 |
| |
|
|
korn469
|
 |
Poetic Justic
Apr 1999
time: 00:18
|
|
yin,
I've been lurking around poly for a while now just keeping up with the tidbits of info about civ4 as they dribble out. Depending on how much civ4 entertains me I may post quite a bit in the civ forums. If it's a dissapointment (which I hope it isn't!!!), and I can't mod it to my satisfaction then I probably won't be on too much.
I personally want to see hundreds of changes to the civ formula, but it'd like to see them as additions instead of complete changes. I wouldn't mind if the barely touched the core as long as they added on meaningful new parts. I loved the addition of culture in Civ3, but its implementation left me feeling kind of empty. Granted it was a completely new concept, it just lacked the subltety I wanted. I wanted culture only improvements, cultural specialists, culture bonuses (like for we love days, having the highest literacy etc), and more strategy to culture flipping. So maybe Civ4 will give me enough new things so that I'm quite pleased. To me I want great strategy, deep emersion in the particular game world, and an element of role playing.
Only time will tell though...
|
|
| |
|
|
|
adamguy
|
|
so there are pictures? lets see some pictures of this game guy!
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Mahdimael
|
 |
Sandy Eigo, CA, USA
May 2001
time: 05:18
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by korn469
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. |
1. I think the upgrades will allow you to specify what a unit becomes- a defender, a besieger, etc. So I'm down with that. The other good thing about the single value is that we're no longer tied to having spearmen always be defenders until pikemen, and so forth.
2. Not much to worry about- it seems like, with 19 tile improvements, you'll be able to make more strategic options. I'm curious about the buildings myself. In fact, I'm curious if it will even be possible to build a "jack-of-all-trades" type city.
3. I wouldn't worry about this. I doubt Firaxis would release a broken game, and simplification is a good thing.
4. Everything is in XML, so just about everything should be moddable.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
sophist
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by korn469
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
|
Or make it so that land can only produce food and the city square produces nothing at all. The idea that labor for construction comes from mines is ridiculous. Citizens allocated to the city radius produce food. You can take some citizens off farming duties and allocate them to production, kind of like the civil engineer specialist in civ3, except it would be the only way to get production and it would be available from the very beginning. Call it a craftsperson or something like that. It sounds like a bigger change than it is. It would be more realistic and would also combat ICS because there would be no free square.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
korn469
|
|
Poetic Justic
Apr 1999
time: 00:18
|
|
Mahdimael
quote:
1. I think the upgrades will allow you to specify what a unit becomes- a defender, a besieger, etc. So I'm down with that. The other good thing about the single value is that we're no longer tied to having spearmen always be defenders until pikemen, and so forth. |
That system might not be too bad, it's just that it seems like it's made a very simple combat system even more simple in some way. So in the end it almost sounds like it ends up being a wash. Before upgrades we'll have warriors equal 1, spearmen equal 2, archers equal 3, etc. Maybe the upgrades will fulfill my dream of having combined arms play a huge role in combat, if so I'll be a happy camper. I want the person who builds a better balanced army, or a very specifically designed army (excels at a particular tactic) to win over the player who simply has a mishmash of units. I'm afraid though we'll get something where units are so similar that 10 spearmen with the right upgrades can defeat 10 tanks. If that happens I would be very displeased because I completely disliked the very random nature of civ3's combat.
quote:
2. Not much to worry about- it seems like, with 19 tile improvements, you'll be able to make more strategic options. I'm curious about the buildings myself. In fact, I'm curious if it will even be possible to build a "jack-of-all-trades" type city. |
If it's simply 19 tile improvements that doesn't really add that much to the strategic depth of the game. SMAC had far more tile improvements than civ3, but SMAC's strategic depth more came from SE choices, units, etc than its wide range of tile improvements. I guess that this came from the fact that trees and boreholes was an easy and in most cases optimal strategy. I'm sure that something similar will happen in civ4. Especially since roads don't even grant a commerce bonus (but maybe that's a good thing). If each city can only hold 19 improvements that's a different story. That could provide strategic depth if there was around thirty or so useful buildings. If Civ4 only has like 25 useful buildings then most cities will be jack of all trades cities instead of specialized cities.
