Civilization 4

[Sol Invictus]

Well, I never liked the pollution and corruption features in the Civilization games. They were usually far too unrealistic and unless you were a democracy, corruption always crippled your military due to your inability to produce money or commerce. This is really quite silly considering how so many democratic republics in the world suffer from a heavy amount of corruption, including the United States, while police states like Singapore have a corruption level of nil, due to certain policies like paying high level employees such high wages that nobody can outbribe them, and how it is in their best interest to keep the country up and running, because their wages are tied into the country's stock. South Korea and China on the other hand, one a democracy and the other a communist republic, manage to reduce corruption through a strong sense of cultural or national loyalty, even though their governments may very well be polar opposites.

As for pollution, it was always done way overboard. If your city was big and rich the pollution always seemed to skyrocket to ridiculous levels (e.g. the land was fucked up for 5 or more squares around the city). You could make an argument against that just by pointing out how New York's definitely heavily populated but even though Alberny's right next to it, the pollution's quite low in comparison, just as how New York's urban heat island effect doesn't affect Alberny much, if not at all.

The corruption and pollution levels always made it difficult for you to wage wars as a country, too. Because on top of that usual stuff, you had to also deal with 'war fatigue' or something and that was a serious drain on the economy. I'm sure that the developers studied a little more about sociology while making Civilization 4, because the implementation of religion is definitely one that should have been in the series a long time ago.

 

[LlamaGod]

I never had a problem with pollution because I played the game right.

If you have high corruption, you are picking a bad government for your Civ probably. It's judged from distance from capital and number of cities. Communism is great for giant and vast Civs.

War Fatigue is a Democracy thing, a penalty for picking it.

I'm guessing you were playing a big civ and going around waring while Democratic. You have to pick a government that suits your plan for winning.

If anyone is still playing CIV3 I reccomend trying the Rhye’s of Civilization mod. I think it started out as a map and AI tweak to make the game load faster, late game, but it ended up as an all around improvement to the AI and gameplay. It's still not perfect, but it has made the game much more enjoyable for me.

The link for it is: http://rhyesciv.uw.hu/

Rhye's of Civilization kicks ass, a very good mod.


I think their new idea for governments is interesting, but I like the old system more. But oh well, hopefully it isnt moronic.

 

[Sol Invictus]

Well, see, that's why the whole thing was retarded. It basically makes it difficult to create an expansive nation without using communism, and it makes it difficult to be a warlike nation by picking democracy. This goes against reality, considering how America's the world's number one warlike nation, and it's also Democratic (democratic republic). The USSR fucked itself with its expansionism because communism works really poorly with large countries, but works better with small ones like Cuba (unless they get fucked by sanctions).

 

[kris]

The USSR fucked itself with its expansionism because communism works really poorly with large countries, but works better with small ones like Cuba (unless they get fucked by sanctions).

Your way off, Soviet didn't have any problems with expansions, not more than anyone else. Cuba have never worked good at all, their economy was heavily subsided by Soviet and the fall of Soviet have been catastrophic for them.

 

[DarkUnderlord]

I never had a problem with pollution because I played the game right.

If you have high corruption, you are picking a bad government for your Civ probably. It's judged from distance from capital and number of cities. Communism is great for giant and vast Civs.

Except in Civ 3 I'm pretty sure there's now a maximum city limit which you can't pass. Ever. How fucked up is that? Completely ruined the game for me given my desire to rule the world and have cities everywhere but nope, can't do it! Corruption becomes impossible to deal with because beyond that limit, your cities are completely useless. Which is a crock of shit.

War Fatigue is a Democracy thing, a penalty for picking it.

I agree with Rex (Good God, the mere thought of that. :shudder. There were a lot of things that just seemed stupid that could've been done better. Pollution coming to ridicuolous levels as you progress I don't mind but what really pissed me off is how NONE of the computer opponents ever got pollution themselves. It all semed to be a player thing (unless I'm missing something). Diplomacy all round was actually pretty bad too.

 

[Walks with the Snails]

I dunno, I had a good time with Civ 3. I only played Civ 2 a couple of times, though, maybe that's why. Alpha Centauri is still the best.

I never thought pollution was too big of a deal and liked it. You just rush research the pollution reducers if it's too big of a problem, and keep plenty of workers on hand to clean up (not like they have much else to do after you've built railroads everywhere, anyway). Corruption did get a bit obnoxious, but the Forbidden City helped a lot there. I liked the small wonders in general, really.

