Ping: Civ IV holdouts

[SackAttack]

Amazon has the Civ IV Gold Edition as the gaming "Deal of the Day" for $19.99.

Go get 'em.

[Passacaglia]

Amazon has the Civ IV Gold Edition as the gaming "Deal of the Day" for $19.99.

Go get 'em.

Does Gold mean it includes expansion packs?

[Apathetic Lurker]

Does Gold mean it includes expansion packs?

you know, you could go look yourself.:)

[FrogMan]

you know, you could go look yourself.:)


how could he, sack didn't give him a link! :p ;)

FM

[Greyroofoo]

This thread is useless w/o links

[Pumpy Tudors]

I REFUSE TO ATTACK THE BARBARIANS UNTIL I GET A CONTRACT EXTENSION

[JAG]

It includes the first expansion but not the second.

hxxp://www.gogamer.com/Civilization-4--Complete--I--Front-Page_stcVVproductId28937996VVcatId444710VVviewprod.htm?AID=2202820&PID=1225267&SID=sduidp0t698924

Civ IV plus both expansions for $35 + shipping

[Passacaglia]

you know, you could go look yourself.:)

i know...i just had a second at the time, and i was in the thread, so it seemed easier to ask

[Barkeep49]

I believe BTS automatically includes Warlords as I bought BtS but not Warlords but still have all the Warlords related content in the game. Can't speak to the Gold edition though...

[dacman]

The Gold edition has the Warlords expansion pack, but NOT the Beyond the Sword pack.

A platinum edition of Civ IV is due out soon (I think I read somewhere March 4) that has both expansion packs.

[Draft Dodger]

The Gold edition has the Warlords expansion pack, but NOT the Beyond the Sword pack.

A platinum edition of Civ IV is due out soon (I think I read somewhere March 4) that has both expansion packs.

hence, the blowout price...

[Passacaglia]

But if Beyond the Sword has Warlords included, why would you need a platinum edition with both packs?

[rkmsuf]

But if Beyond the Sword has Warlords included, why would you need a platinum edition with both packs?

Just keeping holding out for more upfront money.

[Draft Dodger]

But if Beyond the Sword has Warlords included, why would you need a platinum edition with both packs?

it doesn't. two separate expansions.

[Draft Dodger]

heh...it's been a while since some genius wrote this... (http://www.gamenikki.com/g3/reviews/pc/Display.php?id=3)


Digital crack. That, folks, is Civilization IV in a nutshell. Oh sure, there’s some depth and nuances to it, but that’s all meant to hide the fact that this game is a big old electronic hash pipe waiting to lure you in. In no time, you’ll lose all track of time and surroundings, and your life will be consumed by thoughts of sneaking on to your PC to get just one more fix.


So, it’s not quite perfect. But it is still highly enjoyable and infinitely replayable. It is easily the best game that I’ve played this year, and will certainly show up on my “now playing” list for quite some time.


yep, still playing the hell out of it...

[path12]

I want to pick up BtS if for no other reason than to play the latest Fall from Heaven mod, but might as well wait for the price to come down since I've got a couple of other things I'm playing right now.

[SackAttack]

But if Beyond the Sword has Warlords included, why would you need a platinum edition with both packs?

Sorry for no link, but:

1) It was 3 am.

2) Amazon is screwy about links sometimes. I'll give someone a direct link and when they click it Amazon has no idea what's going on and gives them an error page.

Also, Beyond the Sword doesn't have Warlords, but Civ IV Gold does.

My guess is you're also going to see a super expansion pack that has whatever the new expansion is, BtS and Warlords, all in one go, just for people who bought the regular-flavored Civ IV when it came out.

[SackAttack]

Oh, I misread dacman's post. See, I don't really think of Warlords as much of an expansion pack, so when he said 'both,' I assumed something new was coming out I hadn't heard about. Sorry!

[Mr. Wednesday]

BtS has the game modifications from Warlords but not the extra content, as I understand it. That is, it has the new civilizations and any changes to game mechanics, but not the maps/scenarios.

[cody8200]

I've played Beyond the Sword for about 26 hours in the last 3 days and have worked 24 more. My life is is 13.6 % sleep, 33% work and and 36.4 % Civ 4. All in all, its pretty good.

[Buccaneer]

I've played Beyond the Sword for about 26 hours in the last 3 days and have worked 24 more. My life is is 13.6 % sleep, 33% work and and 36.4 % Civ 4. All in all, its pretty good.

I want to have your love child. :)

[path12]

I want to have your love child. :)

I don't think he has the time.

[Passacaglia]

Sorry for no link, but:

1) It was 3 am.

2) Amazon is screwy about links sometimes. I'll give someone a direct link and when they click it Amazon has no idea what's going on and gives them an error page.

Also, Beyond the Sword doesn't have Warlords, but Civ IV Gold does.

My guess is you're also going to see a super expansion pack that has whatever the new expansion is, BtS and Warlords, all in one go, just for people who bought the regular-flavored Civ IV when it came out.

