... has to be my worse Civilization experience ever. I personally beleives that CIV III is the best of the three, but yet again the expantion (Conquest) is yet another stupid example of a gem turned into a piece of chalk by turning it into a milking cow.
A lot of "bonuses", new stupid rules and units been added without adding to the game. Worse, they actually remove to the game! The game AI seems to have been upgraded, which is good... But to compensate and (probably) to get the game harder, the code seems to have been reworked and "tweaks" added in for nothing. Such "tweak" include not being able to create an irrigation with 2 settlers even if you are industrious, barbarians who seems immune to terrain and obstacles or who simply stay put somewhere in the map instead of hunting down cities, the combat code which seems to have been rewitten so the computer always have the advantage and is really looking like a chance dice game... Really stupid changes.
In my first game I just played, I retired because I was so depressed on how the game turned up that I did not even want to play anymore. I had access to Iron and Horses and was building a nice specialised army of veterans and elites (like I always do...). But the computer managed to beat me with an army of Archers... ARCHERS! Is there a more useless unit than some archers in Civilization??? Even the Warriors have a better use. Yet they seemed to be able to take down a Spearman who was fortified inside a walled town and behind a river without taking a single hit! That's almost mathematically impossible, yet they managed to do that often.
I really feel like I wasted good money on something which should not have happened.
|