What's in Civ4. Just the facts, ma'am.

[Solver]

Sure, it can be fun without huge complexity. Complexity is why I have EU2 here somewhere, and why I like CtP, and why I look forward to AoM. Still, it would be nice to have Civ4 more complex. After all, Firaxis games can be complex too. Take SMAC, which is pretty complex! In fact, its complexity was even a drawback, as the AI was absolutely unable to deal with several concepts (making SE choices to harm itself, designing the same units, not using Crawlers, making poor use of air units).

Civ4 can be complex, and I'm hoping for that. Heck, if they've revised the Civ2/3 combat model, it will already add complexity, and for good. After all, complexity is a part of what makes a game Civ.

Well, at least what I am sure of is that Civ4 will be more complex than many other games on the market, AoE3 and the like.

[Brent]

I guess the complexity I want is different from the complexity that is often assumed. What I want is options. I want a one-session game to be as fun as in GalCiv. I can handle playing for several sessions, but I don't want a game to last more than two months no matter how frequently I play during that time. I want the game to do a variety of stuff in the background, but I don't want to micromanage much. Or at least I don't want to have to. More complex could be nice for a multisession game, but see above re: GalCiv. SMAC complexity is perfectly fine, I even seem to remember having fun on the smallest world size. I never did Social Engineering. Civ4 Combat could stand to be a little more complex than previous Civ games. Just so it's abstract.

[Solver]

Two months? That's a lot indeed. My games of Civ3 were around 20 hours I think... so maybe 4 days with 5 hours a day. In CtP, I have somewhat longer games, don't know how much in terms of hours, but there it usually takes me over a week for a game.

I've not played GalCiv... what is about it that makes one-sessions good? Mind you, I think this is one of the addictive parts about Civ, that you can't finish a game in one session, usually, and need several.

[Locutus]

Originally posted by Solver
Take SMAC, which is pretty complex!

Which is why it's called Alpha Centauri and not Civilization: The Next Planet or something like that And also why it 'only' sold a few hundred thousand copies, like EU and CtP and all those other complex strategy games...

Well, at least what I am sure of is that Civ4 will be more complex than many other games on the market, AoE3 and the like.

That depends just on what games you compare it to. Compared to most RTS and FPS games, yes. Compared to other (semi-)TBS games, probably not...

I agree that the combat model is the one feature in Civ that is most in need of a bit more complexity, but frankly I don't really see that happening in Civ4 (but we'll have to see how the whole RPG experience thing works out)...

[Brent]

My Civ3 games were probably never longer than 25 hours. Maybe five or six hours once or twice a week for one month should get me through the longest possible game.

The thing with GalCiv may simply be the feel. I guess you can feel like you're doing more in less time. Maybe it has something to do with units moving and fighting in less time, or just plain shorter turns.

[Solver]

And they've said that they're looking at the combat model to make something different to it, which is good in the end, I guess. Also, Firaxis probably understand that if they go further along the route of decreasing complexity, it might sell them some more copies, but it will also anger many of the hardcore fans. None of us want Civ4 to drop to the complexity level of RTS games.

[ozmono1914]

Experience

[QUOTE] Originally posted by lajzar


Experience gained in combat only lasts a generation. The extra power of these elite units would be better reflected as different unit types, with higher stats and possibly higher maintenance.



Not true experience gained in battle is used to better prepare future generations for the ordeals of the past. Older tactics that worked well are more intensely trained while tacitcs that didn't work are disregarded or improved on and innovations from the battle field are bought into standard practice

[Robert]

Are the screenshots posted somewhere already?

[Swissy]

The RTS type interface just confirms my belief that Civ4 is being designed as a MP game from the ground up. The other simplifications talked about by Soren also point to this. Internet play is a must for any game that wants to be a bigtime success. Take a look at the Gamespy games listings and you'll see the best selling games have hugh MP followings. After all, its all about making a buck in the end

[Japher]

It has also been reported that the combat model has been tweaked such that the ancient Spearman vs Tank problem will no longer occur in Civilization 4.

What! That's an outrage!

[DRoseDARs]

The assault on Traditional Values (tm) continues...

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by CyberShy
Are the screenshots posted somewhere already?

You can find them some places if you use google searching.

The initial wailing and gnashing of teeth over the first screenshot released appear to be unfounded. Having seen a more recent one, it looks like the game is going to be graphically wonderful.

[Peter Triggs]

Not all that surprising given that Mustafa Thamer, Civ4's Lead Programmer, used to work for NDL, the makers of the Gamebryo 3D graphics tools and engine used by Civ4. In fact way back in 1992, he was credited with:

Dimensions NDL staff members Greg Gilley, Brice Tebbs and Mustafa Thamer develop a revolutionary, resolution-independent method of 3D shading and rendering for illustration in Adobe Dimensions.

Thamer's Firaxis Bio describes him as "a tech visionary", so I think it's safe to assume that Civ4's graphics will be state of the art.

edit: spelling

[Robert]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov


You can find them some places if you use google searching.

sorry, can't find them. Did a very deep search. Can you pm any link? Or e-mail me?

CyberShy

[Nikolai]

Same here.