Firaxians: Problems tackled and not

[The_Architect]

Let's compile a list of those problems from previous versions which have been tackled, those which are still there, and those which we are not sure about.

Solved:
Big becomes bigger
More intelligent combat system
Road roads everywhere
Trade
stupid stupid corruption

Still there:
No civil wars
Railroad teleportation

Not sure:
Manhattan project still a big wonder or not?
Trading of weapons allowed or not?

I have not been following the forum and info. about civ for quite sometime, so it's quite possible that one of them have been listed under a wrong category. In that case, I am sorry and please correct me.

 

[Sullla]

If "Bigger = Better" has been solved as a problem, what then is the need for civil wars? I understood that the main reason for civil wars was to counteract precisely that problem. I'm just not sold on that particular idea - so why do you feel that it's so important to be included?

 

[Louis XXIV]

He wants it because it would be cool to add, but certainly not because of a specific gameplay issue.

 

[nullspace]

Yeah, I don't think these are universally agreed-upon problems. Civil wars are great from a historical perspective, but they'd be a disaster as a gameplay element. People hated culture flipping in Civ 3 when you suddenly lost a city, imagine if you suddenly lost half your empire. Railroads are also debateable. The late-game would move much slower if they did not allow infinite movement.

 

[North King]

Yeah, I don't think these are universally agreed-upon problems. Civil wars are great from a historical perspective, but they'd be a disaster as a gameplay element. People hated culture flipping in Civ 3 when you suddenly lost a city, imagine if you suddenly lost half your empire. Railroads are also debateable. The late-game would move much slower if they did not allow infinite movement.

Well implemented civil wars wouldn't just suddenly appear. They would occur for a specific reason in specific cities.

 

[sir_schwick]

Civil wars, like city flipping should have been, should be gradual events that can be seen and planned for. If this means you gamble by not devoting resources towards stopping it, then its your own fault. Suddenly losing half your empire arbitrary is not fun, but that system is bad in all kind of ways.

As long as RR do not give you infinite offensive capability, RR teleportation may not be a bad thing.

 

[apatheist]

We don't know these problems are solved, just that they acknowledged them and tried to solve them.

 

[rhialto]

When was trade solved? Its horribly broken in 3, and I dont recall any official comments on trade in 4.

 

[apatheist]

The most recent gamespot article quoted Barry Caudill as saying trade is completely different in Civ4. I assume they wouldn't make it completely different if they thought it was mostly ok in Civ3.

 

[rhialto]

Did it give any signs as to how it had been changed? Because changed != fixed.

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

Yep, I seem to remember that he mentioned it in relation to removing the commerce bonus for roads. Barry said something along the lines of '...well, the trade system has been completely overhauled, so giving roads and rail a global commerce boost on top of this would make no sense' <sic>.
I am hoping that, if the trade system has been completely overhauled, then its close cousin-the diplomacy system-has been completely overhauled as well!
As for civil wars, this was considered as part of a gameplay problem, but also was considered worthwhile simply because it makes games much more dynamic and interesting-especially if combined with minor nations.

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

Oh come on, Rhialto, you know this was just a 'TEASER' interview, designed to give just enough info to wet our appetites, but not enough to satisfy our desire for new info . From other info I have seen elsewhere, I think the Civ4 trade system is going to have at least an element of the SMAC trade system-and the ability to trade ALL resources, as well as the interaction between civics choices and your trade/economic system, will all be of some assistance in making it better. Beyond this, though, precious little is known!

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

 

[joethreeblah]

Oh come on, Rhialto, you know this was just a 'TEASER' interview, designed to give just enough info to wet our appetites, but not enough to satisfy our desire for new info . From other info I have seen elsewhere, I think the Civ4 trade system is going to have at least an element of the SMAC trade system-and the ability to trade ALL resources, as well as the interaction between civics choices and your trade/economic system, will all be of some assistance in making it better. Beyond this, though, precious little is known!

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

What was the SMAC trade system?

 

[rhialto]

That's just it. It's a teaser. To be honest, hype bores me, and so I tend not to leap at every interview looking for crumbs. the sad fact is, the quality of a product is usually inversely proportional to the advertising budget. I'll admit my geographical location will kind of force this anyway (Japan isn't noted for early strategy games releases), but I've now reached the stage where I've almost decided to hold off until there are some real reviews of the finished product instead of promises.

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

Well, its been a while since I last played it, but my recollection of the SMAC trade system was that your cities automatically gained income via trade routes, and that certain trade/commerce improvements boosted that income for whatever city it was in. This way, it partially freed up your economy from land-a problem most associated with road/rail generating commerce. As I said, though, this sounds like just part of it , not the entirety.
Hope that helps.

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

 

[Doc Tsiolkovski]

Civil Wars ? Like in Civ2?

Horrible idea. HORRIBLE!
We all enjoyed in in Civ2. Since it only happend to the AI.

There are thousands of threads on CFC complaining about the Civ3 culture flips; I.E. loosing one single city.

I don't want to imagine the uprisings if in CIV now suddenly half your empire could desert...

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

No, not like Civ2 Doc. What many of us have in mind is something a lot less absolute. Basically a civil war would only occur if you were mismanaging your nation in the first place. Check out some of the Civil War threads around the forum to see what we mean.

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

 

[The_Architect]

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.

 

[SonicX]

That's right, a civil war in America is out of the question.

 

[Mîtiu Ioan]

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.

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

Regards