Civ IV

[ShadowPaladin V1.0]

I found I'd had enough of Civ after Civ2. There is only so long you can keep changing the packaging around what is basically the same series of events.

[alanschu]

No it doesn't.  It's 26 leaders in the game.

 

Try to have a unique flavour for 468 different leaders would be very expensive (and a waste of time IMO).

 

It sounds like something better suited for a mod (which the game is also being designed to be very moddable).

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I wouldn't consider it a waste of time, especially considering that 26 leaders for 18 countries clearly means that several countries are going to be less developed than others, which puts me in mind of an unfinished game. 468 leaders would be a great idea. One leader dies, and then his sucessor takes over, and so on, like an actual civilisation.

 

Why have five civs with only one leader?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

Because it's not the focus of the game. Some of them likely have one leader because finding suitable, secondary leaders for some of the classic civilizations was probably more difficult to do. Particularly for civilizations like the Zulu and whatnot.

 

468 leaders, given the focus of games like Alpha Centauri and Civilization, would be of limited success. Games like EU2 (which I really like, along with Hearts of Iron 2) can work more with multiple leaders. Paradox didn't need to create a diplomacy screen with animations and whatnot for the leaders. In fact, I don't even think they had pictures in EU2 (they do in HOI2 though), so it's a lot easier to simply have a different leader.

 

I can't remember....but how much did the leaders affect your game in EU2? I know Hearts of Iron 2 they have a tangible effect, but spending time creating music, animations, and all that other fun stuff that adds flavour to the game (which it sounds like you enjoyed in Alpha Centauri) would be very, very expensive. I find it hard to believe that you'd rather have 468 leader names rather than fun, interactive leaders with unique scores and all sorts of flavour to make the game more fun (which is Firaxis' goal for Civ 4.....they're trying to make it fun and flavourful).

 

 

Trying to have a heirarchy of leaders wouldn't make as much sense in a Civ game than in EU2. EU2 covers the scope of a very narrow range of time compared to Civ. EU2 is supposed to be a game set in an accurate historical time, that plays out in whatever way you like so as to create "what if" scenarios and add a twist to history. Civ 4 is supposed to span from 4000 BC to 2050 AD, and since they allow for nations such as Germany and America to exist in 4000 BC (or any other nation really) shows that they aren't looking for that kind of accurate detail. And trying to find 26 leaders for some of the nations like the Zulu or whatnot would probably also be time better spent elsewhere...like making the game more fun and adding the flavour and whatnot to the game that you like so much. I'd much rather have them continue all the work they've done to make the world seem less static and much more alive and representative of the civilizations that occupy it then spending time researching who would be appropriate leaders for the game. I think it adds much more to the fun to be immersed in the world as a whole than the smaller details. Those are best left to games that focus on them, like EU2 (P.S. I always preferred the Austrians....I'm not really sure why though...Maybe because I sucked with Navies. Ottoman was fun as well!)

 

 

 

After reading up on Civ 4, to have reservations about based on not liking Civ 3 seems too narrow of a view IMO (although people may have other reservations about it, which is fair). It sounds like the game is trying to be much more of a "fun first" type of game, with improvements upon the good stuff, and finding ways to replace the "unfun" stuff from previous games. I really like how they are trying to incorporate the excellent ideas from Alpha Centauri as well (really looking forward to their government model!).

 

 

Never did like the Morganites though. I guess I just found it wierd to play a game where the focus was exclusively on making money. I usually played the Gaians or the Spartans.

[alanschu]

Can I end the world as we know it in a fiery apocalypse with my large armament of nuclear missiles?  More importantly, will the other Civs retaliate and fire back?  This is very important to me.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Hehe here's hoping.

 

 

I was always disappointed with the level of reciprocation in Civ and AC. I don't remember either game opening up with the planet busters after I did for them.

 

Hopefully they incorporate something similar to the UN in Alpha Centauri. I loved the ideas of proposing a Solar shade and other stuff like that. And having your cities domed in case of planetary flooding was also cool. AC was definitely a cool game (I'll have to remember to grab it when I go back to my parents' place to pick up Close Combat 2 & 3).

[metadigital]

Oh well, not much scope for a civ game to please you, then.

 

Unless we assume that a global thermonuclear confrontation would reset the technology tree back to the stone-age, similar to the effect of Ceasar buring the Great Library two millennia ago ... then we could have Earth: from post-apocalyptic now forward!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

My problem with "civ" is that it's old.

 

I played Civ v:1 on a friends comp waaaaaaaay back when.... well way back when for me.

 

I also played it as a rom on my comp a few years back.

 

I also played the living heck out of Civ 2.

 

Civ 3... was an abomination.

