Civilization IV

**screwtype** · 10-29-2005, 06:38

Originally Posted by ChaosLord

There are 650 turns in an epic game, and things are produced/researched more slowly.

I don't call that "epic". When I first started playing Civ3, I played a couple of "huge" campaigns where I actually ran out of turns. 540 turns is the default in a Civ3 game.

However you can set it to a maximum of 1000 turns and that's what I do with every Civ3 game now. I'll be disappointed if you can't set it at least that high in Civ4.

**frogbeastegg** · 10-29-2005, 09:36

I pre-ordered it, ready for the UK release.

My feeble willpower, already near breaking point thanks to reading some very good stuff about the game on another forum, crumbled when I saw it was £15 off and eligable for free delivery on amazon.uk.

I feel very doomed now.

**The_Doctor** · 10-29-2005, 10:30

I feel very doomed now.

Sid has taken another soul.

However you can set it to a maximum of 1000 turns and that's what I do with every Civ3 game now. I'll be disappointed if you can't set it at least that high in Civ4.

It says the game is very moddable. So you could increase the number of turns, the cost of each tech/unit/building.

**frogbeastegg** · 10-29-2005, 16:16

A question, now you have all helped drag the frog into something she hoped to stay clear of for the sake of her life and sanity (oh, the perils of being a mod! Although I admit it was my own stupidity which led to me reading the thread on the other forum): does Civ4 support hotseat MP? As in 2 people playing on one PC?

Now, a second question, one which is more musing out aloud assuming the abopve question is answered "Yes.": when my boyfriend inevitably asks if he can play too, would it be crueller to refuse to let him play, or to let him play?

**The_Doctor** · 10-29-2005, 16:36

does Civ4 support hotseat MP?

Yes. There are quite a lot of MP features.
http://www.civfanatics.com/civ4/info/#MP

would it be crueller to refuse to let him play, or to let him play?

Not letting him play.

By letting him play you can control him completely. It will be like a new type of feudalism, but instead of giving land to their followers, rulers give them a few turns of civ4.

It will be called a Civocracy.

**Sasaki Kojiro** · 10-30-2005, 07:32

hmm, I played it a bit. The whole founding cities/exploring to see where the resources are/getting to them before the other civs bit was quite fun...but the military strategy of the AI seemed to consist entirely of putting garrisons in there cities and leaving them there. One game germany had about 10 cities to my 4 and 5 times the units I had, but the left them all in cities and I captured them one by one. Brilliant. The other thing that bugged me was that there was no advantage to outnumbering your opponent, you could only attack one of their units with one yours. Yeah sure, that makes sense. Granted the battles aren't going to be like Shogun, but EU2 was a grand strategy game and had battles that made perfect sense...wars were very enjoyable.

And George Washington leading the United States to discover hinduism in 3800 BC with Moses as the great Hindu prophet is just weird.

Never played any of the other civs.

**GoreBag** · 10-30-2005, 08:17

Apples and Oranges. Admittedly, Civ is a much broader scale than the EU games, and EU is real-time. It's intended to be a different experience and they're not really comparable except by "I had more fun with this game".

**screwtype** · 10-30-2005, 08:35

Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro

hmm, I played it a bit. The whole founding cities/exploring to see where the resources are/getting to them before the other civs bit was quite fun...but the military strategy of the AI seemed to consist entirely of putting garrisons in there cities and leaving them there. One game germany had about 10 cities to my 4 and 5 times the units I had, but the left them all in cities and I captured them one by one. Brilliant.

Isn't there an option for changing the AI's level of aggression? There was in the previous title, and it made a big difference.

Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro

The other thing that bugged me was that there was no advantage to outnumbering your opponent, you could only attack one of their units with one yours. Yeah sure, that makes sense.

Yeah, that's how the previous combat engine worked, and though it can be very frustrating (and slow), it does at least make for a considerable challenge.

And don't forget you also enjoy the same advantage when defending your own cities.

Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro

And George Washington leading the United States to discover hinduism in 3800 BC with Moses as the great Hindu prophet is just weird.

Hard to argue with that

**frogbeastegg** · 10-30-2005, 18:39

Thanks for that.

Originally Posted by Martinus

By letting him play you can control him completely.

Hehe! I already do; the poor dear loves me.

Fair's fair; I'm inordinately fond of him too, which is why I wonder about keeping him from Civ4 for his own good ...

**screwtype** · 10-31-2005, 23:35

Well I just hope it's better than Civ3. I spent the last two or three days playing it, to get a feel for the Civ paradigm again.

After a few aborted campaigns I finally thought I had things figured out again, so I went for it in my next campaign. I started a war in 300AD against Egypt. I had the advantage of horses and iron, Egypt had neither.

700 years later I had managed to capture two whole Egyptian cities, it cost me 16 hours of real time to do that.

The game is evil.