PC.IGN article quoted and commented.
We went to Firaxis and all we got was this awesome preview.
I wouldn't use the word "awesome", maybe "barely adequate" might be better, mainly because the amount of info is quite little (and mainly concentrated into graphics, music and religion) but the game isn't even in beta yet so every new little bits of info makes us happy
The actual game map now reveals which terrain tiles are being worked and shows off a number of civic improvements.
Each city improvement will list the specific bonus it imparts to a city's coffers, contentment and culture.
That surely sounds like good improvement when it comes to the interface. I like all these improvements. It also means you don't need to use time into activity you don't want to and help is near all the time.
Each ruler has two defining characteristics, each of which grants them a unique bonus and lessens the cost of two city improvements by half.
Very much what I wanted to hear. Each leader will play the game differently and give different experience. Maybe the traits make sense and have actual effect into game of course while maintaining balance.
As I said, some civilizations only have one ruler, so you'll be stuck with their characteristics.
Very bad news which of course we already knew. Every civ should have two choices for leaders. Period.
I have hard time believing people in Firaxis didn't come up with two leaders for many of the civilizations. Back to the books, one might say.
Throughout the game you'll have the opportunity to gain a number of great leaders in a variety of areas -- artistry, commerce, war, etc.
Unlike the previous versions, Civilization IV will allow for multiple Golden Ages in the course of a single game.)
All these ideas about leaders sounded good. So there is also leader of war?
Multiple Golden Age sounds reasonable especially since after the first one there would be otherwise no point of trying to do certain things.
The new version of the game has no set eras and requires only that you reach one of the pre-requisites for a given technology rather than obtaining all of them. Who needs Pottery anyway? This makes it much easier to research along specific lines, focusing exclusively on either military, commercial or cultural technologies.
Even though I think flexible technology tree is very good and removing eras is very much an improvement, I am total disbelieve if there is option just to concentrate example into military aspects of the game. In my opinion even though different playing styles should be emphatized equally the game will take direction where there's no need for historical realism (simple realism). Different "advances" of human kind of different fields of life have always been linked together. Even though prewriting history is nice, in my opinion there should be certain basic follow up because just like in history different events and advances have followed each other from all parts of life and not independently from each other.
If that is taken away it will mean that some people only will concentrate example into military aspects of game. I would rather try to make people play more "balanced game" were you have to sometimes choose that library over temple or over barracks especially since the times of civilization change. It's the matter of degree between in which people can concentrate into certain field of advances and the need for study the other fields of advances in order to actually handle the test of time. IMHO of course.
No civilization has ever been able to stay in the power just making militaric advancement (look Mongols).
Another big change for the game is the introduction of specific religions.
I think many of the innovations about religions sound promising but what is still unclear how big effect these are on game and do you actually benefit having same religion as someone else. We need to know more in order to evaluate opinions about them but they are must have even though they are sure to stir some controversy.
We also found out a bit more about the different promotions you can assign to your units. Since there are different upgrade paths for different types of units, you'll wind up having a pretty specialized fighting force as the game progresses.
This is very much and outstanding idea if the strategy behind combat engine actually works and example AI makes good use of it.
The game's presentation relies very heavily on music,
Sounds and music are very big part of the experience and if I have to choose between average graphics and good score of music against superb graphics and lousy pieces of music, I would pick the one with better music.
Of course this again raises the question have they concentrated too much into audio-visual output and into interface rather than actual depth of strategy. But of course we all have different views what Civ is and what it should be.
The game is still on target to ship this Fall and is already being tested pretty heavily. Since all the big features are in place, the team will be spending the time between now and the release tweaking the math and balancing the game's AI. If all goes according to plan, the developers will have a beta build by August.
"all the big features are in place", hmm...Firaxis doesn't want to show too much now as they are still testing and it could mean the details of the game are still little bit obscure in a way that some things might still change.
the new game seems much more streamlined and full of personality. Combat animations are specific to the units involved in the fighting, the diplomatic screen shows lively and expressive opponents, and short movies once again announce the completion of specific wonders. Gamers who have been turned off by the drier presentation of previous versions are likely to find Civilization IV to be much more engaging this time around.
This is my biggest fear considering Civ IV. There's too little to be know have the changes been good for the "strategic gaming" Since the game is more flexible, streamlined and graphically impressive (compared to earlier versions) there's chance that the whole game is geared towards even wider audience. I wish "drier presentation" doesn't mean that actually strategic parts of game have been changed into simplicty and obscrutiny in order to achieve better status in audience that likes RTS. What I wouldn't really want is to see Civ as a game change into some kind of "Semi-RTS", even though option to play it like that wouldn't of course hurt if you have option to choose play the game the old way and if there are still complexity in the strategic side of game. (Complexity doesn't mean hard to control or hard to understand)Good looks, Easy to use interface and complex strategies hardly ever go hand to hand. Maybe it is different this a way around.
The units seem to do look little (or more) clunky and big when looked from close-up but from farther away they look OK to me. And for me the real deal is to have working graphics that give you insight what unit is where rather than seeing whether they scratch their crotch or not. Even though battle animation might be nice to see eventually you get used and possible dulled to them so the first priority should be somewhere else than in those. Very much same goes to wonder movies and leader animation. They are eye candy but hardly contribute nothing signifant to the game. Of course overall feeling of the game might change towards "greater, more tasteful and fuller experience" but it would need also that there is strategic depth rather than shallow and fleeting experience of movement of different shapes and colors of light in one's eye.
I was sure that Civ IV would take step into 3D enviroment and add more these "multimedia" events including music (which isn't surely bad) but it's the matter of degree were the game turns from dull strategy game into impressive artistic show. Example I did like the first generation of Panzer Generals much more than the follower Panzer General 2.
As said it's not the size of the dog in the fight but the size of the fight in the dog. Maybe Civ IV isn't as shallow as it might look from the surface, it's sure that we need to know more in order to make valid judgements.
What comes to Saladin, he did lead the arabs so I would say he is definately fit to lead the Arabs. And the picture looked very good.
Doesn't make me drool though and neither does Civ IV yet.
Hope they will improve that. That they create a so called world view, to give us a the rectangle map rolled onto a sphere 
Who knows, I may actually buy it now when it comes out. 
