01-05-2005 06:42									#1
	CGW Preview Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

The June 2005 issue Computer Gaming World has a preview of Civ IV. It doesn't give too many details, but it does mention things from several areas, though many of those things we already know.

Here's a list of the things that the article mentions:

- There will be multiplayer from the beginning, and it's already been in testing. There will be a co-op mode, were several people will run one nation at once. There will also be persistent turn-based servers.

- There will three game lengths: a short one (that can be finished in a few hours), a "normal" one (about 15 to 20 hours to play), and a really big one...

- Soren says that he is spending much of his time now on improving the AI. One goal is to have rulers with distinct personalities... i.e., Gandhi will be generous to weaker nations, while the Khan will shy away from any diplomacy at all. Also, governors to auto-manage cities will be improved.

- A new flexible technology tree will let for different civs develop more uniquely than before.

- All resources in the game will offer distinct terrain improvements.

- Editor with Python and XML.

- Combat will be simplified. There are no longer separate attack and defense strengths. Units will now have one single base strength that are increased or diminished in certain situations (for example, infantry will have defensive bonuses in difficult terrain, while cavalry will have an advantage attacking ranged units such as archers). Artillery/Siege units will be stronger and will allow for damaging all of the units in a stack. These chagnes were supposedly done to ensourage use of combined arms...

- The switch to 3D allows the interface to be streamlined: for example, all of the information about a city, its buildings, and workforce is now all accessible from the main screen.

- As units increase in experience, they will gain special bonuses, such as extra movement or bonuses against certain types of units.

- There will be "great people", such as artists or scientists, that will provide bonuses to cities or bring about Golden Ages.

- There will be "civics" choices, i.e., social engineering. The player can change settings for such things as allowing slavery or freeing slaves, or the amount of religious tolerance.

- Religion is in, but the seven different religions in the game are generic in ability.

There are also a few screeenshots in the article.

	01-05-2005 08:50									#2
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

The co-op mode and turn based server sounds interesting...

	01-05-2005 16:34									#3
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

quote: - Combat will be simplified. There are no longer separate attack and defense strengths

Sounds a bit weird... but let's see how this turns out

quote: One goal is to have rulers with distinct personalities

Great

	01-05-2005 16:39									#4
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

Yes! Co-op sounds REALLY interesting.

more than 1 human player for one nation?

That must have spawned from the Democracy games!

Last edited by Sn00py on 01-05-2005 at 20:00

	01-05-2005 19:34									#5
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

quote: Originally posted by Adagio Sounds a bit weird... but let's see how this turns out

You probably have to think "Age of Empires". There units have a single combat strength, with specific boni or penalties when fighting against certain unit categories. Personally I like that better than the ADM system, if at least it's moddable enough to create your own units for scenarios etc.

	01-05-2005 19:39									#6
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

AoE combat sounds bad. No more defense or attack units and even simpler combat... gah. I was hoping for more complex, CtP2-style combat with real mixed arms.

	01-05-2005 19:51									#7
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Solver No more defense or attack units

A strict distinction between attack and defense units is silly anyway. AFAIK Phalanx/Spearmen and Musketeers were used for offense as much as defense, while in the civ series they all have low attack values.

quote: and even simpler combat...

I would indeed dislike simpler combat. I can only hope they're referring to the removal of ADM when they say that, and that the situational boni/penalties will in fact increase the choices and tactical level of combat.

	01-05-2005 20:02									#8
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

quote: Originally posted by Solver AoE combat sounds bad. No more defense or attack units and even simpler combat... gah. I was hoping for more complex, CtP2-style combat with real mixed arms.

CtP2 actually has the same system: attack and defense have no value there, they're both the same. That makes sense though: it's quite silly to assume that it would matter who initiates the attack, a phalanx would fight equally well when someone attacked them as when they commenced the attack themselves. OTOH, a tightly packed phalanx with long spears does of course have a distinct advantage against lighter infantry, and a distinct disadvantage on an open field against cavalry. So the new system actually makes more sense.

Of course, CtP also has stacked combat, which adds a whole new level of realism: units don't act on their own but in coordination with each other. It would be a major disappointment if Civ4 wouldn't offer anything like that, but frankly I wouldn't be terribly surprised...

	01-05-2005 20:03									#9
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

quote: - Soren says that he is spending much of his time now on improving the AI. One goal is to have rulers with distinct personalities... i.e., Gandhi will be generous to weaker nations, while the Khan will shy away from any diplomacy at all. Also, governors to auto-manage cities will be improved.

Me likey. With more leaders than civs, I hope we'll get an approach that makes it possible to have any leader leading any civ of our choice. As it is in Civ3, I'll almost always play the Egyptians. It makes the game have less replayability... Imagine a Mongol Empire led by Gandhi...

quote: - Religion is in, but the seven different religions in the game are generic in ability.

