A new Civilization game has been announced.

[Lorenzo_H]

Civilization V already? http://uk.gamespot.com/pc/strategy/civilizationv/news.html?sid=6166680&om_act=convert&om_clk=mostpop

What do you think? I haven't even had time to play Civilization IV that much yet, and now that I just got Warlords, I'm like "whoa there, slow down."

Yeah, granted I love Civilization (I think it is the best series of games so far), but I think that its too soon for a Civ 5!

I genuinely hope now that I can resist the temptation to buy it when it does come around, since I have studies to get to! PC games and life are not the best mix.

[sapi]

One day I'm going to find the time to play a civ game - but it hasn't happened yet :laugh4:

[Lorenzo_H]

Man, you really should play at least one in your life. There are numerous reasons. Its incredibly fun, clean and educational (a great excuse to play it - "mom, I'm researching the Roman tank invasion of the Incas"). It is also very accesible, ie anyone can get into a game, unlike Total War where some depth knowledge is required. If you play a Civ game once, you'll feel like every other game you've ever played were a series of distractions where the devil was trying to keep you away from Civ.

[Bob the Insane]

@Sapi - Classic "it is what time in the morning!???!!?!?" gameplay...

[English assassin]

As i haven't got round to CIV 4 I may not be the best person to comment, but whether this is "good news" depends on (1) if they are just churning the franchise or not and (2) whether Econ21 has mastered his CIV addiction yet. :beam:

If you ask me the trouble with CIV is, we've done it. Multiple times, in fact. There is only so much "start with a settler and end up in space" you need. CIV 4 didn't seem to me to offer enough of an advance over CIV 3 to be worthwhile, and unless they can add something really NEW to CIV 5 I will feel the same way. And I mean new new, not just a few more parameters to micromanage.

My prediction: it will be the same old game with fancier graphics.

OT did anyone ever do a CIV type game (or mod for CIV) in a fantasy setting? That might be mildly diverting for a change. Suppose Civfanatics would know...

[BDC]

Combat seriously needs to be improved. I don't know what they did in Warlords (name suggests they improved things), but in vanilla it was simply tagged on. Plus technological advance was so fast and unit movement so slow that everything tended to be horribly obsolete by the time it got half way across a continent.

[Geoffrey S]

OT did anyone ever do a CIV type game (or mod for CIV) in a fantasy setting? That might be mildly diverting for a change. Suppose Civfanatics would know...
Not sure if it counts, but Alpha Centauri springs to mind. Easily my favourite game of all time. The expansive backstory and futuristic setting allowed the makers to fit in game mechanics and create a believable world with unique societies and technology, rather than forcing this world onto artificial game mechanics.

Another feature I love is the fact that basically all factions are the same, with the same customizable units, but they are distinguished by the character of their leaders and the way the act on the map. There really is a clear difference between the behaviour of for instance Gaia's Stepdaughters and The Human Hive, with regards to military behaviour, policies persued and implemented, and their tone of diplomacy. Much better than differentiating factions with unique units in my opinion.

Those aspects and the developing story during the campaign made for a very rich game.

[English assassin]

Yeah, I got SMAC after someone raved about it on here.

They were right too. I'm not sure if any CIV has been any better, and SMAC was, what, 2001?

Probably the best 4.99 i have spent on a game.

[Lorenzo_H]

As i haven't got round to CIV 4 I may not be the best person to comment, but whether this is "good news" depends on (1) if they are just churning the franchise or not and (2) whether Econ21 has mastered his CIV addiction yet. :beam:

If you ask me the trouble with CIV is, we've done it. Multiple times, in fact. There is only so much "start with a settler and end up in space" you need. CIV 4 didn't seem to me to offer enough of an advance over CIV 3 to be worthwhile, and unless they can add something really NEW to CIV 5 I will feel the same way. And I mean new new, not just a few more parameters to micromanage.

My prediction: it will be the same old game with fancier graphics.

OT did anyone ever do a CIV type game (or mod for CIV) in a fantasy setting? That might be mildly diverting for a change. Suppose Civfanatics would know...
I wholly agree with this statement, though I faintly hope your prediction is wrong, though I doubt it. They should, under pain of an EA-type reputation, bring some big new features to impress. Maybe incorporate the Space Colonization SMAC type area?

