MarkG Supplemental CIVILIZATION IV PREVIEW

[Nikolai]

I thought so. Good to get it confirmed though. Is there a greater cost in doing so, like in SMAC? And does it give more anarchy?

[yin26]

there is are "what's your price for X" options to easily get a starting point. then you can huggle a bit

"Huggle" -- I like it!

I guess the word for the negative side is:

"Arggle"

[yin26]

Thanks for this summary, by the way.

[The_Aussie_Lurker]

Hmmm, I have to say that, once again, I like the vast bulk of what I am hearing here. The only thing which bothers me a little bit, really, is that siege weapons and bombers seem to have been 'nerfed' in relation to the impacts on cities. I always loved killing the odd citizen or city improvement when I 'missed' my intended target !
That is a point, though, can bombers and artillery kill city population and/or tile improvements via bombardment?
Thanks Mark and Solver-you guys have done a fantastic job over the last couple of weeks !

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

[Solver]

There's no killing city population either, except for nukes. Can't say I really miss it. Tile improvements are destructible though.

I don't view artillery and air units as "nerfed". I view them as balanced. In Civ3, massive artillery meant you could conquer a civ with no losses. Not so in Civ4. Air force in Civ4 is very important in modern wars and makes your job easier, but you'll still need ground forces, too.

[The_Aussie_Lurker]

Sorry, by 'nerfed' I didn't mean that civ4 should have retained the civ3 system for artillery and bombers, but truth is that in real life these kinds of attacks CAN cause collateral damage-to civilians and structures alike, and I did like that element of civ3's system. Perhaps only as a side effect of their battering defenses down. If collateral damage caused unhappiness in the city for both the current and future occupier, then it might actually ADD something good and balanced to the game, IMO!

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

[Solver]

Cities are going to be unhappy enough when you take them over .

[GeoModder]

So... would prior to taking a city converting them to your religion help?

[Solver]

It would make things worse . If you're Buddhist and fighting a Buddhist enemy, then the unhappiness will be much worse - "We won't fight against our brothers in faith!"

[GeoModder]

Keep your enemies close (in believes )!

[Martinus]

Originally posted by The_Aussie_Lurker
Sorry, by 'nerfed' I didn't mean that civ4 should have retained the civ3 system for artillery and bombers, but truth is that in real life these kinds of attacks CAN cause collateral damage-to civilians and structures alike, and I did like that element of civ3's system. Perhaps only as a side effect of their battering defenses down. If collateral damage caused unhappiness in the city for both the current and future occupier, then it might actually ADD something good and balanced to the game, IMO!

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

I think that except for few historical cases a'la Dresden during WWII, the collateral damage during bombing is not enough to represent it in game (i.e. they are not big enough to reduce the populace in game, or destroy all libraries/universities - sure some buildings may be damaged, but the infrastructure remains).

[joncnunn]

I guess, I'll probably find out for myself soon since I'm buying it at a store Tuesday (sorry Mark G, couldn't stand the wait for shipping that preordering would result in), but is the Civ IV AI smart enough to avoid the terriable city spots?
(Founding a non-coastal city with serval coastal tiles within raidious / found a city one tile away from a free aquaduct / planting cities on food or shield resource that kills the bonus [this assumes that in Civ IV, the bonus gets killed like Civ III)

[bt_oz]

G'day markg and solver, can you tell me is there a difference in gameplay between your beta copies and the final release?

And did you get a manual for the beta and if so howmany pages is it?

cheers
bt_oz

[tuckson]

Hi,

Sorry if I ask something which already passed earlier, but we're expecting a baby (week over time now) so I've been little on the internet recently.

Markos and Solver, could you tell us what machines you played civ on and how it felt on that configuration?
What do you think about the realism of given system requirements?

And both of you, thank you for writing the previews and the q&a's. Really liked to read 'em.


kind regards

[Solver]

G'day markg and solver, can you tell me is there a difference in gameplay between your beta copies and the final release?

We didn't have "beta copies". The entire beta team has been receiving new builds regularly, and you can imagine that the game wasn't what it is now a few months ago.

Markos and Solver, could you tell us what machines you played civ on and how it felt on that configuration?
What do you think about the realism of given system requirements?

I ran on a 1.8 GHz system with 512 MB RAM and a GeForce 5700 with 256 MB VRAM. The latest builds had quite comfortable performance on this machine. On Standard maps, even in the late game, AI turn wait time wasn't high. For those of you with CPUs above 2 GHz, nothing at all to worry about. Even on Large maps, I didn't see long waits between turns.