New and not ;-)

[Simsy]

Hi, i am new to this forum - i really hope to get acquainted with you, since i am such a H U G E Civilization buff!!

i played Civilization II and my entire life came to a halt , all that people could hear from me is about my Nation

i beat the easy level in a week , later i tried the hardest, but got beat about 5 times.

than, in the summer of 1997 i have decided i am going to do it - and this time i will do it right - and i did - it took me 2 WHOLE monthes but finally i mastered it in the hardest level.

in the end of 1998 i bought a big pack with alot of Civilization goodies in it
and messed with it for a very long time - it contained alot of addition to the original game.


in the late of 2002 - Civilization III came to Israel (where i live) and i found myself in a huge addication for yet another time, and than also came the conquest pack - which just nourish the addication fire.


now i really hope i will have a good time with you here, and be one of the forum.

 

[joasoze]

welcome - CIV IV the best of the whole series in my opinion

 

[GrandMatt]

Civ 3 was good, but the infamous Stack of Death reigned supreme, luckily civ 4 has fixed that with collateral dammage!

Civ 4 is the best!

Yes, civillisation does kill social lives! haha

 

[Simsy]

well there is alot of stupid rules in CIV IV -

the pyramid for example - why on earth did they cancel the effect of a granary ? this was the most in context effect in the game.

instead they put an effect that doesn't have anything to do with the pyramids (enabling all the govermental rules)


and the fact that you can't trade something which is immdiate with something that is annual (like iron or dyes for example)
why DID they shut it off ? after all it IS a possibility that someone would give immidiate cash money for a yearly supply of dyes !

can someone explain all those out of context rules?

 

[Harald]

well there is alot of stupid rules in CIV IV -

the pyramid for example - why on earth did they cancel the effect of a granary ? this was the most in context effect in the game.

instead they put an effect that doesn't have anything to do with the pyramids (enabling all the govermental rules)


and the fact that you can't trade something which is immdiate with something that is annual (like iron or dyes for example)
why DID they shut it off ? after all it IS a possibility that someone would give immidiate cash money for a yearly supply of dyes !

can someone explain all those out of context rules?

The reason the limited trade that way is because you could exploit it. If you traded a resource or gold/turn for a tech you could the next turn declare war and the trade would be broken but you would still have your tech.

As for the pyramids providing a free granary to all your cities, that made no sense at all.

 

[Simsy]

As for the pyramids providing a free granary to all your cities, that made no sense at all.

well, it does, cause when you have such a huge storage place, you can store food for all the cities like 10's of granaries... that's the explaination for that effect.

and anyway, what it got to do with the current effect??? (having all the govermental rules)

 

[Simsy]

in the new rules 2 units from diffrent civilization can share the same tile
this has never being done before i think it has no reason to.

what the concept behind that?

 

[Superkrest]

i actually like that idea...why not...if your not at war with a nation, why should they rule a certain zone....its great for getting into great positions for attack..even if an ally "owns" the prime tile..you can still move there...i think its one of the few really good ideas they had implemented into the game.

 

[Simsy]

i actually like that idea...why not...if your not at war with a nation, why should they rule a certain zone....its great for getting into great positions for attack..even if an ally "owns" the prime tile..you can still move there...i think its one of the few really good ideas they had implemented into the game.

the question is what is the rationale behind that? how such a thing is possible?

i think it's a rule that will make the game alot easier, but how can they justify it?

 

[jayron32]

the question is what is the rationale behind that? how such a thing is possible?

i think it's a rule that will make the game alot easier, but how can they justify it?

Simple: If I have a pointy stick and you have a pointy stick, we can walk past each other if we are friends (or even if we don't care about each other). We won't fight. If we hate each other, we will stab each other with our pointy sticks until someone dies. It makes more sense that way than before, when even allies couldn't share a square.

From a gameplay perspective, it avoids the exploit of building a "wall of warriors" to protect future expansion. In Civ III, you could "dam off" prospective areas to grow by covering them until you could expand into them, a rediculous exploit since it didn't encourage thoughtful gameplay. Now, if you want a resource first, you have to be a better overall player to GET IT first.

