Xanikk999
History junkie
I dont know whats scarier, the guy has time to write 50 rants, or the loyal civ4 fans disagree with everything he says, even though some of it are very good points.
The Rant of 50
- Thread starter DNK
- Start date
I dont know whats scarier, the guy has time to write 50 rants, or the loyal civ4 fans disagree with everything he says, even though some of it are very good points.
flyingchicken
Deity
- Joined
- Feb 3, 2007
- Messages
- 3,783
I dont know whats scarier, the guy has time to write 50 rants, or the loyal civ4 fans disagree with everything he says, even though some of it are very good points.
Personally, I find
scarier, but my parents used to tell me video-game fanatics would grab me in the middle of the night if I kept on being a naughty kid.potatokiosk
Deity
- Joined
- Dec 22, 2005
- Messages
- 2,292
I myself am annoyed by the demographics calculations. Adding up the sum of one's cities for population is obviously flawed because it doesn't count people in towns or rural areas. Amount of soldiers is flawed too because it's possible to have more soldiers than population.
King Flevance
Deity
Don't forget Elvis!
That response is crap, IMO. Civ 4 has destroyed nukes. And we are not even talking A-bombs. There is no equivelent to them in Civ 4. We are talking end of the world ICBMs. No other form of nukes exists in Civ.
And considering that it takes so long to build an ICBM in the game, this "not destroying the city" is not a reflection of "rebuilding". As it took them alot longer for Japan to rebuild those two cities than it took the US to build the two bombs. Yet, in the game it takes you 15-30 turns to build an ICBM, It only takes them 1/2 a turn to rebuild that same city back up to almost everything it was before the bomb hit. The truth is Nukes totally suck and arent worth it in Civ 4. Use those turns to build an army.
By this logic (that the city was "rebuilt" in 1 turn) any city you capture and raze should automatically reappear and with all of its units in it and only be hurt.
All you would have to do is put a road and caravans could deliver the goods. And since there is no such thing as crime rate in civ, you don't have to worry about robbers. So a road or rail should allow building access to deserts and ice. I don't see anything good about terrain that adds no bonuses. To me, that is an "unfun factor". Considering that the only viable terrain is plains or grasslands now. Everything else sucks. Tundra is only usable if it has a hill or forest on it - and even then it sucks really. I hate having most of the terrain types be unuseable whatsoever. You can't even use terra-forming to make them useful.
its not a linear scale of measure.
thenooblet22
King
Sorry if I was too vague in my previous comments, but I was trying to save time answering to all 50.Don't forget Elvis!
That response is crap, IMO. Civ 4 has destroyed nukes. And we are not even talking A-bombs. There is no equivelent to them in Civ 4. We are talking end of the world ICBMs. No other form of nukes exists in Civ.
And considering that it takes so long to build an ICBM in the game, this "not destroying the city" is not a reflection of "rebuilding". As it took them alot longer for Japan to rebuild those two cities than it took the US to build the two bombs. Yet, in the game it takes you 15-30 turns to build an ICBM, It only takes them 1/2 a turn to rebuild that same city back up to almost everything it was before the bomb hit. The truth is Nukes totally suck and arent worth it in Civ 4. Use those turns to build an army.
By this logic (that the city was "rebuilt" in 1 turn) any city you capture and raze should automatically reappear and with all of its units in it and only be hurt.
-you don't consider the following effects as the destruction of a city?: a metropolis is reduced to a population size 1; many of the city improvements are destroyed; the surrounding tile improvements are replaced with nuclear fallout; this does accurately describes the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki; anything stronger would be an unbalanced doomsday device; it wouldn't be fun with the AI ending the game with global annihilate, nor would it be fair if only the human player was able to launch them.
All you would have to do is put a road and caravans could deliver the goods. And since there is no such thing as crime rate in civ, you don't have to worry about robbers. So a road or rail should allow building access to deserts and ice. I don't see anything good about terrain that adds no bonuses. To me, that is an "unfun factor". Considering that the only viable terrain is plains or grasslands now. Everything else sucks. Tundra is only usable if it has a hill or forest on it - and even then it sucks really. I hate having most of the terrain types be unuseable whatsoever. You can't even use terra-forming to make them useful.
-you don't see factories in Siberia, nor do you see workshops in the Sahara that do not have access to nearby water supply (do not confuse deserts with floodplains); how does this not reflect reality?; just because you think it "sucks" doesn't make it a valid arguement..
