"Civilization IV"... Confirmed? - Page 13

Toby Rowe · December 4, 2004, 05:16

Hi mate,

Dunno about the Airfix game they made regarding complexity- Airfix was a company that used to produce kits of aircraft, warships and later on soldiers- I grew up painting Royal Navy ships they depicted. My son would laugh, but that was exciting (buying a kit) back then!!

The beauty of Civ is an 8 year old could understand the game, whilst EU would be beyond them, yet EU might be the next game they want at 13, little steps instead of little head-butts on console.

Complexity of a game I feel is largely irrelevant from the age of 15, and the peak of IQ is likely reached whilst an 18-25 year old and studying, (If future work doesn't tax the brain) then.....- Mensa have a constant arguement about it- nature or nurture?

Ukranian Flag: I'd never fly it by my nickname, If I were able I'd put at half-mast at the bottom of a post, If needed, which it isn't.

Seems to me that as Putin wants a reincarnation of the Soviet Union by quelling all opposition by fair means or foul, the East of the Ukraine agree with him, for that is what they'll get- papers closed down and no freedom.

The west side is still majority Ukranian nationals, they look to the EU, if a schism (spelling?) happens, then good- It'll show Putin he has support only from Russians living in other lands like the Eastern part.

Putin has been quietly turning into a dictator without the US, UK and Germany saying a word- he 'aint there yet, but it's getting close.

Just my thoughts!

Toby

Ps, Any Germans on the board? You are the traditional link with Russia- How are papers reporting it in Germany?- I'd "give my right arm" to hear a German diplomats view on the current ex-Soviet Union under Putin, all ex- nations that escaped included.

Vince278 · December 5, 2004, 00:38

Toby - Please feel free to fly your country's flag anytime.

Toby Rowe · December 5, 2004, 01:36

Vince mate,

you've utterly lost me?!!

I've been pissed off with the UK Government for most of the last 20 years, but I'll defend to death the choices my fellow countrymen made at the ballot box, even if my natural party of choice is now a dodgy one. (Labour)

Right now I'd rather fly the Swedish, Norwegian or Danish flags, and if the Tories ever get back into power, I'd rather leave- just like 6 of 8 national papers told me to do on voting day when Labour actually lost the election in 199 something, but were worried Labour might win. "The Sun", neutral as ever had a headline saying "If Labour wins, can the last person to leave Britain please remember to turn off the light" (big photo of a lightbulb)

(All 3 Nordic nations put the people before the ideaology- Unlike the UK parties, which gives a very balanced attitude in Government I feel)

Anyway, hope your just as lost now- only half of my previous post is displayed, confused me when I posted it as well, rant over.

Toby

PS: If anyone thinks Iraq was Oil, consider first the US, UK, Britain. Germany and France dealt with this man, for many years, the largest investors were France and then Russia- Germany only got Bronze for her Nuclear bunkers she was building in Iraq.

This man is on BBC records of killing at LEAST 300,000 of his own 24 million citizens. funny how the end of the cold war changed relationships between nations so much.

I supported the war as it might get rid of a dictator- that is all, and the Iraqi people deserve better just like any people do. The US first bombed all infrastructure, then wondered why people a week later were angry they had no water (Ever been thirsty for just 24 hours?)

This US planned (not UK planned) occupation will go down in history in Military Colleges as the best text book example of how to NOT do it.

Toby

Toby Rowe · December 5, 2004, 03:01

One thing to has annoyed me Vince in the UK, is how can people be annoyed with Americans? No, you are annoyed with the Governemt of America, not Americans.

Yanks to this day remain one of the most open and friendly people I've ever met. I'd hate to be american right now- constantly blamed for something you never did anyway. (a shop-keeper from X state on holiday in Europe for example- what on earth does he have to do with US Goverment policy- He is just another voter like us in our "safe European homes" as the Clash said 20 years ago.

Toby

Nikolai · December 5, 2004, 07:17

Should we go back on-topic?

ThePlagueRat · December 7, 2004, 01:31

Don't you think that was boring?

Nikolai · December 7, 2004, 09:07

I think this thread is ready to be toasted.

ThePlagueRat · December 8, 2004, 18:01

Toasted or bumped... same to me, let's just pray someone got something sensible to say. btw, your dad is kinda cool for a television dude. I am an unemployed actor, will he let me on then screen soon?

NB:
I'd really like to know what is going to happen to civ4. I guess Trip knows the people whos working on it, is there anything hoing on?

Jon Shafer · December 8, 2004, 19:08

What do you mean?

