Joint production for Civ 4?????

[Toby Rowe]

Hi all,

Ideally I'd like the producers of Civ 4 to link up with producers of the 4 key things Civ 4 has.

1) Diplomacy
2) Combat
3) Trade
4) Nationhood and building.

A joint production with a few Houses could produce the best selling game ever.

1) Diplomacy- Paradox of Sweden, for Europa Universalis
2) No opinion
3) Trade - Patrician 2 by Ascaron of Germany
4) No opinion, but the "Settler" series was good in certain aspects.

The only constant needs to be that for those that dislike micro-management or other things, each option can be turned off BEFORE a game begins, not just in an editor where the entire map is visible.

What do you all think about it?

Toby

[TechWins]

That'd be interesting to see on an entirely seperate game than Civ, but I say stick to the original foundation for the Civ series.

[Toby Rowe]

Nah,

I meant the developers using the input of other developers within the their field to produce Civ 4- for example even the basic diplomacy model of the original Europa Universalis was way better, even back then.

They all earn a profit from a joint production, we all win due to it.

Do we really want another Civ 3 as a "sequel" to Civ 2?

Military wise- I had a think on it- The BBC series "Time Commanders" used a game studio to re-enact famous battles in history, but commanded by Joe public instead- that studio would be my choice.

[TechWins]

What I'm thinking is that those companies might and probably would stray to far off from the Civ feel.

[Toby Rowe]

Hi mate again,

Thanks for the reply, I dunno, I think it was Lion Studios producing "Time Commanders", but simply as they were already making a game that could provide the BBC with the engine needed to create the programme for the two series made thus far on BBC2 in the UK.

I think the only problem is with the seperate AI each might provide, creating a virtual memory requirement way to high for a computer to deal with.

Gathering of Developers begun as a collective of houses, now they think they are God, but combined in the begining, each had a skill to offer another didn't, RRT2 and Tropico was a result, whilst RRT3 is awful.

I do forsee Civ 4 being based upon a national army, whilst milita or minutemen "hold the fort" within the town if the AI decides to attack you for no reason as it does in 3, but not 2 or Civ.

The town is lost, except the temple and the 15 other improvements are destroyed by spears (The German Blitz on London left 40,000 dead, 100,000 buildings destroyed and 1/3rd of the entire "City of London" (offical boundary) destroyed, but the bakeries carried on, as even in a pile of bricks a new kiln can be built, as the mortar will set from the heat alone.

Hopefully in Civ 4, city improvements will not be automatically destroyed, Civ 3 took this wanton abstract level of distruction to a new height, like the Germans tried to in WW2, but that is the only example, and they ended up with a German Coventry (Dresden) as a reply due to it. both really were destroyed sadly.

Bomber Harris said before "The Germans have sown the wind, now they will reap the whirlwind" regarding London, and once Coventry got destroyed.

Armies dont destroy the Bakeries, Churches and markets of a town simply as they are not a target.
So, after my mini rant;

If the house gives the AI of the military to a house known for good AI, then to a house known for being good in diplomacy etc, we might get a real AI we can take pride in, not the constant "furious" attitude the AI enforces in the game.

The Army concept in Civ 3 is good. mitilita for towns might be good, whilst we as players can build as many army groups as we wish, the militia take care of daily policing of a town, and are the only unit allowed as a garrison, although you can station an Army in a town?

Any thought on this?

(mini rant- The Germans now regard Bomber Harris as a war criminal, if so I regard the entire German nation as criminals to allow the destruction of Coventry, Dresden was our reply to that ancient cities' demise.

So shut up Germany and dont ever dare to try to revise the history of that war that brought peace and democracy to all our nations, 60 years and counting.

My old German flat mate had her grandfather fighting it whilst mine did on my side. WWI was stupid, WWII was not, and I won't accept revionists already trying to change it, Bomber Harris was a not a hero, but not a criminal either, he was given a job, and he did it well.

Phew, I've ranted again!!

Do you think the concept of army groups is straying too far from Civ- whilst I assume that no single nation in the world has ever tried to defend all cities- you simply cannot, so if the 2000 years of improvements weren't destroyed once an attack on one of your cities happened, would you still mind if Civ 4 adopted the army concept?

I think it's a winner- National armies did respond to threats on the nation, once an area was lost.

Toby

[Falconne]

The "Time Commanders" series used the Rome Total War engine (as did the History Channel's "Decisive Battles").

The game's strategy map is basically like Civ - the difference is that when a battle starts, it goes into a 3d landscape representing the tile the attack happens, where the sides can go at each other.

