Why are they bothering to make Civ 4?

[Peter Triggs]

Well, Sir Ralph, at least your trolls are more subtle than Kuci's.

[Adm.Naismith]

Re: Re: Re: Why are they bothering to make Civ 4?

Originally posted by Platypus Rex
Long Live Sid and the Civ series

Ohhh, please, let Mr. Sid alone.

He's not really involved in Civ since Civ II: they tried to tell us in every possible way, excluded tattoing it on our forehead to help us remembering it every time we look at the mirror.

I don't want to diminish Sid Meier, but give justice to the many people that work on the Civ IV without a little acknowledge by fans.

[Senethro]

Brian Reynolds ftw

[Paddy]

Originally posted by Donegeal
Oh yeah...

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Sir Ralph
I beg you to clarify your point. "Because it is crap" does not add to the argument. "It is crap, because ... (add your analysis here)" however would.

He didn't provide evidence for high complexity in Civ than SMAC, either. I respond in kind.

Also, "because it's crap" could mean that I think it is simply a poorly written AI.

[Protra3211]

The passion of the Civ fans is great Patcon. I would bet that your good multi player.
I think Sid wants to bother because he has many hooked to his games for life.
Also sites like Apolyton must have been key in helping the creation of Civ4 as many of us would bother the Sid team on what we wanted out of Civ4

[Paddy]

There certainly are a lot of people here putting in many great contributions for a better game

Long live Apolyton

[Harovan]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
He didn't provide evidence for high complexity in Civ than SMAC, either. I respond in kind.

That's common knowledge. One doesn't have to prove everytime that an elephant is larger than a mouse. One has a look at both and will know. Not that the proportions would be the same as in SMAC vs Civ3, though.

Much larger and more complexly woven tech tree. Better balanced government types. Social engineering. Unit workshop. I am not an expert in SMAC, played it not nearly enough and too far ago to list it all, but I am sure others can. It is not very hard to beat Civ3 in complexity. Even the often scolded CtP2 does it.

What concerns the AI, here I disagree a bit with the originator of this thesis. Yes, the SMAC AI has it harder due to complexity differences. But that's not enough to justify its lacking performance. Even if taking this in account, the Civ3 AI is still better.

With this I don't want to say, that it is perfect. I have seen too many outright stupid moves, it is easy to exploit it, you can lure units and it bites, everytime. It builds wonders in one shield cities. It switches to governments just because they are available, even if it is a poor choice. It still tends to engage into bloody stupid world wars under communism in the industrial age and let the human surpass. Only a few examples. And other than the SMAC AI I can say, that I know the Civ3 AI very well.

As I heard, the Civ4 AI will be improved a lot. I hope this will come true and am anxious to see it in action.

[Dis]

Originally posted by thinkingamer
One must know that one thing that SMAC really suffers is the learning curve. Back then even after i beat Civ2 few times in dety level, learning SMAC was at least as hard as relearning Civ game from scratch.

If u get past that, the game is superb. Better diplomacy, lots of faction "personality" (which makes Civ3 civilization look like a Age or Emp. 2 rip-off), more options, etc. etc.

Civ3 had better AI.


I hope firaxis would not make the same mistake; I did learn from my mistake (after buying civ 3) that I should never buy a pc game before I read any of the fan reviews.

why is that?

The learning curve was easy. Shields became minerals. trade arrows became energy. food became nutrients. What's to know?

[Dis]

Originally posted by Sir Ralph


That's common knowledge. One doesn't have to prove everytime that an elephant is larger than a mouse. One has a look at both and will know. Not that the proportions would be the same as in SMAC vs Civ3, though.

Much larger and more complexly woven tech tree. Better balanced government types. Social engineering. Unit workshop. I am not an expert in SMAC, played it not nearly enough and too far ago to list it all, but I am sure others can. It is not very hard to beat Civ3 in complexity. Even the often scolded CtP2 does it.

What concerns the AI, here I disagree a bit with the originator of this thesis. Yes, the SMAC AI has it harder due to complexity differences. But that's not enough to justify its lacking performance. Even if taking this in account, the Civ3 AI is still better.

With this I don't want to say, that it is perfect. I have seen too many outright stupid moves, it is easy to exploit it, you can lure units and it bites, everytime. It builds wonders in one shield cities. It switches to governments just because they are available, even if it is a poor choice. It still tends to engage into bloody stupid world wars under communism in the industrial age and let the human surpass. Only a few examples. And other than the SMAC AI I can say, that I know the Civ3 AI very well.

As I heard, the Civ4 AI will be improved a lot. I hope this will come true and am anxious to see it in action.

all good points. I agree.

Civ3 ai isn't as bad as everyone says. Everyone expects perfection. I feel the Civ3 ai is pretty good at using defensive terrain. Sure it slows them down. but it often puts it's units up in the mountains and hills. And I have a hard time rooting them out. But they aren't perfect, as sometimes they do these things at the detriment of their city defenses.

