So the old threads are too old to bring back.

Does anyone play this? I played it for a while, but got to the point of being bored once the game hit a certain point (the 18th century onward pretty much).

So then I heard about the One City Challenge option, and it's made the game a hell of a lot more fun. What's made it even more fun is playing for money

Anyone up for some dollar games of OCC? Winner gets the pool from everyone playing, and most games seem to end up lasting an hour or two, since generally people will drop when they know they've been beat

4/6/2006 8:09:59 PM

I played it for a weekend or two, then realized why I got tired of them in the first place in that, I need a huge strategy guide to wring out all the complexities.

4/6/2006 8:52:20 PM

See that's what I finally like about Civ4.

There's no strategy that will always work. You can't just race to tech's or race wonders like you could in the previous games. Also if you play random civs (which is really the only fun way to play), you quite literally can't play the same game twice. It's much more engaging to just sit and play.

Granted, there are those guys who are just fucking sick at the game, but that takes a level of dedication and wrote memorization that you really don't need.

Also, playing the OCC makes it a lot faster and more fun, because you dont have to spend the normal 90% of game time micromanaging monotonous tasks.

4/6/2006 9:14:16 PM

What difficulty levels are we talking about here?

I guess I should have qualified my statement. It doesn't matter what it is, I'm usually in it to win. The lower levels are pretty trivial without needing to dive into the details of the game. Just pick good locations for cities, strike a balance between protecting them and working on your sciences, and you win. But to play on the middle levels and on up, you really have to get into it with a fine tooth comb, and once I got to that point I had hit the dimininshing returns wall and stopped playing.

4/6/2006 9:38:48 PM

I started playing it again. Once I get to about 1900-1950, the game is too slow. I'll have to look into the OCC.

4/6/2006 9:50:54 PM

I play this occaisionally - but hadn't thought of playing one city only - that's kinda against the whole point of one of my strategies - use the Indians or some other really expansionist civ and choke out everyone else. Might be interesting to try though.

4/6/2006 9:56:03 PM

With OCC:

1.) Are the other players limited to one city as well?
2.) Will I keep getting that damn popup that says "Sir, you must build a settler because you're ready to expand" like every damn turn? Yes, I know, that's why I'm taking over the cities in the adjacent territories. Now just shut up and keep pumping out more Cobra Gunships and Navy SEALs--maybe produce some culture and increase your productivity while you're at it.


[Edited on April 6, 2006 at 10:10 PM. Reason : .]

4/6/2006 10:08:48 PM

Quote :

"What difficulty levels are we talking about here? I guess I should have qualified my statement. It doesn't matter what it is, I'm usually in it to win. The lower levels are pretty trivial without needing to dive into the details of the game. Just pick good locations for cities, strike a balance between protecting them and working on your sciences, and you win. But to play on the middle levels and on up, you really have to get into it with a fine tooth comb, and once I got to that point I had hit the dimininshing returns wall and stopped playing."

I generally play on Monarch if im going single player, and we leave it on Noble for fill-in AI in the multi-player games I've played.

Noble is even odds, anything over that and you are working at a disadvantage. Yea I have noticed that over Monarch you have to be VERY damn careful about every turn and what you do, which does take away from the fun a bit.

Even more reason why multiplayer with short turns and OCC is more fun. Kind of like speed chess.

^^Yea that's usually what I end up doing in single player too. It's a good change of pace to learn to build a massive city. And you can still conquer other civ's, just have to plan it out a little more.

^
1) Human players are all limited to one city. Enemy AI is not.
2) In multiplayer games you dont get any of those popups, but you can turn em all of in singleplayer too

4/6/2006 10:46:47 PM

Do you sleep?

Because somehow you have found time to be the authority on everything that is ever posted on the wolf web

and get good at video games too.

4/6/2006 10:50:01 PM

Hahah, I mean, in the past 2 years I've played:

Civ4, Starcraft, Warcraft3, PGR3, GT4 and Tiger Woods Golf. And Civ4 accounts for probably 90% of the time I've played video games total. That fucking game ruled me for like a week during Christmas

4/6/2006 11:06:19 PM

I still play this when time allows. I still think Civ2 is the best in the series.

4/7/2006 12:55:52 PM

there were so many important things that have been left out since civ 2.

-the real life videos of wonders were great.
-freight and camel caravans was genius.
-if a civ had most of its cities in disorder for x # of turns a civil war would break it into 2 different civs.

my main beefs:

-airbases (were in civ 3 but made alot more sense with the way air units worked in civ 2)
-the way air and sea units worked (being able to attack a unit) made alot more sense. planes went out and had to return by that turn.

i dont know why they changed the bombardment system from last year. sea units and artillery can only bombard civil defense? Where is a modern artillery? I thought there were going to be so many more units? there is a lack of units in this game. what ever happened to mideval infantry and (guys with ball and chain) then when you get to modern theres just mech inf modern armor marines. CIV 2 HAD FREAKIN CRUISE MISSILES

it would be perfect if they combined the abilities of air and sea units from civ 2 with the bombardment system of civ 3. a navy is pretty useless in this game.

in civ 2 a dominant air force or navy could make up for a lack of ground troops which was very realistic

4/11/2006 5:20:01 PM

I agree I've been very dissappointed with the Air forces in Civ4, but the naval balance is finally right.

Navy shouldnt be a means to replace air or land power, it should be a means to control the seas and provide transport for supplies and other forces. Being able to control the oceans is critically important in water maps in Civ4.

As for the unit changes, there's no need for more units. The combat system is finally somewhat balanced. Once you get to modern armor, ICBM's, and artillery, it's nearly impossible to slug it out for a conquest victory. That's the whole point, and I find it extremely realistic.

4/11/2006 11:12:18 PM

so ships not being able to harm land units or land in any way is realistic to you? naval bombardment has been huge especially in the modern era where the us navy could carry out an entire war if collateral wasnt an issue.

4/13/2006 3:30:01 AM

It can bombard city defense, which is what naval bombardment is used for in modern day. MAYBE I could see them allowing it to be able to pillage tiles, but eh, that's almost too powerful.

4/13/2006 4:10:42 AM

I miss the movies of the wonders

4/13/2006 7:47:33 PM

Anyone want to play RIGHT NOW?

4/25/2006 11:35:41 PM