Oerdin · December 9, 2004, 00:32

Quote:

Originally posted by Toby Rowe
I supported the war as it might get rid of a dictator- that is all, and the Iraqi people deserve better just like any people do. The US first bombed all infrastructure, then wondered why people a week later were angry they had no water (Ever been thirsty for just 24 hours?)

This US planned (not UK planned) occupation will go down in history in Military Colleges as the best text book example of how to NOT do it.

Not to go to far off topic but the US most certainly did not bomb all of the infastructure nor even a quarter of the infastructure. There were several bridges that got blown and, from my own experience, I know that many people were upset about the slow pace of reconstruction for those few isolated cases where infastructor was damaged.

The biggest problem with the power gride was that Saddam hadn't built a new power plant since the 1970's and he had massive tariffs on foreign made goods so your average Iraqi couldn't afford energy sucking home appliances or consumer goods. After the war the price of imports was 1/3 the cost before the war so Iraqis wenr on buying binges and once they got home they all wanted to plug their new toys in at the same time. The result was sky rocketing electricty demand which the old plants couldn't keep up with.

The shortage was made worse in that in Iraq everyone has a legal right to free electricity. Saddam tried to bribe the people with free electricity and then made sure they had nothing to plug it. The problem with free electrity is there is no incentive to conserve power so why not just keep all the lights on 24 hours a day?

Toby Rowe · December 9, 2004, 20:30

Hi all,

Sorry for my rant, very drunk and very late.

Very off topic.

I still think citizens of the US are slighted by the actions of the US Government when it has little to do with the average person- I'm really pissed off with the US refusal to sign the Kyoto agreement, but not with Americans.

Oerdin,

Thanks for the reply, but all Western nations knew exactly what the infrastructure in Iraq was- we'd built it.

The French and Germans knew most, as they continued to build military installations after the 1st War, whilst the UK and the US finally stopped selling the Arms to them in the war against Iran once the Cold War was over.

Oddly, along with Russia they are all owed the most amount of money from the former dictatorship that has offically murdered or killed at least 300.000 of his own people.......

I still maintain, the US are good at fighting, crap at winning a peace- and Iraq will go down down in History as the worst occupation ever- it was utterly unplanned by either Politicans or lying senior officers. (I heard that one US General saw the plan and told the White House that 125,000 soldiers would be needed- and promptly got moved elsewhere)

Now, about Civ 4 (sorry all!)

Toby

curtsibling · December 10, 2004, 15:53

Yawn!

Come on! Enough tedious politics and chest-beating propagandism!

I have heard enough about that pointless little Iraqi sandpit and Dubby's dubious wargames for one year.

Remember CIV4?
Let's talk about that!

SSBLoveU · December 11, 2004, 22:11

Too bad there is not an advance chemistry option where scientists can make elements, also, the Naval AI is very weak in CIV III.

vmxa1 · December 12, 2004, 14:14

PC Gamer Jan issue has a nice article about IV. The pictures of the land ws not all that exciting. They claim it is MP from day 1.

Units can gain bonus vs some units, ability to use enemy roads. No spears vs tanks, not sure how they managed that.

Research will allow different paths to high level techs.

Sid is actually working on this one, he did not on III. So it sounds interesting.

Nikolai · December 12, 2004, 18:28

So the magazine has come out now?

Of course, we knew all that info from the news from the start of this month, but now it is at least legal to know it...

Toby Rowe · December 14, 2004, 20:42

Once again,

I appologise, I'll delete the utterly irrelevant posts, and concentrate on Civ 4- any news on that front?

Toby

Unfortunately, the site won't allow me to delete the two posts- can the moderator remove them please? They belong on the off-topic board at most.

Any synopsis on which direction Civ 4 is taking from you guys "in the know"?

We all know that graphics is given huge attention by the coders in games, little to the actual gaming- any news on that score? Hearing what direction the gaming is going in would please me and others greatly!!

Reading the post about the Naval aspect- building a submarine and knowing the AI see's it as a surface ship is funny- you just don't build them due to that bug- I think the release date was due before the submarine code was finished. I just watched an Indian Warship go around one of two strategically placed submarines guarding a strait!

I really want to see this cycle of "development and then war after the cavalry/tank" in Civ 4 re-evaluated, if wars must exist, which they must. Most nations wait until dragoons/cavalry are invented before starting one, yet the Greeks were happy to beat the hell out of each other, at a time that would be most unwelcome to players of Civ 2 or 3 as we are simply trying to forge a nation.

The AI does have the Mongols but it's basic AI: only build military units, never improvements to cities. If unlucky enough to be placed by them on the map, you will eventually win, more antagonistic nations, along with genuine friendly ones would be good.