[Mithradates]

I for one believe the next civ game should be Alpah Centauri 2 i loved that game tempted to reinstall it now. For years when i switched my computer off it would say "please dont go the drones need you they look up to you" sigh fond memories.

[pevergreen]

Warlords added new leaders and factions to the game, combat remains unchanged.

[TevashSzat]

The civ games are coming out too fast IMO, I remember getting civilization 3 gold and then not too long after that, civ 4's release date was announced and released. Haven't even bought civ 4 now and civ 5 is coming out already.

[Midnight]

Give me a worthy successor to SMAC and I'll be very, very happy. After Civ4 though, I'm not excited.

[Mithradates]

I doubt it will be civ 5 more likely SMAC or another revamped older game.

[Lehesu]

Eh, GalCiv2 + DA has quenched my previous desire for a new Alpha Centauri game.

[TinCow]

Give me a worthy successor to SMAC and I'll be very, very happy. After Civ4 though, I'm not excited.

Really? I've played every single Civ game that Sid's put out, including SMAC, and I've found Civ4 to be far better than any of them. SMAC was indeed great, but it had many, many flaws (Infinite City Sprawl alone was so aggravating it made long games unenjoyable.) Civ4 seems to have achieve what I thought was unachievable: Great SP and great MP. Massive games that take a week or more to play, and quick games that you can finish in a couple hours. It's the swiss army knife of Strategy games!

[econ21]

Off-topic: I agree about Civ4 being excellent. In terms of my Civ addiction, I recently learned that in the UK, heroin use has increased because of "brown heroin" which you can smoke rather than inject. To me Civ4 is the "brown civ" of the genre. Civ2 was horribly addictive, but strangely unfulfilling - so playing it was like sticking a needle into your body to get a fix. Once you had gone cold turkey, getting back into it was eminently resistable (I put it on my shelf with a label marked "poison"). By contrast, Civ4 is just as addictive as Civ2, but also rather fun. So even when you don't have "one more turn" to get through, the prospect of playing it is rather pleasant and attractive.

Fortunately, my computer keeps cutting out and threatening to melt down when I play Civ4, so my habit is under control. (Although now it has a taste of power, I fear for what my computer will do next when I get back into M2TW after the coming patch.)

On-topic: too soon for a Civ4, but I'd be interested in what other Civ product is produced.

Thinking about how they could improve Civ in the longer term, one thing that occurred to me - beyond hiring CA to do the battles - would be to develop the role-playing aspect. We now have great generals and interesting talking head AI rulers. Why not develop that more, to have families - dynasties - and move a little into roleplaying territory? It's one of the improvements in the TW series - the way the avatars have become more prominent and characterful.

[pdoan8]

One strange thing about the Civ series: it wasn't my favorite game, but everytime I played, I had to forcefully remove myself from the PC. Really strange. That's why I skipped Civ4, uninstalled Civ2&3 and locked up the CDs in the basement.

[CountArach]

Civ 3 was alright, Civ 4 was brilliant, Warlords just made it so much better.

I am so there!

[ChaosLord]

I really enjoyed Civ4 and Warlords, but this definitly feels to be too soon. I fear it'll be mostly graphical updates rather than what actually matters like is so common. I guess if Soren is still on the team theres a good chance the AI will be worthwhile, and Firaxis hasn't given a major dissapointment yet... But I still worry.

[frogbeastegg]

One thing which seems to have been over looked is this:

a new Civilization game is planned. The report did not specify whether or not said game would be the inevitable Civilization V or a spin-off like CivCity: Rome. The prospects of a console or portable Civilization title have also been rumored.

It seems to me very likely that it will be another CivCity (yay!), or a DS civ, or something. Not Civ5.

[Kekvit Irae]

I am pleased with the new features of Warlords, but I emulate the voices of the majority in this thread: "Give me SMAC2, or give me death!"

[screwtype]

If you ask me the trouble with CIV is, we've done it. Multiple times, in fact. There is only so much "start with a settler and end up in space" you need. CIV 4 didn't seem to me to offer enough of an advance over CIV 3 to be worthwhile, and unless they can add something really NEW to CIV 5 I will feel the same way. And I mean new new, not just a few more parameters to micromanage.

