Civilization IV

[Divine Wind]

Anyone buying it? Ive ordered my copy off Amazon today and it should arrive by tuesday

IGN Review can be found here.

http://pc.ign.com/articles/660/660495p1.html

Lots of very late nights in prospect i expect.

[LeftEyeNine]

Despite Turks being out, I can't stand my Civ affair

[NodachiSam]

Yea that is pretty wierd, considering how powerful the ottoman empire got at one time. I kind of see how they can overlap with the persians geographically but then again they were fairly distinct cultures, at least as distinct as France and England I imagine. I've never gotten the impression Civ games try to be history simulations.

I will likely buy this game but I am a bit neffed that the developers couldn't be imaginative enough to include Zoroatrism and Hellenism as religions. They were pretty big in their times and could have survived to be quite influential. Zoroatrism still exists a little bit but I mean when it was fairly large. Having Greece and Rome and no Hellenism seems so wrong. Hinduism and Judaism have very ancient roots and still exist afterall. *sigh*

Ahwell... lots of little things like that will probably bug me but it still looks good enough to give a try. I got a bit annoyed at Civ III for various reasons. Obviously they're dam important now and I could understand people'd want to play America but they are such a young culture. Them being in stone age irked me. As well, that I couldn't group armies together annoyed me to no end. I've read combat is better so I'll give it a shot. Hopefully there'll be a demo.

[screwtype]

Anyone buying it? Ive ordered my copy off Amazon today and it should arrive by tuesday

IGN Review can be found here.

http://pc.ign.com/articles/660/660495p1.html

Lots of very late nights in prospect i expect.

I will definitely have a look at the reviews. I honestly didn't like Civ III much, just far too much micromanagement and the graphics are really naff, but the game still had some very nice features and a graphics overhaul and some work here and there could translate into an excellent title.

Edit: Having just read the ign review, I'm sorely tempted to rush out and buy it right away! I especially liked this paragraph:

Fans should be assured that all the basic concepts from Civilization are still here, but many of the more obnoxious or troublesome elements have been greatly improved upon. City production, combat, and culture have all been tweaked to allow for more intuitive application within the game. Concepts like civil disorder, predictable tech paths, pollution and the creeping pace of the late game have all benefited from substantial revisions that make them more manageable and enjoyable aspects of your strategy.

The "creeping pace of the late game" is definitely something that was a major turn-off for me.

While I'm not totally in love with the new graphic style (the military units especially look too big to me) it's obviously a vast improvement over the dated graphics of the previous instalment. I also like the sound of the new unit promotion feature.

Some of the other changes I didn't like the sound of so much, but overall it looks like a considerable improvement. This might well be my next full price title...

[The_Doctor]

It looks excellent.

[ShadesWolf]

Oh Yes
I cant wait

[NodachiSam]

Has anyone heard anything about a demo? I often attempt to try a game first before I buy, legitamately, or otherwise.

[Crazed Rabbit]

Hmm. It seems that the UN can now introduce rules and whatnot. My question is: are these binding? I.e. if the UN votes for changing something that affects you, does it not give you an option to just ignore the UN?

Crazed Rabbit

[English assassin]

hmm. It's going to have to be quite a lot different to/better than Civ III before its a full price buy for me.

I kind of suspect they churn the franchise every few years as new gamers come of age (as it were) but if not and its really new, I'll get it. It IS Civ after all.

[The_Doctor]

Hmm. It seems that the UN can now introduce rules and whatnot. My question is: are these binding? I.e. if the UN votes for changing something that affects you, does it not give you an option to just ignore the UN?

It will probably be like SMAC, if you ignore the UN everybody who said yes will hate you.

You would be a rouge state.

hmm. It's going to have to be quite a lot different to/better than Civ III before its a full price buy for me.

From what I have read, it will be. Most reviews say it is the best Civ ever.

These are good previews:
http://civilization4.net/3/171/

If that does not convince you, nothing will.

[The_Doctor]

According to this you have to comply with the UN.
http://www.civfanatics.com/civ4/prev...ng_the_gap.php

Maybe you can change your government after the resolution?

