Stop it already

[Sky]

From the sales blurb about Civ 4 on Gamestop:

* Faster-Paced Fun – Gameplay has been streamlined for a tighter, faster, and more compelling experience.

* Greater Accessibility and Ease of Play – An easy-to-use interface will be immediately familiar to RTS and action game players, and newcomers to the series will be able to jump in and play.

THIS IS ONE OF THE MOST SUCCESSFUL FRANCHISES IN THE HISTORY OF COMPUTER GAMING. IT DOESN'T NEED STREAMLINING.

Some tweaks, sure. But faster pace and ease of play aren't two of them. I have doubts about this one, too. Fucking money whores.

[Merusk]

This could be good, or it could be bad.  I wasn't a big fan of the advisor screens in Civs3, they WERE a bit convoluted and useless when compared to 2. If that's the adjustment, great. If they're doing assclown things like removing classic parts of the micromanagement to make the game 'simpler' than this will be the shittiest 4x game you've ever seen. 

I still paid my $50, though, and can't wait for it to ship to me.

[tazelbain]

Wasn't civ3 a flop?
That's probably why they are changing it.

[Luxor]

Theres a hands on preview of it here http://civilization4.net/3/171/ discussing different aspects of the game. The main difference seems to be the fact that it will cripple you if you try to build too many towns, which when you consider civ 3 looked like Corosant at the endgame isnt a bad thing.

[Stephen Zepp]

Theres a hands on preview of it here http://civilization4.net/3/171/ discussing different aspects of the game. The main difference seems to be the fact that it will cripple you if you try to build too many towns, which when you consider civ 3 looked like Corosant at the endgame isnt a bad thing.

Excellent point. So many of the game mechanics of Civ 3 basically required you to build a "grid of cities every 3 squares" that it drove me nuts. Resources should dictate where and why you build cities, not pure population numbers.

There is a reason Oklahoma doesn't have a whole lot of large towns...not because there isn't space available, but because there aren't the resources to support tons of large population centers.

[stray]

Some preview comments from *cough* IGN:

To begin with, you can play 95% of the game from the main map window. City information, technology research, and production orders are all readily available from the main map, meaning you'll spend less time digging down into sub menus to access basic functions or information. You will have to open new windows to contact rival civilizations or to change your government but these aren't functions you'll be accessing as frequently as research or production.

A variety of filters make the map much easier to read. You can opt to see the actual production of each tile worked by a city or turn on large icons for the various resources in the game. Being able to take all these in at a glance makes things much clearer cuts down on a lot of aggravating searching -- "Where is that uranium, again?" The cities all have progress bars for population growth and improvement production. Though the bars don't display the number of turns left until new population is added or until improvements are completed, you can get this info by mousing over the city name. In addition to getting the number of turns left, you'll also get some raw numbers displaying how much food or how many hammers have accumulated towards each goal.

The mouse-over city summary also offers up a ton of info on happiness, defense bonuses, trade routes, culture and pretty much everything that you'll need to know about why a city is functioning the way it is. If you choose to drop down into the city detail window, you'll get all this same information but you'll also see all the individual elements (specialists, resources, etc.) that are contributing to the city's happiness, culture, etc. You'll actually have to use this view if you want to change an existing production order for your cities but the game prompts you to add items to the production queue at regular intervals.

...Sounds like the streamlining is a matter of interface improvements, and not "gameplay" per se.

[Sky]

I guess part of my griping (aside from my MRPMS (male reaction to PMS)) is that much of what people seemed to universally dislike about CivIII is stuff I liked about it. Really my biggest gripe that aligns with the majority is the 'drop an enemy settler in the middle of your civ' crap. Even the spearman beating a tank never bothered me, since I always figured the spearman just looted an RPG from a dead enemy or something (see: Afghanistan vs USSR). Oops, imagination :P

I liked micromanagement, dammit. I liked three hour turns.

[Merusk]

Yeah after reading the preview at the Apolyton site I'm excited.  It sounds like they pulled some the stuff from SMAC that needed to be pulled and dropped it into Civs.  The Religions, Social Modeling, Unit Upgrades all sound like great innovations.   I like the adjustment so that expand, expand, expand isn't the only playstyle as well.

Plus, wonder movies are back. I enjoyed Civ3 more than some people, but oh how I missed the wonder movies.   In all this one sounds like the game that SHOULD have been made after SMAC, rather than Civ3.

