Based On What We Know: Rate Civ 4

[Solver]

Ralph, I really, really don't think it's as bad as you make it out to be. I'm quite sure you will accept it after a game or two.

As for the "biased reviews"... I honestly don't think you can get better reviews than here. You will see reviews, both good and not so good, here of people who actually know Civ games. So far, the previews on the "professional" gaming sites have been rather bad. Many were obviously written by people who don't know Civ, and then there were errors and misstatements obvious to those who have played the game.

[Willem]

I went with option 1 myself. The more I read about the game, the more I like it. The fact that railroads no longer have infinite movement is a huge step forward IMO. And the unit promotions should put back some of the strategy that was lost after SMAC. Though of course I won't really know for sure until I actually play a few games.

[Willem]

Originally posted by Oerdin
could it be they are attempting to delay the inevitable?

They're probably just trying to avoid having a game available on the pirate networks before the official release date.

[Flubber]

On the fence here but hopeful. I want soemthing that capyures me the way that CIV2 and SMAC did . I am encouraged by the idea that it will be very moddable

[sabrewolf]

Originally posted by Sir Ralph
The poll is titled "Based on what we know", and I got to know something today, what changed my opinion about the game. To be fair, my new vote would be #3, but it mentions reviews of Apolyton only, while I'd rather extend my research beyond the often biased reviews of one site only.

i too am sceptical (at slightly negatively biased) about the new "non-warring civs can share tiles".

is that enough for you to drop from #2 down to #3 or #4?

[The_Aussie_Lurker]

I have to agree with Boris, Sir Ralph, you DO seem to be acting a little melodramatically. I mean, to me it would be like if I came here and said 'oh, there are only TWO border states, so I wanna change my vote from loving the game to almost hating it' My point is that it is only a single game feature, and we don't even know how well-or badly-it will actually work. I admit that it does raise certain 'balance' issues such as 'what happens if war is declared?' But I am confident that Solver will deal with such issues in his upcoming preview !

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

[Solver]

Don't get your hopes up too much - I do not address many things about the game mechanics that are not already known, for obvious reasons .

[The_Aussie_Lurker]

I do understand, Solver, but is it fair to suggest that this whole 'shared tile' thing has been well 'balanced' to avoid exploitation (at least, from your perspective)?

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

[Solver]

From my perspective, it eliminated a number of exploits. Without sharing tiles, it's very easy (in Civ3 it was) to prevent the AI access to good city founding spots / resources by simply putting units there. Chokepoints were also too easy to control. I don't know, maybe the AI learned to do it itself later, too - I never played Conquests, in fact.

However, this is definitely one of those changes that takes a while getting used to.

[Solver]

You know, allies sharing tiles was one of my favorite things in SMAC. And I really hated how in Civ3 if you and an AI were invading another AI, you couldn't share tiles with your allies. That just didn't make sense to me.

I can also say that sharing tiles is a good thing in MP.

[kittenOFchaos]

The vibe I'm getting off people, the look of the game and just the host of options, customisations and most importantly styles of play open in Civ IV mean I think it is going to be the greatest Civ to date.

The similarity to SMAC is uncanny, as far as I'm concerned the only two things to worry about at this stage is:

1. How the A.I copes with the complexity of the game.
2. Any glaring advantages that can unbalance multiplayer.

Both those worries are due to what hurt SMAC, that the A.I couldn't cope with the options given to man and A.I and that in the multiplayer the probe teams and first strike in a War were too great an advantage.


As for tile sharing as I can't wait to help my allies defend themselves

[Solver]

The AI and MP are completely differently designed than SMAC.

The AI is competent. I speak about it some more in my preview, but the reality is, you need to play the game to see it and make your own judgement. Of course, a perfect AI can't exist, an AI that doesn't make mistakes can't exist. But, the AI is competent. There are definitely no features that it doesn't know even exist, as was the case with SMAC.

MP, too, is not an afterthought with this game. It's really a game that works well in both modes - of course, depending on your preferences.

[Willem]

If it works like it did in SMAC I can see it, but in Civ 3 there were never any real allies as such, just nations you weren't at war with. If we can have relations like the Pacts in SMAC and the tile sharing only worked under those conditions, I think it would be a good thing.

In Civ 3, I liked being able to stop Settlers from crossing my land to build a city somewhere that I didn't want them to. I'll be upset if that is no longer possible. I don't want my potential enemies building behind me as well in front.

[kittenOFchaos]

Originally posted by Solver
The AI and MP are completely differently designed than SMAC.

The AI is competent. I speak about it some more in my preview, but the reality is, you need to play the game to see it and make your own judgement. Of course, a perfect AI can't exist, an AI that doesn't make mistakes can't exist. But, the AI is competent. There are definitely no features that it doesn't know even exist, as was the case with SMAC.

MP, too, is not an afterthought with this game. It's really a game that works well in both modes - of course, depending on your preferences.

Brilliant stuff, thanks for the preview and followup answers.

P.S I was dead right you were a beta-tester

[Solver]

Guess you were .