SupremacyKing2
Deity
I have played neither V or VI so I don't know anything about the changes in them.
I am curious. Why haven't you played V or VI? You are missing out on a lot of civ.
I have played neither V or VI so I don't know anything about the changes in them.
Basically, in the first couple games, the civilizations were different in name only, though the AI did have general play styles, so Mongols were aggressive, etc.Can you say a little about making civilizations different from each other? I am intrigued! Or point me to some information about it?
I have played neither V or VI so I don't know anything about the changes in them.
One of the things I thought of was that my idea demanded quite a bit on the part of the programmers. Which should be a good thing.
Have you heard anything about vr?
There is a ton of things that could be done in a new iteration so they have to be smart about it!
A lot of people have posted the idea of civilizations going a more natural route and developing based on what's around them, so like starting with horses would give you a horseman unique unit, which is kind of the opposite of what they've been doing.
I am curious. Why haven't you played V or VI? You are missing out on a lot of civ.
I am glad you see it that way. To be honest I haven't been able to play any civ games for about 5 years do to mental health issues. I sometimes play civilization without a computer (see my thread in the Civ 4 forum for more on this). That is plan and strategize - for when I will be able to play it again. This means I am stuck in Civ IV. But I have also heard that IV is the best.
I think I now plan to play V and VI, in the future... As well as my long prepared go at IV on Monarch. I haven't really had a go at that difficulty before. I have some ideas. Which might end up in my future thread called "Your worst ideas when playing Civ IV?"
It's all a lot of fun!
I hope that gives you a general sense of what the games are like.
Stacking seems to me to be fundamental to combat. How does non-stacking combat work? Does it play like Warhammer or?
I would say that III and IV have like the same game engine (if there exists such a thing) but with different particulars. Is V and VI more like different games from III and IV? Different game engines?
And is combat intuitive? I would say combat in IV is far from intuitive, but that it part of what makes it interesting!
It seems to me risky to change the "game engine" of something that is so successful. Do you feel they have succeeded?
From what you said it seems that VI has a lot of new exciting content.
Sorry if i skipped some of what you have written! I read kind of slow!
Since I am not done playing IV (not by a long shot) it makes little sense to start with VI!
It's not the first time a game company has screwed up a sequel. It happened in my opinion for instance to Halo. The people that are best at developing sequels is in my view Nintendo.
Edit: Perhaps they (the developers) are catering to new customers with new iterations?
Maybe cities could have "promotion trees" like units get. When your cities do certain things, they get points that the player could spend to make the city better at something. For example, a coastal city with a harbor could get a promotion that makes it better at producing naval units or makes it better at seagoing trade units?
But should the "promotions" be based on behavior and be determined by the game or should they be chosen from a list?
I like the idea of cities' development being beyond the player's control...
I think whether to implement the one or the other would take some serious thinking about the pros and cons.
Strategic choices are always good in a strategy game.