Apolyton Civ4 PREVIEW (By Solver) - Part 1 online

[Nikolai]

That's correct, but generally the polulation doesn't grow that much anyway during war. But this is a game, and I do not think we need such an addition to the game really.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by truepurple
Wow, what a convincing point. Gosh, the very definition of a well thought out arguement [/sarcasm]

I know I'm crazy for wanting civ 4 to be more fun and deep but.. got anything better then that MF?

No, seriously -- I bet if you were set up with an appointment, the pychiatrist would analyze you as having some form of pathological disorder.

[sabrewolf]

Originally posted by GeoModder
FYI, there are never more babies born then around times of conflict.

why? because of the goodbye-and-farewell-f**ks?

[Anakha]

Originally posted by sabrewolf


why? because of the goodbye-and-farewell-f**ks?

Heh, rather because of those interesting new girls the soldiers meet and subsequently either seduce or rape, I'd think.

[GeoModder]

I see you guys were quite capable of finding the answers for yourself.

[truepurple]

@sabrewolf But have you played civ4? If so, would you please provide a screenshot of city growth/city view?
. . . I appreciate the educated guesses but would like to hear it straight from someone who's played it and knows for sure.

Originally posted by sabrewolf
throughout history, the military is usually only a fraction of the whole population... from realism point of view, military population is a virtually ignorable percentile.

. . . Not during a time of war with equally matched sides it isn't. Sure when not at war or when fighting a enemy greatly outmatched by you, you can say that. China for example is not at war. Rome usually vastly out teched and outnumbered their rival's thus did not need alot of the population fighting. North Vietnam for comparison sent virtually their entire male population to battle. We sent alot of our population as well.

. . . During world war 2 most able bodied men went to war, which was why the womens movement took off, women taking jobs they were never allowed before because the countries needed them to.

. . . Anyways, like I keep saying and aeson elaborated as well, its not about realism. Its about balance between different approaches to civ and depth, which equal more fun. I have not played colonist but that sounds just like the kind of balance I'm looking and hoping to see for civ.

if each unit would eat some of the pop it would actually be unrealistic.

. . . "Some"? Thats vague, using my suggested growth system, some could be anything from two to twelve thousand people in each unit. I'm sure we could play with the numbers and vary it according to unit type too, for best balance and realism. If realism is really important to you. But it is just a game, a highly unrealistic game at that.

[truepurple]

. . . As far as military units rejoining population ruining the "promotion system" (which I find gimmicky anyways) We could make it so the game keeps track of units rejoined in the population, where they can be called back for duty at greatly reduced cost retaining promotions etc.

. . . But after X amount of decades, the game would start to forget both promotions and rejoined troops. As eventually people die and have to be replaced. This is to prevent explotation and heavy war mongering. I mean you don't expect to have the same hardened troops 2 centuries of no fighting latter that you use to, do you? Anyways, then players can feel more free to put soldiers back in the population when their upkeep becomes too much a drain on the economy. (rather then sacrificing them to combat) And I doubt civ4 will allow you to keep many promotions with troop tech upgrades either (which makes them once again, disposable)

. . . Also, we can have national guards. Troops who live and work in the population but defend their city when it is attacked. They could get promotions as well. They would also need some pay.(maybe cheaper though)

[sabrewolf]

Originally posted by truepurple
@sabrewolf But have you played civ4? If so, would you please provide a screenshot of city growth/city view?
. . . I appreciate the educated guesses but would like to hear it straight from someone who's played it and knows for sure.

uhm, hang on a sec... i never said i have played the game. and looking back over my post i cannot see how you'd get that impression. i was going from a "realism"-POV of units costing population... which is independent of civ4's implementation of the whole stuff...

Not during a time of war with equally matched sides it isn't. Sure when not at war or when fighting a enemy greatly outmatched by you, you can say that. China for example is not at war. Rome usually vastly out teched and outnumbered their rival's thus did not need alot of the population fighting. North Vietnam for comparison sent virtually their entire male population to battle. We sent alot of our population as well.

During world war 2 most able bodied men went to war, which was why the womens movement took off, women taking jobs they were never allowed before because the countries needed them to.

of course, when you've got an all-out world war (last century a total of 9 years, so 9% of the century... and that most of the time only for europe and russia), then things look different. "general mobilization" more or less expects half of the male population (excluding young kids, old people and physically and mentally impaired people) to fight. but those are exceptional cases.

fatalistic regimes (eg. north korea today, and your example in the past, etc) are another exception.

i was not trying to imply that military never is a great percentage of the population... merely that in the majority of the years for the vast majority of nations and civilisations, the presence of even a strong army did not massively impact the absolute number of people.

however, i do admit that sophist raised a valid point. at times where women didn't join the workforce and 50% of the male were too young or old, the percentage of labour lost is quite remarkable.