Yup, that pretty much sums up my feeling about the game too. In fact I prefer CivIII, there's something claustrophic and antiseptic about the CivIV map and interface that turns me off. What little changes they made to the gameplay from CivIII were mostly gimmicks, and many of the other changes they made actually worsened the gameplay instead of improving it.


My prediction: it will be the same old game with fancier graphics.

I might have been prepared to dispute that, except that after the disappointment of M2TW I can no longer blame a company's move to 3D (as in RTW) for an accompanying lack of gameplay.

[caravel]

Off-topic: I agree about Civ4 being excellent. In terms of my Civ addiction, I recently learned that in the UK, heroin use has increased because of "brown heroin" which you can smoke rather than inject. To me Civ4 is the "brown civ" of the genre. Civ2 was horribly addictive, but strangely unfulfilling - so playing it was like sticking a needle into your body to get a fix. Once you had gone cold turkey, getting back into it was eminently resistable (I put it on my shelf with a label marked "poison"). By contrast, Civ4 is just as addictive as Civ2, but also rather fun. So even when you don't have "one more turn" to get through, the prospect of playing it is rather pleasant and attractive.

Fortunately, my computer keeps cutting out and threatening to melt down when I play Civ4, so my habit is under control. (Although now it has a taste of power, I fear for what my computer will do next when I get back into M2TW after the coming patch.)

On-topic: too soon for a Civ4, but I'd be interested in what other Civ product is produced.

Thinking about how they could improve Civ in the longer term, one thing that occurred to me - beyond hiring CA to do the battles - would be to develop the role-playing aspect. We now have great generals and interesting talking head AI rulers. Why not develop that more, to have families - dynasties - and move a little into roleplaying territory? It's one of the improvements in the TW series - the way the avatars have become more prominent and characterful.
I was also a Civ2 (and Civ) addict, and I know exactly what you mean by "unfulfilling". For me the game had no longevity and this killed the addiction eventually. I have often wondered over the advantages of Civ3/4 over Civ2. Is it purely cosmetic or are they somehow more of a game? I haven't played a Civ game since Civ2 so I'm totally in the dark as to their progress.

:bow:

[English assassin]

Well, its all incremental. I have or had Civ 2, CTP and Civ 3, and I would say Civ 3 was certainly a worthwhile upgrade over the earlier two. Strategic resources were good. Diplomacy worked better. So I would guess if you jumped straight from Civ 2 to civ 4 you would feel the same, only more so

There's no getting away from the fact that its basically the same game though. Either you get excited moving little men about the grid and fiddling with a tax rate or you don't.

As a recovered "addict" who knows exactly what Econ21 means I am not in a hurry to get any more Civ, personally. its too much like work.

[econ21]

I was also a Civ2 (and Civ) addict, and I know exactly what you mean by "unfulfilling". For me the game had no longevity and this killed the addiction eventually. I have often wondered over the advantages of Civ3/4 over Civ2. Is it purely cosmetic or are they somehow more of a game? I haven't played a Civ game since Civ2 so I'm totally in the dark as to their progress.

CivIV has some significant improvements over Civ2 (I found CivIII horrible and did not play it much at all):

(1) Perhaps the main thing is that the combat is rather satisfying now. I found Civ2's combat about its worst feature. My short experience with CivIII just underlined that: moving a mass of single units one square a turn for 100 years; it was excruciating. By contrast, in CivIV, combat centres around a few combined arms stacks of units - real armies - and seems faster paced. There is a decent RPS system in it, as well as a trade-off between stacking and greater exposure to bombardment. Units earn experience and get promotions, which make you care about them much more than you ever do in TW as well as make you customise your army in interesting ways. One of my most fun experiences was trying to fend off Catherine the Great's tanks with no oil; I felt like the 1941 Wehrmacht trying to cope with T-34s and KV1s. The brown underwear time only abated when I managed to get a few marines the AT promotion. The quality vs quantity issue (aka how can a spearman kill a battleship?) is very well handled: high tech gives you an edge, but the fuzzy-wuzzies will overwhelm you if you push it too far. For some reason, wars in the Ancient and Medieval period are more viable now - in Civ2, they tended to be too slow and costly to be worth pursuing. Plus the AI is rather nice - often it will emerge from the fog of war with several massive stacks and you are scrabbling to cope. I still don't play Civ as a warmonger (although this seems required for higher difficulty levels - I don't understand this: why call it "civilisation" if warmongering is the ultimate strategy?) - it is still too slow to be bothered with. If I wanted to conquer the world, I'd play TW which obviously has vastly better combat (those amazing battles). Still the combat is pretty decent - especially if you are peaceful turtling player, who has invested in tech and has a weak army, then must fight for your life.

