28-08-2005 23:27									#1
	Can't find these features, are they there? Support Apolyton

I am trying to find articles on Civ IV and was wundering if these features are going to be in Civ IV.

1) Wonder Movies? I like them. Especially in Call 2 Power 2. It was done good, nice and sweet. You need a little eye candy reward for waiting all that time to build a wonder.

2) Advisors? I miss them dearly like Civ II. It added the comedey touch to the game wich Civ III was lacking.

3) Whatt is the final objective to the game? War dominance is a given. What are the other options?

4) Palace? Remeber in Civ I and Civ II you could build your palace, when your people loved you. There could also be when the palace gets razed when the people don't like you either.

5) Will there be more options in the begining of the game? I know I read that they said there will be but didn't really say how. When ever I played Civ III it seem like the same game no mater what I did. It was the same in Civ II but at least every game seemed a different game every time, not like in Civ III. Always did the same thing in the same order.

Thanks for your time and help to any links that I could have missed.

Davor

	29-08-2005 00:25									#2
	Get a bigger avatar today!

1) They've been mentioned as returning.
2) Advisors will probably be in, though the Civ2 comedy will probably not return .
3) Uhh, conquest or spaceship? Civ3 victory conditions will probably remain, and maybe the religious victory or something else new?
4) Was in Civ1, Civ2 and Civ3 and, as thus, is likely for Civ4.
5) I hope for more options... in Civ3, every game was the same because, in many parts, there was only one right thing to do, strategy-wise. I hope that is no longer the case.

	29-08-2005 01:18									#3
	Get a bigger avatar today!

2) Talking advisers were mentioned in passing once a long time ago. I don't recall where, but the source seemed credible at the time. Expect something, but probably not at the Civ2 level

3) New alliance victory, but for the most part, the same as Civ3

5) From the sound of the new tech tree and resource tweaks, I think we're in for a good bit more variation between games. I'll say I'm cautiously optimistic here

	29-08-2005 01:38									#4
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

best place for information I know of

http://civilization4.net/

go to information and be prepared to be overloaded

	29-08-2005 02:26									#5
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

speaking of Elvis, check out this screen shot.

http://www.gamespot.com/pc/strategy...ns.html?page=49

	29-08-2005 02:33									#6
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

hmm, this is the first time I have looked at all the screen shots at gamespot. Anyone else seen these?

Check out the 1 minute gameplay video. Looks like a lot of changes. At least in terms of interface. That's not necessarily a bad thing.

I'm looking at the screen shots now. I'm not a big fan of that line where the shallow ocean water goes into deeper ocean water (edit: actually I think those are the territory lines). Perhaps that can be turned off. And it's weird seeing the units in the forest squares. They look like giants towering over the trees.

check out this screen shot. You're head would look good on the end of a pole. . Although it seems to have a significant lack of diplomacy options...

http://www.gamespot.com/pc/strategy...ns.html?page=18

Last edited by Dis on 29-08-2005 at 02:49

	29-08-2005 04:11									#7
	Increase Your PM Length

quote: Originally posted by Solver 3) Uhh, conquest or spaceship? Civ3 victory conditions will probably remain, and maybe the religious victory or something else new?

That's an interesting idea. I wonder what a religious victory would be. Perhaps you control all the holy cities of the religions of 100% (or 75% or 66%) of citizens of the world?

	29-08-2005 04:19									#8
	Got spare money?

quote: That's an interesting idea. I wonder what a religious victory would be. Perhaps you control all the holy cities of the religions of 100% (or 75% or 66%) of citizens of the world?

You found a religion, declare holy war on everyone, and win when the public opinion polls in other civs say that your religion is an aggressive one .

quote: check out this screen shot. You're head would look good on the end of a pole. . Although it seems to have a significant lack of diplomacy options...

Declare war... what other options do we need ?

	29-08-2005 07:48									#9
	Support Apolyton

quote: Originally posted by Solver 4) Was in Civ1, Civ2 and Civ3 and, as thus, is likely for Civ4.

You didn't have a palce to build in Civ III when the people loved you. Or was mine just turned off?

By the way is there any "We Love the King Day"? or anything like that?

	29-08-2005 08:06									#10
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

you didn't have a palace in Civ2, you had a throne room [/stickler for details]

	29-08-2005 08:11									#11
	Increase Your PM Length

quote: Originally posted by H Tower you didn't have a palace in Civ2, you had a throne room [/stickler for details]

thats right, I thought I was wrong but at least you had some reward when the people loved you.

	29-08-2005 08:35									#12
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

After reading somone else's post I fogot about reading a unit's,tech,terrian,building etc. etc. history as they did in Call to Power series and earlier Civ's.

Will that be in Civ IV? You discover aircraft and there could be a tab that explains the signifance about it?

	29-08-2005 09:12									#13
	Support Apolyton

My one point is diplomacy? Are they doing anything exciting in that department or can we expect just more of the same? (read more the same = bad).

And a functioning UN goddamnit.

	29-08-2005 12:21									#14
	Put an end to popups!

functioning UN? We don't have that today.

	29-08-2005 12:22									#15
	Tired of ads?

Well true. Ok so UN thats similar to the thing in SMAC but better to reflect the fact that cIV is newer than SMAC.

	29-08-2005 19:32									#16
	Increase the size of your Attachments

quote: Originally posted by Dis functioning UN? We don't have that today.

That's a great exagerration, as usual because every now and then a country that like to avoid UN directive (I'm not referring to US or Italy, I mean one in general terms) usually try to minimize UN role... and that's end in a general bad perceiveng of the whole UN

The UN is not very good at enforcing its decision, because is not born to do that, not it can cope well when it's strangled by vetoes any day.

