Why Civ IV rocks!

[stuntpope]

I am so happy. Civ 2 was one of my favourite games ever and while I enjoyed civ 3 I found it ultimately disappointing. Why? because I never new why half the things that happened in civ3 happened.

Why did my city just culture flip and take my entire army with it? Why did I lose that fight? etc.

In Civ 4 all this information is there for the player. Culture modifiers are clearly indicated and it's easy to see when and why you're losing the culture war. Combat modifiers are present as rollover info every time you fight a battle so you know exactly whether it's bad luck or bad planning that losses you the battle.

Soren Johnson has helped to ensure that turn based games are not a thing of the past. Not only has he created the best civ game ever but also exploited the greatest asset of turn based gameplay - the ability to take your time and think about what you are doing.

Awsome, awsome awsome!

 

[screwtype]

Yes, there are a lot of little improvements. Another unsung little improvement is the fact that you can now check a unit's movement rating to see how many movement points it has left. It was incredibly frustrating fighting a war in CivIII when you had a big stack and no way of knowing which units had MP's left and which didn't. You could end up losing a lot of units that way!

And BTW, "awesome" is spelled with two "e"'s

 

[stuntpope]

Well of course it is. I was just testing.

 

[DeadZoneMDx]

I agree, Civ2 was great, Civ3, while improving graphics, felt like a backward step in gameplay somewhat
Civ4 has stepped to the plate and we have a game
Granted, a few minor annoying bugs, but you kinda expect that from every game in the world now

 

[holy king]

Granted, a few minor annoying bugs, but you kinda expect that from every game in the world now

well, thats all that relying on patches, making the buying consumer a game tester... not that bad in my opinion, but surely a problem for those who dont have internet... (btw. is there a way to get the patches on cd/dvd for free - just out of curiosity)

Another unsung little improvement is the fact that you can now check a unit's movement rating to see how many movement points it has left.

you could do that in civ2 already, if i remember right...


all in all: i havent played the game yet, still waiting for my new pc (with a rad 9800SE- well lets see how many pixel pipelines it can use with the right drivers... a little gambling is always fun ) but for all i've read here and in the manual its gonna be just great except for the graphics ( a bit too comicish for my taste, but thats just taste) and maybe game lenght (but thats something i'll have to try out myself and of course its easily maddable so nevermind)

 

[Nevermor09]

I must say that it still amazes me to see my gunships get picked out of the sky by longbowmen. I mean i can take that my modern armor loses a battle against pikemen. they must be using molotovs But there is no way in hell a longbowman is gonna shoot down a gunship. but that really isnt new. been like that always. I had just hoped they had fixed that.

 

[holy king]

so the tank vs spearman issue is becoming the gunship vs archer issue now?
great, I'm looking forward to it ;-)

 

[Dun Malg]

I must say that it still amazes me to see my gunships get picked out of the sky by longbowmen. I mean i can take that my modern armor loses a battle against pikemen. they must be using molotovs But there is no way in hell a longbowman is gonna shoot down a gunship. but that really isnt new. been like that always. I had just hoped they had fixed that.

I think the "gunship vs archers" thing is just a matter of ignorant terminology choice, really. They absolutely shouldn't have called them "gunships"! If you look at how the units work, and how Cavalry can promote to them, they should properly have been called (and animated as) "Air Assault Infantry". It's almost like one person (who knew what they were doing) designed the capabilities of the unit, and another person-- someone totally ignorant of military things, other than what he's seen on TV maybe-- was allowed to name it and come up with the art/models. Someone who was probably told "assault by helicopter" and immediately made the boneheaded leap to "gunships". It's a stupider even than calling St. Basil's Cathedral (the one with the onion domes) "The Kremiln", I think. I can understand the mistake, but I'm annoyed that he wasn't made to change it. Surely someone must have noticed! "Gunship"? That's an insult to the Cavalry the promote from.

Sorry for the rant. I was in the 101st Airborne(Air Assault) in the Army, so this one really bugs me.

