Same here. I would go to war with a nation, have an ally with one. My ally would sign a peace treaty with my ememy, then declare war on me after signing a pact with my ememy! They you get all the nations against you,

In Take Two's third quarter earnings report, they said that Civ IV's release date will be pushed up several weeks from mid-Nov to late Oct.

Well, that's not quite as bad as what Infogramme did in moving the release up one (two?) months so all of us that bought the "special edition" for $70 got jack-shit.

They've now announced Civ IV Preorder Edition. If you preorder Civ IV, you get the following, "a CD soundtrack, a keyboard template, a tech tree poster, and a spiral-bound manual--all in collector's edition packaging (pictured)."

but do you get the actual game itself?

I've been busy, and haven't had time to read or post the following stuff. Lots of new news! First off...

Civics
By: Barry Caudill
Senior Producer, Firaxis Games
9/6/05 Choosing your government has been an interesting part of playing Civilization since the original. In Civ IV, our team at Firaxis has really ramped up this feature and given players many more choices, which bring with them a whole new set of interesting decisions to make and strategies to employ. The new Civics system will allow players to customize their government to fit their current situation and style of play.

In the game, when you first open the Civics page you will see 25 options divided into 5 categories. The categories are: government, legal, labor, economy, and religion. Initially, you will be limited to the lowest levels for each (making you a barbaric, decentralized despotism with tribal labor and practicing paganism), but you will unlock more of the choices based on your research. Changing to new Civic forms will have a dramatic effect on the character and success of your civilization. You'll be able to boost or cut productivity, wealth, and happiness, make choices to increase/decrease the spread of religion, and even affect your ability to produce and maintain a large standing army.

Of course, it's not just as simple as picking all the highest level Civic options. A monarch needs to make the tough decisions. Every choice has an upkeep level assigned to it and you could end up with a really great government that puts you in the poorhouse. In addition, your current circumstances might make it impossible for you to use some of the higher-level choices. The good news for all the leaders out there is that you will be able to play around with all the choices and get an idea of the costs and benefits before you have to “Start the Revolution”.

So, the choice is up to you. Will you be a despot or a king? Will your people respond better to a democratically elected ruler or a theocrat? Will you have a free market or is everything state property? Make the best choices and lead your people to their rightful place in history!

by Dan Adams

September 13, 2005 - When it comes to addiction, we're pretty educated. Not only are we all drunks and sex addicts, but we write about video games. Unless you've felt the nasty twinge associated with being away from your computer or TV for too long, you're not really fit for this job. And as any of us PC guys will tell you (along with several of the console guys as well) there are very few games quite as addictive as the Civilization franchise. Pretty much all of us remember Civilization II more fondly than any of the others and definitely lost more time to it. Civilization III was still great, but made things even more complicated and difficult in some key areas that cut the lust down to a dull roar. But now that we've had the chance to play Civilization IV multiplayer for a bit, the ache is certainly returning. Even though the stay at Firaxis was only a few hours long, it was heart-wrenching to have to abandon the battle and climb back on a plane to get home.



Lets be clear about this. There are a lot of differences between Civilization III and IV beyond even the most obvious addition of the 3D game environment. The interface has been made much simpler for diplomacy and civ management in general, combat is more intuitive, units can be upgraded like crazy, religion takes a much bigger role, and non-combative strategies are very viable options for success. But the biggest change, something most important for this multiplayer preview, is the way that the game was constructed. This fourth game in the series was built from the ground up as a multiplayer experience. No more "tacked-on" feeling with this. From the way the game plays, it's pretty evident that they really took a lot of issues into consideration.


There are several different ways to play multiplayer in the game, including options about victory conditions, starting technologies, and so on, but there are also several different ways to play such as hot seat, email, and simultaneous rounds. We played simultaneous rounds throughout the day, which created a much different gaming atmosphere than what players might be used to in single player. I didn't really think it was possible for the pace of a Civlization game to be turned up a notch, but Firaxis has succeeded. Not necessarily because of how fast rounds can pass (timers can be set so players can't sit fiddling for hours between turns), but because of how smooth everything plays.

Even when a couple of the computers pooped out (apparently not on purpose but serving as a demonstration of the server tech very well), the game simply paused and popped up a question (on a screen marked "Democracy") for the rest of the players to vote on what to do. The vote is either kick that player and replace with AI, save the game and continue playing until that other player can join in, or simply wait for the other player to re-connect to the server and claim his place. It makes playing less of a hassle since games can easily be saved, even in dire circumstances. Considering how involved a game of Civ can get, especially in a multiplayer game where players have been talking trash, building alliances, and sinking some emotional involvement into the game, this seemingly small process could be a lifesaver.

A game starts like any other strategy multiplayer game with the server host picking rules, players picking factions (and sides if applicable) and then entering the game at a random starting location on the map. As with the other Civilization games, the maps are random to promote the exploring part of the experience. Players will have to venture out, find resources and claim them before an opponent comes in and knocks at your door.

Civlization has long been about creating good alliances early and gathering as much information and knowledge as quickly as possible in order to get new technologies which unlock certain wonders and abilities. Grabbing alphabet, writing, and literature was always an early plan of mine in order to make sure that I stayed in the tech race with computers more skilled than me. In this, you just never know where your opponents are going to go. It might even be worth going a path less traveled in order to trade techs with those that want what you have.


Actually, one of the really important aspects of playing a team game, which was most of the day, is that research is shared between team civs. So when Gamespy's Fargo and I teamed up, we always checked with each other about the direction we should go. It's just a matter of deciding whether to combine forces or split and go for two different techs at once. Combining forces to find better techs certainly seems the smarter choice, especially since it opens up the chance to build wonders which effect both teams as well.

Gameplay tends to move pretty quickly because of team research so getting armies up and running is probably a good idea in order to protect and expand. It's very unlikely that a human player would let an open and undefended city pass without taking it like a computer opponent might. Sacking an early city is a huge blow. Speaking of huge early game mistakes, Fargo and I were doomed from the beginning in a game against the masters themselves when I mistakenly sent out settlers with no escort. While I didn't encounter barbarians, my settlers were sadly eaten by a trio of hungry lions. Send troops with your settlers! They're vulnerable and need protection. That one early set back had me playing catch-up (and Fargo by association) the entire game as Sid Meier started rolling out wonder after wonder.

