|
Post by ironclad on Dec 11, 2006 15:57:34 GMT -5
Yes Civ3 has some really nice features that im sad they didnt bring into Civ4. But even thought they didnt bring those Maps, Future unit features... Civ4 is a far more complex game economically and militarily that is no doubt. And you say cats are Overpowered if you go straight for that you can get it before most get Iron Working, So I dont see your need in Resource
|
|
|
Post by willburn on Dec 11, 2006 15:59:24 GMT -5
Ironclad i havent played a lot of civ3 future games as I was a single player guy at that time so I wouldnt know what to compeare it with. But i feel a lot of people are afraid of future because the simply havent played it enough to understand it well. Its really not that one sided when you get into it. Thats why I have tried to share one of my winning strategies (not the only one but one of the stronger ones) in the hopes people would pick up on it and learn from it. I hope that we get some more late eras game going on sometime. Maybe industrial will be a nice middle ground for the mp community when we get sick of ancient and medivals for a while.
|
|
|
Post by drixnak on Dec 11, 2006 16:00:14 GMT -5
Actually, I do know it all. I pointed out all the problems in the past and they were never fixed. I wouldn't mind playing 1v1 except for the problems I just mentioned. Btw, is the "floating" o fthe screen fixed so it moves normal or does it still move like it's floating on air? I just find the game too tedious as it was and the fact that catapults STILL aren't fixed makes me think all the problems will never be fixed. I knew alot of people on here, they're just gone now. All the GC players are gone, NoD, and some of the others. I played the highest players I could find back then, but the fact is that the cton players will always be ranked the highest because cases is a poor system. I've used cases since 1996, it's not a good ladder system. The skill rating is the best judge of players and playing 1v1. Therefore, I have no respect for you. Unimatrixzero, ktulu, etc. were better than all the players you have on here now.
|
|
|
Post by islandia on Dec 11, 2006 16:00:50 GMT -5
Why are you guys wasting time with this guy? He posted here almost a year ago some picture of him beating someone else unknown by a few hundred points and took a screenshot of the other person calling him a cheater. Then he proceeded to talk about his credentials as the best civ player of all time in civ2 and how he would completely dominate the ladder because he could double everyone's score and they would accuse him of cheating.
Then he proceeded to spend one or two weeks playing civ4 asking for 1 v 1s in the lobby and getting perhaps a 60% win rate - realized that he couldn't dominate the game like he said he would and disappeared after writing some long rant about how civ4 took no skill. Now he is back a year later and wants attention again so best thing to do is just ignore him and he will go away.
If drixnak really wanted to play civ4 and was trying to find out if it had changed much since release then he would know that there has been a lot of work on map scripts by the community to get nice balanced starts with the strategic resources all in place. He would also discover that cats no longer take collateral damage so that the first person to attack does not necessarily win most battles. Instead he comes in here to talk trash with year old conceptions about the game that have long been antiquated. But instead of asking about the changes or testing the game out to see the differences, he is just here to start flame wars.
Let it die guys.
|
|
|
Post by drixnak on Dec 11, 2006 16:02:58 GMT -5
Islandia you lost when we played our 1v1. Also, I'm 15 on the hall of fame for win percentage. You get the award for most ridiculous post. That is good to hear about the map scripts though.
|
|
|
Post by willburn on Dec 11, 2006 16:06:42 GMT -5
I suggest you play islandia in a 1v1 now. I think he would beat you so damn silly you would be mentaly and physically humiliated. Btw hasnt islandia won like every 1v1 ccc he has participated in lol ?
|
|
|
Post by islandia on Dec 11, 2006 16:07:32 GMT -5
I've never played you 1 v 1 so stop lying. And as for your who is best posts - I can prove that I have beaten Unimatrixzero in the 1 v 1 ccc ancient mirror which shows a lot more than your lies.
Also if you like I will accept your challenge any time to 1 v 1 if you care to back up your words.
|
|
|
Post by ironclad on Dec 11, 2006 16:08:25 GMT -5
I clearly understand Civ4 future, here is a basic outline. Make 7 Settlers and 8 workers first in 10-12 turns So in 20-25 turns you basically already got A empire running 300-400 mfg at least. Go either Mercantilism -Farms and Mines or... Go workshops O and dont forget those 2 turn factories Make a huge stack of modern armor... no need for any other units... use all you stealth bombers so they all the units are at 1/2 health attack your modern armors and you kill. Other than that there are no other advanced recon strats etc... As well we do maps like ILS and Pangea, instead of Fractal so you already know the Map. Its not hard to play future srry to break it to you, I have been just as good at future when i first started, could get 300-400 mfg my first game. So what future boils down to is not skills as there are not many options, all buildings already made. And I find that rushing with units you start with is not skill just luck no strategy
|
|
|
Post by knupp on Dec 11, 2006 16:09:15 GMT -5
Well put Islandia. Drixnax...strategies evolve. I can guarantee you 100% you will lose to anybody who has posted in this thread (even you Lestat ) so please just go away. I'm confident the admins will ban your posting abilities when the only reason you came here was to flame and insult Civ4 players based completely on your own ego and ingnorance of this game. I personally don't need to spend any more time on you. Thanks for posting and see you next year.
