What do you feel about cIV?

[Maquiladora]

Originally posted by CyberShy
That's what I said: "almost no one"

You defined CtP 1 and 2 as "civ", not me.

[Shogun Gunner]

semantics.

ctp is a different game...same genre, however different implementation of the same concepts, so no, not civ

[Robert]

Originally posted by Maquiladora


You defined CtP 1 and 2 as "civ", not me.

Yeah, I said that almost no one defines CtP 1 and 2 not as civ. You apparantly are "almost no one"

cIV we're waiting for is Sid Meier's Civilization.
There are more kinds of civilization though.

[Solver]

CtP1 and 2 are civ. They sure have some different concepts, but so does SMAC and every Sid Meier's Civ game. They're all the Great Civ.

[GAZ082]

Originally posted by Myrddin
I'm for change; BUT suspect that a lot of others will be saying 'its not civ anymore' when more information is released

Nonsense! As was said, if you can build cities, research, have diplo and be turn based, is CIV.

There are lots modifications and just some aditions:

Modifications:

- 3d Map.
- Unit stats and levels (instead of 3, rookie, vet and elite, there are like 40 'grades')
- Civics (which is an upgrade from static goverments)
- The usual update to the graphics and game technology to make it a 2005 game instead of a 2001 game.
- More resources.
- Few more civs to choose from.
- Citizens.
- Better AI?

Additions:

- Religion.
- Wondermovies!
_ ...

As you can see, CIV IV is just a good upgrade of CIV III

I'd like to see a Paradox Civilization...

BTW, any news about how many civs can play in a game? 16, all the 19? more?

I have no doubt that you will agree with me that the diplomacy screen should be redesigend to allow a higher number of civs instead of the 8 that were standard in CIV III. 16, 19, 31!!!

[Shogun Gunner]

Originally posted by GAZ082

I have no doubt that you will agree with me that the diplomacy screen should be redesigend to allow a higher number of civs instead of the 8 that were standard in CIV III. 16, 19, 31!!!

If nothing else was done, please address this!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

as an addendum, being able to view to details of your civilization (science, tax, cities, relations with other civs, the info you know about them) while the diplomacy screen is active.

I just end up guessing on strategy at that point because I don't have the information I need to make an educated decision....it's just an educated guess.

[Myrddin]

Originally posted by GAZ082


Nonsense! As was said, if you can build cities, research, have diplo and be turn based, is CIV.

Agreed - which makes CTP 1 & 2 "civ" - which some find debatable

The loss of spy, caravan and fundamentalism from Civ2 to Civ3 causeda lot of anguish on these boards; I think the jump from Civ3 to Civ4 will be bigger and more controversial.

It will not be the concepts that are introduced but how they are implemented - in particular much more of an RTS 'feel' - that will cause the outrage.

[Odin]

I like the new social engineering system to replace the traditional governemnts. I wonder how it would work; something like EU2, prehaps? I also like the new "health" concept that replaces the pollution Whack-The-Mole.

[Robert]

There's nothing wrong with a 'RTS' feel.
In fact I wonder, when will if have a RTS feel? As long as it's turn-based it can never have a RTS-feel.
It can have a strategy-game feel. And I don't care about that.

but no-one can claim this is only a strategy game.
With the expansion of the governament system, the trade sustem (since civ3), the diplomacy system no-one can claim this has a single-minded strategy-game feeling.

[curtsibling]

I hope CIV will never fully give in to the RTS world.

"Build tanks until you win" - Such games mostly stink.

[Addled Platypus]

this would be one consumer who would not buy a "RTS" Civ game

that market is cluttered enough as is

[Spiffor]

I am hyped like a nice little fanboy

Civ4 has several things that I wanted to see (a much better government system, the Mali civ, broker peace between two countries, 3d view). I can think of little potential sources of disappontment.

Besides, Civ4 didn't suffer from the same development problems as Civ3: Firaxis didn't lose half of its team at mid-development this time around. During the Civ3's patching phase, they have learned not to make promises they weren't sure about yet, and I think that's the reason why there has been so little info in the past two years of development.

As a result, I think that pretty much everything Firaxis announces will be true out of the box. This is especially important for modding tools and MP.

Besides, the current team has also learned how useful it is to have a good beta testing (beta testing was one of the main reasons why Conquests was such a good expansion), and that's why they'll try to have the game complete during summer: so that they can have several months for a good beta testing.

[Adagio]

Originally posted by Spiffor
I am hyped like a nice little fanboy

From the beginning I told myself not to have too high hopes about this game and kept telling myself that this game is going to suck even more than Civ3, but the more news I hear about this the harder it is to hate this game so now I have high expectations about it




One more thing I have noticed that wasn't mentioned (AFAIK) is the small icon that points in the direction of the selected unit, so no more hunting around the screen to find the unit

[curtsibling]

My hopes are getting higher each day!

[Robert]

You can tell that the firaxis-guys are very excited about the game themselves as well. They tell us all the details. The enthousiasm jumps out of the interviews! Great stuff!

I'm sure they're browsing these boards and are very happy with our reactions.
During the civ3 development there were huge arguments about if the game would suck or not.

(remember the pessimistic and realistic apolyton clubs in those days)
I'm sure they love this way more!
But it puts more pressure on them to live up to the expections

Well, Soren, I know you're reading this, speak up, am I right or not