(2) The silly OCS (one city sprawl?) strategy of Civ2 is gone and without the hateful cultural penalty to growth of Civ3. Often you want about 8 cities on large as your core; more are just extra. This makes the gameplay more relaxed - more about quality than quantity. The national wonders increase the emphasis on specialising your cities - commerce, science, production, military, religious, Great person etc. It's fun nurturing them.

(3) There is no "right way" to win. In Civ2, at one stage, I could win Diety by just picking a particular path (centred around OCS and particular wonders). Every game would play out the same. In Civ4 at moderate difficulty levels (Prince), there are multiple ways to play and no one Wonder is essential (in fact, they are probably not that worthwhile - but I just like them for flavour).

(4) The diplomatic AI - which even in Civ2 had fun distinct personalities - is even more characterful and this adds to the diplomacy. Dealing with Ghandhi feels different from surly Stalin, which feels diferent from psycho Monetzuma etc. There are quite a few diplomatic options and you can always see how you are regarded and why. It's very well done and TW could learn from it.

(5) The game has more rewarding historical flavour. I really like the element of religion - spreading it and how it affects diplomacy. The Great People are great fun - it is just so cool to be rewarded by having Elvis spawn allownig you to perform a culture bomb near an enemy city or having an Einstein who can establish a science academy. You can play so as to get more of these people and affect their type, or you can ignore them. The variety between factions is nice too - their traits, their unique unit and building.

It still sucks a frightening amount of time if you play it, as I prefer, on huge with terra. But for the above reasons, I usually end feeling it's time well spent. By contrast, in Civ2, I'd feel like I've just lost a weekend or two. I'm still not in a hurry to go back to it though. Too all consuming.

[doc_bean]

It still sucks a frightening amount of time if you play it, as I prefer, on huge with terra. But for the above reasons, I usually end feeling it's time well spent. By contrast, in Civ2, I'd feel like I've just lost a weekend or two. I'm still not in a hurry to go back to it though. Too all consuming.

One of the huge benefits of civIV, imo, is that you can play relatively short games, which take less than 10 hours. But I'm still keeping it on the shelf for now...

[TinCow]

One of my favorite aspects of Civ 4 is how multiplayer friendly it is. My wife and I regularly play games together and it's immensely easy and fun. There are even 'deathmatch' style maps that are designed for multiplayer and team games. So many options to make the game exactly what you want it to be. Pretty much any style of play you've ever had in any of the previous Civ games can be duplicated in some manner.

I agree that it's not really "new" in any sense, but I think the proper way to look at Civ 4 is that it comes closer to perfecting the game than any other version, especially if you play with the Warlords expansion. If there was one thing I could change about the game, it would be to make the tech tree larger. That said, they've done an excellent job of making sure that the game is balanced. There's nothing that's too overpowered or underpowered. Everything can be countered by something (except possibly Praetorians in the ancient era).

[Pindar]

Does CivIV have a real world map?

[TinCow]

If you mean does it have a map of Earth, yes. If you mean does it have a setting that generates 'realistic' maps, yes. I think the "Fractal" map setting which comes with Warlords is the best 'natural' map generator I've seen. It's comparable to the generator in SMAC, which was very good.

[Lorenzo_H]

One of my favorite aspects of Civ 4 is how multiplayer friendly it is. My wife and I regularly play games together and it's immensely easy and fun. There are even 'deathmatch' style maps that are designed for multiplayer and team games. So many options to make the game exactly what you want it to be. Pretty much any style of play you've ever had in any of the previous Civ games can be duplicated in some manner.