King Flevance
Deity
The point of nuking a city though is to take it off the map in the game but it still remains a military stronghold for the AI. The units inside are not hurt very badly at all. So after a city is nuked, it doesn't change it's military fortifications by much even though those same fortifications were there when the bomb went off.nooblet said:
I hardly would say that the destruction of such units would be make ICBMs a doomsday device. Especially with the rediculous implentation of the SDI. You're lucky if you get 1 out of 3 to actually impact. Back when I actually tried using them so long ago, I used to build 5 for every 1 impact I wanted to land. And sometimes I didn't even get that off.
I see farms in the sahara.
Desert Farms in real life.
But what mostly sucks about it is, that a single desert tile next to my city is unimproveable. Yet my people walk by it every day to farm the tile on the other side of it. How can they not supply water to this one tile if I built a cottage or worksop on it? They obviously supply it to the farmers 2 tiles away compared to 1. And if it is not possible to found a cottage on a desert why a city of at least 10,000 people? Where does their water come from then? How is this modeled after realism?
In the game it is entirely possible (although not wise) to found a city in the middle of the sahara and it will never die. It won't ever grow, but it won't ever die. Yet a cottage or worksop that needs to supply water to far less people is ludicrous to you.
Xanikk999
History junkie
Not to mention las vegas and arizona are deserts and there is farming/irrigation in both states ON desert!
unless it is a linear scale of measure. y = population, x = city size number representation.
find the slope
y2-y1/x2-x1
1000000-10000/20-1=990000/19
y=990000/19x-42105.283
lets find another point on the line to test.
Xanikk999
History junkie
Doesnt mean its necessary though. We already have plenty of strategy making in this game.
It baffles me that none of the civ4 fans can agree that anything in this game could be improved.
potatokiosk
Deity
- Joined
- Dec 22, 2005
- Messages
- 2,292
Even if deserts aren't dead, it still requires decision making because a desert will inevitably be weaker than a plains or grassland tile.
I think a good way to improve worthless tiles would be to make enemy stacks suffer attrition when they occupy those tiles. This could also increase variation in units, ex: Camel Archers wouldn't suffer attrition in the desert. It's strategic, and presents a use for those deserts.
Thanks for the replies. I didn't expect to say all that and not get a lot of 
It was mostly for kicks, but I still feel a bit about a lot of this. I'll get to suggestions later. First for replies to replies (thanks especially for the lengthy ones):
4. -since each "turn" in a game is equal or over a year each, unit movements before industrialization were actually slower in realistic terms.
Thanks. I just remembered that I had already thought this out, but forgot it again.
6. -adding additional unit variants is not a realism problem, it's a balancing problem; more technologies would add more complexity and would cost more hours to balance; besides, promotions already fill msot of this void.
Would be more fun, though. The game gets dull quickly when at every relative point there's always musketeers and riflement, archers and axemen, infantry and machine-gunners, etc, etc, yawn
7b. -"Hunting" does not represent the way of food consumption, as you do not gain any food surplus bonuses; it mainly represents is the sharpening and utilizing wooden/stone tools, thus is required for scouts, and later spearmen.
Alright, this I can understand. I've starting thinking more along the lines of what was meant by each technology, and agree that 7b isn't worth mentioning.
9. -even though technologies are so conveniently labeled for you, the unknown field is a process of tests and experiments; that is why it takes a series of "turns" until you finally master it.
Yeah, I know, I was more or less joking with this one
Still, I'm not sure how much control any given ruler has had over technological process, directly at least. Maybe some, maybe not... I'd prefer more of a dynamic approach, where location, actions, civics, etc, and a general direction (cultural, scientific, theoretical, military, etc) provided progress, rather than the current system.
I know, I know, a lot more balancing and programming, but more realistic and fun, imo, because you never know what you're going to get, and every game is different.
12. -if a unit, representing a regiment or army, has enough combative experience, it is not that unrealistic for it to become specialized in a field of fighting.
Yes, but when does a unit that's gained experience defending a city NOT learn how to defend better, and instead learns how to cross rivers without taking extra casualties? Type of experience (hill defense, city assault, etc) should determine promotion (save barracks, etc, promotions)
13. -the city represents the total populous from within and its surroundings; this includes the food storage and usage.
I'll give you this one. I also thought about it a bit yesterday and figured it wasn't that big of a deal. A bit nitpicky on my part...
15. -oasis is a very fertile piece of land where natural riches can be accumulated, thus its tile bonus; silk is valuable locally as a luxery wearing material, thus its tile bonus and "happiness"; oil is a polutant that has a limited use for a local area, thus its tile bonus; the oil resource should gather much of its commerce from trading to needy civilizations, as it is a necessity for various modern crafts; the tile geogrphic bonuses and trade bonuses are two different things and should not be confused.
I see. Wouldn't oil production increase the economic conditions, though. It might degrade food output, but overall it should infuse the area with more business opportunities and tax income from said businesses?
