Quote:
Taqwus said:
Civ always had scale and logic problems -- fighter jet sorties that last a year, missiles that could be launched from cities *into* a submarine at sea, the inability to fly units over enemy units lacking any AA capability whatsoever, no concept of supply lines, free field upgrades...
|
20 turns / 400 years to "build" an archer... with a city thus unable to even START building a temple (a 4 to 40 week project) for 400 years. An aircraft carrier needing upkeep equal to a paratrooper. Cities falling into unrest because their garrisoned nuclear missiles are moved to a remote location. Any victorious unit suffering no (permanent) losses, or at least losses that cost anything.
If they would just make Civ marginally more realistic with each generation, I'd love it. But no... strategic resources were added, so you can "move" and "use" tanks under a total oil embargo (no strategic reserve allowed!) and your economy functions at 100%... you just cannot "build" tanks! Of course! And your cities fall into chaos unless you constantly give enemy nations advanced technology so they don't cut of your vital silk and spices... if Bush gave North Korea 'nukyuler' secrets in exchange for a kim-chee supply-line, I humbly suppose that Americans would finally realize he's an idiot, rather than celebrating "We Love The President Day." But then I'm young and don't remember when England overthrew its government because German subs were sinking the vital gem and fur imports. Or when German tanks magically roamed North Africa without burning any gasoline, but lost anyway becase the rubber embargo prevented them from building new Marines (at 6 years per new unit).
I don't care about graphics too much. Graphics can be really neat, but iff the devs would spend a trivial effort on creativity or realism, Civ IV might end up being worth buying. If they don't, a $10M or even $10B (and that can buy a lot) graphics do-over will not entice me. I didn't like Civ III nearly as much as II.