Your Civ4 forecast

[Matrix]

It seems reviewers are very positive about Civ4. We however know more about Civ gameplay than those reviewers. (Yes, that's arrogant, but I'm talking more about you top players than me. ;))

They really screwed up big time with Master of Orion III. Will Civ4 undergo the same fate, destroying a legacy, or is it another success?

[Pastorius]

I see no arrogance in that. It is the truth.

[barbu1977]

Better than 3, as good as 2.

They have wonder movies how can it go wrong?

[Shabbaman]

I've read that they're changing the concept of shields (or hammers) as the base of production. To me, the shield based production is pretty much the essence of civ. I wouldn't mind if they'd implement the superior system of colonization, but it wouldn't be civ anymore.
I'm confident firaxis will create a great game, I'm a bit afraid that it won't look a lot like civ anymore. The "unfun" aspects they're taking away have become defining factors for me: limiting the size of your empire through increasing corruption or limiting production through pollution effects are superb in their simplicity. What is the challenge in a game that's all fun? I've seen in Pirates how fun a game without a challenge can be, I've seen in any RTS how much fun creating lots of units and bashing heads with is, but that's just not civilization.

[Pastorius]

quote:Originally posted by Shabbaman

I've read that they're changing the concept of shields (or hammers) as the base of production. To me, the shield based production is pretty much the essence of civ. I wouldn't mind if they'd implement the superior system of colonization, but it wouldn't be civ anymore.
I'm confident firaxis will create a great game, I'm a bit afraid that it won't look a lot like civ anymore. The "unfun" aspects they're taking away have become defining factors for me: limiting the size of your empire through increasing corruption or limiting production through pollution effects are superb in their simplicity. What is the challenge in a game that's all fun? I've seen in Pirates how fun a game without a challenge can be, I've seen in any RTS how much fun creating lots of units and bashing heads with is, but that's just not civilization.


Agreed. At one point, I tried to analyze civ with economic theory, and those aspects in particular are among the tradeoffs I feel Civ3 portrays very well. To take em away is to please the mainstream civ player (the one that plays chieftain-regent because he/she dont want to loose. Ever). To take em away is to reduce the challenge

[akots]

Sid is a very creative person. Every new Civ had been a great step ahead imho. Some features were improved, some bugs appeared but the game had become more and more complex with new concepts introduced. I'm sure it will be OK but only after a few patches...

My impression is that it would be a rather similar to RTW strategical part with more complex elements certainly and hopefully with a small possibility to micromanage. After all, this is a very boring task which can be easily done by a governor if this governor is not that of an idiot.

[Kingreno]

Lots and lots of Eyecandy yet no realy new things. a flop. yes.

[ERIKK]

How can it ever beat civ2???

[Beam]

quote:Originally posted by ERIKK

How can it ever beat civ2???


How can it ever beat civ1???

Erikk, you've better finished your studies once Civ4 is out, I'll challenge you for game 8!

[Markstar]

I say it won't be as good. Yes, hail to Sid Meier for his ideas that changed the way we play strategy games today. However I'm afraid that time has gotten the best of him and Firaxis is just not the right company to handle Civ (which btw reminds me of George Lucas, who, imho, created something very special at a time, but 15 years later all the genious seems to be gone which is rather obvious when his "better" version is much worse than the original).

Actually I liked a lot of concepts of Civ3 while still missing a few from Civ2 even today (like supermarkets, caravans or diplomats) but I guess that everybody has their own issues when comparing the various Civ-installments (for example, while never actually having played Civ: Call Cf Time, I do like the idea of settling the ocean once a certain level of technology is reached).

So why did I vote that it won't be as good? Because imo Civ IS about MMing (to a certain perspective) and about the more thought you put into your moves, the better your game gets (alright, this only counts for people where the time spent thinking about the game actually make a difference ;)). To me, the talk about "removing unfun elements" sounds like removing the pawns from the chess board since moving the knight or the bishop is more fun.

I heard an interesting quote just today: "Audiences are as smart as you allow them to be."

So yes, modify the pollution to remove some UNNECESSARY MMing, sure, rename the shields to hammers because it makes more sense, but DO NOT water down Civ just because you expect to reach a bigger audience by making the game easier!!!

