No love for the upcoming Civilization 4 expansion?

[OSK]

The new expansion, Beyond the Sword, looks promising and a lot better than the anemic Warlords expansion. BTS aims to improve the later game eras, which in my opinion, were rather dull and dragged on.

Major New Features:
• More of what you'd expect: 25 new units, 18 new buildings, 16 new leaders, 10 new civilizations, several new promotions and 8 new wonders.
• Enhanced AI. Apparently, the AI won't have to cheat as much on higher levels. They brought in the modder Blake to help with this.
• Apostolic Palace. It's sort of an early, religious UN.
• Optional random events and quests
• Expanded espionage. There are now more options and you can get access to espionage much earlier in the game (early spies look like ninjas).
• Corporations. You can spread them like religion and have them turn unused resources into other resources or production/commerce. For example, an ethanol corporation will allow you to turn corn into oil.
• 12 new scenarios including an X-COM like squad-based game and a space scenario where you colonize planets and star systems.
• Has all of Warlords game changes, but not the scenarios.

I'm a big Civ fan, so this looks really exciting. What do you think?

 

[SanguinePenguin]

I always like the pace in Civ II more than IV and have been meaning to get my hands on SMAC sometime.

It "feels" better in the earlier one with wars, more units especially for modern times, and keeps closer to natural civilization progression, all the AARs I've seen of Civ IV and the couple of times I've been through have included some wonky tech mixes. It seems like IV tries too hard to throttle your production down and keep units in neat little roles to the point where once you figure out the secrets and get the (IMO) unintuitive nature of the game down (chop rush in particular) it's all refinement of the same thing. Gal Civ 2 has a similar problem. Just check out the all lab or all factory strategies...

Any change to the economy or more than 8-10 units on the field for hundreds of years due to high production costs? Other than that the scifi stuff looks good.

 

[Krafter]

It took me years to break my habit of Civilization 2 and Alpha Centauri. My entire life was in shambles as all I did was play civ, civ, civ. Ever since then, I've been scared to start up any of the newer games.

Lately, I'm starting to get that twitching feeling whenever I see Civ 4 on a shelf. Is there any point to Civilization 3 (which I heard was not so great) or should I skip right to Civ 4?

 

[Fez]

I've yet to try Civ 4, but I wasn't impressed with Civ 3.

 

[TalesfromtheCrypt]

Civ 4 is definatly an improvement over Civ 3. I didnt buy the warlords expansion since it seemed pretty lame, especially considering it did cost pretty much.

This expansion actualy looks more interesting.

early spies look like ninjas

Its got Ninjas? The game is bought already.

 

[Sovy Kurosei]

Civilization III was a step backwards from where SMAC left off. It was a real disappoint for me although not as bad as MoO III was, which I payed full price for. It is only with Civilization IV that Firaxis is back at where they left off.

 

[Elhoim]

I agree that this expansion looks much better than Warlords.

 

[txa1265]

I thought Warlords was pretty good - especially since it was available for really good sale prices from almost day of release. I will definitely be getting this one as soon as it hits.

 

[sqeecoo]

Is this true? I heard tell that Civ4 was dumbed down, even to Civ3 standards.

I thought civ3 was great till I played SMAC.

 

[Globbi]

Civ 4 is a lot better than 3, if better than previous parts is a matter of taste. I like 4 the most among civs, that's partly because of hotseat. It has quite high requirements to play comfortable though, and you'll probably never get a fluent play on big map with a lot of opponents.

Enhanced AI. Apparently, the AI won't have to cheat as much on higher levels. They brought in the modder Blake to help with this.

That's fucking wonderfull if "as much" means real improovement. I hope "won't have to" means "won't".

 

[OSK]

I always like the pace in Civ II more than IV and have been meaning to get my hands on SMAC sometime.

It "feels" better in the earlier one with wars, more units especially for modern times, and keeps closer to natural civilization progression, all the AARs I've seen of Civ IV and the couple of times I've been through have included some wonky tech mixes. It seems like IV tries too hard to throttle your production down and keep units in neat little roles to the point where once you figure out the secrets and get the (IMO) unintuitive nature of the game down (chop rush in particular) it's all refinement of the same thing. Gal Civ 2 has a similar problem. Just check out the all lab or all factory strategies...

Any change to the economy or more than 8-10 units on the field for hundreds of years due to high production costs? Other than that the scifi stuff looks good.

I love Civ 2. It was my very first my first strategy game, but I still feel like Civ 4 is a major improvement.

I don't have the same problems you do with small army sizes or low production. Then again, I only play on Huge sized maps at Epic pace. I'm not sure what you mean by keeping units in roles. With promotions, you can use many diverse roles for the same unit.

It took me years to break my habit of Civilization 2 and Alpha Centauri. My entire life was in shambles as all I did was play civ, civ, civ. Ever since then, I've been scared to start up any of the newer games.

Lately, I'm starting to get that twitching feeling whenever I see Civ 4 on a shelf. Is there any point to Civilization 3 (which I heard was not so great) or should I skip right to Civ 4?

Haha. I got the same problem sometimes. I can waste entire days doing nothing but playing civ. Personally, I wasn't a big fan of 3. I'd suggest skipping to 4.

I've yet to try Civ 4, but I wasn't impressed with Civ 3.

I've played 2, 3 and 4. 3 was definitely my least favorite.

Civ 4 is definatly an improvement over Civ 3. I didnt buy the warlords expansion since it seemed pretty lame, especially considering it did cost pretty much.

This expansion actualy looks more interesting.

early spies look like ninjas

Its got Ninjas? The game is bought already.

Since this is including everything from Warlords (except the scenarios) it doesn't look like you'll miss out on much. Also, it has pirates! Well, sort of. Privateers are back from Civ 3.

