Simcity 4. It's an awesome game...but you probably already knew that.
Anyway, after having played it for a while now I've found that it is much better than the third game and at least as good as SC2000. One of the major changes I noticed is that now all the building you build such as police stations and school cost money each month, which makes balancing the budget a little more difficult and requires you to think before building.
Also, if you buy the deluxe edition, which comes with the Rush Hour expansion pack, you can take control of various vehicles and perform missions throughout your city.
Another change is that you are not restricted to one city you know have control of an entire region, which has tons of space. The region is split into about 20 sections which vary in size. Each section acts as an independent city, but through connections you can bu and sell resources between them. This allows you to have many different cities from urban metropolises to seaside resorts to high-tech industrial zones. That's where the games gets addicting.
Building the city itself is much the same as it has been in previous installments. One change is that when you place zones roads are built within the zone automatically instead of forcing the player to place roads. Of course you can still build roads how you want, but this addition makes things a little easier. Also, as in past installments, you recieve bonus buildings based on certain factors, except now these buildings are no longer free, so you'll have to be careful about placing them.
Very fun and addicting so I have to give it 10/10.
Here's a snapshot I took of my region yesterday:
I liked SC. I loved SC2K. I didn't like SC3K. SC4 looks good but I'm fairly tired of the series and won't get it.
I played SC2000 to death and even played SC3000 quite a bit even though it was no where near as good and I still absolutely love SC4.
The original SimCity was a great game... then came SC2K and it blew it away, improving the game dramatically in just about every way. SC3K, after so long, was a major letdown. It added almost nothing to the game and removed a lot of great features! I really wonder what they were doing when they made that game... making pretty art distracted them too much, I think.
I think SC2K is one of the greatest sequels ever. Oh, sure, there are a lot of good sequels out there, but how often are they so dramatically better, in every conceivable way, that they make the original great game look silly in comparison? I can't think of many sequels like that (and I mean sequels as in the next game, not three games down the line).
Warcraft II does a very good job too... lots of big improvements in that game. But even there I'd say War1 is definitely closer to War2 than SC is to SC2K... Civilization II, likewise, is a absolutely brilliant sequel which improves hugely over the original... but more so than SC2K? I don't know... I really don't know. I don't think so.
One great thing about SC4 that I forgot to mention is the music, which is just awesome. On top of being awesome it's also stored in your computer in a format that can be played on Winamp! Score!
What? Um, anyone who played SC before SC2K would know exactly what I mean. SC2K is one of the best, most improved, sequels ever. Which is quite an accomplishment when you consider how good the original is...
Twice... hey, I only have three energy tanks and one is empty by the time I get to it because of killing all the guys along the way, and two energy tanks isn't enough when you don't know how to kill the thing...
I know that, having played the original before, but...why exactly are you bringing that up?
Quote:Twice... hey, I only have three energy tanks and one is empty by the time I get to it because of killing all the guys along the way, and two energy tanks isn't enough when you don't know how to kill the thing...
Wrong thread!
I also double posted that last SC reply. But I noticed both errors immediately and fixed them. :)
And I bring it up because I thought SC2K was an amazingly good game, and to compare that to SC3K -- I wasn't hoping for that level of improvement, but given how great that one was I was definitely expecting a lot more from SC3K than we got. And I was not expecting some of the best features to be removed!
Quote:And I bring it up because I thought SC2K was an amazingly good game, and to compare that to SC3K -- I wasn't hoping for that level of improvement, but given how great that one was I was definitely expecting a lot more from SC3K than we got. And I was not expecting some of the best features to be removed!
I've said the same exact thing already! Twice!
Civilization 3 is the king.
There's nothing like discovering Nuclear weapons in 1200 AD and blasting the unsuspecting Aztecs to hell. After recieving tribute from them, no less.
Eh, I like Civ 2 more... Civ 3 isn't nearly as bad in comparison to it's series as SC3K is in it's, but it definitely isn't as good as Civ 2. Well the graphics are better, but in everything else Civ 2 is better. :)
And SC3K... sure adding garbage and trading power/water/etc with neighbors is nice, but the things that are gone... no editing the map by hand, no waterfalls, no hydro plants, no Arcos, no Llama Dome, etc...
Quote:There's nothing like discovering Nuclear weapons in 1200 AD and blasting the unsuspecting Aztecs to hell. After recieving tribute from them, no less.