I agree that it's not really "new" in any sense, but I think the proper way to look at Civ 4 is that it comes closer to perfecting the game than any other version, especially if you play with the Warlords expansion. If there was one thing I could change about the game, it would be to make the tech tree larger. That said, they've done an excellent job of making sure that the game is balanced. There's nothing that's too overpowered or underpowered. Everything can be countered by something (except possibly Praetorians in the ancient era).
Yeah I enjoy playing my bro. I beat him all the time though...

[TinCow]

Yeah I enjoy playing my bro. I beat him all the time though...

LOL, I can freely say that I am much better than my wife, since she doesn't read these forums. Due to that, we play cooperatively as a team against the AI. We pump up the difficulty because of the team advantages we get.

[screwtype]

If there was one thing I could change about the game, it would be to make the tech tree larger.

Yeah, that's something that disappointed me about Civ4 too. I got used to the tech tree in Civ3 and it seemed to make very good sense and be well paced and so on. Civ4 by contrast, you just seem to rip through the tech tree and there isn't the same variety or sense of achievement or tension as you struggle to get that vital tech as there is in Civ3. Just another feature that made Civ4 a much more bland experience than the previous game for me.

[screwtype]

Well, its all incremental. I have or had Civ 2, CTP and Civ 3, and I would say Civ 3 was certainly a worthwhile upgrade over the earlier two. Strategic resources were good. Diplomacy worked better. So I would guess if you jumped straight from Civ 2 to civ 4 you would feel the same, only more so

There's no getting away from the fact that its basically the same game though. Either you get excited moving little men about the grid and fiddling with a tax rate or you don't.

As a recovered "addict" who knows exactly what Econ21 means I am not in a hurry to get any more Civ, personally. its too much like work.

The main problem with Civ3 for me is that it just becomes too much to manage in the end game. You seem to spend all your time going around queuing up the next building and next unit in each city, or fiddling with city workers to try and fix the little problems that arise with happiness etc etc.

The early to mid game when you are exploring and founding cities is fun, but after a while it all becomes a micromanagement nightmare.

[Lorenzo_H]

LOL, I can freely say that I am much better than my wife, since she doesn't read these forums. Due to that, we play cooperatively as a team against the AI. We pump up the difficulty because of the team advantages we get.
Actually the players who aren't in a team get a bonus anyway ie they have a huge base science rate. Players in a team still have the advantage because of: city upkeep (the less cities you have, the less the upkeep is, and since you are in a team, you don't need quite as many cities as someone who isn't), expansion is faster, and micromanagement is easier.

[English assassin]

The main problem with Civ3 for me is that it just becomes too much to manage in the end game. You seem to spend all your time going around queuing up the next building and next unit in each city, or fiddling with city workers to try and fix the little problems that arise with happiness etc etc.

The early to mid game when you are exploring and founding cities is fun, but after a while it all becomes a micromanagement nightmare.

Agreed, also corruption is tedious. I have never played a game remotely through to the end (unless the end was my defeat)

[screwtype]

Agreed, also corruption is tedious. I have never played a game remotely through to the end (unless the end was my defeat)

LOL, I didn't want to admit it but it's the same for me. I've never managed to finish a Civ3 campaign, it's just too much hard work even when you're in front. At a certain point I usually just start a new campaign because I'm sick of the current one.

And yeah, the corruption feature sucks. In my last campaign I reduced it to a maximum of 50% which made it manageable, but then Civ4 came out and I never got around to finishing that campaign either.

[econ21]

Civ has always suffered from the late-game drag, but Civ4 less so than Civ2. That's partly because OCS is less prevalent so you have fewer cities; and partly because micromanagement of each city is reduced.

The point about the tech tree may be in contradiction to the late-game point. I find techs are discovered so fast in the modern era (about 7 turns per tech even on epic/huge), so the end-game actually goes too quickly for me. There's no point invading anyone or even managing your empire with great care; all that matters is cranking out the spaceship asap. (Maybe I should use other victory conditions, but they don't seem that appealing either.)

The most satisfying period for me in Civ4 is from roughly pikemen to redcoats. You are advanced enough that you can afford war without stalling your economy; and the end is still far away enough that the war, not the victory conditions, loom largest in your mind.