-Sky - it sounds like you still get the micromanagement, but there's just more abillity for those who don't like it to automate it.  Automation in 3 usually meant that the governer will do something stupid like, oh, crank out a billion horsemen or something equaly stupid from that town in the middle of your civ that should JUST STAY ON TRADEGOODS, DAMNIT, you're just a filler city so the AI doesn't build here! The Apolyton guy said he didn't want to bother with micromanaging his workers or upgrading his units, so he just automated that, but he could have done it if he so chose.  Glee!

[Stephen Zepp]

I guess part of my griping (aside from my MRPMS (male reaction to PMS)) is that much of what people seemed to universally dislike about CivIII is stuff I liked about it. Really my biggest gripe that aligns with the majority is the 'drop an enemy settler in the middle of your civ' crap. Even the spearman beating a tank never bothered me, since I always figured the spearman just looted an RPG from a dead enemy or something (see: Afghanistan vs USSR). Oops, imagination :P

I liked micromanagement, dammit. I liked three hour turns.

Even though the fun factor completely dissapeared from the game, and the concept itself didn't get full implementation, I think that Masters of Orion 3 had it right: allow the player to pick which part of the game they wanted to "micromanage", and enable AI to handle the rest of them.

If you like manually adjusting the build orders for each city you have, you should be able to focus on that, but let the AI handle combat.

Or, if you like combat, but hate doing the manual control of build queues to get the forces you need, then let the AI handle build queues and simply have the ability to give production goals.

Or, if you love to explore and plant cities and get them bootstrapped, but hate combat and worrying about border management, then have adequate++ AI modules to handle the areas you don't want to.

While the Civ series has always had city specific planners and advisors, IMO they never really worked together to allow you to "set once and ignore" their goals as an empire. Hopefully, if Civ 4 did go this route, their AI's and planning modules are better/easier to use than MoO 3's were...

EDIT: Based on Merusk's post, it sounds like they've done exactly (or close to) what I described, so this sounds good!

[Nija]

Another huge change is that they GOT RID OF OFFENSE / DEFENSE. Am I the only one freaking out about this? No more 0/0/0, just "strength" and movement. That's it.

edit: honestly, i've not like any of the civ games since civ:net. civ2 just flat out blew, and that left a bad taste in my mouth so I never really gave civ3 a second look. Supposedly civ3 was "ok" but when I asked some of my civ-fanboy friends if it's better than civ:net, nobody could say that it was.

[Sky]

There is a reason Oklahoma doesn't have a whole lot of large towns...not because there isn't space available, but because there aren't the resources to support tons of large population centers.

Cities in poor terrain never did that well without a resource around in CivIII. It was just basic as far as terrain, as Oklahoma would just be grassland or whatever, thus could be farmed for a decent sized city. But it's not like tundra or desert cities ever did well without some help.

I agree about the movies, but I liked playing as an expansionist. I've just been nerfed out of existence. I could see making it not as rewarding as it was in III, but it sounds from all reports like everyone hated it universally and it's gone completely as a valid playstyle, as you'll hobble yourself for trying. I think both the Settler change and the city maintenance cost change sound very contrived.

My biggest overall gripe about the Civ series is that it didn't incorporate the GREAT advancements in Colonization into Civ2...which was a great game anyway, but dumbed down in a LOT of ways, similar to how Civ III felt after playing SMAC.

(in reply - I never use Governors in any game, ever, I hate game AI, it's almost always wrong)

[Merusk]

Another huge change is that they GOT RID OF OFFENSE / DEFENSE. Am I the only one freaking out about this? No more 0/0/0, just "strength" and movement. That's it.

Yeah, I'm not comfortable about it either, but I'm willing to see how it plays out.  It DID bother me - a lot-  when a pikeman fortified on hilly terrain behind walls took out 3 mobile inf and a tank in the same turn because of the stacking defense bonuses.

[Nija]

That never bothered me, in fact I made it a point to keep my phalanxes around til conscription and stuff. It was just funny sitting them on an enemy resource and hitting the F key.

Another big change is that when you change production you don't keep your 'shields'. Another one of my strats was to set large cities on creating a wonder that I was close to building, and not changing the production queue until I researched a technology that gave me access to yet another wonder. Then I'd change production to the new wonder and be done with it in a turn.

No more. Hell, you can't even stop building a temple and switch it to a military unit. None of my cheap-ass strategies are going to work.

[Surlyboi]

There is a reason Oklahoma doesn't have a whole lot of large towns...not because there isn't space available, but because there aren't the resources to support tons of large population centers.

Oh, I thought it was because of all the wild surreys with the fringe on top running rampant and terrorizing the womenfolk...