Hahaha! :D
Quote:editing the map by hand
SC4 has tons of that.
Quote:waterfalls
Sorry no waterfalls in SC4, but there are plently of other landform to keep you busy.
Quote:hydro plants
SC4 doesn't have than many powerplants, but I think it has enough. Wind, fossil fuel, solar, nuclear, fusion.
Quote:Arcos
No arcos in SC4 either, although they were really cool the arcos were just a little...unrealistic. :)
Quote:Llama Dome
SC4 doesn't have the Llama Dome but it does have a "Tourist Trap" which looks like a llama.
I only played the first one. Loved it to death, but only because, as a kid, I liked destroying the existing towns. I could never do one thing. SURVIVE! How on EARTH do you do... um anything? I'd like to be able to play the game without instantly going bankrupt.
On another note, I also played SimEarth. Sciency, so I like. I actually figured out what I was doing on that game.
They should like, combine all the Sim games into one major thingymajiger. Terraform a planet, colonize a small country, build a town, raise a family, and raise an ant colony, all in one! :D
Quote:Originally posted by A Black Falcon
Eh, I like Civ 2 more... Civ 3 isn't nearly as bad in comparison to it's series as SC3K is in it's, but it definitely isn't as good as Civ 2. Well the graphics are better, but in everything else Civ 2 is better. :)
I disagree. I actually like Civ III better than Civ 2. I like the idea of requiring resources to build units and the extra fight to secure these assets, I LOVE the bombarding concept (which suddenly makes cannons, artillery and catapults NOT worthless), I love the idea of national borders and culture war (something I've wanted to see since the first game). I love how trade and diplomacy no longer require units. I like the idea of civ-specific units, golden ages, and the diplomacy in Civ III is a hundred times better than Civ II. I love airlifting and precision bombing. I love taking on fifteen opponents at once.
Honestly, with the exception of a few missing units, I don't think anything about Civ II is as good as Civ III. And I'm surprised I think so, after being so terribly disappointed by Call to Power and getting bored so quickly with Alpha Centauri.
Civ III...there was a time when I disliked it. This was because I expected Civ II and was hit by a load of new stuff. This disheartened me and I set it aside until Civ II escaped my memory, then I tried it again. First time I started it up, I played for, no exagerration, 5 straight hours.
Those puny Egyptians never knew what hit them. I kept on kicking them in the face for eternity as their former capital went on to became a city even larger than my own capital.
Those pesky Babylonians...they held up a long time, they did! They were riding my ass when the calendars still said B.C., and even after pounding half of their cities into the ground, they still demanded tribute when I spared them. They even managed to capture and destroy Memphis, one of the cities I "liberated" from the Egyptians centuries ago, and the location of a great many cultural improvements and, sadly, a Wonder as well. After millennia of this war, the loss of Memphis was the last straw. I spent my leader to create an army and filled it with cavalry, then proceeded to trample their cities and forces. Old Hammurabi looked ragged and begged for peace but I sent away his emmissary every time. As I finished my conquest and my troops stormed Babylon, I noticed my Foreign Advisor stayed quiet, not alerting me to the Babylonians' destruction. I contacted the French, my longtime allies, and asked to trade world maps. They readily agreed, and the Babylonians secret was out. Three hidden cities, far to the south. My troops converged and razed them all, exterminating Hammurabi and his pathetic Civilization.
And then, it seemed, before I could do anything more, 2050 rolled around and the game ended, and I nudged out a cultural victory with my eternal allies, the French.
I went to bed bleary-eyed and happy, for I had been re-addicted to Civilization.
I woke up the next morning and started up a new game, this time, I would play to win...the FUN way!
Hahaha, yeah. Every time I load Civ III up it ends up 1 AM before I know it. I can't see why anyone could prefer Civ II to this, except for nostalgia.
The single complaint I have with this game is the editor. It's definitely much more advanced than Civ II's editor, but you can't zoom in and out, which makes creating large maps a huge pain in the ass. Plus, every time I make my own rules for a scenario, even simple changes, the program crashes when I try loading it.
I tried SimEarth when I was younger... had no clue what I was doing and gave up and haven't played it in many years.
Quote:SC4 doesn't have than many powerplants, but I think it has enough. Wind, fossil fuel, solar, nuclear, fusion.
