"Civilization IV"... Confirmed?

[Addled Platypus]

Was this their idea behind ROP?, just in a more simpler way?

The idea behind a "mutaul miltray training excersice" , should boost the warm fuzzies between participating Civs.

Would all nations benifit equally, i.e. "cultural points"?

[Toby Rowe]

All nations have a citizrenry that accepts the existance of that nation they were born in, and have some form of alliegance to her.

Those that refuse to accept this basic alliegance to the nation become renegades to the idea of the concept of nationhood.

The extreme peoples within the Muslim faith is currently challenging this accepted notion of "who am I?", based upon not national identity, but a religion.

Platypus,

ROP: I can't figure out this one- agree to a ROP agreement, even if they are so far away as to make the agreement meaningless? (how many scouts have you ever seen in your territory?), but they are instantly "polite" towards you once you have it- So staves off war I suppose.

My memory of Civ 2 is definately getting more distant, and ROP in Civ seems vital if you wish peaceful expansion, unless the Romans have been discovered, who will travel across the map just to attack you once almost all productice trade is with them.

Has anyone been able to work out why the AI gives such a huge weighting in diplomatic terms to the ROP agreement in the code, however meaningless the treaty is in geographical terms?

Toby

[SSBLoveU]

Originally posted by Toby Rowe
Hi SSB,

I prefer to learn how others think and feel, rather than argue, as arguements achieve zero.

I think that the programmers are pulled 3 ways in benchmark games- impacient publishers, gamers and shareholders, I hope Civ 4 appears when the game is ready, not when the above 3 groups want or need it.

Some Yank guy mentioned "forward basing" with your allies, NATO couldn't exist without this concept, and I've been in a joint UK/US base within mainland Europe, and have also unwittingly tested stuff within SHAPE many moons ago, in order us Europeans were propected against a very real threat.
Co-operation is important with allies.

Having an ally actually mean something in Civ 4 would please me all lot, forward basing by US forces in the Cold War was a clear demonstration to that nation in Europe that they had an ally whose nation was prepared to "defend to the death" not only the right of free speech, but the existance of a nation full stop.

I'd like this translated into Civ 4; Allied units should be able to stack together, My units should be able to do R&R in an Allied city and our level of respect OF any ally should be far greater than it is in Civ /2/3, simply as the word "Allied" really means nothing to the AI model.

The treaty exists only to be broken, no other Strategy game treats this treaty with such a level of disrespect.

Toby!!

I really do enjoy gaming. I hope CIV 4 is ready when it is ready too. Recently, I have been thinking about how horses and wolves were not thought of as food substitutes. I miss building stables for my horses while I build barracks for my men. We do not need iron and other things like horses. Also, wolves help us to collect food better. My dreams and how it turns out will always be different, yet, I find entertainment and new ideas while I play.

[Toby Rowe]

Hi mate,

The UK until Roman times, if not later was apparently 90% ancient woodland- meaning wolves and humans must have lived in very close proximity even then, So I suppose we must have known the different sounds a wolf pack made for a food-call- That is interesting, would never have thought of that.

Dunno about Iron Ore though, that is still needed for modern weaponry, although far less than before.

I too hope we have to build stables, building both a stables/horse breeder and barracks in even Civ 3 would really slow down aggressive expansion by the AI and the player I think, and give it the strategic perspective I hope Civ 4 will be...

If it takes two years for Civ 4 to arrive, good, as it should be bug-free and will sell volumes! I think it's "taken as given" that it'll be in 3D, which means for processor power the maps will be much smaller, but I hope they do think of other buildings like stables.

The standard Barracks/Temple/Granary/Marketplace/Library (no order) could do with improvement, and the obsession I've always had with building the wonders, simply as you are so disadvantaged if you don't has always stewed how I played all versions.

I expect I'm in a tiny minority here, but I'd like each nation able to build all wonders- after all, it takes exactly the same time and effort for each one, and I find, after 10+ years of Civ to be the most distracting thing in the game to actually building a happy and productive Civ, not gearing it to wonder building, which I tend to do, until the 3-4 techs ahead you gain that the AI allows.

