10. SOREN: So on the religious front, Saladin should never be allowed to be Jewish?

YIN: I think, again, religion in CivIV is devoid of its historical significance in the name of giving the player mechanisms to manipulate. Certainly how you manipulate religion profoundly affects the kinds of diplomatic relationships you can have, however, and this is fun and strategic as long as the AI is aggressive enough about it.

Here's a brain teaser for you, though: If I get a -4 relationship hit with a Christian Civ just because my state religion is Muslim, how come my cities have Christians and Muslims in them but suffer no loss in production or rise in unhappiness? Or why can't I have earlier options for stopping the spread of a religion I don't want (even if the religions are carbon copies of each other in any event)? And for the “Gameplay Beats All” people out there, don't backed yourself into a design corner. Why not have good gameplay and a little historical accuracy, too? Just for kicks. Unless we want to call this thing SimCiv and be done with it?

I'd personally LOVE to hear Spock open the game talking in Simlish!   SCORE: [0]

11. SOREN: Combat has “undergone the most radical change of all” with a single strength value, promotions and collateral damage to stop the Stack of Death".

YIN: There is a difference between radical under-the-hood changes and radical changes in real-world gameplay terms. While the move toward a single strength value might seem radical on paper, combat doesn't feel all that different to me. Indeed, combat's overall lack of evolution in CivIV is, for me, one of its signal weaknesses. While it's true that the promotion system is a wonderful addition (I even called it “genius” on the forums!), it's still a matter of degree and not substance. Indeed, even here the degree might be a bit overboard as the number and type of promotions can quickly devolve into another micro chore (yes, there is an auto-promote button for this too, but that should tell you something). This is to say, it's simply high time that a Civ game go with stacked combat. Let's not mince words.

In an Apolyton [Civilization Site] chat, you said yourself that Heroes of Might and Magic provided some inspiration for CivIV. If so, then why not let our stacks drop to a well-rendered and interactive combat zone that allows the player to choose the match ups? I recall many an HoMM game in which I would desperately attack a single gold dragon (or whatever the killer unit was) with all my first strike units hoping to kill it, which would give me reasonable hope of surviving the rest of the units in his stack. Perhaps on paper this is bad strategy…but it's compelling. It's fun. Most of all, it puts the player in control, and actually seeing the results play out on screen is simply far more engrossing that clicking the mouse and letting the computer crunch a bunch of numbers. Furthermore, this approach might lend itself to showcasing your great promotions scheme: Imagine actually seeing a flank move, for example, or a unit with Medic I healing nearby friends. Also, as long as units can heal for free, the idea of collateral damage as a stack killer is effectively neutered. Many, many times I have simply waited to let my units in a huge stack heal before pressing my attack again. Often there were fresh units also being sent as reinforcements as well. Given that there is no added cost for me to heal (even in enemy territory, which I find odd), sieges become too easy, and only the most careless player would abuse his stack against area splash units to such a degree that it decides that battle against the AI. Charging the player some g.p. for healing units, however, would really change this dynamic!   SCORE: [-1]

12. SOREN: You realize that the last several pages of my Afterword are about the many great people who helped with these ideas?

YIN: Yes, that was very well written and inspiring. You seem to have a talent for listening to feedback, fostering synergy and producing good results. For your work and theirs, SCORE: [+1]

PART 2 CONCLUSION
I think it's safe to say that Soren clearly accomplished at least half of what he set out to do, and some of the things I think he missed could be easily (?) tweaked. Other issues are perhaps too close to the heart and might never be addressed in the way that I, personally, would like (but I'm a very small fish in a big Civ pond).

Therefore, according to the guidelines Soren has given us for judging CivIV's success, I would say that there are some clear winners, some work yet to be done, and perhaps a some soul-searching left on the horizon. Not a bad result, I would say, considering the stakes were so high and the opportunity to do too little or too much must have lurked around Firaxis [Games] on a daily basis.   ... Previous Page

Discuss this article in the forums