CIV III or CIV IV?

[mrt144]

thats 16 cities per civ, which is still a lot for civ iv games. furthermore when you start conquering you will take a huge amount and still not make a dent towards certain victory conditions. With 50 cities your empire would be suffering from a lot of problems and thats only 10% of cities. It is a game mechanics issue.

So essentially you are again saying CIV IV should be Civ III.



What do you mean by arcade junkie? Ive only played TBS since 2000. I hardly think of TBS as arcade games.

anyway, it's nice to see youve gone to the level of personal attacks on my intelligence.

 

[Yakk]

No, civ4 mechanics where based around smaller numbers of cities: that was an express design goal, to not have city-spam being the be-all end-all optimal strategy for once.

Second, the OP just wants to know if Civ4 will generate slowdowns:
I have a lower-grade AMD chip, the same amount of memory, and an x600 graphics card on my laptop. Civ4(Warlords) plays pretty fine even on huge maps in the late game.

Your system is strictly better than mine, so I suspect you won't have a problem.

 

[T.A JONES]

So essentially you are again saying CIV IV should be Civ III.

Intresting choice in smily. Are you stalking me? Anyway whatever boys, your grasping the strawman again . I stick with what I said. In this case the Buyer should beware

OP please post your results if you buy it. thx

 

[Rhye]

No, civ4 mechanics where based around smaller numbers of cities: that was an express design goal, to not have city-spam being the be-all end-all optimal strategy for once.

quote for truth.
Civ3 mechanics are broken

 

[mrt144]

Intresting choice in smily. Are you stalking me? Anyway whatever boys, your grasping the strawman again . I stick with what I said. In this case the Buyer should beware

OP please post your results if you buy it. thx

so youre admitting that youre creating strawmen and debating in bad faith?

 

[T.A JONES]

so youre admitting that youre creating strawmen and debating in bad faith?

When was this a debate? You follow me around lookin for one but I wasn't going there this time. Why? he's read all the debate on all the others aspects and wants to know one thing, What plays larger maps better?, or, Does Civ4 play them well at all? So you say Im setting up the strawman? Im going out of the way to stay on point. Your the one avoiding the issue man . You have to set up a strawman to "grasp at it" right? Why are you so confused? Its clear looking back whos avoiding the straight facts. lol

Wow I didn't notice the dual core. Sorry Reignmaker.
Duel core adds nothing much to Civ4 really. It helps with having lots of progams running but Im pritty sure the game is programmed so the core dynamics don't utilize any benifits from the multi-task enhancements. Memory the same, I pull better turns from a single 3.2 processor then I do with dual 2.0 processors.

Whats the point of misleading. Truly Id still buy it when Civ4 complete comes out if the Xpak resolves these issues with huge maps. Im saying Why not get whats complete today and runs better for what he wants?. Its not like the op can't buy CIv4 much cheaper when its packaged complete by the time hes played through some great Civ3 epics.

Civ4 is more for a 200 turn arcade stlye game or muliplayer or standard size GOTM challenge. It excells no question to CIv3 in all these ways.
Its also no secret Civ3 plays maps that hold over 500 cities and that can be divided between 31 civs with under a minute turn times. Even 256x256 and up in CIv3 you were waiting mybe 2 min tops...I mean tops on todays PC!!

It comes down to two types of slowness. Waiting in Civ3 was similar to thinking strategy while waiting for a chess opponent to fully consider n complete all his moves. Compare this to Civ4 and its painfully worse, like waiting for your hand to stop shaking every time you go to make a grab at a single chess peice.
Yes, its a bugger but most computers playing on huge maps with many civs after a few hundred turns will run into this and its a core design flaw that can be read about very readily here.

We shouldn't holler about a few special cases when its not are money at stake here. Lets think about the odds he actaully comes through squeeky clean trying to cram 20 civs on that tiny "huge map" Will it truly satisfy this area that he's most interested in the same way Civ3 does?
Thats all Im saying here boys. I see he's read all the other issues surronding both games and hes well informed to make the right decison given he's got the straight facts concerning the troubles wth this particular engine. All in all, It was a nessesary experiment and adjusting mechanism for operating better in the 3d realm. Things will improve, but as of the moment, no way Civ4 served real "empire size" can be called a safe bet with those specs .

World maps resembling true empire proportions using many opponets are awesome fun! but, also a time commitment that many CIv4 players don't like to deal with. It all depends what type of player your are. The whole limits thing on Civ4's world sizes is very real and the OP's specs don't exclude him from it. Im sorry OP Im trying to keep it real here, please google this problem to see and try to decide for yourself (it will avoid another lenghy "research" paper

Heres what you grasp at .................

except the game mechanics would prevent this style of expansion. Civ IV doesnt support 500 cities on a game mechanics scale. Furthermore the fact is Civ IV on Marathon is 1200 turns. 1200.

thats real son.

Son whats that got to do with the issue? or, should I say your line "your off the message again"

 

[mrt144]

When was this a debate? your itchin for one again but I wasn't going there, Why? he's reads debate on all the others aspects and wants to know one thing, What plays larger maps better?, or, Does Civ4 play them well at all? So you say Im setting up the strawman? Im going out of the way to stay on point. Your the one avoiding the issue man . You have to set up a strawman to "grasp at it" right? Why are you so confused? Its clear looking back whos avoiding the straight facts. lol

you brought up the point that he wont be able to play with 500 cities with 31 civs etc etc. You said it was because of the graphics. I raised the point that it was because it would fundamentally screw with the game mechanics in Civ IV and its not a desirable gameplay situation. How is that wrong? Where is the strawman in that?

The criteria for large games is a different concept from Civ III to Civ IV.

finally I don't know who you are appealing to in audience but Im pretty sure that no one respects your opinion when it comes to Civ IV by people who play Civ IV. So no matter how clear it may be, no one cares but you.

 

[sourboy]

You be the judge:

Processor: Intel Core Duo T2400 1.83 GHz with Centrino Mobile Techonology
Memory: 1 GB DDR II SDRAM
Hard Drive: 60 GB, 5400 rpm
Graphics Processor: ATI Mobility Radeon X1300

Dell Inspiron?

I have almost identical stats, only my DuoCore Proc is 2.0, and my ATI is the x1400... that said, Civ4 runs smooth -- no problems (that's Civ4 + Warlords). Obviously later game play on larger maps can take a bit between turns, but there's no graphical animation lag.