And since I am convinced that this is EXACTLY what they are doing (as you all probably know from my consistent whining), Civ4 is going to be worse. But boy, do I hope I'm wrong. [mischief]

[Wosret]

Hi... i'm not so recent here in cdz, but I've taken some time to read some posts :D

Well, all you said here seems too close from what I've been reading in Brazil as well. The afraid about the changing is intrinsic to the human being, and, in my opinion, it is more expressive in Civ players cause we have an politico-historical sense more sharpened then playres from anothers games as well. As Shabbaman said, to simply cut some heads it is better playing the new Age III for instance, but i think the reason for all this fearful feeling is the necessity we have in seeing philosophy giving us a free tech, and how the micromanagement can be so "micro" and so "macro" at the same time.
I not so scared, I say this because the game won't change from wine to water, but i think they will introduce new ways to express old things, so just hope that in this road to the search for the new points, some intelectual accessory dont be lost.

But i'm really scared about another tinhg... my english is so bad that i don't know what I've just wrotten make some sense
[mischief][wallbash]

[Ville]

Same as always [rolleyes]

[Matrix]

English bad or not, I couldn't agree with you more, Worset. [goodjob]

[Mistfit]

I've only played Civ since 3 so I cannot compare my expectations to 1 or 2. I have been looking forward to C-iv with eager anticipation. It will be a good game IMHO. The question is will it be a great game? One to take up way to much of my sleep and make me think of it at the oddest times? We'll all have to wait and see. The one thing I am disapointed in so far is the graphics. I'm really not a fan of the "cartoonish" direction they have taken with the leaders but that is just window dressing and somthing I can get used to. I voted it will be as good as the current game. That being said I believe that Civ3 is the greatest game out there so my expectations are very high.

@ Worset - Don't worry about your english. Look at my post and you can chuckle at a guy whose 1st (and only) language is English and I tend to slaughter it.

[Ribannah]

My feeling is that they are trying to simplify too many essentials, whereas it remains to be seen whether religion really adds anything to the game. It could, but we'll have to wait and see.

[Socrates]

I'd like to know why some people think Civ2 is better than Civ3, I mean, the real reasons. What was in Civ2 which was good and was gone or changed in Civ3 ? I expect people to provide a real list of items and concepts, so I'm waiting. [mischief]

[Markstar]

Civ2 vs Civ3

[u]Better in Civ2</u>

- Diplomats; add another variety of combat: you can actually be dangerous with a strong economy. More options = more fun!
- Caravans; difficult subject since they admittedly were too strong when combined with wonders (though they would make sense in cIV again). But I liked the idea, especially the ability to support another city with food which made a lot of sense imo.
- Supermarkets, Highways; together with another improvement for shiels this would have stopped the crazy "must build RR everywhere" rampage. Plus, I simply like the additional building options. ;)
- Tech tree; the era's in 3 suck. Period. &lt;- That's a bold period.
- The ability to change the terrain later on; o.k., maybe making mountains into plains was pushing it a little, but especially when going after a high score in Civ3, getting more grassland would be fairer (imortant for the HOF, for example).
- Multiplayer; MP in Civ3 fucking sucks!!!!!!!!!!!!!
- Corruption; though it doesn't have to be 0% like in Civ2-democracy, Civ3 is really exaggerating it and makes expanding ones empire A LOT less fun.
- Fewer bugs (though there were plenty. But at least (all) most were gone in the end.). :(
- Larger maps (and they are getting even smaller in cIV [rant]).
- [minor] wonder movies and city view; just a graphic issue and not really important to me, but they were nice to look at once in a while. The Civ3 city view is just a joke, really.
- Settlers with 2 movement points. [:p]


[u]Better in Civ3</u>
- Culture; another aspects of the game: More options = ....
- Borders; VERY important additions since in Civ2 the attacking force had a huge advantage
- Howitzers; the ultimate attack in Civ2, they were simply too powerful in combination with the non-existence of borders and not a real adequate defensive unit.
- Bombard ability; new option. [smokin]
- Armies; like the idea, I had hoped they would enhance that experience in cIV instead of abandoning it. [mad]
- Scientific leader (if it had worked) [rolleyes]
- Unit hitpoints + experience: 2-6 HPs just makes a lot more sense that this stupid continuous bar.