Anyways, like I keep saying and aeson elaborated as well, its not about realism. Its about balance between different approaches to civ and depth, which equal more fun. I have not played colonist but that sounds just like the kind of balance I'm looking and hoping to see for civ.

if it is about balance and different approaches, i am all for it! but don't forget that military force does come at quite a cost already. you've either got upkeep or with war-liking civics suffer oportunity cost. in addition to that upgrade necessity and infrastructure come along with a bigger army.

from what i have read in reviews, the military force already seems to be slimmed down quite a bit. imho having a unit costing population would in fact reduce the scope of different approaches.

"Some"? Thats vague, using my suggested growth system, some could be anything from two to twelve thousand people in each unit. I'm sure we could play with the numbers and vary it according to unit type too, for best balance and realism. If realism is really important to you. But it is just a game, a highly unrealistic game at that.

well, in civ3 (i'm guessing it's similar in civ4) 2'000-12'000 units is around 1 pop point... the FIRST pop point. size 2 cities are iirc 25 or 30'000, going on to several million for size 18 cities.

then, some units would virtually not cost any population, for instance bombers, while others would use up much more people (aircraft carriers, etc)

But after X amount of decades, the game would start to forget both promotions and rejoined troops. As eventually people die and have to be replaced. This is to prevent explotation and heavy war mongering. I mean you don't expect to have the same hardened troops 2 centuries of no fighting latter that you use to, do you? Anyways, then players can feel more free to put soldiers back in the population when their upkeep becomes too much a drain on the economy. (rather then sacrificing them to combat) And I doubt civ4 will allow you to keep many promotions with troop tech upgrades either (which makes them once again, disposable)

you've got a point there, but now you are focussing way too much on real life. of course promotions gained before 1000BC are pretty irrelevant anything more than 50 years later. but for the sake of game mechanics and fun factor such things are now kept throughout history.

Also, we can have national guards. Troops who live and work in the population but defend their city when it is attacked. They could get promotions as well. They would also need some pay.(maybe cheaper though)

that sounds to me like civ3's drafting option...

[truepurple]

I never said you did play it, I asked you if you have played it. Like I said I'd like to know for sure how growth works in civ4 from someone who's played it.

Originally posted by sabrewolf
of course, when you've got an all-out world war

Most of civ wars are all out.

Originally posted by sabrewolf
if it is about balance and different approaches, i am all for it! but don't forget that military force does come at quite a cost already. you've either got upkeep or with war-liking civics suffer opportunity cost.

Suffer opportunity cost? I don't understand, anyways you haven't played civ 4 so how do you know?

Upkeep costs in gold? Not that big of a deal, especially with reduced total unit use.

Originally posted by sabrewolf
infrastructure come along with a bigger army.

What infrastructure do you have to worry about in civ?

Originally posted by sabrewolf
the military force already seems to be slimmed down quite a bit.

Military slimmed down just means the population cost is reduced as well,

Originally posted by sabrewolf imho having a unit costing population would in fact reduce the scope of different approaches.

How do you figure?


[q=trupurple]"Some"? Thats vague, using my suggested growth system, some could be anything from two to twelve thousand people in each unit. [/q]

Originally posted by sabrewolf
well, in civ3 (I'm guessing it's similar in civ4) 2'000-12'000 units is around 1 pop point... the FIRST pop point. size 2 cities are iirc 25 or 30'000, going on to several million for size 18 cities.

Please read my suggested growth system, well the part I did post. IMO its more important then even troops costing population. In mine, one pop head in a small city will stand for the same amount of population as a large one. And in mine, we could have a military unit use two people, if we wanted. But everyones focusing on the military aspect only and virtually ignoring my suggestion for a better growth system.


I will write a compact detailed thread on my proposal for a growth system sometime.

Originally posted by sabrewolf
you've got a point there, but now you are focusing way too much on real life. of course promotions gained before 1000BC are pretty irrelevant anything more than 50 years later. but for the sake of game mechanics and fun factor such things are now kept throughout history.

[q=truepurple]But after X amount of decades, the game would start to forget both promotions and rejoined troops. As eventually people die and have to be replaced. This is to prevent exploitation and heavy war mongering.

