4 ms·
Civ4 was significantly better than 5 or 6 in that regard in that the computer players weren't so game-ified into sociopathic lunatics that would go from long te
by reincarnate0x14 6y ago
Civ4 was significantly better than 5 or 6 in that regard in that the computer players weren't so game-ified into sociopathic lunatics that would go from long term allies or trade partners to instant chain-denouncing mortal enemies based on seemingly minor changes in the player's expansion or military strength.
Additionally the ability to stack units, while having problems of it own, made it a lot easier for the computer players to pose any serious tactical threat (without a gigantic technological advantage, a careful artillery and melee formation with a few healing units thrown in can destroy any computer-managed army of even ridiculous size; and the various "cheat" modifiers can magnify that to the point that independent city-states have been observed kicking the tar out of computer-player empires in both civ5 and 6 due to the regenerating free era-appropriate units that the tactical code simply can't out-maneuver)
Multiplayer in 4 tended to be all early rushes and road-ing/choke-ing (get some early unique units or archers to sit on key resources, stealing workers to build roads in between so your units could mass up to take cities faster). Back in the day I had a friend to play intentionally long games over weekends cooped up in the winter, those were immensely fun with a gentleperson's agreement to avoid direct conflict and try to win via tech/culture with maneuvering by proxy. The Civ4 AI personalities were much better suited to this as well.
Never tried MP in 6 but did some co-op in 5 that was reasonably fun, you really had to dedicate multiple evenings to it though so getting more than 3 people was impossible unless you were all sharing a dorm or something.
Overall the most fun multiplayer experience in a Civ-like game I've found was in Age of Wonders 3 as the games had a flatter tech ramp, tactical combat modes that took advantage of the hex map like war-games, and a RPG-light cast of semi-random hero generals to level up and give cute magic items to. Plus it had a variety of MP game modes for both competitive and co-op play.
- codeisawesome 6y ago> sociopathic lunatics that would go from long term allies or trade partners to instant chain-denouncing mortal enemies based on seemingly minor changes in the player's expansion or military strength This... doesn't seem quite that unrealistic compared to how states act in the real world!
- reincarnate0x14 6y agoNot sure I've ever seen Vietnam, Ethiopia and France all simultaneously decide that Mexico is the WORST PLACE EVER and commit to its absolute destruction with poorly planned naval invasions because it demobilized a few units of archers in the Yucatan in history, but hey, that would be fun to read about :)
- nip180 6y agoWorld War I doesn’t seem to far off. A Bosian assassinates an Austo-Hungarian prince and then Japan it taking control over German assists in China.
- dragonwriter 6y ago> World War I doesn’t seem to far off. World War I, due to the prevalent myth of offense dominance that fueled the mobilization feedback loop that led to the war, is pretty much the exact opposite, so, yeah, it's pretty far off.
- throwaway_pdp09 6y agoNever heard of this, do you have a link or a searchable phrase? TIA
- smogcutter 6y agoDan Carlin’s hardcore history podcast covers this pretty well and is a great listen. But basically the idea is that everyone knew a straight-up fight between major powers would be an ugly grind. But national armies take time to mobilize. So you want to mobilize early and try to win before everyone else catches up. This means that once it looks like things might kick off, everyone immediately goes all in. But if your sucker punch fails, buckle up for WWI.
- watwut 6y agoIf you want everything about WWI the "Pandora Box" book by Jörn Leonhard is the thing.