• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Civilization IV preview

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Originally posted by: PrISM506
I hope they fix diplomacy. No matter what you do everyone will hate you eventually.
Click to expand...

Yeah that's a problem.
You only have so long to build a bigass army, cause you know everyone in the damn world will be coming after you sooner or later no matter what.
 
SMAC was great indeed.

Civ 4 looks like it'll have auto workers again that turns every square inch of your land into a railroad junction. >_<

But at least in the newer Civs, my battleship can't lose to a spearmen. Canoes, ok maybe it had explosives on it. But come on, costal bombardment against spearmen? Their spears can't even reach my battleship.
 
Originally posted by: HBO
SMAC was great indeed.

Civ 4 looks like it'll have auto workers again that turns every square inch of your land into a railroad junction. >_<

But at least in the newer Civs, my battleship can't lose to a spearmen. Canoes, ok maybe it had explosives on it. But come on, costal bombardment against spearmen? Their spears can't even reach my battleship.
Click to expand...


If I remember right, spearmen can't attack water units, but can fight back when water units attack them. As CIV's combat system is a very high level abstraction you can consider the following possibilities :

1) The spearmen lured the sailors ashore with sexy women, then killed them all in the night.
2) The drunken captain rammed the battleship into a reef while trying to get into bombardment range.
3) One of the sailors dropped a shell in the amory and the resulting explosion destroyed the ship
4) There was a bad storm and your ship sank.
5) You missed the spearmen, but your artillery fire caused a cliff to collapse into the water which produced a giant wave which swamped the ship.
6) The sailors rebelled against the order to attack effectively unarmed civilians and deserted.

None of these are particularly likely outcomes, but then again losing a battleship to a spearman isn't actually all that common in civ either*

* Disregarding super high difficulties where enemy units can be assumed to be favored by divine intervention.
 
Originally posted by: StevenYoo
whew, i thought they'd totally re-do the graphics to make it only run on super high end PC's.

i'm glad they didn't
Click to expand...

CIV4 uses the Pirates! graphics engine. It is a decent engine, that I don't think Pirates! made good use of, considering all you did was sale around in circles the entire game.

I havn't played any CIV games since CIV1, so I'm thinking of grabbing CIV4 when it comes out and getting caught up in the genre.
 
Originally posted by: skace
Originally posted by: StevenYoo
whew, i thought they'd totally re-do the graphics to make it only run on super high end PC's.

i'm glad they didn't
Click to expand...

CIV4 uses the Pirates! graphics engine. It is a decent engine, that I don't think Pirates! made good use of, considering all you did was sale around in circles the entire game.

I havn't played any CIV games since CIV1, so I'm thinking of grabbing CIV4 when it comes out and getting caught up in the genre.
Click to expand...

Civ 1...soo many sleepless nights...so many days of school missed 😀
 
Originally posted by: Heen05
is Civ 3 better than Rome:total war?
Click to expand...

They are 2 very different games. RTW has turn-based large map movement, very similar to Civ, yet, when you engage in battle, it is not a diceroll/percentage-based outcome. YOU control your army in real-time against the enemy. Proper tactics are paramount. Charging strong knights right into a ready phalanx means disaster. Rather, sending your skirmishers to engage the phalanx and get them distracted, while charging your knights from the sides and rear works wonders.

The gfx in RTW for the real time battles is very good. 1000s of troops on the screen at the same time. Versus the still 2D of Civ.

Castle sieges are incredibly fun, attacking or defending. But, when play moves back to the 2D large map, it gets very tedious. City and troop management is worse than Civ. As is diplomacy. And be prepared to deal with A LOT of unrest. You find yourself letting your cities riot just to kill off a few thousand, so you can move back in with happy citizens. I don't enjoy playing that way, but you almost have to. It's worse than corruption in Civ.

I'd like the diplomacy, city, and troop management of Civ (as well as other features like culture, etc), and the real-time battles of RTW. Now, THAT would be a game.
 
Originally posted by: Muadib
I'll wait for the reviews this time around. IMO, Civ 3 sucked.
Click to expand...

I know I sound like a broken record in this thread, but can someone who agrees with this quote please tell me WHY they feel Civ3 sucks? Can someone list some reasons and be specific? I'm mainly interested in those that loved Civ2 but hate 3.

I'm not saying Civ3 is without its problems, but just about all of the problems I can think of occur not only in 3, but 2, 1, etc. The issues I see are gameplay elements that affect the franchise as a whole. But, I havta know, what changes were made from 2 to 3 that make Civ2 legendary and Civ3 suck?
 
Originally posted by: deadseasquirrel
Originally posted by: Muadib
I'll wait for the reviews this time around. IMO, Civ 3 sucked.
Click to expand...

I know I sound like a broken record in this thread, but can someone who agrees with this quote please tell me WHY they feel Civ3 sucks? Can someone list some reasons and be specific? I'm mainly interested in those that loved Civ2 but hate 3.

I'm not saying Civ3 is without its problems, but just about all of the problems I can think of occur not only in 3, but 2, 1, etc. The issues I see are gameplay elements that affect the franchise as a whole. But, I havta know, what changes were made from 2 to 3 that make Civ2 legendary and Civ3 suck?
Click to expand...


Most of my friends who hated it, did so because the time between turns was so long in the mid-late game that they lost track of what they had been doing while waiting for it to finish.

There were also some complaints about being forced to play some variation of an even balance of tactics rather than things they liked from civ1, such as hugely building up a small number of cities through research and attacking with vastly superior tech.

I didn't play it myself. I don't remember why really, probably busy with everquest or something.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top