RE: Civilization V
April 17, 2013 at 12:40 am
(This post was last modified: April 17, 2013 at 1:04 am by Violet.)
400 hours of playing... and you're not playing it on deity yet?
* Violet winces at the worthlessness of these hookers.
And you're terrified of a culture victory?! TT__TT
Haven't played civ five more than once. Civ games and strategy don't deserve to be together in the same fucking sentence.
Seriously... all that bullshit about building up cities, it's the damn reason I don't play MoO2 more than the original damn game. Well, that... and the throwing out of an incredible tech tree. Get more caught up in building your damn empire than you do in *strategy*.
Turtles man, turtles who want to win without fighting a damn battle XD
Civ... complicated...
Dwarf Fortress.
But really, if all that extra complication isn't expanding the depth of your game's strategy exponentially: it'll have a limited audience of only those players willing to go through the horrible learning curve.
Basically, you found yourself a First Order Optimal Strategy, and cheesed your way to victory with an invariable strategy until you bored yourself to shit and quit the game without learning a damn thing. No?
Waste of money. But hey, it's your waste of money if you want it
Ahhh... reminds me of command and conquer.
Only C&C didn't have terrible campaigns, and Kane's still a boss even when its gameplay has deteriorated into other game's styles.
You mean that amazing tactical change that stops the eternal fucking turtle from being the most economical strategy when faced with anything but someone who spends nothing on troops at all, or fast expand?
Yeah, I can imagine JUST how much that would infuriate bads. Fighting outside cities: best fucking thing they ever did. Haha, why even build offensive troops in civs 1-4 (and revo): you can expand and tech/econ/culture with a fucking FARMERS GAMBIT, and you can hold that shit with nothing but archers until those hookers are bringing out artillery. And then... you can tech defense faster than offense, and you don't even have to endure their terrible movement speed: they're never fucking moving.
... Gods I hate Civ, and the influence it's had upon strategy games.
* Violet winces at the worthlessness of these hookers.
And you're terrified of a culture victory?! TT__TT
(April 17, 2013 at 12:17 am)bladevalant546 Wrote: I play, mostly for fun than competitive. I want a person to give me pointers and possibly someone to just play a nice long and game...okay okay I like to role play a little. Play alittle politics.
Haven't played civ five more than once. Civ games and strategy don't deserve to be together in the same fucking sentence.
Seriously... all that bullshit about building up cities, it's the damn reason I don't play MoO2 more than the original damn game. Well, that... and the throwing out of an incredible tech tree. Get more caught up in building your damn empire than you do in *strategy*.
Turtles man, turtles who want to win without fighting a damn battle XD
(March 15, 2013 at 6:47 pm)paulpablo Wrote: I only ever played civilization call to power. I played one of the newer civilization games and I didn't like how complicated it was and the large 3d graphics.
Civ... complicated...
Dwarf Fortress. But really, if all that extra complication isn't expanding the depth of your game's strategy exponentially: it'll have a limited audience of only those players willing to go through the horrible learning curve.
Quote:I totally mastered call to power and when I was really bored I restarted the game over and over and over until I found the perfect map place to start, (lots of mountains and rivers running through mountains) and also discovered a few lost tribes willing to fight for my cause one of which was a knight who managed to destroy about 2 or 3 civilizations before progressing past the ancient stage, the rest were taken out after I discovered tank warfare.
Basically, you found yourself a First Order Optimal Strategy, and cheesed your way to victory with an invariable strategy until you bored yourself to shit and quit the game without learning a damn thing. No?
Quote:I should have probably tried to get into the new civilization game more, maybe I will buy it when I get my new PC next week.
Waste of money. But hey, it's your waste of money if you want it
(March 22, 2013 at 5:59 pm)TaraJo Wrote: I've played a lot of IV lately, too. I want to try V, but I really wish I could do some kind of preview of it before I spend money on it.
Another question: Do you need to be logged into steam to play? Civ is one of those games I play single player campaigns when I can't get on the internet.
Ahhh... reminds me of command and conquer.
Only C&C didn't have terrible campaigns, and Kane's still a boss even when its gameplay has deteriorated into other game's styles.
(March 15, 2013 at 6:50 pm)Ryantology Wrote: I never got into Call of Power.
I like Civ IV best, it is one of the greatest games I've ever played. It pretty much combines the best of everything in the previous three. I've played V but I just can't get behind the changes.
You mean that amazing tactical change that stops the eternal fucking turtle from being the most economical strategy when faced with anything but someone who spends nothing on troops at all, or fast expand?
Yeah, I can imagine JUST how much that would infuriate bads. Fighting outside cities: best fucking thing they ever did. Haha, why even build offensive troops in civs 1-4 (and revo): you can expand and tech/econ/culture with a fucking FARMERS GAMBIT, and you can hold that shit with nothing but archers until those hookers are bringing out artillery. And then... you can tech defense faster than offense, and you don't even have to endure their terrible movement speed: they're never fucking moving.
... Gods I hate Civ, and the influence it's had upon strategy games.
Please give me a home where cloud buffalo roam
Where the dear and the strangers can play
Where sometimes is heard a discouraging word
But the skies are not stormy all day