SC2K had oil, natural gas, hydro, wind, solar, nuclear, microwave, and fusion... SC3K removed the hydro (and maybe microwave) and added the two garbage incinerators. Not a good trade, removing two nearly pollution-free plants and replacing them with a very highly polluting one...
Quote:Sorry no waterfalls in SC4, but there are plently of other landform to keep you busy.
So when you edit maps you can't make water go over hills? That's stupid...
Quote:No arcos in SC4 either, although they were really cool the arcos were just a little...unrealistic.
Unrealistic, but really cool and since SC goes into the future why not have some 'futuristic' buildings?
Quote:SC4 doesn't have the Llama Dome but it does have a "Tourist Trap" which looks like a llama.
It's my favorite bonus building in the series...
Quote:I disagree. I actually like Civ III better than Civ 2. I like the idea of requiring resources to build units and the extra fight to secure these assets, I LOVE the bombarding concept (which suddenly makes cannons, artillery and catapults NOT worthless), I love the idea of national borders and culture war (something I've wanted to see since the first game). I love how trade and diplomacy no longer require units. I like the idea of civ-specific units, golden ages, and the diplomacy in Civ III is a hundred times better than Civ II. I love airlifting and precision bombing. I love taking on fifteen opponents at once.
Honestly, with the exception of a few missing units, I don't think anything about Civ II is as good as Civ III. And I'm surprised I think so, after being so terribly disappointed by Call to Power and getting bored so quickly with Alpha Centauri.
Maybe the expansions improve Civ III, but I don't have them, I just have the original game... and it's lacking. Now, part of it is probably just that I haven't played it very much, which is true. I haven't played it enough to really adjust from Civ II, so when I play it I wish it worked like Civ II... I just haven't played Civ III that much. I haven't even finished a game of it... I've started several but find myself playing Civ II by the end of the sitting...
First, I love scenarios. Civ III doesn't have them unless you buy the expansions. Civ II had them in it's expansions too, but I have both expansions so I've been used to having all these scenarios available... I think they're great.
Second, I hate bombardment! Catapults and cannon used to be great units and now they can't even kill a militia! Not useless, but dramatically changed... I liked them a LOT better when they could kill things. They were better.
National borders? You mean showing them on the map, of course. Civ II has them implemented similarly, just without lines... yes, putting the lines on the map was a huge improvement in the series for sure. Nice thing brought from Alpha Centauri.
I also hate how you cannot irrigate from the ocean. I've been in games where I'm surrounded by mountains and ocean with no rivers so I cannot irrigate. That is just idiotic...
I also vastly prefer Civ II's music. Civ III has okay music, but Civ II's is better... that is if you have the Fantastic Worlds disc, which is the only one that actually has all the music on it. Multiplayer Gold Edition is lacking all the original disc's songs, and the first expansion doesn't have the ones added in the second...
Also, the editor. I like Cheat Mode. Oh, sure, with the expansions Civ III lets you create scenarios too, and I admit, Civ II had to have the expansions added to really get the mod-making tools into the interface, but still... they were in Civ II by the end of its cycle! I think I should expect them in the RETAIL Civ III, not in the SECOND expansion... and still you can't do the stuff directly in the game with the Cheat and Edit menus like you could in Civ II. Big loss in the game.
Oh, and the map editor has no minimap! Most idiotic design decision ever!
Several more things. Wonder Movies! I love them! The static pictures are just idiotic replacements for the cool movies.
Also, health. I definitely prefer Civ II's health bars to Civ III's hit points... oh, sure, I know they were trying to get rid of the "firepower" thing where each one had a rating that affected how it would do damage, but still... health bars are better than a crude meter like having three hit points. And I like those little shields... :)
Quote:Originally posted by A Black Falcon
National borders? You mean showing them on the map, of course. Civ II has them implemented similarly, just without lines... yes, putting the lines on the map was a huge improvement in the series for sure. Nice thing brought from Alpha Centauri.
I also hate how you cannot irrigate from the ocean. I've been in games where I'm surrounded by mountains and ocean with no rivers so I cannot irrigate. That is just idiotic...
Civ II had no borders, I hated that. You have a nice little continent going, then some other Civ comes and puts in little 1 and 2 population cities everywhere, mooching off your irrigation and mines. The new national borders were the best thing they did for this game. Period. I also love taking over enemy cities with my massive culture scores :).