 

[holy king]

dont really see the difference..
gunship, air assault infantry...
explanation?

 

[Ravinhood]

[And BTW, "awesome" is spelled with two "e"'s ]

LOL Leave it to screwtype to be nitpicky....did I spell nitpicky correctly? lol

 

[Dantius III]

I agree, Civ2 was great, Civ3, while improving graphics, felt like a backward step in gameplay somewhat

No way! Civilization III deserves to be called a great game. In Civilization II, the computer was downright ********: there is an entire section on this site dedicated to its AI stupidities! (Though I still think Civilization II was a also a good game, it is just people overrate it.) Though in Civilization III you could hussle the computer easily, in Civilization II it was easier to do.

Contrary to your claim, Civilization III was actually a great leap forward (not in the Mao way ) in gameplay concepts. The introduction of culture specifically, and also the enhancement of the diplomacy screen. Perhaps it was not completely thought out, and had a few ambiguities, but introducing the concept has lead to more thought about its basic function, and now we see it fully realized in Civilization IV, which is the greatest new game I've played in ages. Every game concept builds in these games, and now in Civilization IV, it has combined the smooth elements of real time strategies with the fully realized concepts of Civilization III in a playable turn-based format (with, might I add, the best comparable graphics upon release of any Civilization game). I doubted it could do all of this, but it did through the genius of the programmers and it maintains its addictive nature through this all.

All in all, Civilization IV is a great game and Firaxis should be proud. Anyone who says it is not puzzles me and probably has computer problems that hinder them from breaking through to experience the game. IGN and GameSpot were right about this game and anybody with any foresight can see people playing this game for another 3-4 years before the next sequel (given they release expansions).

 

[Nevermor09]

Yes the fact that my cossacks upgraded to choppers did puzzle me.
Air assault infantry is much better if you think about it. Because when u see the term gunship, and then look at the graphics. I just get a picture in my head of bunch archers trying to hit an apache or a cobra.

 

[Dun Malg]

dont really see the difference..
gunship, air assault infantry...
explanation?

A "gunship" is something like the AH-64 Apache. Armed with rockets, missiles, and a 30mm gun, and having a crew of two who sit inside an armored shell impervious to 50-cal MG fire. They never get out and engage the enemy directly. They shoot at them then fly back home. It'd more appropriately be an air unit.

"Air Assault" is a term used to describe ground forces that get to where they're going by helicopter, and are additionally supported by attack helicopters on occasion. Their mobility is greatly enhanced, but they're still infantrymen (thus making "archer vs air assault infantryman, archer wins" a plausible outcome).

The "gunship" unit in Civ4 inexplicably has all the vulnerabilities of a ground unit, and promotes from Cavalry, of all things. It totally fails the definition of "gunship". Air Assault tactics and doctrine were pioneered by the 1st Cavalry Division in the early 60's, so it's obvious that someone in the design stage sort of knew what they were trying to do. I think part of the problem is that the only portrayal of Air Assault tactics people have seen is the famous "Col. Kilgore" segment of Apocalypse Now, which rather inaccurately portrays a heli-borne attack as consisting of 90% helicopters flying around blowing stuff up, followed by 10% infantryman going in to stand around and claim the blown-up stuff. Very dramatic, but not at all realistic. In real life, most of the "work" is done by us grunts on the ground, with support from armed helicopters.

 

[Dun Malg]

Yes the fact that my cossacks upgraded to choppers did puzzle me.
Air assault infantry is much better if you think about it. Because when u see the term gunship, and then look at the graphics. I just get a picture in my head of bunch archers trying to hit an apache or a cobra.

Exactly! I think a better graphic would have been an infantryman with a little helicopter above his head. I guess that's kind of a tall order...

 

[EdCase]

Exactly! I think a better graphic would have been an infantryman with a little helicopter above his head. I guess that's kind of a tall order...

Hmm...would look like he was wearing a beanie

 

[Dun Malg]

Hmm...would look like he was wearing a beanie

Heh. Yep. That's precisely the image I had in my head!