So Basically We Have Civ 3...but in 3D?

[Solver]

There are better ways to eliminate ICS, I'm sure. I don't like the idea of losing control. It's un-Civvish. Simply have a drawback to doing ICS. Civ3 tried a small step by making Settlers cost 2 pop. I'm sure Civ4 can take a bigger step that will be more succesfull .

[yin26]

http://media.pc.ign.com/media/620/620513/img_2872470.html

I look at this and see that cities are seemingly spread out more (by limitation or player design?). In this case, cities are functioning like city-states. I suspect, though, this is just a human player not using ICS.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by yin26

Eh, you obviously have no clue what the promotions are about if you think they have to do with production bonuses...

You're missing the point. It does some minor X adjustment to some factor Y. I could care less really what the detail of it is because it's a ruse to get some people to think that something exciting is being done to the game. Obviously this tactic works on some people.

Except that it doesn't, and you just are pulling stuff out of your ass. Most of the promotions appear to have pretty powerful effects, many of them giving the unit actual new abilities (such as Medic) or significant enhancements that make them very distinct from others (such as Guerilla).

And I presume that your lack of response to any of my other points is a concession to each of them

[yin26]

Again, missing the point. I don't need to play the game for months to see that the kinds of things there will make little to no difference in the game. You can report back to me in June, 2006 with the same conclusions, if you like. I just like to save time and money.

As for *FINALLY* fixing some of the most God-awfully constructed parts of the game that were dead weight from Day 1, all I have to say is: Get your $50 bucks ready, sucker.

[Kuciwalker]

Again, missing the point. I don't need to play the game for months to see that the kinds of things there will make little to no difference in the game.

Funny, you haven't provided any justification for this. Removal of corruption is a pretty fundamental change, and will obviously make a difference. Same with civics, which I was against before but am tentatively for now that I've seen them.

As for *FINALLY* fixing some of the most God-awfully constructed parts of the game that were dead weight from Day 1, all I have to say is: Get your $50 bucks ready, sucker.

They were dead weight from Day 1 of Civ 1, then.

[kolpo]

Originally posted by yin26

http://media.pc.ign.com/media/620/620513/img_2872470.html

I look at this and see that cities are seemingly spread out more (by limitation or player design?). In this case, cities are functioning like city-states. I suspect, though, this is just a human player not using ICS.

I don't want to be pessimistic myself but when I looked longer at that screenshot noticed I something: the squares are much bigger, but the number of squares between cities seems to be the same as in civ3. Between some cities are only 2 squares.

[Adagio]

yin26 >>
You should try SMAC. The government system Civ4 will use is the same system as they use in SMAC and it does have a huge effect on the game (compared to normal Civ1-3 governments)...

[yin26]

Removal of corruption is a pretty fundamental change, and will obviously make a difference.

I just see things like that making the game easier, actually. If they simultaneously make the game simpler AND more thought-provoking, that's one thing.

They were dead weight from Day 1 of Civ 1, then.

Yes, they were, but when Civ 1 was released those many years ago, it took us a while to beat the system. In other words, the dead weight was much, much easier to ignore because the game was fresh.

but the number of squares between cities seems to be the same as in civ3.

Of course it's too early to say, but if THAT'S going to be the 'solution' to ICS --forcing more distance between cities via tile restrictions-- then we do have a city-state game...which might be interesting, though I wish, then, we were seeing more an emphasis on the state part than the city. Yes, that wouldn't be "Civish."

You should try SMAC.

There were parts of SMAC I thought were innovative and fun (talk about some RPG elements in a TBS!), but overall I think it was a game just outside Brian's grasp. A wonderful failure, let's call it. But one of the things that I liked were those twists on government flavors, if only because it gave me something new to think about. I don't think, however, that this really changed the game all that much.

My concern here, as always, would be: How well can the AI exploit these mechanisms? We won't know, of course, but on the one hand they seem to be eliminating things that are a detriment to the player (corruption, for example) while potentially introducing things (thousands? of political combinations) that are likely to be lost on the AI, which will likely adhere to some pretty simple rule sets.

But on this last point, I'll honestly have to hear reports from the first play testers --I mean game owners!-- when it's released.

[yin26]

You've got 3125 possible government options in Civ4. If that isn't enough stuff to do for you, I don't know what is.

By the way, on this point, I just have to say: And there are 500,000 (and counting) ways to say 'Hello' in the morning, but that doesn't make the event any more challenging or interesting. Makes great marketing, though.

