Civilization IV

[English assassin]

how is the pike vs tanks thing ;)

Not fixed, according to the review I read.

[The_Doctor]

how is the pike vs tanks thing ;)

Highly unlikey according to what I have read.

[ChaosLord]

The pikes versus tanks thing is fixed, but there are some things that can make it more likely to happen. One major thing is that damaged units don't attack at full strength, IE half hp=half strength. So if you find a low tech enemy and continually throw units at him ignoring damage and expecting to win constantly don't be suprised when your exhausted units get taken out.


As for the others, did you guys play Civ3 that much? Empires fell and rose all the time. It wasn't uncommon in Civ3 to see the biggest empire ganged up on in the middle/industrial ages creating a new balance of power. One killer AI usually pops up per continent, and its definitly not always just who was strong early on. I've also had games where all the empires were close in strength(which I loved, because those make for some tense situations).

I've even watched an AI go from less cities then the surrounding civs to conquer one...then conquer another..and so on until he took down the other five civs on that continent and was a superpower I couldn't hope to match. As for HoI(1-2) and Victoria being more complex thats up for debate, Civ just presents its information better so you don't have to go hunting for it.

Another word on combat in Civ4, theres sort of a paper-rock-scissors system going on that requires combined arms. For example Catapults are good against Melee(and can damage all units in a stack, making SoD a thing of the past) but Horse Archers are good gainst Catapults and spearmen are of course good against Horses. Its defined as Artilley/Melee/Horses obviously. Also Archers(finally) are the standard defensive unit until guns, they get bonuses when defending cities.

If you want a look at the techs and promotions, check this download of the tech-tree and promotion list. http://www.2kgames.com/civ4/downloads/civ4-techtree.zip

[English assassin]

Nuts, it DOES look good from the walkthrough. Oh well I'm afraid its looking like I'll have to get it...

you never really know if you are actually having fun when playing these games, but you just cannot stop

This is so true.

[screwtype]

Nuts, it DOES look good from the walkthrough.

Actually, having read the walkthrough, I personally got a rather unpleasant sense of deja vu as I was reminded of the old Civ3 game mechanics I eventually grew tired of. I also wasn't very reassured by the fact that city and unit building in Civ4 sounds even slower than the often glacial pace of the previous game.

Yeah, sure, this edition is slicker and snazzier than ever before - but do I really need another Civ title? I certainly don't need one badly enough to pay full price for it.

Hmmm, maybe I can wait a few months after all...

[frogbeastegg]

You know, the odd thing is that I've played CivII, CivIII, Call to power I and II, and I can't honestly say that I actually enjoyed any of them, despite wasting hours and hours with them and liking the general idea of guiding a civ from stone age to modern day. Alpha Centauri I did enjoy, and that game has a setting I don't care for and so much brown it goes right out the other side of brownness. Something wrong there.

AC had so many more options, and I suppose that is what decided it for me. That and the diplomacy - it actually worked and with some depth too. The factions were customised, but unlike the attempt at the same in CivIII this never felt wrong and artificial.

Civ ... hmm, I'll echo others and say some ages finished too quickly and were little mroe than speedbumps on the path of advancement. Those ages were those I am most interested in. We shall speak not of pikes and tanks, or even stone age clubmen and tanks. It still makes me scowl.

I do have to say that I'm warily eyeing this thread, praying that the game is actually rubbish. I simply don't have time for another game, and if this one is good I know I'll be buying. And cursing as large chunks of my life turn into "Just one more turn ..." I already have enough of that with BI, thank you!

[Mouzafphaerre]

.
I installed CivIII, just to realize that it was cartoon. If I want cartoons, I go and watch Buggs Bunny or Flinstones, or even Smurfs, and I like them all. Threw it away the next day.

Then, when the first pre-release screenshots of the Pirates remake was out, it was all clear to me that Sid Meier is about cartoons. So be it, I have no problem with that. But I won't be playing such games.
.

[Papewaio]

Looks like in Civ 4 the diplomacy thing is fixed... the AI actually remembers you past actions and you can see some of the main pluses or minuses in your "Diplomacy Bank Account"

As for Tank vs Pike what I can gather is that not only is the chance proportional to the relative modified strengths but so is the damage.

I think (not confirmed) that if you have Str2 and your opponent Str1, it means you will damage is 2/3s of the time and it will damage you 1/3 of the time AND you do 2/1 points of damage and it does 1/2... or something rather close to that model as they mention a str 4 vs str 1 has a 98% chance of wining without other modifiers...

[ChaosLord]

Just when everyone is saying they want gameplay not graphics one guy has to complain about a TBS game looking like cartoons... Ok then.

Civ4 plays slow or fast depending apon the setting. I think theres short-normal-epic for the game modes with epic being like Civ3 was. The short-normal games you can finish in a day easily people have been saying.

