Huge New CIV Update, Largest to Date

[covenant]

But I still have a shade of hope. And that's that the diplomacy stuff may still be coming. "Fixed Diplomacy!!!" doesn't sound nearly as interesting as "New Religion!!!" -- which is probably why they mentioned one and not the other.

oh I have hope, and if not for Fraxis, for the modders for sure... and lets face it, even if diplomacy sucks, I will probably buy the game and enjoy the first half of it much like I did civ 3. I think I only every bothered to enter the modern age in like 5% of my games. I like building, and going to war only when it works towards building a better empire (or a bit of revenge on someone who screwed me over in the early game when they were cheating to stay ahead of me.)

If I want to war just to war I will play an RTS. It surprises me no one has really tried to challange Fraxis with there own turn based civ type game where war is an extentesion of your empire, not its heart.

And I agree... polytheism and monotheism should not be dependent on one another and should not be required techs at all. In fact no tech should be required ever, though many should have dependencies. For instance. I should not have to research calvery to get to tanks, but I should have to research tanks to get to modern armor. I may actually do this if I it is not to hard to mod. For instance, for illustration purposes, the tech tree is divided up into ten levels. Calvery is on 5 and tanks are on level 7. I could completely skip calvery at level 5, as I focused on some economic techs at level 5 and then at level 7 I research tanks and more military techs skipping over some other techs that did not suite my plans for that game like some new religious philosohy or government. Basically I have the freedom to research what is relevent to my design and if that means being a mighty military power who is completely backwards in many ways... well it is about rewriting history.

Hope that made sense.

 

[Volstag]

I'm sure Firaxis will like that ...don't buy it if you don't like one thing about it. ... unfortunately if enough people come to feel that way there will be no more Civ...In the end I may not buy it or play it...or I may. Depends on the overall product.

Well, that seems rather improbable, but you never know. I guess what I was trying to say is: vote with your pocketbook. If enough people don't buy the game because of the inclusion of religion, then Firaxis will have to make certain changes. Personally, I don't care at all... but I can see how it could be a point of contention for a lot of folks.

As far as I know Civ4 is not even ready yet...and I thought the point of these discussions is to voice our views on what may make it a better game...

I have this feeling that the core mechanics of Civ IV are in place. This doesn't discredit this, or other threads concerning potential ideas for the game -- it's entertaining afterall -- and you may be correct: perhaps Firaxis actually reads these forums.

-V

 

[dh_epic]

Words and ideas can come to peoples' hearts, but no one's heart is ever pure. I could come to know one very specialized idea, but it is immediately contaminated by everything else that I know and believe. As such, all ideas -- scientific and spiritual -- are subject to being reinterpreted based on my opinion. In the coming century, religion will either resolve the impurities of the original fallable prophets, or cease to exist.

This is the natural evolution of all thought -- the truth has always been ripe for the picking if we can only get passed the biases passed on by our forefathers. The Civilization game I'd like to play would capture this idea, that humans change. This would include a dynamic religion model.

But still, I think it's better that they made religion an empty label than try to tackle the particulars.

As you can see, it's contraversial just to say that religion changes or that there are multiple opinions within a religion, especially with a growing fundamentalist menace abroad AND at home. By keeping it an empty label, they dodge the question of what a religion really is.

 

[Volstag]

I think monotheism should come first. If you believe the bible (I do), than the first people believed in one God, but soon after started making up many other gods. Besides, how can you have more than one before having one?

I respectfully disagree with this. While there may have been monotheistic religions predating Judaism, I think it's safe to say that the majority of them were polytheistic (or animistic).

As for the "first people" -- that's a very tall order to define.

-V

 

[Evie]

The same bible that would have you believe monotheism came first would have you believes insects have four legs, too.

Don't ask a historian/history book to analyze the belief system of muslim and christian faith, and don't ask a theologian/religious book to tell you about the way things went down in the real world.

