"Civilization IV"... Confirmed? - Page 19

Grandpa Troll · May 5, 2005, 19:13

Quote:

Originally posted by 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....

i agree

I do hope CIV IV is much more than a graphics update

you know "eye-candy"

bells and whistles

time will tell

MrFun · May 9, 2005, 14:47

So is there any information on a more accurate release date?

Nikolai · May 9, 2005, 14:56

No.

MrFun · May 9, 2005, 15:21

damn it to hell

Shogun Gunner · May 9, 2005, 17:04

Done.

Nikolai · May 9, 2005, 17:08

That was not nice.

Rasputin · May 9, 2005, 22:34

Quote:

Meanwhile, Sid Meier's Civilization IV continues to progress quite nicely. The gameplay is really beginning to click, the 3D graphics are nothing short of spectacular, and the multiplayer game is coming together faster than we expected. We've also been doing a lot of work on the game's internal architecture to allow for easy player-modification (mods) using the industry-standard Python and XML programs, and we confidently expect you folks to come up with some great new maps, scenarios, units and even entire civs

MrFun · May 11, 2005, 03:04

Quote:

Originally posted by Nikolai
That was not nice.

Not very many people on Apolyton are nice to one another . . . . . .

yet we still keep coming back in the love-hate relationship kinda way.

curtsibling · May 11, 2005, 04:17

Conflict is the spice of life!

Shogun Gunner · May 11, 2005, 07:15

what was even done to anyone this time?

I thought we just relegated civ4 to hell, that's all....

don't worry, one of it's many bug fix patches will get it up to purgatory...then finally an interim release like C3C will take civ4 up to heaven

curtsibling · May 11, 2005, 08:24

CIV already rules in valhalla!

It just gets more pious is all!

MrFun · May 11, 2005, 12:15

Quote:

Originally posted by Shogun Gunner
what was even done to anyone this time?

I thought we just relegated civ4 to hell, that's all....

don't worry, one of it's many bug fix patches will get it up to purgatory...then finally an interim release like C3C will take civ4 up to heaven

Well ok, this time around it wasn't an Apolytoner targeting another Apolytoner with nukes, but just wait . . . . . . .

Toby Rowe · May 11, 2005, 23:50

Rasputin,

"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"

Have you really done what you described above?
I've never played online and I'd be horrified if someone did that to me.

My word really is my bond, and I expect it of others; Is this type of respect for others dying out?

Toby? (enquiring, not being crittical)

Rasputin · May 12, 2005, 00:27

Quote:

Originally posted by Toby Rowe
Rasputin,

"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"

Have you really done what you described above?
I've never played online and I'd be horrified if someone did that to me.

My word really is my bond, and I expect it of others; Is this type of respect for others dying out?

Toby? (enquiring, not being crittical)

I treat human players the same way i treat the AI, if i need a resource that is in their cultural control, and they wont trade it, i will do what i have to do to get it.

If that means breaking alliances then so be it.

Another good thing to do is to get others to do your dirty work for you !!!

Toby Rowe · May 12, 2005, 04:00

Getting someone else to do your dirty work is called diplomacy.

Attacking an ally is unforgivable- Thankgod NATO exists- one rat will swiftly be despatched by the others should it ever happen, and with current members, It won't.

Not so sure I'll ever play online if you are typical of moral standards. (If you were an ally, I'd give you the Iron or Uranium you wanted if a co-op victory was allowed): if world domination was the goal, I'd never ally in the first place.

Toby

Robert Plomp · May 12, 2005, 04:25

I think breaking an alliance that brutally will result in a bad name forever. If someone does that to me online I will remember his name forever and never ally him again. I would spread the word about this as well, so that everyone else will do the same.

I play civilization the boardgame with a poule of 12 friends. Of course we can break alliances with that game easily as well. Though if one does, it'll hunt him for the rest of the year in all games to follow.

The AI will not remember if you play a new game.
Humans will remember............ forever

That's why I would never cheat that hard on humans.

Toby Rowe · May 12, 2005, 06:15

Hi mate,

How could you cheat in an MP game?

Mind you, I'd cheat fully in a SP game just to keep up with the cheating the AI does on the hardest levels, if only I knew one. Talk about lazy programming.

