Your Civ4 forecast

[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? Would you mind explaining that a little? I have no idea what you mean by that.

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. 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!!!

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.
Anyways, if Civ2 had only 2 of the following; borders, culture, armies, decent means of defense - I'd still be playing that.