Alright, that's it for now. If I think of more I'll edit them in. [whatsthis

[RegentMan]

I fear that all of the new features (3-D graphics, religion, less units, etc.) will turn the game into a non-Civ game. Am I the only one who enjoyed the Civ II graphics? Civ III's were fine too.

That being said, I'm sure Civ IV will be a fine game. Hopefully these new additions will work out, and I'll be able to play it on my current computer.

[Shabbaman]

I hope they bring back caravans, or something like that. I know it's pretty lame to move those units around, but imagine being able to capture your opponents caravan, denying him strategic resources in the process...

Civ gains nothing with the new graphics engine. However, the basic game is great, and it will still be great in civ4. Look at it as something else for a change. A lot of board games and card games are all variations on the same theme.

When you think about it, how much does civ differ from pong ;)

[Socrates]

I'll answer to Markstar's list. ;)

I pretty agree with Civ3's good features, though some need some improvement for Civ4.

For Civ2 (I played quite a lot) :

- Diplomats : I don't like that unit now. Compared to military units and workers squads, those units are ridiculous in terms of size. And the gameplay behind it was too powerful, it was a cheap unit with major consequences (sometimes), it could be a game breaker under some circumstances. I much prefer to just have a diplomatic screen like in Civ3... even if it's not great in Civ3 either. A spy unit or something would be nice, but not this multi-options unit like Civ2's diplomat (and Civ1 too IIRC).

- Caravans : Ditto, ridiculous to compare caravans with the other units. I like the idea to cross a continent to reach another commercial center, but caravans took ages to move, and they were just used to set up a trade network, not to run it ! [mischief] The real use of course was to rush wonders. I remember stockpiling tons of them when I had nothing better to do (I'm a builder ;) ). At the time I didn't browse the Internet, but now I realize it was a badly designed unit. Wonders shouldn't be rushed. Civ3's wonders can still be rushed, but at least we just had a trade screen instead of units.

- Supermarkets and highways : Interesting features, I'd put them in a special category, the "enhanced" one. Civ2 brought enhancement to many units, like for settlers, caravans, diplomats, and those 2 buildings fall into this category because they add a 2nd-level bonus. I'm undecided on this one, because Civ3 replaced them with other features, and that's just fine.

- Tech tree : Now, an interesting one. I kinda like the idea of eras, but it's just too rigid in Civ3, I'm bored with it now. Were I to choose, I'd go back to no era, like in Civ2. But I disliked some stuff in Civ2's tech tree. I didn't like to start the game with different techs, and sometimes with different numbers of them (a totally random process AFAIK). It seemed that at some point, I could choose between techs A, B and C, then I would research A, but then I could only research B for some reason ? [???] Too weird.

- Terraforming : Find it amusing at first, I was glad to see it gone in Civ3. It's not the future here. Dynamite can help you build tunnels and roads in mountains, but not turning hills into plains ! [lol] Geography now makes more sense. I couldn't care for better scores.

- Multiplayer : Can't tell, I started to play multiplayer with Civ3 (here, essentially :) ).

- Corruption : Yeah, kinda annoying to see completely corrupted cities in Civ3, it makes no sense. Maybe a point for Civ2. But I grew bored with Civ's "always-good-to-do" expansionism anyway.

- Fewer bugs : Can't tell, I didn't search for that with Civ2, and I had no Internet. I agree Civ3 was let down though. :( Look at those Conquests that were C3C's candy, and how they were really buggy.

- Larger maps : Really ? Were they larger than Civ3's huge maps ? I personally don't care much, as I dislike to play on larger maps : I feel like losing the personality of the land because there is too much of it (like I prefer to be at CDZ than at CFC). Is the standard size smaller ? Then I hope there is a good reason. Chess only needs 64 tiles. ;)

- Wonder movies and city view : I enjoyed wonder movies, I really felt like achieving something great when I built a wonder, and that was a reward. Losing them in Civ3 wasn't a real step backwards though. But city view, yuck ! :( It has always been lame, in every Civ installment. I would never have a look at it. Completely useless.

