Get Civ 4 for ?7.99!

If this were your first post, I'd tell you to piss off... :)

But I doubt it's an worldwide offer.

Edit: But Europe-wide is just fine. :)

*shakes fist*

Civ IV is out on the 25th of october right?

I think this handy quote sums up this thread:

Discussion of WAREZ is forbidden!

While we appreciate the offer, SB.com rules do prohibit this kind of thing. I might have to take advantage of it, though. It is a good deal.

I think this handy quote sums up this thread:

[/color]

While we appreciate the offer, SB.com rules do prohibit this kind of thing. I might have to take advantage of it, though. It is a good deal.
this isn't warez you stupid n00b. warez is the illegal distrubution version of games, this is merely a good bargain.

I think this handy quote sums up this thread:

[/color]

While we appreciate the offer, SB.com rules do prohibit this kind of thing. I might have to take advantage of it, though. It is a good deal.

Haha n00b reportz non-warez as warez and he says he wants to take advantage of it, you made my day.

Civ III got very boring very quickly. Too linear.
Think I'll wait to see how they've improved it before I splash out.

Custom governments!
Hero's on nations!
New City screens you can interact with! (Instead of the 2D city screens.)

And the female leader for egyptians is cute! ;7

http://img437.imageshack.us/img437/8845/looklikeanegyptian7rl.th.jpg (http://img437.imageshack.us/my.php?image=looklikeanegyptian7rl.jpg)

Civ III got very boring very quickly. Too linear.
Think I'll wait to see how they've improved it before I splash out.

Civ III had at least 6 different ways to win, and no restrictions on what you could do to try and achieve them along the way. it's one of the least linear games I've ever played. Games lauded for their nonlinearity, like GTA, and EVN are more linear than Civ III. Not liking Civ III because it was too linear is rather like not liking House of the Dead because it there weren't enough zombies, or not liking Tetris because it focussed too much on the plot. Are you sure linear is the word you're looking for?

Sid Meir's Alpha Centauri remains the best Civ game to date.

I find it amusing that this 'new' Civ is basically trying to get people to buy it by finally putting back shit that shouldn't have been taken out of the franchise in the first place.

As it is it still doesn't have anywhere near the vision that SMAC did. Also by looking at the screens it doesn't look all that different.

Still seems stupidly cartoony.

Civ III had at least 6 different ways to win, and no restrictions on what you could do to try and achieve them along the way. it's one of the least linear games I've ever played. Games lauded for their nonlinearity, like GTA, and EVN are more linear than Civ III. Not liking Civ III because it was too linear is rather like not liking House of the Dead because it there weren't enough zombies, or not liking Tetris because it focussed too much on the plot. Are you sure linear is the word you're looking for?


Linear as in It was like climbing a ladder. Easy as hell to beat. and took little brain power to win the game.

Non linear would have been that you had to counter a weapon or development your enemy came up with or terrain feature that was difficult fight on. Why not mountain troops? special forces, sappers, etc
In Civ III all you could do was get the same tech level, the same unit then race to build enough units to zerg rush them.
Command and Conquer mentality.

As Es said, AC was far better. You developed technologies that you could mix and match to suit any given obstacle. If you went full on with industrial output and military stregth then chances were good Planet would kick your arse.
The game scope was incredibly wide compared to Civ III plus you really had to think.

Seems Sid's appealing to the lowest common denominator and churning out popcorn games to appeal the widest possible audience.

Linear as in It was like climbing a ladder. Easy as hell to beat. and took little brain power to win the game.


That's not what linear means in a gaming context, a linear game is one that forces you to do a series of events in sequence, rather than letting you tackle the problem in your own way. Besides, what difficulty were you on? It sounds like you were playing on the lower levels if you think it's just Command and Conquer. The higher levels require a lot of strategy to even draw.

CivIII was offensively simple in some respects, after the Civ1 > 2 > AC progression it just seemed like a slap across the face.

Civ4 seems to have some new things in (religion has me interested) as well as a welcome return of the AC government model. But I have to agree with most of the criticism. Especially the cartoony-ness they keep adding, it's like they're parodying their own games these days.

Some of the ideas used in the Call to Power games were good. There were more forms of government for a start like Corporate Rule, plus instead of roads, rail, irrigation etc being made by a worker, you assigned a portion of your GDP to a public works budget which you could use for infrastructure.

Some of the ideas used in the Call to Power games were good. There were more forms of government for a start like Corporate Rule, plus instead of roads, rail, irrigation etc being made by a worker, you assigned a portion of your GDP to a public works budget which you could use for infrastructure.

Aye, the Public Works feature (and the Rations one) was brilliant.

Shit...I didn't even know they were coming out with a Civ IV.

One thing I hated about Civ III was that a fucking spearman could beat a fucking tank...wtf is that?! And the whole expansion/corruption ratio was waaaay too high. Communism was the only way to really make a big country and even then the outlying cities were still pitiful.

Sid Meir's Alpha Centauri remains the best Civ game to date.


AC? Finished it with a 250+ year embargo, and 6000 meter increase of the water level. It was amazing how few busters could change balance of forces.

Of course my capital survived that flood.



However, it's worrying the current aproach to the combat in Civ4. 5 hits represented by animated figurines, and simplification of attack/defense to just an one variable. Would Civ 4 be just another clone of advance wars, or would it be more complex? It would be nice to know.