Civ players will find combat to be very different than previous games in the series. Gone are the days of offense and defensives scores. Every unit now has a base power changed only by the addition of different types of bonuses. For instance, archers can hold a hill better than swordsman could (different terrain have advantages normally anyway as always). These bonuses are affected by experience and upgrades. One of the major changes to the way unit experience is handled is the addition of levels. Each time a unit goes up in level, whoever controls that unit can choose one of several unit upgrades. This can be anything from improved hill defense or city attack to straight power or healing abilities. This means you can pick certain units to defend a specific area like a city and build them up for that purpose (as long as they can survive enemy onslaughts that is). This also means you never know exactly what you'll be coming up against in a game, especially in multiplayer, where human play won't be quite as predictable as computer opponents. In any case, battle outcomes seemed to make more sense than they used to.

For the first team game in our day Fargo (one of the Gamespy guys) and I took to attacking the hell out of our opponents. Because the enemy was almost completely on the defensive, knocking our way into a city was pretty difficult. Not only were the defenders able to upgrade their units with defensive bonuses, but they also had plenty of time to fortify since it takes a while to take full effect. The end result was a victory by points on our side as time ran out on the match.

Martial prowess is not the only road to power in Civilization IV. Diplomatic and cultural magnificence are easily as powerful. Culture in particular can be huge for taking cities. Not only does culture grow with every addition to a town, but the new "Great People" can absolutely turn the tide. During a FFA match against some computer opponents, Fargo ended up on a different side of the world than me. Slowly, we were each able to take cities from our enemies. I chose force, though captured a couple of enemy cities through cultural expansion. Fargo just built and built and built and expanded his culture to a point where bordering cities were helpless against his might. Added onto everything else, he received a Great Person which he used to enter a city close to his borders and create a Great Work. Choosing to do this is being affectionately called a "culture bomb" by Firaxis as it explodes in the city and creatues a gargantuan amount of culture. When Fargo dropped his bomb, his borders grew infinitely closer to my own. While I had a more powerful military at the time, I have little doubt that Fargo would have been able to finish that match off given more time.


One of the biggest factors in balancing culture correctly is the way religion is handled this time. Players can wreak havoc by becoming the first civilization with a certain type of religion. At that point, they'll have a holy city and civilizations that adopt the same religion are likely to be friendlier to you in the single player game. In multiplayer, it's all about sending in your missionaries to spread you religion around. It's even possible to force another civilization to adopt your religion, which can potentially bring in a tidy sum of money for you. Actually forcing a society to change their beliefs is a whole different thing. Citizens can become very unhappy should their way of life change so dramatically. Using religion to sow discontent among the populace may be sort of screwed up, but just look at how well it creates conflict around the real world.

Civilization is definitely high on the list of games we're looking forward to this year. Everything we've seen so far, especially the multiplayer in my case, points to an awesomely addicting strategy game. It haunted my dreams on the way home from Baltimore.

We're all very interested to see how the new features is received by the hardcore Civ fanatics and casual players alike. Hopefully we'll have more time to really get into the nitty gritty of the game at some point before release. We've had a very limited amount of time to play, so it's hard to tell how much all of these features will change the game for good or bad in the long run.

Keep an eye out for plenty more info on Civilization IV from Firaxis before it's October unveiling.

Another preview...





Despite the hopes of many, the words "Civ" and "multiplayer" have never really clicked together. Ever since Civilization in 1991, fans have wanted to play against others in the great race to see who could guide their primitive civilization through history. That dream sort of became a reality with Civilization II: Multiplayer Gold in 1998. However, players quickly discovered that translating an epic, single-player, turn-based strategy game into a multiplayer affair wasn't as easy as hoped. Simply put, it took a very long time to play a multiplayer game. Meanwhile, things didn't get any better with 2001's Civilization III. First, multiplayer was stripped out of the core game to make sure it shipped on time. Then a broken version of multiplayer shipped with the Play the World expansion, and it didn't get fixed until the Conquests expansion a year later. So, yeah, you can probably see why multiplayer Civ remains an elusive dream to this day.




Archers and longbowmen make excellent city defense units in the early part of the game.
That is, until now. We recently flew to Firaxis' Maryland offices to participate in some multiplayer matches of Civilization IV, the upcoming chapter in the storied franchise. In the span of only a few hours, we played two multiplayer games of Civ, an impressive feat considering a single-player game of Civ can easily take upward of 10 hours or more. And, yes, both games were exciting and nail-biting affairs that came down to the finish to determine which side would win. How was this possible? Read on.

The first thing to keep in mind with Civ IV is that it represents a whole new chapter in the franchise in many ways. Not only does Civ IV rewrite many of the underlying rules of the series, but also it represents a new approach to creating a Civ game. Previous Civs were all designed as single-player games, with multiplayer modes uneasily tacked on to them, which was why they didn't work as multiplayer games. Determined to create a multiplayer Civ experience that not only worked but also was fun and fast to play, the designers went about creating the multiplayer game first for Civ IV. This let them not only get an early jump on play testing, but also it let them experiment and build new types of modes never before seen in a Civ game.

To make a multiplayer experience that works, Firaxis has taken several approaches. The traditional Stone Age-to-Space Age game now has an innovative, persistent server mode--called pit boss--that should let a group of players play the epic-length game at its leisure. However, we didn't get a chance to test out the pit boss or the epic-length game in multiplayer. We played one of the multiplayer modes which is specifically designed for fast-paced play--it was actually limited to 100 turns. And despite the fact that it limits you to the early eras of the game (basically the Stone Age to the Bronze Age), it's an amazingly effective mode. You know that you don't have a lot of time to waste, so the early-game emphasis is on expansion and conquest rather than defensive "turtling" for the long haul, which might occur in an epic-length contest.

We played in teams of two against each another, and this afforded us a chance to explore the new team dynamics. Basically, when you're teamed with another player, you get to share everything, from great wonder effects and resources, to research. For example, you share line-of-sight information with your teammate, so you can see what he or she sees. When you research a technology, you can choose to research the same technology together (thus cutting the research time in half), or you can have one person handle, say, all military technologies while you handle the economic technologies. And, of course, you can come to each other's aid during war. Unfortunately, we came to this realization too late in the first game, when we failed to expand our empire quickly enough and the opposing team threw wave after wave of units at us, isolating and whittling down our defenses. We did, however, learn some valuable lessons about combat.




Get workers started on building improvements to your land ASAP.
In Civ IV, your best city defense unit early on isn't the spearmen unit, like it has been in every other Civ game to date, it's the archer unit. Spearmen are only really useful against cavalry in Civ IV. Meanwhile, warriors occupy the bottom-most rung of the military ladder, like they have in previous Civs. Warriors do have an important role, though, especially in the dangerous new world of Civ IV. That's because in addition to roving bands of barbarians, there's a new threat to keep in mind: wild animals. The Stone Age was a dangerous place for man, as wolves, lions, bears, and more roamed the land. The presence of these beasts in Civ IV means that sending out any unescorted settlers or workers can be a very dangerous proposition, especially since the animals seem to home in on easy prey. Thankfully, you can group a warrior with a worker or a settler, thus ensuring that the worker or settler is protected. The need to build escorts for each of your civilian units alone will drastically slow your rate of expansion, as you can't afford the risk of sending out droves of unprotected settlers and workers.


