Caesar IV

[4m3rica]

Has anyone played this? How does it compare to Caesar III, cause that game rocked. Are the mechanics basically the same? I haven't played it because I cannot into 3d strategy gaming. (except for Homeworld)

 

[Renegen]

I think the game was good, slightly dumbed down from Caesar 3.

I recommend however that you play Grand Ages : Rome. It's a new, alive, series of city building and this latest iteration was released in 2009. It brings some innovations that I prefer. It also offers some really fun RPG elements and replayability. You choose one of 5 roman houses to play as, each posessing unique skills that you get on level ups. Each house achieves victory differently. You also get to buy estates all over the Roman Empire that will help you on your missions.

 

[4m3rica]

Thanks man, I will look into that.

 

[1eyedking]

For fuck's sake . What a shitty Rome: Total War spin-off.

 

[Deleted member 7219]

To everyone except 1eyedking: Who the hell are you?

 

[torpid]

I have to advise against playing Grand Ages Rome. It's greatly dumbed down as it removes the only significantly challenging element from the Caesar-style games, namely the various worker flows. In the Caesar games goods and services are provided by workers who're spawned at each workshop or public building and then randomly walk around the vicinity, so directing their itineraries by laying out the roads and built-up areas in certain ways is key.

Grand Ages Rome got rid of that element, so it's purely a puzzle game. You just need to place houses within range of a workshop; you don't even need to build any roads like in the Anno xxxx games, so you end up squeezing as many buildings as you can in the smallest possible space. Money is also very easy to come by, with gold mines and temples providing income (and there are no expenses aside from building costs). As for combat, it's barely better than in the Caesar games, mainly because you can control your troops properly, but it doesn't compensate for the dumbing down.

 

[Paperclip]

Try Emperor: Rise of the Middle Kingdom instead if you really like Caesar III's mechanics (not setting).

 

[Renegen]

I have to advise against playing Grand Ages Rome. It's greatly dumbed down as it removes the only significantly challenging element from the Caesar-style games, namely the various worker flows. In the Caesar games goods and services are provided by workers who're spawned at each workshop or public building and then randomly walk around the vicinity, so directing their itineraries by laying out the roads and built-up areas in certain ways is key.

Grand Ages Rome got rid of that element, so it's purely a puzzle game. You just need to place houses within range of a workshop; you don't even need to build any roads like in the Anno xxxx games, so you end up squeezing as many buildings as you can in the smallest possible space. Money is also very easy to come by, with gold mines and temples providing income (and there are no expenses aside from building costs). As for combat, it's barely better than in the Caesar games, mainly because you can control your troops properly, but it doesn't compensate for the dumbing down.

I don't really agree that it's dumbed down, it's different. Instead of worker flow you actually get to lay down neighborhoods, which is what a city building game is about.

One of the things that DOES make Grand Ages : Rome amazing however is that once you learn how to play the game, you can become significantly better. Some missions can be very hard with one strategy, but then if you analyse your weaknesses and switch strategies, you can finish it much more easily. Also, the 5 families each have their own play style and it's just fun to play each of the maps that way.

I'm not really sure how long you played it.. some families may collect money like crazy, but then you need to spend it, while some are good at collecting other ressources. A lot of the fun is just the wide open style of gameplay. It has strong role playing elements that way.

 

[J_C]

I have to advise against playing Grand Ages Rome. It's greatly dumbed down as it removes the only significantly challenging element from the Caesar-style games, namely the various worker flows. In the Caesar games goods and services are provided by workers who're spawned at each workshop or public building and then randomly walk around the vicinity, so directing their itineraries by laying out the roads and built-up areas in certain ways is key.

Grand Ages Rome got rid of that element, so it's purely a puzzle game. You just need to place houses within range of a workshop; you don't even need to build any roads like in the Anno xxxx games, so you end up squeezing as many buildings as you can in the smallest possible space. Money is also very easy to come by, with gold mines and temples providing income (and there are no expenses aside from building costs). As for combat, it's barely better than in the Caesar games, mainly because you can control your troops properly, but it doesn't compensate for the dumbing down.

 

[Commissar Draco]

The uniforms and weapons looks positive like from Jewwood movie like Cleopatra from sixties. :lol The mods for RTR spoiled me so I can't even look on this Kwan shit.

 

[catfood]

I hated Caesar 4. See, it's not that it was dumbed down too much, it's the fact that they completely fucked up building and map sizes. The maps are too small, while the buildings are far too large. While in the previous games you had ample space to develop here you're struggling to fit in the buildings you need. Coupled with the fact that tiles are now so small and a building is made of 10X10 tiles and more and you can imagine the rage when you want to place that extra warehouse and realize that a roadblock is blocking that last tile.

They also got rid of the walkers, which is both a blessing and a curse. Now each building has an area of coverage. Personally I liked the walkers more, especially from Pharaoh onwards when they introduced the roadblock.

I don't remember much about the military part because I quit a few missions in, so I can't comment on that one.

 

[poocolator]

Yeah. If Caesar 3 had roadblocks, I would've never even considered giving it up and trying Caesar 4. As it stands, I only play Caesar 3 occasionally. However, my favourite is Pharaoh + Cleopatra: Queen of the Nile expansion. While terrain variety isn't exactly excellent, the challenge is worth it, and there are plenty of campaign missions that get progressively more challenging. But you find yourself building magnificent cities in inhospitable locations, as you get better.
http://pharaoh.heavengames.com/

I also liked Emperor: Rise of the Middle Kingdom. It was my favourite a few years back, though it is easier than Pharaoh. It's nice to see a shift from the Mediterranean towards the east.
http://emperor.heavengames.com/

Also, give Master of Olympus: Zeus + Master of Atlantis: Poseidon (expansion), a whirl. The cartoonish quality of the graphics is annoying at first, but it grows on you. And it adds a unique gameplay element over the others-- managing your relationship with the Gods. It's neat to litter your city with (huge) temples dedicated to different Gods. They can assist you different ways. Also, you build smaller temples/hermitages to heroes like Hercules, who can assist you in defeating beasts like Hades' "pet" Cerberus.
http://zeus.heavengames.com/

 

[KazikluBey]

They also got rid of the walkers, which is both a blessing and a curse. Now each building has an area of coverage. Personally I liked the walkers more, especially from Pharaoh onwards when they introduced the roadblock.

Never really played it much, but I'm pretty certain that the coverage was measured in distance by road from service buildings to housing, not by area.

That said, yeah, I prefer Pharaoh. Children of the Nile was also kinda interesting, it did away entirely with the push system and instead works with a pull system for needs where every man, woman and child are actually simulated in a family unit. Time spent getting goods and services is time spent not doing anything useful, leading to inefficiencies in the economy rather than binary fail/success for population needs.

 

[convivialist]

It seems like there are two types of city-builder players: (1) those who want to play a strategy game revolving around the management of supply chains, and (2) those who want to design a city.

For group 2, Grand Ages: Rome is a solid, overlooked game. A really nice engine, cities that feel like cities, neighborhoods that feel like neighborhoods.

For group 1, the criticisms of the game made by torpid are valid. However, it's ironic to call GA:R merely a puzzle game, when the emphasis on supply-chains in the Caesar series determine the layout of a city so that aesthetics barely come into play, which makes that series sort of "just a puzzle game." Or at least, "just a strategy game," but not so much a city-builder. GA:R is much more satisfying if you actually enjoy designing a nice looking city.