16. -the game does include ethnicity, nationalism or rebellions, so conquering the known world is quite possible; a little known fact, slavery was still enforced in some countries into the 20th century until ended by international intervention; "spreading institutions of learning?"; scientists and research is represented by your scientific output (people are for production and arms, scientists are for research).
I think my problem with this, and where you and I differ, is that I see the game as empires/nations/etc struggling, and you're looking at it more as generic cultures/societies/etc.
17. -the game officially ended at 2050 B.C.E., so the addition of other technologies would be pointless unless needed for another feature in future addons.
True, my bad. Still, if you look at some of the technologies currently under development, the next 40-50 years isn't going to be stalled technologically.
19. -again, sarcasm makes your point difficult to read; some people argue for a tile bombardment feature, which some mods implement; the artillery in Civilization IV was programmed to counter the SoD (stack of dooms) that were common in Civilization III, without making it overpowered like in Civilization II.
Yeah, I just got sarcastic after a while. This was a rant after all... I'm asking for tile bombardment.
21. -you can build any city that has a water source, whether it will grow or not; the sarcasm, again, is confusing; you cannot industrialize desert tiles with workshops because it would be uninhabitable for the working community (no accessable food or water).
Looking at it as a large area of land with just a small area designated for the given function (production/commerce), I can understand this rationalization. Given roads, though, I don't see why barren stretches of land are not prime locations for large factories. If there were not enough people in the central city, then the land would not be habitated anyway, but the empty workshop would still remain. The extra food from the surrounding area, however, could supply the workforce, as per the current game system.
Furthermore, the fact remains that a city can be started on such terrain, but small version working within that unit of governance that would have all the aid of the surrounding terrain can't exist on the exact same space? I'm still not understanding.
24. -pastures represent the dairy and meat products that are essential for the protein of a healthy diet, of course its going to have great growth impact.
My sarcasm overcame my desire to make a point. The fact is that farmland, acre for acre, produces more energy than animal production. This is why meat is expensive, because the amount of food necessary to sustain a pig up to the point of consumption is more than the pig itself is worth. More production should be able to be found with this (more hammers), since it would probably be a better protein source (save if you planted beans or certain other plants), but it probably wouldn't sustain the same number of people.
26. -the French Revolution brought a wave of social reforms that were spread with the conquests of Napoleon; President Bush had majority of the House and public appeal when the United States declared war; there has never been a true democracy since Athens of classical Greece, instead there are systems of representatives and constitutions.
If president Bush wanted to invade England tomorrow because he felt like it, it would be a quick war, lets just say that.
28. -after the atomic bombs, Hiroshima and Nagasaki were pulverized to rubble, but were rebuilt, something that Civilization IV accurately represent.
These two instances do not properly portray the effects of "ICBM"s, weapons with something like 1,000 times more power. iirc, by the time we had trustable ICBMs, the H-bomb had already been built (it only took ~4-5 years to develop after the A-bomb anyway, right? Why bother even including regular A-bombs then?)
29. -individual units are symbolic for actual regiments and armies; it is impossible for an entire army to clash at the same time, it is composed of the individual battles of the regiments, which is why the Battle of Thermopylae was so successful.
If they are, then they should consume as much food, and in no way should a regiment of warriors be killed by a small pack of bears, and I doubt the ability of this large of a force to be held ten times over inside of a city. Thermopylae is an example of when a large force CAN be held off by a smaller one, but in open terrain this is not generally the case. An army outnumbered 10:1 should have significantly fewer chances than if it fights one-on-one with equally-sized portions of the larger army consecutively.
31. -the heavy precipitation of rainforests is the result of the increased evaporization of water caused by the higher temperatures; however, magnify these temperatures any higher and you get desertification.
How much higher? I was under the impression that atmospheric conditions created deserts, rather than temperature (to a DEGREE that is... tee hee). And this wouldn't be the case everywhere. Higher temperatures = more evaporation = more rainfall. All that water just can't sit in the tropical air forever, and there would be an equilibrium reached when cloud cover decreased surface temperatures enough to allow for a proper rainfall.
33. -"Biology" allows to construction of farms without irrigation and increases its food yield by one; much of the world today is agrarian economically.
Agrarian because it has not fully "modernized" (think of that as you like). Modern equipment, organization, and economics have allowed for vastly more efficient forms of agriculture, which have in turn fueled vast upsurges in human population. One single unit of food (1/4 increase on some tiles, 1/3 on others) is hardly an appropriate comparison.
36. -the sarcasm is confusing; refugees would require complicated coding and add no important gameplay element.
