[2218]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I think Civ 4 was very disappointing because it substituted complexity for depth, and tacked on a ruinously bad combat system that was vastly worse than games that came out more than a decade earlier.

The thing is, parts of it were wonderful.

[/ QUOTE ]

What exactly did you hate so much about the combat that was different from Civ III? The only differences I remember are that you can see the strengths when attacking in Civ IV, the promotions, and the lack of heroes.

[/ QUOTE ]

I didn't play Civ 3, only Civ 2 and Civ 4.

Basically, the combat system is extraordinarily shallow. You have ancient horsemen bringing down helicopters etc., as well. It really feels like some student put it together as an afterthought and somehow managed to sneak it into a potentially very good game. Going over from regular gameplay to the battle should be a highlight of a game, either dominating a game or able to compete with the rest of it. Going into the rudimentary combat model of Civ 4 was like stepping back into the 80's, and for me was a gigantic disappointment that made the game almost unplayable. A game building up to intervals of that was something I dreaded.

[/ QUOTE ]

I believe my friend was playing Civ II when he spent all his time and effort building a nuclear submarine, only to have it be taken down by an Inuit canoe. He unintalled the game immediately.