Civilization 4

[Pidesco]

First Civ4 review:

 

LINK

 

I haven't read it yet so I can't comment on it.

It's IGN though. <_>

[Reveilled]

Finally, hats off to Leonard Nimoy for his amazing voiceover work reading a short quotation as each new technology is discovered. The quotations are well chosen and really help to connect the progress you're making in the game to our own history. Leonard Nimoy's readings are so good with these quotations that we wish he'd been used for every other aspect of the game.

 

OMG! OMG! Quotations! They brought back quotations! (w00t) :D (w00t) :D

 

The quotations were one of the best touches from SMAC. Of course, they were mostly quotes from the leaders of each faction (complete with their own voice actors), but all the other ones (which were curiously almost entirely quotes from philosophers, saints and scripture) were good too. I expect there will be a few nods to SMAC here and there in the quotations.

 

"That sunny dome! those caves of ice!

And all who heard should see them there,

And all should cry, Beware! Beware!

His flashing eyes, his floating hair!

Weave a circle round him thrice,

And close your eyes with holy dread,

For he on honey-dew hath fed

And drunk the milk of Paradise."

--Samuel Taylor Coleridge, Datalinks

[Enoch]

First Civ4 review:

 

LINK

 

I haven't read it yet so I can't comment on it.

It's IGN though. <_<

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I didn't find that review particularly useful or informative. They covered the basics pretty lightly-- anyone who has been following the game (or even who has read IGN's earlier previews) would know most of that already. The only bit the review adds is the score. (And who really trusts game site scores, anyway?)

 

The fansite review by a beta tester that I cited above (here it is again) had far more information and coverage of how the new game concepts actually work.

[Pidesco]

The fansite review by a beta tester that I cited above (here it is again) had far more information and coverage of how the new game concepts actually work.

 

 

Now, that's what I call a proper review.

 

Now, who wants to give me money so I can upgrade my PC? :huh:"

Edited October 22, 2005 by Soulseeker

[Walsingham]

The spearman v tank issue only bothers people who know nothing about military history. The scale in Civ is strategic, not tactical. Technically advanced formations can and do get tonked by 'inferior' opponents on occasion, provided the opponent fights smart. And smarts aren't a function of tech or industrial base.

 

It also bugs me that Civ completely ignores logistics. Warmaking on land, at sea, and in the air is about force maintenance and control. Things like ox-yoking, the telegraph, and the combustion engine have done at least as much to change warfare as guns and steel pokey sticks. For example, cavalry are dashing about all over the place in Civ, but in real life they needed so much feed they rarely moved beyond the strategic pace of their feed wagons, drawn by cows. Tanks in teh modern era are similar.

 

Then you have the organisation of armies. For example, we didn't have standing armies in the West until comparatively recently. We didn't have meritocratic armies in the West until last century. These would be interesting new concepts.

 

It does intrigue me, but I don't think I shall bother. I'm still mardy with them over Civ3.

[Enoch]

It also bugs me that Civ completely ignores logistics. Warmaking on land, at sea, and in the air is about force maintenance and control. Things like ox-yoking, the telegraph, and the combustion engine have done at least as much to change warfare as guns and steel pokey sticks.  For example, cavalry are dashing about all over the place in Civ, but in real life they needed so much feed they rarely moved beyond the strategic pace of their feed wagons, drawn by cows. Tanks in teh modern era are similar.

 

Then you have the organisation of armies. For example, we didn't have standing armies in the West until comparatively recently. We didn't have meritocratic armies in the West until last century.  These would be interesting new concepts.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I personally have no problem with logistics being behind the scenes in a game where the quickest turn takes a full year. (IIRC, they are considered in Civ4 in that unit upkeep increases for units on enemy territory.) As for military organization, you could mod stuff like that in as new technologies or civics choices (e.g., give experience bonuses to units when you move away from civic choices like "caste system" and "hereditary rule"). But the bottom line is, if all you're interested in is a strategic military simulation, then there are lots of games better than Civilization.

Edited October 23, 2005 by Enoch

[Walsingham]

True said, Enoch. You also highlight the inherent nonsense of the military sim in Civ with year long turns. At only five turns long ww2 doesn't seem so bad anymore...

[Hurlshort]

I have Rome: TW, and it's very reasonable that each turn is about 6 months. I'm really on the fence about getting Civ 4. I still play Rome when I need that strategy kick, so do I really need another? I know they are very different types of games, but I'm not a huge strategy game guy. Do you really think it will be a "must-have" game?

[Walsingham]

I can see that it would be a complex enough problem space to be entertaining. provided the AI is better, and can't cheat. But I can think of many things I could spend that much money on I'd enjoy more.