My last game was on 2nd hardest, set up about 15 settlers, only had 2 single tile mountain ranges to connect me to both continents and even with guarennteed borders an a 14-city headstart the AI still built 3 wonders before me.

Cheating AI- who wants it? The programmers need merely set the difficulty levels against their programming skills, meaning "Impossible" is a level they haven't beaten.......of course this means they must also play the game in order to discover it, which I doubt will happen?

Toby

Robert Plomp · May 12, 2005, 06:45

When I say 'cheat' I do mean by cheating yourself into an aliance by giving wrong reasons. Just to make friends with someone because you want to slaughter them when they trust you.

Not cheating as in not following the rules.

Nikolai · May 12, 2005, 07:06

While not having played the game, this sounds just as I've got Diplomacy described.

Shogun Gunner · May 12, 2005, 08:18

in the PBEM world, there's an informal list with these type of assessments of players circulated routinely.

However, the "rules" of PBEM says that you are to treat every game seperate from any pre-conceived notions. In practice, that's almost impossible.

If I got shafted by someone, I would remember.

Paddy · May 12, 2005, 08:22

Quote:

Originally posted by Shogun Gunner
in the PBEM world, there's an informal list with these type of assessments of players circulated routinely.

However, the "rules" of PBEM says that you are to treat every game seperate from any pre-conceived notions. In practice, that's almost impossible.

If I got shafted by someone, I would remember.

like we are so surprised to hear that old chap

Robert Plomp · May 12, 2005, 08:38

Of course you remember.
If someone breaks an alliance in such a nasty way, he'll do it again.
one would really be very naive to start a new alliance with such a person again.

Paddy · May 12, 2005, 08:44

Quote:

Originally posted by CyberShy
Of course you remember.
If someone breaks an alliance in such a nasty way, he'll do it again.
one would really be very naive to start a new alliance with such a person again.

oh you have met Aqualung have you

General Ludd · May 12, 2005, 08:45

Quote:

Originally posted by CyberShy

one would really be very naive to start a new alliance with such a person again.

And one would also be very naive to never consider making an alliance with that person again.

Each game is different.

Paddy · May 12, 2005, 08:50

and obviously you do know Aqualung

Robert Plomp · May 12, 2005, 09:08

Quote:

Originally posted by General Ludd

And one would also be very naive to never consider making an alliance with that person again.

Each game is different.

I would make peace with him, perhaps an alliance, but I would be very carefull. An dit would take a few games before I could totally trust that person again.

I would not let him put a knife in my back again, simply by neer turning my back to him.

I've never met aqualong btw.
On a game of civilization the boardgame I played about half a year ago, I had an alliance with my neighbour. In total trust we fought back to back against our enemies. Suddenly 2 turns before the end of the game he invaded my country. I had no defense next to his borders since we agreed total trust. He was allowed to do so according to the game, but I didn't forget it.

The game that followed I have only spend all my resources in fighting him. He didn't knew what hitted him. Of course fighting him with all my resourced resulted in the downfall of both of us. I didn't care. I'm sure none of my friends will ever dare to do something like that to me again

Rasputin · May 13, 2005, 05:15

as i stated if one ally refuses a resource to another ally then the aaliaance is basically over, the war that follows is caused by not sharing.

that is what real life isabout..

allainces come and go over the year s as necessity dictates..

reality is you should never trust anyone becaue unless it a co-operative victory you chasing one day they have to turn on you.

and remember it is only agame

Paddy · May 13, 2005, 05:39

Quote:

Originally posted by Rasputin

and remember it is only agame

opps

ahh that could expain a few things around here

Robert Plomp · May 13, 2005, 06:45

Of course it's just a game. It's not as if I would dislike such a person in real life

I would hate him in game-life though

And I think you should be able to end an alliance, but not like: "I end hte alliance" and immediately cross his borders with 5,00,000 soldiers.

We always agree a cooling down period of 2 or 3 turns. If there's such a period between the end of my alliance and the war, I won't stop trusting him.

Rasputin · May 13, 2005, 07:57

i agree, move the troops first while you have right of passage