You also did need to pick the right government. Don't be a democracy and be aggressive. Wait to get attacked (it's not hard), go to war moblization, and then unleash Hell. The last game I played I wanted my continent all to myself, but pesky Russia, Germany, and England were in the way. I had to have the wars I declared over in a few years before everyone freaked out, so it took a while to crush Russia and Germany when it was my idea, but then I annihilated England which was twice bigger than both combined and could actually put up a fight when it declared war on me in the Industrial period, even though it took longer. Because of good placement of the Forbidden City, corruption also wasn't too big of an issue, even with 40 or so cities at the end. The last cities I conquered didn't gain me much, but I didn't really need much, either, at that point. I didn't see much in the way of new cities hurting you much overall, they just didn't contribute much. If you wanted to conquer the world, that's fine, just don't expect your last conquests to do much for your empire. They're too busy protesting the fact they were too weak and ineffectual to stop you. The originals still churn away quite nicely, though. It works, and that's still less landmass available to your enemies.

My main problem was how long people held a grudge. You can throw all the money, tech, luxuries, whatever you want at someone, but if you took a city they planted right next to your border 2000 years ago 2 years after it was founded because it cut off prime expansion area, that's it, they'll always hate you. Gimme a break, we dropped two nukes on Japan in living memory and we get along okay now.

 

[LlamaGod]

The AI could of been sharper, I agree. Especially for diplomacy.

and yes, Alpha Centauri is best, but Civ 3 isnt terrible like alot of people say.

Conquests + Rhyes of Civilization made it mucho fun.

Except in Civ 3 I'm pretty sure there's now a maximum city limit which you can't pass. Ever. How fucked up is that?

What is it? I've never reached it. I imagine Rhyes of Civilization adjusts it, if one exsists. It's beeg.

 

[Freethis]

Plus, with Rhyes you've got wonders like the East India Company which acts as another Forbidden City that comes around about the time when you're colonizing.

I tend to play the Japanese so mid-game I've got most of Asia and the South Pacific under my control and I hit the wall on corruption pretty fast. I don't really require that most of these cities be productive though, my core cities produce enough offensive units to protect and expand the empire while the outer rim just builds culture improvements and serves to hold territory until late game advances make them more productive. Anyway, with the Palace in the home islands, the Forbidden City on the Asian mainland, and the East India Company on the North American western coast I've pretty much got myself covered, even on the higher difficulties.

 

[bryce777]

I'd have been happy with a blend of Alpha Centauri and Civ 2. I liked the fundamentalist government in Civ 2 and the atrocities in AC. Civ 3 seemed like a sideways step, rather than the next step forward.

That would be exactly perfect.

I can remember being so excited about getting civ III, getting the fucking limited edition, playing one game most of the way through and never playing that fucking thing again.

 

[Crazy_Vasey]

What is it? I've never reached it. I imagine Rhyes of Civilization adjusts it, if one exsists. It's beeg.

In Civ3 you could only have so many cities before the corruption in newly acquired cities became ridiculous and nigh on impossible to overcome. At least that was the case in the original release and the early patched versions I played. I lost interest after I ran into that issue and never went back so I have no idea if they fixed it or not. Just can't be bothered with a Civ that doesn't let me have my monstrously over-sized world-spanning empire.

 

[Dgaider]

My understanding is that Sid Meier is back a the helm for Civ4, which for me is enough to inspire confidence. I didn't play Civ3 for very long primarily because of the overly obvious cheating the AI did.

In fact, I remember the game where I finally tossed Civ3 aside.

I was playing the British and my very first unit was out exploring. I was still busy trying to build another military unit in the meantime and was just moving my first unit and passing turns right then. Within three moves I encountered the French unit. Sighing, as this meant the French were close by, I attacked it... and won.
Pleased, I moved again and found Paris. I went up to its border... and discovered another unit just leaving Paris. I was irritated, as I hadn't even been able to build my second unit, yet, and at this stage in the game there's no way to hurry that up. Angrily I attacked... and won again. Ha! Paris is mine, I thought. Next turn I walk into Paris... and encounter yet a third unit in the city, which promptly defeats me. And I *still* hadn't been able to complete building my second unit. This just confirmed what I had seen in previous games, that the AI cranked out unit after unit until it had masses which I could never possibly support and then had them wander about their countryside willy nilly so you had to turn off any tracking of enemy moves or they would take forever.

I hate it when AI uses different rules than I do.

At any rate, if there are mods that alleviate those things, maybe I'll go back and try Civ3 again. Certainly some of the mods made MoO3 almost playable, so it might be worth a shot. The only thing about Civ4 which I don't really care for, myself, is how the military units look. They seem overly large and animated, somehow. I'll have to wait and see what it plays like, but every time I see a screenshot with military units on-screen I have to cringe.