Civ is all about realism. Finding real advances, building real things, and controlling a real group of people. Try growing crops with ocean water. See how far you get. If I start too far from a river, I quit and start over and hope for a better draw. One game I found my capital surrounded by mountains full of gems and a river below. What a nice game that was...
Huh? That is just so wrong in every way...
Look. In Civ II, you have zones of control. They are the zones around your cities -- that block in which building farms will bring food to the city in question. If someone tries to move into that area and you are at war with them you can diplomatically "request" for them to be removed. In Civ III, it works the exact same way. There are two diffrences, exactly. First, the lines are shown on the map instead of being invisible. And second, you can grow your territory with culture. That's it. But you are gravely mistaken that in Civ II there are not national areas of control. Your real problem is that the comps build in the little gaps between your cities...
And you know what? They do that in Civ III too! And it's just as annoying! The difference is just that you can grow your territory control area with high culture and thus give less space for those annoying little cities to be founded in.
Erm... quadruple-posted because it wasn't posting for a long time... fixed it. :)
Sim City could be my favorite game ever if you could build your own towns and then drive in your fully 3D city, ala GTA 3.
Quote:Originally posted by A Black Falcon
Maybe the expansions improve Civ III, but I don't have them, I just have the original game... and it's lacking. Now, part of it is probably just that I haven't played it very much, which is true. I haven't played it enough to really adjust from Civ II, so when I play it I wish it worked like Civ II... I just haven't played Civ III that much. I haven't even finished a game of it... I've started several but find myself playing Civ II by the end of the sitting...
First, I love scenarios. Civ III doesn't have them unless you buy the expansions. Civ II had them in it's expansions too, but I have both expansions so I've been used to having all these scenarios available... I think they're great.
Civ II's original release had only two... and only the WWII was good.
[/quote]Second, I hate bombardment! Catapults and cannon used to be great units and now they can't even kill a militia! Not useless, but dramatically changed... I liked them a LOT better when they could kill things. They were better.[/quote]
Sure, they could kill things. They could also had a movement and defense rating of one, so after they attack, they're left wide-open to be annihilated by whatever might nail them. Also, their attack power was rarely worth the cost, since you had other units almost as powerful and could often attack multiple times. Now, since they finally got rid of the idea that all units in the same place die if one loses combat, and now that these units can hit from a distance, they actually serve a purpose.
Quote:National borders? You mean showing them on the map, of course. Civ II has them implemented similarly, just without lines... yes, putting the lines on the map was a huge improvement in the series for sure. Nice thing brought from Alpha Centauri.
I also hate how you cannot irrigate from the ocean. I've been in games where I'm surrounded by mountains and ocean with no rivers so I cannot irrigate. That is just idiotic...
No, it actually makes perfect sense. Ocean water is salty, and in reality could not be irrigated.
Quote:I also vastly prefer Civ II's music. Civ III has okay music, but Civ II's is better... that is if you have the Fantastic Worlds disc, which is the only one that actually has all the music on it. Multiplayer Gold Edition is lacking all the original disc's songs, and the first expansion doesn't have the ones added in the second...
Ah, that I don't know about. I never listen to the in-game music.
Quote:Also, the editor. I like Cheat Mode. Oh, sure, with the expansions Civ III lets you create scenarios too, and I admit, Civ II had to have the expansions added to really get the mod-making tools into the interface, but still... they were in Civ II by the end of its cycle! I think I should expect them in the RETAIL Civ III, not in the SECOND expansion... and still you can't do the stuff directly in the game with the Cheat and Edit menus like you could in Civ II. Big loss in the game.
Oh, and the map editor has no minimap! Most idiotic design decision ever!
One point I agree on.
Quote:Several more things. Wonder Movies! I love them! The static pictures are just idiotic replacements for the cool movies.
Eh, I turned them off after seeing them once.
Quote:Also, health. I definitely prefer Civ II's health bars to Civ III's hit points... oh, sure, I know they were trying to get rid of the "firepower" thing where each one had a rating that affected how it would do damage, but still... health bars are better than a crude meter like having three hit points. And I like those little shields... :)
I notice no real difference in application. And it's much neater to see the units have different national colors as opposed to shields.