Caravans? I loved 'em, you spent the same time and effort quarrying the stones in Hastings for 50 shields, lugged them up all the way to London to build the wonder, the raw materiale arrived, work continued- nothing wrong with that idea, within the concept, just the entire concept for me- I wanna have to concentrate on building a nation, not a string of wonders........I think they skew the game too much.

Alas, I digress! Your comments on Wolves- very interesting; the UK hasn't reintroduced them like the US and Canada have, but there really isn't any natural habitat left for them over here- the Government has finally made the New Forest in Hampshire(new in 1066!) a national Park- but I reckon that's the only place one or two packs could survive in, as an ignorant townie that is.......!!

Toby

[Nikolai]

DP

[Nikolai]

Time to get this back on track!

Found this on Firaxis' "Ask Sid" page:

Question: Given the amount of depth that was put into Civilization III (the wars that resulted from late-game resource shortages provided hours of fun), where else can one go with Civilization IV? What kind of game play, graphic, or interface improvements can we expect to see that you are able to divulge at this time?

Sid: Good questions. Can't answer them now, though. We are planning to do a major story on Civ IV on this web site sometime in the next couple of months; keep your eyes peeled.

[SSBLoveU]

I have read about Age of Empires III coming out during the end half of 2005. I have not played it yet. Nevertheless, the pocket PC version was updated in November 2004, and now it is playable anywhere. Wolves are not a real danger to man except for the fear factor. So finding an iron smith or a philosopher willing to work before the wolves are pushed back into the woods is entertaining and for some reason wolves run faster than the brave barbarians so they could always return one day. I wonder how Civ IV will compare to AEIII.

(Silly rant: Political moves like the ones in Casablanca have not been put in games, yet (Casablanca is not on TCM today) It does not make a difference if real friendships develop in games affecting trade and transportation. I’ll take an aspirin, why? I wonder where they go?).

[OPD]

The whole thing about the AI "cheating" and complaints to the effect that it does are tres facile and rather naiive.

Hopefully the AI won't matter too much in cIV as it will be all about the MP..........

A few worrying points about the game that others have probably already commented on...

One of the key phrases for Civ4 will be "Simplify, simplify, simplify", which means as much as streamlining the existing gameplay where possible.

it will aim at a slightly different fan-base than previous Civ-games, though it should still appeal to (most) veterans as well.

So does this mean it's going to be dumbed down to hell? Simplified for the masses.... to the point where there is little or no scope for getting really good at the game, or scope significantly better than someone playing it for the first time?

Possibly going for a more RTS type for game..... with much reduced re-playability?

As bad as that could sound, the MP is what really matters, that and it feeling like a civ game/experience.

As can be seen from the multiplayer content on this site and elsewhere, playing with other people is where the real variation, complexity and gameplay lies. That's why the general forum and conquests forum are slower than the pbem and DG forums.

Playing, building an empire.....etc against other people will always be far more enthralling and satisfying than against the AI.

In short this talk of simplicity is worrying and probably very dangerous but the MP will make or break the game even if it is dumbed down as hell. So that better be sorted, not sorted as in "no bugs in pbem play" sorted as in playing in real time against other people being almost identical to playing a SP game.

[Boris Godunov]

The MP is what really matters? Could have fooled me. I've been playing Civ for 12 years or so now, and I've had a grand total of 2 MP games. This MP myopia people have is bizarre.

The core of Civ has always been and always will be the SP game. MP is a great feature, but what makes Civ truly great is the ability to sit down and play it without having to worry about cobbling together people for MP (or worse, playing with strangers who can do all sorts of weird crap).

[Addled Platypus]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
The MP is what really matters? Could have fooled me. I've been playing Civ for 12 years or so now, and I've had a grand total of 2 MP games.

Over the past year, same here

Just try and mach days off, equal amopunt of sit down time

Not everyone plays on the same server


PBEM is where it should concentrate. Has anyone else played CTP and seen how easy that is to set up and play?