[Sky]

None of my cheap-ass strategies are going to work.

For the record, this is not where my gripes are coming from :P

[El Gallo]

Yeah, I am kind of worried about it.  But I know I'll play a jillion hours anyway, because I am Sid's bitch.

I thought Civ3 was pretty anti-sprawl compared to Civ, Civ2 and AC.  Overall, civ 3 always seemed rushed and unfinished to me, hopefully the little details like the wonder movies indicate that they had more time to polish this one up a bit.  The one big plus was that the AI was so much better.  Once you play Civ, Civ 2 or AC a while, it is almost impossible to lose even on hard, whereas I'd often get jacked up by the AI on the higher settings of Civ 3.  Alpha Centauri with Civ 3's AI (and better faction balance) would be pretty much ideal.

[Stephen Zepp]

Yeah, I am kind of worried about it.  But I know I'll play a jillion hours anyway, because I am Sid's bitch.

I thought Civ3 was pretty anti-sprawl compared to Civ, Civ2 and AC.  Overall, civ 3 always seemed rushed and unfinished to me, hopefully the little details like the wonder movies indicate that they had more time to polish this one up a bit.  The one big plus was that the AI was so much better.  Once you play Civ, Civ 2 or AC a while, it is almost impossible to lose even on hard, whereas I'd often get jacked up by the AI on the higher settings of Civ 3.  Alpha Centauri with Civ 3's AI (and better faction balance) would be pretty much ideal.

Maybe I was poorly adapting to Civ3 vis a vis my Civ 2 playstyle, but it seemed like every single AI placed a tightly woven grid of cities, and the only way to overcome the "political revolt" of cities converting back to their old nationality before you could build any cultural influence structures was to have as many immediately nearby as possible cities to help influence.

Also, now that I think about it (been a LONG time), maybe it was a required strat to keep the enemy settlers from invading as well, which does sound as if it's been fixed somewhat.

They dont' have offensive/defensive str any more? Hell, if anything, they needed to enhance the combat model, not simplify it. That right there might burn it for me...

[schild]

Civ 4 needed some streamlining. If anything I'd like a cleaner UI. But we'll see. At least it's not a console port.

[Bunk]

I liked the three hour turns too. Civ 3 ultimately blew because of stupid AI. Didn't matter if it was Ghandi or Stalin - all the PC did was build a city in every space and spend the first 1000 years building settlers and spearmen.

Streamlining does not sound good to me.

[stray]

3 hour turns are good?

Eh, oh well. The fact that multiplayer isn't just an afterthought this time around and will be faster is what's going to win me over. I'm not too concerned with how much it feels like Civ 2 or not in regards to the single player experience. I like Civ and all that, but if I really wanted Civ or Civ 2, then I'd still be playing them. I'm looking for improvements all around (one of them being in regards to pace) -- Not just the same old game with a graphics update.

[Sky]

The only multiplayer I've played was with my supervisor at work, and we'd take days sometimes between turns, the game went on for over a year before we finally gave up on it. We both love the long turns. I've never even automated a worker!

I really don't mind the same game with a graphics upgrade. Graphics good. Streamline bad. :P

[Paelos]

Civ 3 also cheated. Turning up the difficulty didn't make the computer better, it just gave them more crap faster than you could ever build.

[Cheddar]

I wanted Civ 3 to have multiplayer VERY badly when it came out.  By the time it came out we had all burned out on single player.  Also yeah, the way "difficulty" was handled sucked.

[El Gallo]

Civ 3 seemed to expand aggressively and attack with more significant force than the AI in Civ, Civ 2 and AC did.  The AI cheats in all of them I believe (at least the default satisfied citizen stat iirc).  The reason I think Civ 3 favored less sprawl than 1/2/AC is mostly because (1) settlers took 2 population units rather than 1 and (2) corruption was such a huge factor in large empires.

I, too, will miss the long ass turns.  To me, agonizing about whether that worker should be mining the hill or irrigating the grassland is the essence of Civ.

If you want fast and dumbed down, settle for RTS :p

[stray]

If you want fast and dumbed down, settle for RTS :p

Well, I do like fast and dumbed down to an extent....But not THAT much. I like to stop and smell the roses just as much as any of you....Just not for 3 hours.

[Merusk]

If you want fast and dumbed down, settle for RTS :p

Amen.