Quote:Originally posted by A Black Falcon
Look. In Civ II, you have zones of control. They are the zones around your cities -- that block in which building farms will bring food to the city in question. If someone tries to move into that area and you are at war with them you can diplomatically "request" for them to be removed. In Civ III, it works the exact same way. There are two diffrences, exactly. First, the lines are shown on the map instead of being invisible. And second, you can grow your territory with culture. That's it. But you are gravely mistaken that in Civ II there are not national areas of control. Your real problem is that the comps build in the little gaps between your cities...
And you know what? They do that in Civ III too! And it's just as annoying! The difference is just that you can grow your territory control area with high culture and thus give less space for those annoying little cities to be founded in.
Let me explain. Let's say I have a small continent in Civ II which I've upkept for centuries. The whole thing is improved, irrigation, roads, the works. There are also about, oh, 6 or so cities. Under Civ III rules, with enough culture, that whole continent is mine, and nobody else may build there, or even go there unless they're at war with me. As I said in my last post, do something like this for Civ II. Once sea travel becomes popular, your nearest neighbor will start popping cities up with 1 or 2 population, and yes, the DO mooch on your terrain improvements. That was my all-time annoyance with Civ II, and I was happy to see it rectified with 3
Er... no, you are wrong. Civ III wasn't "fixing a mistake". It was "adding a feature". That feature is high culture expanding your city zone of control. As far as territory goes it is a major feature addition, for sure, because it lets you take over enemy zones of control and even cities if you have high enough culture... but you act like its lack in Civ II is actually a bug or something! Absurd! Oh, sure, enemies do that in Civ II and it's annoying, but I know that people complain about that very same problem in Civ III... as I said, the only difference is that you can expand your control zone... which is nice but not as dramatically different as you suggest.
Quote:Originally posted by A Black Falcon
Er... no, you are wrong. Civ III wasn't "fixing a mistake". It was "adding a feature". That feature is high culture expanding your city zone of control. As far as territory goes it is a major feature addition, for sure, because it lets you take over enemy zones of control and even cities if you have high enough culture... but you act like its lack in Civ II is actually a bug or something! Absurd! Oh, sure, enemies do that in Civ II and it's annoying, but I know that people complain about that very same problem in Civ III... as I said, the only difference is that you can expand your control zone... which is nice but not as dramatically different as you suggest.
Wrong. In Civ II, you leave one tiny space between a city, and they'll take it. And all you can do about it is either hope the city starves to death, which almost never happens, or start a war and capture it (not, of course, being able to raze it if you just don't want it there). In Civ III you can bombard the outpost with culture, and later, subvert it with propaganda. You can also eat up those little gaps in control zones, meaning that you aren't required to build a city in a crappy place or waste units defending it just to make sure your neighbors don't take over. Sure, they'll still try and take every inch of land they can, but now you can take it back without causing a war.
If you're at war with someone they will build anywhere, but if you're not I really do not think that they will build in your zones of control. Because, remember, you can demand them to make their units leave... you have diplomatic options if they are in your territory and won't leave. The best one of course is war, but it's not the only one...
And as for destroying cities, they do reduce by one in population when you capture them, remember, and if you really want to get rid of it just remove all the guys from the fields and have it make settlers until it's gone. :)
... but of course I'm usually at war with a lot of nations anyway, so I don't have to bother with diplomatic ways of getting rid of those cities. I usually get most of my cities by capturing them anyway. :)
Thanks for staying on topic, guys! I shouldn't even bother putting a topic on the threads and just let everyone make up their!*
*Hypocritical statement.
Quote:SC2K had oil, natural gas, hydro, wind, solar, nuclear, microwave, and fusion...
SC4 has all those minus hydro and microwave. Wind generators work very well, however, if you just want to build a residential/commercial city.
Quote:So when you edit maps you can't make water go over hills? That's stupid..
SC4 doesn't let you place water where ever you want you have to dig down to it, I don't know why they change that but that's the way it is. I don't really miss the waterfalls that much, though as there are tons of other things you can do to change the landscape.
Quote:Sim City could be my favorite game ever if you could build your own towns and then drive in your fully 3D city, ala GTA 3.
Streets of Simcity. It's old, but you could import cities from SC2000 to it and drive around in 3D. I had all kinds of fun making really cool cities and then driving around in them.
Quote:I only played the first one. Loved it to death, but only because, as a kid, I liked destroying the existing towns. I could never do one thing. SURVIVE! How on EARTH do you do... um anything? I'd like to be able to play the game without instantly going bankrupt.