[kumquatq3]

if it hasn't been posted yet, Civ 4 gets 9.4 from IGN

[Pidesco]

I have Rome: TW, and it's very reasonable that each turn is about 6 months.  I'm really on the fence about getting Civ 4.  I still play Rome when I need that strategy kick, so do I really need another?  I know they are very different types of games, but I'm not a huge strategy game guy.  Do you really think it will be a "must-have" game?

 

Well, the Total War games are all about the battles. The turned based part of the game is a bit too light for me. In Civ, on the other hand, the battles are not, to me, the best part of the game. However, the resource management and the diplomacy are a lot of fun. My point is, of course, that both are a lot of fun but in very different ways.

 

On this note, what I would like to see is a Civ game with Total War type battles.

[kumquatq3]

In the IGN article, never having played a civ, it says that knights can beat helicopters?

[Walsingham]

In the IGN article, never having played a civ, it says that knights can beat helicopters?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Perhaps if they built a giant wooden badger...

[Spider]

In the IGN article, never having played a civ, it says that knights can beat helicopters?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Much in the same ways Ewiks can beat AT-STs.

 

Helicopters are much more powerful than knights, but sometimes bad things happen (the usual complaint from fans is spearmen defeating tanks though).

[ShadowPaladin V1.0]

Perhaps if they built a giant wooden badger...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Or longer lances.

[Enoch]

In the IGN article, never having played a civ, it says that knights can beat helicopters?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

If you watch the gameplay video, you can tell that the reviewer had a rather depleted helicopter attacking a well-promoted knight who was fortified on a hill. It looks as if he was fishing for an 'ancient defeats modern' victory to talk about. Also, I think that the Gunship unit (the helicopter) is something of a specialty: good against tanks, but not so good against everything else.

[ShadowPaladin V1.0]

If you watch the gameplay video, you can tell that the reviewer had a rather depleted helicopter attacking a well-promoted knight who was fortified on a hill.  It looks as if he was fishing for an 'ancient defeats modern' victory to talk about.  Also, I think that the Gunship unit (the helicopter) is something of a specialty: good against tanks, but not so good against everything else.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

It does kind of kill the credibility a bit though dosnt it ? You have to ask yourself, just how long a lance would you have to build to take down a helicopter.

[Reveilled]

In the IGN article, never having played a civ, it says that knights can beat helicopters?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Helicopter runs out of fuel, or runs out of ammo, crashes due to pilot error, crashes due to bad weather, etc. etc. "

Edited October 24, 2005 by Reveilled

[kumquatq3]

In the IGN article, never having played a civ, it says that knights can beat helicopters?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Much in the same ways Ewiks can beat AT-STs.

 

No :cool:

[ShadowPaladin V1.0]

No  :cool:

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

AT-ST's are ground based ?

[Deraldin]

No  :cool:

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

AT-ST's are ground based ?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

AT-STs are the ones that walk around on two legs.

 

And the Knights don't need to attack the helicopters. All they need to do is surprise the helicopter pilots before they get off the ground. :ph34r:

[ShadowPaladin V1.0]

AT-STs are the ones that walk around on two legs.

 

And the Knights don't need to attack the helicopters. All they need to do is surprise the helicopter pilots before they get off the ground. :ph34r:

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Always a geek around when you need one

 

You could rationalise it that way. Although in Civ all millitary units are assumed to be combat ready. Probably should have taken a leaf from advance wars on dealing with ground based and flying units.

[Deraldin]

AT-STs are the ones that walk around on two legs.

 

And the Knights don't need to attack the helicopters. All they need to do is surprise the helicopter pilots before they get off the ground. :ph34r:

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Always a geek around when you need one

 

You could rationalise it that way. Although in Civ all millitary units are assumed to be combat ready. Probably should have taken a leaf from advance wars on dealing with ground based and flying units.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Flying units wipe with floor with all non AA ground units? Or the part where ground units can't attack planes? If that's the part that you meant then it doesn't matter, because ground units could attack helicopters. "

[mkreku]

Swedish gaming magazine SuperPlay game it 10/10

 

I guess they're the swedish equivalent of IGN.

[ShadowPaladin V1.0]

Flying units wipe with floor with all non AA ground units? Or the part where ground units can't attack planes? If that's the part that you meant then it doesn't matter, because ground units could attack helicopters. "

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Bit of both. Infanrty fairs really poorly against helicopters and thats with a modern weapon. I always though Advance wars could do with some SAM troops.

 

It's not that they can't attack, it's that if you send a 10/10 infantry against a 10/10 helicopter the results are totally predictable. A full strength infanty can just about take down a 1/10 helicopter, which again makes logical sense.

Knights on the other hand can't reach a helicopter, it's completely impossible. Then again it's been something thats been part of every Civ game I suppose.