I do like the earlier period of exploration and development too - it is rather like the Imperialism 2 tightrope of managing smooth expansion. But I like a bit of combat too and early combat is just too costly in Civ (at least for a turtler like me - apparently massing 8 axemen and stomping the AI is the height of good strategy on higher difficulties. :rolleyes:)

[The Celt]

Meh, I tried Civ III and didn't like it. IV was better, but I'm more prone to playing games like Total War and EU. Civ just feels to old fashioned to me.(Pardon my blasphemy)
I mean, when the heck are they gonna update that god awful soundtrack? In CivIV it still sounds like something from the early 90s!:inquisitive: You know we have this thing called Mp3s now, that can contain more detailed music! Cid really needs to fire that composer....:whip:

[TinCow]

Meh, I tried Civ III and didn't like it. IV was better, but I'm more prone to playing games like Total War and EU. Civ just feels to old fashioned to me.(Pardon my blasphemy)
I mean, when the heck are they gonna update that god awful soundtrack? In CivIV it still sounds like something from the early 90s!:inquisitive: You know we have this thing called Mp3s now, that can contain more detailed music! Cid really needs to fire that composer....:whip:

If you go into the settings in Civ IV, you can tell it to play music from a custom folder instead. I find that most games are like that these days.

[Lorenzo_H]

Meh, I tried Civ III and didn't like it. IV was better, but I'm more prone to playing games like Total War and EU. Civ just feels to old fashioned to me.(Pardon my blasphemy)
I mean, when the heck are they gonna update that god awful soundtrack? In CivIV it still sounds like something from the early 90s!:inquisitive: You know we have this thing called Mp3s now, that can contain more detailed music! Cid really needs to fire that composer....:whip:
I like some of the Civ IV music. The intro screen, for instance "Baba Yetu" and the intro screen for Warlords is some nice War Chant.

But yeah, some of it could do with a toss in the bin.

[edyzmedieval]

I played Civ IV for about 3 hours. Not too addictive to me, because it's like a board game, and technology advances waaay too fast for me.

[screwtype]

I like some of the Civ IV music. The intro screen, for instance "Baba Yetu" and the intro screen for Warlords is some nice War Chant.

Yeah, that Baba Yetu piece is really nice. In fact, one of the few things I liked about Civ4. I actually had to stop and listen to it all the way through several times, I rarely do that with computer game music. In fact, I always play games with the music off ~:)

[screwtype]

Civ has always suffered from the late-game drag, but Civ4 less so than Civ2. That's partly because OCS is less prevalent so you have fewer cities; and partly because micromanagement of each city is reduced.

The point about the tech tree may be in contradiction to the late-game point. I find techs are discovered so fast in the modern era (about 7 turns per tech even on epic/huge), so the end-game actually goes too quickly for me. There's no point invading anyone or even managing your empire with great care; all that matters is cranking out the spaceship asap. (Maybe I should use other victory conditions, but they don't seem that appealing either.)

The most satisfying period for me in Civ4 is from roughly pikemen to redcoats. You are advanced enough that you can afford war without stalling your economy; and the end is still far away enough that the war, not the victory conditions, loom largest in your mind.

I agree, I think with Civ4 they went too far in the opposite direction. The way you race through the techs toward the end just feels wrong.


I do like the earlier period of exploration and development too - it is rather like the Imperialism 2 tightrope of managing smooth expansion. But I like a bit of combat too and early combat is just too costly in Civ (at least for a turtler like me - apparently massing 8 axemen and stomping the AI is the height of good strategy on higher difficulties. :rolleyes:)

Yes, combat in Civ doesn't work very well at all. I remember the second last campaign I played in Civ3, I started a war in about the bronze age and it lasted over 1000 years! I think one city changed hands in all that time. Pretty silly really.

I had a similar problem with Civ4 too. I was trying to take an enemy city, but it took so long just to get my units in position that in the end I couldn't stand it anymore and just chucked in the whole campaign.

[TinCow]

technology advances waaay too fast for me.

Play on Marathon speed setting. You won't have that problem at all.

[econ21]

I had a similar problem with Civ4 too. I was trying to take an enemy city, but it took so long just to get my units in position that in the end I couldn't stand it anymore and just chucked in the whole campaign.

That's one reason I turtle in Civ. Playing Civ peacefully is slow; playing it to conquer must be agonising.