That's not what linear means in a gaming context, a linear game is one that forces you to do a series of events in sequence, rather than letting you tackle the problem in your own way. Besides, what difficulty were you on? It sounds like you were playing on the lower levels if you think it's just Command and Conquer. The higher levels require a lot of strategy to even draw.


Thats exactly what Civ III was, linear.
You could only progress up the given ladder. You cant deviate from it because there is no other ladder. 1 leads to 2 leads to 3 etc.

AC, if you've played it was far more varied. Do you research Citizens' Defense Force or Planetary Datalinks? Do I utilise the artifacts for research purposes or complete the build on the next unit. What Government should I go with; Fascist or green? how will that effect my allies attitude towards me, how will it effect my economy, how will Planet react.

Thats just the tip of the iceberg. After playing AC, Civ III is childs play by comparison.

Thats exactly what Civ III was, linear.
You could only progress up the given ladder. You cant deviate from it because there is no other ladder. 1 leads to 2 leads to 3 etc.


Excepting of course what techs you decide to research, what wonders you've obtained, what your Civilisation traits are, who you chose to ally with, whether you wanto to keep other civs happy so you'll have allies in the future, or take advantage of them now to pull ahead of your competition and risk war, whether you want to expand into a less viable area first because it is more likely to obtain strategic resources in the future or send your settler to some nice safe grassland, whether you want to focus on industry, expanding your population, or making money and trading for what you need, which government to choose, which wonders to build first, when to mobilise for war, whether the benefits of espionage are worth the possible costs in the current political climate, et cetera, et cetera.


AC, if you've played it was far more varied. Do you research Citizens' Defense Force or Planetary Datalinks? Do I utilise the artifacts for research purposes or complete the build on the next unit. What Government should I go with; Fascist or green? how will that effect my allies attitude towards me, how will it effect my economy, how will Planet react.


You can say exactly the same for Civ III:
Do you research Bronze Working or Pottery? Do you use great scientific leaders to hurry production of a wonder you might not finish in time, or wait a few turns until you get a new tech and build that one instead. What Government should I go with, Facism, Communism or Democracy? How will that affect my allies attitude towards me? How will it affect my economy?

Excepting of course what techs you decide to research, what wonders you've obtained, what your Civilisation traits are, who you chose to ally with, whether you wanto to keep other civs happy so you'll have allies in the future, or take advantage of them now to pull ahead of your competition and risk war, whether you want to expand into a less viable area first because it is more likely to obtain strategic resources in the future or send your settler to some nice safe grassland, whether you want to focus on industry, expanding your population, or making money and trading for what you need, which government to choose, which wonders to build first, when to mobilise for war, whether the benefits of espionage are worth the possible costs in the current political climate, et cetera, et cetera.



You can say exactly the same for Civ III:
Do you research Bronze Working or Pottery? Do you use great scientific leaders to hurry production of a wonder you might not finish in time, or wait a few turns until you get a new tech and build that one instead. What Government should I go with, Facism, Communism or Democracy? How will that affect my allies attitude towards me? How will it affect my economy?

Even so, you still have only one tech tree. If you dont research bronze working and instead research The Wheel, then no big deal, you can get it later. Either way you will end up with exactly the same tech as everyone else.
In AC if you dont research Hunter-Seeker Algorithm someone else will which leaves you vulnerable to probe attacks.
The only way to then get the Hunter-Seeker Algorithm is to goto war and capture the city that made that breakthrough.

You dont get any of that in Civ III. Its like AC-lite

Even so, you still have only one tech tree. If you dont research bronze working and instead research The Wheel, then no big deal, you can get it later. Either way you will end up with exactly the same tech as everyone else.
In AC if you dont research Hunter-Seeker Algorithm someone else will which leaves you vulnerable to probe attacks.
The only way to then get the Hunter-Seeker Algorithm is to goto war and capture the city that made that breakthrough.


It's more realistic that way though. It doesn't make any sense that you suddenly can't research a technology because someone else just discovered it.

"Nope, sorry chaps, but the Egyptians just discovered space flight, you're going to have to chuck all these half-finished rocket prototypes away."

It's more realistic that way though. It doesn't make any sense that you suddenly can't research a technology because someone else just discovered it.

"Nope, sorry chaps, but the Egyptians just discovered space flight, you're going to have to chuck all these half-finished rocket prototypes away."


Yeah, fair enough, I can see your point. But it makes the game far more interesting in that you have tech they dont, and they have tech you dont. When you factor in several factions it makes for an interesting game.
It's also fairly realistic. We have Nuclear tech, and we're doing our damndest to stop other countries getting it (Iran, NKorea). We have an edge Korea and Iran dont have.

Yeah, fair enough, I can see your point. But it makes the game far more interesting in that you have tech they dont, and they have tech you dont. When you factor in several factions it makes for an interesting game.


I'll agree with that.


It's also fairly realistic. We have Nuclear tech, and we're doing our damndest to stop other countries getting it (Iran, NKorea). We have an edge Korea and Iran dont have.

That's more stopping them buying the tech or raw materials from other nations than stopping their research, which is more like Civ III's trade embargos than AC's tech restrictions. We couldn't do anything about the Soviets just doing everything on their own, only a few years later.