- Settlers with 2 movement points : Good, that was. :) Those engineers who could move and road in 1 turn were just too good. I miss the enhanced units a little, I hope they come back to those.


So, some few points for Civ2, but on the whole I don't really agree with you, Markstar. A matter of taste, probably.

[Markstar]

quote:Originally posted by kryszcztov

So, some few points for Civ2, but on the whole I don't really agree with you, Markstar. A matter of taste, probably.
Yes, probably.

quote:I pretty agree with Civ3's good features, though some need some improvement for Civ4.They sure do.

quote:- Diplomats : ... I much prefer to just have a diplomatic screen like in Civ3... even if it's not great in Civ3 either. A spy unit or something would be nice, but not this multi-options unit like Civ2's diplomat (and Civ1 too IIRC).Yes, I agree that most of the diplomacy should be done in the diplo screen. But stealing techs via a diplomat and bribing units did make sense, plus buying units was so expensive that you couldn't buy too many (unless you were really stinking rich).

quote:- Caravans : ... The real use of course was to rush wonders. I remember stockpiling tons of them when I had nothing better to do (I'm a builder ;) ). At the time I didn't browse the Internet, but now I realize it was a badly designed unit. That's why I said that they were a little too powerful in Civ2, but imo the concept was great and there were some things that could have been done to it to make them more fun and appropriate in Civ3 (for example, how about the ability to steal extra resources from another civ for a limited number of turns?).

quote:- Supermarkets and highways : ... I'm undecided on this one, because Civ3 replaced them with other features, and that's just fine.No, not really. Civ3 went back to the way it was in Civ1 & 2 and RRing is not really a "feature" to me.

quote:- Tech tree : ... It seemed that at some point, I could choose between techs A, B and C, then I would research A, but then I could only research B for some reason ? [???] Too weird.Haeh? [scratch] Would you mind explaining that a little? I have no idea what you mean by that. [blink]

quote:- Terraforming : Dynamite can help you build tunnels and roads in mountains, but not turning hills into plains !Yes, that's what I said. Still, plains (and even desert) turning into grassland would make sense and is even realistic nowadays in the real world (and actually doesn't even require high tech at all).

quote: I couldn't care for better scores.Well, that's your opinion, but there are plenty of people out there who do care about score and who would be happy about means of evening out the playing field. More options = ....

quote:- Multiplayer : Can't tell, I started to play multiplayer with Civ3 (here, essentially :) ).Well, let's leave it at: It worked. (Which is quite an important argument when you consider that Firaxis claimed that Civ3 is so bad in MP because the code is based on Civ2!)

quote:- Corruption : Yeah, kinda annoying to see completely corrupted cities in Civ3, it makes no sense. Maybe a point for Civ2. But I grew bored with Civ's "always-good-to-do" expansionism anyway.Hehe, funny you say that when Civ is about expanding your empire. The thing is: In Civ3 it is still good to have a larger Civ, but they spoil the fun of it. Again, this is a point that only counts if you also take other people's opion about the game into consideration except your own. You might think a smaller, more efficient core is more fun, even I might think so, but there are a lot of people who don't.

quote:- Fewer bugs : Can't tell, I didn't search for that with Civ2, and I had no Internet. I agree Civ3 was let down though. :( Look at those Conquests that were C3C's candy, and how they were really buggy.I'm tired of making the same argument 100 times so I'll leave it alone this time. [coool] Let's just say Civ2 had mostly (what they would consider now) minor bugs (translation, Civilopedia).
Here is one (of many) example to show you just how careless Firaxis is about programming and how bad they are at it:
When you install Civ3, you are asked where you want the Civ3 folder in the start menu. However, whatever you write there, it always goes in \Start Menu\Infogrames\ . This even has little to do with actual programming, especially since there is the "Windows Installer" which makes it easier to integrate your own installing routine. And they still mess it up? Why do they even ask for a start menu folder when they disregard it? Even if you are not a programmer, this is like making a presentation and having a major spelling mistake on your frontpage. You havn't even started that game and there is the first bug!!! [slanteye][scratch][nono][rant][aargh]:([mad2][mad3][punch][headstab]

quote:- Larger maps : Really ? Were they larger than Civ3's huge maps ? Yes.