[Solver]

Yin, if churning out Settlers en masse and getting to 15 cities ASAP isn't the dominant strat anymore, ICS will be beaten. If a civ with 8 cities will be able to be strong, ICS will be beaten. If a civ that is not the largest population wise can win, it will be even better.

As for AI handling Civics and that stuff, trust Soren. He's a damn good coder, and did a very good job on the Civ3 AI given that he did it alone and in very little time. This time around, the situation is better.

Mind you, brilliant concepts in a game aren't always a solution. Yes I'm opposed to anything not-Civvish, but that's not why I'm saying that. I mean SMAC. It had a numer of awesome concepts and it was a complex game. The biggest downside of SMAC was the absolute inability of the AI to deal with the game. There were many concepts in the game that the AI didn't understand and use at all, such as supply crawlers, which were at the same time probably the most powerful tool for humans.

If Civ4 fixes the several main problems of Civ - ICS (hopefully fixed), ridicilous combat (appears to be fixed) and the 100 Worker problem (I'm really hopeful) - plus adds some new stuff like religions and civics, it will be very good. If the AI is able to understand those concepts and provide a fair challenge, then we're looking at an excellent game.

[Solver]

Originally posted by yin26
By the way, on this point, I just have to say: And there are 500,000 (and counting) ways to say 'Hello' in the morning, but that doesn't make the event any more challenging or interesting. Makes great marketing, though.

Poor comparison . If it isn't obvious to you that 3125 civic combinations are more fun in gameplay terms than 6 governments, then nothing will help you .

[yin26]

Well, a Civ game with only 8 cities presents its own problems, of course: Civ mechanics are built at the core for the player to be running many cities by mid to late game (this was abused, of course). If the number of cities really is that reduced, I'm even more worried that the rest of the game won't be interesting enough. At least with lots of cities you have to do a least some minimal checking in with your population, etc. Don't get me wrong, though, this tended to amount to little more than dull housekeeping...but at least it ate up time! What would 8 cities play like without robust diplomacy and the rest of it? On this point, I'm going to wait to get people's feedback upon release.

If it isn't obvious to you that 3125 civic combinations are more fun in gameplay terms than 6 governments, then nothing will help you.

O.K., then: The SMAC workshop. How many possible combinations of build? And how fun was it? Worse yet, how well did the computer AI use it?

[Solver]

Well, a Civ game with only 8 cities presents its own problems, of course: Civ mechanics are built at the core for the player to be running many cities by mid to late game (this was abused, of course). If the number of cities really is that reduced, I'm even more worried that the rest of the game won't be interesting enough. At least with lots of cities you have to do a least some minimal checking in with your population, etc. Don't get me wrong, though, this tended to amount to little more than dull housekeeping...but at least it ate up time! What would 8 cities play like without robust diplomacy and the rest of it? On this point, I'm going to wait to get people's feedback upon release.

I didn't say you would be limited to that, but rather that having few cities would be a viable choice. Time taken, hmm. It's not about the quantity, it's about the quality. What fun is it to check 30 cities each turn to see if one of them isn't going to riot? Hopefully in Civ4, you can use your time to really do the fun stuff - improve your cities, do research, etc. And obviously in any Civ game, if you're at war, turns take long, I expect this to still be the case in Civ4 because there's no other possibility.

People's feedback upon release, dammit .

O.K., then: The SMAC workshop. How many possible combinations of build? And how fun was it? Worse yet, how well did the computer AI use it?

Those are not separate issues, it's the SAME issue. The workshop with its many combinations was terrifically fun. The problem was indeed that the AI couldn't use it and went with a few of the same basics designs always. Since you could build units tailored specifically to your needs and the AI could not, it just added to the problem of rolling over the AI with a steamroller on steroids. Yet in MP it's fun because MP opponents could use it. If the Civ4 AI can use the Civ4 civics, it will be good fun.

[Adagio]

Originally posted by yin26

If it isn't obvious to you that 3125 civic combinations are more fun in gameplay terms than 6 governments, then nothing will help you.

O.K., then: The SMAC workshop. How many possible combinations of build? And how fun was it? Worse yet, how well did the computer AI use it?

You've got a point there

But at least we know the government part of SMAC was better than it was in Civ

[MrFun]

I have to leave for work right now, so I can't be arsed to see if diplomacy has already been mentioned in this thread.

But it does seems to me that there is substantial innovation in diplomacy for Civ 4.