Anyways, then players can feel more free to put soldiers back in the population when their upkeep becomes too much a drain on the economy. (rather then sacrificing them to combat) And I doubt civ4 will allow you to keep many promotions with troop tech upgrades either (which makes them once again, disposable) [/q]

In other words, its for gameplay sake. Well I suppose we could go by turn instead of by year. Going by year was more for realism.

Civ's year system is a joke. Each turn should stand for a standard set of years. That would add more realism to the game then it subtracts.

[q=truepurple]Also, we can have national guards. Troops who live and work in the population but defend their city when it is attacked. They could get promotions as well. They would also need some pay.(maybe cheaper though)[/q]

Originally posted by sabrewolf
that sounds to me like civ3's drafting option...

Eh? Not even close..

Since when do drafted soldiers in civ 3 work in the city? Since when are they unable to attack or be moved? Since when do they cost less in upkeep?

[truepurple]

Going by kolopos picture, I guess sickness does subtract from food and extra health having no effect.

Does anything think allied troops will be able to share the same square go into each others cities or at least pass each other in civ4, like in SMAC?

[sabrewolf]

Originally posted by truepurple
Most of civ wars are all out.

i'm talking about reallife wars...

Suffer opportunity cost? I don't understand, anyways you haven't played civ 4 so how do you know?

"oportunity costs" is an expression from economics. it's the virtuall loss you get for not chosing the best or next best alternative. without having played civ4, i have read in various articles that each civic has different advantages, thus, by having peace-based production/happiness bonunes you miss out on military-supporting bonuses from the other civics... and vice versa

Upkeep costs in gold? Not that big of a deal, especially with reduced total unit use.

true. although there must be some sort of disadvantage because otherwise we'd be seeing monster armies. or maybe our beta testers just played small maps on easy levels... solver, mark, what level did you play on?

What infrastructure do you have to worry about in civ?

in civ3 for warring civs: barracks, fortresses, city walls, airfields, military police against riots, rushing temples to get 'conquered civs happy... and so on.

[q=trupurple]"Some"? Thats vague, using my suggested growth system, some could be anything from two to twelve thousand people in each unit.

Please read my suggested growth system, well the part I did post. IMO its more important then even troops costing population. In mine, one pop head in a small city will stand for the same amount of population as a large one. And in mine, we could have a military unit use two people, if we wanted. But everyones focusing on the military aspect only and virtually ignoring my suggestion for a better growth system.[/q]

sorry that i did not focus on that.
i'm not sure your growth system is better than the civ3 or the (currently to me relatively unknown) civ4 growth system. we'll see soon

[q=truepurple]But after X amount of decades, the game would start to forget both promotions and rejoined troops. As eventually people die and have to be replaced. This is to prevent exploitation and heavy war mongering.

Anyways, then players can feel more free to put soldiers back in the population when their upkeep becomes too much a drain on the economy. (rather then sacrificing them to combat) And I doubt civ4 will allow you to keep many promotions with troop tech upgrades either (which makes them once again, disposable)

In other words, its for gameplay sake. Well I suppose we could go by turn instead of by year. Going by year was more for realism.

Civ's year system is a joke. Each turn should stand for a standard set of years. That would add more realism to the game then it subtracts.[/q]

i agree that it is not realistic to need 400 years to travel over a continent. but the reason is for gameplay's sake. take the RTS games for instance. the units may walk and fight in realistic times, but building units and research goes too fast. in civ it is the other way around. you overall macro progress is pretty realistic while the units are relatively seen much too slow.
but as we know: "if realism conflicts with fun, realism has to bow" (i don't know the exact wording, but one of the more important firaxians said that...)

Eh? Not even close..

Since when do drafted soldiers in civ 3 work in the city? Since when are they unable to attack or be moved? Since when do they cost less in upkeep?

well, it's one-way
they work and are free UNTIL you draft them. putting them back again is what you cannot do.
and yes, you can move them, but then again the national guard can be moved to.

[Martinus]

I have always held an opinion that arguments about "realism" in the Civ series tends to get quickly from sublime to ridiculous. This thread is an example.

[Harovan]

Originally posted by truepurple
. . . Also, we can have national guards. Troops who live and work in the population but defend their city when it is attacked. They could get promotions as well. They would also need some pay.(maybe cheaper though)

National guards would make sense and be a good addition to the game, I guess. They should not be able to fight outside of the own borders (defense only), not gain promotions and be able to be drafted in a limited amount (reducing pop!) and for a moderate cost and to rejoin cities, perhaps with a small refund.

[Harrier UK]

Shouldn't this thread be stickied, like part2 and MarkGs prieview.

[sabrewolf]

harrier: so many posts, it never leaves the 3rd position on this forum