[GoreBag]

Looks like it comes out today. I may head over to EB and see what's up.

[The_Doctor]

Today or tomorrow for the US.

The 4th for Europe.

Or so I have heard.

[Mongoose]

I hope it's as good as SMAC, Becuase CIV3 wasn't. unlike SMAC, however, there will be no shortage of people online.


Very glad to hear about the reduced MM, that alone might make it worth buying. SMAC and CIV3 are painful after about 200-300 turns*, setting the production quees alone can take up to 5 minutes

Yes, i'm very slow

[screwtype]

I hope it's as good as SMAC, Becuase CIV3 wasn't. unlike SMAC, however, there will be no shortage of people online.


Very glad to hear about the reduced MM, that alone might make it worth buying. SMAC and CIV3 are painful after about 200-300 turns*, setting the production quees alone can take up to 5 minutes

What's SMAC and MM?

Yeah, Civ3 just gets unplayable at a certain point. Waiting for all those AI factions at war to move and attack each other, one unit at a time - what a yawn!

I sure hope they've fixed that in this instalment. But it does seem they've stuck to the basic design when it comes to combat, which is a disappointment. And I suppose your military units still "conquer" at one lousy tile per turn.

Why don't these strategy game designers do something radical for a change and actually give us a real combat system to play with?

Oh well, at least they've got rid of corruption. Athough it remains to be seen whether what replaces it is an improvement...

All the same, I just might take a punt and pre-order. I'm hanging out for a decent strategy game, every new release these days seems to be either a shooter or a MMORG...

[Mongoose]

Screwtype

Micro Management

SMAC is a "Sci fi" Version of CIV, and IMO has better gameplay. The Story line is weak, but i think it makes up for that with large amount of units and the flexible gameplay.

http://www.firaxis.com/smac/

Why don't these strategy game designers do something radical for a change and actually give us a real combat system to play with?

Well, for the same reason that RTW has a weak Campaign; Making a large change would scare people, or at least thats what the developers seem to think. Or perhaps it woould take too long and it's easier to just clone an older game?

All the same, I just might take a punt and pre-order. I'm hanging out for a decent strategy game, every new release these days seems to be either a shooter or a MMORG...

Not all shooters and MMORG's are bad...but most of them are. Trying to work as part of a team to achieve a strategic goal is fun and rewarding. The problem is that most people are too busy typing "0mgz u r t3h ******* hax0rz!11! i r w1l 9wn u!1!!!1" To actually play the game properly. and, ofcourse, there can be the problem that the game is set u in a more "Free for all way" Which, sadly, seems to be the case alot of the time these days.

The issue with MMORG is that they are so exspensive, and there are always so many people speaking l337 that there just isn't much role playing, which defeats the point of the game.

[screwtype]

Well, for the same reason that RTW has a weak Campaign; Making a large change would scare people, or at least thats what the developers seem to think. Or perhaps it woould take too long and it's easier to just clone an older game?

I think it's just conservatism. There seems to be an industry mindset that strategy games don't have serious action components, and vice versa.

Bit of a tragedy really because that is just the kind of game I would most like to get my hands on!

Not all shooters and MMORG's are bad...but most of them are. Trying to work as part of a team to achieve a strategic goal is fun and rewarding. The problem is that most people are too busy typing "0mgz u r t3h ******* hax0rz!11! i r w1l 9wn u!1!!!1" To actually play the game properly. and, ofcourse, there can be the problem that the game is set u in a more "Free for all way" Which, sadly, seems to be the case alot of the time these days.

The issue with MMORG is that they are so exspensive, and there are always so many people speaking l337 that there just isn't much role playing, which defeats the point of the game.

I only had one foray into online multiplayer and it sucked. I live in the southern hemisphere and the lag from here to the other side of the planet, where most of the action is, is phenomenal...

[screwtype]

I dunno if I will be getting it or not. All the previous ones have annoyed me, because you could not really experience the earlier eras. I want a civ game where the stone age lasts long enough to really get something done. Not to mention the Medieval and Pre-Modern eras.