The Best Defense Is a Good...

You'll also definitely want to send out some warriors on their own to explore the land and to attack targets of opportunity, which is very important. Lead designer and programmer Soren Johnson explained that you get more experience for attacking, and less for defending, so it's worthwhile to send out warriors early on to have them attack packs of wild animals. That's because you can upgrade your military units in Civ IV when they gain experience levels. Basically, once a unit is promoted, you'll be alerted that you can upgrade it by selecting a bonus. You may upgrade its unit strength (making it tougher to kill), you may increase its city defense strength, you may improve its combat strength when fighting in woods or hills, and more. This way, you can create highly specialized units, such as elite city defenders. Or on the flip side, you can create elite city attackers. You'll also have a reason to want to preserve that unit for as long as possible. The wise leader is the one who manages to keep his or her elite units alive, as they're far more valuable than green units.


Build cities on hills if you can, as they can grant a valuable defensive bonus.
The ultimate key to survival in Civ multiplayer, though, is expansion, which makes sense. If you have three cities, and your opponent has six cities, you're in obvious trouble. Simply put, you need to build up a larger empire than your rivals so you can generate a larger economy, which helps you not only create a larger army, but also lets you research up the technology tree faster, letting you unlock some potentially decisive technologies.

For example, during our second multiplayer game, we were also caught on the defensive early on, but we managed to hold on by building up archer units. It wasn't until the enemy researched new technologies and unlocked new units that we were finally overwhelmed. Yet on the flip side, it's far more difficult to expand your empire in Civ IV as quickly as you did in earlier Civ games. That's because the expansionism strategy of previous Civs, where you tried to build as many cities as possible as quickly as you could, has taken a hit in Civ IV. There are many more pressures on you at the beginning of the game, and it can be unwise, as well as downright difficult, to expand too rapidly. What you need to do is balance your priorities between expansion, research, building military units, and improving your core cities. Build too many cities too quickly and you'll have a lot of vulnerable cities to defend. But if you wait too long, the enemy will get the jump on you.

It's also important to read the terrain carefully. Mountains are no longer passable by land units, which should be taken into account. Key and secondary resources are scattered over the map, which could make building a city by them worth it, if for no other reason than to deny those same resources to the enemy. Defensible positions, such as rivers and hills, should be exploited, as they grant defensive bonuses to cities. Make sure workers construct roads so you can rapidly shift forces around your empire. Also, make sure to station units so you have line of sight in a defensive line, because one nasty tactic that we discovered is that human opponents can and will try to do an end around, sending military units to sneak around your borders, only to reappear at the gates of one of your vulnerable cities in the rear. Or instead they'll simply cut a road linking you to a critical resource, thus crippling your ability to construct advanced military units.




Always remember in multiplayer that the best defense is a good offense.
This is all common sense, of course, but it's proof that Civ IV works as a multiplayer game. You'll be caught up in the strategy of the game from the get-go, trying to work with your allies while desperately trying to outthink and outplay the opposition. Moreover, this short multiplayer game feels like an excellent mode for LAN games, for when you and your friends are hanging out together. There's a built-in, adjustable timer that ensures the game keeps moving forward--so you don't have to wait forever for someone to finish his or her turn.

Of course, we'll have to wait and see how the rest of Civ IV's multiplayer turns out. In particular, we'll have to wait and see what that ambitious pit boss mode will be like. But at this point, things are looking up for Civ multiplayer in a way it hasn't before. The short multiplayer can be ruthless and cutthroat, which is exactly what you want in a multiplayer strategy game. Civ IV's release date has moved forward a few weeks, so we can now expect the game to ship somewhere around the end of October or at the beginning of November.

Gameplay Footage


There's some wheeling and dealing going on, diplomatically.





Contrary to what you may think, it's not every day that we get our hands on one of the most anticipated games of the year...ahead of everyone else on the planet, no less. So when an in-production version of Civilization IV recently arrived in the office, we immediately threw it onto our computers and got to the "hard and difficult work" of breaking down a new Civ. That means we played the epic campaign several times, we expanded our empire through cultural dominance and military conquest (and got our rears handed to us on more than one occasion), and much, much more. And after getting lost in Civ IV, we came away with an excellent sense of how Civ IV differs from its illustrious predecessors.




It's a big, huge, scary world, so go out and conquer it.
You may have heard that Civ IV is a big step for the franchise, as it rewrites many of the underlying rules of the series. At the same time, we discovered, it's also a blend of the familiar and beloved turn-based strategy that has made Civilization one of the biggest names in strategy gaming. So where to begin? Well, the beginning is as good as place as any. From the opening menu, the first thing you realize about Civ IV is that this is a much more colorful and livelier Civ than its predecessors, as you're greeted with a cheery melody that feels like it could have been lifted from The Lion King. That's just a hint of what you're in store for, though. You're next launched into the familiar options from previous Civ games. Select a single-player game and you must choose the various parameters of the game, from map style and size, to climate and sea level, to the civilization that you play.

More importantly, you probably want to know what civilizations made the cut. So, without further ado, you can play as the Americans, the Arabians, the Aztecs, the Chinese, the Egyptians, the English, the French, the Germans, the Greeks, the Incans, the Indians, the Japanese, the Malinese, the Mongolians, the Persians, the Romans, the Russians, or the Spanish. Approximately half these civilizations have two possible leaders, which will mainly affect the opposition you encounter, as computer-controlled civilizations will behave differently depending on which leader they get. For example, if you like to play a peaceful, defensive game of Civ, then you'd better worry if Napoleon shows up next door leading the French, because you know he's going to be eyeing your borders like a hungry wolf. Have fun!

Aside from the leader personalities, each civilization has inherent traits that determine whether it veers toward aggressive expansion or, say, peaceful mercantilism. Not to mention that each civilization starts the game with its own set of bonuses and technologies. Unfortunately, the text in the built-in "Civlopedia" wasn't quite finished in the version we played, so we couldn't cull this information. Interestingly, there seem to be a lot more difficulty levels than in previous Civs, and the highest difficult levels are now monarch, emperor, immortal, and deity. If past Civ games are any example, then we can safely guess that these levels should provide a challenge to the most cutthroat of Civ veterans out there, assuming they can adjust to the many new rules, that is.