 

[Saran]

My understanding is that Sid Meier is back a the helm for Civ4....

From what i.ve read he is there as an "Advisor" and nothing more, i cant find the magazine right now, but in one of the more recent issues of PC Gamer UK or PC Zone he made it pretty clear that he is more of a symbol than anything else.

If i find the mag ill post a bit of the interview.

 

[Sol Invictus]

I'd just like to know what Sid is doing in all his spare time.

 

[Saran]

I'd just like to know what Sid is doing in all his spare time.

Judging by the interviews that were on the Civ3 Collection's bonus disk, he spends most of his time playing songs that sound like the theme tune from the sims and surfing the net while a young child sits on his knee.......

That or cheering on the Devs as they make Civ 4.



(Its shit, i know. )

 

[LlamaGod]

What is it? I've never reached it. I imagine Rhyes of Civilization adjusts it, if one exsists. It's beeg.

In Civ3 you could only have so many cities before the corruption in newly acquired cities became ridiculous and nigh on impossible to overcome. At least that was the case in the original release and the early patched versions I played. I lost interest after I ran into that issue and never went back so I have no idea if they fixed it or not. Just can't be bothered with a Civ that doesn't let me have my monstrously over-sized world-spanning empire.

Now that I think back, I probably never encountered it because I usually played on Medium sized worlds. Pangea, medium size, more Civs then can fit for all the fun territory wars.

I think I may reinstall Civ 3 + Conquests + Mods again, i'm in the mood for it. And yet again when I think back, almost every summer I end up reinstalling and playing Civ 3 until the fall. Never noticed until now.

 

[Sol Invictus]

You know what, David, you're absolutely right about the way Civ 4 looks. This looks like crap:

It's like the crappy combat phase in the new Pirates! all over again. On top of the whole Gulliver's Travels motif, I can't get over how primitive the overall game looks, especially in comparison to upcoming titles like Age of Empires 3 and the new Rise of Nations steampunk game. Quite frankly, I've seen indie games with better graphics.

 

[Greatatlantic]

I've only had one major beef with the civ series, which I remember playing the original in dos. Its the fact that city growth is completely dependent on the surrounding countryside. This makes a lot of sense right up until the rail was invented. After that point, what major metropolis grows its own food? Or, what major cities starves while its next door neighbor experiences plenty? That just never made any sense to me.

Corruption could be annoying, but sort of makes sense. It also served a gameplay function of keeping players from expanding indefinitely, so as to encourage people to develop internally. Cheating AIs do stink, though.

 

[DarkUnderlord]

It's like the crappy combat phase in the new Pirates! all over again.

Hey, don't diss the town raiding in pirates. That game-mode rocks! I really enjoy the turn-based semi-tactics that are involved with that. Countless times I've wiped out a far superior force just by carefully manouvering around the enemy and out-flanking them.

Civ 4's graphics do suck though. Age of Empires III all the way.

 

[Sol Invictus]

Yeah I just wonder how Firaxis thinks they can get away with pushing out a game that looks worse than most shareware titles. Russian games with tiny budgets manage to look way better than that, so what's Firaxis's excuse? You'd think that with the amount of money they're getting to develop the game, and the amount of money they stand to profit, they'd make something that would at least look better than Europa 1400.

 

[LlamaGod]

How does that look bad at all? It's not as flashy as AoE3 or whatever flavor of the month bullshit, but it probably is a ton better game.

It looks better then alot of strategy games, go see Supreme Commander 2010.

Its just 3D Civ 3 and its not bad at all. I like the terrian textures and how area boarders look.

I seriously cant believe you are bitching about its graphics. Its not like it matters in TB strategy anyways.

 

[Sol Invictus]

It looks like crap, dude. Being TB is no excuse for shitty looking graphics.

 

[obediah]

It looks like crap, dude. Being TB is no excuse for shitty looking graphics.

Why are those guys fighting over those tiny houses and baby little pigs? Plus those guys with the guns should turn around.

I agree that it looks like crap - it looks like someone played with the SCII map editor for an hour and then pasted in some photos from their historical mini stands. I don't really care what it looks lik - sadly I probably don't even care how it plays, I doubt I'll ever have the time to play a civ game.

 

[Sol Invictus]

It just doesn't look awe-inspiring. Even though the graphics look like complete shit, it's the artistic style on top of it, which pulls it down even more.

 

[Sol Invictus]

Oh yeah, another thing - there's no lighting.

 

[Sirus]

So what? I'm not playing Civ for super advanced hyper shadeing with vertex dexatron graphics.