agent_x7
Settler
Agent of Truth
Posts: 65
|
Post by agent_x7 on Jan 9, 2006 20:48:14 GMT -5
As anyone who played the civilization 3 conquests multiplayer knows, Future games used to about 33% of the total number of games. However I have yet to see a single modern era game in the lobby. I have played the scenario, and it seems even better than the civ 3 future era. I was just wondering, why don't people like futures anymore?? I personally find it much better than ancients, it is more strategic, and less about building units en-masse than in ancient. In ancient, having a good military production core guarentees victory, and there is little battlefield strategy besides use axemen to kill melee and use spearmen to kill horses. In future you have a wider variety of units with a wider variety of bonuses, plus the wars are usually longer range, makeing warfare much less complicated.
|
|
|
Post by friedrichpsitalon on Jan 9, 2006 23:44:46 GMT -5
Future wasn't popular in Civ3 for almost a year after its widespread availability. Give it time.
|
|
|
Post by Sidhe on Jan 10, 2006 2:38:10 GMT -5
Yeah to be in the top 20 on the ladder on c3c requires you to play futures and nothing else. At least the CIV league isn't dominated by one trick ponies Modern,Industrial and future are all great scenarios: although having no oil or uranium in modern/future is as dull as finding out you got nothing for christmas and Santa is your dad, this doesn't happen to often though fortunately. The resource issues are still there with these scenarios, but there are things you can do in teamers so it's not the boring map screwed pot luck scenario it was in C3c. Oh sorry I forgot if your good you can kill anyone with no oil or uranium or rubber etc in C3c. Had to put that in, even if they do have modern armour/tanks or marines Personally my fave scenario atm is industrial: no resource issues I can see yet as the initial units are resourceless and of course England rules in this scenario in the early game
|
|
|
Post by tommynt on Jan 10, 2006 4:24:17 GMT -5
believe in wisdom of Fried .. people start with ancients after time they get bored and play something like ren .. they get bored and play indu ... they get bored and play futre
thats civ I think . u start in ancient age and end in future
and the civ3 1.2 futre was even more a special case .. just the best designed sceanario with good balance and many options - thats why it got soo popular
for me the civ4 fut start with that many settler doesnt feel like civ but time ll give it a try
|
|
|
Post by whiplash on Jan 10, 2006 9:47:34 GMT -5
civ3 future is popular only because Wtiberon did such a great job in creating the scenario. If he hadn't, nobody would be playing future.
|
|
|
Post by Sidhe on Jan 10, 2006 14:19:28 GMT -5
The team aspect in futures was the single most important factor in keeping it popular. Yes we know the scenario was apt to produce map screws sometimes that just weren't funny, but you did get a nice team game out of it, that was about agression rather than carefull building.
The 3 settlers thing oddly works remarkably well in CIV futures, try 'em and see, you can still get map screwed but now you can at least survive without oil and uranium, even if you do get nuked to kingdom come or tank rushed. Marines and Navy seals are resourceless, and Navy seals with artillery as back up can easily defend against tanks.
My advice try it and see, I do think the settings need to be just right, too small and it sucks big time, Standard for 4/5/6 players is not unusual, and you do hope everyone get's at least uranuium for the game to be really enjoyable but this is not often an issue.
|
|
agent_x7
Settler
Agent of Truth
Posts: 65
|
Post by agent_x7 on Jan 10, 2006 20:57:02 GMT -5
In civ 4, since planes have decreased in importance, oil and uranium are interchangable, and marines/mech infantry require no resources, you will not be screwed even if you don't have any resources whatsoever. I agree with the ancient to future thing, its just funny that people are so stupid. I think there are too many noobs and noobs would be unwilling to play futures because they are ignorant and don't want to try anything except playing rome on ancients over and over again.
|
|
|
Post by markweston on Jan 10, 2006 22:53:30 GMT -5
What a pleasant attitude I hope at least most ladder members remember they too were noobs a few weeks or months ago.
|
|
|
Post by Sidhe on Jan 11, 2006 2:44:37 GMT -5
Agent is a known antinoobite Everyone is noob atm, people are playing differing scenarios but it's quite rare and to be honest entirely to be expected. If you want and ind future or whatever I sugest you host your own game, if no one comes I'd be surprised personally, most play ancients exclusively because there is no other choice. If you really want people to play something advertise it somewhere in here with times and your bound to get a few takers. There was a renaisance tourney this weekend, should have joined that, although I understand it wasn't played to completion because of all the arguing: hehe, tournaments. If there had been a few more teams I doubt this would have happened oh and the map should have been hub or something too
|
|
|
Post by markweston on Jan 11, 2006 7:09:01 GMT -5
No, no, the tournament was completed (though there was a bit of arguing along the way). Tutor and cpukilla stormed to final victory, trampling over the smoking ruins of my once-proud - though incompetently defended - civilisation.
|
|
|
Post by Sidhe on Jan 11, 2006 13:39:19 GMT -5
Ah good I'd hate to see it get ruined by a bit of rivalry. Gj the winners.
|
|
Midgard
Worker
Captain of LoD
Posts: 103
|
Post by Midgard on Jan 11, 2006 21:02:40 GMT -5
I think 8 out of 10 LoD hosted games in Civ4 have been futures, I myself find them much more enjoyable in Civ4 then I did in C3C. Civ4 Moderns are even more enjoyable if your willing to work the techs.
|
|
|
Post by archon on Jan 11, 2006 21:07:30 GMT -5
How is CIV4 futures better then c3c?
