Apolyton Civ4 PREVIEW (By Solver) - Part 1 online

[TheDarkside]

Solver- thanks for the preview! Very good stuff!

I was wondering about that combat simulation you mentioned near the end to simulate a tank vs. spearman scenario... Is that based on exactly the same formula used in the game for combat- as in the devs provided you with such knowledge (or better yet maybe it's in a python script!) ?

I ask because once the game is released I would love to use such a simulator, in order to best decide what kind of units to build during wars and gauge my chances. Would you be willing to release your simulator once the game is released?

[The_Aussie_Lurker]

Actually, this is probably going to be covered in a future preview, but I can't help asking the question:

Solver, is it possible for a 3rd party civilization to gain benefits from trade between two civs on either side of it? i.e. can you have a situation where a city belonging to a 3rd civ lies on a road connecting the cities of two other trading civs-thus providing the city of the 3rd civ with trade income?

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

[Nikolai]

That would be awesome, just like the Silk Roads in the old days.

[hexagonian]

Originally posted by sophist
Wow, all that bolding sure helped turn a bad point into a good one. You know what would make it super awesome? ALL CAPS. Yeah baby.

I'm especially thrilled that infinite rails have been replaced with limited movement values. It almost as if Firaxis read my mind...or read it somewhere.

Edit: One other thing...
Sophist, if you want to make this personal, keep it on the PM level. My intent was not to make this into some flamefest, but to highlight and clarify the points I was trying to make.

Believe me, I can sink to your level...

As far as I'm concerned, the matter is closed at this point in time.

[Martinus]

To the people saying that the higher cost with bigger empire model is unrealistic, here is my post from civfanatics:

Well, I consider those costs to represent the need for growing infrastructure and communication, not just simple upkeep of buildings (After all, an university upkeep for example does not mean the building is so big, you need to spend 2 gold to maintain it, but it represents the fact that you need to pay for various things associated with running such organisation).

Your civilization is not a collection of autonomous cities, but a nation that works to a more or less common goal. If your civilization consists of, say, 3 cities, each of them with an university, a marketplace and barracks, it does not cost that much to have your scientists communicate with each other, your tax collectors visit all markets and collect gold for the common treasury and your drill instructors to implement the newest designs and weaponry.

The bigger you are, the harder it is for your scientists (at universities) to communicate and exchange their ideas (after all they are all working for the same invention, not everybody inventing a different thing), the more expensive it is for your banks and markets to generate money and transfer them to the central treasury, or your barracks to implement the newest technologies across the realm.

[Solver]

I was wondering about that combat simulation you mentioned near the end to simulate a tank vs. spearman scenario... Is that based on exactly the same formula used in the game for combat- as in the devs provided you with such knowledge (or better yet maybe it's in a python script!)

The percentage itself was my own calculation on a piece of paper (simple), but the simulator I have "simulates" combat rounds. I think I could modify it, though, to show the probability. And yes, it's based on exactly how in-game combat occurs, with help from Firaxians. The game itself will show you odds for your attacks (say, 6.6 vs. 5.3), but with the simulator you can simulate 1000 such battles and see how many will eb won by the 6.6 unit.

Solver, is it possible for a 3rd party civilization to gain benefits from trade between two civs on either side of it? i.e. can you have a situation where a city belonging to a 3rd civ lies on a road connecting the cities of two other trading civs-thus providing the city of the 3rd civ with trade income?

Sounds good, but I don't think so.

[kolpo]

Is the +1 culture +1 happiness that state religion gives a result of a civic(like the pacifistic civic that give +100% great people birth rate to all state religion cities) or is that an inherent bonus of having a state religion?

Also about the high cost or settlers: wouldn't it then not be cheaper to choice a civilization with an ancient UU and conquer all cities a close civilization builds while your cities are happily growing?

[conmcb25]

Originally posted by MarkG
no comment on my dual monitor photo?

Can someone tell me where this is ? Yes I live in a cave and was raised by wolves (just ask beta) but I missed this!

Thanks

[Harrier UK]

Not sure if I like the new city maintenance model. I dont think existing cities should take a financial penalty just because you build or capture a city.

In a war if you are not financially sound mass genocide seems to be the answer - capture and destroy the city so as not to get a financial penalty.

If it is moddable I would prefer something along these lines.

1. First city has a base maintenance cost.

2. Second and future cities have (base cost + cost depending on number of cities + cost related to distance from capitol).

With no change to maintenance cost of existing cities.

In addition I would like to add maintenance costs for city improvements as in civ3.

Example:

City A base cost = 5
City B cost = 5 + 2 +1 = 8
City C cost = 5 + 3 +1 = 9
City D cost = 5 + 4 + 3 = 12

The first number is the base cost. 5
The second number is the additional cost depending on number of cities.
The third number the cost depending on distance.

City B and C have the same value as they are equal distance from the capitol.

[Maniac]

Originally posted by Martinus
To the people saying that the higher cost with bigger empire model is unrealistic, here is my post from civfanatics:

What you say here is covered by higher city maintenance/corruption the further you get from your capital IMO.


Btw, are there technologies that reduce city maintenance? Eg Radio, Railroad, Automobiles could make keeping faraway cities easier and cheaper.

[ml_4da3]

Regarding the method of stopping ICS by increased maintenance for new cities...

I think it is important to follow this simple rule: If one evaluates the rate of building new cities needed for optimum growth, based on the situation for every turn, then the sum of all these rates for a infinitly long game on a infinitly large map must diverge towards infinity. Or else, there will be a point in the game where no expansion is feasible and there will be no more incentative to expand.

The goal should be to limit each civs rate of expansion so that one cannot benefit from ICS but, at the same time, not limit the absolute size an empire can have. Yes, sometimes it might not be profitable to expand, but sooner or later in the game it should be so again. In the end; owning 2*x good big very improved cities with sufficient tech/religion/whatever must be better than owning x cities of same quality (even if it is not by much). I really hope this is true for Civ IV.

[Willem]

Originally posted by Atahualpa
Isn't the settler thing exploitable? What if I build an expensive unit or building and before it's finished switch over to a settler? Thus I built it only with shields and grew in the meantime.

Production switching is a thing of the past. With Civ 4 if you switch, your previous build will be put on hold partially completed while you start from scratch with the new one. You can come back to what you've already built, but there'll a certain amount of deterioration in the meantime. If you wait to long, you could lose your prebuild altogether.

[Ozymandous]

Originally posted by Verenti
Waaaait. So the more cities you have, the more money you lose. So if you build a big empire, your military options are Limited because of Maintaince costs? And by that I mean, you can go on a conquering spree because you've expanded large peacefully... Okaaay.

You pay the same increased maintence cost for each new city regardless of if you built it or conquered it. At least that's my impresion from the preview and Solver already discussing this type of question.

So someone who built 20 cities would pay the same cost as someone who built 10 and conquered 10. if you can't afford to support the cities you conqueror then your economy will go in the tank, which was historically accurate and sounds good since it now can even reign in a "run away AI" to a point since they'd have to find a way to fund all those cities they keep swallowing.

[The diplomat]

I assume the AI knows not to expand too fast. Otherwise, the AI would run itself into the ground every time.

[Ozymandous]

Originally posted by kolpo
Is the +1 culture +1 happiness that state religion gives a result of a civic(like the pacifistic civic that give +100% great people birth rate to all state religion cities) or is that an inherent bonus of having a state religion?

Also about the high cost or settlers: wouldn't it then not be cheaper to choice a civilization with an ancient UU and conquer all cities a close civilization builds while your cities are happily growing?

Except for the fact that your Civ pays the increased cost of having more cities whether you build or conqueror them, sure.