Civilization IV article at IGN

[Goombaz]

I think he meant "The lion is much bigger than you", not "The lion is bigger than a modern lion". Sorry, all those responses were bugging me

 

[Akka]

Even in this case, a lion is smaller than a human

 

[Leprechaune]

Well, but straining lions are not a good representation of it. It just looks silly, I'm going to replace them by barbarians asap. Nature and disasters, mosquitos stopped a troop of people, not three lions. bad representation, simply.

Well, if we find that the lions are killing units of organized troops I will be agreeing with you. But as far as them representing an obstical for UNARMED roamers? I'm 100% behind it.

 

[W.i.n.t.e.r]

Seems like Civ4 will be primarily a MP game...which if true precludes me from buying it. Most of the time I spend playing is not time where I can spend online in a MP situation. Disappointing...perhaps that is why we have heard so little details about the AI and other factors which are more geared for single player useage.

Lions eating settlers...ridiculous. Man mastered lions and wild animals well before organized societies came out....yes, the occasioanal hunter would get gobbled up, but it was man's ability to organize to defeat stronger wild beasts that led to his larger brain, and his dominance of the planet. I hate that part intensely.

So far I am a real skeptic, sure I'll get flamed by the fanatics, but sie la vie. I am really sad as I really do like Civ3 except for a couple of things that will never be fixed...and it seems Civ4 will probably not be the answer for me.

Ah well, maybe someone will come up with a mod/clone that will suit me...but looks more and more like Firaxis will not be getting my money at this point, but I will wait until I read a lot of ordinary SP player reviews after the release before totally giving up on it.

That is a bit premature a statement, I'd say...

 

[Commander Bello]

Ever watched a program called walking with beasts plus you cant expect our lions to be the same 6000 years ago

Read a bit

 

[microbe]

Static screenshots always look less pretty than dynamic ones.

The graphics is just so so, but good enough for me, compared to previous versions.

 

[DiamanteLouco]

Well, I hope SP is still big, but this particular review was about multiplayer and a simultaneous multiplayer, where you don´t have much time to micromanage, so, I expect that this particular type of multiplayer game is less complex then an epic.

 

[DefenderofFutur]

Even in this case, a lion is smaller than a human

Smaller than a human? I don't know what lions YOU are talking about. Last I remember they weigh like 400 to 550 pounds, and have fangs and claws. We are either talking about very tiny lions or very unfortunately massive people.

On the subject of these 10000 villagers per new city, that suggests that 1 pop point represents 10000 people. Now if it were that simple, I would find the concept of 10000 people being wiped out by lions in one strike to be a little ridiculous.

But as all of us know from playing Civilization, there is one major inconsistency that eliminates the possibility of this being a realistic number: a settler costs TWO population points to create, and only supplies a brand new city with 1 population point. WHAT HAPPENED TO THE OTHER 10000 PEOPLE?!?!

Therefore, we must assume that population points aren't any exact number. What are they? Don't ask me. But I refuse to believe that everytime a city is created, 10000 people vanish from the face of the earth.

PS: lions never got very much bigger than they are now. There were larger cats in the past, but not of the same species.

 

[Akka]

Smaller than a human? I don't know what lions YOU are talking about. Last I remember they weigh like 400 to 550 pounds, and have fangs and claws. We are either talking about very tiny lions or very unfortunately massive people.

Well, my bad, I was thinking about lionness, which are considerably smaller.

 

[Urederra]

Watermills are sooooo cooooool

 

[Louis XXIV]

a new city that gets settled in civ3 has 10'000 inhabitants, so the settler unit has as much. Don't come with numbers, civ isn't a game of them.

But does the city leave with 10,000 settlers, or a small group that found the city and, by the time the next turn comes around, other people come to bring the number up?

 

[apatheist]

But as all of us know from playing Civilization, there is one major inconsistency that eliminates the possibility of this being a realistic number: a settler costs TWO population points to create, and only supplies a brand new city with 1 population point. WHAT HAPPENED TO THE OTHER 10000 PEOPLE?!?!