To me the SC games were easy, except for SC3000 which I could never do anything in.
Quote:SC4 has all those minus hydro and microwave. Wind generators work very well, however, if you just want to build a residential/commercial city.
They generate very small amounts of energy, though... making enough for a city takes up a lot of space.
Oh, Microwave was cool... beams from space...
Quote:SC4 doesn't let you place water where ever you want you have to dig down to it, I don't know why they change that but that's the way it is. I don't really miss the waterfalls that much, though as there are tons of other things you can do to change the landscape.
That is really stupid. SC2K evidently still has the best editor...
Quote:Streets of Simcity. It's old, but you could import cities from SC2000 to it and drive around in 3D. I had all kinds of fun making really cool cities and then driving around in them.
And if you believe the reviews of the game, it's also just about one of the worst games of all time... sure, the 'it runs really, really badly' complaints don't matter anymore, but I've heard it's terrible...
Oh, there was also SimCopter, where you flew around in a chopper doing missions and stuff. I think it was better.
Quote:To me the SC games were easy, except for SC3000 which I could never do anything in.
Huh? SC3K is by far the easiest of the first three games! I immidately noticed how much easier it was than SC2K, which is a game I definitely still find hard... making a city that doesn't go broke is a very, very hard thing for me to do and I usually fail.
Oh... thought of one more thing. Disasters! In SC2K, there's the fire, flood, tornado, UFO, air crash, riot, and earthquake. (if I'm not forgetting one... oh, the Microwave sometimes started fires around it when the microwave beam misses the station and hits the ground...)
SC3K has just the fire, tornado, UFO, riot, and earthquake. No air crash (now admittedly it's just a glorified fire, but still, it mixes things up somewhat...), and no floods! Stupid!
Quote:Originally posted by A Black Falcon
If you're at war with someone they will build anywhere, but if you're not I really do not think that they will build in your zones of control. Because, remember, you can demand them to make their units leave... you have diplomatic options if they are in your territory and won't leave. The best one of course is war, but it's not the only one...
And as for destroying cities, they do reduce by one in population when you capture them, remember, and if you really want to get rid of it just remove all the guys from the fields and have it make settlers until it's gone. :)
... but of course I'm usually at war with a lot of nations anyway, so I don't have to bother with diplomatic ways of getting rid of those cities. I usually get most of my cities by capturing them anyway. :)
...
You... at war?
ABF can be downright evil at war. It's his guilty concious of how he knows he'd wage war in the real world that makes him hate war here so much :D. Yeah that's the ticket...
In Civ II by far the best government is Communism... no stupid Senate making peace all the time, the first two troops in a city negate unhappiness... no revolts for having troops out of your cities like in Republic and Democracy... I know the Fundamentalist government is even farther along that route, but I don't like that one's huge minus to science...
I've never even gotten the scientific victory in Civ II...
Quote:They generate very small amounts of energy, though... making enough for a city takes up a lot of space.
If you're zoning for industrial wind generators won't be enough, but about 20 for a medium sized town of just residential and commercial is enough. Plus you can always buy electricity from a neighboring city that has some to spare.
Quote:That is really stupid. SC2K evidently still has the best editor...
Obviously you've never played SC4. SC4 has valleys, canyons, craters, mountains, steep ridges, and lots of other stuff.
Quote:Huh? SC3K is by far the easiest of the first three games! I immidately noticed how much easier it was than SC2K, which is a game I definitely still find hard... making a city that doesn't go broke is a very, very hard thing for me to do and I usually fail.
I thought SC2K was incredibly easy, at least on easy mode. I could start up a new town and in no time have a huge city and tons of money, not so with SC3K. Maybe I just didn't take the time to understand it, but I don't think that's the only reason.
Quote:Oh... thought of one more thing. Disasters! In SC2K, there's the fire, flood, tornado, UFO, air crash, riot, and earthquake. (if I'm not forgetting one... oh, the Microwave sometimes started fires around it when the microwave beam misses the station and hits the ground...)
That's nothing! SC4 has volcanoes!! Volcanoes!! It also has meteors, which make craters, lightning, and robot attacks.
Communism? Are you crazy?
The best Civ II government, hands down, was Fundamentalism. No unhappy citizens, more gold, the only thing that suffers is Science output. Not that that's insignificant, but the ability to appease all unhappy citizens in one fell swoop is not to be ignored.
