only works against computers, but you can learn 'intrigue' which essentially is stuff like they're plotting to attack other nations or planning to spy on other nations. You can then use that intrigue to tell those other nations or whatever you choose. Ties into diplomacy I guess. The xpac also re-introduces religion, which uses faith points. It just adds a few things you can do but doesn't have any real advantages or disadvantages over civ4's version of religion.

In closing, I hate civ4's combat system, Civ5 without the xpac is garb, and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civilizati ... l_to_Power will always be the greatest civ game.
User avatar
Tenebris
Reverend of Swagger
 
Posts: 2563
Joined: Fri Nov 03, 2006 5:16 pm
Location: Lousiana

Re: civilization 4.

Postby chandos » Tue Feb 19, 2013 12:32 pm

Along the same lines, the computers in Dota2 are actually very good if you want to improve your skill. Jared, Chode, Chewy, and Gaydrian (you all don't know him but he's gay and his real name is Adrian), and I played against some last night to unlock Cody's latent potential as he makes his first steps into the struggle between Dire and Radiant.

First, we played against medium computers and then we played a game against hard computers. After, we journeyed into matchmaking and won 2/2 games against real people. The games were close (but there was no flaming because this is such a good community). In the end, we all felt better about ourselves.

I highly recommend Dota2 to anyone considering a Sid Meier game.
User avatar
chandos
Reverend of Swagger
 
Posts: 828
Joined: Tue Oct 24, 2006 8:11 pm

Re: civilization 4.

Postby Tenebris » Tue Feb 19, 2013 12:54 pm

Just so you know, I'll play games with Git before I ever play dota2 solely because of your portrayal of it.
User avatar
Tenebris
Reverend of Swagger
 
Posts: 2563
Joined: Fri Nov 03, 2006 5:16 pm
Location: Lousiana

Re: civilization 4.

Postby Tray » Tue Feb 19, 2013 1:20 pm

ouch
Tray
Reverend of Swagger
 
Posts: 3182
Joined: Thu Nov 02, 2006 12:39 am

Re: civilization 4.

Postby Git » Tue Feb 19, 2013 9:52 pm

Tenebris wrote:The combat in 4 is abysmal. First, the computer has an ENORMOUS advantage. That can be rationalized by the fact that maybe the computer should have an advantage in combat, but it shouldn't take you 4 to 1 odds on open terrain to have a chance at winning. And that's at warlord difficulty. Second, ranged units are more or less worthless. The 'first strike' system is just plain broken. There's zero way to put some sort of tank (e.g. pikeman) in front of a ranged unit for attacking.Third, every other civ game I've played had at least some way to attack units from a distance. All it does in this game is reduce city defenses. Not worthless, but severely blunts siege effectiveness, and that's just a play-style I like. Fourth, there's still horrific RNG. You'll walk through the jungle with your ole level 4 max health warrior killing jaguars and bears left and right and then a 1 strength tiger will annihilate him. Randomly knights will kill full heath tanks. Shit like that. Fifth, the whole units can stack endlessly but only attack one at a time thing is really awkward. Civ 5 has the same one at a time combat but you can't stack units. Just seems to work better.

Now the rest of civ 4 is great. The only other thing out of whack is that religions are a little overpowered and you can be screwed if you don't get at least one. Other than that city management is great, I love the culture thing, wonders are good, the great people thing is great, and the technology is great. Diplomacy is kinda meh, but none of them really get that right anyway.


Civ5 without the expansion is kinda blah. There are huge gaps in unit production. You're stuck with shit tier units for way too long unless you know whatever complicated technology path the game specifically wanted you to play. The diplomacy is bad and there just isn't that much to do besides position units.

With the expansion though it seems as though they added a lot of units to bridge those gaps. They also beefed up diplomacy quite a bit if you like to do that. It's always hilarious when you put 5-6 units on their border and they call you out on it on the diplomacy screen. The spies are interesting as well. They let you steal technology and see what's going on in the city they're stationed at(i.e. what's building, what's been built, what specialists are there). This only works against computers, but you can learn 'intrigue' which essentially is stuff like they're plotting to attack other nations or planning to spy on other nations. You can then use that intrigue to tell those other nations or whatever you choose. Ties into diplomacy I guess. The xpac also re-introduces religion, which uses faith points. It just adds a few things you can do but doesn't have any real advantages or disadvantages over civ4's version of religion.

In closing, I hate civ4's combat system, Civ5 without the xpac is garb, and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civilizati ... l_to_Power will always be the greatest civ game.



I suppose the last time I played civ 5 was when it really had just come out, it was buggy as all get out, and highly unplayable. I managed to get through a game on a relatively low difficulty setting, made some "giant death robots" or something along those lines (and sighed the whole time, because what the fuck). I think from what you're saying that they may have made it more enjoyable since, but vanilla civ 4 pre-BTS was playable and fun, and BTS just added a new element of technologies and options. Plus some cool scenarios.