quote:I personally don't care much, as I dislike to play on larger maps : I feel like losing the personality of the land because there is too much of it (like I prefer to be at CDZ than at CFC).Again, that's your opinion. You can simply choose to play a smaller map. What about the people who love to play large maps because they think it is more realistic (like me, for example)?

quote:Is the standard size smaller ? Then I hope there is a good reason. Chess only needs 64 tiles. ;)Don't know the exact numbers right now but yes they were. And sure, chess needs only 64 tiles. But chess is about reducing the number of units, not making more.

quote:- Wonder movies and city view : ... Completely useless.Yes, useless but at least they were nicely done in Civ2. And I said it was a minor point, I personally don't care for graphics at all (which makes it even worse that they reduce the map size because their 'great' graphic engine can't handle more without slowing down the computer too much).

quote:- Settlers with 2 movement points : ... I miss the enhanced units a little, I hope they come back to those.Don't count on it.

All in all I agree with most of your construction points but think you should also see the Civ series from other people's perspective as well. And sure, I realize that mine is biased as well as I sometimes see it from a fanatic's pov. [soldier]
Anyways, if Civ2 had only 2 of the following; borders, culture, armies, decent means of defense - I'd still be playing that. [duelist]

[Socrates]

Since I don't like Snitz's quotes when you reply...

- Re Diplomats : In Civ3 you can steal techs through a special screen, don't you like that too ? I can understand the use of a special unit, but it'd be like a unit that would destroy a city's wall or something like that. Even bribing could be nice. But diplomats in Civ2 and their enhanced versions the spies were SO powerful (sometimes I would buy many cities for little money until the AI was smart enough to revolt to democracy), with so many options in ONE unit, that sometimes I'd build only that and...

- Re Caravans ;) : Well, you agree they were too powerful. In Civ3 they were replaced by a diplomacy screen where you could set up trades and by leaders that could rush wonders. What do you prefer ? I think it was stupid to have units to just set up a trade route, not to run it, and I prefer rare units to randomly pop up to rush wonders than units that you could build when you want to rush those wonders (in fact it was like building a wonder with a few cities, that was so easy !).

- Re Supermarkets and highways : I liked them. You're right, probably something to think about for later stages of the game and railroads.

- Re Tech tree : Sometimes in Civ2 it would go like this (I'll take a false example because I can't exactly recall, and I didn't patch anything, I used the French version box that included Civ2 and the 2 expansion CDs). At some point in the game I would be asked to choose between Writing, Horseback Riding and Monarchy. I'd choose Monarchy and once I got it, only Writing would be offered, and I wouldn't be able to choose to research Horseback Riding for some reason. [???] I would get pissed by that. In Civ3 it can't happen : you have the tech tree in front of you, a well drawn tech tree, so it's the best one so far.

- Re Terraforming : Disagree about its reality, you can turn marsh and jungle into plains or grasslands, but not plains into desert or mountains into hills ! Not on such a large scale anyway. In gameplay, it tends to turn the landscape into a uniform layout and I find it boring. Civ3's nukes (which I have never seen so far) can turn lakes into desert, lol ! You can see some examples of such changes in the world, but on a very low level (Aral Sea...).

- Re Corruption : Yes that is my opinion (like the other points). Civ may turn into a game where expansionism isn't the key, and that will be good, and Civ4 may be a great leap towards this actually. But we were talking about Civ2, where it was better indeed.

- Re Larger maps : I think that standard map sizes and numbers of turns are balanced regarding what's happening in the game. If the game is built so that a smaller map and a lower number of turns are needed, then fine. Nothing prevents you to go into the editor and play on a 500x500 map. Good point about chess. ;) I was just trying to say that I don't think that the more the better. Same for options.