 

[Superkrest]

well put sir.

 

[Simsy]

Simple: If I have a pointy stick and you have a pointy stick, we can walk past each other if we are friends (or even if we don't care about each other). We won't fight. If we hate each other, we will stab each other with our pointy sticks until someone dies. It makes more sense that way than before, when even allies couldn't share a square.

From a gameplay perspective, it avoids the exploit of building a "wall of warriors" to protect future expansion. In Civ III, you could "dam off" prospective areas to grow by covering them until you could expand into them, a rediculous exploit since it didn't encourage thoughtful gameplay. Now, if you want a resource first, you have to be a better overall player to GET IT first.

didn't see it like that before - great point of view

can you explain that thing with the pyramids?

 

[jayron32]

didn't see it like that before - great point of view

can you explain that thing with the pyramids?

Sure. The Pyramids are a great Wonder of the World. It would be silly for a Civ game to NOT have them... But what good are they? They are big giant tombs built as monuments to God-Kings. Many other monuments owe themselves to reasonable benefits (ex: Stonehenge was a giant calaneder. It alignes with heavenly bodies on certain days. So it makes sense that it gives you Calander's benefits early. The Oracle at Delphi gave knowledge. SO the Oracle wonder gives you a free tech). The thing about the Pyramids is, from a gameplay persepective, they don't fit. There is nothing in the game that matches what the Pyramids are. So the Civ franchise has always given some random really cool benefit from Pyramids. It never makes "sense" with what the Pyramids were, but since nothing in the game would work better, and they have to give you something for building it, they pick some random benefit and assign it to pyramids.

 

[Meffy]

well, it does, cause when you have such a huge storage place, you can store food for all the cities like 10's of granaries...

That might apply if pyramids were hollow storage vessels, but they're nothing like that. They seem to be almost solid stone, with verrrry narrow passages leading to comparatively tiny burial chambers. :-}

Why do the pyramids have a given effect in this game? For the same reason passing "GO" gets every player $200 in Monopoly. Because that's how the game is set up. I doubt anyone could distill the real pyramids' effects down into Civ IV terms sensibly.

 

[Simsy]

That might apply if pyramids were hollow storage vessels, but they're nothing like that. They seem to be almost solid stone, with verrrry narrow passages leading to comparatively tiny burial chambers. :-}

Why do the pyramids have a given effect in this game? For the same reason passing "GO" gets every player $200 in Monopoly. Because that's how the game is set up. I doubt anyone could distill the real pyramids' effects down into Civ IV terms sensibly.

So basicly there isn't a reason for them giving all govermental rules...

i am sure there could have being something that make more sense, like raising trade, or the leaders altitude are growing in your favor since they are so impressed by those huge cones

 

[Meffy]

Far as I'm able to tell there's no rationale for this one, it's arbitrary. Some of the other wonders' effects make perfectly good sense but the pyramids just get a bonus "'cos they deserve one."

 

[Superkrest]

correct me if im wrong..but alot of wonders have kinda overly elaborate results...and in the pyramids case..they are probably the most impressive wonder of the ancient world...so why not just make something up and role with it...after all...it is still just a game

 

[Simsy]

well i thought it tries to make a copy of history.

i dont think that throw out history, god said "oh, you built that and didn't get something good to happen to you?, here is a something to keep you happy"

 

[Meffy]

Civ IV uses history as a rough outline, but it DOES NOT "make a copy of history." If it did, every game would be exactly the same.

But as a thought experiment, to be authentic, what would you suggest should be the effect of the pyramids, in Civ IV terms?

 

[Simsy]

Civ IV uses history as a rough outline, but it DOES NOT "make a copy of history." If it did, every game would be exactly the same.

But as a thought experiment, to be authentic, what would you suggest should be the effect of the pyramids, in Civ IV terms?

the other civilization could treat you more with respect and be willing to agree to deals more easily, cause they will be so impressed with your pyramids