The *fact* is that as not perfect as it is now, UN still is kept alive from more than a hundred of countries, and still is a place where diplomacy is at work, sometime with better result than any "preventive war" a country can feel the urge to fight.

Indeed, some countries (e.g. in Africa) also today are fighting horrible war, civil war, massacre of civilian, etc. but I don't think things would work better *without* a UN.

UN is not, as Civ gam implies, the future Government of the whole Earth, so it should be only a tool on the path for a sort of "Diplomatic shared victory condition".

	29-08-2005 21:57									#17
	Remove this text

I keep forgetting how good a game was SMAC and alot of the things there are not in Civ. I wunder why that is?

	29-08-2005 22:00									#18
	Increase Your PM Length

Yeah, well, it's one of a kind eh?

	29-08-2005 22:32									#19
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

Wasn't Civ3 developed partly in parallel with SMAC off a very early build of the engine that went on to be used for SMAC?
Also, didn't a lot of people follow Brian Reynolds or just leave firaxis at that point?

	30-08-2005 00:15									#20
	Got spare money?

quote: UN is not, as Civ gam implies, the future Government of the whole Earth, so it should be only a tool on the path for a sort of "Diplomatic shared victory condition".

Disagree, in the long run I wouldn't be surprised if thats what it turns out to be. But of course this is offtopic discussion isn't it.

It is interesting how a few real good SMAC features managed to stay with SMAC and wasn't incorporated into other games.

	30-08-2005 00:39									#21
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

quote: Originally posted by Senethro Wasn't Civ3 developed partly in parallel with SMAC off a very early build of the engine that went on to be used for SMAC? Also, didn't a lot of people follow Brian Reynolds or just leave firaxis at that point?

AFAIR, Civ3 was right in the middle of the development when Brian & co abandoned it to make that silly RTS RoN game, resulting in total collapse of Civ3 development, so that the game had to be made with less of the promised features, less persons on the same time etc. Considering this, the game might not have been that bad after all, eh?

	30-08-2005 01:05									#22
	SMAC lost in time Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by Senethro Wasn't Civ3 developed partly in parallel with SMAC off a very early build of the engine that went on to be used for SMAC?

AFAIK the SMAC code was mostly left back in the dust because it uses a kind of raw 3D terrain (almost in a wireframe way) that was a nightmare to manage and code (I'm quoting words from an old Firaxis post, IIRC).

Firaxis' rebuilt codeteam was forced to reuse most of Civ II source code with some routines reworked from SMAC (e.g. pathfinding, again IIRC).

The SMAC concept of raising/lowering terrain can't be managed by Civ III, nor (AFAIK) by the CIV 4 graphic engine, so we'll be again out in the cold if we hope in an easy source porting from Civ IV to SMAC II.

I bet this is quite a barrier to our request of a SMAC II, because of the effort of reworking the graphics.

	30-08-2005 01:12									#23
	Re: SMAC lost in time Support Apolyton

quote: Originally posted by Adm.Naismith The SMAC concept of raising/lowering terrain can't be managed by Civ III, nor (AFAIK) by the CIV 4 graphic engine, so we'll be again out in the cold if we hope in an easy source porting from Civ IV to SMAC II. I bet this is quite a barrier to our request of a SMAC II, because of the effort of reworking the graphics.

Who says Firaxis has to use the same kind of graphics engine? A completely new one would sound more reasonable after so many years and so much techical improvements. And the rolling terrain wasn't that popular either.

	30-08-2005 01:14									#24
	Get a bigger avatar today!

Back then, the rolling terrain was graphically seen the thing of the day for me.

	30-08-2005 06:36									#25
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

quote: Originally posted by Nikolai AFAIR, Civ3 was right in the middle of the development when Brian & co abandoned it to make that silly RTS RoN game, resulting in total collapse of Civ3 development, so that the game had to be made with less of the promised features, less persons on the same time etc. Considering this, the game might not have been that bad after all, eh?

perhaps that was because they realized(brian and his supporters) that the game was shaping up to be a failure and needed to be restarted. then when it couldnt happan($) they left to do their own thing. even if they had released civ3+conquests at the same time with the latest patch available now,i wouldnt be impressed-a good game,but a sequel to civ2?

	30-08-2005 14:31									#26
	Re: SMAC lost in time Get a bigger avatar today!

quote: Originally posted by Adm.Naismith AFAIK the SMAC code was mostly left back in the dust because it uses a kind of raw 3D terrain (almost in a wireframe way) that was a nightmare to manage and code (I'm quoting words from an old Firaxis post, IIRC). Firaxis' rebuilt codeteam was forced to reuse most of Civ II source code with some routines reworked from SMAC (e.g. pathfinding, again IIRC). The SMAC concept of raising/lowering terrain can't be managed by Civ III, nor (AFAIK) by the CIV 4 graphic engine, so we'll be again out in the cold if we hope in an easy source porting from Civ IV to SMAC II. I bet this is quite a barrier to our request of a SMAC II, because of the effort of reworking the graphics.

I think you're underestimating the modding community if you think they can't find a workaround. One possibility would just be to have mountians designated as terrain at 2000m and hills as terrain at 1000m. To make it deformable by Planetbusters/Terraformers would be more difficult though.

	30-08-2005 19:46									#27
	Inflate your Upload Space

I think of mountains and hills as corresponding more to ruggedness than to altitude.

	30-08-2005 21:13									#28
	Inflate your Upload Space

quote: in Civ3, every game was the same because, in many parts, there was only one right thing to do, strategy-wise. I hope that is no longer the case.

Amen.