CIv4... Beware the planned obsolescence!!!

[ew0054]

Doesn't it say somewhere in the helpfile I believe that there will be by default, two of a resource per civilization on the map?

I think I remember reading that "Each civilization has access to two of the resource"

[Daddy-O]

I don't have a problem with expansion packs. The Civ3 Play The World - I had a problem with. Actually it was the lack of multiplayer included in Civ3 that bothered me. Expansions are usually good things. Of course they are planning Civ4 expansions. Why wouldn't they?

Maybe there will be a "Civ4 - Play the Globe" expansion where we can play on a true 3D globe instead of a tube.

Just wait until Civ4 Complete. Then you won't feel ripped off.

Wait until it's in the $10 bin and you can feel like you are sticking it to the man!

Capitalism is good. Expansions are good.

[ew0054]

Just wait until Civ4 Complete. Then you won't feel ripped off.

Wait until it's in the $10 bin and you can feel like you are sticking it to the man!


I couldn't agree with your more on that one! Hehe.





Maybe there will be a "Civ4 - Play the Globe" expansion where we can play on a true 3D globe instead of a tube.


I would imagine this game could be like Tetrisphere for Nintendo 64, in which a flat playing area was mapped onto a globe. It should look like that when you zoom out fully, being able to see about half of the world.

[Changmai Beagle]

First - I think we should get both coconuts and bamboo as resources. If you get both, and the great leader "the Professor" - you can build any unit. (There, I've gone and spoilt a great Easter Egg).


Second - and more on point - there are several games where I have advocated expansion packs to add features that I think could take the game to a new level, and possibly reinvigorate it in the market. One is Paradox's Victoria - good game (IMHO) that didn't sell well and has a few flaws and potential changes that could make it great. I'd pay for that.

Third - What I'd really like to see in expansion packs is potential plug-ins. An expansion pack that provided stacked combat (a la CTP - heresy, I know) is one I might buy. (And, yes, I know how hard it would be to do that in a game not designed for it from scratch, and balance it, and include it in the AI.......)

[Addled Platypus]

Originally posted by Dr Zoidberg
Shogun, since you built a play room for yourself in the basement, wouldn´t it be a shame to not play the smoking hot Civ4?

and send a photo again...

X-mas is just +/-6 months away for me


I know what I want

[Paddy]

That room of the Gunner's is awesome indeed

[Dale]

Originally posted by Changmai Beagle
Third - What I'd really like to see in expansion packs is potential plug-ins. An expansion pack that provided stacked combat (a la CTP - heresy, I know) is one I might buy. (And, yes, I know how hard it would be to do that in a game not designed for it from scratch, and balance it, and include it in the AI.......)

Huh! I doubt this will be in any expansion pack. Personally, I feel it should be in the release. Doesn't have to be the default option, but maybe a selectable option?

But I suppose, who'd play with stacked combat on if it was available, or would everyone still play the normal 1-on-1?

Dale

[Shogun Gunner]

There have been great debates on the subject of stacked combat. IIRC, more voted for stacked combat, however, clearly a poll on Apolyton is not statistically sound. Additionally, the implementation of such a feature would be critical to success of the game. I doubt that both options would be included. Since combat is an important part of the game, that essentially create two versions of the game.

Not exactly an optional feature....it has to be one way or the other. From the released screen shots, it looks like we are still with 1 on 1 combat.

[Nikolai]

Thankfully. The CTP2 implementation was one of the major drawbacks of that game IMHO. So much problems with it...

[Solver]

Thankfully. The CTP2 implementation was one of the major drawbacks of that game IMHO. So much problems with it...

Like what?

[Nikolai]

It was pretty bad implemented. It required much more MM than it should, and sometimes I had to empty all units and then add the ones I wanted to have it work as it should. CTP2 is a good game to a degree, it reminds me of Civ2, with a few major differences in game mechanics here and there. But some things, as this, makes the game much worse and less fun than it should have been.

[Commander Bello]

Originally posted by Nikolai
It was pretty bad implemented. It required much more MM than it should, and sometimes I had to empty all units and then add the ones I wanted to have it work as it should. CTP2 is a good game to a degree, it reminds me of Civ2, with a few major differences in game mechanics here and there. But some things, as this, makes the game much worse and less fun than it should have been.

I disagree to a certain extent.

O.k., the interface was not optimal, but after having got used to it (which took just one or two games) it was an easy going to adjust your little army to the next task.

I will admit that the AI didn't cope with it very good, but hey, in Civ it even doesn't handle the 1-1 combat good.

As far as I see it, CTP1/2 successfully adressed a lot of "problems" of the Civ franchise. Not that it would have been perfect.
Nevertheless, adopting some of its features and aligning them to what makes Civ so interesting and (hopefully) unique would benefit Civ4.

[Solver]

I will also agree that sometimes it was a pain to create stacks you wanted, and there were, in fact, much worse problems with the CtP2 combat system, but overall, I prefer it by far simply because it gives more sensible combat results. 5 Knights attacking a Pikeman kill him outright, which is how it should be.

[Modo44]

Originally posted by Solver
5 Knights attacking a Pikeman kill him outright, which is how it should be.

And some of them should die in the process, a Pikeman being what he is (Knight-killer, when on defense). This is different to Civ how exactly (no, I do not know CtP)?

[Solver]

5 Knights to one Pikeman shouldn't have losses, realistically. In Civ3, it can well cost you 3 Knights, and the ridicilous part is that Knight #1 attacks, as Knights #2-#5 stand by and do nothing, and then Knight #2 attacks...