Huge New CIV Update, Largest to Date

[Bluetooth]

Wonder movies and other movies, this is very good news , thanks Firaxis.

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

For my part, I was really hoping for some kind of Societal Influence system, within the game. One where your civs traits, your level of democracy-and your overall play style-would all have an impact on what sector of your society would have the most 'influence' on your domestic and foreign policies. You could ignore that sector, of course, but to do so would invite potential disaster. Unlike the much hated senate, though, these sectors of your society (factions) would act in a fairly sensible and predictable fashion-mostly to advance their own interests, protect the stability of their society, and increase their influence (i.e., they wouldn't just sign a peace deal with an enemy at any time-even if you had lost several cities to them, but would be more likely to try and get you to sign a peace deal if you were fighting a war of aggression, and war weariness was on the rise).
I think this could have worked really well, but I doubt that this is the way that they will do it !

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

 

[Chazbagel]

Dont worry Aussie, if not theres always a Civ IV, PTW...

 

[dh_epic]

I'm with you, covenant. While I'm okay with religion as an empty label (assuming it's an empty label) because it's safe -- doesn't go through any serious inaccuracies. (Note that all the debates here were about MUCH more detailed religious models, that had traits or units.)

But just because it's not bad doesn't mean it's good either. Fortunately the model won't do much harm. But it pretty much confirms what I thought -- that religion would have very little bang for buck. Still, at least it's not HURTING the game.

 

[Chazbagel]

As long as its not hurting anything, and making my game more in depth, im fine... I can't wait for this game to come out anymore......

What if multiplayer has mics?

 

[dh_epic]

That's the issue, AndrewH. Covenant doesn't think this version of religion adds any depth. And I think the depth it adds is marginal at best.

Still better than some of the crazy ideas I've heard that hurt the game though. I'd rather religion make very little impact than a bad impact.

 

[covenant]

For my part, I was really hoping for some kind of Societal Influence system, within the game. One where your civs traits, your level of democracy-and your overall play style-would all have an impact on what sector of your society would have the most 'influence' on your domestic and foreign policies. You could ignore that sector, of course, but to do so would invite potential disaster. Unlike the much hated senate, though, these sectors of your society (factions) would act in a fairly sensible and predictable fashion-mostly to advance their own interests, protect the stability of their society, and increase their influence (i.e., they wouldn't just sign a peace deal with an enemy at any time-even if you had lost several cities to them, but would be more likely to try and get you to sign a peace deal if you were fighting a war of aggression, and war weariness was on the rise).
I think this could have worked really well, but I doubt that this is the way that they will do it !

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

I love this... a much much much better way to get the same effects and so much more without this silly excuse to say we put in religion yet it really does nothing.

 

[covenant]

Most of the cool features in Civ 4, like civics, should have been in civ 3 having grown out of SMAC. Its looking more more like it is civ 3 with 3d. I mean still tile based. Come on. It would be so easy to drop them, and give cities and troops a radi of control. If there was a resource it would be at loc xy on the map. Other things like Aussies social system, the economic system from tradepeor and regions by dhepic.

We need a new forum for Civ 5, where we can present these ideas to get Fraxis attention for the next installment and hopefully make it a truely evolutionary step up, instead of these stepping stones.

 

[Evie]

Until we know how much religions affect the game (there have been lots of ideas mentioned), I suggest the "Religion does nothing!" crowd stops complaining about religion doing nothing.

All we really know so far is that switching to a religion has an effect on happiness (given as +1 ; however we do NOT know if there are restrictions or such involved) ; and that religions are generic to avoid proclaiming oen religion to be better than another.

We don't know much else besides that. We know religion will affect your ability to control your people, but how? Not yet mentioned. We know religion will affect international relations, but how and how much? Unknown yet.

So I suggest we don't start saying "it does nothing!" until we have more details on religion.

Especially since most of those details come from people who are probably typing fast articles and who do not know the inner mechanics of civ all that much.

 

[covenant]

Until we know how much religions affect the game (there have been lots of ideas mentioned), I suggest the "Religion does nothing!" crowd stops complaining about religion doing nothing.

and that religions are generic to avoid proclaiming oen religion to be better than another.

