Firaxians: Problems tackled and not

[Chieftess]

Hey, better to have civil war and get a smaller portion then mismanaging a large nation and basically screwing everything up. Ofcourse, you won't expect a civil war in a country like USA China, India, even though these are large.

The events leading upto a civil war are:
1. Widespread discontent. This means a lot and lot of unhappiness and very little culture.
2. More than one prominent religion in the nation.
3. Slaves can break up to form a country of their own.

This adds to the gameplay and makes it more realisitc.

Let's see... we know that missionaries can be sent to convert other cities... so all I have to do is build up my religion, and convert the AI, and watch them revolt. Devide and conquer.

I think this is the reason we only saw it in Civ2. I remember reading an article way back on Apolyton (or when it was The Ultimate Civ2 Site) about how to beat a run-away AI on deity. Just capture its' capital, then it'll split and be at war with a new civ. Attack the new capital, and it'll split again. You'd instantly have a new ally, since both would be at war with the same civ. It just made SP too easy.

 

[troytheface]

Seems strange to me that Air and Sea warfare is not considered a major issue (flaw) on most of these posts. They have left out two areas where the game dynamics could be doubled (tripled?) in so far as strategic fun.
(as well as graphic enjoyment)
WW1 planes , triremes, troop ships, ect. - no one has a clue as to what
(if any) changes are in the offing for these two areas of combat. In Civ3 a big land army is all one needed. Granted Air comes at a later date - but sea power neglect? There would have been no Greek, Spanish, Netherlands,
English, Scandanavian, Phoenecian ect empires without sea power.
Gross oversight linked to the small civ = no power delima.
At the start of the game there should be a trade-transport ships/war ships progression- seems a rather simple thing and surprised that in two expansions
and three main incarnations it remains unresolved. Noticed in Rome Total War it is the same thing...are sea battles and consequences too hard to implement? Perhaps since they did this Pirates thing they will have a guide to bolster up this aspect of the game. Suggested in another post that i hope that the blackout in regard to this is because they have a nice surprise in store for us...however a simple statement like "and sea and air power now have meaning" would go a long way...

 

[Louis XXIV]

BTW, for improvement in trade. From what I gathered, you can still trade resources, like Civ3, but now everything is tradable (food to improve health, luxuries, and strategic resources). In addition, if you negotiate open borders, you can get general trade agreements, where both sides gain commerce from having a trade route with each other. I could be wrong, though.

 

[Commander Bello]

A "problem" which hasn't been solved seem to be that resources still are infinite.

The dropping of saltpeter is something, I really hate. Seems, that iron will be even more important now. If you have it, you rule. If gunpowder units become available, you have them as well, no matter what.
In turn: no iron, no chance in a military conflict (assuming that the dependancy of units for iron stays similar - but if it wouldn't, why would we have to have resources at all?)

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

I still hold out some hope that resources won't be infinite-but I would feel a heck of a lot better if they would come here and confirm it one way or another. Yet like you I am very upset about the removal of Saltpeter as a requirement for gunpowder units (guess what I am going to be changing VERY early on?) The problem there is that people did complain about the whole saltpetre thing, but I think their response to those complaints was incorrect. Its one of those things which I guess will become more clear post-release, but some info on it would be great to hear.

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

 

[Commander Bello]

I still hold out some hope that resources won't be infinite-but I would feel a heck of a lot better if they would come here and confirm it one way or another. Yet like you I am very upset about the removal of Saltpeter as a requirement for gunpowder units (guess what I am going to be changing VERY early on?) The problem there is that people did complain about the whole saltpetre thing, but I think their response to those complaints was incorrect. Its one of those things which I guess will become more clear post-release, but some info on it would be great to hear.

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

This time I make sure that I quote the right thing
From this article:

(Quoted person is Barry Caudill, Civ4 senior producer)
You talk about the "single, precious oil" and I wanted to point out that we have taken great pains to balance the tech tree, resources, and what you can produce in such a way that none of the resources is a "magic bullet" like oil was in Civ III. For instance, if you have no iron or horses early in the game, the new tech tree design makes it much easier for you to make a beeline for gunpowder, and salt peter is no longer required.

I guess, if resources were finite, he would have pointed that out at that point of the discussion.
Well, of course we miss the "official" confirmation, but I am pretty sure that resources will stay infinite.

 

[Leto]

In fact - if I'm remember well - India is a result of somekind of "civil war" between hindu population and muslim one.

Regards

as far as i understand it, when the british left circa post-WW2, the new Indian gov't decided to divide the land into two countries, Pakistan and India. it was a means of seperating the hindu (india) and muslim (pakistan) populations BEFORE there was a civil war.

Leto

 

[apatheist]

Part of the British plan for independence was separating British India into India and Pakistan, due to the lobbying of many Muslim leaders who feared being minorities in a predominantly Hindu nation. It was not something that happened after and separate from independence from the British. As far as preventing a civil war, well, that didn't work so well. Partition was rife with violence; it's estimated that millions died. That's ignoring the multiple wars that India and Pakistan have fought since then, with war almost occurring again in 1999, as those are not technically civil wars.