Civilization IV - the fall of Civilization series

[troytheface]

i really hope that the changes in Civ drive all the hardcore complainers from the game. It is time to get rid of as many civ 1 2 and 3 fans as they can as sometimes they read as if they own the game and deserve some kind of something or other-time for some new blood with enthusastic players that will contribute something other than whining.
Some new modders would be also welcome- i hear one or two names and their glorious mods when the game is set to be modded by anyone-
everyone is an artist and almost anything can be art (beuys)
this modern idea is challenged by some that are kept in thrall of old ideas and old idea keepers. The emphasis on MP may go a long way in this- get rid of the old sp fan base and ways of doing things. I read posts on here about the "stupid" shoot em gamers - a bias that is elitist, presumptuous and incorrect- know many shoot em up gamers that are just as intelligent as anyone one here that find civ3 "boring". But i never heard a one say anything negative about those people that play it- which would include me....Death to Civ! Long live CivIV!

 

[Crazy Jerome]

Put me firmly in the camp that prefers elegant design over lots and lots of stuff. I viewed RaR; I downloaded it; I played it. Once. It's a very noble effort, and has gone a long way towards trying to account for elegance despite the large number of things. Still, it falls short in my opinion. You simply cannot always make something better by having more of it.

I also agree that Call to Power was a great example of the need for some restraint. The late game was practically unplaybable, worse so than Civ I, II, or III.

 

[Goombaz]

Yeah, I heard how great RaR was, installed it, looked at the tech tree, and backed away slowly. I have nothing but respect for modding, and all modders, but seriously, more is less people. That tech tree was insane. Good complexity is when well designed rules interact in intriguing ways, such as the racial modifiers in MOO2, or the special abilities in Magic: The Gathering. Bad complexity is, for example, MOO3

Flat, uninspired rules and lots of em is how we get to these awful places.

If you see two differant shorthand descriptions of a unit, and one reads:

2/1/3/Pathfinding/First Strike/Elf,Good,Archer

And the other reads

10/23/12/19/25%/33-1/4d8/8d12 First Strike +11 Forest Movement +19.95%
Sky Elf,Name: Quirrion Lofellion Featherchase the 13TH Jr., Lawful Moral Good, Medium Range Flight Shafted Elite Archer 11/12 Arrows in Quiver/2/5 Hunger/4/5 Fatigue/Wife may be cheating on him -5% morale. Has new socks +.05% Speed +5% Morale. Needs new underwear in 3 Days. Likes walks on the beach.

Surely I have gone on long enough with the stats

The point is that I have an almost primal grasp of what 3/1 First Strike is. I already know it is some kind of snake, or archer, or something fast and small. That is why rules like that are mentally pleasing.

 

[HourlyDaily]

There's a certain sect of the population in any strategy game, TBS in particular, that want it to be as complex and nuanced as absolutely possible. For them, there's an incredibly advanced mod system. There are other people who have a finite amount of time to spend on games and want to be able to jump right in (and finish the game) without learning what all the zillion technologies and units do and how to combine them or defeat them. For those people, civ4 is a godsend.

A game isn't always better just because it has less mass appeal.

Spot on - thankyou. Its as simple as that and I can't believe that it took some of you guys two seconds to jump down Eddie's throat.

I'm glad Civ at least comes with the MP option to only play up to a certain age. I am one of the nuanced gameplayers and I like the different 'ages' to last an age. Settle down with the personal attacks guys.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

Personal attacks? You mean like thinly veiled accusations that anyone that who didn't obviously see the innate superiority of vast numbers of mind numbing detail is not interested in any kind of nuance or complexity?

People worried about "personal attacks" shouldn't launch their posts in attack dog mode. Not that I think me saying this will do any good. It seems that people must learn the concept of "less is sometimes more" on their own. Until they do, they are absolutely convinced that it is never true.

 

[Dark Savant]

If someone were to make Civilization even close to realism, it would be such a complex game that there would be about 10 people who actually understand whats going on. When people don't understand whats happening they don't have fun, they get frustrated and throw the game away. Plus it would take forever to make a game that is that complex.

I don't think that's even the main reason why realism isn't such a hot idea. I mean, there were plenty of ideas that were considered for the original Civilization that didn't make it in because otherwise the game would not fit on two floppy disks. (Does anyone miss the hovercraft units that were cut from Civ I at the last minute?)