For the purposes of this preview, we played mainly as the Americans, because as Americans, we're partial to them. But also, the Americans get a cool unique unit late in the game: the Navy SEAL, which replaces the Marine unit, as well as the top-level F-15 fighter jet from Civilization III. Thus, as the Americans, you're dropped into the Stone Age with a settler and an accompanying warrior, and you must begin the long struggle to advance through time. Thankfully, there is a lot of automation built into the game, so the first thing you'll probably want to do is order your warrior or scout to immediately auto-explore the terrain to discover "goody huts" (primitive villages that give you free stuff). Meanwhile, you'll want to settle down and found your first city with your settler. User-friendly is the term for this chapter of Civ, and the game will immediately highlight attractive tiles to establish cities, taking into account nearby resources, terrain features, and proximity to other cities or civilizations.




There are lots of resources out there, so let the computer handle them.
(We should take this moment to note that the version of the game we played still represents work in progress, so you may notice a graphical glitch or a debugging message in the screenshots. The interface is also undergoing a lot of work. Therefore, don't be alarmed if it looks clunky or cluttered in places, particularly the city screen. Also, the details discussed here are subject to change depending on testing and play balancing, so please keep in mind that the game is still in development.)

Once you've settled down into your first city, the game bends over backward to be user-friendly. Your first task will be to begin research, so you're offered a list of available technologies, with a couple recommended that you choose (though you can always choose your own). Then you'll need to begin building something in your city, and, once again, a list will present you with all your construction options, with two of them recommended. In general, the recommendations are sound, but you may wish to follow your own path for whatever reason. There are also numerous adviser pop-ups that appear during the game that will recommend that you construct a certain building in a particular town, though you can disable these if they become too annoying.


Empire Builder

After your first city is built, one of the first things you'll need to construct is a worker unit, which can construct improvements on the land outside your city. In previous Civs these improvements were limited to a handful (road, farm, and mine), but now there are a plethora of different resources and improvement options at your disposal. For example, you can now build windmills atop hills, watermills on rivers, wineries in vineyards, and much more. It can seem a dizzying array of choices, but thanks to automation, all you have to do is let the artificial intelligence take control of your worker, and it will go about building the best available option on each square, as well as link your cities together by roads. It's such an efficient process, and it improves the pace of the game immensely, since you no longer have to worry about micromanaging all those workers, like you did in previous Civs.


When you're powerful, other leaders just want to be your friend.
You also want to make sure to take advantage of the many natural resources in the game. There are more than 30 resources, divided into several categories. Food resources, such as corn, wheat, and clams, play a part in the new city health system. As your cities become bigger, they become unhealthier. One way to combat this is to gain access to different food types, which represent nutritional variety. Each different food resource reduces your unhealthy population by one. Meanwhile, there are luxury resources, such as gold, gems, and silk, and these make your populace happy. Then there are strategic resources, such as oil and aluminum, which let you build certain units, as well as copper and marble, which increase production. There are even esoteric resources, such as Broadway musicals and hit movies, which can make your people happy or that you can trade with other nations.

Next up is the actual empire building, as you need to start establishing new cities and growing the size of your empire. You may get lucky and have an explorer come across a goody hut that gives you an extra settler, but in most cases, you'll need to build a settler at your city and send it out, along with a military escort if you want it to survive an encounter with a wild animal or a barbarian unit. We've found that getting a second city started immediately can be immensely helpful in solidifying a lead against your neighbors, but there's another benefit that we didn't foresee. One of the new concepts in Civ IV is that other civilizations need permission to cross your borders in peacetime, which means that under certain conditions you can fence off your rivals to large portions of the continent, letting you settle it at your leisure. On the flip side, the same thing can be done to you, in which case you may need to negotiate open borders so you can slip your settlers through a rival's territory to get to new land. However, doing so opens you up to another danger: culture flipping.

Culture was a concept that was introduced in Civilization III, and it's still around in Civ IV, though it has been modified quite a bit. Essentially, culture represents "soft power," or the ability of nations to defeat other nations through peaceful means. Think of blue jeans taking down the Soviet Union and you'll begin to get the idea. Culture in Civ IV is important because it expands and determines the sizes of your borders. Build a grand civilization, or one that's at least grander than that of your neighbor, and you'll see your borders expand at the expense of your neighbor's borders. This puts a very strong emphasis on building cultural improvements in your cities, such as libraries and theaters, as the more culture you generate, the better. One particularly nasty tactic in the culture war is to drop what the Firaxis developers like to call the "culture bomb." Basically, if one of your cities creates a great artist unit (which can be randomly generated by building specific great wonders in a city), you can have the artist create a great work in a city, instantly giving it a 2,000-point culture boost. This can have a devastating effect on a rival's border, which then makes it possible to literally isolate cities by shrinking their borders to nothing. In this case, eventually a city will revolt to your side, and you can then take custody of it.

In a number of games we played, we managed to claw our way into the lead but discovered that holding onto it was another issue altogether. Civ IV calculates a running score for each civilization, and this is based on a number of details, such as civilization size, technology, and military power. We discovered that if you leave your civilization lightly defended or equipped with obsolete units, other nations will take advantage of the fact. We tried to play defensive games, where we "turtled" within our borders and built an advanced civilization. Still, we discovered that we needed to maintain a formidable military, if for no other reason than to deter our neighbors from attacking us. This meant upgrading our defenses with walls and castles, as well as upgrading military units whenever a new technology made them obsolete. For example, archers make way for longbows, which make way for muskets, which make way for infantry, and so on. You can upgrade existing military units for a cost in gold, or you can simply construct new ones. It's also important to make sure to build barracks, as they grant new military units an experience level, which allows you to upgrade units when they're created. For example, you can promote a unit by making it a more effective defender, a more powerful attacker, or bestow upon it some other useful trait, such as the ability to heal faster. And, of course, the best defense is a good offense, so you'll also need to maintain mobile and rapid units, such as war elephants, cavalry, and tanks, so you can take the fight to the enemy.




The tech tree is no longer divided into eras, so it's a nonstop race to the future.
The combat system has undergone a lot of work from previous Civs. The new strength rating goes a long way toward determining the course of a battle. It may sound like a simple idea--the "stronger" a unit, the better its odds--but it's one that has eluded earlier Civs for some reason, as you can hear countless stories about a Stone Age spearmen unit defeating a modern-day tank. In Civ IV, strength goes a long way toward nullifying a lot of those situations, and we saw elite, modern-day Navy SEALs defend a city against waves of less advanced units. (This also made subsequent attacks even more difficult, as all those victories gave the Navy SEALs enough experience points to level up and gain new abilities, such as bonuses for city defense, bonuses against gunpowder units, or a higher strength.) It's still possible to lose, though, especially if the enemy wears you down by sheer attrition, and we expect to hear some grumbling about the combat, though it's still a big improvement over previous Civs.


