 |
| |
|
| |
|
|
Adm.Naismith
|
 |
Milano - Italy
Oct 1999
time: 06:18
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by yin26
Of course, if I end up liking the game that much, Markos will demand that I eat the entire Civ 4 box, which will likely kill me. |
Not likely if the box is made of cardboard. Munch slowly and well, as any mother teach, and take your time. 
Please note a friend's hint: the time to finish the lunch was not part of the bet. You can eat it as slow as to end in time for the first game expansion (that will leave you six to eight months, I suppose). 
On a serius note, I'm a really slooooow player, and I can't understand how anyone can really play so many games.
OTOH, I usually don't stop a game if I'm not sure I'm losing so badly that I'm hopeless, while I hate not to be rewarded by an accomplished mission, so I'll keep rolling turn (annoying me) till the end.
I remember the old SMAC/Civ 2 complain, about the need for a game that can bring the players attention high enough till the last bunch of turns, because victory should not be assumed too early.
Very difficult in anything but a pre-made scenario with triggered events, and taking into account it should not be anything so random you can't manage it.
May be something like a civil war, or a revolt into once enemy town (citizen become guerrilla!), an unexpected Great Person born in a city of enemy civilization, a bunch of collateral discoveries that open shortcut to main accomplishment (reserved to this kind of a "lifesaver" opportunity, not available in normal game path).
I don't think this should be an event that really turn the game upside down (that will end in a cursing player and a quick reload of last autosave), still something as an unfortunate serie of bad dice throw, that you must manage carefully to bring your civ back on tracks.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Mahdimael
|
 |
Sandy Eigo, CA, USA
May 2001
time: 05:18
|
|
I always remember MOO as having a great system to prevent ICS. Every civ, except the silicoids, needed to develop new technologies that would allow them to settle increasingly hostile worlds. For example, I could research tech that would allow me to settle "Minimal" worlds, and later tech that would allow me to settle "Radiated" worlds.
This could certainly work in Civ. Make certain squares uninhabitable or unimproveable until certain techs are discovered. Certainly, you can have a small town eke out existence in a desert with no irrigation, but it should not be more than size 1 or 2. Eventually, modern technology will allow the desert town to thrive (Las Vegas, for example).
Another idea is to make certain terrain types impassible until certain techs are researched. Mountains, deserts and jungles all spring to mind. Alternatively, make them as treacherous as a trireme sailing in open water. An x% chance of any unit dying in hostile terrain.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Dr Zoidberg
|
 |
Communist Party of Apolyton
Jan 2002
time: 06:18
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Mahdimael
I always remember MOO as having a great system to prevent ICS. Every civ, except the silicoids, needed to develop new technologies that would allow them to settle increasingly hostile worlds. For example, I could research tech that would allow me to settle "Minimal" worlds, and later tech that would allow me to settle "Radiated" worlds.
This could certainly work in Civ. Make certain squares uninhabitable or unimproveable until certain techs are discovered. Certainly, you can have a small town eke out existence in a desert with no irrigation, but it should not be more than size 1 or 2. Eventually, modern technology will allow the desert town to thrive (Las Vegas, for example).
Another idea is to make certain terrain types impassible until certain techs are researched. Mountains, deserts and jungles all spring to mind. Alternatively, make them as treacherous as a trireme sailing in open water. An x% chance of any unit dying in hostile terrain. |
Great ideas 
It´s annoying that there really isn´t that kind of difference in terrain types. C & C Tiberian Sun had this feature for troops that stayed for too long in radioactive patches of land IIRC.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
The_Aussie_Lurker
|
|
Adelaide, South Australia, Australia
May 2001
time: 05:18
|
|
Well, I actually think that city health will play a great role in restricting-indirectly-the kinds of terrains that can be reasonably settled.
For instance, we know that both food and proximity to fresh water boost health and-therefore-population growth. This means that cities in deserts will get a 'double whammy', so to speak, when it comes to the rate at which their populations grow. In fact, it wouldn't be at all suprising if some desert cities have a 'negative' growth rate fairly early on, without technological intervention. I have the feeling that other 'hostile' terrains will prove equally hard to settle for this reason.
So, what does this mean exactly? Hard to say without more detail on how Health and Population Growth work together, but my feeling is that we will see much more settlement of River Valleys, Coasts and Floodplains settled almost exclusively in the first 1000-2000 years of the game, with construction-related improvements making less fertile regions more palatable in the latter parts of the game. Though not perfect, I do feel that this will have some impact on reducing settler diarreah.
Another very simple way to reduce ICS is to restrict REXing in the early game. Best way to achieve this is by making those dark parts of the map much more dangerous to non-exploratory units. Even after these regions of the map have been explored, it should be somewhat risky to enter regions outside of your borders until at least the late Middle Ages IMO.
Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
LDiCesare
|
|
La Ferté sous Jouarre France
Jan 2001
time: 05:18
|
|
I wonder whether the Civ4 ai will behave like civ3, where it knows the map and resources beforehand, and whether that can be modded out. This single behaviour killed the game for me. That and late game workers tedium.
Back to Yin's comment that Firaxis' Civ is dead, I'd like to say that Stardock would like to make a Master of Magic 2, so there's still hope we get some new TBS games from companies which didn't have anything to do with the initial game. But then CtP had nothing to so with Civ and wasn't very successful.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Willem
|
 |
Canada
Dec 2001
time: 00:18
|
|
When you guys going to learn not to feed the troll?
