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

[yin26]

Hey Korn:

Well, if you plan to post more here, I'll certainly hang around! I could go on about my reservations with Civ4 as well, but it's similar to yours: some things simply remain too simple (and also played to death) while other "fixes" come with too many question marks until we can see them in the game. So for me, Civ 4 is a definite "wait and see."

But I do come away from this thread a bit surprised at the number of people who really don't want much changed. Fair enough...and I think Firaxis is creating the right game for them.

[korn469]

yin,

I've been lurking around poly for a while now just keeping up with the tidbits of info about civ4 as they dribble out. Depending on how much civ4 entertains me I may post quite a bit in the civ forums. If it's a dissapointment (which I hope it isn't!!!), and I can't mod it to my satisfaction then I probably won't be on too much.

I personally want to see hundreds of changes to the civ formula, but it'd like to see them as additions instead of complete changes. I wouldn't mind if the barely touched the core as long as they added on meaningful new parts. I loved the addition of culture in Civ3, but its implementation left me feeling kind of empty. Granted it was a completely new concept, it just lacked the subltety I wanted. I wanted culture only improvements, cultural specialists, culture bonuses (like for we love days, having the highest literacy etc), and more strategy to culture flipping. So maybe Civ4 will give me enough new things so that I'm quite pleased. To me I want great strategy, deep emersion in the particular game world, and an element of role playing.

Only time will tell though...

[adamguy]

so there are pictures? lets see some pictures of this game guy!

[korn469]

there you go adamguy

http://media.pc.ign.com/media/620/620513/imgs_1.html

[Mahdimael]

Originally posted by 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.

1. I think the upgrades will allow you to specify what a unit becomes- a defender, a besieger, etc. So I'm down with that. The other good thing about the single value is that we're no longer tied to having spearmen always be defenders until pikemen, and so forth.

2. Not much to worry about- it seems like, with 19 tile improvements, you'll be able to make more strategic options. I'm curious about the buildings myself. In fact, I'm curious if it will even be possible to build a "jack-of-all-trades" type city.

3. I wouldn't worry about this. I doubt Firaxis would release a broken game, and simplification is a good thing.

4. Everything is in XML, so just about everything should be moddable.

[sophist]

Originally posted by korn469
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

Or make it so that land can only produce food and the city square produces nothing at all. The idea that labor for construction comes from mines is ridiculous. Citizens allocated to the city radius produce food. You can take some citizens off farming duties and allocate them to production, kind of like the civil engineer specialist in civ3, except it would be the only way to get production and it would be available from the very beginning. Call it a craftsperson or something like that. It sounds like a bigger change than it is. It would be more realistic and would also combat ICS because there would be no free square.

[Kuciwalker]

[QUOTE] Originally posted by 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).

Completely wrong... you have 8 tiles until the city's culture hits ten (five turns of having a temple), at which point you have 20 tiles.

This along with 2 pop settlers was a huge step in the right direction.

It completely eliminated ICS as an exploit.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker

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).

Completely wrong... you have 8 tiles until the city's culture hits ten (five turns of having a temple), at which point you have 20 tiles.

He wasn't speaking about the number of tiles a city has access to, but about the amount of food it needed to gain 1 extra citizen.

[yin26]

It completely eliminated ICS as an exploit.

What?!

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by yin26
What?!

I think he is referring to the fact that, in Civ2, you lost one citizen (1 worked tile) for 2 worked tiles, as you created a settler and founded a new city.
In Civ3, now that you had to spend 2 citizens to get one settler, you traded 2 worked tiles for 2 worked tiles. That exploit disappeared.


However, ICS (or at least: significant early expansion) remained an indispensable strategy. BUt it wasn't an exploit anymore.

[player1]

...and made from it a strategy pursued by both human and AI.



...small step for Civ3.
Big step for Civ4?

[korn469]

Mahdimael

1. I think the upgrades will allow you to specify what a unit becomes- a defender, a besieger, etc. So I'm down with that. The other good thing about the single value is that we're no longer tied to having spearmen always be defenders until pikemen, and so forth.