[SSBLoveU]

I enjoyed Age of Empire on my PDA. The major advantage of AE over CIV III would be trade routes and Outpost (Towers). The major disadvantages would be finding my army, talking with my friends and using the map. I hope CIV IV has a lot of action in it (even when the war is over).

[Toby Rowe]

I've yet to play an MP game, Civ must be essentially a game based on single player- everyone needs space and many strategy games offer that, whilst FP offers both choices.

I heard that Warcraft 3 is online only, so I won't buy it- I play games to relax, not to end up hyper, they lost a sale, but I loved the original.

If you don't offer both choices, you will lose money. [edit: By only appealing to part of the market, not both; single player is harder, oh so much harder than creating pretty graphics, guns and towns in MP]

Human V human? Betcha humans still do the "rushes" we so criticise the programmers for doing in SP strategy games.

Wolves? Sorry for rambling on- I know little of them, except they were demonised by European writers of nipper stories, when I too was a nipper (Hans Christian Anderson etc), whilst the UK ones are gone, foxes are meeker versions of them- kill a lamb, not the mum, but I eat lamb. not mutton, so I'm just as "guilty". Allowing them to return to the UK is great for me.

I wish there was an off-topic section- there is always someone that knows more than me about any subject, I love learning.

Anyway, the companies are trying to maximise income by doing online games only: daft, they are losing SP gamers- How is MP Warcraft? I'll never buy it.

I play a game to relax, like reading a book or taking a walk, definately not to be stressed from it by competing with odd humans that I have to pay for the privalige of meeting.

Best of all- I press the return button once I've done all I want, including making a cup of tea, gone to the loo and answered the phone- all in my turn!!

Toby

[General Ludd]

Originally posted by Toby Rowe

I heard that Warcraft 3 is online only, so I won't buy it- I play games to relax, not to end up hyper, they lost a sale, but I loved the original.

World of Warcraft is online only, but Warcraft 3 can be played singleplayer. It's quite different than Warcraft 2, however, so be warned.

I wish there was an off-topic section- there is always someone that knows more than me about any subject, I love learning.

There is an off-topic forum, and an other games forum aswell. They're towards the bottom of the main list.

[SSBLoveU]

I like the SP versions myself. The MP versions need more development.

I some times wonder where does everybody get all of their food in CIV III. Some foods ought to make people feel better. Also, some troops and workers do their jobs better in geographical areas where they have been training.

[Toby Rowe]

General Ludd,

Thanks for providing the link to the off-topic section- now I can ramble away to myself as much as I please!

I've searched before but couldn't see a link for an off-topic section which is odd.

How is Warcraft 3? (I guess I scanned a review of "World of Warcraft" and assumed it was the follow on for Warcraft 2)

SSB;

I agree about fighting better in different area's- Historically soldiers have always fought better when defending the homeland, whilst lack of geographical knowledge and weather of a nation an aggressor has invaded has often hindered the army.

Didn't a mighty Persian Army founder intially against just 300 Spartan troops for several days until a treacherous goat herder showed the King another unknown mountain pass?

If you are the nation that has declared war on another I think the armies should have a slight reduction in morale, unless a warlike nation. The British troops fighting in the US War of Independence for example had quite low morale as they considered they were killing fellow Englishmen which they naturally disliked.

Assuming Civ 4 factors in morale that is!

Toby

[Doug_the_Brave]

How is Warcraft 3? (I guess I scanned a review of "World of Warcraft" and assumed it was the follow on for Warcraft 2)


Don't buy it unless you have alot of free time on your hands.

[Toby Rowe]

Doug;

Meaning it's really excellent or really bad bug-wise?

And will my ancient P833 be able to play it if excellent?

Okay just hovered over the icons- A blue thumbs-up means great- why is it blue in colour? That's the "down" colour, it should be green on "thumbs up"?

Just thinking about the old games I ramble on about In how games used to be....so..........

