What do you feel about cIV?

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Shogun Gunner


You are bound to get some responses for this comment!

Many people equate workers and caravans with micromanagement.

Me personally, I think both add character to the game.

I'm fine with workers -- they add something to the game, I agree.


But I deplore the inclusion of caravans. They were just ridiculous, IMO.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Adagio
Workers adds something to the game, while caravans only adds annoyance

wow -- same thoughts I posted but just didn't notice before posting

[Robert]

Workers are so typically civ! Please don't remove them.
But make it possible to automate them at least as good as in cIIIv, or even better!

Perhaps workers shouldn't cost one population point. I mean, why should a spearman not cost a city a population point, while a worker has to? That a settler costs a city 1 population point is logically, since a bunch of people leaves the city to found a new one.

[MrFun]

The reason that workers cost a population point is that they are so versatile, being capable of a multitude of different tasks that improve the infrastructure of your civilization.

I know that doesn't fit with your logic in that workers do not leave to found a new city, but at least in Civ III, they can leave to found a new colony.

[curtsibling]

I wonder what people have against merchant caravans?
It is not as if they haven't been a part of history...

They have more right to be in the game that workers, which
are too fiddly and use up extra computer power to automate.

Combine settlers and workers as one, I say!

Though, with the game being simplified -
We might see workers and caravans going!

But I will stay hopeful - I want my merchants!

[Shogun Gunner]

Mr. Fun reminds me that the colony concept should be improved. Perhaps giving a colony a radius like a city square, but with no opportunity to expand it as no city infrastructure can be built....somehow the colony should be eligible to become a city...

[curtsibling]

I agree - A colony should be more of an importance!

[Trifna]

Caravans:
Galactic Civilization has somethign we could call "caravans" and it works very well without the annoyance (and they said they inspire themselves of some other games' innovations). Well implemented trade could be great if well done, so we'll see

But I'd like to know: will it be possible to attack them and take the bounty?

[MrFun]

Originally posted by curtsibling
I wonder what people have against merchant caravans?
It is not as if they haven't been a part of history...

They have more right to be in the game that workers, which
are too fiddly and use up extra computer power to automate.

Combine settlers and workers as one, I say!

Though, with the game being simplified -
We might see workers and caravans going!

But I will stay hopeful - I want my merchants!

I'm all for realism as long as its reasonably balance with playability and fun factor.


And I say that caravans, while they would add to realism, is something that takes away the fun.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Shogun Gunner
Mr. Fun reminds me that the colony concept should be improved. Perhaps giving a colony a radius like a city square, but with no opportunity to expand it as no city infrastructure can be built....somehow the colony should be eligible to become a city...

Or how about the more developed/mature a colony becomes, there becomes a small chance that it could revolt and become an independent small state.

[Xorbon]

Originally posted by MrFun
I'm all for realism as long as its reasonably balance with playability and fun factor.

And I say that caravans, while they would add to realism, is something that takes away the fun.

It depends on how they're implemented. In the past versions of Civ, there were three problems with caravans that I can recall.

1) Poor pathfinding when using 'goto'.

2) No stacked movement. When you wanted to send a stack of caravans to the same city, you'd have to move each one at a time.

3) The time required to check supply/demand. In Civ 2, when a caravan was built, you'd have to choose what good it carried. Then to maximize your profit, you'd have to check which cities demanded that good. From those cities you'd pick the one that would give the biggest trade-per-turn bonus. This involved a lot of micromanagement, and was a big pain.

Now, problems 1 & 2 no longer exist as of Civ 3. Problem 3 could be removed through better implementation. Hopefully, the idea of city-to-city trade will be totally revamped.

[Myrddin]

I believe it will be a good game but am not sure it will be "civ":

Removing fixed governements offers a lot of opportunities BUT means that all the things that are keyed to governements now, like tile bonuses/penalties, rush-builds, military police, unit support, war weariness will have to be addressed in other ways

Combat will be completely different. Also the comments about reducing micromanagement, not using large stacks and the focus on unit promotions imply far fewer units in a civs military

Tile improvements highlighted so far which seem to link to specific resources, like wineries, imply fewer, larger improvements (and so less micromanagement)

Comments about everything being visible on the main map andless micromanagement, imply removing the city screens and how do you reassign city workers?

It looks to me as though it will have a lot of "civ" heritage, out of the box it may not feel like "civ"

[Modo44]

Originally posted by Myrddin
Removing fixed governements offers a lot of opportunities BUT means that all the things that are keyed to governements now, like tile bonuses/penalties, rush-builds, military police, unit support, war weariness will have to be addressed in other ways

Remember that advanced Civ3 players often consider more than one government change a waste of time. And even if another change is made, some (of the already few) governments just suck, and you never use them. This makes the choices the game presents pretty boring, basically stripping it of one of its depths.

I think most people who have played SMAC will tell you the flexible choices are much more fun. They allow you to produce mixes the designers did not even imagine (like a democracy running planned economics, not free market ) while keeping the possibility for very different government forms to evolve. In SMAC, policy choices stay interesting throughout the game, and a short switch is something that does happen. This adds considerable depth to the game.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Xorbon


It depends on how they're implemented. In the past versions of Civ, there were three problems with caravans that I can recall.

1) Poor pathfinding when using 'goto'.

2) No stacked movement. When you wanted to send a stack of caravans to the same city, you'd have to move each one at a time.

3) The time required to check supply/demand. In Civ 2, when a caravan was built, you'd have to choose what good it carried. Then to maximize your profit, you'd have to check which cities demanded that good. From those cities you'd pick the one that would give the biggest trade-per-turn bonus. This involved a lot of micromanagement, and was a big pain.

Now, problems 1 & 2 no longer exist as of Civ 3. Problem 3 could be removed through better implementation. Hopefully, the idea of city-to-city trade will be totally revamped.

Actually, I don't think even problem three exists in Civilization III. It's not that big of a deal for me to check which civilization demands which goods, because I don't have to check city-by-city -- the information pertains more broadly to each civilization, simplifying keeping track of demand.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Modo44

Remember that advanced Civ3 players often consider more than one government change a waste of time. And even if another change is made, some (of the already few) governments just suck, and you never use them. This makes the choices the game presents pretty boring, basically stripping it of one of its depths.

I feel the same way. When I play a game of Civilization III, I ALWAYS go through the same government transition route in this order:

depotism

monarchy

republic

democracy