How does Civ4 stack up...

[techumseh]

vs. Civ2?

As a vanilla SP game?
As a multi-player game?
As a scenario platform?

As a scenario guy, I tried the Civ4 Afrika Korps Scenario. Despite the extra bells and whistles, I found it overly simple and unsatisfying. Everyone had Sherman tanks. The map was small and the units, while well animated, left me feeling that I was playing with toys. The terrain alternates between boring and cartoonish. I know that this might be out of place, but I wanted to ask Civ2 fans these questions. I've a pretty good idea what they would say over on the Civ4 forums.

[rjmatsleepers]

My experience is with SP only, and at lower levels (noble, prince and monarch). I am hooked. It is sufficiently difficult to be a challenge and sufficiently interesting to make me keep trying.

The addition of religion and culture is interesting and gives you new strategic options. The effect of religion on relations with the AI civs becomes important, since they are much better at organising a military campaign than in civ2. As a result, you can't ignore the military side by throwing them a tech every few turns.

The range of options for developing land is another interesting dimension, particularly as all options require a technology before they can be performed.

Access to and trading resources is another interesting aspect, particularly because of the impact on health and happiness. But, I don't like the fact that it can be late on in the game before you realise that you don't have access to coal or aluminium. I would have thought this is quite a problem for OCC, but I don't recollect it being mentioned in the OCC thread. Perhaps Solo will comment on that.

I find the great people aspects frustrating. You have only relatively crude controls over what sort of person you produce.

I am still coming to grips with the initial choices on map type and leader characteristics. I suspect that the choice of leader will be one of the most interesting debates.

The graphics are processor and memory hungry, without adding anything to the strategic side of the game.

Overall, I wouldn't say that for SP it is a better game than Civ2, but it seems to have eliminated some of the strategies that make it relatively easy to win a civ2 game - eg building and delivering vans for the whole game. it's well worth a try.

I suspect that it will become a very good scenario platform because of the ability to change so many game features. I bet new animations will be a challenge though!

RJM at Sleeper's

[solo]

Originally posted by rjmatsleepers

Access to and trading resources is another interesting aspect, particularly because of the impact on health and happiness. But, I don't like the fact that it can be late on in the game before you realise that you don't have access to coal or aluminium. I would have thought this is quite a problem for OCC, but I don't recollect it being mentioned in the OCC thread. Perhaps Solo will comment on that.

Yes, lack of resources is a major hurdle that the OCC player must overcome, and some games are lost because none of the needed ones are available, even through trade. However, I can usually make do without Aluminum and Copper, but really miss access to Coal and Iron when I don't have it.

In OCC health is more of a problem, too, since you do not have additional cities with extra health poducing resources that can be shared. A change in the latest patch, moving Environmentalism to Medicine has helped out somewhat with this, but this boost still appears relatively late in the game.

I would think the luck of the draw, as far as strategic resources go, would have a even bigger impact for MP players, since a big advantage would accrue to whoever "discovers" the key ones inside their borders. For example, in the late game, I would not want to be the player without any access to oil.

[DrSpike]

Well, most here haven't actually played MP.

There is a mirror script which I used for my MP games, where resources and land are, well, mirrored so that each person has the same.

The vast majority of games are simul though, which some people don't like. It does mean when you both have a stack of cats whoever attacks first wins.

SP is good, though OCC is a bit silly outside of Civ2 IMO, so just play normal early landing or conquest games.

Haven't tried scenarios.

[Carolus Rex]

Originally posted by DrSpike

The vast majority of games are simul though, which some people don't like. It does mean when you both have a stack of cats whoever attacks first wins.

How is that (i.e. simultaneous turns) implemented? Is it that players give their orders at the same time and then those orders are executed at the same time too (once the last player has finished his orders)?

If that's the case, what decides the turn of attacks? If I have a unit in a square and my opponent has one in an adjacent square... We both issue an order to attack the other's unit... Which unit attacks first?

Oh wait... It doesn't matter, right? Since there are no attack and defense values anymore?

But still, if stack size matters, then what decides who's stack that attacks first?

Carolus

[DrSpike]

Oh it matters alright, because of defensive modifiers and because the best defender in a stack defends.

It doesn't matter as much as you think, but there are fights where the first to move gets the advantage, and the first to move is determined by who times the move best after the start of the turn. It's mainly when there is a wounded unit you want to move away, and your opponent wants to kill.

And with stacks, if you go first then all of your units get to attack first. This means situations where both parties have catapults both parties want to attack first. Otherwise it is often not an issue. And to be in the situation you would both have had to move so that your turn ended with cat stacks adjacent - this is very rare.

So mainly it is just the wounded unit thing, or moving defenders into cities in the nick of time. It is a factor in Civ4 MP though, it can't be denied.

[Carolus Rex]

Ok, thanks, but is it regular RTS-mechanics when it comes to moving then? Or is it simultaneous turns as I described it in my last post?

If it's the latter (and that's how I interpret simul turns), then what decides the order of attack among players?

Carolus

[DrSpike]

It's still turns, just simultaneous turns. So, as I said, whoever moves fastest moves first, though you still only get to issue 1 turn worth of orders per turn to each unit/city.

[Carolus Rex]

Hm... So while I'm moving units around somewhere on the map, I can't follow my opponent's moves elsewhere?

Carolus

[DrSpike]

I don't understand.

There is a set time for each turn, say 1 minute. Both you and your opponent make all your moves with all your units in that minute. It's still true that each unit can only move 1 (2 for mounted) square or two squares on roads in that minute, before the next turn starts.

Now if for example you are adjacent to your opponent at the end of the previous turn and you want to flee away from him and he wants to attack you, the outcome that occurs depends on who moves their unit fastest.

[Carolus Rex]

Ok.

I was confused since I thought it might be as in Risk II, where there is a simul turn option. There all players give their orders at the same time (so you obviously don't know the other players' moves), which are then executed at the same time.

No player can influence the moves during the "executive phase", so there is a "priority hierarchy" among the orders to determine their internal order of execution.

Carolus

[DrSpike]

Something to determine who gets to move first depending on the situation might be the future. It is hard to account for the situations that can occur though.