City Sprawl

One thing that surprised us was just how fast the game flies by. It's hard to state just how much "faster" Civ plays now that you don't have to worry about little details, like micromanaging workers. You also don't have to plunge into the city screen to constantly rearrange the population, like you had to in previous Civs, because unhappiness revolts are a thing of the past. We knew that we were in for a treat during our first game and realized three whole hours had passed in the blink of an eye. It's incredibly easy to get drawn into the game, especially since there are no more transitions from one age to another to mark your progress. You'll start in the Stone Age, and before you know it you're knocking on the door of the industrial age, wondering where the time went. (And this is playing in the default normal mode. Those looking for an even quicker game can play the quick mode, where costs are reduced and there are fewer turns. Conversely, those looking for an even longer game can try epic mode, where the reverse is true.)


We really like the fact that cities feel like cities in this game.
That's not to say that you aren't making any decisions, though. You're constantly making decisions as to what to build in cities or what to research next or where to build a new city. These are higher-level decisions, and they are much more interesting than the repetitious tasks of earlier games, where 90 percent of your commands were to workers telling them to build a road or a farm. You're also making decisions about your government, as well as your religion. Gone are the classic government "archetypes" found in previous Civs, such as democracy, communism, and feudalism. Now there's a civic system that lets you tailor various aspects of society (government, legal, labor, economy, and religion) in a number of ways.

Basically, when you research a certain technology, it may unlock a new civic choice for you, and the game will ask if you wish to adopt it. For example, research communism and you can choose to enact the state property civic, which reduces maintenance costs in relation to distance from your capital, as well as increases food production. Research philosophy and you can adopt pacifism (a religious civic), which doubles your birth rate in cities but increases the support costs for each military unit. Obviously, certain civics are ideal in certain situations. When you're at peace, free markets, emancipation, and representation are the way to go, but if you're in a battle with a cutthroat opponent, you may find yourself wanting to tighten down on civil rights so that you can get lower upkeep costs on your military units. To prevent you from constantly switching civics, there is a slight cost whenever you change, as your society will temporarily slip into anarchy while the revolution is under way.

Religion is undoubtedly one of the riskier new additions in Civ IV, for obvious reasons, and Firaxis is playing it relatively safe. However, since religion has been (and remains) a driving force in human history, its absence could no longer be ignored. There are seven religions in the game (and, if you must know, they are Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, Confucianism, and Taoism). As with civics, you unlock new religions when you research certain technologies, and if you're the first civilization to unlock that technology, one of your cities becomes the founding city for that religion. Religion seems to be mainly a force for getting along with your neighbors. That is, if you can export your religion to your neighbors using missionaries, your chances of getting along with them go up. If you want to prevent this, you can adopt certain religious civics, such as theocracy, which halt the spread of non-state religions. You can also adopt organized religion, which boosts construction in cities with the state religion. There is also a free religion civic, which eliminates state religion, adds happiness, and boosts scientific research. Meanwhile, all religions have the same effects in game, so one religion isn't necessarily better than any of the others.

As we noted in the beginning, Civ IV is a much more colorful game than its predecessors. The rest of the music is as colorful and varied as the cheery opening theme, while the sound effects are quite good. Meanwhile, the game earns some extra points in our book, because every time you research a new technology, the grandfatherly voice of Leonard Nimoy (Mr. Spock himself!) kicks in with an appropriate quote from history. Graphically, we must admit the game does take some getting used to, but it does grow on you, particularly in how it feels more alive than previous Civ entries. There are also lots of neat graphical touches, like the fact that if you zoom in close enough on the world map, you can see all the improvements and wonders you've built in a particular city. We also love the way that cities actually "sprawl" out now, as if they're taking over neighboring tiles. Now big cities really "look" like big cities on the map. Meanwhile, as it's developed, the countryside takes on a life of its own, as towns and villages sprout up between cities.




Helicopter gunships versus knights? It's fun, so long as you're not on the receiving end of that matchup.
We've easily played hours upon hours of Civ IV since we've gotten our hands on it, and yet we can safely say that this only represents the tip of the iceberg. But that's somehow fitting for a game that encompasses approximately 6,000 years of history. Our sense of Civ IV is that, overall, it's a big improvement for the franchise. Yes, change can be a scary thing, and undoubtedly some changes will upset some people. However, change can also be a good thing, and in many ways, Civ IV feels like both a whole new game and good old Civilization as we know it. Firaxis will spend the next month finishing the single-player game, and we've learned that some other features will be finished after the game is released. Specifically, the multiplayer pit boss, which will allow persistent multiplayer games of Civ IV, will be released in December. Meanwhile, the software developer kit, which will aid mod makers, will be released in January. While that will undoubtedly create some disappointment, the good news is that the single-player game is looking good thus far. Civilization IV is scheduled to ship at the end of October.

I refuse to read any previews of this game for the same reason I never peeked at my presents pre-Christmas.

How do you think the tech tree compares with Civ2 in the choices and decisions we will have? I do like that it makes more sense historically and it is not the abymissmal failure that Civ3's tech tree was but it appears to be more streamlined in just looking at it.

Is October 24 the release date for this? I haven't bought a computer game in quite a while, but this may be the one I get.

So I looked into the pre-order (yes, shocking), and noticed that shipping is almost $9.00.

Man I'm a tightwad. :(

i'd probably pick this up for the MP aspect. depends on if there's a strong interest here to do some FOFC get-togethers.

The Gamespot preview looks nice, but I wonder what the requirements are. I couldn't play Pirates! on my PC, so I'll hope I can play this!

I absolutely want to do a Conquer the FOFC game of Civ4 shortly after we all get the feel of the game.

edit: Assuming we can find enough people that are willing to do a 'hour or so here, hour or so there' type game.

new Tech tree

http://www.civfanatics.com/civ4/techtree/

Just wow.

Play nice.. :D

IWS

I have to admit that this is pretty funny. :)

Can't wait for this game, btw.

You didn't have the word "new".

True.

I'm not sure I like the information in this next article, and I'm fairly certain that you won't, Buc.

what's not to like about that SD? That the modern era is compressed in favor of the ancient era?

It's going to include the middle ages and even more past that.

http://www.gamespot.com/pc/strategy/...46.html?page=2

I think I'd rather see them expand the ancien era to balance things out, rather than compress the modern.

Dola:

And I'm also not sure I like the idea of having only 5-10 cities at that point.

