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

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Spiffor

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.

Exactly.

[Maniac]

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).

Ah thanks for correcting me - I didn't know that. (Which is only logical knowing that I sold my civ3 copy after playing only half a game. )

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Spiffor
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.

[Maniac]

Originally posted by korn469
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 have to disagree - personally I think the terraform choices do add to SMAC's strategic depth. And while a good strategy, only forest and boreholes is far from the most optimal. A lot depends on your technology level and social engineering choices. Early on you can't build boreholes yet, and farms are important for growth. Later on tree farms and hybrid forests make planting forests more attractive, but these base facilities come at a high cost, so you have to consider if it wouldn't be more profitable to go for an 'advanced' terraforming strategy instead and cultivate condenser farms everywhere - those farms becoming even more attractive due to habitation dome restrictions and advanced in nutrient production such as soil enricher. In what terraforming strategy is best, other factors play along. Such as whether you're aiming for to maximize your workers on the field (good if you're running free market) or aim for a specialist strategy (good for eg the Hive). Then there are other neat terraforming feats such as an energy park, rows of echelon mirrors and solar collectors to harness as much energy as possible in a single super science city.

This just to give an example terraforming does add to the strategic choices available in SMAC.

[Mahdimael]

Originally posted by korn469
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.

As I understand it, the power values vary widely. So a warrior might have a power of 1, a spearman might have 4, but a tank has 100. Therefore, even a highly upgraded spearman would have difficulty beating a tank.

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.

I believe that a number of the tile improvements were resource-specific, and it would be nice to see some of the buildings to be the same way (like the rare iron works in civ 3). I agree that buildings should have trade-offs.

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.

It depends- I never liked micromanaging workers to clean up pollution. And when was civil unrest a problem? You start your turn, it alerts you that you have civil unrest, you go into the city screen and make an entertainer, maybe change to a happiness building- next turn you're fine. That's useless micromanagement.

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.

Just like any game, the more you want to change a game, the more tools you're going to need to know- at least Firaxis is making the most-often modified things more easily modified

[LDiCesare]

And when was civil unrest a problem? You start your turn, it alerts you that you have civil unrest, you go into the city screen and make an entertainer, maybe change to a happiness building- next turn you're fine. That's useless micromanagement.

Well, Civ2, Democracy: You have unrest in one city. You correct it. Next turn, city grows, and the new citizen is unhappy. Big problem, but more of a micromanagement nightmare than anything else (small mistake in management of one city ruins the whole civ for up to 3 years). So civil unrest was a problem.

For those who mentioned xml: xml is just text format. The interesting stuff is actually Python. This should let us do some real changes if there are the good handles like "wonder built", "what's being built" and such.

[Terra Nullius]

Originally posted by Adm.Naismith
There is a screenshot about civilopedia units page. you can see the first few units are wild animals, like bear, lion, wolf

nasty, nasssty willem. not like nice adm.naismith.

clever adm.naismith knows the yellow face turn trollses to stone. not lebensraum. no precious. but it burns us! precious it does. gollm. smelly, stupid willem!

ach, hsss
*ooh! a furball that'll come in handy

linkage
gotcha! i think a saw that a while ago and forgot about it. that is gonna be fun. can't wait to feed my first settlers to the wolves!

lions and tigers and bears, oh my!
lions and tigers and bears.
lions and tigers and bears, oh my!
we-e-'re off to see dick smith..

[Sarxis]

Probably end up buying this one too, even if Yin's predictions are true. What's the alternative? Where's the competition? Firaxis has a veritable monopoly on historic TBS right now.

[Darkstar]

Originally posted by Spiffor
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.

LOL! Are you serious? Changing the number of citizens lost when making a settler did not destroy the value of ICS. ICS depends on:

* Bonus product that 2 cities of size 2 work more then 1 city of size 4
* 2 production queues from 2 size 4 cities are better then 1 production queue from 1 size 8 city
(Bonus issues)
* 2 cities of size 4 are easier to control then 1 city of size 8.
* 2 cities do better at restricting the enemy from easy access to future resources then 1 city

Changing the number of people lost from a city making a settler doesn't change ICS. Changing it so that a city doesn't get any bonus resources (the "free" city tile in all previous Civ series games) is what stops ICS in its biggest power. However, as long as you only get more production output by building more cities means you'll always need to ICS. Add in the strategic value from using cities to "reserve" your future land and denying the computer the use of that land, as well the other bennies, and ICS will always be around.

Now, fix it so you can have the 7 cities of the Federation be able to match the output of the 26 cities of the Horde, and you'll finally be looking at the end of ICS. Until that day happens though...