Defensive wars can be rather fast and furious though. It's not like RTW/M2TW when a silly pitiful stack may attack you. In Civ4, often if the AI attacks you, you can see half a dozen AI stacks suddenly looming out of the fog of war within a few turns. It is pretty impressive when you realise how long the AI must have spent marching across the huge map just to do this to you. I find those kind of situations really intense as my garrisons are pitiful but I usually have the tech and the economy to salvage the situation. What makes it particularly fun is the diplomacy - the AI suffers from war weariness so if you can inflict enough damage, you can sue for peace. But conversely, there is a shark mentality, so if the other AI factions smell blood, they may pitch in. And you can try to persuade others to join the war on your behalf. And...

Drat. Starting to work myself up into wanting another fix. Must stop posting.

[CountArach]

Play on Marathon speed setting. You won't have that problem at all.

Except that all of the technologies are researched by 1400.

[screwtype]

Drat. Starting to work myself up into wanting another fix. Must stop posting.

LOL, all the talk about Civ3 was having a similar effect on me - oh, the fun of grabbing those first few techs, getting to your first level 6 city, finding that iron ore tile, achieving promotion to the Medieval period, scoring your first infantryman! The joy of sailing your little galley around, finding that little batch of islands just off the mainland! That familiar little blooping sound when you reach end of turn!

Bah. Not sure I can resist just one more little peek...

[Ironside]

I agree, I think with Civ4 they went too far in the opposite direction. The way you race through the techs toward the end just feels wrong.


Ever played SMAC? :laugh4: My record is 5 techs/turn (future techs though).

I suspect it has to with your empire-size (and especially the economical side of it) as it's been more or less prevalent in all civ games (sadly I don't remember how much, played them all actually).

Edit: Slightly off-topic, what does the second sentence mean in "Eternity lies ahead of us, and behind. Have you drunk your fill?"

[Pannonian]

Ever played SMAC? :laugh4: My record is 5 techs/turn (future techs though).

I suspect it has to with your empire-size (and especially the economical side of it) as it's been more or less prevalent in all civ games (sadly I don't remember how much, played them all actually).

Magtubes is the key to multiple techs per turn, as it is the key to everything else advanced (the super former is probably the most powerful unit in the game). Tool up your supersized solar panel park, then rehome your crawlers to your science cities (several to enable multiple techs per turn, clustered around your capital to minimise corruption). Boost efficiency to insane levels with Democracy/Green/Knowledge/Cybernetic, and set Research to 100% - the engineers freed by crawling in nutrients from your maximised farmland will be providing the economy. As you can imagine, this is not a viable tactic against human players, as the set-up is far too lengthy and vulnerable, but it is eminently achievable against the AI (read the one city challenges in the Apolyton forums for more pointers). Why anyone would bother is another question altogether.

BTW, have you ever tried the more advanced tactics during the competitive part of the game? Homing invasion forces to a base with a Punishment sphere to allow you to continue running Free Market, etc. My favourite was to use my massive former fleet to landbridge and magtube my conquests, usually neutralising the enemy faction within 2-3 turns. Edit: have you ever done the faction-wide pop-boom?


Edit: Slightly off-topic, what does the second sentence mean in "Eternity lies ahead of us, and behind. Have you drunk your fill?"
Who knows? But I can listen to Deirdre reciting a phonebook and I'd be happy. Edit: Oops, just realised it isn't Deirdre who says that, but Planet. Still, Yang remarking "What do I care about your suffering?" is probably my favourite quote.

[TinCow]

That's one reason I turtle in Civ. Playing Civ peacefully is slow; playing it to conquer must be agonising.

Have you tried going for cultural victories? Those games require you to avoid war at all costs and play the other civs off against each other. It's difficult, but very fun when you succeed.

[screwtype]

Edit: Slightly off-topic, what does the second sentence mean in "Eternity lies ahead of us, and behind. Have you drunk your fill?"

That's a tech quote in SMAC? ~:)

I guess it means carpe diem (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carpe_diem)- seize the day.

[Ironside]

That's a tech quote in SMAC? ~:)

I guess it means carpe diem (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carpe_diem)- seize the day.

aye, the one for future techs, so you heard that a lot in the end game. SMAC does have exellent quotes though.

