PC Zone preview

[Soren Johnson]

Originally posted by Solver
Hi Soren . Great news on that. So will we really have to use different units this time around, or will huge groups of one unit still work perfectly, as previously?

One huge group of just one type is definetly not the way to go in Civ4...

[Solver]

Now I'm very optimistic again .

While you're here, could you comment on game pace? There are those "game speed" options, but so do we get (at "normal" I assume) roughly the pace of previous civ games, ~20 hours on average for most of us I guess.

[Nikolai]

That's a good thing, Soren.

Can you give us any comment on the mod discussion we've had on this forum the last days? To clear up things you know. BTW, you guys will come at E3 I presume?

Aside from that, I want to express my gratitude for you guys obviosuly listening to our wishes expressed on the various forums and lists.

[Soren Johnson]

Originally posted by Solver


Now I'm very optimistic again .

While you're here, could you comment on game pace? There are those "game speed" options, but so do we get (at "normal" I assume) roughly the pace of previous civ games, ~20 hours on average for most of us I guess.

there are three game speeds: quick (mostly for mp), normal (a little faster than Civ3), epic (a bit slower than Civ3)... and of course, it's all configurable via xml, so you can have whatever speed you like. (or some weird hybrid... you could make unit construction really fast but building construction really slow...)

[Nikolai]

Originally posted by Soren Johnson Firaxis


there are three game speeds: quick (mostly for mp), normal (a little faster than Civ3), epic (a bit slower than Civ3)... and of course, it's all configurable via xml, so you can have whatever speed you like. (or some weird hybrid... you could make unit construction really fast but building construction really slow...)

Something like accelerated production in Civ3?

[Solver]

so you can have whatever speed you like. (or some weird hybrid... you could make unit construction really fast but building construction really slow...)

So I guessed correctly earlier in this thread, game speed impacts unit/building construction and such. Yay.

Alright, can't think of any more questions now you could answer... so I'll just say, make sure Helicopters are useful in Civ4 . They always look fun at the very least, so should be useful too.

[Nostromo]

All this sounds very, very good.

[TechWins]

Re: PC Zone preview -lots of new info

[QUOTE] Originally posted by Myrddin
Preview from PC Zone

Written by RTS players so there will be a slant but there seem to be a LOT of changes

>>Game length
>>Aiming to reduce to 400 turns from 550 in CivIII
>>Game speed
>>3 levels - quick, medium and epic

How does slowing down the process of building units and constructing improvements add to the game? It just seems like a bogged down version of Civ rather than making it a more in-depth (epic) game. For instance, the purpose of Caravels will be just as purposeful in the ratio of turns in medium speed as it would be in epic speed, because it relates to the amount of turns not the production ability for each turn. I would like to hear some clarification on this; I could very well be interpreting this all wrong.

>>Victory conditions
>>Spaceship, Conquest, Domination, Culture (with 3 cities with near perfect culture) and Diplomatic

The same victory possibilities but are they the same victory conditions? The Culture one at the very least isn't the same condition, so that sounds somewhat promising.

>>Tech tree
>>'more flexible, .. one tree not split into eras'

GREAT! I hate the restricted Civ3 tech tree as opposed to the free flowing nature of the Civ2 tree.

>>Graphics
>>3D with zoom
>>Much more detail on the landscape eg 'pastures, >>wineries, watermills and windmills all represented in >>detail, ... with smoke billowing from a factory'
>>Style - see previous screenshots

Great for syle points; I think it adds immensely to the game with those miniture details being added, albeit they are graphical details. Plus it is completely necessary for there to be more than the 2 (ridiculous) zoom levels that were in Civ3 -- Civ2 had it perfect with the zoom levels.

>>Interface
>>'familiar to anyone who has dabbled with RTS'

If this means it is more conducive to fluid gameplay I am all for it.

>>Religion
>>7 real world religions; including Christianity and >>Buddhism
>>No religion bonuses but 'associations with certain >>technologies'

This is so much as I would assume in regard to Religion. I thought the other possiblity may be to include religious types (i.e. monotheism, polytheism, et al). I imagine, or rather hope, the modding capabilities will allow for bonuses and disadvantages to be included with a religion.

My guess on the 7 religions at this point would be:
Christianity, Buddhism, Islam, Hinduism, Paganism (Greeks, Egyptians), Animism (American and African), and if not either Confucianism, Taoism, or Shinto (to help include another Asian religion) then Atheism. I don't see Judaism being included, since there likely won't be a Civ to represent the religion. Under the first 6 religions and the 7th being Atheism each religion or religioun type could be represented by a Civ.

>>Resources
>>31

It will be interesting to see the next step forward in the entire resource system.

>>Civs
>>19

There has already been a lot of speculation about this and in fact, it is essentially a moot point.

>>Civ leaders
>>28 including Ghandi, Cyrus and Montezuma; traits are >>associated with leaders
>>Unclear whether you can choose the leader for your >>civ

I like this very much, so as long as the latter statement is determined to be true.

>>Great people
>>5 categories - artist,tycoon,prophet,engineer, >>scientist
>>Probably triggered by city performance in each >>category
>>Benefits available 3 or 4 for each person, including >>culture boost, academies, multiple golden ages,free >>techs
>>Plato, Shakespeare,Newton, Einstein, Michalangelo

This is exactly what I was referring to in the Cultural Icons thread I started. Fantastic.

>>Combat
>>Gain experience points for winning battles, more if >>odds are against them
>>Each level increase allows choice of extra abilities eg >>using enemy roads, bonus attack in cities, moving >>faster in forests
>>'end-up with high-level units with specific abilities'

I like what I am hearing here a lot! The more diversity within the game the better; I just hope the special abilities you can choose are equally balanced depending on each unit.