The coding could simply be that any country with a "close border" would become anxious over a war in which damage was done to the border nation being invaded, and would press for peace with the aggressor. If the non-combatant country were on good terms with the invading country, then it would have more sway. If it were more powerful, it could probably end the war. This would give smaller nations more protection against aggressive ones if they were in the shadow of a great power. I'm not sure the coding would be too difficult.
One of my biggest gripes with the game is the relative inability to thrive as a smaller nation. Defense, technological progress, etc, all put one at a disadvantage. it goes along with the idea that conquest is the necessary goal, and survival and development are only subsidiary to that.
37. -the mod Rhye's and Fall of Civilization has plagues using the religion coding; this is a feature that has been anticipated for future Civilization releases.
Sweet. Does it have any diplomatic impact on countries with poor sanitation (lots of cities)?
39. -"Culture" is symbolic for a civilization's influence; the entertainment resources in Civilization IV is perhaps skewed, and mods like Rhye's and Fall of Civilization have replaced them with something else (like Football, etc.).
I feel it should be more on the level of religions. Why is there no "secular" religion?
40. -terrorism, such as insurgent parties and bombings, is not included in Civilization series, so that is an unfair comparison.
Why not? Why can't I train cheap troops with a large bonus against armor? Or "spies" that can "sabotage" enemy units? The point was that you don't need a large production base or technological advantage to go toe to toe with modern weaponry, especially if it is invading your country. Late game warfare is effectively "build, build, build armor" and if you're small then "get run over because you can't compete". Time and again in recent history this has been proven wrong.
43. -corporations is a feature that will be introduced in the upcoming expansion pack.
Sweet.
45. -actually, until secularism, the religions and traditions of the early civilizations limited the research in anatomy as the dissecting of human corpses was frowned apon; the "hospital" represents the improved medical practices of the city.
I've seen shows on Roman hospitals. They may not have been wide-spread, but they existed. And, especially in the case of dualism, I'm not sure if it is necessary for religions to respect the body in this manner (likely, yes).
46. -the natural barriers of the forest force armies to fight in skirmishes, disorientating the troops and possibly demmoralizing them into retreat.
This is true. My bad.
47. -bears don't attack if provoked and if a band of warriors enters their territory, a family of bears might feel threatened enough to attack.
See previous comments. One of the two doesn't line up. Either bears can attack or armies are huge and wouldn't be destroyed by them.
48. -however, the use of gunpowder was only used for entertainment; the Mongols are the first known to fully utilize this technology for weaponry, reigning from 1200-1400 B.C.E.; it's not exactly Middle ages or the Renaissance era, so does it matter what it is labeled?
Was that just the way history turned out, though, or could it have been different?
49. -you can't learn how to hold a gun until you can swing a sword; Civilization IV does an excellent job of allowing you to choose your own path of technologies, contrary to the previous Civilization games.
I'll agree it's better.
Too much time on your hands. That's all I can say.
Too true...
My friend said those were large, um, fecal fields in Saudi Arabia. Not sure if he was right...
It was mostly for kicks, but I still feel a bit about a lot of this. I'll get to suggestions later. First for replies to replies (thanks especially for the lengthy ones):
4. -since each "turn" in a game is equal or over a year each, unit movements before industrialization were actually slower in realistic terms.
Thanks. I just remembered that I had already thought this out, but forgot it again.
6. -adding additional unit variants is not a realism problem, it's a balancing problem; more technologies would add more complexity and would cost more hours to balance; besides, promotions already fill msot of this void.
Would be more fun, though. The game gets dull quickly when at every relative point there's always musketeers and riflement, archers and axemen, infantry and machine-gunners, etc, etc, yawn
7b. -"Hunting" does not represent the way of food consumption, as you do not gain any food surplus bonuses; it mainly represents is the sharpening and utilizing wooden/stone tools, thus is required for scouts, and later spearmen.
Alright, this I can understand. I've starting thinking more along the lines of what was meant by each technology, and agree that 7b isn't worth mentioning.
9. -even though technologies are so conveniently labeled for you, the unknown field is a process of tests and experiments; that is why it takes a series of "turns" until you finally master it.
Yeah, I know, I was more or less joking with this one
Still, I'm not sure how much control any given ruler has had over technological process, directly at least. Maybe some, maybe not... I'd prefer more of a dynamic approach, where location, actions, civics, etc, and a general direction (cultural, scientific, theoretical, military, etc) provided progress, rather than the current system.I know, I know, a lot more balancing and programming, but more realistic and fun, imo, because you never know what you're going to get, and every game is different.
12. -if a unit, representing a regiment or army, has enough combative experience, it is not that unrealistic for it to become specialized in a field of fighting.
