civ4 - fixing the problems with civ3???

[Cliff2005]

i must admit i am more and more liking civ4 but i still feel that it is merely fixing the problems that civ3 had with tit bits like religion thrown in. Most of the things featured are things that civ3 should have had but either didnt or did have but didnt work properly. No doubt the expansion pack to this will fix the bugs with this game and so on...

 

[Janos]

i must admit i am more and more liking civ4 but i still feel that it is merely fixing the problems that civ3 had with tit bits like religion thrown in. Most of the things featured are things that civ3 should have had but either didnt or did have but didnt work properly. No doubt the expansion pack to this will fix the bugs with this game and so on...

Well what do you expect? It's the same for virtually every "new" game in a series - the fundamental foundations that made the game great originally are still there and improvements are made based on technology, community input and impressions, and to sell more copies.

I think Civ IV will be the best Civ game yet, but we cannot judge it before playing it really.

 

[Dreadnought]

Well what do you expect? It's the same for virtually every "new" game in a series - the fundamental foundations that made the game great originally are still there and improvements are made based on technology, community input and impressions, and to sell more copies.

I think Civ IV will be the best Civ game yet, but we cannot judge it before playing it really.

Agreed. The same principles of the series are there with improvements in the game (what Janos said).

 

[ew0054]

What about the anamolies like a tank losing to an archer and such (happened to me this morning)? Hopefully they will correct issues like that.

 

[rickb]

What about the anamolies like a tank losing to an archer and such (happened to me this morning)? Hopefully they will correct issues like that.

I've always been curious why people think this is a huge problem. Oh no, 50% of the time I lose a 1-hitpoint tank trying to assault an elite archer fortified in a mountain. For the millionth time, combat in Civ (like everything else) is an abstraction people. A 1 hitpoint tank division is combat ineffective, so don't try attacking with it. Even if you had a full strength tank unit there's still a finite probability you'll lose. It's just the random fortunes of war, nothing is certain.

That said, it looks like that's going to be addressed in Civ 4 with an entirely new combat system, just to shut up the whiners I suppose. As a side note, I remember reading an interview with one of the Civ 3 developers, they did a test and found that people only think combat is "fair" when they give the player a statistical advantage. Remember the same thing happens on the computer side, people have selective memories and only remember the bad things that happen to them.

 

[Janos]

What about the anamolies like a tank losing to an archer and such (happened to me this morning)? Hopefully they will correct issues like that.

This is to be fixed in the new combat system, as mentioned above. People whined about it, Firaxis fixed it.

 

[The Last Conformist]

I still don't get why people whine about it.

 

[Janos]

Well do you seriously think a native with a bow and arrows would destroy a tank, no matter how low on "health" it would be? It's a bit silly really. Of course it's not impossible, but it should just be very very rare.

 

[nullspace]

I still don't get why people whine about it.

People whine about it because they're playing on chieftan (how else do you have enough tank vs spearman combats to lose once in a while) and try to conquer an entire civ with about 5 tanks. And they expect to do so with absolutely no loss, cost, or setbacks.

Anyway, I think cIV has enough new stuff for a sequel. Religion, civics, unit abilities, health, and great people are entirely new. Some other things seem to be changed alot: artillery, culture flipping, terrain improvements, and corruption.

 

[Gato Loco]

Well do you seriously think a native with a bow and arrows would destroy a tank, no matter how low on "health" it would be? It's a bit silly really. Of course it's not impossible, but it should just be very very rare.

A damaged tank with a demoralized crew that's out of fuel? That's most likely what being at 1 hp means. Really, I don't get it. Part of the game is preparing for unexpected setbacks, like the heroic spearman or the surprise culture flip. If your strategy can't deal with an occasional setback, you need a new strategy.

 

[Cliff2005]

the point i was trying to make is that civ2 made a huge jump to civ3 they r poles apart, yet to me what im seeing is not a great deal different to whats gone before. And yes i know there i things like religion, but to me they seem thrown in for the sake of adding changes.

 

[Janos]

A damaged tank with a demoralized crew that's out of fuel? That's most likely what being at 1 hp means. Really, I don't get it. Part of the game is preparing for unexpected setbacks, like the heroic spearman or the surprise culture flip. If your strategy can't deal with an occasional setback, you need a new strategy.

Oh no i don't think you see my point - i WANT this to be in the game. I want a spearman to heroically win against a 1hp tank. I was just highlighting the reasons people complained, as The Last Conformist enquired.

Setbacks are good - they keep me on my toes.

 

[vbraun]

Funny, people in the C&C forums want Civ4 to be just that yet some of them are Anti-Civ4 at the moment...

You sure you have your thinking straight?