I gotta say, I really don't like the new interfaces and what not, and it bothers that they spend more time on this, and less on an AI that you know, treats each civilization as an individual group, as opposed to one mass entity. Perhaps holding off on that pre-order is a good idea..

i would have to say i agree with both of those points of yours. i always favored having more in the region of 12-15 cities, with around 6 being "large" cities and the other 6-9 being smaller/newer.

one thing i hope they have addressed to is the difficulty in beginning a city rather late and ever having it grow to any significant size. look at NYC for example...you couldn't have something like that in Civ, all your largest cities always ended up being the first ones built and your newer cities seemed to be artifically "capped" if you will.

I think "artificial" is a key word. I have no problems in the number of cities because that has always been my style. BUT...I do not want the game to enforce limits or caps for the sake of perceived realism, age balance or whatever - just like I don't want the game to have hard-coded limits on tech tree advancement. I want the game, in SP, to be free form in that your pace of building and advancement is determined by my developments (or lack thereof) and not to be forced to play at a certain pace determined by the game. For example, if I decide to concentrate on building Science cities right off the bat and get to the point of getting advances every 3-4 turns, so be it. It, however, does sound like this more doable than in Civ3 but to what extent, I can't tell.

I still like the inability to switch productions but I don't remember if they took out rush building.

I am bothered, just like with all of the Civ3 discussions, by the gameplay concept of "ages". That sounds artificial and contraining. It doesn't matter to me - at all - that the [fill in the blank] age would zoom by quickly. If I want to capture the feel, research and units of a particular age, then I would play a scenario set in that age.

Having not read much of the discussions -- are they from developers or reviewers? If it's reviewers, I wouldn't worry too much.

CivIV has no ages anymore, Bucc.

And I'm all in favor of fighting ICS with soft caps on cities (ie, cities far away from capital suffer crippling corruption and health... basically shutting down those cities.

Then I imagine the reviewer has too much Civ3 on his mind. Should have looked at the source more: Gamespot. Says it all.

this game looks impressive.

just hope the AI is good on it.

to my offense, i deleted my post when i reliaze you already posted about the tech tree in civ4. i realized my mistake.


but i guess you undeleted it. :(

Sure thing, pal. :rolleyes:

Are we gonna have to seperate you two?

Can you be any of bigger an asshole than right now? :rolleyes:

unrelated to this fiasco, i like to think one's ability to be an even bigger asshole is limitless.

Hmmmmm....the fact that I got annoyed makes me an "asshole?" Interesting.

No, it's the fact that you have to be an asshole whenever he says something.

Only when he says something stupid. When HE ASKED ME to take him off my ignore list, I made a pledge to myself to try my best to only razz him when I'd razz anyone else. If I recall, this is only the second time I've razzed him in that time (which has been a while..weeks, if not months, I think). Anyone who posted the exact same thing that was posted, oh, 10 messages or so ago is going to get razzed here. You know that as well as I do.

i don't like SkyDog, so take this with a grain of salt:

i'm really starting to get tired of jbmagic. at first i didn't see what it was about him that could be considered annoying, but now i think i got it. i hate the way he has to rush and be the first one to start threads on like every tv show. i hate how he thinks he has to post "news". i hate how he asks questions all the fucking time. to me, in terms of annoying FOFC posters, Izulde is tops followed not too far by jbmagic, with QS a third and sov, who thinks he's as funny as me and thinks he's on my level and should have killed himself when he was a child.

but seriously, jbmagic is fucking annoying. if he were to post half as much as what he does now i'd be really happy.

i can't wait for this Civ4 game to come out. it'll be my 1st Civ game so i hope i don't get embarassed in MP, but i really like how deep it's turning out to be.

Does anybody else think the graphics look like they might be a step back from Civ III? While I'm not generally against 3-D, I'm concerned that they look to be making things that way for it's own sake (not for specific presentation needs), and I think the level of detail on the maps looks like it's gone down from the previous edition.

::shrug::

I REALLY like these graphics where I didn't think CivIII's were anything that special. I like the expansion of cities, and 3d spherical map. I think it looks very nice indeed.

Anyone who played Pirates would feel comfortable with this. In the brief time I played Civ3, I immediately did not like the graphics and went with Spoon's graphics set (that's not his name, do you remember who I'm referring to, Imran?).

I do wonder (and have not bothered to check anything) is how customizable and events-driven the graphics will be? One of the great things about Civ2 was the ability to instantly change any graphic's tile based on an event.

Snoopy you mean ? Yeah, I went with his as well, but the new interface bothers me- the brown city screen and what not.

It has been said everything is customizable (Python scripting or something), but graphics will be harder than Civ2, merely because the graphics are more 3d.

Snoopy (thumbs up). He's a fun guy... though I'm so going to school him in our fantasy league ;).

Oops... nevermind, he was in the OTHER Poly Fantasy Football league... my bad.

Snoopy, that's it. At least I had most of the letters right.

Gameplay Footage


Roman and Greek knights battle it out for medieval supremacy.





Civilization IV is a game about being able to shape history your own way. You'll take charge of one of 18 different civilizations from world history, and, starting in the Stone Age, you must build and expand your empire to survive the passage of time. You'll research new technologies, establish new cities (or conquer someone else's), and flourish. So who are these civilizations? We've been able to go through Civ IV's built-in Civilopedia to get the details regarding the game's civilizations, their unique units, as well as the various leaders to give you a peak of what's in store for you. Just keep in mind that the details are subject to change, as the game is still in the final stages of development. Civilization IV is scheduled to ship late next month.




Alexander leads the Greeks. Just don't let him become great.


Leader Traits:

Each leader has two traits that help define their behavior and strategies in the game. The available traits are listed below.

Aggressive: Free promotion of melee and gunpowder units. Double production speed of barracks and dry dock.


Creative: +2 culture per city. Double production speed of theater, coliseum.

Expansive: +2 health per city. Double production speed of granary and harbor.

Financial: +1 gold on plots with 2 gold. Double production speed of bank.

Industrious: Wonder production increased 50 percent. Double production speed of forge.

Organized: Civic upkeep reduced 50 percent. Double production speed of lighthouse and courthouse.

Philosophical: Birth rate increased 100 percent. Double production speed of university.

Spiritual: No anarchy. Double production speed of the temple.



Factions and Leaders:

Americans: The Americans start with fishing and agriculture. If the Americans can survive to the late stages of the game, they can take advantage of their unique unit, the Navy SEAL, which replaces the Marine unit. Washington and Roosevelt are the two possible American leaders. Washington's traits are financial and organized, while Roosevelt's traits are industrious and organized. Both favor the universal suffrage civic.

Arabians: The Arabians start with mysticism and the wheel. Their unique unit, the camel archer, appears in the Middle Ages and is a replacement for the knight unit. Saladin is the only leader for Arabia, and he is philosophical and spiritual. His favorite civic is theocracy.

