PC.IGN's updated preview!

[Imran Siddiqui]

quote: and they also admit sid doesnt have to much to do with the game anymore.. its that dumb golf game..

Actually he didn't have much to do with it in the beginning, so, it ain't the Golf game...

And do you still need the whole preview posted here?

[Imran Siddiqui]

For ancient:

Copyright PC.IGN.com (blah, blah)

quote: "Sid plays the game once or twice a week right now." So begins my conversation with Jeff Briggs, President of Firaxis. But although Sid Meier isn't actually coding this game, it's still his baby. He and Jeff sat down at the beginning of the development process to come up with ways to enlarge and improve the existing game. The idea is to make this the "ultimate" version of Civ. Sid's taking an active role in the design but Jeff Briggs is responsible for leading the team. Jeff Morris is acting as producer for the title and showed us quite a bit of the game. As it stands, the game is "damn close" to the original spec. A few details have changed, but the basic concepts are still solid. The addition of culture as a resource, an improved diplomacy system and a new system of resources will enlarge the game but Jeff Briggs is quick to point out that they're taking a slightly different approach to this game. Civ II was about "more, more, more" while Civ III will be much more refined. The game is "a little more conservative in terms of risk" according to Jeff Morris, but given the highs and lows of the risks of Call to Power, this is a good thing. The most significant addition to the game is the concept of culture. While the previous games included many cultural buildings, the development of your culture will be modeled in the game. Jeff Morris, producer of the game, told us that all structures that "promote art and philosophy" will increase your cultural rating. And the longer those improvements have existed, the larger their effect. In other words an older library or temple will provide greater cultural benefits. All wonders of the world will increase your culture rating, even after they've been rendered obsolete by increasing technologies. This makes things like the Oracle a lot more important for the duration of the game. But you can't obtain any cultural benefits from existing structures in conquered cities. The team is also "making diplomacy much more non-linear." Instead of just using a straight conversation interface, the new game will focus on a deal wizard. You can place items and demands on a trading table and barter back and forth with the other civilizations. You begin by making a single offer and seeing what the other party is willing to trade for it. This gives you a standard bid from which to start. From here you can add to or subtract from your side of the deal in response to the deals offered by your opponent. The deal will be sweeter if the other civilization has a lower cultural value than yours. You can trade map information or communication with other civilizations. You can offer a per turn gold tithe or a lump sum. The various resources and luxuries in the game must also be traded along with technology and, if you're feeling particularly generous, even cities. In terms of setting your relationships with the other inhabitants of the game, there are a lot more options. A basic alliance is still the same, although you can set specific right of passage agreements independently of your alliances. You can also set up mutual protection pacts. With a mutual protection pact, you'll be obligated to declare war on any civ that attacks the civ with which you've established the pact. You're under no such obligation if your ally is the one who initiates the attack. Trade embargoes can also be set up. We've still got a ton of things to cover -- the formation of armies, mobilizing your economy for war or peace, trading and the interface. I've only scratched the surface of my interview with the two Jeffs. Rest assured that once E3 is over, I'll be back to fill you in on all the other details. -- Steve Butts

[axemann]

I'm rather disappointed that conquered cities lose all of their culture value. This goes against the grain of history and experience: The Mongols and Manchus were greatly enhanced culturally by conquering Chinese territory, and the Arabs were greatly influenced by classical Mediterranean culture after they conquered North Africa and the Levant. Heck, Rome itself was greatly aided culturally by conquering the more culturally advanced Greeks.

The idea that a very old and cultured city (think Alexandria or Rome) simply loses all of its cultural value points by being conquered is ridiculous. I would think that keeping the culture points attached to the city would be great incentive for the originating Civ to defend its older cities well.

[Dienstag]

I'm rather disappointed that conquered cities lose all of their culture value. This goes against the grain of history and experience: The Mongols and Manchus were greatly enhanced culturally by conquering Chinese territory, and the Arabs were greatly influenced by classical Mediterranean culture after they conquered North Africa and the Levant. Heck, Rome itself was greatly aided culturally by conquering the more culturally advanced Greeks.

Good point, but I think what Firaxis said makes sense. One could make the claim that the invader doesn't necessarily become more cultured by conquering a few temples and libraries. I mean, look at the barbarians that overthrew the Roman Empire! The cultural value of everything in Rome went to zero for a while, and only returned in medieval times.

I'll go way out on a limb here and say that probably the cultural benefits of conquering any given city (or even civilization) are pretty small. If that city had a lower cultural level than your civ, then its barbarian monuments and pagan altars will promptly be swept away to make room for your glorious cultural stuff. However, if you have a lower cultural rating, your troops are apt to slash and burn anyway. The nifty buildings might impress the people of your little backwards nation, and even inspire them to make some of their own. But the point is, merely posessing someone else's stuff doesn't mean that you will take it to heart, which is what culture is all about.

Furthermore, in terms of other game features already revealed, having cultureless conquered cities makes sense. For example, a cultureless city has, like, a really small area it can work on the map. Do you think those Greek farmers are going to bring their food to the city becuase you just conquered their favorite amphitheater? NO! Plus, highly cultured cities will have a good chance of rebelling. How much does a rebelling city add to your culture? Not much.

Of course, there are examples where invasions have had a large cultural impact, but that's not on a city level and I think that it's best handled by technologies (NewsFlash: Romans conquer Corinth, take Polytheism, make up new names for all the Greek deities and begin construction of Roman temple-ish type things).

Well, I've said a bunch here. The cities-loses-cultural -value plan sounds good to me, and I hope I've explained why without making too many historians cry.

Edit: fixed spelling, added .