I'm just curious.
|
|
Midgard
Worker
Captain of LoD
Posts: 103
|
Post by Midgard on Jan 11, 2006 21:11:48 GMT -5
Contrary to previous statements, If you play smart the early rush is not as effective, and they are not as resource dependent.
|
|
|
Post by Sidhe on Jan 12, 2006 2:44:00 GMT -5
There's also something you can do on a team if you have no resources apart from die, you wont die to anyone if your smart and resourceless. Of course in c3c if you have no resources it was so easy to take everyone out it was scarey, Just use those tows to take out their modern armour and bobs your uncle Uranium or oil means that many units require one or the other. No more complaints about map screwing or resourcelssness, if someone on your team doesn't have 'em I'd be amazed. A better game the teamer because of LOS and wonder/tech sharing anyway, with bombers being less effective than in C3c too it's not a matter of hooking oil and bombing the living sh*t out of your nearest neighbour( of course the skill player could take out all your bombers,continue expanding and cut you off while your busy hooking up expanding an then of coursesending in a 12 tank/modern armour stack into a raped potholed hell hole but that's beside the point nuff said really. Don't have to listen to the tired refrain of the professional future player about how stupid you are to lose with your team resourceless and about how you can win when the other team all have oil and you don't(thank god)
|
|
|
Post by Ascension/Necrominous on Jan 12, 2006 3:39:26 GMT -5
I look forward to the futures when they start but I am glad they have not yet. I'm enjoying the earlier era's and you can be sure once I start playing futures I won't go back to playing ancient. Ancient is a 2 dimensional battlefield and future is a 4 dimensional battlefield, so much more stimulating. Also, future play requires team play and as of now I doubt there are enough skilled players out there to make the game enjoyable. The higher skill level of all the players in a teamer is usually equal to the higher enjoyment factor of the game. That's why I have avoided teamers like the plague so far. Whoops, hope that doesn't make me an antinoobite. Give me about 6 to 8 months and then I'll become a one trick future pony.
I fear that not being able to colonize res./lux will make futures slightly less enjoyable but maybe the three settler start and either or resources for tanks will make colonizing unnecessary. That is the one thing I miss the most about CIV vs c3c. The first time I couldn't colonize a luxury a tear fell from my eye and I starting crying like a baby without his bottle.
|
|
|
Post by Avogadro on Jan 12, 2006 11:26:52 GMT -5
acutually early rushes can be quite effective in civ4 future scenerio. You have 2-3 teamates all with a few units. Send 1-2 units each towards the center, I promis you will take 1-2 towns from some unlucky opponent.
|
|
|
Post by Sidhe on Jan 12, 2006 16:47:40 GMT -5
agree avo, but the map should be set so this can't happen too often unless the fool was doing one strategy I wont name. I look forward to the futures when they start but I am glad they have not yet. I'm enjoying the earlier era's and you can be sure once I start playing futures I won't go back to playing ancient. Ancient is a 2 dimensional battlefield and future is a 4 dimensional battlefield, so much more stimulating. Also, future play requires team play and as of now I doubt there are enough skilled players out there to make the game enjoyable. The higher skill level of all the players in a teamer is usually equal to the higher enjoyment factor of the game. That's why I have avoided teamers like the plague so far. Whoops, hope that doesn't make me an antinoobite. Give me about 6 to 8 months and then I'll become a one trick future pony. I fear that not being able to colonize res./lux will make futures slightly less enjoyable but maybe the three settler start and either or resources for tanks will make colonizing unnecessary. That is the one thing I miss the most about CIV vs c3c. The first time I couldn't colonize a luxury a tear fell from my eye and I starting crying like a baby without his bottle. You'd be surprised VVV play little else, and there damned good at it too. I play ancients but I'm the only one in my clan. Let's wait for the CCC, I reckon we might get a few points for a change, finally we out experience the vets
|
|
|
Post by friedrichpsitalon on Jan 12, 2006 21:08:10 GMT -5
acutually early rushes can be quite effective in civ4 future scenerio. You have 2-3 teamates all with a few units. Send 1-2 units each towards the center, I promis you will take 1-2 towns from some unlucky opponent. Interesting. And what do you do with such a strategy if your opponents do the same at a different location?
|
|
|
Post by Ascension/Necrominous on Jan 12, 2006 22:10:03 GMT -5
I was thinking about this very thing at work today. Having a 2 move unit at the start will make futures nothing but glory wanting mad bloody rushes at the beginning. The first guy to find the others territory probably will win or there be so much mutual destruction the game wont be worth playing. There would be absolutely no benefit in leaving your units at home. If people want games to be any fun or last past turn 20 I would suggest replacing the 3 mech infantry with 3 SAM infantry with double city defense promotion. Make these glory at all cost hounds at least build there attacking force. It doesn't take much skill to simply rush that which has been given to you and hope for the best.
|
|