Oddities in the CIV4 info

[Naokaukodem]

On Apolyton Soren said:

actually, there is firepower in Civ4 (meaning, the amount of damage a unit does (in hit points) is relative to their strength...) I wouldn't say that combat has been simplified - I wouldn't say it's more complex either. It IS significantly different, though.

They removed the A/D/M system because it was just unecessary.

 

[Chieftess]

So we all saw the front page about CIV4. Several things are odd:

1. It says "You will be able to start in a particular era.", then also "The tech tree will be more flexible, as we know. And it will not be split into eras".

Self-controdictory?

2. It says "Combat will be more simplified. There will not be separate attack and defense strengths. Units will now have one single base strength.", and also "These changes were done to encourage use of combined arms".

Isn't it a bit odd? If there is just single strength, people will just use the one with better strength instead of combining them.

1 - Remember the Civ2 tech tree poster? It was color-coded. The techs of a different color were a different era.

2 - Guess we'll have to wait and see...

 

[Louis XXIV]

Something about combat:

In one of the old screenshots that was removed, there was something about the statistics of the spearman. It looked something like this:

Spearman
4 (weird symbol),  0/1 (symbol of a foot)
Combat 1

 

[Vael]

I've heard somewhere that the first symbol was an arm, probably representing Strength - since we now know that Attack and Defense have been consolidated. The foot is no doubt movement (the 0/1 makes perfect sense here). Combat 1... could that be one of the 'special abilities' mentioned in one of the previews?

 

[Cuivienen]

What I find very odd is Fraxis is removing governments for civics, where by you implement laws and policies that create your government over time instead of just choosing democracy or facism, but then they go and add out-of-the-box religions (chirstianity or buddhism.) Not complaining mind you, I am thrilled with civics, just surprised they are not doing something similar with religion. Letting it evolve as new religious and philosophical ideas emerge through the ages.

I think that this is probably because Firaxis wants to proide the player with some "fixed" choices -- religion, or at least promotion of a religion -- and some not-so-fixed choices in the form of civics. That way, we get BOTH the traditional Civ government system (religion, now) AND the SMAC Social Engineering system (civics).

 

[dh_epic]

That's not to say that maybe your civics choices can complement religion. I'm sure a lot of people would be thrilled with a "religiousity" slider that you can push all the way to fundamentalism -- whether it's fundamentalist hindu or fundamentalist christian.

 

[rhialto]

So we all saw the front page about CIV4. Several things are odd:

1. It says "You will be able to start in a particular era.", then also "The tech tree will be more flexible, as we know. And it will not be split into eras".

Self-controdictory?

This sounds like teh accelerated start option that i think was in some earlier versions of civ.

2. It says "Combat will be more simplified. There will not be separate attack and defense strengths. Units will now have one single base strength.", and also "These changes were done to encourage use of combined arms".

Isn't it a bit odd? If there is just single strength, people will just use the one with better strength instead of combining them.

This is not a rock paper scissors game. the essential feature of rock paper scissors is that you are making a decision, and that decision is blind - you have no information on which choice would be teh best in any given round. This is not teh case in combat where each unit type has a bonus against a specific other unit type.