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

Just a quick historical note, the scriptures were 'written' by scribes during the Hebrew's captivity in Babylon. However, before that they were 'Oral Traditions'. They were written down because the Jews feared the complete annihilation of their culture under Babylonian Rule (not the first time, and not the last either!) I guess the key point is that given the traditions were oral for so long, then I can bet you that the original oral 'scriptures' are probably fairly different to what was finally written down in the Talmud-after all, haven't you ever heard of Chinese whispers?

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

 

[Sirian]

I wonder about this item:

If your play doesn't reflect the worldview of your leader, he will get very angry at you.

So if I'm playing India and I start a war that Gandhi doesn't like, what exactly is he going to do? Stand there like the Hulk and tell me, "Don't make me angry. You wouldn't like it when I'm angry." ???

That needs an off switch or something. Seriously.

I guess I would want to hear more about that. Does the review say what happens if they get mad at you? I wouldn't want it to play like MOO3 where the player isn't given direct control over certain things and has to jump through a bunch of hoops to try to get his civ to do what he wants.


The rest sounds pretty good to me. "Health will be as important as your treasury and happiness." Health? Is this the new pollution? Or is it larger than that? What kind of gameplay is involved with it?

Does my civ's leader have Health? (Can I, like, poison his food or something if Gandhi starts to argue with me about a decision to go to war?)

Each level increase grants the unit special abilities, like the use of enemy roads, bonus attack against cities, and faster movement through forests. There are a total of 41 experience bonuses.

FORTY-ONE EXPERIENCE BONUSES?!? Holy cow. I can't even imagine how that would work. Sounds like it will either be a mess or else make combat a lot more interesting. I suppose it will turn on whether most of these bonuses are junk or whether they are well designed and balanced.


- Sirian

 

[ainwood]

I guess I would want to hear more about that. Does the review say what happens if they get mad at you? I wouldn't want it to play like MOO3 where the player isn't given direct control over certain things and has to jump through a bunch of hoops to try to get his civ to do what he wants.

Any chance its like the senate in Civ II? Maybe if you annoy them then they will resist you in the senate, or war weariness increases? Maybe its even tied to an approval rating or similar - a poor approval rating means that your citizens becomin unhappier more easily.

Not sure I'd like this concept though - I want to make decisions for myself, not in-line with what a pre-programmed AI routine tells me to do!

 

[Sirian]

Ugh, the senate. I never was a fan of the Senate.

But the senate only stopped you from declaring wars. It sounds to me like some leaders (Khan? Is that Genghis Khan?) would favor war. If I'm playing as Khan, is the New Senate(TM) going to up and declare war on somebody whether I like it or not?



I dunno. This sounds goofy. There must be something the article failed to reveal.


- Sirian

 

[Slax]

FORTY-ONE EXPERIENCE BONUSES?!? Holy cow. I can't even imagine how that would work. Sounds like it will either be a mess or else make combat a lot more interesting. I suppose it will turn on whether most of these bonuses are junk or whether they are well designed and balanced.
- Sirian

I would guess that while there are a total of 41 bonuses, only a small number can be applied to any one unit type, or era.

 

[Thunderfall]

Does my civ's leader have Health? (Can I, like, poison his food or something if Gandhi starts to argue with me about a decision to go to war?)

lol... talking about health and poison, the "poison water supply" from Civ2 would be a perfect mission to bring back! Instead of killing city population like it did in Civ2, the poison could reduce the city's health for a number of turns.

If your play doesn't reflect the worldview of your leader, he will get very angry at you.

I hope that's not in Civ4. If it's in, they should make it possible for players to disable it. The last thing a player needs in a game like Civ is someone looking over his shoulder dictating what he can or cannot do. Civ would no longer be a God game with a restriction like that.

 

[ironpawn]

My take on the world leader thing, is that if you don't perform the way the world expects Gandi, Washington i.e to perform you take a hit on the worlds view of you. That seems to make more sense to me...

 

[ainwood]

My take on the world leader thing, is that if you don't perform the way the world expects Gandi, Washington i.e to perform you take a hit on the worlds view of you. That seems to make more sense to me...