Trying to make a realistic game in many cases would just make the game unfair. Cultures just aren't created equal, or even close to it. This is the main argument of Guns, Germs, and Steel, among other books. For instance, agriculture arose in the Fertile Cresent because most of the animals suitable for domestication and a majority of good plant species to farm are native only to around that area -- think of a Civ 3 game where all the world's horses and most of the world's food bonuses only appear in one geographical area. It's very helpful to have metal ores available; think of being screwed for iron in Civ 3, except apply that to a larger fraction of civilizations. And resources need to be somewhat scarce to fuel the growth of technology -- if you already have tons of stuff, there's not much incentive to invent. Invention at the dawn of civilization tended to occur in cultures that NEEDED the inventions just to survive.

And anyway the main contribution RaR has to realism is the way it limits geographical spread (expensive settlers and delayed development via mechanisms like needing Crop Rotation for irrigation); it doesn't have nearly as much to do with the extensive tech tree (which overemphasizes military, somehow manages not to have Chemistry, etc.) In fact, this is extensively discussed in the RaR documentation -- apparently the original poster didn't bother to read it carefully.

 

[sela1s1son]

The "Rise and Rule" thread has 1,826 replies and 218,639 views.

The Double Your Pleasure (RnR version for PTW) thread has 3,724 replies and 231,743 views...

I think these data are self-explanatory...

Rome in the Modern World through its evolution (I through III) had a few thousand downloads easily. Between my website and here. However I don't think it's a major scenario at all. People liked it, some people were curious looked and downloaded it, other merely took a look at the threads here, and others were just not interested.

Most of those views of the mod are probably the same people viewing it... let's say 200+ times each (Average) with each e-mail they say that there's a new post... with people posting 10-20+ times each on average. I've viewed this thread more then once, but it counts each time I view it. So really the numbers are not that large.

Plus using one mod to judge a whole game? Keep in mind, those who made the mod had an established game system beneath them. They also were not trying to revolutionize entire game concept SYSTEMS. In Civ III you could only mod so much, they couldn't add religion or replace govs with civics which these developers of Civ IV are having to do. Not exactly easy stuff, but taking a solid game and modding it to add more of things whose functions are well established? That's easy and just takes time and patience. Why not make it a fair balance complexity/realism and fun/playability? If they don't most people won't want to play, and just because a few people want ultra-realism does not mean they are 'superior' or the game's being 'to simple'.

It's a game! It's supposed to be fun. It's not supposed to be ultra-realistic. They will sacrafice realism for the sake of making it fun and playablity. It's a simulation, yes, but it's designed to be a useable simulation. Not everyone wants ultra-complexity... most players are likely capable of doing it, they just don't want to do that as they're trying to relax and have a fun time.

Most people want to have a game they can understand, and play with enough depth of stratagy to challenge them without to much to make it more of mathmatical/statistical equation of death.

Relax, it's a game. It's supposed to be fun, and part of the fun is indeed modding. So people wanting something the ultra-complex can get it while casual gamers/new players can play it and enjoy the base game without having to learn how to mod it.

 

[HourlyDaily]

Crazy Jerome - I don't think my point was clear. I was saying that there are two main camps on the issue. And I didn't say that those who like the shorter game were missing out on 'nuances' , just classifying myself using Ephor's two groups.

I just thing that people can make their points, without being called an idiot. Things were thrown back too. I thought that eddie made some good points about where the game was lacking (from the 1st group sort of view) but phrased in in attack dog mode which never invites a good response.

From my point of view - 'Less can be more', but in the case of my preferred Civ game - having a pikeman for 10 turns before its time for matchlocks is not fun. And I'd like them to stuff as much content into the box as will fit on the discs, not that all of it needs to be experienced in every single game.

Cheers to you and I understand your points.