And yes Papewaio it is like that from what i've heard. Firepower is back in, so a unit with double strength then other would be doing double the damage the other one is dishing out or something along those lines. I'm sure the various previews/reviews around could explain it better then I. But it was said that even 2 higher strength is a sizeable advantage in combat, so I dont' expect to be running into the low tech beating high tech units unless in very bad conditions.

All that said, i'm obviously biased towards Civ so perhaps i'm not the best source of info. You should really take a look at all the previews/reviews out, though those need to examined a bit closely too I suppose. Anyway, just check www.apolyton.net and its Civ4 section. Theres links to all current reviews and old previews, including ones by the beta testers from the civ community.

[GoreBag]

Then, when the first pre-release screenshots of the Pirates remake was out, it was all clear to me that Sid Meier is about cartoons.

But Pirates! is so much FUN! I may seem sarcastic, but I'm really just enthusiastic.

[Papewaio]

Civ IV Combat System

Your current strength is also your hit points. Your current strength is used to do all the calculations for a battle.

So according to the link.

Round 1 Strength 2 vs Strength 1
Strength 2 will win a round 66% of the time and do 0.8 Strength points in damage leaving the lesser unit on a Strength of 0.2
The Strength 1 will win a round 33% of the time and do 0.1 Strength points in damage leaving the stronger unit on a Strength of 1.9

The same chances and damage are used throughout the combat.

The higher strength unit needs to win only twice. While the lesser unit needs to win 20 times... 1 in 3,486,784,401 chance of beating the stronger unit.

So it looks like the pike vs tank problem is solved.

Still reading it, but it looks like it is fairly close to that and higher strengths really mean something.

[Mouzafphaerre]

.
Probably I should have never spoken with the ultimate risk of insulting one of the many Sid Meier cult members. So I formally apologize and withdraw my comments. Civs are the best games ever made, is being made and will ever be made.
.

[ChaosLord]

You didn't insult me, i'm not quite that rabid a fan. I just thought it was odd that someone would have graphics as the entire reason he didn't play/like a strategy game. Naturally you're entitled to your opinion, but it didn't really sound like you even gave the series a chance.

[Mouzafphaerre]

.
Well, rather than graphics themselves, their -so to speak- underestimation as a gameplay element bugged me. Now something for you all to laught at: I didn't get the game myself. It was just sitting at the desk for whatever reason and I installed it out of curiousity. When I started to play I thought it was a title from maybe 1996 at best. (Didn't know a single thing about the series or Meier then.)

To be totally fair about it, I honestly loved the sense of humour in the opening cartoon movie.
.

[GoreBag]

The higher strength unit needs to win only twice. While the lesser unit needs to win 20 times... 1 in 3,486,784,401 chance of beating the stronger unit.

Not necessarily. The strength 1 unit would do more damage after having won one round of combat, and will be more likely to strike home again.

[Papewaio]

According to the link the strength used for Attack and Defense is what was at the start of combat, not the previous round.

[ChaosLord]

Are you sure it was CivIII you installed? The opening intro is just an overview of some mediteranen island showing work on some huge palace-like structure in stone age, then medieval, industrial, and finally modern as the camera rises and then it ends at the top. Not much but not funny either so you have me confused.

As for graphics as a gameplay element it wasn't really underestimated, enough companies have shown graphics can hide gameplay flaws. They just focused more on other things once an acceptable level was reached. Or so I guess anyway. I would imagine its also hard to represent entire worlds with photo-realistic quality with units and cities in the mix as well. But as i've said and you've ever-so-subtly hinted at, i'm biased in this area.

[screwtype]

.
When I started to play I thought it was a title from maybe 1996 at best.
.

Yeah, the graphics in the earlier games are really retro. Even when Conquests came out, they didn't bother giving it a graphics overhaul.

Pity, because cuter graphics in Conquests might have made the experience a little more attractive, to me at least. That, and some better control of your worker units. Man, I sure got tired of issuing commands to those little buggers...

[screwtype]

Civ IV Combat System

I'm a little sorry they've changed this element. I thought combat worked pretty well in the previous game. The main problem was how long it all took. I sure hope they've done something to speed up the combat a bit. Oh, and the movement. I never want to see a game where the AI moves each and every one of its units individually again...

[screwtype]

BTW, I noticed in the walkthrough that the various civ leaders appear wearing clothing that is totally out of whack with the time period. I seem to recall in Civ3 that the clothing changed with the Civ's level of development. So this is one albeit minor change that is not for the better.

Also, I'm a little uncomfortable about seeing Gandhi in this game. Gandhi was a pacifist and an anti-imperialist and it doesn't seem appropriate to have him in a game of world conquest. He is also regarded by many as a saint in his home country. It seems a little sacrilegious to me - like making Jesus or Mohammed the civ leaders of Europe or Arabia...

[ChaosLord]

Civilization isn't just about conquest, you can win diplomatic/space race/culturual victory all without fighting or conquering anyone. So in that context especially with civics like pacifism and the like, you don't think Gandhi fits as a leader? But you're right about the clothing thing, its a bit odd to see Julius sporting a toga in 2000AD. Also, I think theres an option for fast combat resolution.

