New Information -- Finally! (June 3, 2007)

[GVBN]

I think the split of ALL Core Epic Game stuff from the Scenarios is the only logical splitting point. Firaxis doesn't OWE any of us anything, but I see it more as just a matter of testing and support. To think they'd want to test and then main tain with patches two totally seperate lines (BtS Only and BtS w/ Warlords) seems like a whole lot of extra bother. Although I really doubt we can expect a third expansion, this system of always including all of the core game stuff and leaving out the scenarios will also be much easier to maintain down the line.

This is why Firaxis will include everything except scenarios. Creating two separate versions and maintaining them with separate patches is a waste of time, money and bandwidth. It will also make online gaming more simple

 

[Virulent]

From what I'm hearing it would be technically difficult to have it so that only people with BtS+Warlords installed would be able to use Korea, the Vikings, Carthage, etc. and deny BtS-only people the use of them.

It's seems pretty clear that BtS will have all the Warlords enhancements minus the scenarios.

@Psyringe The Civ 2 expansions only came with scenarios and contained no core game improvements.

 

[Scaramanga]

Also Cristo Redenter sounds interesting, useless if you're a Spiritual leader but pretty cool if you're not.

I think it's a bit counter-intuitive that a religion-based wonder is not useful to a Spiritual civ like the Spiral Minaret and Ankhor Wat are. Oh well, I guess there's always the GP points.

So is it true that there isn't any anarchy in Brazil?

 

[Psyringe]

From what I'm hearing it would be technically difficult to have it so that only people with BtS+Warlords installed would be able to use Korea, the Vikings, Carthage, etc. and deny BtS-only people the use of them.

I agree. I hadn't thought about multiplayer (never been in any MP game). That's certainly raising the probability that the civs and leaders from Warlords will be included in BtS (although I maintain that this hasn't been officially confirmed yet).

@Psyringe The Civ 2 expansions only came with scenarios and contained no core game improvements.

Point taken.

Actually, I thought about how other gaming series handled that issue, but couldn't find one that would work in a comparison. The only other strategy games (that I know of) which had several expansions were HoMM 3 and 4, and AFAIR those added only campains, they didn't add to the core game.

Can it be that PtW -> C3C is really the only precedence (for a strategy game with additions to the core game from several expansions) that we have?

 

[Rusty Edge]

A hovercraft unit would be cool, but how would that even work. Can only move on flatlands, water, but not oceans, hills etc? It would be cool, but does it have a point?

Don't they cross the English Channel? Didn't the USSR use them for marines?
I think the SEALS have them, too.

Kind of like a under the radar helicopter, except if it gets hit and crash-lands it doesn't kill the assault team onboard.

 

[Healz]

Yes, sounds like a cool idea, the hovercraft. I think it will be good to try this. Well yes, Psyringe, there are other examples really considering that Civilization I never had any expansions I was aware of. Civilization II did have a couple but most never went out and bought those. Civilization III was the only Civilization Game really to have mainstream expansions if you like. That is just the way I look at it. Others might view this differently.

 

[MagisterCultuum]

Well, it is true that Brazil gained its independence from Portugal without anarchy; the Portuguese government relocated to there to escape Napoleon. Then, when his cabinet was trying to force the Portuguese king to adopt some policies that were unfavorable, he ordered his son to lead Brazil into rebellion. He then forbade the army from doing anything about it.

 

[Rusty Edge]

Well, it is true that Brazil gained its independence from Portugal without anarchy; the Portuguese government relocated to there to escape Napoleon. Then, when his cabinet was trying to force the Portuguese king to adopt some policies that were unfavorable, he ordered his son to lead Brazil into rebellion. He then forbade the army from doing anything about it.

Very educational.

 

[Mango]

I like that you can choose what religion you get. Here is why:

1. Historical accuracy - Isabella wants Christianity, but in 95% of the games she is in she founds one of the three early religions and keeps it. All leaders should have certain religions they would choose over the other, and since the only difference in religion is the resource required to double the speed of the cathedral then it really isn't a big deal if they can choose.

2. Variety in the religion the human player founds. In most of my games I found Confucianism, and even if I've already founded an earlier religion I tend to convert to Confucianism because of the free missionary. I want variety, but the Oracle-CoL combo is so easy to pull off on Prince that I'm almost always stuck with it. It'd be nice to choose a different religion every now and then.

 

[Mango]

Don't they cross the English Channel? Didn't the USSR use them for marines?
I think the SEALS have them, too.

Kind of like a under the radar helicopter, except if it gets hit and crash-lands it doesn't kill the assault team onboard.

Maybe you could use it for coastal assaults and it would remove the 50% penalty for amphibious landing, or at least reduce it.

 

[Lucky The Fox]

2. Variety in the religion the human player founds. In most of my games I found Confucianism, and even if I've already founded an earlier religion I tend to convert to Confucianism because of the free missionary. I want variety, but the Oracle-CoL combo is so easy to pull off on Prince that I'm almost always stuck with it. It'd be nice to choose a different religion every now and then.

Perhaps you should change your strategy then.

 

[Rusty Edge]

Maybe you could use it for coastal assaults and it would remove the 50% penalty for amphibious landing, or at least reduce it.

I like that.

 

[thadian]

AI Changes: "Plays like an experienced human player", fewer bonuses needed to compete, better at: military operations including naval invasions, managing economy, and is aware of all new features.

IT BETTER!! But it doesnt mention how the AI will fight other AI during wartime - which is the complaint. Unless its shaka or monty killing off ghandi early, there needs to be real ai vs ai confrontation.

Also, on the not including warlords thing, i think it means...

Warlords didnt have much new "Content", just re added some Civ 3 civs and a new unit... Im assuming when you play, it will let you do everything warlords does, and that the comment was just a spoof that the things in warlords should have been in Civ4 itself and didnt justify a new expansion.

I also want a little more religous freedom. I know they didnt set out to offend anybody, so im not taking this as an offense, but i think Paganism, Scientology and Atheism should be religions. Paganism is a religion, and not just "how primates worshiped". Athiesm should even possibly be a civic that removes all religions in your cities and allows no religous spread.

Of course, except ancient celts no nation "abundantly" practices paganism, but its very much still in our world today. The term could also be used to represent roman-greko and egyptian polytheistic religions.