Yeah, it is a problem with these tech advance type games. One of my favourite games is Imperialism II which runs from 1500 to 1900 (when the techs stop) but it too tends to gallop rather quickly through the middle period, so that some technologies become redundant almost as soon as they become available.

In Civ I remember it being mainly in the gunpowder era. As I recall you are often through that and into World War I technology in the blink of of an eye.

But then again, it's not as though you'd really want the tech race in Civ to be any longer...

[screwtype]

I think makes sense to have some time compression in earlier ages - progress was pretty slow in the stone age after all...

But I agree that the time compression in some periods is just wrong. Hopefully it's better paced in the new game, but I have my doubts.

[screwtype]

As it is now, the same empire will be dominant from the Stone Age 'till the Nuclear Age--and that's a direct result of the poorly designed faction system, and the ridiculous rate of time compression.

I think it's more a question of available resources, isn't it?

But if you want to see different empires rise and fall in different Ages, I think you're expecting a little too much from a game. However I tend to agree that this type of game oftens gallops through some ages too quick. Yes, it would be good if each era had enough time to develop its own flavour a bit more.

At least, it would in theory. In practice though, given the time it takes already to play through a Civ campaign - I'm not so sure.

[Mongoose]

Expecting too much? Rubbish. Civ III was but a fraction of the complexity of, say, Victoria: An Empire Under the Sun. While they are totally different games, Victoria spent less time under development and is--quite simply--far more complex. Supreme Ruler 2010? Way more complex. Hosts of other strategy games? Way more complex.

Adding in a more realistic faction system would be a drop in the water of complexity.

True. A tech path that gives you a little more freedom would add to the comlexity as well. what annoys me the most is that they already did that in SMAC, but took a huge step backwards in CIV3. It just dosen't make any sense....

[English assassin]

I thought the pace was quite a bit better in Civ III than in Civ II (ridiculously fast,) or CTP (too fast until it hit a brick wall round about the early modern era, when it became glacial, I don't think I ever teched a fleet above Ironclads, or destroyers at best). In Civ III I found I was having slightly meaningful "roman" or "medieval" conflicts for the first time.

I don't see why they couldn't make it adjustable though. It would be easy to do, eg, instead of a turn being 20 years in the early era, have a option to make it 10 years, doubling production etc (ie, keeping it the same on a turn for turn basis) but leave the pace of scientific development the same. Then you would spend twice as long in the stone age.

I know absolutely nothing about how games work but surely this wouldn't be a hard option to provide?

[Rosacrux redux]

Gelatinous Cube, since each and every game coming out you imagine different, why in the nine hells don't you join a gaming company and try to produce a game more to your liking?

BTW what are your favorite games (strategy) - to know where you're standing I mean...

[Geoffrey S]

Here's hoping they'll work on a new Aplha Centauri game at some point.

[NodachiSam]

Here's hoping they'll work on a new Aplha Centauri game at some point.

That would be awsome. I can't understand why they havn't already.

I'd like to see the whole basis for the various civilizations be greatly improved (utterly silly the way it is now), in order to show the ebb and flow of various nations throughout time, and I'd like each turn to only be one year--regardless of time period. It would make technology take a back seat to things like diplomacy and war, which should be the real backbone behind a strategy game.

(break of a post)

Time Compression is already in effect quite nicely, by making each turn a year long! However, all I really want is for each era to be a game in and of itself, with it's important wars, politics, and empires. As it is now, the same empire will be dominant from the Stone Age 'till the Nuclear Age--and that's a direct result of the poorly designed faction system, and the ridiculous rate of time compression.

(break of several posts)

The Civ series has changed remarkably little since its inception. Much less than most other series' out there. A little more depth would do it good--yet Civ 4, from the reviews i've read, seems to be all about simplifying it.

I totaly know what you mean about civilization being too simplified. It isn't at all historic, though I don't think it they explicitly claim it is. If they do it is scoffable, pwah! *sticks nose up in air*

The problem with the Civ factions is because of the time scale they have a compromise between a political unit and a "culture". It is kind of awkward to begin with, no culture or political unit has ever survived more than 2000 years with the Romans being close if you don't count the transition from Republic to Empire as a break. The Chinese could be said to also have had a very long lasting culture even though it too evolved over time.