- Re Wonder movies and city view : Mmmh I said that the city view only was useless. ;) Even if the wonder movies aren't that needed anyway. But really, you liked to watch those movies a lot, didn't you ? How many times did you interrupt your game to stare at your city ? Me : once maybe.


I also have a biaised view, as I played this game a lot. As a general statement I'd say :
- I favour gameplay over realistic elements anytime.
- I try to meet realistic elements when gameplay doesn't suffer from it.
- A game won't necessarily get better if you add more units, features and stuff, it could get worse.

[Markstar]

Alright, last time:

quote:Diplomats : In Civ3 you can steal techs through a special screen, don't you like that too ? Well, it sure is easier that way, but no, I like the old way better.

quote:But diplomats in Civ2 and their enhanced versions the spies were SO powerful (sometimes I would buy many cities for little money until the AI was smart enough to revolt to democracy), with so many options in ONE unit, that sometimes I'd build only that and...I'm not saying they were perfect (same as caravan). I agree that buying cities should be harder (higher prices, more obstacles) but all in all, I miss the diplomat, which is all what I tried to tell you from the beginning!

quote:Caravans : In Civ3 they were replaced by a diplomacy screen where you could set up trades and by leaders that could rush wonders. What do you prefer ?[cry] You don't get my point (and to be blunt I think we will never agree on this). I prefer neither and by saying that they weren't perfect I meant that they could have been changed for the better, not the choice of scrapping them altogether or leaving them ingame the way they were. I like the trade screen and I like the leaders. But that doesn't mean you can't have a caravan spicing things up, maybe making it harder to rush wonders.
Example (making it up as I type): Before any trade between two civs, the parties have to move a caravan each to one of the other civs' city (in addition or as a replacement to the road). If a caravan is captured, the enemy could maybe join it with certain bonuses.

quote:I prefer rare units to randomly pop up to rush wonders than units that you could build when you want to rush those wondersYeah, see, this is where we differ. I like predictability (like chess). Imo the random factor can make a game quite unfair, especially in MP (not so relevant in SP).

quote:- Tech tree : Sometimes in Civ2 it would go like this (I'll take a false example because I can't exactly recall, and I didn't patch anything, I used the French version box that included Civ2 and the 2 expansion CDs). At some point in the game I would be asked to choose between Writing, Horseback Riding and Monarchy. I'd choose Monarchy and once I got it, only Writing would be offered, and I wouldn't be able to choose to research Horseback Riding for some reason. [???] I would get pissed by that. In Civ3 it can't happen : you have the tech tree in front of you, a well drawn tech tree, so it's the best one so far.Ahh, now I remember what you mean, yes, that could be annoying. But IIRC (maybe somebody else could affirm/contradict this), the next techs were selected depending on the category of the recent tech you discovered to avoid researching purely in one direction. And this, again, makes a lot of sense imo. But either way, this has nothing to do with the tech tree itself and is therefore irrelevant in this whole discussion since it doesn't matter if you have a tech tree or eras (for example, they could have just as easily make you research Engineering after you got Feudalism and Monotheism to prevent you from going after Chivalry right away).

quote:Terraforming : Disagree about its reality, you can turn marsh and jungle into plains or grasslands, but not plains into desert or mountains into hills ! Not on such a large scale anyway. In gameplay, it tends to turn the landscape into a uniform layout and I find it boring. Civ3's nukes (which I have never seen so far) can turn lakes into desert, lol ! You can see some examples of such changes in the world, but on a very low level (Aral Sea...).*sigh*

1) I said I agree about the mountain/hill aspect, no need to bring it up again.
2) Maybe you should talk to Killer about this. Not on a large scale? You know how many millions of square miles are turned into desert EACH YEAR? Or fields into plains? Well, I don't, but I know it's a lot and if you insist (and be annoying) I WILL find out. I can assure you it is A LOT! And as I said before, it can be reversed without any high tech, also on a grand scale. All it takes is some man power to plant some appropriate plants (bushes iirc) to stop the earth from eroding, then making the earth more fertile again.
3) Who is talking about lakes? But sure, it is possible, now that you mention it. [:p] The reason why we don't see it in the real world is that thankfully so far we have not seen any more nukes set off in fertile areas. But if you look at the predictions of a modern nuke war, Civ is actually UNDERSTATING the whole issue.
4) You like spitting hairs, don't you? On the one hand you accept limited realism, on the other you complain about lakes drying out because of nukes. Dude, if the Civ-Map would be anything realistic, it would have to be 50000*50000 tiles.