 

Between the "same ol' same ol'" factor and the fact they've lost their touch... I've no desire to buy a game I know will bore me. <_<

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Now that you mention it, Fish, I thought civ 3 was a pain.  Civs 1 and 2 were classics.  Civ 3 was not.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Hmm, well, I played Civ on my own PC, and I lost several months, about 72-hours-straight at-a-time, playing Civ 2. Civ 3 I was profoundly unwelmed because it seemd to increase the un-fun stuff and decrease the fun stuff.

 

But how can you get bored with civ? I remember playing the early precursors: some risk-style game on the Apple ][ (I think) whose name escapes me, then there was that other text-based one before it where you had to manage the resources of your kingdom and then the AI would provide the annual weather, crop yields, etc ...

 

Fun, fun, fun!

[metadigital]

Can I end the world as we know it in a fiery apocalypse with my large armament of nuclear missiles?  More importantly, will the other Civs retaliate and fire back?  This is very important to me.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Hehe here's hoping.

 

 

I was always disappointed with the level of reciprocation in Civ and AC. I don't remember either game opening up with the planet busters after I did for them.

 

Hopefully they incorporate something similar to the UN in Alpha Centauri. I loved the ideas of proposing a Solar shade and other stuff like that. And having your cities domed in case of planetary flooding was also cool. AC was definitely a cool game (I'll have to remember to grab it when I go back to my parents' place to pick up Close Combat 2 & 3).

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

What really annoyed me was that there was no real way to win using "tactical" thermonuclear war ... not even using a spy to detonate the bomb in a foreign city. And regardless of how much renewable energy your civilization produced, the globe warmed into a swamp after 2000, even if the other civilizations were insignificant ...

[Walsingham]

I liked a lot about Alpha Centauri, but I before I twigged to the fact that an accomodation was possible, I used to get into these godawful knock-down drag out bitch fights with the planet, sweeping waves of terraformers culling the fungus, and hovering psionics armed death craft. Man versus mushroom *happy sigh* those were the days.

[Guest Fishboot]

I liked a lot about Alpha Centauri, but I before I twigged to the fact that an accomodation was possible, I used to get into these godawful knock-down drag out bitch fights with the planet, sweeping waves of terraformers culling the fungus, and hovering psionics armed death craft. Man versus mushroom *happy sigh* those were the days.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Yeah, if they ever make an Alpha Centauri 2 they should include an "ecological subjugation" victory condition, where you torch or subvert all of the native organisms. Sometimes I just didn't feel like making friends with the pink blobs.

[metadigital]

"Recon by fire"

[EnderAndrew]

I didn't loathe Civ 3 like everyone else. I really liked SMAC, though I never did get the Alien Crossfire expansion.

 

I'm really looking forward to Civ 4.

[alanschu]

I actually snagged a copy of Civ 3 for $10 about a month ago.

 

 

I still like it....and certainly cannot wait for Civ 4!

[Deraldin]

I actually snagged a copy of Civ 3 for $10 about a month ago.

 

 

I still like it....and certainly cannot wait for Civ 4!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I've got that beat. I managed to pick up a copy of Civ 3 in a dual pack with Civ 2 Test of Time for $17.99. The weird thing was that on the shelf right above it was Civ 3 itself selling for $42.99. Was perfect as I had lost my copy of Test of Time about a month before..

[Oerwinde]

I think its funny that the civ3 expansions are more expensive than the stand alone game. Civ 3 is 10 bucks, while Civ 3 Complete is 50. Meaning you pay 20 bucks each for the expansions. Atl least in Canada.

 

I personally like Civ3, though it definitely has its faults. Such as those damn other civs demanding 152 gold per turn for their spices.

[metadigital]

I think they just tried to do too much with Civ3, without the mastermind of Meier behind them, and then cut the wrong things from the work schedule.

 

Certainly, using the old engine was a mistake. Not that new graphics were needed, far from it (yes, Civ4 is still turn-based and tile-centred, just the zoom moves from planet-wide to inter-city; the beta didn't have a "city screen" at all); it was just the adding of all the extras from Civ2 just wasn't fun gameplay-wise.

[Walsingham]

I don't loathe Civ3. I just get aggravetd by how close it gets to being astounding. I mean, they're a clever bunch, but to be so near and yet so far ...it's maddening.

 

And I really do not approve of the AI's negotiation skills. I was playing it this afternoon. babylon has 152 infantry, and 56 tank units. England has 10 infantry, and no tanks. England has a monopoly on spice. I offer a straight trade for silk, which England declines. I predictably overrun their pitiful state in a single turn, and commit genocide on their luckless people (see my comments on revolution). Now, what would have been so hard about recognising a massive imbalance of force, and a fair trade, and letting me have the damn spice?