Yes, but when does a unit that's gained experience defending a city NOT learn how to defend better, and instead learns how to cross rivers without taking extra casualties? Type of experience (hill defense, city assault, etc) should determine promotion (save barracks, etc, promotions)
13. -the city represents the total populous from within and its surroundings; this includes the food storage and usage.
I'll give you this one. I also thought about it a bit yesterday and figured it wasn't that big of a deal. A bit nitpicky on my part...
15. -oasis is a very fertile piece of land where natural riches can be accumulated, thus its tile bonus; silk is valuable locally as a luxery wearing material, thus its tile bonus and "happiness"; oil is a polutant that has a limited use for a local area, thus its tile bonus; the oil resource should gather much of its commerce from trading to needy civilizations, as it is a necessity for various modern crafts; the tile geogrphic bonuses and trade bonuses are two different things and should not be confused.
I see. Wouldn't oil production increase the economic conditions, though. It might degrade food output, but overall it should infuse the area with more business opportunities and tax income from said businesses?
16. -the game does include ethnicity, nationalism or rebellions, so conquering the known world is quite possible; a little known fact, slavery was still enforced in some countries into the 20th century until ended by international intervention; "spreading institutions of learning?"; scientists and research is represented by your scientific output (people are for production and arms, scientists are for research).
I think my problem with this, and where you and I differ, is that I see the game as empires/nations/etc struggling, and you're looking at it more as generic cultures/societies/etc.
17. -the game officially ended at 2050 B.C.E., so the addition of other technologies would be pointless unless needed for another feature in future addons.
True, my bad. Still, if you look at some of the technologies currently under development, the next 40-50 years isn't going to be stalled technologically.
19. -again, sarcasm makes your point difficult to read; some people argue for a tile bombardment feature, which some mods implement; the artillery in Civilization IV was programmed to counter the SoD (stack of dooms) that were common in Civilization III, without making it overpowered like in Civilization II.
Yeah, I just got sarcastic after a while. This was a rant after all... I'm asking for tile bombardment.
21. -you can build any city that has a water source, whether it will grow or not; the sarcasm, again, is confusing; you cannot industrialize desert tiles with workshops because it would be uninhabitable for the working community (no accessable food or water).
Looking at it as a large area of land with just a small area designated for the given function (production/commerce), I can understand this rationalization. Given roads, though, I don't see why barren stretches of land are not prime locations for large factories. If there were not enough people in the central city, then the land would not be habitated anyway, but the empty workshop would still remain. The extra food from the surrounding area, however, could supply the workforce, as per the current game system.
Furthermore, the fact remains that a city can be started on such terrain, but small version working within that unit of governance that would have all the aid of the surrounding terrain can't exist on the exact same space? I'm still not understanding.
24. -pastures represent the dairy and meat products that are essential for the protein of a healthy diet, of course its going to have great growth impact.
My sarcasm overcame my desire to make a point. The fact is that farmland, acre for acre, produces more energy than animal production. This is why meat is expensive, because the amount of food necessary to sustain a pig up to the point of consumption is more than the pig itself is worth. More production should be able to be found with this (more hammers), since it would probably be a better protein source (save if you planted beans or certain other plants), but it probably wouldn't sustain the same number of people.
26. -the French Revolution brought a wave of social reforms that were spread with the conquests of Napoleon; President Bush had majority of the House and public appeal when the United States declared war; there has never been a true democracy since Athens of classical Greece, instead there are systems of representatives and constitutions.
If president Bush wanted to invade England tomorrow because he felt like it, it would be a quick war, lets just say that.
28. -after the atomic bombs, Hiroshima and Nagasaki were pulverized to rubble, but were rebuilt, something that Civilization IV accurately represent.
These two instances do not properly portray the effects of "ICBM"s, weapons with something like 1,000 times more power. iirc, by the time we had trustable ICBMs, the H-bomb had already been built (it only took ~4-5 years to develop after the A-bomb anyway, right? Why bother even including regular A-bombs then?)
29. -individual units are symbolic for actual regiments and armies; it is impossible for an entire army to clash at the same time, it is composed of the individual battles of the regiments, which is why the Battle of Thermopylae was so successful.
If they are, then they should consume as much food, and in no way should a regiment of warriors be killed by a small pack of bears, and I doubt the ability of this large of a force to be held ten times over inside of a city. Thermopylae is an example of when a large force CAN be held off by a smaller one, but in open terrain this is not generally the case. An army outnumbered 10:1 should have significantly fewer chances than if it fights one-on-one with equally-sized portions of the larger army consecutively.
31. -the heavy precipitation of rainforests is the result of the increased evaporization of water caused by the higher temperatures; however, magnify these temperatures any higher and you get desertification.