Umm that is the reason I am complaining ... why have religion if they are all the same. There is no point. The happy face can be given with a single resource and diplomatic interaction can be based on your civics options. So why include it?

I am guessing your thinking is that they have not revealed the killer part of religion. You may be right, though common sense dictates that in effect we know what religion will do cause we do know the inner workings of Civ.

And I challange (or complain in your terms) cause I love civ and want it to be the best game possible. And I will continue to do that, as much as I like, until Bush finally burns the Bill of Rights and declares marshall law or Civ is the all it can be.

 

[Evie]

Because it's an important part of history that SHOULD be included in Civ - yet a part controversial enough that Civ should NOT pass judgement on the various religions and "what they actually do".

 

[dh_epic]

Religion is already in Civ 3, 2 and 1. Religion already promotes happiness. Build a temple, make one unhappy face happy.

The question isn't whether they've really added religion but whether they've enhanced it. And it seems like you can have an official state religion, while your entire nation may not all be the same religion. The end results is still happiness.

Culture would have been a much better thing to enhance. Then you could have happiness depend on how your country handles diversity as a whole, with a much bigger payoff across all the ages.

But hey, at least religion isn't harmful. That's all I'm trying to say. At least they didn't implement every single religion with its own unique unit such that every religion is fundamentalist and extremist. At least they didn't say "Religion X is militaristic, while religion Y are all very good workers". That would have been a disaster.

 

[Commander Bello]

[...]
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.[...]

I would assume that it works a little bit like in Panzer General 3D (Panzer General II in the US, I guess).
There your units could get 2 different kinds of boni - one from the "class" and one which was randomly distributed.
An example: A tank unit could get "agressive manouvre" bonus (I think it would have been called like this, since I only had the German version), which gave an additional movement point and was given for a tank class unit. So all promoted tank class units had "agressive manouvre". Additionally, it could get e.g. "first to shoot" or "Amphibious" or "Excellent Manouvre" (ignoring zones of control).
As there have been 8 classes and 25 individual boni, the total was 200 boni - yet any unit could only get 2 of them.

 

[Praetorian]

Why don't they replace religion with Beer Breweries.

Everyone believes that their beer is the best

There are so many beers out there

Beer makes everyone happy

And there has never been a single war fought over beer!!!





p.s. Molson Canadian is the best

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

They also had something much like that in their 'People's General' game, Commander Bello-I always came to love the sound of crashing symbols, 'cause it always meant that one of my units had gained a bonus of some sort (though then I became SOOOO protective of them in battle !) If it works like this, in Civ4, then that would be pretty cool. Though being a 'Sweep of History' game, I'm not sure if it should apply only to the one unit, or to all units of that type.

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

 

[Skatanic]

Hi guys. I don't post here very often but I love to read about the upcoming Civ4.

Other than what's been mentioned, which looks fantastic, I'd like to see more emphasis placed on revolutions. I am currently studying revolutions and they are fascinating in the way that events unfold. To overthrow and install a new Government is an extremely difficult and complex matter and if I had hoped that in Civ4 it would be portrayed as something more than a couple of turns of anarchy.

In any event, the updates are looking fantastic and it's nice to hear that Civ4 will have a facelift. I played Pirates! and actually thought at the time that it would be an acceptable game engine for this game. I'm looking forward to it eagerly!

 

[Kosez]

Why don't they replace religion with Beer Breweries.

Everyone believes that their beer is the best
There are so many beers out there
Beer makes everyone happy
And there has never been a single war fought over beer!!!


p.s. Molson Canadian is the best

I thought I heard something about wineries.

 

[AugustusMarx]

A few thoughts :
Re: Hinduism. While Hinduism is polytheistic, some modern Hindus consider all those gods to be a manifestation of one true God. Others are atheistic and find them to be manifestations of man and therefore should be worshipped.