 

[TalesfromtheCrypt]

Is this true? I heard tell that Civ4 was dumbed down, even to Civ3 standards.

I thought civ3 was great till I played SMAC.

Nah, I don't think that Civ 4 is dumbed down really, maybe in some areas but nothing significant.

The behaviour of the community seemed pretty scizophrenic for me. While in communities like CivFanatics the general consensus was that Civ 3 sucks, or at least that was my impression, everone starting about the good old Civ 3 when 4 was released.

I think the onlything you can really critisize is that its not really a significant improvement over Civ 2, its just more of the same. I can live with that tho.

 

[Pegultagol]

Civ 4 is a very nice game. Although Civ 2 is still the best game in the series not because I can list where Civ 2 succeeded Civ 4 didn't, but purely from the amount of hours I've spent it over the current one (probably due to EU 3 but guess the expansion will make me revisit it, I am sure). I am also excited about the expansion, with new options that makes peaceful gameplay more enjoyable and letting me finally try seriously harder levels to see how I compete.

 

[sqeecoo]

Nah, I don't think that Civ 4 is dumbed down really, maybe in some areas but nothing significant.

The behaviour of the community seemed pretty scizophrenic for me. While in communities like CivFanatics the general consensus was that Civ 3 sucks, or at least that was my impression, everone starting about the good old Civ 3 when 4 was released.

Thanks! (and to the other people that answered) I'll give it a try. I dismissed it because I had heard somewhere (maybe on GameFAQs?) that it was "dumbed down" in comparison to 3, and I am allergic to those words. But perhaps they were wrong, I must say I trust you guys more - you would be the first to say something is dumbed down.

 

[OSK]

I guess compared to 3 I could understand someone calling it dumbed down.

The whole corruption aspect was removed and replaced by the simpler city maintenance. Though many (including myself) see this as a major improvement instead of "dumbing down." Corruption was a pain in the ass and made most of your fringe cities completely useless in a large empire.

The Offensive and Defensive stats were merged into a single power stat. This may seem like dumbing down at first, but with the introduction of promotions and innate unit abilities, I'd say that this new way much better than the old. It encourages building a diverse army and allows units of the same type to follow completely different paths to accomplish different goals.

 

[Goliath]

Civ 4 is by far the most complex game of the series. In fact a common complain is that is has become too complex. Just one example: in Civ2 you had to choose between five government types, in Civ4 you have civics like in SMAC. Five categories with five choices each, all freely combinable i.e. 125 possible combinations! And there are often many ways to do something. For example science output: you could spam cottages to get lots of commerce and turn that into science, or you could employ many scientists to produce the science directly (+ great people - another new feature), or you could pump everything into production and "produce" science using hammers.

I have been playing Civ since the release of Civ 1 and IMO Civ 4 is by far the best game of the series. The only thing that sucks is that it is almost impossible to make Civ4 scenarios. You need serious 3D modelling and scripting skills if you want to make something polished. Civ2 allowed much more people to make scenarios and it showed. There are very few Civ4 scenarios (compared to Civ2) and most of them are shitty, because it takes way too much effort to make one.

 

[Zomg]

Yeah, copx said it. Civ III had a lot of interesting ideas but they were usually implemented pretty miserably. Civ IV took the better ideas and made them work. Great leaders, for example. Civ III was about making the perfect dumbbell-shaped empire with one palace and the secondary palace minor wonder, which is just silly in such a rich game.

I haven't actually played IV in like a year and a half, though.

 

[Krafter]

Just one example: in Civ2 you had to choose between five government types, in Civ4 you have civics like in SMAC. Five categories with five choices each, all freely combinable i.e. 125 possible combinations!

Oh man, you just sold me right there.

I'll probably wait for the inevitable Civ 4 plus expansions collection, but I'm in. Might as well get the divorce papers ready in the meantime, though. :D

 

[Hellraiser]

BTS looks like a proper expansion unlike Warlords, which is good. They're bringing back the Civ II style space race(SS customization), espionage is expanded, corporations are added(which makes the mercantilism and free market economic civics more useful), random events are added and the ability to play as any leader regardless of the Civ you pick(Stalin leading the USA ).

Oh and there are tons of new modern units and buildings plus some more interesting scenarios.

 

[txa1265]

Jeez ... I love the game and hadn't planned to break it out until the expansion ... but I dunno, you guys are reminding me of all the cool stuff again ...

 

[Elwro]

Civ IV was fantastic, despite what some of you say Warlords was very good (I like playing scenarios and the Great Leaders seem indispensable now), and the new expansion seems great. They really know how to continue the series.

Also, it's fun that - once again - the fact of your spaceship REACHING the destination will count. So if you fire your ship later, but have built it from better components, you might still win.

I hope that someday they'll be able to convince EA to let go of rights to Alpha Centauri.

 

[TalesfromtheCrypt]

Yeah, a new Alpha Centauri would be awesome.

By the way, I have a question to you guys: Ive read on a german gaming forum once that Alpha Centauri has a unfixed bug, giving you 50 free christals/energy (or something I havent played the game in years) each round on higher difficulty settings, making them useless.

Is this true, or maybe only for the german version of the game?

 

[Elwro]

I played AC with the highest difficulty setting and didn't notice this.

 

[Kraken]

If you haven't bought Civ 4 yet, then you can have a look at the All Leader Challenge (ALC) here or the first Immortal Challenge here. Basically it's good players playing a few turns of a game, posting screenshots and decisions along the way. Then they stop, asking for opinions. It's a great way to see the flow of the game and what to expect. Especially the Immortal Challenge game is very impressive, the diplomacy used to win is exceptional to say the least.

 

[sqeecoo]

Ooooo, thanks Kraken