Hardgame Review

[dc82]

a few notes - civ specific units "like the Roman Praetorian or the Mongol Keshik."

"There are also natural counters for some units like you would find in an RTS. Pikemen are better against mounted units, Axemen are better against melee units, etc. Units now gain experience when they are victorious and that experience leads to promotions. Promotions are a way of making each unit special by providing them with special abilities like being able to heal faster, flanking, or getting bonuses in forest and jungle."

also hinted at the possibility of civ for the ds and psp: "I think the power of the PSP and the touch control of the DS could easily make them places where Civ could thrive."

 

[narmox]

url please? or is this *gasp* on paper?

 

[Ginger_Ale]

http://www.hardgame.net/index.php?zone=news&mod=noticia&id=18270&id_ficha=0

It's on the front page, www.civfanatics.com .

 

[narmox]

whoa the frontpage. You mean the one I never read? lol thanks Ginger

 

[Midwinter]

Hmm - it mentions, when discussing the civs, a 'couple that are totally new for us'. I thought the Mali were the only new civ?

 

[Snoopy]

The map size issue is going to upset quite a few people.

 

[vbraun]

The map size issue is going to upset quite a few people.

I usually play on tiny maps anyway.

 

[Lief Ericson]

Yeah, I rarely play on anything larger than a standard map.

 

[Evie]

The map size issue is going to upset quite a few people.

Indeed.

I knew there had to be at least one good reason to be against that move to 3D.

Still, it depends on many factors - ie, is he talking about the preset map sizes, or the absolute limits we can set our map too? If all he's saying is that the absolute largest a map can get is 250 x 250 instead of 300 x 300, fine and good. If we're talking an absolute limit of 120 x 120 though, a lot les good.

 

[BearMan]

I've made it though the article, and for thoes that doesn't wanna read it, I think there was no new info =)

However, this old info is perhaps the most notable change yet :

"you have to complete before moving on and you no longer have to have all of the connecting techs in order to research something. Now, you can research anything you have a connection with. "

I wonder if we should complie a list och Q&A for meeting with soren or so =)

 

[sgrig]

I think the biggest news here is something which I suspected long ago - Civs won't have any special traits, but the traits will be given to individual leaders. This explains why they chose to have more leaders than Civs. Now the choice of Civ only determines the special unit.

 

[Chieftess]

I liked Barry's little plug for the CFC/Apolyton Demogames.

I think the "Game of Republic" (tried 3 times in Civ3, but failed each time due to players not passing the save around) has a chance in Civ4. (much easier to manage than waiting for a limited number of players to pass the save around). In the GoR, each player was their own province.

Do you think cooperative online play could work? For example, several individuals working together with different roles in the same civilization?

It has been tried in the form of what they call “Democracy games” at fan forums like Civ Fanatics and Apolyton. That works in their format but it seems rather unwieldy and decidedly not fun for some of the people in a real-time multiplayer situation. We are providing team play, however, and that should open up a lot of opportunities for creative players to specialize in various ways. Players on the same team share line of sight, research, resources, etc. so the one closest to the line may concentrate on military while the one behind the lines can work on the infrastructure.

 

[Xen]

Indeed.

I knew there had to be at least one good reason to be against that move to 3D.

Still, it depends on many factors - ie, is he talking about the preset map sizes, or the absolute limits we can set our map too? If all he's saying is that the absolute largest a map can get is 250 x 250 instead of 300 x 300, fine and good. If we're talking an absolute limit of 120 x 120 though, a lot les good.

I'd assume its moddable (hopefully) though I firmlly doubt that anything above 300x300 is going to anybody any good

 

[RichardMNixon]

We are using leader personalities rather than attaching special abilities to the Civilization

Does that mean theres no more civ traits?...

 

[Midwinter]

I'd imagine it means that the English, for example, will have different traits depending on whether they're led by Elizabeth I or Victoria.

 

[Commander Bello]

I'd imagine it means that the English, for example, will have different traits depending on whether they're led by Elizabeth I or Victoria.

Which in turn means that there are A-nations (with two leaders available) and B-nations (with only one leader), as in the later case you ARE limited in your options. Btw, this is a concept I completely don't get... but maybe, that it just me....

 

[dc82]

i guess the developers found that certain civs such as france, england, china have acted very different depending on their leader - so france under napolean was much more aggressive and expansive than let's say louis the xiv who focused more on technology (this is a very simplified view of things). and so, while there hasn't been a move to have a civ and its behavior change over time, what they decided was that u can choose which version of a certain civ u want to face - do u want to play against aggressive napoleanic france, or the louis xiv version. problem is prob. for some civs, such as the aztecs, there isn't much information or they haven't changed much in leaders that u can have two leaders symbolize two different eras of a civ - so for the aztecs, only monteczuma is really the one that we know of that can represent the aztecs, so it wund't make sense to have another leader. haha hope that makes sense.

 

[Commander Bello]

ahem.. especially about the Aztecs (or any other nation we don't know much about...)
In that case it would be more "fair" just to create an imaginary second leader, let's say "the great Leopard" or how they ever called their leaders, just to have two different sets, wouldn't it?

 

[TerraHero]

I like the more customized goverment idea. But smaller maps, meh.

I'm a lil sceptic on that leader personalities. Maybe its possible to add more leaders to 1 civ via editor?

 

[ybbor]

ahem.. especially about the Aztecs (or any other nation we don't know much about...)
In that case it would be more "fair" just to create an imaginary second leader, let's say "the great Leopard" or how they ever called their leaders, just to have two different sets, wouldn't it?

I've heard this before, but on CFC, can't remembeer from whom, and it was never in an article; but someone said the leaders may not be tied to their civs; i.e. you can be Ghandi, leader of the Aztecs, or Hitler, Prime Minister of England, etc.