I've spent the entire current game being friendly to India- a few hundred years now- complete trade links and Mutual defence- but they are annoyed now the aggressor to them (Persia) that attacked them has been banished by me, they are "annoyed".

AI diplomacy seriously needs improvement. Amongst older people in the UK, stating "my word is my bond" actually means something, just like signing a letter "yours sincerely" which apparently means "without a wax seal: but trust my letter anyway" in latin.

(I got attacked by the Indians, so had to reload and give them incense as a gift- just to avoid the attack by them- some friend.

I like to see all technologies researched before you can move into the different periods, along with being able to actually leap ahead on tech research- all three versions simply tag your progress and the AI adjusts the tech of the others- that simply isn't an incentive to throw all money into that (science) field- difficulty levels can achieve that effect.

I play on "Regent" level by default, but having a war with a nation as they have a "wonder" you really want (Pymanids etc). is also unrealistic for a peaceful game (I've played only a few to end due to war-like AI) How about upping the cost of all wonders, but allowing all nations to build the wonder?- less competition on them. At the moment I feel I've failed if the AI builds more than two of them.

Personally, I'd like Wonders scrapped, a much more level playing field that way, but only commiserate with a decent AI in diplomacy. How many people really warred with Egypt as it gave you a free granary in your own cities?

SSBLoveU · December 16, 2004, 09:59

Quote:

Originally posted by Toby Rowe
Reading the post about the Naval aspect- building a submarine and knowing the AI see's it as a surface ship is funny- you just don't build them due to that bug- I think the release date was due before the submarine code was finished. I just watched an Indian Warship go around one of two strategically placed submarines guarding a strait!

I use nuclear submarines to attack transports and to protect other naval ships. The problem is that they do not have torpedoes. The torpedoes ought to improve with technology. The "Ben Hur" tactics of ramming is nothing more than using a submarine as a torpedo. Also, the lack of tunnels and caves make me imagine that all battles are fought on a field. The space race ends too early. Satellites must be launched into orbit, and people ought to be able to build on the moon and Mars.

Rasputin · December 16, 2004, 11:46

lets hope that the designers have some common sense

Vince278 · December 17, 2004, 01:04

Quote:

Originally posted by Rasputin
lets hope that the designers have some common sense

and listen to us.

Oerdin · December 18, 2004, 20:42

We shall see.

techtedg · December 18, 2004, 23:44

completely agree with SSB, we ought to able to build on the moon and mars. The space race isn't developed nearly enough, we haven't tapped its potential.

time to break out.

Vince278 · December 19, 2004, 00:54

Sounds cool...

Addled Platypus · December 21, 2004, 06:35

Quote:

Originally posted by SSBLoveU

I use nuclear submarines to attack transports and to protect other naval ships. The problem is that they do not have torpedoes. The torpedoes ought to improve with technology. The "Ben Hur" tactics of ramming is nothing more than using a submarine as a torpedo.

Given the scale of each square. I would assume torps are in use.
The ramming is just graphics.

Would it be cool to have a scope icon for when you do go submerged and the regular icon for surface attacks???

Max Sinister · December 21, 2004, 07:21

Sure, but why two icons? Just make an animation from it.

techtedg · December 21, 2004, 10:31

does anyone actually have any idea how long it will be until we can see IV in the stores?

Shogun Gunner · December 21, 2004, 11:15

Quote:

Originally posted by Platypus Rex

Given the scale of each square. I would assume torps are in use.
The ramming is just graphics.

Would it be cool to have a scope icon for when you do go submerged and the regular icon for surface attacks???

If they don't do anything else, I hope they at least fix the submarine problem. It's a particular pet peeve for me. They will have to code to allow subs to sit in the same square as the enemy ships. This could help if they bring the spy unit back - it also needs to enter enemy squares.

Nikolai · December 21, 2004, 11:43

Quote:

Originally posted by techtedg
does anyone actually have any idea how long it will be until we can see IV in the stores?

None except Firaxis. And maybe not even they.

Jon Shafer · December 21, 2004, 12:02

Correction: None except the publisher.

bayraven · December 21, 2004, 12:35

i axed apolyton through 'contact us' a few weeks ago if i might get c4 for Christmas. they responded "Closer to next Christmas"

Is there a thread that lists things KNOWN to be in c4?

and while i'm at it, are any of the names i see posting here actually c4 designers?

Jon Shafer · December 21, 2004, 12:40

In this thread, right next door, there is a list of known info.

Soren Johnson is the lead designer of Civ 4 and he posts here occasionally. Don't expect any answers if you bug him though.