|
|
|
Post by drixnak on Dec 11, 2006 16:12:05 GMT -5
Ok, must have been another guy named Islandia. Don't forget, I changed my name many times on the ladder.
|
|
|
Post by willburn on Dec 11, 2006 16:16:52 GMT -5
Disagree ironclad. by turn 9 you should have attleast 20 cities ;D (see my future strategy post if you dont belive this is possible..) Recon: A lot more fun with airplanes to recon. Key to denying recon is having a good cover of interceptors to shoot down planes trying to scout. Naval reconing is a chapter in itself with subs looking for unprotected cities while destroyers out to hunt the subs. Carriers with airplanes to weaken ships so you win ship battles etc.. Battles: I agree a bit static and yes stealth bombers to lower def and modern to kill. Only there is a twist here. if the other guy goes sam infantery with helicopters and spreads em out a bit so he can reinforce stacks after bomb runs your screwed. And face it it cant be any more static thant he ancient game of catapults and 2movers... Fact is there is plenty of strategies only people not using it. And then you have growth strategies: Do you spam farms and slave & draft or do you go workshops and high mfg. Do you get a philo spammer? do you grab pentagon or not. Do you go in a defensive game to wint he space race. Do you do something compleatly unexpected and win culturally (something that is totaly achivable on future starts btw..) or do you try normal combat rute. Teamplay: With planes able to reinforce to any city in 1 turn teamplay becomes vital. Every turn should be used scouting and identifying threats and moving your forces correctly. Settler spam: Do you know when to prioritize a road or when to chop, do you crack under the pressure of moving 30 workers in 20 seconds and also have time to fight. Do you micro 20 cities each turn for best mfg over time. Do you plan spesific turns of attack where you prepair cities for slaving 1 turn earlier and railroad to your enemy. Quick reaction: You railroaded into the enemy but right before you entered the opponent build a fort and had 10 modern armors tehre to greet you as you clicked to enter that juicy hill. Auch. Lots of great moves to be achived and had fun with!! Funky moves: Figuring out stuff like using explorers as temporary defences early while you expand. Im sure there are plenty of things left to discover in the future matches of tricks like this. All inn all there are plenty dept in future matches to be honest. And certanly not less. As logic implies future has more techs and more civics and more units. So logically it has MORE options not less. edit and oh maps: I dont mind playing fractal maps or anything else. Will make it more strategical so thats cool
|
|
|
Post by ironclad on Dec 11, 2006 16:20:14 GMT -5
Yep it is possible to make 27 cities
|
|
|
Post by ironclad on Dec 11, 2006 16:21:23 GMT -5
Yep it is possible to make 28 cities if you really wanted too.. in 9 turns, dont recommend it to kill your gnp and go on strike and cant rush... overexpanding is counterintuitave
|
|
|
Post by ironclad on Dec 11, 2006 16:22:06 GMT -5
Well anyways that just shows how it takes no skill to expand, 1 turn settlers
|
|
|
Post by churchill1 on Dec 11, 2006 16:22:42 GMT -5
;D JUST TOO FUNNY! IIRC Civ2 wasn't a serious MP game anyway(?)
|
|
|
Post by ironclad on Dec 11, 2006 16:23:00 GMT -5
Willburn sam infantry, ROFL they dont work... I have never seen over 10 sams... I have 25 bombers so he is still done
|
|
|
Post by ironclad on Dec 11, 2006 16:25:13 GMT -5
And you get 20 cities in the land you dont have??? I as well build all my cities with 2 spaces apart ALWAYS ... but still no room
|
|
|
Post by willburn on Dec 11, 2006 16:26:28 GMT -5
You dont go negative gnp with 29 cities on future and 0 % tech.
Well to be frank its not really any worse with 1 turn settlers than 2 turn workers with expansive trait on renesance. The skill lies in using these settlers or workes best. and this is exactly the same as earlier ages only you get a way with a higher expansion than normal before your opponent can threaten you. But too many front cities undefended also means you are very much at the risk of dying if you dont know what your doing.
But one thing i can agree on with say 20 cities makeing a mistake in one for 1 turn isnt as critical as making a mistake in 1 of 3 cities in an ancient game. So its more mistake friendly i give you that. But at the same time a guy making less mistakes than the other will still win a future match
|
|
|
Post by ironclad on Dec 11, 2006 16:26:51 GMT -5
Heck if i had room for as many cities as I wanted I can get 1000 mfg, The buildings dont let you go broke so easily and settlers one a turn.. can get that in 30 turn tops
|
|
|
Post by drixnak on Dec 11, 2006 16:27:42 GMT -5
Civ2 took way more skill than this thing does. Our ladder was based on a formulated point system and ranking was based on total number of points. So you won more points vs people rated higher and you won less points vs people rated lower. This ladder...well we all know how this one works. Also, you guys should be thanking me. 3 pages and how many views in just a few hours?
|
|