Your Civ4 forecast

[Wosret]

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

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

[Ville]

Same as always

[Matrix]

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

[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.

[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 ).
- [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. []


[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.
- Armies; like the idea, I had hoped they would enhance that experience in cIV instead of abandoning it.
- Scientific leader (if it had worked)
- 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.

[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 ! 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 ! 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.