[edyzmedieval]

One thing that I like about Civ is that history-making is very funny. Mao Zedong invented Islam. :laugh4:

[ChaosLord]

Good news! There might or might not be another new Civilization game in the works, but there is definitly a Civilization IV expansion in the works. It is called Civ4: Beyond the Sword. Eurogamer Article (http://www.eurogamer.net/article.php?article_id=74688)



There will be 10 fresh civilisations, such as The Netherlands, Portugal and Babylon, each with their own unique style and leaders. Plus we can expect trowels-full of new units, leaders, and buildings to expand on the original game.

New corporations will be introduced, which will spread throughout the land and provide benefits for certain provisions. And you'll now have to watch out for random events, like natural disasters, pleas for help, or demands from your population.

Those of you seeking a diplomatic victory will now be able to do so earlier, choosing from more resolutions and diplomatic options, and more ways to spy on your opponents will be included much earlier on in the game.

The AI has been thoroughly worked over, as have the latter stages of the campaigns, with Firaxis intent on giving you more options as you reach the end of your technology tree. Because of this, the developer will include an advanced start option, which will let you begin playing further down the evolutionary line, allowing you to see the new bits and bobs without pouring your summer into the game.

This new expansion will also integrate community content, adding 12 new scenarios created or inspired by you, the fans.

[doc_bean]

It seems to be called 'beyond the stars' and not 'beyond the sword' a promising title at least.

Too bad Civ expansions cost nearly as much as full games, and i haven't bought warlords (yet ?).

[frogbeastegg]

Official site (http://www.2kgames.com/civ4/beyondthesword/) says "Beyond the Sword."

Sounds a bit meh so far. Adding a lot of stuff to the part of the game I find boring - the post medieval section.

[doc_bean]

Apparently Eurogamer does it wrong and it's indeed 'Beyond the Sword'. I was hoping they'd improve the late game period and perhaps even add a little extra era (hence the title), now it just feels like a bunch of 'stuff'.

O well, I still haven't gotten Galactic Civilizations II, there appears to be a gold edition out now (me wonders if he'll ever encounter it in shops here).

[Rilder]

It'd be nice if the game wouldn't rush you past Classical age (on marathon), I'l just start to finish building my army when medival age hits and all my units are out dated...

[Lorenzo_H]

Looks great to me.

[Ironside]

And here I fail to see this post for ages somehow :dizzy2:


Magtubes is the key to multiple techs per turn, as it is the key to everything else advanced (the super former is probably the most powerful unit in the game). Tool up your supersized solar panel park, then rehome your crawlers to your science cities (several to enable multiple techs per turn, clustered around your capital to minimise corruption). Boost efficiency to insane levels with Democracy/Green/Knowledge/Cybernetic, and set Research to 100% - the engineers freed by crawling in nutrients from your maximised farmland will be providing the economy. As you can imagine, this is not a viable tactic against human players, as the set-up is far too lengthy and vulnerable, but it is eminently achievable against the AI (read the one city challenges in the Apolyton forums for more pointers). Why anyone would bother is another question altogether.

That critical mass thingy happens thanks to a major empire with massive build-ups I think, I don't really aim for it (more than that I like to tech).


BTW, have you ever tried the more advanced tactics during the competitive part of the game? Homing invasion forces to a base with a Punishment sphere to allow you to continue running Free Market, etc. My favourite was to use my massive former fleet to landbridge and magtube my conquests, usually neutralising the enemy faction within 2-3 turns. Edit: have you ever done the faction-wide pop-boom?

Not many, as at this point I would usually have gotten the tech leap started (didn't play on hardest as I didn't like the penalties you had). Graviton ships with locusts of chiron was a nice speed invasion combo though.

Only with the cloning vats and hydropod satelites. Bit problematic if you run this too early though, as you need to be able to handle the planetary damage or end up with a lot of fungus and mind worm attacks.


Who knows? But I can listen to Deirdre reciting a phonebook and I'd be happy. Edit: Oops, just realised it isn't Deirdre who says that, but Planet. Still, Yang remarking "What do I care about your suffering?" is probably my favourite quote.

Yes Yang does have some good quotes (there's a lot of them in there), but to be honest, he scares me. :laugh4:

Never played SMAC online, so I know that a decent player would probably defeat me quite badly.