[Papewaio]

Gandhi has been in all the Civs and has always lead a (relatively) peaceful civilisation. Nor would I equate him with Jesus or Mohammed. He is a peaceful version of Washington or Napolean or Attaturk. He was a political leader who used pacifism to gain independance for his country not a religous founder.

[English assassin]

I can't quite work out how the new combat thing is supposed to work but if I've got it right it solves pike v tank at the expense of creating a new problem, roughly speaking, "more powerful unit always wins".

Or rather, it looks like that will be the case in early eras when the relative difference between units attack and defense strengths is much higher. Eg, in Civ III terms, where a horseman had an attack of 2 and a warrior a defence of 1, attack is double defense and, it seems, that sort of advantage will be crushing. Later on, the equivalent battle, something like tank vs infantry, where the relative values might be 16 to 12 (I can't remember precisely), will be a lot more even.

If that's right, early era uber attackers will be just as much of an artifact as later era retro defenders were.

I don't see why, after FOUR games, they can't get this right. I mean, there aren't that many units in the game, they could probably get away with a simple look up table that lists all possible combats and just puts in a % chance of success by hand. EG Knights attacking pikes defending, 10% of attacker winning, tanks attacking pikes defending, 99% chance of attacker winning. Then put terrain etc as modifiers to the basic percentage and generate a random number.

[Kalle]

What are you on about people???

Civilization from number I-III (allthough III was both steps forward and backward) are clearly the best campaign, turn based empire building games ever.

In comparison totalwar campaigns suck, europa universalis games suck (god i hate how they handle battles and units in europa universalis soooo booring). Allthough there are elements in these games that civ should learn from.

I will find out about civ IV today yeeeeeeehaaaaaaaaaaa :)

Kalle

[Mouzafphaerre]

Are you sure it was CivIII you installed? The opening intro is just an overview of some mediteranen island showing work on some huge palace-like structure in stone age, then medieval, industrial, and finally modern as the camera rises and then it ends at the top. Not much but not funny either so you have me confused.

As for graphics as a gameplay element it wasn't really underestimated, enough companies have shown graphics can hide gameplay flaws. They just focused more on other things once an acceptable level was reached. Or so I guess anyway. I would imagine its also hard to represent entire worlds with photo-realistic quality with units and cities in the mix as well. But as i've said and you've ever-so-subtly hinted at, i'm biased in this area.

.
IMS it was CivIII. I can't be emprically sure, though, because I don't have it anymore.
.

[econ21]

Civilization from number I-III (allthough III was both steps forward and backward) are clearly the best campaign, turn based empire building games ever.

In comparison totalwar campaigns suck, ...

Different folks, different strokes. I found Civ2 to be about the most addictive game ever (electronic crack), but also strangely unsatisfying. I ended up concluding it was just not fun and I'd been wasting my time. But just one more turn...

By contrast, I can walk away from TW games almost anytime, but when I do find them, I relish them. (Maybe you are distinguishing the campaign map part of the game from the battle map part, in which case, I kind of see your point.)

IMO, comparing Civ to TW is kind of like comparing doing sudoku to listening to fine music.

[ChaosLord]

Strength is the base factor English Assassin, theres many things that modify it. Like Archers get bonuses to defense in cities, Axemen get bonuses versus melee units, Spearmen get bonuses versus mounted units, Mounted units get bonuses against artillery. And artillery gets a bonus versus melee and has the ability to damage all units in a stack in an attack. They're also like Civ2-Civ1 in that it has to actually attack not just bombard.

In addition to all this cities provide a substantial defensive bonus, so you can't simply run over your neighbors with hordes the latest most powerful unit of the era once you get it. If you want to actually capture anything but a poorly defended city you'll need combined arms including artillery so you can destroy the defenses in the city and negate their bonus.

From all i've heard its been balanced quite well, and of course unit abilities aren't limited to just those. Units gaining experience in this is handled by gaining promotions, these promotions able to grant them abilities like bonuses attack cities(City Raider I-III), or bonus versus Archers/Guns(Cover), or the one i'm definitly going to be using the ability to use enemy roads(Commando). Theres thirty some-odd promotions in all so theres alot of combinations/setups possible.

So yeah, you really can't just look at base unit strength for comparing units.

And yeah Simon Appleton is right, you can't really compare the two. TW is focused on a time period and around the battles, whereas Civ tries to span many time periods and be open to peaceful or agressive strategies.

[English assassin]

Well, fair enough, I think maybe I should actually play it before I bitch about it.

Although in some ways I'm reluctant to get that addiction going again...

[UglyandHasty]

I'll get it tonight. Took me 6 phone call before finally finding a shop with a copy on sale. Most shop only had the pre-ordered copy.

[solypsist]

i might get it once i get back home. hmmm..../looks for cheatcodes