However, I don't think the long-ass turns are going away for micromanagers... just for the folks who don't want to futz with it.  Some days you just don't want to move all of the 150 workers you've got in your empire. (I'm a build-out addict. Even playing to the build-a-city-everywhere mechanics I still irrigated, roaded, railroaded, farmed and/or mined every damned space in every city.  That just takes a shitload of workers once you're past 15 cities.

-on a related note, EB games charged my card for the game yesterday. MMM I can smell the box already.

[Mr. Right]

Looks good.  I'd like to know if the difficulty still equates AI cheating.  That's always been my main gripe with CIV and SMAC, too easy on normal and ridiculous on hard because AI units were stronger then yours.  Ya! I'm the greatest emperor of all time but my units are all sissy.

[StGabe]

As far as punishing you for too many cities, didn't CivI do that?  I think it was in patch and/or only at higher difficulty levels.  Or am I just confused?  As I recall, depending on your government style, you would start to automatically get unhappy people in your cities after a certain number of cities.  It really crimped my style -- I always made size 2-6 cities en masse -- but a friend of mine loved it as he always went for huge cities.

[Sairon]

I'm afraid they will fuck it up and join the ranks of AOE 3 and Q4. It feels like a lot of good franchises are geting screwed this year.

Anyway, I hate that they're making everything simple these days. I want some more über complex games with loads of menus and stuff, anyone remember deadlock? Throw in some deadlock in Civ and it would be a winner imo.

[schild]

I'm afraid they will fuck it up and join the ranks of AOE 3 and Q4. It feels like a lot of good franchises are geting screwed this year.

Anyway, I hate that they're making everything simple these days. I want some more über complex games with loads of menus and stuff, anyone remember deadlock? Throw in some deadlock in Civ and it would be a winner imo.

You'd be the only one playing it. AOEIII is immensely satisfying to me. It's a solid RTS, that's all I wanted right now. And Civ fills it's own niche. As for Quake? ID never made impressive games. ID has no impressive franchises (anymore, Quake 2 jumped the shark - and they know it, so they added it to the special edition of Quake 4). They are the result of being in the right place at the right time. There are other studios to look at if you want stellar.

[Big Gulp]

As far as punishing you for too many cities, didn't CivI do that?

That's an emphatic NO on that one.  The easiest way to beat Civ I was to build cities so they were touching one another so that entire continents would just be a BladeRunner-like urban sprawl of 1 and 2 population cities with no actual terrain to speak of.   Sure, they'd take forever to produce a unit, but when you've got 500 cities things like efficient production really aren't important anymore.

[Sairon]

I'm afraid they will fuck it up and join the ranks of AOE 3 and Q4. It feels like a lot of good franchises are geting screwed this year.

Anyway, I hate that they're making everything simple these days. I want some more über complex games with loads of menus and stuff, anyone remember deadlock? Throw in some deadlock in Civ and it would be a winner imo.

You'd be the only one playing it. AOEIII is immensely satisfying to me. It's a solid RTS, that's all I wanted right now. And Civ fills it's own niche. As for Quake? ID never made impressive games. ID has no impressive franchises (anymore, Quake 2 jumped the shark - and they know it, so they added it to the special edition of Quake 4). They are the result of being in the right place at the right time. There are other studios to look at if you want stellar.

Q4 is Q3 + Doom 3, atleast Q3 had its own engine. AOE 3 had like 13 buildings, and a total of like 20 units or so. I found my self building exactly the same units all the time as well. Sure there's the homeland and card deck to it, but if the name would've been diffrent I would've though it was indie. Civ has always been fairly complex compared to other strategy games, I think you'd find that there's more than me that doesn't mind some complexity, it doesn't need to be simple and mastered in 5 minutes.

[stray]

Geez guys, trimming out tedious parts in the interface doesn't mean it's not going to be Civiliation. It just means you'll be able to focus on the game more instead of menus.

AOE 3 had like 13 buildings, and a total of like 20 units or so. I found my self building exactly the same units all the time as well. Sure there's the homeland and card deck to it, but if the name would've been diffrent I would've though it was indie.

But of course, it's far too shiny to be indie.

Actually, which AoE are you talking about again? There's like 80 units in it (maybe more, I think).

[Sairon]

Actually, which AoE are you talking about again? There's like 80 units in it (maybe more, I think).

Ok, I only played 3 nations and they had pretty much the same units. Massing musketeers early game and field guns late game seems to own pretty much everything anyway though, and the native american units hardly seemed worth the trouble.

[Triforcer]

Its a shame all the religions are exactly the same- me likey pointless controversy.  I eagerly await the uproar over the "Islam= 30% military bonus, -50% cultural" mod.