Once the future techs come a-rolling in, you have no reason not to go Fundamentalist, I was saddened to see it's absence in Civ III.
Quote:Originally posted by A Black Falcon
In Civ II by far the best government is Communism... no stupid Senate making peace all the time, the first two troops in a city negate unhappiness... no revolts for having troops out of your cities like in Republic and Democracy... I know the Fundamentalist government is even farther along that route, but I don't like that one's huge minus to science...
I've never even gotten the scientific victory in Civ II...
Communism is good for an unexpected war. But nothing beats Fundamentalism for one that you will win in a few turns.
I just get to Communism and stay in it for the rest of the game... Despotism, Monarchy, Communism. :)
And I said why I don't like Fundamentalism... I do like being able to get science discoveries, and have trouble enough getting them on my own (as opposed to capturing them with cities -- another thing missing in Civ III)... that limitation really hurts. And as I said Communism does quite well in war.
Quote:If you're zoning for industrial wind generators won't be enough, but about 20 for a medium sized town of just residential and commercial is enough. Plus you can always buy electricity from a neighboring city that has some to spare.
Before SC4 you couldn't exactly ignore Industrial...
Quote:Obviously you've never played SC4. SC4 has valleys, canyons, craters, mountains, steep ridges, and lots of other stuff.
Don't you just sculpt the terrain with lowering/raising tools, like SC2K?
Quote:I thought SC2K was incredibly easy, at least on easy mode. I could start up a new town and in no time have a huge city and tons of money, not so with SC3K. Maybe I just didn't take the time to understand it, but I don't think that's the only reason.
I've heard of people who talk like that... but don't understand it. SimCity is so hard... I build stuff, and build stuff, and then run out of money, and it runs until something breaks, then I get into an inevitable cycle of debt until I'm fired... happens most of the time in SC2K and fairly often even in the easy SC3K...
Quote:Originally posted by A Black Falcon
I just get to Communism and stay in it for the rest of the game... Despotism, Monarchy, Communism. :)
And I said why I don't like Fundamentalism... I do like being able to get science discoveries, and have trouble enough getting them on my own (as opposed to capturing them with cities -- another thing missing in Civ III)... that limitation really hurts. And as I said Communism does quite well in war.
I like to play 'smash my neighbor' too, but I don't bother with it early on. Early units are slow and weak. What I do is jump to Republic and Democracy as soon as I possibly can. I use the big increase in production and commerce to fuel very fast scientific production, and then, once I get modernized, I build up a huge army consisting of Armors and Steath Fighters on Carriers (faster, thanks to Democracy's increased production). Then, I switch to Fundamentalism, unleash the dogs of war on the enemy, and have them almost completely smashed within three turns. It hurts my reputation, sure, but reputation doesn't matter when you're the most powerful in the world. Until this point I make nice and friendly with everyone, unless I know I can quickly take someone out.
Honestly, to me, Communism is a total waste of time unless you like playing with spies... and I don't.
Huh... no, I start wars as soon as I can. It'd be far too boring to just build cities for four thousand years... and I've found I can do just fine in early wars. Sure, you don't move very far, but you can definitely still fight wars. Of course the side-effects are not building as many cities and having less science because you focused on armies, but there isn't much I can do about that...
Oh, I also never play above the lower difficulty levels... I generally play at the second one up. Warlord? I don't play it that often, so I'm hardly great at the game, which is why I play that low... I've won at that level though. One of my best was when I finished conquering the world in the 1200s... I still had catapults and stuff, but that didn't matter much. :)
Oh, and if you say catapults and cannon in Civ II aren't useful, then you've never fought a war in pre-air power times. They are the main focus of your attack strength!
Quote:Originally posted by A Black Falcon
Huh... no, I start wars as soon as I can. It'd be far too boring to just build cities for four thousand years... and I've found I can do just fine in early wars. Sure, you don't move very far, but you can definitely still fight wars. Of course the side-effects are not building as many cities and having less science because you focused on armies, but there isn't much I can do about that...
Oh, I also never play above the lower difficulty levels... I generally play at the second one up. Warlord? I don't play it that often, so I'm hardly great at the game, which is why I play that low... I've won at that level though. One of my best was when I finished conquering the world in the 1200s... I still had catapults and stuff, but that didn't matter much. :)
Oh, and if you say catapults and cannon in Civ II aren't useful, then you've never fought a war in pre-air power times. They are the main focus of your attack strength!