My first thought:
I'd hoped Firaxis would make use of the extensive amount of ideas from the old List in particular, in addition to the new List. Random generated religions with all the possibilities suggested there...

	01-05-2005 20:05									#10
	Suffering from ads?

I'm happy with the religions (or what little we know of them) Fantasy religions is a crap idea: this is a history game, not a fantasy one.

	01-05-2005 20:07									#11
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

I at least hope there will be some of the possibilites suggested in the List present in the game. Only adding a new element without making it give anything else than f.ex. happiness bonuses and a SE choice is not what we need.

	01-05-2005 20:10									#12
	Tired of ads?

Great Prophets are also included. We don't know anything about the bonuses religion may offer, all we know is that religion will "offer myriad tools to control your people more effectively and keep them happier". So it's more than just happiness, but how much more we just can't tell yet...

	01-05-2005 21:10									#13
	Tired of ads?

Religions do not have bonuses but

-will impact diplomacy
-can build shrines,monastries and missionaries
-associated with certain technologies

Also can change religions

	01-05-2005 21:34									#14
	Inflate your Upload Space

Sounds like EU2, where you get along better with other countries of the same religion and have to tend to provinces that have a minority religion.

	02-05-2005 02:36									#15
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

quote: Originally posted by Solver Sounds like EU2, where you get along better with other countries of the same religion and have to tend to provinces that have a minority religion.

It would seem difficult to find a scheme of implementating negative tendencies toward specific religions. I bet there will only be bonuses toward same-religion nations, which from my understanding, isn't entirely accurrate.

	02-05-2005 02:42									#16
	Remove this text

quote: It would seem difficult to find a scheme of implementating negative tendencies toward specific religions.

Why? The easiest to implement is the negative diplomacy effect. If you are in different religions, the other civ has lower regard/less likely to trust you.

	02-05-2005 03:26									#17
	Full PM-box? Change here!

quote: Originally posted by Solver quote: It would seem difficult to find a scheme of implementating negative tendencies toward specific religions. Why? The easiest to implement is the negative diplomacy effect. If you are in different religions, the other civ has lower regard/less likely to trust you.

I mean from the sense of there being real world religions in the game. There could be the same negative bonus to all religions that aren't the same but wouldn't not receiving the same-religion bonus in the first place be a negative? My point is I don't see how it could be implemented, both trying to be politically and historically correct, for different religions to have varying degree of negative bonuses on one another.

	02-05-2005 03:29									#18
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

Just down with political corectness .

	02-05-2005 03:45									#19
	Put an end to popups!

quote: Originally posted by Solver Just down with political corectness .

I agree completely but how historical accurracy be balanced? I could see Christianity not 'liking' Islam and vice versa. Hinduism not 'liking' Islam and again vice versa. Who doesn't like the Buddhists historically? Maybe there's more to know about the different oppositions than I think. It would be nice to see varying degrees of negative and positive bonuses nonetheless if it could be balanced evenly.

	02-05-2005 03:57									#20
	Full PM-box? Change here!

One thing that I wonder: Will the civs have various religious
preferences like the way governments are treated in CIV3?

I cannot quite see an islamic America civ or a christian Mongolia civ!

I am sure it will be revealed in time...

I also like the idea of the non-govenment system,
and the option to set levels for free trade, slavery, etc...

Very EU2, and a welcome development.

	02-05-2005 04:40									#21
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

quote: Originally posted by TechWins I agree completely but how historical accurracy be balanced? I could see Christianity not 'liking' Islam and vice versa. Hinduism not 'liking' Islam and again vice versa. Who doesn't like the Buddhists historically? Maybe there's more to know about the different oppositions than I think. It would be nice to see varying degrees of negative and positive bonuses nonetheless if it could be balanced evenly.

Ponder for a moment what those religions have in common: they're all close to each other geographically. Christians and Muslims never got along for the same reason the French and English, the Chinese and Japanese, the Khoisan and Bantu never got along: they were both vying for the same territory, the same resources, the same people. Had Buddhists rather than Muslims conquered the Middle East in the 7th century, Christians would dislike them just as much.

So there's no more need to model that kind of disliking than there is to model English-French-German dislike towards each other, or Japanese-Chinese-Mongol, etc. If you want to model anything, you should model the more generic tendency of competition...

	02-05-2005 05:01									#22
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

I agree 100% - !

	02-05-2005 06:32									#23
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

You see, though, what has been discussed here is EXACTLY why a Generic approach should be taken towards religions (Firaxis? its not too late guys !) This way, you avoid ANY chances of upsetting anyone-out of the box-with preconcieved ideas of how real world religions SHOULD behave. With a decent naming option, though, you would still have the power to create real world religions in the game. To me, that seems like a Win-Win scenario. I say leave it as a simple 'Polytheism', 'Animism', 'Monotheism' and 'Non-Deist' (each with associated Culture Group), and then leave it to the player to name their Mediterranean Monotheism 'Christianity'-if they so choose. More power to the player that way, IMHO!
Which reminds me, are culture groups still going to be in the game? That was one of the better changes between civ2 and civ3.