- I've got a rack of old games I'd like off my shelf that I will never play again- I'll give them away if postage costs are met. Colonisation (floppy), Ascendancy, Cutthroats, Dune II, Master of Orion II, Twenty war game classics (from the earlier '90's, serious wargame strategy), Original Transport Tycoon (floppy), the orginal Civ (floppy), Civilwar Generals (the game I spoke of in the Rail post but misnamed), Alpha Centuri, Sim City 2000, Diplomacy, Majesty, Sudden Strike, Hidden & Dangerous, Corsairs, Chronicles of the Sword, Myth, the Ultima Collection, Norm Kogers Art of War, Heroes of Might and Magic compendium etc.

How about a charity auction plus postage for them, handled by Apolyon?, the charity decided by a vote?
(I send all games to Apolyon, or they collect them, they then send them out, once they get them, but reinburse the cost) Someone some where must be desperate to get hold of Myth in the world?!! (rubbish game ) Original boxed Civ might be worth more however, along with Colonization.

Charity wise, Save the Children, Oxfam, War on Want or for the UK only; the RNLI (Royal National Lifeboat Institute) as they provide over 300 lifeboats stationed around the UK to save life at sea that will go out in a 30ft boat in Storm force 9 to save the lives of sailors in distress anywhere within diesel range of the engine.

The last "big" disaster they had was in Cornwall when all crew of the RNLI [boat] drowned trying to help others in distress- They are all unpaid volunteers, the whole service is funded by public generosity, and now Britain is no longer a maritime nation, the bequests of seafarers, wives and widows is drying up, and the most expensive boats now cost about £1-2m. The widowers and children of those men that died trying to save others as a volunteer are still alive.

On a lighter note,
You can of course have an Inshore lifeboat named after you, and the smallest rigid inflatables are about £15,000. "Doris and Albert" are common type names, along with company names. If you pay for the significant part of any boat, you name it.

Toby

[Doug_the_Brave]

Toby

What can I say about the game over 1.5 million people are playing it worldwide. It is the biggest hit of all time as far as gaming goes, it is setting all the records. Start playing at your own risk, this game is highly, and I mean highly addictive. Even my wife has become addicted. We play hours on end. Sometimes helping each other, sometimes questing with others.
Sounds like your computer is due for an upgrade. WOW is processor and especially video card dependant. The box states Pentium 3 - 800 with a 32 meg video card with hardware transform and lighting as minimum.
Recommended is Pentium 4 - 1.5, 512 meg ram, 64 meg video with vertex and pixel shaders, and a broadband internet connection.
I play on a P4 2.4 with a ati 9700 set 1024 x 728 with excellent results, yet it still can be a little choppy in the cities.
Until Civ 4 comes it is a great game!
Hope that helps you.

Doug

PS If you do get it I am Darkwater in the Eldre'Thalas realm

[Tassadar500]

Keep this thread on topic, or it will be closed.

[Toby Rowe]

Sorry all,

I've rambled too much, too often. A big appology to all.

A chastised person that deserved to be.

Any news on Civ 4?

Toby

(Doug: Thanks for the info on the game, alas I can't afford a new 'puter anytime soon, but it does sound good- One to bookmark- I wonder what the Civ 4 requirements will be? both 2 and 3 went for average computers, I hope 4 will do the same, thus making it available to more potential customers).

[Nikolai]

Originally posted by Lord Nuclear
Keep this thread on topic, or it will be closed.

Because of the 500 post rule, it should have been closed some 30+ posts ago really, but it seems like DanQ has forgotten this one. ut on-topic is good no matter what.

[Nikolai]

Originally posted by Toby Rowe
(Doug: Thanks for the info on the game, alas I can't afford a new 'puter anytime soon, but it does sound good- One to bookmark- I wonder what the Civ 4 requirements will be? both 2 and 3 went for average computers, I hope 4 will do the same, thus making it available to more potential customers).

They tend to be that, but remember that a average computer today is a 1,7 GHz or something along that line.

[Doug_the_Brave]

Games definitely push the limits of hardware. I bet civ 4 will have big demands on the cpu as well as the gpu. Time to start thinking new computer. they say the new AMD processor make excellent game machines and cost less the Intel. Anyone know anything about them??