And they are better at ship landings (amphibious assaults). they still aren't anywhere near the level of a human. But I have seen the English drop off 8 powerful units next to a city of mine in the Napolean scenario. And yes they did take my city. I took it back easy enough. But it shows they can at least prove to be more of than just a minor annoyance. In SMAC you're lucky if they drop off more than 1 or 2. Part of the problem is early transport units don't hold much (especially the slow unity transports), and the AI doesn't get rid of them. And the example I used isn't the best since it's a scenario which the AI was given ample resources and the navy to start the game with. But even in the epic game, the ai can do a better job at keeping it's units up to date (assuming you are at a high enough difficulty level that the AI isn't hopelessly behind in tech)

[Darkstar]

I think the Civ3 AI is better then SMAC's. However, Civ3 is also a game of preset unit designs, simple tech charts, and well known strategic values for evaluating its situations. That gives its AI creator an edge.

SMAC's AI also uses preset unit designs. It was just easier to code. However, people beating on SMAC should remember it's AI came first, and many of the advances of its AI was then carried back over to Civ3! Civ3's AI *should* be better.

Now, SMAC's main AI problem is this: It isn't tuned for SMAC. It is a *fantastic* Civ2 AI. But it is a really poor SMAC AI. Why? Air Power. Rover Roll Over (the old chariot rush). Crusader Crush. SMAC gave back the old AI challenge and problems from Civ1, if you look at the game's balance. But it added in a lot of behavior that all of Firaxis's later AIs use. Building up for an invasion. Marine assaults (it will actually dropping off enough resources to take its target, occasionally.) Better ICS (yeah, I said it, what of it?).

If they did a SMAC 2, frankly, I'd expect it would have a better AI then Civ4. Why? Because it is a later game. All the Civ4 tricks should be in the SMAC 2 AI. Of course, if the AI isn't tuned for SMAC, that will leave it an easier target to beat.

Some people don't like SMAC's easier do it yourself gameplay. Some people don't like SMAC's SF setting with techs that have nothing to really get a handle on to understand what it is supposed to get you. Some people don't like it's ugly colors. If you reskinned SMAC with Civ2 look and palette, people would really like it. Rename the techs a bit, and Civ fans would think it's one of the greatest Civ games ever. That's just how it goes.

I look forward to trying out Civ4, with the distant hope it will be as fun to play as I find its older ancestors. But I really look forward to SMAC 2, because that is more likely to be a better game. Why? Because Firaxis will be able to change more things in the game, trying to make a better, more enjoyable game that they will want to play. Let's face it... Civ cannot make huge jumps forward. Civ has to take baby steps. Firaxes cannot try out something too radical or too different in Civ without the danger of alienating the Civ core. But SMAC? It's a wild, out there concept. They can try out all the radical ideas that they want to play in a game. And then, once tried and proven, take the good ideas back to Civ.

[thinkingamer]

Originally posted by Dis


why is that?

The learning curve was easy. Shields became minerals. trade arrows became energy. food became nutrients. What's to know?

Well, if you put it that way yes, the changes are close to nothing. It has been more than 3 years since i stopped playing Civ2,3 and SMAC, so now, I cannot how to really explain the differences in detail.

Trying to learn SMAC after beating Civ2 few times in deity level is like trying to learn how to play Victoria or Heart of Iron after mastering Europa Universalis II (paradox games)

Trying to learn Civ3 after beating few times in deity level in Civ 2 is like trying to learn Age of Empires 2 after mastering the first Age of Empires.

I know it is not the best comparison (specially for those who never played those age series or padadox historical games), but for those who have played these games knows for sure that its fairly decent analogy.

[Adm.Naismith]

Originally posted by Darkstar
If they did a SMAC 2, frankly, I'd expect it would have a better AI then Civ4. Why? Because it is a later game. All the Civ4 tricks should be in the SMAC 2 AI. Of course, if the AI isn't tuned for SMAC, that will leave it an easier target to beat.

(SNIP)

I look forward to trying out Civ4, with the distant hope it will be as fun to play as I find its older ancestors. But I really look forward to SMAC 2, because that is more likely to be a better game. Why? Because Firaxis will be able to change more things in the game, trying to make a better, more enjoyable game that they will want to play. Let's face it... Civ cannot make huge jumps forward. Civ has to take baby steps. Firaxes cannot try out something too radical or too different in Civ without the danger of alienating the Civ core. But SMAC? It's a wild, out there concept. They can try out all the radical ideas that they want to play in a game. And then, once tried and proven, take the good ideas back to Civ.

Yes, SMAC 2 should be an opportunity to be a test lab for more radical ideas.
I'm afraid I'm not sure if Firaxis is ready to try a concept different from the 1/3 new, 1/3 improved, 1/3 old, for anything is a sequel, to be frank.

I'm all for a more mature, dark and tense script on the line of the SMAC escape from the collapsing Earth. Future is not bright anymore.

[Rubychaser]

They want our money.

[Wise Ass]

Re: Re: Why are they bothering to make Civ 4?

Originally posted by Ninot


why did they bother?

because Sid Meier hates you personally. He saw your picture somewhere and thought you were the worst specimen of human life he'd ever saw, and thought of the most clever thing he could to annoy you.

OR They wanted to release a sequel to a succesful and profitable game so they could make more profit and please their fans.

Whatever you like.

I just caught this thread only to find that someone was covering for me. The above quote gets the Wise Ass seal of approval!

As to why bother, I agree with whoever said the bit about them trying to recover their image after civ3. From the sounds of it this game will incorporate most but not all the most popular features of Civ, SMAC, and CTP.