Last I checked warriors killing tanks was immersionbreaking and stupid.Caydr wrote: Difference is, in Civ 3 a warrior could defeat a tank
Civilization 4 - Page 3
Post just about everything that isn't directly related to Spring here!
GC2 was dull.Caydr wrote:Now Galciv 2, there was a good game. However, the movement system was shit, you'd select a bunch of ships/fleets and only some of them would move sometimes, so you'd have to repeatedly tell them to move again and again. Huge shit, that was. But actually moving things by hand is a pretty small part of GC2 so it's still pretty awesome.
planet 1-12 income.
flying gun1, flying gun2 or flying gun3.
no elephants, no trees, no marines, no religion, no samurai, no nukes, no tanks.
I found civ 4 better than civ 3, but nothing of course beats original civ 1, where units didnt advance after winning a battle, and which had better diplomatic language than subsequent versions. Of course civ 1 is simpler, but then it goes faster too.
I didnt mean bugs.Teutooni wrote:Such as? Haven't played vanilla over internet, but FFH2 was very stable. Sadly rife is a bit unstable atm, and I don't like the balance (or imbalance) of MoM.Gota wrote:multiplayer has serious gameplay problems though.
I meant the gameplay itself.
The ways to win a game are unbalanced,some unusable in Multiplayer.
There is a problem with technology trading as well where if it is allowed it ruins the gmae so 90% of multiplayer games are played without it.
Its a bad game design, the whole tech trading thing.
Of course games also take ages.
Wild Mana has been screwed up plenty of times before but always came through way better than I expected. I found MoM jarring, but its happened enough times before that I have faith the next release (imminent) will fix things bigtime. Every time I played another FFH mod the AI just made me sad; new features make the AI stupider but in Wild Mana the AI just keeps getting better.Teutooni wrote:I don't like the balance (or imbalance) of MoM.