quote: Nothing prevents you to go into the editor and play on a 500x500 map. Yes, the game does. AFAIK the maximum is 362*362. :(

quote:- Re Wonder movies and city view : Mmmh I said that the city view only was useless. ;) Even if the wonder movies aren't that needed anyway. But really, you liked to watch those movies a lot, didn't you ? How many times did you interrupt your game to stare at your city ? Me : once maybe.Again - I said it was a minor point!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! And yes, I rarely looked at both, only on special occasions. But I (and MANY others) learned to appreciate them once they were taken away. And while we are at it: I also DEARLY miss the newspaper anouncements and the settling sequence from Civ1, as well as the funny scientists that tell me that they completed their research. Yes, already, would you stop bugging me with the argument that it is not important. I know that!!! And I, too, focus on the gameplay 99.9% of the time. Yet all of those features where nice, same as the Elvis in Civ3 or the occasional funny comment.

Oh, and one last thing (which I know I shouldn't even mention but can't help it (will also add it to my list)): I like the Civ3 health bar better than the one in Civ2. BUT:
Despite many people complaining about the "spear killing the tank", I do think it is all that unrealistic (as iirc I also mentioned when we chatted). On the contrary, I like to think that the "1st Spearman Battalion" that I build 3000BC learns a trick or two in the couple of thousand years since it's existance. ;) Just look at the middle-east conflict where even people living under the poorest cirumstances manage to get their hands on enough explosives to blow up military targets. Why shouldn't my elite Spearman come up with something that, with some luck (and maybe a great leader???), can take out a unit of tanks. It's not like it doesn't happen in the real world.

[akots]

There is only one bad thing about Civ2 (except for poor graphics even for that time when the game was released they were poor quality; still better than Civ1 though): ICS. ICS kills the game, you win so easily on any level against the AI, it was absolutely not challenging. Civ3 is not extremely challenging either but it is way more challenging. However, AI is also extremely dumb but to win a game, a player has to apply some more intelligent methods. In Civ2 there was nothing challenging, just ICS and ICS.

[Markstar]

quote:Originally posted by akots

In Civ2 there was nothing challenging, just ICS and ICS.That may be true for SP, but for MP not so much imo. There were ways to fight it effectively iirc.

[Socrates]

So after a few MPs with Markstar, I won't answer to his post, because I know it won't lead to some agreement or clear difference. But I now know more about why some people think Civ2 was a better game (with regards to the time both games were created !). I prefer Civ3. :)

What REALLY concerns me though (like most of you), and so that we're back on topic, is what Civ4 will be. I hope that, whatever the means, Civ4 will make people forget about Civ1, 2 and 3 altogether. :) Every category Markstar mentioned should get better than in either previous version. And it's possible. Don't say it's not until we're proven wrong. [blush2]

ICS : How did this concept help playing so good in Civ2 ? Just curious. Is it different and so less effective in Civ3 ? If yes, what different factors than from Civ2 make it so ? Have we already heared some stuff from Civ4 that will kill ICS once for all ? Is the removal of corruption one of this stuff ? So many questions, I should be shot to death. [mischief]

[akots]

Nothing special, just build ICS build and granaries in a few cities. Then settle everything you can. Then build whatever you want. Preferably revolting to Democracy somewhere on the way to get rid of waste. Make the AIs declare on you (the senate will not make peace then) and kill them all. But last time I played Civ2 was 7 years ago iirc.

And I have not played multiplayer in Civ2. I think I had some "deodorant" version which was not working in MP.