That system might not be too bad, it's just that it seems like it's made a very simple combat system even more simple in some way. So in the end it almost sounds like it ends up being a wash. Before upgrades we'll have warriors equal 1, spearmen equal 2, archers equal 3, etc. Maybe the upgrades will fulfill my dream of having combined arms play a huge role in combat, if so I'll be a happy camper. I want the person who builds a better balanced army, or a very specifically designed army (excels at a particular tactic) to win over the player who simply has a mishmash of units. I'm afraid though we'll get something where units are so similar that 10 spearmen with the right upgrades can defeat 10 tanks. If that happens I would be very displeased because I completely disliked the very random nature of civ3's combat.

2. Not much to worry about- it seems like, with 19 tile improvements, you'll be able to make more strategic options. I'm curious about the buildings myself. In fact, I'm curious if it will even be possible to build a "jack-of-all-trades" type city.

If it's simply 19 tile improvements that doesn't really add that much to the strategic depth of the game. SMAC had far more tile improvements than civ3, but SMAC's strategic depth more came from SE choices, units, etc than its wide range of tile improvements. I guess that this came from the fact that trees and boreholes was an easy and in most cases optimal strategy. I'm sure that something similar will happen in civ4. Especially since roads don't even grant a commerce bonus (but maybe that's a good thing). If each city can only hold 19 improvements that's a different story. That could provide strategic depth if there was around thirty or so useful buildings. If Civ4 only has like 25 useful buildings then most cities will be jack of all trades cities instead of specialized cities.

3. I wouldn't worry about this. I doubt Firaxis would release a broken game, and simplification is a good thing.

I disagree, I don't think that simplification is always a good thing. I think in most cases it's a bad thing, unless it combats excessive amounts of micromanagement. Though to me, micromanagement is more of a UI issues than a complexity issue.

4. Everything is in XML, so just about everything should be moddable.

You used the word should...lol
All we know is that we'll just have to wait and see. Still I'm hopeful that Civ4 will exceed all of my expectations, but we'll see.

sophist

I've had similar ideas to craftpersons (or you could call them artisans early in the game then laborers later on). Along with tradespersons (aka guildsmen, bankers, stock brokers, or maybe another name), Culture specalist (aka poets, musicians, writers), and all of the rest from conquests. It would add to micromanagement some, but it's a very insteresting idea. I'm not sure if the added hassle of acting as a HR manager for your civ would outweigh the fun or not, but I'd like to try it in a mod.

[yin26]

Spiffor: Thanks for the explanation. As I played Civ 3, I barely noticed a slow-down in my usual ICS strategy...but I suppose technically something was "solved."

[sophist]

Originally posted by Mahdimael

4. Everything is in XML, so just about everything should be moddable.

XML is just data. It can only be used to add or modify things that the designers planned for. That's stuff like stats, names, units, etc., i.e., tweaks and adjustments and extensions of what's already there. More substantial changes will require writing code, but you won't be able to do everything even then.

Originally posted by korn469
I've had similar ideas to craftpersons (or you could call them artisans early in the game then laborers later on). Along with tradespersons (aka guildsmen, bankers, stock brokers, or maybe another name), Culture specalist (aka poets, musicians, writers), and all of the rest from conquests. It would add to micromanagement some, but it's a very insteresting idea. I'm not sure if the added hassle of acting as a HR manager for your civ would outweigh the fun or not, but I'd like to try it in a mod.

It wouldn't be substantially different from Civ3. You can either allocate the citizens yourself or tell the governor to do it, just like how you allocated workers to specific tiles in Civ3.

I think there are actually too many specialists. I'd have farmers, laborers/craftspeople, and entertainers for sure, with possibly scientists and police officers, but definitely not bankers/stock brokers/tax collectors.

[korn469]

I'd like to see farmers (food), artisans/laborers (production), bankers/tax collectors (trade), entertainers/police (happiness), scientists (shields), poets (culture)