New IGN preview

The world wonders are symbolic, as I see it. Many cultures in history have built stone circles. Many cultures have also built pyramids and great walls, even Hollywoods.

I also see from the preview article that much of the modding will be done in XML still. I had anticipated a real Construction Set, but XML plus World Builder does suffice.

It sounds good to me but no religion and espionage! $%&@ that

Le Sage said:

The world wonders are symbolic, as I see it. Many cultures in history have built stone circles. Many cultures have also built pyramids and great walls, even Hollywoods.

I also see from the preview article that much of the modding will be done in XML still. I had anticipated a real Construction Set, but XML plus World Builder does suffice.

Click to expand...

hang on... many cultures also built great walls? i haven't seen a shred of a great wall outside of China (Constantinople doesn't count)

Mathalamus said:

hang on... many cultures also built great walls? i haven't seen a shred of a great wall outside of China (Constantinople doesn't count)

Click to expand...

Hadrian's? Maginot? Berlin? Roman frontier forts?

Mathalamus said:

hang on... many cultures also built great walls? i haven't seen a shred of a great wall outside of China (Constantinople doesn't count)

Click to expand...

I think the question isn't so much about the scale; there certainly aren't any "Great Walls" the same as China's, but there certainly were many other civilizations that had constructions to achieve the same end. The same goes for most other wonders; i.e. the Pyramids. They were just massive tombs, as was the Taj Mahal. The point is: same idea, different approach

Indeed. As the Great Wall, the Roman border walls against the Germanic tribes may be counted as well as Hadrian's wall. To keep those "Barbarians" out. Things like that. The great wonders may be interpreted in many ways, I think.

So? said:

Hadrian's? Maginot? Berlin? Roman frontier forts?

Click to expand...

right... i keep forgetting about those.

The original great wall, from civ1 and possibly civ2 was the wall of Babylon wasn't it?

Things I like:

*Oda Nobunga as a Japanese leader. He was really the one who reunited Japan, whereas Tokugawa was just his general.
*Needing multiple occurrences of a resource to produce more than a certain number of units that require it. Good, realistic, and should make for some fun wars in the modern era!
*At least cities have their own means of self-defense. Yeah, see below.
*Unique soundtracks with for every culture.
*Licensed music, which hopefully means good, actual modern music.
*Expanded flavors.
*Better leader graphics and personalities.
*Reseach pacts.

Things I don't like:
*One unit per-hex. I remain a huge skeptic of this, even when IGN touches upon the positive side. While I hate stacks of doom as much as the next guy, I still think it's incredibly unrealistic to implement this in a game of this scale, and furthermore, it has the potential to remove the realistic military advantage Civilizations like Russia and China have; that is strength in numbers. It could be a terrible game if one unit that starts out stronger than any one unit the enemy has defeats the nearby unit, levels up, and heals all before the next fight, doing the same thing over and over and becoming stronger each time.
*Catherine as a Russian leader. Sure, she was a noticeable reformer, but she still is in Peter's shadow.
*Axing religion. To be fair, it wasn't done well in Civ 4, as it isn't realistic for Justinian and Suleiman to end up with the same religion and have no reason to fight each other. Nonetheless, removing it is liable to make things even less realistic.
*Those city graphics. They had better be WIPs, because they look like crap.

So there will be only one leader per civ with each having their own unique traits? And who are the chinese/japanese/arab leaders, never heard of them im more used to mao for china and Tokugawa for japan and saladin for the arabians
and how can they take religion away?? thats a little unrealistic isnt it??

This is good for the Civ4 series because it will be more realistic, more of a challenge, and will not be a push-over because of your strategy, you have to change your strategy, gold intake/outake, and make units smartly. Very good job.

If you dont know abouta leader, I've got one word for you, WIKIPEDIA. if you dont know who Oda Nobunaga use your noggin and do a little research.

Also, I'm going to to start slapping anybody who cites realism as a good or bad reason for anything in this game. It's not justification beyond the most basic of basic things (the general chronological order, for instance)

Insanity_X said:

Also, I'm going to to start slapping anybody who cites realism as a good or bad reason for anything in this game. It's not justification beyond the most basic of basic things (the general chronological order, for instance)

Click to expand...

What are you talking about man? I want ultra-super-realism in my Civ! I want everything to function exactly as it does in real life. Realism MUST be taken seriously!

Also, I'm going to to start slapping anybody who cites realism as a good or bad reason for anything in this game.

Click to expand...

<cheers>

Bahmo said:

Things I don't like:
*One unit per-hex. I remain a huge skeptic of this, even when IGN touches upon the positive side. While I hate stacks of doom as much as the next guy, I still think it's incredibly unrealistic to implement this in a game of this scale, and furthermore, it has the potential to remove the realistic military advantage Civilizations like Russia and China have; that is strength in numbers. It could be a terrible game if one unit that starts out stronger than any one unit the enemy has defeats the nearby unit, levels up, and heals all before the next fight, doing the same thing over and over and becoming stronger each time.

Click to expand...

Huh? If somebody has one really strong unit defending their city, just surround him with a ring of melee and another ring of archers and wear him down with the archers. Those archers will be able to damage their target without any risk to themselves.

The one-unit-per-tile concept will really work well and I think you'll like it when you actually try it.

I'm so fired up. I CAN'T WAIT!!! God I love this series.

The only thing that worries me is one-unit per tile on an Archipelago Tiny Islands map...Domination would be IMPOSSIBLE.

Then go conquest. Take 7 capital cities. Hey presto, military win problem solved.

I mean more about how the defender would have a huge advantage, since only a few attacking units could fit on a tiny island, and seeing as how many units it takes to take out a city, I'm seeing a rise in Pangaea-esque maps in CiV.

Wait, you mean like they already have been prediminantly for years?

We dont know how naval combat works in this game, let alone amphibious invasions. There'll probably be ways to use different sorts of ships to damage defenders and remove (cultural (if present in the game)) defenses to even up the score though.

And if we assume that no decent starting point normalizer would put a capital city on a one tile island, we can safely assume that the 'conquest made easy' solution is always a possibility.