Apolyton Civ4 PREVIEW (By Solver) - Part 1 online

[Willem]

Originally posted by ml_4da3
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.

It's been mentioned that as you develop, you're more able to assume the costs of a larger empire. But you have to build up the financial infrastructure of your existing empire first before doing so. So those people who are intent on conquering the world won't be able to rollercoaster their way to victory. They'll have to take the time here and there to develop thier cities in order to be able to afford further conquests.

I think this whole approach is very realistic. It almost amounts to having supply lines in place to feed/fuel your armies.

[Ozymandous]

Originally posted by 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.

The cost isn't "city wide" but Civ wide . That's the difference. It's not like increased corruption from Civ3, this is a direct (assumed from what Solver has already said) GPT hit on your entire Civ.

Look at it as the increased cost of maintaining the roads, local government offices, paying for the wages of more government workers, having to provide more benefits like healthcare schools, etc, to the new population base and things like that.

How complex is your local town government that manages one town, than your federal government, which has to oversee it all. That's where the increased cost, Civ wide, makes a lot of sense because it's not punishing each city directly as happened in Civ3.

[Solver]

AI performance will be mentioned further in the review, but they're actually more capable at this than you'd expect.

[Solver]

The cost isn't "city wide" but Civ wide . That's the difference. It's not like increased corruption from Civ3, this is a direct (assumed from what Solver has already said) GPT hit on your entire Civ.

Correct. If you get a new city (conquer, build, culture flip, gift, whatever), the number of cities component of the maintenance goes up in all cities.

[Mace]

Originally posted by ml_4da3
Solver: Will it be possible to have a strategy to conqueror the world and coming out of it as a winner, given sufficient time? Or does the new anti-ICS rules create a point/moment where no expansion is ever beneficial again?

That is a good question. Let me expand: I see now, based on the city maintenance and the way Civ4 handles settler production, that ICS is dead for the early game.

But is it dead for the mid- and late game? By then, you could have lots of $$$$ coming in to support more cities.
Wouldn't a late-game empire have more chance to be big? Or do they really "collapse on their own weight" due to the maintenance issues?

[Solver]

It depends on how you play. I have had huge empires that I could handle and that were beneficial. Besides, if you conquer cities in the medieval or later, the terrain around them is likely well improved, making those cities become useful quicker.

However, if your economy is on the verge of collapse, then starting a war will not be the right solution.

Now, the decision of going to war has three factors:

1) Can your army beat them
2) Can you afford it (maintenance and such costs)
3) Is the end result worth it? For example, are the cities you get worth not running Pacifism while you're at war?

[ajbera]

Solver, are you going to discuss espionage in your preview, and if so, in the next installment?

[kolpo]

Originally posted by Ozymandous


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

I was off course refering to the cost of producing the setlers NOT the maintenance cost of cities. If you take the cities of a close rival with an early UU(instead of building settlers to make cities) shall you cities never stop growing and if settlers are indeed as expensive could the cost of the military units to take the cities of a weak neighbour be cheaper then the cost of settlers(and having cities that don't grown).

But this is actually the way many real civilizations did there early expansion, so I have nothing against this "military rush" strategy

City maintenace cost has nothing to to with this, you shall still expand at a moderate speed but instead of using your settlers shall you take cities of a weak neighbour.

[Solver]

Solver, are you going to discuss espionage in your preview, and if so, in the next installment?

I don't really mention it...

[MarkG]

Originally posted by conmcb25


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

[sophist]

Originally posted by 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.

Occupations cost money. And a lot of organizational things scale super-linearly.

[CustodianV131]

Great preview!

You can sure see the difference when a true Civver writes one! Where the normal previews all highlight the same known stuff, this one highlights what we want to know!

Great thread here also, clear answers!

Not to worried about things like ICS, combat ect myself, going to wait and see how it goes. Worrying about it now isn't going to help anymore anyway. If something is really broken, i'm sure it will be fixed after launch. Have to work with what you get.
Still from what I'm reading it sure is enjoyable and playable, for now, that all I'm looking for!

Looking forward to the next parts! Keep up the good work!

[OnePresent]

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

Very cool. Does the game support widescreen?

[Nikolai]

Yeah, I'd like to know that too.

[Solver]

Well it supports very different resolutions. If my definition of what widescreen is is correct, then yes.