 

EDIT: it is possible that my habit of committing genocide makes the AIs dislike me. However, there is a difference between disliking someone from a position of strength and disliking someone who has combined air, land, and sea forces poised on your borders, and who is offering at least a face-saving compromise AND will assuredly employ said genocidal violence on you if you refuse.

[The Elite_elite]

I don't hate Civ3 but I really hated some things about it. Let's see, I go to an AI to trade world maps and of course they want some technology and gold for it in addition to my map. And I send my modern armor at some spearmen and my tank is nearly dead at the end of battle. Come on, what are spearmen going to do against a tank?! And the AI always demands things from me even though I'm more powerful. And they always come to you with unfair deals. Like I'm giving you mathmatics, bronze working, and 100 gold for your territory map. And that's not even their world map! I hope Civ4 takes care of these kinds of problems.

[213374U]

EDIT: it is possible that my habit of committing genocide makes the AIs dislike me. However, there is a difference between disliking someone from a position of strength and disliking someone who has combined air, land, and sea forces poised on your borders, and who is offering at least a face-saving compromise AND will assuredly employ said genocidal violence on you if you refuse.

Didn't AI stand for Artificial Idiocy?

 

Anyway, I don't think the AIs' opinion of you depend on your warmongering tendencies, but rather on your willingness to keep your word. Breaking treaties will ensure that not even the sworn enemy of those you betrayed will want to deal with you, and that includes commercial agreements. Using nukes hurts your image, too, to an absurd degree.

 

Also, the commercial algorythms are not very good. If an AI knows they have something you want badly, or the level of your civilizations is very different, they will reject a fair trade only to piss you off (nobody would trade nuclear fission for wine).

[Walsingham]

Elite: Bad command, and careless discipline can do for the best equipped unit. Ever heard of a place called Isandhlwana? British troops with repeating carbines and cannon were slaughtered by Zulus armed with cowhide shields, and short stabbing spears.

 

http://www.rorkesdriftvc.com/isandhlwana/isandhlwana.htm

 

The sanitised description of how the Zulus are found in the ravine, and the battle starts, isn't as good as the one reported by the cavalry themselves. The British patrol had been heading back to camp when one man dismounted to urinate behind some bushes. he rounded the bushes, looked down, and saw 20,000 zulus staring at him, who had ben keeping completely hidden and silent there for hours. I can't begin to imagine how terrifying that would be!

 

 

If spearmen beating your tanks bother you that much, imagine they are actually just very small numbers of normal modern troops.

[SteveThaiBinh]

Hopefully the designers of CivIV will have learned a few new ideas from playing Galactic Civilizations. I'd like to see some of the same diplomacy options, too - like requiring your enemy to make peace with your ally at the same time as with you. It would be nice to be able to negotiate 'federations' - more durable than alliances - with small, weak civs in the later stages of the game (in effect, swallowing them up peacefully).

[Walsingham]

Steve: I agree. That would be nice. there's no fun or glory in squashing people who are completely incapable of offering resistance, when you ought to be able to ffer them a peaceful alternative.

 

213374U: I'd understand not trading tech, since that has a huge investment benefit, and you can't take it by conquest. But natural resources is just daft.

 

And I know about the treaties issue. Took me a while to realise that breaking a treaty in the bronze age mean that no-one would deal with you up and including during the space race, but never mind.

[metadigital]

... Come on, what are spearmen going to do against a tank?! ...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

A very clever shot into the barrel, whilst another jumps on the gun and spears the tankmen inside ...

[metadigital]

...

And I know about the treaties issue. Took me a while to realise that breaking a treaty in the bronze age mean that no-one would deal with you up and including during the space race, but never mind.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Talk about creating a blood feud; you have modelled the problems inherrent in Middle East peace process in your civ!

[Deraldin]

... Come on, what are spearmen going to do against a tank?! ...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

A very clever shot into the barrel, whilst another jumps on the gun and spears the tankmen inside ...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Sure... As the tank is rumbling forward at full speed and squishes the Spearmen under it's treads. *sigh* If only. "

[metadigital]

I don't know where this image is coming from, but I have recollection of some infantry making a killing on a tank ... hmm, was it the last BF2 review in PC Gamer? Apparently it is not that difficult, as long as it's one tank and a shedload of men ... :D

[Calax]

Tanks in general have trouble killing an individual soldier. only problem is that and individual soldier has trouble killing a tank.

 

In Civ3 Ive seen a Panzer army loose to a pikeman.

[Deraldin]

Tanks in general have trouble killing an individual soldier. only problem is that and individual soldier has trouble killing a tank.

 

In Civ3 Ive seen a Panzer army loose to a pikeman.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I've had modern armour lose to Roman Legionaires.