[Aro]

Originally posted by lebensraum


gotcha! i think a saw that a while ago and forgot about it. that is gonna be fun. can't wait to feed my first settlers to the wolves!

Now we're talking.

[Aro]

Originally posted by Darkstar

Now, fix it so you can have the 7 cities of the Federation be able to match the output of the 26 cities of the Horde, and you'll finally be looking at the end of ICS. Until that day happens though...

Specialized cities, as told by developers?

[yin26]

Hi Cyber (I don't want to hijack that other thread):

two simply questions: do you really think that civ4 is close to civ1/2/3 after the list I just made?

- the combat system is different. no a/d values. Units specialise through promotions. Different units are needed in different terrains. Different units are needed against other different units.

But don't you find the core combat system terribly dull? It's antiguated. CtP did it better. So, no, I don't find those things that significant. Nice, sure, but not significant.

- the resource system is totally new from civ 2 (you call it 2.7, remember) and expanded from civ 3. The idea of needing resources to build improvements, wonders, units, brings a total new dimension to civ. So does the idea of luxerious resources that make people happy. Add the trade of resources to this and you have a complete new idea and concept that makes civ 4 #4 almost by itself

But weren't there some serious problems with the resource model in Civ 3?

- religion.

Seems like surface stuff to me. Anyway, too hard to tell this early.

- culture

We had this before. It's good.

The idea that your citizen are just citizen who're all alike (from civ1 / civ2) is totally gone. Suddenly your citizen belong to cultural groups and to religions. YOu have please different citizen in different ways, mostly on state level (not more micromanagement)
This brings diplomacy on a total new level. This is a total new concept from civ1 / civ2 and the way it's been implemented makes it totally new then in civ3 (for sure with religion added to it)

I don't understand what this really means. So no comment.

- social engineering. enough has been said about this. I want to add that the governamental decisions you make even affect your neighbours. Again a total new concept.

This has some promise. The SMAC model was interesting.

- different terrain improvements for different resources is totally new

But will this be a tedious thing, will it add to strategic thinking without a lot of hassle?

- the idea of borders is new in civ 3 and further developped in civ 4. This is a huge department from civ1 / civ2. Apparantly for sure since the crossing of borders now is an act of war while in civ3 you had to declare war to someone who crossed your border. A huge improvement from civ3 and a total new concept from civ1 / civ2

If they fixed this problem, it will be important. I agree.

- the trade system is totally different from civ1 / civ2 again. The idea behind the resources is a huge new concept.

Again, I still recall problems in Civ 3 with this.

- the health system is a total new concept, a huge change from the old polution concept. For sure since food can be traded as well!

I'm playing Age of Man, which has some clever ways to deal with health. I can't comment on the implementation here.

- diplomacy is in civ3 and civ4 totally different then in civ1/2.

Again, how will it function in-game? Diplomacy in almost all these types of games is really, really hard to get right.

- the new concepts with multiplayer are huge. locked alliances, dedicated game server. pbem games that can be continued real time.

Yes, this is huge.

and again: if you aren't waiting for a civ sequel, why are you here?

I am waiting. I just want to be challenged by the game in strategic ways, not more predictable busy work. Some of the things you mentioned are very promising. Most seem fluffy or totally no way to say without trying them yet. The net result for me now is caution. I still think the vanilla release will be in the 7.0-8.0 area with room for improvement.

Oh wait, another question: weren't you one of the people who were angry because Firaxis moved on with civ3 and removed the ancient civ2-wonder movies from civ3?

I don't recall that. I can tell you my answer now: I'd rather have them spend time and money on gameplay and not on movies that you skip after seeing them once. I liked the movies well enough, mind you, and it's great if you have them, but only if the rest of the game is great.

By the way, thank you for asking me serious questions. I hope you feel I gave serious answers. And I'll just leave you with this thought: If it's too early for me to be pessimistic, then it's too early for you to be optimistic. I'm happy to wait for more evidence. How about you?

--Yin

[Aro]

Well, Yin, your friendly, neighborhood negative cosmic force is becoming more soft, more reasonable, more... Yang.
Or am I just being naif?

[Aro]

Just kidding.
I am loving the discussion. Learning a lot.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Darkstar
LOL! Are you serious? Changing the number of citizens lost when making a settler did not destroy the value of ICS.

I never said it does, and neither did Spiffor. It destroyed ICS as an exploit. ICS is no longer a way to exploit an unintentional consequence of the game mechanics - it gives you a free pop point - but rather a valid strategy that uses the advantages and disadvantages provided in the game in the way they were intended to be used.