[SSBLoveU]

Originally posted by Toby Rowe

SSB;

I agree about fighting better in different area's- Historically soldiers have always fought better when defending the homeland, whilst lack of geographical knowledge and weather of a nation an aggressor has invaded has often hindered the army.

Didn't a mighty Persian Army founder intially against just 300 Spartan troops for several days until a treacherous goat herder showed the King another unknown mountain pass?

If you are the nation that has declared war on another I think the armies should have a slight reduction in morale, unless a warlike nation. The British troops fighting in the US War of Independence for example had quite low morale as they considered they were killing fellow Englishmen which they naturally disliked.

Assuming Civ 4 factors in morale that is!

Toby

Recently, I was worried about morality and rank in games. The armies in CIV III have no privates and no officers. In "The Ancient Art of War," the general would determine the outcome. In history, it took time to develop an infrastructure of military and social rank too. Also, some societies build ghettos and castles. There are no differentiations between military and social rank. CIV IV can include more things now that computers have larger memories.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
The MP is what really matters? Could have fooled me. I've been playing Civ for 12 years or so now, and I've had a grand total of 2 MP games. This MP myopia people have is bizarre.

The core of Civ has always been and always will be the SP game. MP is a great feature, but what makes Civ truly great is the ability to sit down and play it without having to worry about cobbling together people for MP (or worse, playing with strangers who can do all sorts of weird crap).

my sentiments exactly

[Shogun Gunner]

Hey Mr. Fun is back!!! Good to see you posting again.

Yes, I've tried MP, but unless you are going to join a ladder league, it's really hard to get a good game going online due to game length (very long) and reliability of players. If an opponent starts to slip behind in techs or power -- its not long before he just drops off.

Even the MP tournaments that were hosted here at Poly had difficulty with administration/organization -- and that was with reliable players.

I agree make SP and PBEM work first.

[Grandpa Troll]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
The MP is what really matters? Could have fooled me. I've been playing Civ for 12 years or so now, and I've had a grand total of 2 MP games. This MP myopia people have is bizarre.

The core of Civ has always been and always will be the SP game. MP is a great feature, but what makes Civ truly great is the ability to sit down and play it without having to worry about cobbling together people for MP (or worse, playing with strangers who can do all sorts of weird crap).

Boris

I have to agree

I too was stricken with this myopia about MP

Then PBEM helped
but I do not have the time between family and work

to sit down on a regular basis

I find its a ton of fun thought for SP and even scenario making to play

I would rather have the great sp experience and pbem matches anyday

Gramps

[Rasputin]

civ3 lost a lot of great players from civ2 because MP didnt work well.

IF civ4 has mp built into it properly then i am sure the great players from civ2 days will return and those are the palyers that play till the end, returning every week to play anothersession , games lasting for 6 months or more.

The interaction in MP is what makes it more fun and enjoyable.

There is notihng like forming an alliance with a human player only to sweep your armies through his capital next turn..... and then getting Messages for the next milenium complaining aout it

[Grandpa Troll]

Originally posted by Rasputin
civ3 lost a lot of great players from civ2 because MP didnt work well.

IF civ4 has mp built into it properly then i am sure the great players from civ2 days will return and those are the palyers that play till the end, returning every week to play anothersession , games lasting for 6 months or more.

The interaction in MP is what makes it more fun and enjoyable.

There is notihng like forming an alliance with a human player only to sweep your armies through his capital next turn..... and then getting Messages for the next milenium complaining aout it

you mean to tell me there are better players than the ones we now have here..able and willing to trounce upon poor unsuspecting souls?

what was it Rasputin, that made people flee?
I would say one thing that annoys me is not knowing whom or how many people attacked you
thats ticks me off fer sure

[Rasputin]

yes so much changed from civ2 mp to civ3mp that it just wasnt civ any more.

The fact you dont know what is happening around you is one of my biggest hates. i liked in civ2 mp it told you causualty losses and to whom.

you could also in civ2 mp do all your city micromanamgent during the other players turn....