quote:
3. I wouldn't worry about this. I doubt Firaxis would release a broken game, and simplification is a good thing.
|
I disagree, I don't think that simplification is always a good thing. I think in most cases it's a bad thing, unless it combats excessive amounts of micromanagement. Though to me, micromanagement is more of a UI issues than a complexity issue.
quote:
4. Everything is in XML, so just about everything should be moddable. |
You used the word should...lol
All we know is that we'll just have to wait and see. Still I'm hopeful that Civ4 will exceed all of my expectations, but we'll see.
sophist
I've had similar ideas to craftpersons (or you could call them artisans early in the game then laborers later on). Along with tradespersons (aka guildsmen, bankers, stock brokers, or maybe another name), Culture specalist (aka poets, musicians, writers), and all of the rest from conquests. It would add to micromanagement some, but it's a very insteresting idea. I'm not sure if the added hassle of acting as a HR manager for your civ would outweigh the fun or not, but I'd like to try it in a mod.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
sophist
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Mahdimael
4. Everything is in XML, so just about everything should be moddable. |
XML is just data. It can only be used to add or modify things that the designers planned for. That's stuff like stats, names, units, etc., i.e., tweaks and adjustments and extensions of what's already there. More substantial changes will require writing code, but you won't be able to do everything even then.
quote:
Originally posted by korn469
I've had similar ideas to craftpersons (or you could call them artisans early in the game then laborers later on). Along with tradespersons (aka guildsmen, bankers, stock brokers, or maybe another name), Culture specalist (aka poets, musicians, writers), and all of the rest from conquests. It would add to micromanagement some, but it's a very insteresting idea. I'm not sure if the added hassle of acting as a HR manager for your civ would outweigh the fun or not, but I'd like to try it in a mod. |
It wouldn't be substantially different from Civ3. You can either allocate the citizens yourself or tell the governor to do it, just like how you allocated workers to specific tiles in Civ3.
I think there are actually too many specialists. I'd have farmers, laborers/craftspeople, and entertainers for sure, with possibly scientists and police officers, but definitely not bankers/stock brokers/tax collectors.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Maniac
|
 |
Gent, Belgium
Jul 1999
time: 06:18
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by korn469
If it's simply 19 tile improvements that doesn't really add that much to the strategic depth of the game. SMAC had far more tile improvements than civ3, but SMAC's strategic depth more came from SE choices, units, etc than its wide range of tile improvements. I guess that this came from the fact that trees and boreholes was an easy and in most cases optimal strategy. |
I have to disagree - personally I think the terraform choices do add to SMAC's strategic depth. And while a good strategy, only forest and boreholes is far from the most optimal. A lot depends on your technology level and social engineering choices. Early on you can't build boreholes yet, and farms are important for growth. Later on tree farms and hybrid forests make planting forests more attractive, but these base facilities come at a high cost, so you have to consider if it wouldn't be more profitable to go for an 'advanced' terraforming strategy instead and cultivate condenser farms everywhere - those farms becoming even more attractive due to habitation dome restrictions and advanced in nutrient production such as soil enricher. In what terraforming strategy is best, other factors play along. Such as whether you're aiming for to maximize your workers on the field (good if you're running free market) or aim for a specialist strategy (good for eg the Hive). Then there are other neat terraforming feats such as an energy park, rows of echelon mirrors and solar collectors to harness as much energy as possible in a single super science city.
This just to give an example terraforming does add to the strategic choices available in SMAC. 
