Civilization IV

[econ21]

I can't help with your technical problem, but here's some opinions on your other questions:

what is combat like in Civ4 ?

I think it is fun. You attack with one unit at a time, but you can have stacks of units with different strengths and the best defender will meet the attacker. So if a knight attacks a stack, it will be met by its pikeman rather than a vulnerable missile unit. This is balanced by the ability of artillery to damage multiple units in a stack. Units strength gradually deteriorates, so a tank may crush one infantry but may be destroyed if attacked consecutively by three or four. There's a fair variety of units - for example, in the medieval period, you have longbows, crossbows, knights, horse archers, macemen, pikemen, catapults etc. Each faction has its own unique unit - praetorians and redcoats being the standouts, IMO. Units gain experience and can use it to buy some very nice, but generally context specific upgrades (eg +25% attacking in cities; or the an AT bonus etc). That means they have individuality and you treasure your veterans (who can be upgraded overtime, from lowly warrior to mech infantry).

Is the game about collecting enough resources to pound your enemies or is resource gathering not a first priority in the game ?

I think it is essentially a building game. You build up your cities, and they provide you with units and technology (to make better units and better city buildings). Nurturing good cities is the first piority of the game, but it is not resource gathering in a twitch RTS sense. It is rather cerebral and all about trade-offs and choices - you'll agonise over where exactly to put your cities, so they get access to the many things they need to thrive. Combat adds a necessary element of danger, for me, but it is not a wargame in the way TW is, and I like trying to survive combat but don't seek it out.

Is there a lot of micro management involved, more or less than MTW/RTW ?

More micromanagement, I guess, but I find the turns seem to fly past more quicky. I guess TW bogs down in the battles, which are very time consuming. In Civ, you can be at peace for 500 years or so, and whereas that would be deadly dull in TW, in Civ4 I find it very rewarding. Largely, this is because the AI is often biting at your heels and threatening to invade you, so peaceful survival is non-trivial.

How good is the diplomacy, do alliances last, does the AI know how to manage it's alliances ?

I like it. You can keep the "nice" civs onside throughout the game - a diplomatic victory is one way of winning the game. There are some predictable headbangers, but if you are superior in power, they will tend to keep away.

Is the AI any good, in your opinions, does it - as an example - refuse to a ceasfire while it has but one settlement left ?

I think the AI is great. I thought that about Civ2 as well - Civ has one of the most competitive AIs of any strategy games. Far better than TW. On harder difficulty levels, you are always holding your breath, to see if you can keep ahead of the AI in tech and if you can deterr attack. Somehow the challenge is also maintained throughout the game - no mean feat, considering the "broken" endgames of TW. To give you one example of smart AI - in my first game, the Japanese attacked me by land and sea in the feudal era. I beat off both attacks, but when the dust had settled, I realised they had destroyed my only two bronze mines (needed to make good troops). The AI was so smart and the dumb human hadn't even realised what was being done to him...

How steep is the learning curve of the game,more like HOI 2 or MTW/RTW?

Easy to learn, hard to master? I think it is very accessible and intuitive - you can pretty much leap in. But as you explore, you will find a lot of depth to the game. Probably like TW. I have not played HOI, but my impression is that Paradox games tend to emphasis realism whereas Civ is like a cartoon representation of history. They may both be complex, but a Paradox game may tend to have messy complexity - because reality is messy - whereas Civ2 can be more elegant.

[NodachiSam]

I always appreciate your writing Simon. I bought Civ 3 but was terribly unhappy after awhile yet like someone else said it still had an inexplicable just one more turn quality. One of my friends really seems to like it and a few people here seem to.

I really want to get my hands on Alpha Centauri for some reason. I'd love it if they had a demo so I could try it somehow first lest I buy it and be rendered very dissapointed.

[frogbeastegg]

So no one has an excuse for missing out on AC, here's a link to a page with the demo.

Now go try it! And then buy the game! It's old, it was never pretty even in its own day, but in some things it is unsurpassed. Try and get the version of AC with the expansion bundled in with it; that's the version I have (Sid Meier's Planetry Pack). The expansion itself is as rare as hen's teeth with gold fillings.

[Efrem]

Theres an expansion!!!

Damn I don't have that.

[Shahed]

Thanks to this thread I bought the game. Great thread. Only I was so eager I did'nt notice if it's in Dutch or English, hopefully there is an English option ! :D This is going to be a much needed gaming Saturday night!

[Lanemerkel1]

I hate Civilization III

even on the smallest map you almost have to have two heads 4 arms and a crapload of patience to get anything done (A.K.A. too much management needed)

[Shahed]

Two Words:

Excellent game!

Two problems:
-The manual is in Dutch! (game has language options thankfully) Is there a place I can download it in English ?
-I want to use a cheat to see the whole map at the beginning of the first turn. Right now I'mnot that great and @ 1500 I'm still using Spearmen *ahem* so I'd prefer to use a no fog cheat to decide if I can actually play THAT map or not before I spend hours going to prehistoric eras. :)

Thanks for all the comments and thanks for your help.