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

I wish I had joined this thread earlier, because there are a few points on which I wish to smash Eddie-Verdde's arguments into a million pieces-namely his claim that migrations and civil wars are not represented, and cannot be modded in. Well, yes he has pretty accurately described Civilization III , but clearly knows less than he thinks about Civilization IV. Just today we have heard from Barry Caudhill saying <sic> "You want an unrest-based Civil War system in the game? Go ahead and do it!" in relation to Python Scripting. In fact, with Python Scripting a half-way decent modder could place any historical situation-from plague and rebellion to civil war and colonisation-into any game-be it a scenario or epic. Given this degree of flexibility, I also doubt that it would be any harder to add techs, give techs ANY number or kind of prerequisite (be it resource, tech or civic based, for instance), add as many turns as you want (and make each turn as long or short-in years-as you want) and make the maps as large as you want-given that many of these things were do-able with the rather simple editor functions of civ3, wheras the Civ4 editor will be 100% more flexible. Once we have the SDK, then it will get knocked up an extra notch, as then ALL bets will effectively be off. So I, for one, have no fears at all for the future of Civ4, and Civ in general, because I know that if there is stuff I don't like about it, either myself or someone else out there will almost certainly add the stuff I want, or take out the stuff I dislike-because they can more than ever.
Also, on the specific issue of migration. By having health such a major determinant of city growth (and having health partly based on city size) we now have a population model which can at least partly simulate migration in a way which could not be down in previous iterations of the game-by removing food as the sole arbiter of population growth or decline. With just a small amount of tweaking, I am sure that both city culture and city wealth can be factored in to the health model-just with the Python Editor. A more complex migration model will probably be do-able once the SDK becomes available.
As for the claim that there is almost nothing new in the game then, sorry, but I must have been away when they said they were removing all those new features, like Civics, religion, a massive toning down of ICS, the removal of corruption, unit promotions, a UN which actually means something, massively improved trade and diplomacy, a massively improved MP, a better espionage system and an improved AI. If they did say they are taking these things out, then Eddie must be right-the game is crap and I shouldn't buy it .
Ultimately, Eddie, my advice is that if you genuinely feel that the game is going to be such utter rubbish, then simply don't buy it-and stick with your precious Civ3 R&R games-there are certainly enough of us who will buy civ4. Personally, though, I think you are gonna be missing out, and that you will give in and ultimately buy the game, but I won't care either way.

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

 

[Ranbir]

Also, on the specific issue of migration.

Yeah! Especially since I have plans to attempt something on migration! Whether it be representative or actually possible to simulate.

 

[eddie_verdde]

At this point all I can say is that it is obviously that many people haven't read my posts carefully and have misunderstood my thoughts...what I see here is a lot of people who become appalled and panicked over the mere glance of a vast tech-tree, and invoke the typical cliché "more doesn´t mean better" or "I prefer gameplay over lots of stuff" etc...

But as I mentioned before, the fact that we have a game with lots of techs, lots of units and lots of buildings, doesn't mean that we have to possess them all...and most of the people who never got to play RnR to the end, or weren't attracted to the mod, failed to understand this...the main goal of such a vast and diverse tech-tree was to give the player more options and flexibility, which would vary according to starting location, available resources etc...you don't have to research ALL the techs, you have to THINK what are the techs that best suit you and move on...

You could advance to the next age with lots of techs behind and personally I think in the mod we should be able to leave even more techs behind than we actually can.

So, as you can see, this not the case of having "lots of stuff", it's the case of having "lots of stuff too choose from", because, as you know there is also lots of variation in the conditions of the starting location, lots of variation in available resources and lots of variation in AI neigbours.

In other words, with a complex tech-tree you can still play a streamlined and smooth game, provided that you plann the research correctly according to the factors mentioned above. For instance, The Inca were fine masons and had a complex social structure...and they didn't research The Wheel....why? because they didn't need it...they live in the mountains...

 

[eddie_verdde]

@ Aussie_Lurker:
1 - you definitely need to start to use some more paragraphs man

thanks for your post. Yes i know that with the new modding options there will be plenty of stuff that we can add, but it's not the same thing than having those features right out of the box...mods frequently have lots of bugs...

Anyway, if there will be such an extraordinary modding ability, why didn't they also leave religion as something that could be modded? I mean what criteria did they use to leave civil war behind and include religion in the first version, and not the opposite? Personnally I think that civil war would be a more valuable adition because the concept of religion was already somehow represented with the culture model of CIV3.

And about migration, I would like to see migration not only between friendly cities but also between continents and rival civs...real life ex: jewish


Finally, if I feel angry about CIV4 is because they are making changes in order to attract a new profile of players (hence the 3D, which I think is dispensable) and I think that those changes are bad for the Civilization series. I'm still going to play CIV4 of course, but they won't catch my money this time...

Moderator Action: If, by your last paragraph, you are suggesting piracy, I'll remind you that this is not at all tolerated here.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[eddie_verdde]

From my point of view - 'Less can be more', but in the case of my preferred Civ game - having a pikeman for 10 turns before its time for matchlocks is not fun. And I'd like them to stuff as much content into the box as will fit on the discs, not that all of it needs to be experienced in every single game.

You've raised an interesting question that I forgot to mention in my first post...that's exactly the problem with the so-called "streamlined" and "smooth" gameplay...with simple tech-trees, the game will flow very quickly, and when you've just finished upgrading all your spearmen to pikemen, you suddenly research gunpowder, what's the fun of that??