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mahdimael
|
|
Sandy Eigo, CA, USA
May 2001
time: 05:18
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by korn469
That system might not be too bad, it's just that it seems like it's made a very simple combat system even more simple in some way. So in the end it almost sounds like it ends up being a wash. Before upgrades we'll have warriors equal 1, spearmen equal 2, archers equal 3, etc. Maybe the upgrades will fulfill my dream of having combined arms play a huge role in combat, if so I'll be a happy camper. I want the person who builds a better balanced army, or a very specifically designed army (excels at a particular tactic) to win over the player who simply has a mishmash of units. I'm afraid though we'll get something where units are so similar that 10 spearmen with the right upgrades can defeat 10 tanks. If that happens I would be very displeased because I completely disliked the very random nature of civ3's combat.
|
As I understand it, the power values vary widely. So a warrior might have a power of 1, a spearman might have 4, but a tank has 100. Therefore, even a highly upgraded spearman would have difficulty beating a tank.
quote:
If it's simply 19 tile improvements that doesn't really add that much to the strategic depth of the game. SMAC had far more tile improvements than civ3, but SMAC's strategic depth more came from SE choices, units, etc than its wide range of tile improvements. I guess that this came from the fact that trees and boreholes was an easy and in most cases optimal strategy. I'm sure that something similar will happen in civ4. Especially since roads don't even grant a commerce bonus (but maybe that's a good thing). If each city can only hold 19 improvements that's a different story. That could provide strategic depth if there was around thirty or so useful buildings. If Civ4 only has like 25 useful buildings then most cities will be jack of all trades cities instead of specialized cities.
|
I believe that a number of the tile improvements were resource-specific, and it would be nice to see some of the buildings to be the same way (like the rare iron works in civ 3). I agree that buildings should have trade-offs.
quote:
I disagree, I don't think that simplification is always a good thing. I think in most cases it's a bad thing, unless it combats excessive amounts of micromanagement. Though to me, micromanagement is more of a UI issues than a complexity issue.
|
It depends- I never liked micromanaging workers to clean up pollution. And when was civil unrest a problem? You start your turn, it alerts you that you have civil unrest, you go into the city screen and make an entertainer, maybe change to a happiness building- next turn you're fine. That's useless micromanagement.
quote:
You used the word should...lol
All we know is that we'll just have to wait and see. Still I'm hopeful that Civ4 will exceed all of my expectations, but we'll see.
|
Just like any game, the more you want to change a game, the more tools you're going to need to know- at least Firaxis is making the most-often modified things more easily modified 
|
|
| |
|
|
|
LDiCesare
|
|
La Ferté sous Jouarre France
Jan 2001
time: 05:18
|
|
quote:
And when was civil unrest a problem? You start your turn, it alerts you that you have civil unrest, you go into the city screen and make an entertainer, maybe change to a happiness building- next turn you're fine. That's useless micromanagement. |
Well, Civ2, Democracy: You have unrest in one city. You correct it. Next turn, city grows, and the new citizen is unhappy. Big problem, but more of a micromanagement nightmare than anything else (small mistake in management of one city ruins the whole civ for up to 3 years). So civil unrest was a problem.
For those who mentioned xml: xml is just text format. The interesting stuff is actually Python. This should let us do some real changes if there are the good handles like "wonder built", "what's being built" and such.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Darkstar
|
 |
Huntsville, AL, USA
May 1999
time: 23:18
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Spiffor
I think he is referring to the fact that, in Civ2, you lost one citizen (1 worked tile) for 2 worked tiles, as you created a settler and founded a new city.
In Civ3, now that you had to spend 2 citizens to get one settler, you traded 2 worked tiles for 2 worked tiles. That exploit disappeared.
However, ICS (or at least: significant early expansion) remained an indispensable strategy. BUt it wasn't an exploit anymore. |
LOL! Are you serious? Changing the number of citizens lost when making a settler did not destroy the value of ICS. ICS depends on:
* Bonus product that 2 cities of size 2 work more then 1 city of size 4
* 2 production queues from 2 size 4 cities are better then 1 production queue from 1 size 8 city
(Bonus issues)
* 2 cities of size 4 are easier to control then 1 city of size 8.
* 2 cities do better at restricting the enemy from easy access to future resources then 1 city
Changing the number of people lost from a city making a settler doesn't change ICS. Changing it so that a city doesn't get any bonus resources (the "free" city tile in all previous Civ series games) is what stops ICS in its biggest power. However, as long as you only get more production output by building more cities means you'll always need to ICS. Add in the strategic value from using cities to "reserve" your future land and denying the computer the use of that land, as well the other bennies, and ICS will always be around.