How much higher? I was under the impression that atmospheric conditions created deserts, rather than temperature (to a DEGREE that is... tee hee). And this wouldn't be the case everywhere. Higher temperatures = more evaporation = more rainfall. All that water just can't sit in the tropical air forever, and there would be an equilibrium reached when cloud cover decreased surface temperatures enough to allow for a proper rainfall.
33. -"Biology" allows to construction of farms without irrigation and increases its food yield by one; much of the world today is agrarian economically.
Agrarian because it has not fully "modernized" (think of that as you like). Modern equipment, organization, and economics have allowed for vastly more efficient forms of agriculture, which have in turn fueled vast upsurges in human population. One single unit of food (1/4 increase on some tiles, 1/3 on others) is hardly an appropriate comparison.
36. -the sarcasm is confusing; refugees would require complicated coding and add no important gameplay element.
The coding could simply be that any country with a "close border" would become anxious over a war in which damage was done to the border nation being invaded, and would press for peace with the aggressor. If the non-combatant country were on good terms with the invading country, then it would have more sway. If it were more powerful, it could probably end the war. This would give smaller nations more protection against aggressive ones if they were in the shadow of a great power. I'm not sure the coding would be too difficult.
One of my biggest gripes with the game is the relative inability to thrive as a smaller nation. Defense, technological progress, etc, all put one at a disadvantage. it goes along with the idea that conquest is the necessary goal, and survival and development are only subsidiary to that.
37. -the mod Rhye's and Fall of Civilization has plagues using the religion coding; this is a feature that has been anticipated for future Civilization releases.
Sweet. Does it have any diplomatic impact on countries with poor sanitation (lots of
cities)?39. -"Culture" is symbolic for a civilization's influence; the entertainment resources in Civilization IV is perhaps skewed, and mods like Rhye's and Fall of Civilization have replaced them with something else (like Football, etc.).
I feel it should be more on the level of religions. Why is there no "secular" religion?
40. -terrorism, such as insurgent parties and bombings, is not included in Civilization series, so that is an unfair comparison.
Why not? Why can't I train cheap troops with a large bonus against armor? Or "spies" that can "sabotage" enemy units? The point was that you don't need a large production base or technological advantage to go toe to toe with modern weaponry, especially if it is invading your country. Late game warfare is effectively "build, build, build armor" and if you're small then "get run over because you can't compete". Time and again in recent history this has been proven wrong.
43. -corporations is a feature that will be introduced in the upcoming expansion pack.
Sweet.
45. -actually, until secularism, the religions and traditions of the early civilizations limited the research in anatomy as the dissecting of human corpses was frowned apon; the "hospital" represents the improved medical practices of the city.
I've seen shows on Roman hospitals. They may not have been wide-spread, but they existed. And, especially in the case of dualism, I'm not sure if it is necessary for religions to respect the body in this manner (likely, yes).
46. -the natural barriers of the forest force armies to fight in skirmishes, disorientating the troops and possibly demmoralizing them into retreat.
This is true. My bad.
47. -bears don't attack if provoked and if a band of warriors enters their territory, a family of bears might feel threatened enough to attack.
See previous comments. One of the two doesn't line up. Either bears can attack or armies are huge and wouldn't be destroyed by them.
48. -however, the use of gunpowder was only used for entertainment; the Mongols are the first known to fully utilize this technology for weaponry, reigning from 1200-1400 B.C.E.; it's not exactly Middle ages or the Renaissance era, so does it matter what it is labeled?
Was that just the way history turned out, though, or could it have been different?
49. -you can't learn how to hold a gun until you can swing a sword; Civilization IV does an excellent job of allowing you to choose your own path of technologies, contrary to the previous Civilization games.
I'll agree it's better.
Too much time on your hands. That's all I can say.
Too true...
My friend said those were large, um, fecal fields in Saudi Arabia. Not sure if he was right...
If you read my replies, you might get the following impressions. If you don't, well, here they are:
The game needs to be more dynamic. It's better, but nowhere near good enough. A number of "modern" technologies have ancient roots, although they obviously were never as common as they are today, neither were they as advanced. The question is, though, why not and could they have developed more fully. My view is that progress is the end result of a number of variables being just right, like a proper brew. Maybe it's a very rare mixture that produces modern civilization, but some aspects could have come earlier, I'm sure.
Gunpowder is a good example: Even though it wasn't applied to combat until relatively recently, it had been around for a while. Wikipedia (bastion of semi-correct history) states that 904AD was the first use known, which is fairly early. But if someone had stumbled upon it earlier, would there have been cannons in Rome? It's quite believable that the Romans could have discovered gunpowder, given saltpepper resources, and then used it effectively in warfare. I'd be willing to be the Greeks, too, for that matter. This COULD have placed gunpowder well inside the "classical" period in the game.
