IGN first look at E3

[mitsho]

Where have you seen the Inca? I definately think, Rome and Greece are in. But where are the Mesopotamians? They have to be in someway. But they probably wanted even cultural groups (if they still exist).
In my eyes, there are just too prominent civs missing of that list:The Turks and the Mesopotamians, all others are nice-to-have-civs (including the Inca).

Imho, the reason that no city is shown in the picture is that they switched it off for the screenshot to have a nicer screen that shows us that the improvements are on the main screen.
mitsho

 

[sgrig]

Mali is in!
Which means, no more Zulus!

I count 16 civs from the various sources we've seen (names of cities on screen shots, reports of civs from various mags, and now IGN), which would mean the following, if those represented who was in, and they haven't decided to get rid of anybody:

Arabs
America
Aztecs
China
Egypt
England
France
Germany
Inca
India
Japan
Mali
Mongols
Persia
Russia
Spain

Plus Rome & Greece?

Also, I like that rivers act as roads for trade goods.
I like that on the global map it appears that you can see where your units are.
I really want to find out more about the diplomacy. That was something they really needed to steal from CtP.

So no more Zulus or Babylonians? That's the first time since Civ1 !

 

[Colonel]

dont feel like quoteing but he said no Terrorism

but the rest is great

 

[Civrules]

It is indeed awesome info. If you wanna read it up in a hurry check the sticky.

I love the diplomatic changes that are taking place. I've wanted these for a long time!

 

[mudblood]

food trade between cities wasnt specifically specified, but they said food is no longer for a city growing, but the citie's health

from IGN:
"some are food resources (these help with the overall health of your cities)"
"You will have the ability to trade food resources but these affect the overall health of your cities, not the growth potential."

I think they more meant that food resources are for the health of your city. Like the idea that fresh meat is healthier than a diet of just grain. So, does that mean they have two aspects? That they contribute to health and to food? or just one? Because from the screenshots its clear food still is in the game (and must determine your city growth rate).

It sounds like there are still three types of resources, now all tradeable:

1) Food resources. provides health.
2) Strategic resources. provides military/production.
3) Luxury type resources. provides culture? or happiness?

Now, they said that it an answer to a question about whether you can trade between your own cities. So how many resources can you trade between your own cities? and for what purpose?

 

[mudblood]

Where have you seen the Inca?

Barry Caudill: We will definitely have the usual major powers like France, Germany, England, America, China, Japan, etc. We will also be including many Civs that are either new or usually saved for expansions like the Incas or the Aztecs or the totally new Mali. In all there will be 18 Civs in the shipped version of Civilization 4.

 

[Vael]

from IGN:
"some are food resources (these help with the overall health of your cities)"
"You will have the ability to trade food resources but these affect the overall health of your cities, not the growth potential."

I think they more meant that food resources are for the health of your city. Like the idea that fresh meat is healthier than a diet of just grain. So, does that mean they have two aspects? That they contribute to health and to food? or just one? Because from the screenshots its clear food still is in the game (and must determine your city growth rate).

It sounds like there are still three types of resources, now all tradeable:

1) Food resources. provides health.
2) Strategic resources. provides military/production.
3) Luxury type resources. provides culture? or happiness?

Now, they said that it an answer to a question about whether you can trade between your own cities. So how many resources can you trade between your own cities? and for what purpose?

That makes sense to me mudblood. Perhaps every city that is connected to a food resource recieves the health bonus just like in Civ 3 where every city connected to iron would be able to build Swordsmen.

 

[mitsho]

@mudblood thanks, totally overlooked it

 

[mudblood]

That makes sense to me mudblood. Perhaps every city that is connected to a food resource recieves the health bonus just like in Civ 3 where every city connected to iron would be able to build Swordsmen.

Yeah, remember the screenshot with the +2 "+" (= a red cross) for being near fresh water? Maybe what's in the city radius improves health, which would be that cross, and then in addition you can trade that improvement on if it's a food resource? So everyone who has access to steak or wheat or fish has an improved health because of improved diet?

 

[Xen]

very cool, though I'm depressed over the continuing outlook that UU's wont be present in the game, and that civlizations from America, to Mali, to China will get to build Romes mighty legions.

 

[PriestOfDiscord]

No suitcase nukes or tainting the water supply? Ugh, so espionage will be something I don't bother using in this game too.

 

[Xen]

Where have you seen the Inca? I definately think, Rome and Greece are in.

I know I for one wouldnt bother buying the game if they werent in

 

[Gabryel Karolin]

Wont not having UUs limit the moddability somewhat for players wishing to make scenarios and such. I would hate if there is no way to prevent USA from building SS Panzer-divisions in a WWII scenario .

 

[Kudos]

I too hate these huge units. It detracts from the overall game. Civilization is more about the empire then the units in my opinion.

I also think the no terrorism comment is absurdly PC.

 

[mudblood]

I'm sure, the graphic (which is not that bad) will be improved just a lil' bit more and then it will be fine. But, in one pic of the gallery, I see the town indicated, but no town (St. Petersburg or so), in another pic (Novgorod) it's clear that they've taken out the normal graphics so that we can better see the city improvements (wall), nice, but it says nothing about the graphics. I'm concerned about the global view. This could become quite messy with the time (the pic is from the beginning!).

Maybe they're showing us one of the mapviews? Because of course if cities and wonders appear on the maps it will get confusing, so perhaps they have views that strip everything but the military view?

The two global views appear to show different aspects of the game. One showing unit locations, one not. If these maps are zoomable, then there should also be a difference when they're zoomed in.

And yes, no terrorism is uber-PC.

 

[mudblood]

Wont not having UUs limit the moddability somewhat for players wishing to make scenarios and such. I would hate if there is no way to prevent USA from building SS Panzer-divisions in a WWII scenario .

"Still, there are some units that haven't been part of previous versions like Grenadiers and Horse Archers and War Elephants that are not specific to only one Civ."
I think that and the 2k Games site confirms UUs. That there are units that are "not specific to only one Civ", implies that there are units that are.

 

[Franks]

I'm wondering if they will add to diplomacy the possibility to sign Nuclear proliferation treaties

 

[p dandy]

I think that and the 2k Games site confirms UUs. That there are units that are "not specific to only one Civ", implies that there are units that are.

The 2k site does say that there are "culture specific units." Hopefully that implies civ specific units.

 

[Gabryel Karolin]

Ok, thanks, I feel a little bit better now .

 

[Sub]

Its shaping up a bit better than I expected. One thing that bugs me is the scale of the units. If they could change the scale based on how zoomed in / out you are, it'd be great.