Now, fix it so you can have the 7 cities of the Federation be able to match the output of the 26 cities of the Horde, and you'll finally be looking at the end of ICS. Until that day happens though...
|
|
| |
|
|
|
yin26
|
 |
This space reserved for Darkstar.
Apr 1999
time: 14:18
|
|
Hi Cyber (I don't want to hijack that other thread):
two simply questions: do you really think that civ4 is close to civ1/2/3 after the list I just made?
- the combat system is different. no a/d values. Units specialise through promotions. Different units are needed in different terrains. Different units are needed against other different units.
But don't you find the core combat system terribly dull? It's antiguated. CtP did it better. So, no, I don't find those things that significant. Nice, sure, but not significant.
- the resource system is totally new from civ 2 (you call it 2.7, remember) and expanded from civ 3. The idea of needing resources to build improvements, wonders, units, brings a total new dimension to civ. So does the idea of luxerious resources that make people happy. Add the trade of resources to this and you have a complete new idea and concept that makes civ 4 #4 almost by itself
But weren't there some serious problems with the resource model in Civ 3?
- religion.
Seems like surface stuff to me. Anyway, too hard to tell this early.
- culture
We had this before. It's good.
The idea that your citizen are just citizen who're all alike (from civ1 / civ2) is totally gone. Suddenly your citizen belong to cultural groups and to religions. YOu have please different citizen in different ways, mostly on state level (not more micromanagement)
This brings diplomacy on a total new level. This is a total new concept from civ1 / civ2 and the way it's been implemented makes it totally new then in civ3 (for sure with religion added to it)
I don't understand what this really means. So no comment.
- social engineering. enough has been said about this. I want to add that the governamental decisions you make even affect your neighbours. Again a total new concept.
This has some promise. The SMAC model was interesting.
- different terrain improvements for different resources is totally new
But will this be a tedious thing, will it add to strategic thinking without a lot of hassle?
- the idea of borders is new in civ 3 and further developped in civ 4. This is a huge department from civ1 / civ2. Apparantly for sure since the crossing of borders now is an act of war while in civ3 you had to declare war to someone who crossed your border. A huge improvement from civ3 and a total new concept from civ1 / civ2
If they fixed this problem, it will be important. I agree.
- the trade system is totally different from civ1 / civ2 again. The idea behind the resources is a huge new concept.
Again, I still recall problems in Civ 3 with this.
- the health system is a total new concept, a huge change from the old polution concept. For sure since food can be traded as well!
I'm playing Age of Man, which has some clever ways to deal with health. I can't comment on the implementation here.
- diplomacy is in civ3 and civ4 totally different then in civ1/2.
Again, how will it function in-game? Diplomacy in almost all these types of games is really, really hard to get right.
- the new concepts with multiplayer are huge. locked alliances, dedicated game server. pbem games that can be continued real time.
Yes, this is huge.
and again: if you aren't waiting for a civ sequel, why are you here?
I am waiting. I just want to be challenged by the game in strategic ways, not more predictable busy work. Some of the things you mentioned are very promising. Most seem fluffy or totally no way to say without trying them yet. The net result for me now is caution. I still think the vanilla release will be in the 7.0-8.0 area with room for improvement.
Oh wait, another question: weren't you one of the people who were angry because Firaxis moved on with civ3 and removed the ancient civ2-wonder movies from civ3?
I don't recall that. I can tell you my answer now: I'd rather have them spend time and money on gameplay and not on movies that you skip after seeing them once. I liked the movies well enough, mind you, and it's great if you have them, but only if the rest of the game is great.
By the way, thank you for asking me serious questions. I hope you feel I gave serious answers. And I'll just leave you with this thought: If it's too early for me to be pessimistic, then it's too early for you to be optimistic. I'm happy to wait for more evidence. How about you?
--Yin
|
|
| |
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
21-07-2005 23:54
)
|