And looking to the tech-tree of CIV4 there seems to be an enormous gap that should be filled by middle ages/renaissance.

Hope this doesn't happen in CIV4, but it probably will, considering the tech-tree and considering that you will play in a medium-high difficulty level.

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

OK, Eddie, the first thing is that you have just advocated video game piracy which-if I had my way-would see you banned on the spot. As for your claim that they are just trying to capture new civ players: yeah they are, and SO WHAT?? If all you do as a software designer is rely on your existing-and ultimately declining-fanbase, then you truly are ensuring the demise of the Civilization franchise.

What they did, though, was to strike a balance and say-right, these features will attract a whole heap of new players-thus ensuring the future financial success of Firaxis-but we have also included enough modding tools that the die-hard fans can add anything, and everything, they want.

Reading your posts, it really sounds like your chief complaint is 'they didn't make Civ4 the way I WANTED IT TO BE, and therefore it must be crap'. Well, as I said previously, they didn't make it exactly the way I wanted it either, but the bulk of the new features they have added are definitely enough to make me VERY happy, and the other stuff I can add in later-at my leisure. Even in its vanilla form, though, Civ4 already looks and feels like it stands 'head and shoulders' above Civ3: Conquests. Once the modders get their hands on it, then I am guessing that it will completely blow civ3 out of the water.

So, based on these facts: Civ4 is over 10% longer than Civ3; Civ4 has 1 more technology than Civ3 (and the Ancient/Middle Ages are really beefed up, tehcnology-wise, compared to Civ3); Civ4 maps will be only a fraction smaller than those of Civ3; Civ4 has heaps of new features-better governments, better religion, better population growth/decline model, better 'empire expansion' system etc etc; Civ4 will give players unprecedented power to add/remove elements to/from the game, I really fail to see what the true basis of your original complaint actually is. It sounds like simple whining to me .

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

 

[Commander Bello]

It is very interesting to see such a thread that late

And it is very funny to see, how certain arguments are repeated over and over again...

But let's start from the beginning.
I agree with eddie about the outstanding quality of the RaR-mod, which finally gives an impression of what was possible with both, engine and editor of Civ3. Like him, I appreciated the tech tree very much, as it was interesting and challenging at the same time.
I understand, that some people felt overstrained when looking at 40 alternatives per age, yet it added much to the depth, as - like eddie explained - not all 40 were necessary, but a good 10 of them was optional.

I would have preferred, if Firaxis would have taken the chance to establish such a tech tree, with a meaningful setting of techs for each "era", may there be ages now or not. For sure - as eddie - I don't feel satisfied with their approach to shrink this era.

The fact that he doesn't like most of the new features - or he doesn't like them in the form in which they are announced - is just a matter of personal taste.
Like him, I dislike the idea of smaller maps very much. I could have thought about more general - yet not corresponding to the "real life" ones - religions, which then in turn could have offered really alternatives...
There are a lot of new features announced, which one may like or not, based on our current knowledge.

Now to the answers:
I understand that quite some people don't like extensive tech trees. That's fine for them, as it should be fine for other people to actually like them.

I put great hopes into the extreme moddability as well, yet I don't accept that any potential weakness of the game is countered with the argument: "We will be able to mod it in!"
I don't think that modding revolutions and migrations will be an easy thing. This will require some good knowledge of Python (not to difficult), quite a good understanding of the game's internal working (a matter of effort) AND a clear view how to add such a feature.
In turn this means that 90% of all people who will try to do so, will utterly fail.
That leaves not to big numbers for the "bigger", more complicated mods, as even the changing of some stats already requires quite some testing.

One of the arguments which I understood the least was that the current group of fanatics would "get lost" due to age, diverging interests and so on.
Personally, I think this is a completely wrong approach. Sure, each single person of us will grow older ... some quicker, some slower.
Yet, there will be new players. Why on earth shouldn't those new players don't like the epic games, with huge tech trees, with big numbers of units to manouvre around and so on?
We have developed our interest in such a game as well, didn't we?
Or is the assertion that the franchise has to change to be able to attract "new" players nothing than an unuttered request for help, as most of nowaday's players are already massively overstrained? This I cannot or better, don't want to believe.

 

[Goombaz]

At this point all I can say is that it is obviously that many people haven't read my posts carefully and have misunderstood my thoughts...what I see here is a lot of people who become appalled and panicked over the mere glance of a vast tech-tree, and invoke the typical cliché "more doesn´t mean better" or "I prefer gameplay over lots of stuff" etc...

