And yet another weekly update...

[Sabre2th]

Originally posted by Cataphract887
so if thats your 'real meat' what happans when you get the game? get a blender?

He'll be eating the box by then anyway...

[MarkG]

ok, enough

please return to the main issue: how much does life suck when a civ newbie gets to play against Sid just because he writes for IGN?

[Fidel]

yeah, i thought the other day - how come there was not a single instance in which firaxis posted screens (hell, ONE screen) first on apolyton or civfanatics. i mean, that would cost them absolutely nothing...and i reckon you deserved such treat a long time ago....

[Adm.Naismith]

Originally posted by LaRusso
yeah, i thought the other day - how come there was not a single instance in which firaxis posted screens (hell, ONE screen) first on apolyton or civfanatics. i mean, that would cost them absolutely nothing...and i reckon you deserved such treat a long time ago....

Because we are "The Fan", i.e. the site where a lot of people is ready to say sentence like: "I'm ready to pay to be a betatester", "I'll buy the game, good or not", "I'm ready to pay twice the game value to have it into the dedicated exclusive version, and enjoy the ugliest box in game history because I'm a civ-masochist", etc.

OTOH, this is the site where some of us (myself included, I'm guilty) can judge, and dissect any jpeg screenshot and news commenting on unit scale, trees on the railroad, ugly road intersecting rivers, ICS, blah, blah, blah, icing the cake with artist like Sn00py able to match and enhance any graphics Firaxis can throw at us.

No discount, no dedicated version, no exclusive news, almost no thanks in history. I'm wonder if we really are "heavily dedicated Civ players" or "Firaxis Groupies"

[Fidel]

groupies it is

[yin26]

Fair enough everybody, but when / if I'm proven right, will the relevant people here publicly own up to being wrong?

[Addled Platypus]

Originally posted by MarkG
ok, enough

please return to the main issue: how much does life suck when a civ newbie gets to play against Sid just because he writes for IGN?

Platypus Rex sets down his spoon and promises to behave

"heavily dedicated Civ players" - guilty

[Adm.Naismith]

Originally posted by yin26
Fair enough everybody, but when / if I'm proven right, will the relevant people here publicly own up to being wrong?

Yin, if the game will be limited as you have guessed in many points, every one else would know the true, isn't it?
So, is it your point to know you was on the right side from the early days, or to humiliate someone that was wrong (and already suffered for his/her previus hope of a great game)?

Not mentioning the proven fact that will ever be someone that will considered itself right and the game great, never mind of the reality.

I know you are good enough to survive to a success with the same gentleman style as if you are accepting a defeat.

A last point: a good game will be a success that everyone of us will enjoy. A bad game will still have some fan and make fresh money for Firaxis, but will be a pity for every one else.
You know I'm not jumping on the fanboy wagon, but few days before the gold version, nothing we can say can change the Firaxis design of the game, so I'll try to think positive until proven wrong.

[The_Aussie_Lurker]

You're right. It could. But it's still a rather obvious extension to say that two self-sufficient cities creating their own culture points, units, etc., will be better than one.

I have to especially take issue with this point, Yin (sorry, I missed it before).
What you are forgetting is that cities don't create culture by themselves-culture comes instead through investment, in the same way as research. The same goes for units-though to a lesser extent.
For instance, consider this. Lets say that in order to maintain a base culture of 100 points, you need to invest 150 gold for 10 cities (and you have a budget of 500gpt). Now you build 5 new cities for a cost of 20 gpt each plus the cost of maintaining your base culture at 100 points has increased by 75gpt. This means that you are now paying an extra 175gpt simply to maintain (not increase) your base culture, thus cutting your budget back from 350gpt to 175gpt-this means less money to support troops and less money to support research. However, if this 175 gpt had been invested directly into the culture budget, then you would have doubled the amount of base culture you are producing in your civilization (or, you can maintain the same culture level, and instead invest your income into higher tech research, supporting a larger army and/or funding espionage).
So, you see how your obvious conclusions suddenly don't really hold together so well-and this is even before you consider the impacts of religion, wonders and improvements, great people and civics!
Something tells me that all the assumptions and tactics which have served us in the past will be the very same that bring us defeat in civ4.

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

[Jaybe]

... , so I'll try to think positive until proven wrong.

I'm negative enough, I also enjoy positive/happy thoughts much more than those other ones.

Something tells me that all the assumptions and tactics which have served us in the past will be the very same that bring us defeat in civ4.

I am so exCITed about what I will have to unlearn for civ4.

[yin26]

Adm.Naismith: The point is simply to have some fun. Like placing bets on a football team. I think I'm making the right bet, that's all.

Aussie_Lurker: I'm willing to reserve judgement, but I still don't see how economies of scale are suddenly not going to work in Civ 4. In your example, gold was the limiting factor...but when was the last time you were hurting for gold in a Civ game? I understand that part of your argument is that more cities cost you in more ways, but certainly more cities must also create more profit ... otherwise you couldn't afford one city let alone 10. This, to me, is obvious.

What's not obvious, of course, is the balance that Firaxis may be striking in all of this. If at least the manner in which I have to spend my money to keep my empire (no matter how many cities) together is more interesting and strategic, then this itself will represent an improvement. It won't get at the core issue of economy (and repetition) of scale, but it would be an important shift.

So, I'm willing to wait for the game on this issue unless new details surface to stir the debate some more.

[Cort Haus]

Given that Civ has always been about the harvesting of food, shields and commerce from tiles, and that growth=power, and that land=resources, we can certainly expect economies of scale.

I hope, like many players, that Civ 4 will allow more strategies than bigger=better by rewarding upward rather than outward growth. However, getting completely away from economies of scale would seem to ditch the basic ingredient of Civ - so it seems likely that Yin will be disapponted.

Yin, I suggest you don't buy it before reading the critical response on the fan forums, but I'd be interested to see a design model of a Civ-type game that you would like. I think it would be a radical departure from the Civ we know, but I would be interested in your vision of the kind of game you have in mind.

[Drakan]

I was struck by something reading the article. Isn't anyone surprised at the fact that these IGM reviewers claimed that Sid&Soren kept rolling-out GWs ?

Up until C3 skilled players don't build GWs at all; they are captured.

I guess it was for demonstration purposes ? Or am I missing something ?

[Adm.Naismith]

Originally posted by yin26
Adm.Naismith: The point is simply to have some fun. Like placing bets on a football team. I think I'm making the right bet, that's all.

Ah, it was a bet! Sorry I misunderstand the meaning of your question: my fault.
Do you like italian pizza? I'm ready to bet one with you... if you are ready to come here in Italy (north part, near the city of Milano).
The bet is you'll enjoy the coming Civ IV, at least for three months
Do you accept the bet?

[AeonOfTime]

@yin26: Fair enough everybody, but when / if I'm proven right, will the relevant people here publicly own up to being wrong?

Wait a minute, do you mean WE will have to eat boxes too?

@Drakan: Up until C3 skilled players don't build GWs at all; they are captured.

I would dare to say I am a skilled Civ player, having played it massively since the first version came out, and I must have 'conquered' about 10 wonders at most when I went against civs that attacked me. Otherwise I like to take the challenge of building most of them myself, at which I am now quite successful (disregarding the uninteresting ones)...

It's always a matter of playstyle and your own ethical self - I find it much more gratifying to own a wonder I built with my own (slave labor) hands...