Did the Romans and Greeks not have banking practices? Did philosophy not come about until the Middle Ages? Could economics not have been perfected earlier? Weren't there calendars in ancient civilizations? Education started in the Renaissance? What if secularism had taken hold earlier? Could it have? Why did it come when it did? Didn't it have earlier manifestations?
Many technologies appear to be a result of a complex mix of variables, yet some advances in thought seem to just be a new perspective, who knows how it came about (great people?).
What I'm looking for is a more dynamic game, where variables inside the game control progress and discovery more than player choice. Would it be harder to code? Yes. Would it be less enjoyable to many people? Yes. Should it be a mod then for the realism-inclined? Yes, of course Firaxis isn't going to give up its money for my sake. BUT it would be far more replayable, in my opinion. No two games would progress the same.
This, and a better spread of technologies (maybe they wouldn't "spread", but there would be a % decrease in research cost based on variables of distance to, open borders with, trade with, and numbers of countries with said technology). I thought this was already in place, but if so it needs serious beefing up.
Culture should have more influence than border-setting (which is slow and can take thousands of years just to take control of one city), and should have more monetary benefits if it spreads to other civs, especially in the modern era. A culture that becomes established in another society (could act like the religion system) would then allow for the trading of cultural good from the society it emanated from for resources or gold. Top 5 cities could also have special benefits (if they don't already). Tourism at the very least...
Some new coding, but it would be a near clone of the religion system. There could actually be two or three such systems for any given civilization, so that multiple cultures could coexist (instead of: you are French culture or you are British culture, you can be French, British, Chinese loving folks). The [additional coding] would be this and the [appreciation] of [cultural goods] as a simple equation of how much influence the culture has. A culture with a 40% total influence in another civ would appreciate its [cultural exports] by [.4 times whatever value balances this best], [generally to be paid in gold].
Also, the economics and production in the game are excessively simplified. There needs to be a finances investment option at the very least, which leads to larger returns. It would be like the research and culture "sliders" (old school). Yes, I realize if you don't invest in either you get "gold", but pocket money isn't the same as a stronger commercial base. There should be more options for economic management, and proper pros/cons to each. Deregulation could greatly increase your economic base and decrease upkeep, but would also make for less happy citizens due to less equitable division of riches. This could be countered with investment in culture. Communism could be an opposite, with high happiness but high costs and poor development. Middle 3 options could be intermediate forms, socialism (higher health and happiness, mid-high cost, less economic base), etc.
This would require more coding, but most could be done via the civics option and as a third part of the research/culture option. The "economic base" idea, however, might be tricky. I'm sure it would require actual new coding, but the concept is simple enough: each gold spent is an increase in the % added to overall "gold" production per turn ("gold" being the amount that can be applied to culture, science, pocket money, or gold production).
The game needs to be more dynamic. It's better, but nowhere near good enough. A number of "modern" technologies have ancient roots, although they obviously were never as common as they are today, neither were they as advanced. The question is, though, why not and could they have developed more fully. My view is that progress is the end result of a number of variables being just right, like a proper brew. Maybe it's a very rare mixture that produces modern civilization, but some aspects could have come earlier, I'm sure.
Gunpowder is a good example: Even though it wasn't applied to combat until relatively recently, it had been around for a while. Wikipedia (bastion of semi-correct history) states that 904AD was the first use known, which is fairly early. But if someone had stumbled upon it earlier, would there have been cannons in Rome? It's quite believable that the Romans could have discovered gunpowder, given saltpepper resources, and then used it effectively in warfare. I'd be willing to be the Greeks, too, for that matter. This COULD have placed gunpowder well inside the "classical" period in the game.
Did the Romans and Greeks not have banking practices? Did philosophy not come about until the Middle Ages? Could economics not have been perfected earlier? Weren't there calendars in ancient civilizations? Education started in the Renaissance? What if secularism had taken hold earlier? Could it have? Why did it come when it did? Didn't it have earlier manifestations?
Many technologies appear to be a result of a complex mix of variables, yet some advances in thought seem to just be a new perspective, who knows how it came about (great people?).
What I'm looking for is a more dynamic game, where variables inside the game control progress and discovery more than player choice. Would it be harder to code? Yes. Would it be less enjoyable to many people? Yes. Should it be a mod then for the realism-inclined? Yes, of course Firaxis isn't going to give up its money for my sake. BUT it would be far more replayable, in my opinion. No two games would progress the same.
This, and a better spread of technologies (maybe they wouldn't "spread", but there would be a % decrease in research cost based on variables of distance to, open borders with, trade with, and numbers of countries with said technology). I thought this was already in place, but if so it needs serious beefing up.