Aztecs: The Aztecs start with mysticism and hunting that is already researched. The unique Aztec unit is the jaguar, a replacement for the regular swordsman unit early in the game. Montezuma is the sole Aztec leader, and he is aggressive and spiritual. His favorite civic is police state.




Mansa Musa leads the Malinese. He likes free markets and puppies.
Chinese: The Chinese start with agriculture and mining. Their unique unit is the Cho-Ko-Nu, which replaces the crossbowman. Quin Shi Huang and Mao Zedong are the two possible Chinese leaders. Quin Shi Huang favors the police state civic, and his traits are industrious and financial. Mao Zedong favors the state property civic, and his traits are philosophical and organized.

Egyptians: The Egyptians start with agriculture and the wheel. The Egyptian unique unit is the war chariot, which replaces the regular chariot. Hatshepsut is the sole Egyptian ruler. She favors the hereditary rule civic, and her traits are spiritual and creative.







English to Spanish

English: The English start with fishing and mining. Their unique unit is the redcoat, which replaces the standard rifleman unit. Elizabeth and Victoria are the two possible English leaders. Elizabeth favors the free religion civic, and her traits are philosophical and financial. Victoria favors the representation civic, and her traits are expansive and financial.




Tokugawa is the Japanese leader. You'll always know you're standing with other leaders in Civ IV.
French: The French start with agriculture and the wheel. The French unique unit is the musketeer, which replaces the standard musketman unit. Louis XIV and Napoleon are the two possible French leaders. Louis XIV favors hereditary rule and is creative and organized. Napoleon favors representation and is aggressive and industrious.

Germans: The Germans start with hunting and mining. Their unique unit appears relatively late in the game, as the Panzer replaces the tank unit. Frederick and Bismarck are the two possible German leaders. Frederick favors universal suffrage and is creative and philosophical. Bismarck favors representation and is expansive and industrious.

Greeks: The Greeks start with fishing and hunting. The Greek unique unit is the phalanx, which replaces the spearman. Alexander is the sole Greek leader. He favors the hereditary rule civic, and he is aggressive and philosophical.

Incans: The Incans start with agriculture and mysticism. The Incan unique unit is the Quechua, which replaces the warrior unit. Huayna Capac is the sole Incan leader. He favors hereditary rule and is aggressive and financial.

Indians: The Indians start with mysticism and mining. Their unique unit is actually the fast worker, which replaces the standard worker unit. Asoka and Gandhi are the two possible Indian leaders. Asoka favors universal suffrage and is organized and spiritual. Gandhi also favors universal suffrage and is industrious and spiritual.

Japanese: The Japanese start with fishing and the wheel. The Japanese unique unit is the samurai, which replaces the maceman unit. Tokugawa is the sole Japanese leader. He favors mercantilism and is aggressive and organized.

Malinese: The Malinese start with mining and the wheel. Their unique unit is the skirmisher, which replaces the standard archer unit. Mansa Musa is the sole Malinese leader. He favors free markets and is financial and spiritual.

Mongolians: The Mongolians begin with hunting and the wheel. The Mongolian unique unit is the Keshik, which replaces the horse archer. Genghis and Kublai Khan are the two possible Mongol leaders. Genghis favors the police state and is aggressive and expansive. Kublai favors hereditary rule and is aggressive and creative.

Persians: The Persians start with agriculture and hunting. Their unique unit is the Immortal, which replaces the standard chariot unit. Cyrus is the sole Persian leader. He favors representation and is expansive and organized.

Romans: The Romans begin with fishing and mining. The Roman unique unit is the Praetorian, a replacement for the swordsman. Julius Caesar is the sole Roman leader. He favors representation and favors creative and expansive.




Cyrus leads the Persians, and he's a fairly expansive and organized guy.
Russians: The Russians start with hunting and mining. The Russian unique unit is the Cossack, which replaces regular cavalry. Peter and Catherine are the two possible Russian leaders. Peter favors the police state and is expansive and philosophical. Catherine favors hereditary rule and is creative and financial.

Spanish: The Spanish start with fishing and mysticism. The Spanish unique unit is the Conquistador, a replacement for the knight. Isabella is the sole Spanish leader. She favors the police state and is expansive and spiritual.

want to play now.

how is the MP done - you handle it all in one sitting or is it like multi-staged thing where it can take like a week or two per campaign?

Quick, someone put my mind at ease. I would love to preorder this game, but after the clunker that was Civ3 I have doubts.

My biggest fear is there will be no AI for the single player. I have seen to many games in the past that forget about the single player and use the MP as a crutch for a bad AI. Since this game was programmed from the start to be a mutltplayer game I am a little worried.

Now, after reading the reviews from people who were brought in to play the game in multiplayer mode only, this has me wondering if all my fears are correct. If you notice all the site reviews posted here are for multiplayer mode, none are for the single player mode; I wonder why?

Anyone know anything about the game in Single Player mode only? I don't generally player MP games on the net, so this looks this game will not be a preoder for me untill I learn more about the Single Player experience.


BTW--This reminds me a lot of Railroad Tycoon 3

Please, please tell me that the leader traits (which is a great idea) are not static for a civ throughout the whole game? In other words, new leaders take over a civ that could have completely different traits.

And please tell me that the starting techs can be randomized.

These might be game breakers for me (as far as regular game play) if they are making these static and the same with every regular game.

I don't understand your beef with this. Wasn't this the case in Civ2, just that they were hidden? Help me out here.

That being said, traits and starting techs could be turned off in Civ3. I'd imagine they will be in Civ4, too.

Let's see if I can figure out where I'm coming from. In Civ2, the AI civs were all laughably inferior - except when we play with house rules (like OCC) or in a scenario where events can make the AI challenging. The AI civs, while stated they had "traits", in the end they all looked and acted the exact same way. Now from what I understand in Civ3, the traits are more defineable and hardcoded so when you see the Chinese - you know what to expect from them. It doesn't matter if it's 2500BC or 1940AD, they stick with the same global strategy. You say that there is the option to turn it off but that adds another bad solution (where they have no strategy).

My point is twofold: first, when we see an enemy civ for the first time, we should not know their traits. It is very good that they would have a leader with measureable traits but we wouldn't know how he/she would respond in the many ways we could interact with that civ. Second, those traits must change over time as leaders change so that when we interact with them again, we will get a different response.

I love the bonuses that a leader can bring - just like they do in MTW. But it cannot remain static throughout a civ's history. Same thing with starting techs, why should we always know the technological direction an enemy civ will start with? Once we start trading upon first contact, we will know then but let that be random. For example, let the Indians start with fishing and hunting. Nothing wrong with that.

If I want to play a game to where the civs act according to history, then I would play a historical scenarion. In the regular game, it should be about gameplay (re: unpredictableness) and re-playability.