Unit stacking, while I totally agree is kindof a gimmicky way to win, is how every Civ game since forever has played out. However in some of the earlier Civs I think if you stacked units and the first one died, the ones under it would die as well. I remember that being true in original civ, though I don't remember it in other games.. it's been many, many moons though since I've touched 2 or 3. It is "stupid" that you can put 500 tanks on one square and turn the entire enemy empire into a parking lot, but at the same time and at higher difficulties that becomes less and less possible simply because you frequently dont have the turns to spend on cranking out 500 (exaggerated ofc, but you get the idea) before you get behind on economy, research, w/e. To your RNG point, I don't really experience that. Unit attacks are pre-rolled, so if you save the game, attack, load, attack, load, attack etc you'll get the same outcome on the same turn every time. If you really want to remove the RNG you just have to break down how many seige units you'll need to bring (read: sacrifice) before you can take a city outright with your actual units. I think that's fair, an entrenched defender should have the advantage in a real invasion. I know sometimes I lose a fight where my tank has a 94.6% chance to win against a longbowman or some other piece of shit unit, and while it doesn't make sense IRL that some fag with a bow would be able to shoot down your shermanz, in civ it has to. It's just a number roll, occasionally you're unlucky. I've also won with low odds so it goes both ways. I don't think the computer shows any favoritism outside of the displayed chances you have to win.

I do like some of the ideas in civ 5 about ranged units being able to seige down defenses/units, but I quickly found that I could take entire empires with a single land unit and fully upgraded (destroyers?), because they had an option to attack from 3hex away, and at that point the city could no longer return fire. Granted this puts the onus on the computer to play smarter in a naval sense, but I generally find naval combat to be far less complex than ground, and easier to exploit against the derpy AI.

I did like some things about Civ 5 but the underwhelmingly buggy release of it turned me off almost instantly. Turned me off to the point where thinking about buying more DLC just to get stuff that probably should have been put in the original game to make it somewhat enjoyable really irks me. Can't think of another Civ that came out where you had to wait for an expansion before you wanted to play it, can you? I'll probably wait until the DLC goes on steam sale or something and probably pick it up.
User avatar
Git
Reverend of Swagger
 
Posts: 2117
Joined: Mon Dec 11, 2006 4:33 pm
Highscores: 10

Re: civilization 4.

Postby Tenebris » Wed Feb 20, 2013 11:12 am

to be honest i never played 5 without the xpac, and i haven't actually played the xpac all that much. The vast amount of my civ experience was call to power 1 & 2. I just bought the gold pack for civ5 on steam and enjoyed it immensely. I played a few multiplayer games with IGH(doesn't have xpansion) and noticed the severe changes. And yes, it does blow that companies release unfinished buggy shit and the make you pay dlc to simply bring them up to par with previous versions. But oh well.

Like I said, I haven't played civ 5 all that much (30+ hours). I haven't gotten to the giant robots of doom although i've heard about them. Anyway, essentially what this comes down is that I play civ4 mutliplayer and civ5 single player and it all works out. I would KILL a child to be able to play the Apolyton version of CTP:2 online. Those men are gods.
User avatar
Tenebris
Reverend of Swagger
 
Posts: 2563
Joined: Fri Nov 03, 2006 5:16 pm
Location: Lousiana

Re: civilization 4.

Postby chandos » Wed Feb 20, 2013 11:21 am

I know what is going on. You have heard tale of my prodigious skill and are reluctant to exhibit any inadequacies resulting from your newness to the game.

Let me just say you have nothing to fear. Jared has played for years and still rides upon my shoulders as I carry him from victory to victory and he is unashamed. There is and always will be ample space upon my back for anyone in need.

Or, if you would prefer, I will abdicate from my place of greatness in Dota2 to make way for your appearance onto the scene. I believe so strongly in the the worth and value of the game that I will abandon its splendor just so that you will play and behold the glory that is Dota2.
User avatar
chandos
Reverend of Swagger
 
Posts: 828
Joined: Tue Oct 24, 2006 8:11 pm

Re: civilization 4.

Postby Sulmar » Wed Feb 20, 2013 11:26 pm

tonight, I saw a picture of drunk Chan lounging beneath a giant 'Murican flag
User avatar
Sulmar
Reverend of Swagger
 
Posts: 3468
Joined: Fri Nov 03, 2006 5:14 pm
Location: Oklahoma

Re: civilization 4.

Postby Ingoodhands » Wed Feb 20, 2013 11:50 pm

chandos wrote:Jared has played for years and still rides upon my shoulders as I carry him from victory to victory and he is unashamed.


Jared can you post AChan's match history? Preferably one that will show both your scores in the same games.
chandos wrote:(However, we are both in agreement that ClumsyD is undeniably gay.)

Git wrote:Don't be Africa.
User avatar
Ingoodhands
Reverend of Swagger
 
Posts: 1069
Joined: Sun Nov 30, 2008 3:38 am
Highscores: 1

Re: civilization 4.

Postby Winter-fuckin'fell » Thu Feb 21, 2013 6:57 pm

Ingoodhands wrote:Jared can you post AChan's match history? Preferably one that will show both your scores in the same games.

And preferably one that shows you scoring consistently higher than Chan, from "victory" to "victory."
User avatar
Winter-fuckin'fell
Reverend of Swagger
 
Posts: 47
Joined: Mon Nov 05, 2012 8:07 pm
Location: Ok

Next

Return to General

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests

cron