Civilization IV

**screwtype** · 10-25-2005, 07:43

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** · 10-25-2005, 10:04

Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube

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** · 10-25-2005, 15:16

Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube

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** · 10-25-2005, 16:12

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** · 10-25-2005, 16:25

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** · 10-25-2005, 17:03

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

**NodachiSam** · 10-26-2005, 02:15

Originally Posted by Geoffrey S

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.

Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube

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** · 10-26-2005, 09:47

Originally Posted by NodachiSam

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.

Originally Posted by NodachiSam

I think that each era should be given great importance.

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

Originally Posted by NodachiSam

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?

Originally Posted by NodachiSam

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.

**Kalle** · 10-28-2005, 11:57

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

**Slyspy** · 11-02-2005, 02:18

Sounds to me that it is more or less the same as CivIII which I found rather boring. But then I had played CivII to death so perhaps thats why the sequels hold no charm for me....

PS Just read Simon Appleton's post above and agree aout Civ completely. I also get that feeling about RTW though.

**screwtype** · 10-26-2005, 09:20

Originally Posted by English assassin

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...