I heart Buccc.. I appreciate the historical tendencies, but they shouldnt not be hard coded, and I worry if the paths are pre-defined in each game. In fact, that's bloody awful.

Hmmmm...I'm not sure that is accurate. IFor example, the Mongols were always aggressive and the Babylonians always went the scientific path, I'm fairly certain. I found that when I turned it off in Civ3 (the "Complete" version), they had a balanced strategy overall, and were pretty solid.

I understand where you're coming from overall, but I thought that was what the "random" settings in Civ3 were.

I can't fathom how you could play a game of Civ (mp or sp) in a single sitting.

Even though they's supposedly done everything they can to streamline multiplayer, I can't fathom it taking any less than a week (if not more, depending on how much people play) to *finish* a big MP game.

And I frankly look forward to setting up an epic scale multiplayer game where we can play a little bit every so often. It screams dynasty. :)

word

I never found the Civ 3 ai to be that easy, especially on the tougher levels. I've played the Civ series for longer than any other game barring the OOTP series. I'm pretty sure, from what I've read, that the leader traits will be hard coded and so will the countries various benefits. However, like Skydog said, you should be able to turn them off. I agree that I would like these qualities to change through time due to new leadership but I think that won't occur in this version of Civ. Nevertheless, I'm excited about the game and some of the new features it has. I am not necessarily excited about multiplayer as I rarely play any multiplayer game. Playing an entire Civ game in one sitting seems like it would be rushed.

i'm not interested in MP, as it applies to total strangers. my interest is competing against other FOFCers. i've long given up playing MP against total random people.

Btw, on another forum, Soren Johnson confirmed that Gamespot got something wrong. Philosophical means 100% Increase in GREAT PERSON birth rate, not population.

Oh, and Bucc, I'm sure it'll be exactly the same as CivIII with traits. If it was shifting traits, it'd be advertized with everything else. Of course, shifting traits would mean many, many more leaders. Perhaps there is a 'randomize' option.

one thing with MP in the past is the games are very long. they can go over 2 hours + to complete a game.

Yep...killed Monopoly's popularity...

To me, if strategy game in SP doesn't take 20 or more hours, then it's not worth the time to play. "One sitting" games are for console freaks. Most Civ2 MP games (and esp. PBEM games) that I know of have lasted dozens and up to hundreds of hours.

So...is this out yet?

I don't believe it comes up until late October, but I could be wrong. Something like the 24th or 25th of October is the date I keep thinking for some reason.

Ok - my bad. I got my months mixed up.

I'm looking forward to this, I got Civ III and was pleased but ran into many of the issues others have already mentioned.

3 weeks today! :D

I read this in the initial interview SkyDog posted at the very beginning of this thread:


I skimmed the rest of the thread but didn't read the entire thing. Has anyone ever heard this mentioned again?

I wish I hadn't read this thread... I don't follow the PC Games world like I used to, I didn't realize we were so close to Civ 4, but I need it *now*!!!

With word that due to Take Two's relative insolvency, they've pushed up Civ IV and features again will be "added in later patches" (read Buy the Expansion Packs, suckers!). This is now off my buy on sight list, and is becoming a wait-and-see

eh - that's worrysome. I think its making the same downward trek on my list now.

Elaborate?

Hopefully this won't be the suck-fest that Civ3 was.

Yes, it's a key component of the game. EVERYTHING will be modifiable. However, it'll be SDK instead of txt files. But the Game Editor looks wonderfully improved.

Excuse my ignorance, but I never played 3. What was wrong with it?

this is gonna hurt...

also, if you do a search for Civ3, perhaps limiting those results to blackies user id, you can find some nuggets. Not a big fan of the game, I tell you.

And one of the biggest fans ever of 1 & 2 as well as SMAC.

Sorry, I just don't like having a random number generator make it so it's impossible to win when I've completed 90% of the game. If you strike out on the endgame resource lottery, you're completely and utterly screwed.

http://www.gamespot.com/pc/strategy/...w_6133927.html

Firaxis will spend the next month finishing the single-player game, and we've learned that some other features will be finished after the game is released. Specifically, the multiplayer pit boss, which will allow persistent multiplayer games of Civ IV, will be released in December. Meanwhile, the software developer kit, which will aid mod makers, will be released in January. While that will undoubtedly create some disappointment, the good news is that the single-player game is looking good thus far. Civilization IV is scheduled to ship at the end of October.

And for the problems at take two, copying a post from the OO Board with links.

http://www.sec.gov/litigation/litreleases/lr19260.htm
SEC nailed them hard on illegal accounting. (Second investigation underway now i've heard)

http://www.gamespot.com/ps2/action/g...s_6129836.html
Class Action Lawsuits piling up.

http://www.kotaku.com/gaming/breaking-news/index.php
FTC Probe with possible fines incoming.

SO, multiplayer will not be included? Is it still scheduled for the release date of Oct. 24?

Once I heard that the financial difficulties at Take Two had forced an earlier ship date for Civ 4, I gave up hope that the game will be purchase worthy on release.

I'd be glad to be surprised and have a great game at release, but I'm taking a wait-and-see approach to this one, and expect that I'll get it sometime next year, after they finish it and patch up the problems.

If single player is good on release that will be more than enough for me, though I am pretty disappointed to hear that MP and the SDK are being delayed.

Well, in one respect it makes sense. SDK will be released in January it says. They aren't going to hold the game until January. Especially if the single player is already done (and from all reports it has been done for a while). It isn't like Sid Meier is some toady. He'll have a good deal of say on when the game can and can't be released.. even if Take Two has problems financially.

Oh, and its ONE FORM OF MP, not the entire thing. You can play PBEM or just turn based. What is delayed is the pit boss thingy, which allows you to have a multiplayer game that just goes on, even if you are offline. You can log on at anytime and make your move, or do it by email. I'm not sure how to explain it, but it sounds cool. The rest of the MP will be shipped with the single player game.

I'm confused. :(

Ah, I can wait for January then to get the game. More time for The Movies.

this doesn't bode well at all.

if the AI is weak in civ 4, there no way i purchase it. i dont care how many different new features they add.

i will wait for reviews when game comes out.

So,
What exactly is being released, and when?

Here we go again. Exact same thing happened with Infogrammes and Civ3. Three expansion packs later and the game still was not complete. :(

As far as the SDK, I heard that it was Python scripting, which should be really good - if ever they are able to add it in.

Fun news stuff.

First things... you can draw lines on the map:



Secondly:

http://apolyton.net/forums/showthrea...hreadid=139479


Oh, and fun thing (same link):

Can you play online with just two people, and use the computer to fill the rest?

I'm sure... you could do that in SMAC.