Anyhow, I have a qualm about Judaism being included, while it is one of the first monotheistic religions, and longest lasting (along with Zoroastrianism) it has only been practiced, officially, by three states - (ancient and modern) Israel, Ethiopia, and Axum. None of which have been included in any version I've played for CIV (II, III, Conquest). Moreover, while it's cultural influences are boundless, it's a rather small world religion. What sense would including it make? Other religions like Christianity, Buddhism, Hinduism, Islam, "Confucian thought" (it's not a religion) have been practiced in many regions of the world and have been "official" religions throughout the Old and New Worlds. What about religions older than the above-mentioned religions, i.e. polytheistic religions, animist ones? That would make a lot more sense, people practiced these religions before Monotheistic peoples converted them (with or without force). They still do! I think there should be a thread of verisimilitude or accuracy in games like this, it's what makes them fun, in my opinion anyway. This brings me to my first question - will certain Civs be predisposed to certain religions? Will Indians prefer Eastern religions and Islam (since the game includes Pakistani and Bangladeshi cities as part of "INDIA")? If so, what of a civilization like Rome or Greece which at one point abhorred Christianity and later embraced it and made it their own? See above the question regarding a "Muslim Washington" - which is funny considering Washington was a Deist, who believed God plays and inactive role in human's lives and though deserving respect really shouldn't be paid any mind (sorry Fundamentalists, but the original GW wouldn't have agreed with the religious views of current W, just as he wouldn't have agreed with Islam.)

Moreover, though I am not shocked, I am still disappointed by the presence of an American Civilization, since ours is at best 200 years old and really doesn't fit into many of the "what -if" situations which make games like Civ so fun (i.e. "What if the Romans survived long enough to fight the Aztecs?" seems like it would work more in this kind of forum than "What if America was founded in 5000 BC, guh-huk, even though they come from the English?") Will America be straddling European and Aboriginal/Amerindian culture again? Because, that's just silly. If we're gonna have Americans, have Native leaders like Tecumseh. I feel the inclusion of the United States of America (as opposed to a conglomerate of American tribes or something) makes the game non-sensical -- obviously just my opinion, but I'd like to share it. This leads me to another question, will cultures be "culturally" linked as in CIVIII, or just religiously? A combination of the two or more so would be more realistic, but who knows. Where would America, Greece, Rome, or India fit into this? (Since all of those civs have historically crossed the boundaries set up by CIV III Asian, European, Mediterranean, Amerindian, Muslim/Mesopotamian -e.g. though America is culturally European, it's still in the Americas.) I would like to see cultural links make other civs more willing to trade and share information, not just a smiling computer-generated face in the Diplomacy window.

Lastly, Mongols not being diplomatic? Who is the idiot behind that? Yes they were conquerors (like the Romans and the Vikings), but after founding the largest land empire known to man, they set up a state and had diplomatic relations with other states in the same way other expanisonist and bellicose civilizations did. Vikings, which never had a unified state unlike the Mongols, were equally bellicose and fierce and also had "diplomatic relations." C'mon, that's just false.

That's it. Not sure why I wasted my time typing this instead of my thesis.

 

[searcheagle]

A few thoughts :
Moreover, though I am not shocked, I am still disappointed by the presence of an American Civilization, since ours is at best 200 years old and really doesn't fit into many of the "what -if" situations which make games like Civ so fun

What about: What IF an American Civ started at the begining of time?

You won't find that many civs that started at the begining of time, so should all of them be ineligible as well?

Civ is a game of What ifs? I don't see any reason to do away with a civ just because of its age. I wouldnt have any problem including any civ that has had a major impact on the world. Or really any civ for that matter. If the Canadians, whose impact on the world got included in Civ I wouldnt have any problem with that, just so long as it was not to the exclusion of a major one.

 

[Mungaf]

Thanks for this update. I am dissapointed, though, that they just seem to be updating gameplay and graphics rather than truly making Civ4 something different. And I'm continually dissapointed that no one yet has implemented a system of trading food and shields within a civilization once adequate infrastructure and technologies are reached. This would increase realism and make loads of sense. I like the farm addition alot though. Overall, nice stuff, need more screenies!

That, and the continuing religion debate, and the post about the fatwa, gave me the hilarious mental image of some wacky ayatollah and his followers angrily burning copies of Civ4 and portraits of Sid Meier as a fatwa is declared on him. Thanks.