[Markstar]

quote:Originally posted by kryszcztov

What REALLY concerns me though (like most of you), and so that we're back on topic, is what Civ4 will be. I hope that, whatever the means, Civ4 will make people forget about Civ1, 2 and 3 altogether. :) Every category Markstar mentioned should get better than in either previous version. And it's possible. Don't say it's not until we're proven wrong. [blush2]Yes, agreed, (un-)fortunately we won't know until <s>it's too late</s> cIV is out. I also hope for the best but honestly expect the worst. That way, it's easier to be positively surprised. [^]

About ICS: Good questions. :) Imho one reason that it's not that powerful in Civ3 is that settlers now need 2 citizens which make it more important to have a working system. Plus, in Civ2 ALL your units were upgraded AUTOMATICALLY WITHOUT ANY COSTS!!! Thus, if you had many cities early on which all produced cheap units which then were upgraded, you had a very powerful army. In Civ3 it doesn't work (that well) anymore since you can't afford to upgrade all the warriors you produced.
However, ICS is not dead and can still be a good option, eg to push the # of allowed units for Republic and/or to build some cheap workers.
For example, in HOF games (at least in PTW), you'd build one city for every 6 grass. That way, you get to size 11 while only having happy people and specialists =&gt; optimal score.
This of course is better than in Civ1 where I would sometimes just build 30 cities directly next to each other to allow sea units to travel through. ;)

[Socrates]

OK, thanks to both of you, I understand better.

quote:Originally posted by Markstar

Yes, agreed, (un-)fortunately we won't know until <s>it's too late</s> cIV is out. I also hope for the best but honestly expect the worst. That way, it's easier to be positively surprised. [^]

You'll hate to see me argueing about a sentence you seem to cherish, but I feel it is obvious to hope for the best for such a thing (who would want to see Civ4 as a major failure ? there are other things in life that are worth this wish ;) ). And I expect nothing in particular, I just hope. But once I have read a Civ4 preview, I think about it for a few minutes, and then go back to other occupations, so that I WILL be surprised anyhow. What I mean is that I don't feel the need to say "it'll be bad, it'll be bad" to (maybe) get a bigger :) when the game is out and good... or a smaller :( if it is bad. Just to explain my general reaction here.

quote:Plus, in Civ2 ALL your units were upgraded AUTOMATICALLY WITHOUT ANY COSTS!!!

Err, wasn't it if you had Leo ? [hmm] Also I think you couldn't upgrade anything if you didn't have it. A completely broken wonder, of course (better in Civ3).

quote:This of course is better than in Civ1 where I would sometimes just build 30 cities directly next to each other to allow sea units to travel through. ;)

[eek] [lol] I'm definitely one who play academically... I can do nice and risky stuff sometimes, but this... [thumbsup]

[Markstar]

quote:Originally posted by kryszcztov

Err, wasn't it if you had Leo ? [hmm] Also I think you couldn't upgrade anything if you didn't have it. A completely broken wonder, of course (better in Civ3).Yes, but Leo was a high priority wonder of course, not under any circumstances to be missed when doing ICS (or not). [charge]

[Stapel]

Not having Leo's in Civ2 meant a restart for me.

I can't be bothered to exactly tell why, but I've played civ1 to death, civ2 just a lot, and civ3 to death again.

Arguments why civ3 is better?
-Diplomats in civ2 were FAR too strong
-Caravans in civ2 were FAR too strong
-Cultural borders!
-Armies!

Civ3 had too many bugs. I played 1.07 for a year....... Man... addictive, but buggy!

[Socrates]

quote:Originally posted by Stapel

Not having Leo's in Civ2 meant a restart for me.

Whenever I would lose it to the AIs, I would pursue a space victory or try to capture it. In fact, I would always play for a space victory, and when some AIs were too strong at the end of the game, they would gang up against me, and then I would be forced to fight them to death. Tons and tons of howitzers was my only strategy and it was effective, even on Deity. I can recall some close space races too. [groucho] But I agree that Leo was so damn good. The best part was when you discovered a tech that upgraded all your, say, dragoons to cavalries in front of a large AI city. I wonder if the spam fairy was behind that. [hmm]

Curiously, I would often restart the game when I lost the Colossus. [crazyeye] I liked this wonder so much (because nothing beat science back then for me), and fortunately it wasn't in the middle of the game, like for Leo. I learnt to forget about the Colossus with Civ3, where science is basically a trade market.