"Civilization IV"... Confirmed?

[Addled Platypus]

Was this their idea behind ROP?, just in a more simpler way?

The idea behind a "mutaul miltray training excersice" , should boost the warm fuzzies between participating Civs.

Would all nations benifit equally, i.e. "cultural points"?

[Toby Rowe]

All nations have a citizrenry that accepts the existance of that nation they were born in, and have some form of alliegance to her.

Those that refuse to accept this basic alliegance to the nation become renegades to the idea of the concept of nationhood.

The extreme peoples within the Muslim faith is currently challenging this accepted notion of "who am I?", based upon not national identity, but a religion.

Platypus,

ROP: I can't figure out this one- agree to a ROP agreement, even if they are so far away as to make the agreement meaningless? (how many scouts have you ever seen in your territory?), but they are instantly "polite" towards you once you have it- So staves off war I suppose.

My memory of Civ 2 is definately getting more distant, and ROP in Civ seems vital if you wish peaceful expansion, unless the Romans have been discovered, who will travel across the map just to attack you once almost all productice trade is with them.

Has anyone been able to work out why the AI gives such a huge weighting in diplomatic terms to the ROP agreement in the code, however meaningless the treaty is in geographical terms?

Toby

[SSBLoveU]

Originally posted by Toby Rowe
Hi SSB,

I prefer to learn how others think and feel, rather than argue, as arguements achieve zero.

I think that the programmers are pulled 3 ways in benchmark games- impacient publishers, gamers and shareholders, I hope Civ 4 appears when the game is ready, not when the above 3 groups want or need it.

Some Yank guy mentioned "forward basing" with your allies, NATO couldn't exist without this concept, and I've been in a joint UK/US base within mainland Europe, and have also unwittingly tested stuff within SHAPE many moons ago, in order us Europeans were propected against a very real threat.
Co-operation is important with allies.

Having an ally actually mean something in Civ 4 would please me all lot, forward basing by US forces in the Cold War was a clear demonstration to that nation in Europe that they had an ally whose nation was prepared to "defend to the death" not only the right of free speech, but the existance of a nation full stop.

I'd like this translated into Civ 4; Allied units should be able to stack together, My units should be able to do R&R in an Allied city and our level of respect OF any ally should be far greater than it is in Civ /2/3, simply as the word "Allied" really means nothing to the AI model.

The treaty exists only to be broken, no other Strategy game treats this treaty with such a level of disrespect.

Toby!!

I really do enjoy gaming. I hope CIV 4 is ready when it is ready too. Recently, I have been thinking about how horses and wolves were not thought of as food substitutes. I miss building stables for my horses while I build barracks for my men. We do not need iron and other things like horses. Also, wolves help us to collect food better. My dreams and how it turns out will always be different, yet, I find entertainment and new ideas while I play.

[Toby Rowe]

Hi mate,

The UK until Roman times, if not later was apparently 90% ancient woodland- meaning wolves and humans must have lived in very close proximity even then, So I suppose we must have known the different sounds a wolf pack made for a food-call- That is interesting, would never have thought of that.

Dunno about Iron Ore though, that is still needed for modern weaponry, although far less than before.

I too hope we have to build stables, building both a stables/horse breeder and barracks in even Civ 3 would really slow down aggressive expansion by the AI and the player I think, and give it the strategic perspective I hope Civ 4 will be...

If it takes two years for Civ 4 to arrive, good, as it should be bug-free and will sell volumes! I think it's "taken as given" that it'll be in 3D, which means for processor power the maps will be much smaller, but I hope they do think of other buildings like stables.

The standard Barracks/Temple/Granary/Marketplace/Library (no order) could do with improvement, and the obsession I've always had with building the wonders, simply as you are so disadvantaged if you don't has always stewed how I played all versions.

I expect I'm in a tiny minority here, but I'd like each nation able to build all wonders- after all, it takes exactly the same time and effort for each one, and I find, after 10+ years of Civ to be the most distracting thing in the game to actually building a happy and productive Civ, not gearing it to wonder building, which I tend to do, until the 3-4 techs ahead you gain that the AI allows.

Caravans? I loved 'em, you spent the same time and effort quarrying the stones in Hastings for 50 shields, lugged them up all the way to London to build the wonder, the raw materiale arrived, work continued- nothing wrong with that idea, within the concept, just the entire concept for me- I wanna have to concentrate on building a nation, not a string of wonders........I think they skew the game too much.

Alas, I digress! Your comments on Wolves- very interesting; the UK hasn't reintroduced them like the US and Canada have, but there really isn't any natural habitat left for them over here- the Government has finally made the New Forest in Hampshire(new in 1066!) a national Park- but I reckon that's the only place one or two packs could survive in, as an ignorant townie that is.......!!

Toby

[Nikolai]

DP

[Nikolai]

Time to get this back on track!

Found this on Firaxis' "Ask Sid" page:

Question: Given the amount of depth that was put into Civilization III (the wars that resulted from late-game resource shortages provided hours of fun), where else can one go with Civilization IV? What kind of game play, graphic, or interface improvements can we expect to see that you are able to divulge at this time?

Sid: Good questions. Can't answer them now, though. We are planning to do a major story on Civ IV on this web site sometime in the next couple of months; keep your eyes peeled.

[SSBLoveU]

I have read about Age of Empires III coming out during the end half of 2005. I have not played it yet. Nevertheless, the pocket PC version was updated in November 2004, and now it is playable anywhere. Wolves are not a real danger to man except for the fear factor. So finding an iron smith or a philosopher willing to work before the wolves are pushed back into the woods is entertaining and for some reason wolves run faster than the brave barbarians so they could always return one day. I wonder how Civ IV will compare to AEIII.