So - you're suggesting that as a player, you expect the AI to have a set personallity, based on traits (eg. Mongol leader to be aggressive; Gandhi to be a pacifist). The AI therefore have 'expectations' of you, and if you don't play in that manner, the response change.

That indeed would be interesting - I guess that the 'attitude' towards an aggressive Genghis should not be as negative as it would be towards an aggressive Gandhi - with the former you sort of expect it.

 

[King Squanto]

yea, I kind of agree, this makes me a little scared too- but then again, what can Ghandi really do? Virtually starve himself? Refuse to take in electricity or something? But seriously, gameplay wise, the worst he can do is whine at you or make your people unhappy, which, if your wagging wars, shouldn't be a surprise. I would like it if Civ4 had better citzen influence system, because that is something that makes sense- like depending on many things, such as your style of rule (which in Civ4 is said to be much more customizable), neighboring country's culture, ideas, and goverments, and your own culture would influence your people- such as, if your culture is too weak, and you want to fight a war against a cultruly rich neighbor, your people would become more unhappy, revolt, maybe even switch over sides if they can (no military presense), in extreme cases. Unless your a very harsh dictatorship with a strong army, and you can keep such things under control...until the TV is invented in the modern age. Such an influence system could do many things, even strengthen leaders, as they would definatly have influence on the people, and it would make the game more historically correct. (the eventual rise of democracy)
I know many people have called for this, so I hope CIV4 heard somehow...

 

[JG99_Korab]

The same bible that would have you believe monotheism came first would have you believes insects have four legs, too.

Don't ask a historian/history book to analyze the belief system of muslim and christian faith, and don't ask a theologian/religious book to tell you about the way things went down in the real world.

WEll, Speaking the WHOLE christiantity religon is based upon the bibles. I can't see how you cannot

 

[Evie]

One can believe in the spiritual aspects of the bible without believing in the historical ones.

Yes, yes. I know. There's a line in the bible or two that says "there are no lies in scriptures". Irrelevant as evidence ; just becasuse I say "there are no lies in any posts I have ever made" does not make it so, and the same goes for that book.

Is that heretical in terms of world views? From a christian standpoint, likely.

But then again, heresy is just a word used to scare people in letting churchmen think for everyone else.

 

[dh_epic]

There are lots of christians who believe that the bible is open to LOTS of interpretation. If you believe that the bible is literal, you're a fundamentalist. There are fundamentalist sects in nearly all religions. Most people aren't fundamentalists. Even many "men of the cloth" have said the bible is not literal.

Part of my beef with many people's suggestions for how to implement religion is that they were all fundamentalist interpretations, where everybody in the same religion believed the same thing across all time. Fundamentalists do not speak for all religious people, and implementing THEIR version of religion into a game would be foolish for too many reasons.

Hence why the "empty label" for each religion is probably the safest bet.

 

[Evie]

I completely agree. Personally I think it's a good way to implement religions - nothing fancy, just a source of political goodwill/ill will.

 

[covenant]

I dont see the need to inplement religion at all if it is simple to create some diplomatic relation. Look at this tread. People are fighting already. There are plenty of ways to do the same thing without religion and creating this atmosphere of panic and fear.

It really surprises me that Fraxis was willing to take on this headache for what is basically a very dull feature. An extra happy face. I mean its basically equal to a resourse. PLEASE. Religion is one of the most contentious things in all of history giving and extra happy face as often as giving an extra unhappy face.

I really question the intelligence of this move. I almost get the impression this is a move for civ5. Introduce it now, let the sh$t hit the fan and then in civ 5 they can do something with it cause by then people will be used to it.

 

[Kosez]

In Slovenia we had a bishop, who didn't agreed with Pope John Paul II. on most of the things (he was pro contraception, he didn't had problems with homosexuals,...). They say he was one of the smartest people around, even better in Theology than Ratzinger himself.
Well, ways of the god are mysterious. Religion isn't something that can be adopted by artificial simulator of society. They've done good to make religions generic. It's the only way.