But as I mentioned before, the fact that we have a game with lots of techs, lots of units and lots of buildings, doesn't mean that we have to possess them all...and most of the people who never got to play RnR to the end, or weren't attracted to the mod, failed to understand this...the main goal of such a vast and diverse tech-tree was to give the player more options and flexibility, which would vary according to starting location, available resources etc...you don't have to research ALL the techs, you have to THINK what are the techs that best suit you and move on...

You could advance to the next age with lots of techs behind and personally I think in the mod we should be able to leave even more techs behind than we actually can.

So, as you can see, this not the case of having "lots of stuff", it's the case of having "lots of stuff too choose from", because, as you know there is also lots of variation in the conditions of the starting location, lots of variation in available resources and lots of variation in AI neigbours.

In other words, with a complex tech-tree you can still play a streamlined and smooth game, provided that you plann the research correctly according to the factors mentioned above. For instance, The Inca were fine masons and had a complex social structure...and they didn't research The Wheel....why? because they didn't need it...they live in the mountains...

Yes, but the Civ 3 game system from the get-go, in a way that you can't mod out, was designed so that you would attempt to get all the techs. I *DO* respect what R&R is trying to do. I simply prefer the original tech tree, as it is very close to memorizeable. I know, someone is going to snipe in and say "But Goombaz, I DID memorize it!". All I can say to that person is great! That is awesome.

For the record, I DO like some of the stuff in R&R a *lot*. The serfs for the industrial civs, and other things like that. I didn't mean to sound harsh, any mod given for free is a gift to the community, and should be appreciated on it's own terms. That being said, I have a very low tolerance for mental clutter in games, I like super streamlined systems almost to a fault sometimes, so I am not a neutral judge of R&R. As I said before, nothing but respect to the mods, but R&R isn't good for me, but it might be perfect for some. I would, however, not recommend that the commercially released vanilla product use that kind of tech tree.

 

[Legionary37]

For the record, I DO like some of the stuff in R&R a *lot*. The serfs for the industrial civs, and other things like that. I didn't mean to sound harsh, any mod given for free is a gift to the community, and should be appreciated on it's own terms. That being said, I have a very low tolerance for mental clutter in games, I like super streamlined systems almost to a fault sometimes, so I am not a neutral judge of R&R. As I said before, nothing but respect to the mods, but R&R isn't good for me, but it might be perfect for some. I would, however, not recommend that the commercially released vanilla product use that kind of tech tree.

I have to say I agree. I downloaded and played RAR, and I found it a tremendous effort, but it suffocated itself with it's own weight. More isn't always better, and alot isn't always the best. The best games are easy to learn, difficult to master. I found RaR difficult to learn and impossible to master. Some of it was very innovative, but all together it was just way too much for a fun game.

That's what made the civ series great. Simplicity and versatility.

 

[AKtionFich]

(I did nt read all)

I n my opinion civ4 will be the rise of civ back to an all known game,
that it ones was.
A lot of the young gamers doesn t even know what civ is,
in times of civ1 that wasn t possible.

And for the civ freaks, the new way to mod it , will make our dream become possibel

 

[Phoenix_56721]

Its funny how most people on here are giving the same story, and its the same as mine also, I downloaded R&R played it and never went back. I liked most of the units they added and goverments and worker system, But it took way too long to get to the modern times, the tech tree was just too much and it took the fun out of the game! When they make a R&R for Civ4 I will download it and try it out agian, I still think the mod could be great if they dont go wild on techs and stick too what makes gameplay fun!

 

[Corn Shucker]

Give up eddie-if you havent noticed your the ONLY person in the thread who supports your opinion. You claimed that many members would agree with you-clearly not. So far you havent managed to find one memeber who agrees with you. I belive you are correct on some points-but overall your view are completely bias. You constantly keep changeing your opinion to fit the aurgument. Just give up! Your entitled to your opinion but why keep trying to argue the point when no one shows any hint of support or agreement? There are some who would like to see a big huge tech tree like you suggest and those other 2 features you mentioned, but the majority of civ players dont. Simple as that.

The "Rise and Rule" thread has 1,826 replies and 218,639 views.

The Double Your Pleasure (RnR version for PTW) thread has 3,724 replies and 231,743 views...

I think these data are self-explanatory...

as many have said... yes they are self-explanatory-they clearly state that a small percentage of civfanatics-furthermore civ players (clearly not everyone who plays civ is on civfanatics lol) choose to play RnR or DyP.

OK, Eddie, the first thing is that you have just advocated video game piracy which-if I had my way-would see you banned on the spot.

I agree.