It would be refreshing if we could see factions flourish and flounder. I've never played any of the Paradox games so I can't say much about them but I really like how factions can grow stronger and weaker in the TW series. I like as well the civil wars and faction reemergences occur which reflect the internal conflicts that states experience. You never experience that in Civ games. No city decides to rebell against you and start a new faction because your leader has so little influence over them. Also, what type of city leaves one faction and joins another? Wouldn't it prefer independance? I never experienced it anyways.

I think that each era should be given great importance. I recall from Civ3 that the earliest era was the shortest and the latest the longest when in fact the reverse tends to be true. I think 1 year per turn is perhaps too strict though. Certainly I don't think they should skip centuries in earlier eras but the earlier eras did have less exciting things per time period than later eras. Also, if you played each year a turn that would be 5000 turns for a game at least if it starts at the building of the Pyramids, which could take an awful long time to say the least. Such a game would have to be meticulously balanced so as to remain exciting for so long a time. The ancient and middle age eras should definately be longer though.

[screwtype]

I don't see why they couldn't make it adjustable though. It would be easy to do, eg, instead of a turn being 20 years in the early era, have a option to make it 10 years, doubling production etc (ie, keeping it the same on a turn for turn basis) but leave the pace of scientific development the same. Then you would spend twice as long in the stone age.

I know absolutely nothing about how games work but surely this wouldn't be a hard option to provide?

No, it would be very easy to provide. Trouble is, the developers actually have to think of making the time aspect a moddable option.

CivIII was already a highly moddable game, and from what I've been reading CivIV is perhaps going to be the most moddable game ever, with support for XML scripts and even the ability to mod the AI. So perhaps the desires of folks like you and Gelatinous to have a longer and more complex game can yet be realized...

[screwtype]

It would be refreshing if we could see factions flourish and flounder.

Well, maybe. But I wonder how you are actually going to make a challenging game if you have your most powerful rivals fading away just as a function of time?

The object of a game like Civ is to conquer the world, it isn't to have an historic simulation of history. If you wanted that, you would in my opinion have trouble grafting it onto the Civ paradigm. IMO you are talking about a totally new game - a totally new genre even - and one that I'm not sure a lot of people would be interested in playing.

I think that each era should be given great importance.

I don't know about "great". Great-er, in some cases, certainly.

if you played each year a turn that would be 5000 turns for a game at least if it starts at the building of the Pyramids, which could take an awful long time to say the least

That's exactly my point. In a game that tries to cover the whole of history, it's a pretty tall order to expect it to cover every period at length and still remain playable. Certainly some extension of time in some eras might be workable. But I mean, if you are really going to have 1000 turns in the stone age, who is ever going to advance past that era before they have either conquered the other civs or been beaten themselves?

The ancient and middle age eras should definately be longer though.

Dunno about the ancient. But I definitely used to feel that the gunpowder era didn't get its fair share.

[The_Doctor]

http://www.kalikokottage.com/civ3/sullla/civ4intro.html

This is a "walkthough" of the game.

A new section will be added each day until next monday. You should probably skip the intro.

[screwtype]

The bugger skipped right past the speed options. Not elaborating at all other than mentioning they exist.

Yeah, pity about that. But I guess we'll find out soon enough.

http://www.kalikokottage.com/civ3/sullla/civ4intro.html

This is a "walkthough" of the game.

A new section will be added each day until next monday. You should probably skip the intro.

Hmm, that's a handy site Martinus. I might read right through that later, but I don't think I'll do it now.

One of the pleasures of a new game is discovering things for yourself

[Fragony]

Oh nooooooooooooooooooooooooooo just what I need so C4 rocks; RIP social life. Civ/smac are just to addictive it is the devil I say. But that won't stop me from getting it, you never really know if you are actually having fun when playing these games, but you just cannot stop.

how is the pike vs tanks thing ;)