(Silly rant: Political moves like the ones in Casablanca have not been put in games, yet (Casablanca is not on TCM today) It does not make a difference if real friendships develop in games affecting trade and transportation. I’ll take an aspirin, why? I wonder where they go?).

[OPD]

The whole thing about the AI "cheating" and complaints to the effect that it does are tres facile and rather naiive.

Hopefully the AI won't matter too much in cIV as it will be all about the MP..........

A few worrying points about the game that others have probably already commented on...

One of the key phrases for Civ4 will be "Simplify, simplify, simplify", which means as much as streamlining the existing gameplay where possible.

it will aim at a slightly different fan-base than previous Civ-games, though it should still appeal to (most) veterans as well.

So does this mean it's going to be dumbed down to hell? Simplified for the masses.... to the point where there is little or no scope for getting really good at the game, or scope significantly better than someone playing it for the first time?

Possibly going for a more RTS type for game..... with much reduced re-playability?

As bad as that could sound, the MP is what really matters, that and it feeling like a civ game/experience.

As can be seen from the multiplayer content on this site and elsewhere, playing with other people is where the real variation, complexity and gameplay lies. That's why the general forum and conquests forum are slower than the pbem and DG forums.

Playing, building an empire.....etc against other people will always be far more enthralling and satisfying than against the AI.

In short this talk of simplicity is worrying and probably very dangerous but the MP will make or break the game even if it is dumbed down as hell. So that better be sorted, not sorted as in "no bugs in pbem play" sorted as in playing in real time against other people being almost identical to playing a SP game.

[Boris Godunov]

The MP is what really matters? Could have fooled me. I've been playing Civ for 12 years or so now, and I've had a grand total of 2 MP games. This MP myopia people have is bizarre.

The core of Civ has always been and always will be the SP game. MP is a great feature, but what makes Civ truly great is the ability to sit down and play it without having to worry about cobbling together people for MP (or worse, playing with strangers who can do all sorts of weird crap).

[Addled Platypus]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
The MP is what really matters? Could have fooled me. I've been playing Civ for 12 years or so now, and I've had a grand total of 2 MP games.

Over the past year, same here

Just try and mach days off, equal amopunt of sit down time

Not everyone plays on the same server


PBEM is where it should concentrate. Has anyone else played CTP and seen how easy that is to set up and play?

[SSBLoveU]

I enjoyed Age of Empire on my PDA. The major advantage of AE over CIV III would be trade routes and Outpost (Towers). The major disadvantages would be finding my army, talking with my friends and using the map. I hope CIV IV has a lot of action in it (even when the war is over).

[Toby Rowe]

I've yet to play an MP game, Civ must be essentially a game based on single player- everyone needs space and many strategy games offer that, whilst FP offers both choices.

I heard that Warcraft 3 is online only, so I won't buy it- I play games to relax, not to end up hyper, they lost a sale, but I loved the original.

If you don't offer both choices, you will lose money. [edit: By only appealing to part of the market, not both; single player is harder, oh so much harder than creating pretty graphics, guns and towns in MP]

Human V human? Betcha humans still do the "rushes" we so criticise the programmers for doing in SP strategy games.

Wolves? Sorry for rambling on- I know little of them, except they were demonised by European writers of nipper stories, when I too was a nipper (Hans Christian Anderson etc), whilst the UK ones are gone, foxes are meeker versions of them- kill a lamb, not the mum, but I eat lamb. not mutton, so I'm just as "guilty". Allowing them to return to the UK is great for me.

I wish there was an off-topic section- there is always someone that knows more than me about any subject, I love learning.

Anyway, the companies are trying to maximise income by doing online games only: daft, they are losing SP gamers- How is MP Warcraft? I'll never buy it.

I play a game to relax, like reading a book or taking a walk, definately not to be stressed from it by competing with odd humans that I have to pay for the privalige of meeting.

Best of all- I press the return button once I've done all I want, including making a cup of tea, gone to the loo and answered the phone- all in my turn!!

Toby

[General Ludd]

Originally posted by Toby Rowe

I heard that Warcraft 3 is online only, so I won't buy it- I play games to relax, not to end up hyper, they lost a sale, but I loved the original.

World of Warcraft is online only, but Warcraft 3 can be played singleplayer. It's quite different than Warcraft 2, however, so be warned.

I wish there was an off-topic section- there is always someone that knows more than me about any subject, I love learning.

There is an off-topic forum, and an other games forum aswell. They're towards the bottom of the main list.

[SSBLoveU]

I like the SP versions myself. The MP versions need more development.

I some times wonder where does everybody get all of their food in CIV III. Some foods ought to make people feel better. Also, some troops and workers do their jobs better in geographical areas where they have been training.

[Toby Rowe]

General Ludd,

Thanks for providing the link to the off-topic section- now I can ramble away to myself as much as I please!

I've searched before but couldn't see a link for an off-topic section which is odd.

How is Warcraft 3? (I guess I scanned a review of "World of Warcraft" and assumed it was the follow on for Warcraft 2)

SSB;

I agree about fighting better in different area's- Historically soldiers have always fought better when defending the homeland, whilst lack of geographical knowledge and weather of a nation an aggressor has invaded has often hindered the army.

Didn't a mighty Persian Army founder intially against just 300 Spartan troops for several days until a treacherous goat herder showed the King another unknown mountain pass?

If you are the nation that has declared war on another I think the armies should have a slight reduction in morale, unless a warlike nation. The British troops fighting in the US War of Independence for example had quite low morale as they considered they were killing fellow Englishmen which they naturally disliked.

Assuming Civ 4 factors in morale that is!

Toby