I like to wait so that I can have a good advantage. And I have most certainly fought wars at all times. However, not too long after the Catapult comes Knights and Dragoons, which are far, far more useful than Catapults and Cannon because they can move faster and attack twice, making them, in essence, stronger than even Cannon. To boot, they can actually fend off attacks.
My strategy of war in the middle ages is to send a stream of Knights and Dragoons and overwhelm with sheer numbers. Catapults, Cannons and Artillery are too slow and too vulnerable to bother with. Had either of them just one more movement point, that would make them so much better. But their limitations more than cancel out their attack strength. The only 'bombard' unit I ever use is Howitzers, because that extra movement point makes that much of a difference. And it ignores City Walls too :D
Huh... no, you are wrong. Oh, sure, Knights and Dragoons are good units, and strong, and they move fast, and yes, they can defend themselves... but they just do not have the same kind of attack strength as artillery. They do fine most of the time, but when you're besieging a city... those defences can be really tough sometimes. You could toss fifteen knights at it and get nowhere. No, artillery is the only way to have a chance against truly strong defences... I've fought more than enough wars to know that leaving out the artillery as a very big part of your attack force is suicide. It's usually the focus of my army, actually... infantry is too weak to be useful, calvalry good as a support unit and as quick scouting and yes, as a big part of your army... but when they get stuck, and for cities... especially those ones that are tough to crack... you cannot even begin to replace the necessity for artillery unless you really like wasting lots of troops.
Oh yeah, and once you get Railroads that movement problem goes away. :D Just play World War 79... I love that scenario. None of the silly 'four thousand years of civilization' stuff, just instant global thermonuclear war...
Quote:Originally posted by A Black Falcon
Huh... no, you are wrong. Oh, sure, Knights and Dragoons are good units, and strong, and they move fast, and yes, they can defend themselves... but they just do not have the same kind of attack strength as artillery. They do fine most of the time, but when you're besieging a city... those defences can be really tough sometimes. You could toss fifteen knights at it and get nowhere. No, artillery is the only way to have a chance against truly strong defences... I've fought more than enough wars to know that leaving out the artillery as a very big part of your attack force is suicide. It's usually the focus of my army, actually... infantry is too weak to be useful, calvalry good as a support unit and as quick scouting and yes, as a big part of your army... but when they get stuck, and for cities... especially those ones that are tough to crack... you cannot even begin to replace the necessity for artillery unless you really like wasting lots of troops.
Oh yeah, and once you get Railroads that movement problem goes away. :D Just play World War 79... I love that scenario. None of the silly 'four thousand years of civilization' stuff, just instant global thermonuclear war...
Different strokes, I guess. I have never once used artillery unless it's in a scenario and I already have it. To use it as the focus of an attack though, that seems sucidal to me. Artillery is meant and designed to be an auxiliary force. You can't capture and hold a city with it, and the only way to not leave it open to attack is to use another unit to defend with it.
And yes, Railroads do eliminate the movement deficiency, but very soon after that you have access to Tactics, and the Cavalry unit, which is as powerful as the Cannon, only slightly less than Artillery, and decently able to defend. That's when I start to make a beeline for Armor, and then the shit really hits the fan!
If I ever find my Civ II MPG disc, I'd love to take you on in a game. Assuming you have Gold edition.
I have Civ III conquests!
Not a bad game a serious improvement from the original , But I am annoyed that A guy with a rifle can kill a f.... tank?!!
We lost some stuff, because I had replied to that... :(
Looks like everything past the 4th got lost.
Yes, as I've said several times, we lost a day or two of stuff... :(
Oh, and I have Civ II MGE, but not Civ III PTW or Conquests.
PTW is shit !
Conquest is a better exspansion you get all of PTW new stuff plus more new stuff.
Quote:Originally posted by alien space marine
PTW is shit !
Conquest is a better exspansion you get all of PTW new stuff plus more new stuff.
I don't think they even sell PTW alone anymore.
Why should they when the next expansion includes it?
Play the world was Unplayable bugs and lag ate it up.
Conquests was really a emergency patch to fix the poorly fated PTW.
Quote:Originally posted by Weltall
I don't think they even sell PTW alone anymore.
No, they don't. It's Conquests or nothing. Besides, you get PTW when you buy Conquests.