Culture should have more influence than border-setting (which is slow and can take thousands of years just to take control of one city), and should have more monetary benefits if it spreads to other civs, especially in the modern era. A culture that becomes established in another society (could act like the religion system) would then allow for the trading of cultural good from the society it emanated from for resources or gold. Top 5 cities could also have special benefits (if they don't already). Tourism at the very least...
Some new coding, but it would be a near clone of the religion system. There could actually be two or three such systems for any given civilization, so that multiple cultures could coexist (instead of: you are French culture or you are British culture, you can be French, British, Chinese loving folks). The [additional coding] would be this and the [appreciation] of [cultural goods] as a simple equation of how much influence the culture has. A culture with a 40% total influence in another civ would appreciate its [cultural exports] by [.4 times whatever value balances this best], [generally to be paid in gold].
Also, the economics and production in the game are excessively simplified. There needs to be a finances investment option at the very least, which leads to larger returns. It would be like the research and culture "sliders" (old school). Yes, I realize if you don't invest in either you get "gold", but pocket money isn't the same as a stronger commercial base. There should be more options for economic management, and proper pros/cons to each. Deregulation could greatly increase your economic base and decrease upkeep, but would also make for less happy citizens due to less equitable division of riches. This could be countered with investment in culture. Communism could be an opposite, with high happiness but high costs and poor development. Middle 3 options could be intermediate forms, socialism (higher health and happiness, mid-high cost, less economic base), etc.
This would require more coding, but most could be done via the civics option and as a third part of the research/culture option. The "economic base" idea, however, might be tricky. I'm sure it would require actual new coding, but the concept is simple enough: each gold spent is an increase in the % added to overall "gold" production per turn ("gold" being the amount that can be applied to culture, science, pocket money, or gold production).
It only took two hours... I was having a bit of insomnia. I found it actually helped the sleep process. Most of this is stuff I've been thinking for years playing this game, and personally why I won't buy another version (that and I'm getting far too old for it).I dont know whats scarier, the guy has time to write 50 rants, or the loyal civ4 fans disagree with everything he says, even though some of it are very good points.
Now my replies today probably took even longer, but they're more substantive, and there's nothing else to do over the holiday. Boring circumstances lead to long posts on game forums, I've always said
P.S. I think capitalism, etc, would be best as an economy civic, not labor. I think I goofed that in the rant...
thenooblet22
King
@DNK-The point of nuking a city though is to take it off the map in the game but it still remains a military stronghold for the AI. The units inside are not hurt very badly at all. So after a city is nuked, it doesn't change it's military fortifications by much even though those same fortifications were there when the bomb went off.
I hardly would say that the destruction of such units would be make ICBMs a doomsday device. Especially with the rediculous implentation of the SDI. You're lucky if you get 1 out of 3 to actually impact. Back when I actually tried using them so long ago, I used to build 5 for every 1 impact I wanted to land. And sometimes I didn't even get that off.
-how can you claim it hardly to be a doomsday device then quote "the point of nuking a city though is to take it off the map?"; your real problem is the overpowered SDI, not the weakness of the ICMBs.
I see farms in the sahara.
Desert Farms in real life.
But what mostly sucks about it is, that a single desert tile next to my city is unimproveable. Yet my people walk by it every day to farm the tile on the other side of it. How can they not supply water to this one tile if I built a cottage or worksop on it? They obviously supply it to the farmers 2 tiles away compared to 1. And if it is not possible to found a cottage on a desert why a city of at least 10,000 people? Where does their water come from then? How is this modeled after realism?
In the game it is entirely possible (although not wise) to found a city in the middle of the sahara and it will never die. It won't ever grow, but it won't ever die. Yet a cottage or worksop that needs to supply water to far less people is ludicrous to you.
-if you google satellite (http://maps.google.com/maps) those images, you would see they are located on the floodplains of the Nile, not in the open desert; you can't irrigate sand, especially in the harsh hot and cold temperatures of the Sahara, unless you built a bio dome; other improvements like cottages or workshops would require underground piping that would very expensive to contruct then to mantain; this is why, again if you look at google satellite images, most of the Sahara and other deserts are desolated; this applies to the tundra as well.
A good rant doesn't hurt anybody. Although it took me twice as long to reply to them
Xanikk999
History junkie
Not all deserts are the same.
I agree you cant farm the sahara, but you can farm deserts in the U.S.
Oh and tundra is farmable. Small plants can grow in tundra. Just depends how far north you go.
Mowque
Hypermodernist
did you try rhye's yet?
Xanikk999
History junkie
I dont like it, the game seems too hardcoded one way, and it plays out the same everytime.
Mowque
Hypermodernist
you didn't like it? really... how much of a chance did you give it?
Similar threads