Works well for pre-gunpowder warfare, but wouldn't work well towards more modern ages.

[TechWins]

Toby, I actually like that idea of a militia for the town a lot. I think a good way to implement it would be anytime you are in a non-despotism/anarchy government you get 1 militia unit that comes with the town. It could be a 1.1.1 in Ancient, 1.2.1 in Middle Ages, 1.3.1 in Industrial, 1.4.1 in Modern. I just wonder how this might unbalance things, though. It's not a bad idea at the very least to consider.

In Civ3 don't a few buildings not get destroyed if enough buildings were already in the city after it's been taken over? The point to think about is how productive would those buildings be during enemy occupation so calling them destroyed is basically saying you can't benefit from them, even though, in all actuality during the war the buildings never were destroyed. It's moreless an abstract representation.

I have no idea where you were going with that whole Germany rant, btw.

[Maquiladora]

Militia units have already been used in many Call to Power 2 mods, in lots of various ways. Its a good idea.

[TechWins]

Originally posted by Maquiladora
Militia units have already been used in many Call to Power 2 mods, in lots of various ways. Its a good idea.

Would you mind explaining a few of those variances?

[Maquiladora]

IIRC Cradle mod had a militia is created in new cities but cannot move. A similar idea is the "town watch" in Ages of Man:

TOWN WATCH
• If a human player leaves a city empty at the end of
a turn, a special unit is created, the Town Watch.
This unit is a low grade, immobile unit. Building
the Town Watch costs a population point AND
clears the accumulated production of the city, ie it is
forfeited. Also, units that enter a tile occupied by a
Town Watch, cannot move. This is the penalty for
leaving a city empty. You will then have to disband
the Town Watch.

[Toby Rowe]

Sorry Techwins,

The Germany rant was actually me thinking on just why so many buildings do get destroyed once you take a town (If you take it as a "given" that the AI has had as long as you to build them- I never have enough money to spy).

No nation would ever attack a library or Church unless going right back to the Crusades and the Muslim Jihad later, but even then I think the European churches were left intact, as I think the Crusaders left the Mosques well alone as well?, It's simply not a target, so you don't target certain buildings, so why do they cease to exist once you capture a town. (assumming your attack represents an assult on the town) To me it's daft.

On WWII the Germans called the V1 and 2 rockets revenge or vengence weapons, I just think revenge? For what? Starting a World War, or perhaps killing 40,000 Londoners in a year by bombs? What is the Revenge bit meant to mean in London? I live in a flat built in the 1960's on a bomb site which is in Clapham, and 5 miles away from the river and former docks and never an industrial area, vengeance rocket? Pardon? Wasn't 100,000 properties destroyed in the blitz enough ?

Historians or nations that attempt to revise WWII make me angry- Especially if it is the aggressor nation doing it.

I'd like war in Civ 4 to be the serious business it really is, not the almost abstract approach the AI seems to take at the moment- EUII at least gives you some sense of gravitas.

Oops, I think I just ranted again!! Sorry all.:-)

Thanks for supporting the idea of armies whilst only having militia in each town- It will be interesting to see how it will be tackled in Civ 4, If they chose it, it will follow history, and allow the type of battles in Rome:Total War Falconne explained on the Beeb series.

Falconne,

I saw all the recreations of a historical battle in the 12 programmes- none were set in the modern era and were mainly Roman, Greek and Persian- surely the engine could be adapted for the Civ series? Certainly one battle was a Scot-English war, so much later.
If they could license the engine, if it was upto the job, I'd love it.

Trying to do your level best with just two Militia units in a battle screen in a shock unwanted invasion, before one of your Armies managed to get to the scene to then have the big battle would be great fun for me at least. Losing 2,000 years of building improvements when they marched in would not please me!!

Toby:-)

[TechWins]

On WWII the Germans called the V1 and 2 rockets revenge or vengence weapons, I just think revenge? For what?

Revenge from what they thought was the unfair Treaty of Versailles is my assumption. The loss of WWI was blamed on the Jews, and in which case, Hitler was able to use the catalyst for his sadistic, racial motives in killing off the Jews. For an interesting look into sadism and masochism in Fascism you should read Escape From Freedom by Erich Fromm. It's a brilliant psycho-analysis of Fascism, among other items.


Thanks, Maquiladora, for your post; I'll have to comment on it later.

