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

[Adm.Naismith]

Originally posted by GeoModder
I think that's the purpose of the 'wild animal' units, to make unguarded settlers move into the wilderness a hazard.

Very good point.
IMHO wild animals should be unrelated to the starting game setting about barbarian presence, but may be more related to kind of terrain and density of cities versus unexplored terrain.

[LDiCesare]

I wonder whether the Civ4 ai will behave like civ3, where it knows the map and resources beforehand, and whether that can be modded out. This single behaviour killed the game for me. That and late game workers tedium.
Back to Yin's comment that Firaxis' Civ is dead, I'd like to say that Stardock would like to make a Master of Magic 2, so there's still hope we get some new TBS games from companies which didn't have anything to do with the initial game. But then CtP had nothing to so with Civ and wasn't very successful.

[Terra Nullius]

Originally posted by GeoModder
I think that's the purpose of the 'wild animal' units, to make the wilderness a hazard.

[IMG]C:\Data\My Pictures\Kitten-Duck.jpg[/IMG]

??

[Adm.Naismith]

Originally posted by lebensraum
[IMG]C:\Data\My Pictures\Kitten-Duck.jpg[/IMG]
??

There is a screenshot about civilopedia units page. If you check by yourself clicking here you can see the first few units are wild animals, like bear, lion, wolf.
Anyone is supposing they will be early "barbarian", dangerous for undefended settlers wandering in search of a good founding city place.

[Willem]

When you guys going to learn not to feed the troll?

[Adm.Naismith]

Originally posted by Willem
When you guys learn not to feed the troll?

Hmmm, to me it seems the face of Gollum, not a troll.
Trolling is a different kind of action, AFAIK. That can be a poster looking for higher post score.

[Jack_www]

I have seen the screen shots and the graphics look dumb to me. I dont think Civ 4 will be all that great.

[Zoid]

The grapics can be altered with the zoom function. And besides, you can mod it to your hearts desire. The gameplay will also be vastly different as seen in other threads. I´m cautiously optimistic

[Dis]

Originally posted by yin26
If ICS isn't still the dominant strategy in Civ 4, then I'll eat (at least part) of the cardboard box! And if combat isn't as dull as ever, I'll eat more parts!

The question, of course, is: "But if you 'fix' these things, is it still Civ?" Maybe not, but then I just have to say that what was exciting and new a decade or more ago will naturally be (by many people) run through the paces until there's no more blood to be squeezed from the rock. So I guess that's what we have: More of the same, and for those of you who can't get enough of it, great!

Since you asked, I'd make the battle portions of Civ 4 real-time or do something like you see in Heroes of Might and Magic. You know. Give me something TO DO once the battle actually starts! I'd also introduce some kind of other limitations (like the number of people allowed in your royal court in Knights of Honor) to make it logically more difficult to wage world-wide wars so effectively. Then I'd do something like you see in Supreme Ruler 2010 where you can appoint cabinet members who have specific political leanings, which can be of use during specific political turmoils.

The theme there is: Make me think a little more! That's all I'm saying. The core of Civ is great, but we figured this thing out a LONG LONG time ago!

real time! heretic!

I hate real time strategy games on a global scale. Stupidest concept ever.

I've used this example before. But did George W. Bush have mere split seconds to plan the Iraq war? No, he was planning it since he took office. It shouldn't take twitch reflexes to plan a war. Tactically, yes some battlefield commanders need to improvise their tactics on a dime. But on a global scale, this isn't realistic.

[yin26]

Two things:

1.

or do something like you see in Heroes of Might and Magic.

2. Your lack of gaming flexibility is your own problem.

[LDiCesare]

I'd not like a combat that would take more time than it currently does, or, at most, than CtP. Real time I'd not play either, but having some combined arms system (CtP), or an optional minigame for combat (a la Master Of Magic) would be interesting. But it looks like it's going to ve Civ3 with less tedium like indeed.

[korn469]

I know that ICS is one of the biggest problems in the entire Civ series, but Civ3 did make an effort at trying to fix the underlying mechanics of ICS. Maniac was correct in his assessment of ISC for all of the civ games (including SMAC/X) except for civ3.

In civ3 the city size (town, city, metro) determined the size of the food box. A flat 20 for towns, 40 for cities, and 80 for metros (i'm going on memory alone so I might have the numbers wrong). This along with 2 pop settlers was a huge step in the right direction. I wouldn't mind if they took the food box and made it flat for all city sizes though. In the Blitz mod I changed the cost of settlers to 3 pop, and that really did discourage ICS. The AI couldn't completely cope with the change though, because it would waste turns of production trying to build settlers in size 3 towns that couldn't make a settler until they hit size 4.

ICS still exists because of a few things:

1. Control: 10 size 1 cities don't have to worry about unhappy citizens compared to the effort it takes to police 1 size 10 city.

Possible fixes: Civs get a certain percentage of happy citizens based on demographics instead of number of cities, or cities don't get free happy citizens (this would require military units as part of the basic start)

2. Production: Because of the base square, 10 size 1 cities can outproduce 1 size 10 city unless it has all of the factories etc.

Possible fixes: Make the base square produce a percentage of the city's overall production, or have each citizen add a bonus to the base square
for example: size 1 city, 1-1-1, size 2 city 2-1-1, size 3 city 2-2-1 and so on

3. Upside swing: Despite having a fixed size food box or not, 10 size 1 cities will have far more potential for explosive growth than 1 size 10 city

Possible fixes: none, ICS should retain some strategic advantages

4. Support: Civ3 fixed this to an extent with global gold support for units instead of city based shield support

5. Growth: Civ3 fixed this to an extent with fixed size food boxes

6. Expansion Costs: It was still a little cheap for me in civ3 even with 2 pop settlers, but it was better than in all previous civ games...

[yin26]

Good posting, as always!

[korn469]

Still though, I do look forward to playing Civ4 (I just hope it will run on my machine, if not hopefully I'll have enough cash by then to upgrade to a better computer). I have four things that make me hesitant about Civ4 though.

1. Combat sounds overly simplified. Adding firepower back was good, as was the upgrades; however, I'd have liked other stats like armor (reduces firepower), rate of fire (ability to attack multiple times in a single round of combat), and possibly other stats added to the mix. I would like to see some expensive high armor units like tanks need a high firepower counter (bazooka), while cheap low armor units like infantry need a high rate of fire counter (machine gun).

2. Limitations on strategic choices. Same complaint as in Civ3. Will we run out of improvements to build? Will all units and governments basically be the same (regardless of how many combos we may have...2000 choices of the same thing isn't a choice at all)? Will improvements have pros and cons or will it be like in civ3 where you would build the exact same structures no matter which final victory strategy you were following.

3. Will removing corruption, riots, pollution, etc simply decrease micromanagement or will it break the game?

4. Will modders actually have the ability to change almost everything or can they only change stats?

Guess I'll find out when I play it, but those are my worries.

[korn469]

thanks yin, ps long time no see