Therefore, we must assume that population points aren't any exact number. What are they? Don't ask me. But I refuse to believe that everytime a city is created, 10000 people vanish from the face of the earth.

Actually, it's worse than that. A city with pop 3 has 10k + 20k + 30k people. If you build a settler, you sacrifice the top 2 pop points, which brings the city's population down to 10k. The new city founded will then have 10k population, for a total of 60k before and 20k after. And it only gets worse with larger starting sizes. The correspondence between population points and population count is weird and silly, so I wouldn't pay it much heed.

 

[troytheface]

i do not think the game is geared towards mp...i think the article was geared to mp.
(which is the most fun way to play by the way for those of u that have not tried it- other humans are the most fun opponent and made sp obsolete on civ3 for me)
Course u need about 7 hrs to get a game going- that may or may not make it....
The new set up sounds like they've combated this tho.
and i like the lions eating settlers, sounds like it will add a bit of fun,
these moans about quirky elements are what would really kill civ- a drag into the mud of believability- and worrying about mechanics atop of mechanics.
speaking of which- not having the vikings and a longboat uu is one big fat ripoff.

 

[Dearmad]

Can ANYONE on this board say "conceptual game design?"

What a pitiful stupid conflict in this thread.

 

[Phoenix_56721]

----->Lions, Tigers and Bears----->Oh my

 

[troytheface]

yes and on that wikapedia thing they talked about ligers and tigrons - think the female tiger and male lion combo gives u the liger -and they like to swim like tigers do- but lions do not...
now if a phonecian male and a roman female got together they are called pheonomans and they like to build boats and fix roads.

 

[Arturus]

Lions eating settlers...ridiculous. Man mastered lions and wild animals well before organized societies came out....yes, the occasioanal hunter would get gobbled up, but it was man's ability to organize to defeat stronger wild beasts that led to his larger brain, and his dominance of the planet. I hate that part intensely.

Keep in mind a settler is unarmed. Man organized into societies and mastered the animal kingdom but weapons were an important part. If people roamed unarmed 10,000 years ago, carrying some belongings to start a new village, odds are they could be killed by animals too. Lesson here, act like mankind once did and send hunters/warriors to defend your people from the animal kingdom. I think this makes the game far more realistic.

 

[Soam]

I don't see the problem with lions, although the arguement has been worth some laughs.

What I am more worried about is the Culture Bomb it sounds too easily abused, and the article hinted that military conquest might be less of a viable option.

As for that Wikipedia article I'm very interested in the pink lions with green hair that live on mars.

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

I am inclined to agree, Soam, that it sounds like 'Culture Bombs' might be abusable. I do tend to consider a few very important points:

(1) Great works-aka Culture Bombs-are created by Great Artists. My understanding is that Great Artists require a huge amount of time and effort to generate-thus making this strategy rare in the extreme.

(2) Great Artists, along with other great people, have a number of other important roles-such as Golden Ages-forcing players into important strategic decisions about whether to sacrifice said artist for the one off gain (the bomb), to save them up for use in a golden age (with 1 or more other Great People) or to join them to a city for a more long-term benefit. Given this range of choices, in combination to (1), it sounds like less of an 'exploit' and more of a 'strategy' to me.

However, given that the Gamespy reviewer-upon seeing them in action-felt they were a little overpowered-one can hope that the designers will take the advice on board, and at least tone done their effect-or limit the cities in which they can be used (for instance, I see nothing wrong in a great artist generating a great work which creates culture equivalent to 10 or 100 times the current culture value of that city-thus making them more useful for cities with between 10 and 100 culture already!)

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

 

[Grey Fox]

I don't see the problem with lions, although the arguement has been worth some laughs.

What I am more worried about is the Culture Bomb it sounds too easily abused, and the article hinted that military conquest might be less of a viable option.

As for that Wikipedia article I'm very interested in the pink lions with green hair that live on mars.

I believe it was easily used in This Case, beacuse the Victim didnt know how to defend himself.

Remember. This was a game between 8 first time Civ 4 MP players.