Last edited by Willem on 21-07-2005 at 19:05
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Jack_www
|
|
I have seen the screen shots and the graphics look dumb to me. I dont think Civ 4 will be all that great.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Dis
|
 |
Las Vegas, Nevada
Feb 2000
time: 21:18
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by yin26
If ICS isn't still the dominant strategy in Civ 4, then I'll eat (at least part) of the cardboard box! And if combat isn't as dull as ever, I'll eat more parts!
The question, of course, is: "But if you 'fix' these things, is it still Civ?" Maybe not, but then I just have to say that what was exciting and new a decade or more ago will naturally be (by many people) run through the paces until there's no more blood to be squeezed from the rock. So I guess that's what we have: More of the same, and for those of you who can't get enough of it, great!
Since you asked, I'd make the battle portions of Civ 4 real-time or do something like you see in Heroes of Might and Magic. You know. Give me something TO DO once the battle actually starts! I'd also introduce some kind of other limitations (like the number of people allowed in your royal court in Knights of Honor) to make it logically more difficult to wage world-wide wars so effectively. Then I'd do something like you see in Supreme Ruler 2010 where you can appoint cabinet members who have specific political leanings, which can be of use during specific political turmoils.
The theme there is: Make me think a little more! That's all I'm saying. The core of Civ is great, but we figured this thing out a LONG LONG time ago! |
real time! heretic!
I hate real time strategy games on a global scale. Stupidest concept ever.
I've used this example before. But did George W. Bush have mere split seconds to plan the Iraq war? No, he was planning it since he took office. It shouldn't take twitch reflexes to plan a war. Tactically, yes some battlefield commanders need to improvise their tactics on a dime. But on a global scale, this isn't realistic.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
LDiCesare
|
|
La Ferté sous Jouarre France
Jan 2001
time: 05:18
|
|
I'd not like a combat that would take more time than it currently does, or, at most, than CtP. Real time I'd not play either, but having some combined arms system (CtP), or an optional minigame for combat (a la Master Of Magic) would be interesting. But it looks like it's going to ve Civ3 with less tedium like indeed.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
korn469
|
 |
Poetic Justic
Apr 1999
time: 00:18
|
|
I know that ICS is one of the biggest problems in the entire Civ series, but Civ3 did make an effort at trying to fix the underlying mechanics of ICS. Maniac was correct in his assessment of ISC for all of the civ games (including SMAC/X) except for civ3.
In civ3 the city size (town, city, metro) determined the size of the food box. A flat 20 for towns, 40 for cities, and 80 for metros (i'm going on memory alone so I might have the numbers wrong). This along with 2 pop settlers was a huge step in the right direction. I wouldn't mind if they took the food box and made it flat for all city sizes though. In the Blitz mod I changed the cost of settlers to 3 pop, and that really did discourage ICS. The AI couldn't completely cope with the change though, because it would waste turns of production trying to build settlers in size 3 towns that couldn't make a settler until they hit size 4.
ICS still exists because of a few things:
1. Control: 10 size 1 cities don't have to worry about unhappy citizens compared to the effort it takes to police 1 size 10 city.
Possible fixes: Civs get a certain percentage of happy citizens based on demographics instead of number of cities, or cities don't get free happy citizens (this would require military units as part of the basic start)
2. Production: Because of the base square, 10 size 1 cities can outproduce 1 size 10 city unless it has all of the factories etc.
Possible fixes: Make the base square produce a percentage of the city's overall production, or have each citizen add a bonus to the base square
for example: size 1 city, 1-1-1, size 2 city 2-1-1, size 3 city 2-2-1 and so on
3. Upside swing: Despite having a fixed size food box or not, 10 size 1 cities will have far more potential for explosive growth than 1 size 10 city
Possible fixes: none, ICS should retain some strategic advantages
4. Support: Civ3 fixed this to an extent with global gold support for units instead of city based shield support
5. Growth: Civ3 fixed this to an extent with fixed size food boxes
6. Expansion Costs: It was still a little cheap for me in civ3 even with 2 pop settlers, but it was better than in all previous civ games...
|
|
| |
|
|
|
korn469
|
|
Poetic Justic
Apr 1999
time: 00:18
|
|
Still though, I do look forward to playing Civ4 (I just hope it will run on my machine, if not hopefully I'll have enough cash by then to upgrade to a better computer). I have four things that make me hesitant about Civ4 though.
1. Combat sounds overly simplified. Adding firepower back was good, as was the upgrades; however, I'd have liked other stats like armor (reduces firepower), rate of fire (ability to attack multiple times in a single round of combat), and possibly other stats added to the mix. I would like to see some expensive high armor units like tanks need a high firepower counter (bazooka), while cheap low armor units like infantry need a high rate of fire counter (machine gun).
2. Limitations on strategic choices. Same complaint as in Civ3. Will we run out of improvements to build? Will all units and governments basically be the same (regardless of how many combos we may have...2000 choices of the same thing isn't a choice at all)? Will improvements have pros and cons or will it be like in civ3 where you would build the exact same structures no matter which final victory strategy you were following.
3. Will removing corruption, riots, pollution, etc simply decrease micromanagement or will it break the game?
4. Will modders actually have the ability to change almost everything or can they only change stats?
Guess I'll find out when I play it, but those are my worries.
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:18.
Apolyton Time is 00:18. |
top of page
|
|
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
12-07-2005 17:09
|