Re: Comparing it to Civ 4..
 

Not sure about the Alpha Centuri sequel yet I do know Sid and crew have hired a developer who focuses purely on improving/creating the Artificial Intelligence. An important step for a great need within all PC games.

Re: Comparing it to Civ 4..
 

Velusion:

I hope it's true... but I've heard EA has rights to Alpha Centauri, so we are rather doomed.

Re: Comparing it to Civ 4..
 

I agree with those saying AC is still the greatest civ like game. Everything was so nice ! You could even hand make each and all of your units...

It wouldn't have been so difficult to implement in Civ 4, but I guess the commercials (I could have been one of them....) said : Oh no ! Let us sell some expansion packs to satisfy their envy of variety.

If EA or Firaxis bought Dom license, they would give us 3-6 nations for the same price, the rest coming up in those darn expansions.( maybe with nicer graphics, but when I want to see a nice tree, I go in the forest...)

As for the mods, almost none is ready yet, I guess making 3D mods is really time consuming. (The only one not beta is about WW2...)(talking civ 4 mods)(issuing an extension (payable) every six months doesn't help modding either)

Another thing I hate in civ 3&4 are the national units : I find it racist and straightforward. Like if the destiny of humanity was written forever by some mad old Norns : It seems like you don't have to make any effort to have top elite troops. (did you know german engineers naturally known how to build a super tank ?)

Re: Comparing it to Civ 4..
 

No. They did so mostly because no ai has ever been able to handle hand tailored units correctly. SMAC and MoO are good examples I believe. Read what Soren Johnson wrote, you should see it was a thought out design decision, not a marketting one.
Yeah, there were 3-6 civs in civ4 out of the box???? Come on.
The only one not in beta? You aren't talking about Fall from Heaven II? Ever tried it? Please do. Call it a beta if you like, it's got more functionality than any mode made for any game I ever saw, and is very stable. Dismiss FfH and FfH II if you like, but then look at mods like Sevomod, Rhye's and Fall... Plus there are other small mods, almost like tools (map scripts for instance), and mods which got included into the game (like the score graph).
I agree that 3D makes modding longer, but there are mods out there, including Blue Marble whose only effect is to change the terrain (so purely 3D cosmetics).
It's not like it was an option you couldn't turn off. You can. Sure, I don't like it much either, but you can play without.

Re: Comparing it to Civ 4..
 

LDiCesare:

There is one civ in civilization, just cosmetic differences. And you do not need to adjust a gameplay according to enemy nation. But probably they wouldn't sell many copies if they made a challenging and good game, not just pretty [the same goes for Europa Universalis, which is really weak game with wasted potential]. And don't forget that vanilla civ was only a beta or even alpha version without many obvious and important things. And it was made only so they can release expansions and take money for them.

Only thing I can agree are mods - there are some finished ones with a game.

Re: Comparing it to Civ 4..
 

> [the same goes for Europa Universalis, which is really weak game with wasted potential]

It is?

Re: Comparing it to Civ 4..
 

Kristoffer O:

Don't tell me you like it http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/laugh.gif Historical version of Dominions would be 100x better than EU. EU 3 has extremely dumb AI, imbalanced and ahistoric nations, only few playable countries, only one map, not even mentioning diplomacy [mainly peace system] and seizing colonies.

Re: Comparing it to Civ 4..
 

Actually I never played it. It seemed a bit hard to get into http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif
Which tells me I would never ever play dominions unless I was guided through the whole process of learning how to play it.

I just thought it was a good game.

Nowdays I lack patience and only play roguelikes and fast paced games like Guild Wars, which I no longer have patience to play well.

Re: Comparing it to Civ 4..
 

Kristoffer O:

EU players have very closed society and they do not welcome criticism there. Something similar to iPod worshippers [or take any other example you like]. They made an extremely stupid way of conquering territories [you must conquer it and then convince them to sign a peace giving it to you, which is based on war score and some very random throws, so to get 1 province you need to conquer 40 one time and you can get lucky and be losing that 40 provinces to AI and then get white peace and give nothing].

And I prefer Enemy Territory: Quake Wars when I have no patience and my brain does not want to do what I want him to do.

Re: Comparing it to Civ 4..
 

I like a lot of the Paradox games, although EUIII didn't appeal much, and I hang around the forums there a lot. I haven't ever noticed people being any more fanatical than any other game forum and plenty of criticism goes on.