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

	02-05-2005 07:29									#24
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

We don't know exacly how religion will work so it's too early to say one will be "better" than another.

	02-05-2005 09:08									#25
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

quote: Originally posted by Locutus Ponder for a moment what those religions have in common: they're all close to each other geographically. Christians and Muslims never got along for the same reason the French and English, the Chinese and Japanese, the Khoisan and Bantu never got along: they were both vying for the same territory, the same resources, the same people. Had Buddhists rather than Muslims conquered the Middle East in the 7th century, Christians would dislike them just as much. So there's no more need to model that kind of disliking than there is to model English-French-German dislike towards each other, or Japanese-Chinese-Mongol, etc. If you want to model anything, you should model the more generic tendency of competition...

I've never heard of any religious in regards to Hinduism and Buddhism or Buddhism and Islam. Using your geographical spectrum Hindus and Buddhists ought to have a negative effect against one another. Christianity churches seem to have typically had a negative outlook on any other religion or curch that wasn't their own... I still don't see there being an equally valid model for negative influences with different religions. Christians love Christians but hate everyone else? Buddhists love Buddhists and are neutral toward everyone else? Animism has essentially only come in to contact with Christianity. From what I know, there just is not an equal setting to model negative influences after.

	02-05-2005 09:11									#26
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by MeteorPunch We don't know exacly how religion will work so it's too early to say one will be "better" than another.

Based on the preview, each religion type will be equally effective and include a positive bonus in diplomacy towards a nation of the same religion. It is a matter of whether negative diplomatic effects will be in place for nations of different religions...

	03-05-2005 01:50									#27
	Get a bigger avatar today!

Some of these changes remind me of Galciv. Particularly with regard to individualizing the AI and the flexible tech tree.

	03-05-2005 03:10									#28
	Suffering from ads?

quote: christian Mongolia civ

Weren't many mogols Nestorian christians?

One thing which might be done with religions is to declare crusades/holy wars against other religions. But then you should also be able to declare that your neighbour is a heretic... Or each figure of population has a religion and can be made happy only if they have religious buildings of the corresponding religion? Who knows?

	03-05-2005 03:54									#29
	Get a bigger avatar today!

quote: Originally posted by The_Aussie_Lurker You see, though, what has been discussed here is EXACTLY why a Generic approach should be taken towards religions (Firaxis? its not too late guys !) This way, you avoid ANY chances of upsetting anyone-out of the box-with preconcieved ideas of how real world religions SHOULD behave.

That's exactly why relgions should NOT be generic. If you use that attitude, you should get rid of real civs as well and use generic ones instead ('Germanic', 'Mediterranean', 'Mesopotamian', etc): currently the civs in the game don't behave like they 'should' based on real history either.

Why should Christianity NOT be able to get along with Islam (it has happened often enough IRL), or Buddhists to declare a holy war on Confucianists?

That's the whole point of Civilization: it's about recreating history, not about reenacting it...

quote: Originally posted by TechWins I've never heard of any religious in regards to Hinduism and Buddhism or Buddhism and Islam.

Remember the destruction of the Bamiyan Buddha statues by the Taliban regime back in 2000? And I'm sure you've heard of the conflict between the (Hindu) Tamils and the (Buddhist) Sinhalese on Sri Lanka. The fact that Buddhists regard people all casts as equal whereas Hindu's don't has led to quite a few tensions over the centuries. Not as extreme as between some other religions perhaps, but that can largely be contributed to the unusually large number of enlightened rulers India has had over the centuries (which was plain necessary to avoid total self-destruction in a region with so many religions and branches of religions).

But again, the same idea applies: in real history not ALL neighbours were bitter enemies, sometimes they got along pretty well. For most of their history, the US and Canada did, as did Belgium and the Netherlands, Romans and Greeks, various German and Indian states with each other, Prussia and Russia, etc. Good relationships between religions are just as possible as good relationships between civilizations. That doesn't mean they should be hardcoded -- I refer to my earlier point: the idea of Civilization is that it's about recreating history, not about reenacting it.

	03-05-2005 06:10									#30
	Remove this text

OK, Locutus, I confess that one of my key issues with Real World religions is one of flexibility. For instance, if I adopt a monotheistic faith like Christianity, then will I be able to model it like a Blood Cult, with human sacrifice and the like? Or have Islam pursue the Noble Eightfold Path? I just feel like seven real world religions does NOT allow for the maximum amount of flexibility IMHO. Of course, if there was room for a whole lot of sects to spring up WITHIN these religions (like Protestantism, Orthodoxy, Asceticism etc) then much of my flexibility issues would all but disappear. Lets just say, though, that I want to hear a LOT more about religion, and how it will work in game, before I make a final judgement.

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.