[Max Sinister]

@Toby: I'm from Germany too, and I'd like to say a few things:
First, Hitler was clearly a raving madman, and I hate him.
Second, the bombings of civilian targets were started by Germany first. (The bombings were supposed to make the respective enemy war-weary, but that failed in both cases - people only got angry at the enemy.)
Third, even if you don't want to go as far as calling Harris a criminal, you may have to admit that he used more brutality than a) was necessary (as I said, it wasn't very useful anyway) and b) other Allied commanders. He certainly wasn't as brutal as most Nazi commanders.
Fourth, it's not true that all Germans (or all with a few exceptions) consider Harris a war criminal. Most of them know pretty good what Hitler did and that the Allies liberated Germany. Of course there are some right-wing idiots, but today it seems there are in every country of the world.

[TechWins]

Originally posted by Max Sinister
@Toby: I'm from Germany too, and I'd like to say a few things:
First, Hitler was clearly a raving madman, and I hate him.
Second, the bombings of civilian targets were started by Germany first. (The bombings were supposed to make the respective enemy war-weary, but that failed in both cases - people only got angry at the enemy.)
Third, even if you don't want to go as far as calling Harris a criminal, you may have to admit that he used more brutality than a) was necessary (as I said, it wasn't very useful anyway) and b) other Allied commanders. He certainly wasn't as brutal as most Nazi commanders.
Fourth, it's not true that all Germans (or all with a few exceptions) consider Harris a war criminal. Most of them know pretty good what Hitler did and that the Allies liberated Germany. Of course there are some right-wing idiots, but today it seems there are in every country of the world.

That is a very intriguing perspective to hear from someone of Germany.

[Toby Rowe]

Max,

Sorry for the delay in replying but I was away.

Harris and Britain was forced into ***-for-tat bombing when one single German bomber lost it's way and thought they dropped the bombs over the English Channel on strict jettison instructions both nations had if a bombing run failed.

Churchill was furious and thought Hitler had broken the unspoken agreement.

The next night "Wellington" bombers or similar bombed Berlin on Churchill's orders, then Hitler got furious and the Blitz on London began.

In London just during the Blitz, 100,000 HOUSES were destroyed and 33% of the "City of London" (the tiny borough in London) was destroyed.

Following that the world's first ever recorded firestorm was created in Coventry, Dresden came later.

Air Marshall Harris was tasked with the grim job of replying to firstly Bombers and then V1 & 2's.

His statement "They [the Nazi's] have sown the wind, now they will reap the whirlwind" for Bomber command remains one of the greatest trueism's to me not least as I write from a crap post war flat built on a bomb site.

In the Danish Roskilde festival 10 years ago I was criticising Germans for hiding behind the second war as an excuse for not deploying troops under the UN blue helmet, now the UN is now a metaphor for the League of Nations (a waste of space until reformed).

I'd like modern Germans to firstly stop beating them selves, and secondly rejoin the world, but don't ever try to distort history in order to feel 2% better in the nation level.

No one blames any German living today for WW2, don't blame Harris for doing his job either- revisionist= wallies in this war as Dresden was a clear request by the Russians, who lost 26 million peple, Clearly it rankles me, but so did Coventry and London, as does Dresden and Essen.

After the war, us lot in the UK coined a phrase "sent to Coventry"- it means; ignored by all around you, sent to purdah. (nothing was really left after that firestorm- so the intonnation was going to Coventry meant you were sent to hell)

Techwins,

The treaty of Versailles is now widely accepted as the single factor that led us Europeans straight into WW2, merci (thankyou) France for wanting the Ruhr, and billions of Marks per annum, London is certainly a poorer city in architecture due to that treaty. Also shows how far blame can go- It's over now however......

Who was the diplomat who stated once the treaty was signed It would lead us straight down a path to another war?- I know Woodrow Wilson was pissed off (or, despairing of, perhaps?) with all Europeans, whilst the UK was pissed off with France only in their demands. (which were met by Germany for a bit, untill the depression killed the repayments and the taking of the Rhineland resource wealth proved too much).

The Marshall Plan helped save Europe- but not a single nation repaid the money the US spent- except the UK- we paid for every ear of corn, every bullet the US sent to us, our final repayment was under the Margaret Thatcher government, 50 years later.

In 1946 Britains' Bakeries produced enough Bread to keep German people alive, alongside Britons, and that last unrationed food product became rationed in the UK (rationing of food ended finally in 1954 I think), that is why I get so annoyed when people try to change history and say Harris was a war criminal.

Dresden= Railway marshalling yard; Coventry = Merlin Engines.

Time to get on in the modern world together, not in bitter arguements over 1874 or 1914 or 1944.

Ah, now fixed resources in Civ 3, such that they mean something......;-)

Toby :-)