>>Governments
>>No set government styles
>>Can choose attitude on such items as free markets, >>environment,slavery, conscription, emancipation

I would rather there be a set government and then from there choose specific traits. Democracy - set traits towards being socialist or capitalist ... Monarchy - set traits towards being authoritian or just (lack thereof a better term). Communism - set traits towards being communal or totalitarian. etc...

>>Health
>>Important factor alongside happiness and money

I am assuming this is a step forward beyond the measely system of disease of Civ3.

>>Moddability
>>Good, including AI

Wahooo!

>>Multiplayer
>>LAN, Internet, PBEM and Persistent Turn-Based >>Servers
>>Currently Wednesday nights at Firaxis

Is this included in Civ4 or Civ4: Screw the World?

>>Screenshots include...

I sure would like to see those...

>>Edit - from another thread units have a single >>strength factor not seperate A/D values
>>Scout 1
>>Chariot 4
>>Spearman 4

That is sort of surprising to see. Plus Chariot and Spearman have the same attack value. Adding up the A/D values from Civ3 the Chariot would have a 2 and the Spearman would have a 3. At these current rates for units I'm guessing tanks will have something in the 40-50s range. I suppose that would quell the rarest occurrences of an impossible defeat of a tank from a spearman.

[lillefix]

I just want to answer your question about the length of the game. The single reason for shortening the game is multiplayer. And I think that is a rather good reason.

[Locutus]

The point of shorter games is that they are better for MP.

The point of longer games is that they create longer lasting games, which means the pace of the game lies lower. Building and researching stuff takes longer but there are also more turns, so you get more time to actually use the stuff you build.

The difference for gameplay isn't huge, but it feels very different. Try playing RoN at the highest pace and then at the lowest. Going from the Stone Age to the Modern Age in the space of an hour doesn't feel very epic. Doing so in half a day does (or more so anyway).

Also, on big maps everything goes faster, as you have more cities, more units, more resources, more workers, more civs to trade with, etc. So you have more income, science is goes faster and worst comes to worst you'll reach the end of the tech tree before 500 AD (sound familiar?) Having the option to slow things down in that case would be useful.


Oh, and atheism is not a religion (why do people keep pretending it is?)

[Nikolai]

Originally posted by Locutus
Oh, and atheism is not a religion (why do people keep pretending it is?)

I agree wholeheartily! But from a PR point of view, I think it's a good choice. If not, I suspect Firaxis would face a major riot situation in the Western world unfortunately...

[TechWins]

Originally posted by Locutus
The point of longer games is that they create longer lasting games, which means the pace of the game lies lower. Building and researching stuff takes longer but there are also more turns, so you get more time to actually use the stuff you build.


Oh, and atheism is not a religion (why do people keep pretending it is?)

So there will be more turns availablef or the epic game? If there will be, then I love the idea. I may have missed where that was mentioned.


Of course, atheism, is not a religion, but that does not mean it cannot be used to delegate a nation's particular view of religion. For instance, the United States could be regarded as prodominant Christian nation, and conversely, the USSR could have have been regarded as an atheist view of religion. For the most part, though, atheism would only be needed for Russia at best, and I would think Russia should be considered under the Christian label in Civ4. I'm not sure, myself, what the 7th "religion" will be. The first 6 religions I mentioned will surely have to be included based on the likely to be included Civs. Any ideas yourself on the 7th religion?

[curtsibling]

Originally posted by Nikolai


I agree wholeheartily! But from a PR point of view, I think it's a good choice. If not, I suspect Firaxis would face a major riot situation in the Western world unfortunately...

I think Atheism is to the religions, what anarchy was to the governments in previous versions.

Only I reckon Atheism will have benefits, like the others.

.

[Locutus]

Of course, atheism, is not a religion, but that does not mean it cannot be used to delegate a nation's particular view of religion.

Atheism is the lack of religion. Atheists don't share a view of religion, to say that they do is like saying religious followers (whether Christian or Shinto or indigenous African) share the same views. There as many different kinds of atheists as there are religions or interpretations of religions.

From a gameplay point of view, presumably you don't start with any religion, you have to somehow 'earn' one, by research or gaining great prophets or otherwise. In the early game that could be said to represent the kind of primitive naturalistic religions that tribes had before they developed more sophisticated organised forms of faith. Towards the late game you could have religions (partially) 'obsolete' in some way, and you might end up without religions again: atheism.

I don't know if the game does work that way but it very well could...


As for which religions might be included, the list of possibilities is endless, even excluding cultural-specific religions such as Egyptian, Greek, Viking, Mayan, etc pantheons. But there are about 11 religions that are generally considered 'classical' world religions; Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Bahá'Ã, Zoroastrianism, Buddhism, Hinduism, Jainism, Confusianism, Taoism, Shinto. Add Sikhism to that list (one of the largest religions in the world today) and you have 12 excellent choices. It then becomes a problem of elimination rather than addition

I don't see why the list of religions would in any way have to be related to the list of civs. That's not how it works in the real world. As you pointed out, there are no real atheist nations anywhere in the world today, nor have there ever been (though communist Russia is probably indeed the closest thing to it), yet with well over a billion 'followers', atheism is the 3rd largest 'belief system' today, after Christiany and Islam. For most of history not a single country in the world was Jewish, yet Judaism has for millenia been in the top 10 of the world's largest religions.

[curtsibling]

The religious system seems to allow for many possibilities!

I can see it sort of echoes the government choices of the previous CIV versions.

Mixed with the civics options, CIV4 could offer some awesome gameplay experiences...