Thanks, I think that helps. I want to play online with a friend of mine who has both BtS and Warlords separately. So when he plays, he's playing either/or (so probably BtS), right? It sounds like I just want to get BtS, then.

[Passacaglia]

BtS has the game modifications from Warlords but not the extra content, as I understand it. That is, it has the new civilizations and any changes to game mechanics, but not the maps/scenarios.

Thanks, this sounds like exactly what I was trying to ask. Sounds like I want to get BtS.

[Anthony]

i'm tempted to get this, i just don't know what all the hoopla is about. from what i understand it lacks the war/military prowess of the Total War series. yeah, i want to build up a civilization, but i also want in depth control over my military. doesn't seem like that aspect is featured enough.

also, it seems like time goes by really quick. what is it, like 100 turns from the beginning of your civ to when you're sending rockets into space? on 2nd thought, i think i will pass. Total War series is more my cup of tea.

[bbor]

I don't think he has the time.

LMAO!!!:D

[Mr. Wednesday]

also, it seems like time goes by really quick. what is it, like 100 turns from the beginning of your civ to when you're sending rockets into space? on 2nd thought, i think i will pass. Total War series is more my cup of tea.
Quick, Civ4 isn't. Or at least, it doesn't have to be, particularly in one of the stretched-out game modes like Epic or Marathon.

[Buccaneer]

Another brilliant, informed insight from HA.

[SackAttack]

Thanks, I think that helps. I want to play online with a friend of mine who has both BtS and Warlords separately. So when he plays, he's playing either/or (so probably BtS), right? It sounds like I just want to get BtS, then.

BtS is phenomenal, but be aware that you need Civ IV installed to play it.

[TargetPractice6]

i'm tempted to get this, i just don't know what all the hoopla is about. from what i understand it lacks the war/military prowess of the Total War series. yeah, i want to build up a civilization, but i also want in depth control over my military. doesn't seem like that aspect is featured enough.

also, it seems like time goes by really quick. what is it, like 100 turns from the beginning of your civ to when you're sending rockets into space? on 2nd thought, i think i will pass. Total War series is more my cup of tea.Actually war is a pretty large component of Civ 4 (the expansion is n't called Beyond the Sword for nothing). And I think it's something like 2000 turns from beginning to end on normal speed.

[Passacaglia]

BtS is phenomenal, but be aware that you need Civ IV installed to play it.

Thanks -- I do have that!

[molson]

also, it seems like time goes by really quick. what is it, like 100 turns from the beginning of your civ to when you're sending rockets into space? on 2nd thought, i think i will pass. Total War series is more my cup of tea.

Depending on the settings, a CIV IV game can easily last 24 hours of game-time.

[Anthony]

Another brilliant, informed insight from HA.

i took a page out of your "i'm old, i don't have the slightest idea what you young kids are talking about" routine that has plagued this community for an unnecessarily long time. :)

[Anthony]

Actually war is a pretty large component of Civ 4 (the expansion is n't called Beyond the Sword for nothing). And I think it's something like 2000 turns from beginning to end on normal speed.

but do you control units, or is it more "my army attacks your army....[rolls dice]...SUCCESS!!!". there isn't any strategy in terms of playing out an actual battle, or am i wrong?


2000 turns is a lot. that's 10x more than the Total War series usually requires. that's pretty good.

[Pumpy Tudors]

but do you control units, or is it more "my army attacks your army....[rolls dice]...SUCCESS!!!". there isn't any strategy in terms of playing out an actual battle, or am i wrong?
You do not control units in the Civilization series.

[Alan T]

but do you control units, or is it more "my army attacks your army....[rolls dice]...SUCCESS!!!". there isn't any strategy in terms of playing out an actual battle, or am i wrong?


2000 turns is a lot. that's 10x more than the Total War series usually requires. that's pretty good.


You do not have a tactical control of your military forces in civilization IV. There is some strategy to how you maneuver your forces (as pertaining to units such as calvary or siege equipment or air force), however the game is primarily about building up a civilization and dips only a moderate amount into the various parts of a civilization (such as military control, domestic, financial, education, etc).

If you primarily want a tactical/strategic war game, then it won't compare at all with Total War. However very little compares with the depth of Civilization IV in what it tries to do in civilization management.

[Anthony]

ok, but here's my thing - in the early part of humanity/civilization, progress was made primarily through the sword. that should be reflected in the early going of the game. it's only in the last 2 decades of humanity has the world become a smaller place with this whole global effort. otherwise, command and conquer. if the game only touches on education, military, finances - then what else do you do? what is the meat and potatoes? or is this more of a jack of all trades game where you don't spend too much focus on any one aspect of a civilization?

obviously there's a lot to this game or it wouldn't be so popular, but i guess this is just one of those times where i have to resign to the fact that i'm not the audience the game is trying to reach.

[Buccaneer]

but do you control units, or is it more "my army attacks your army....[rolls dice]...SUCCESS!!!". there isn't any strategy in terms of playing out an actual battle, or am i wrong?


2000 turns is a lot. that's 10x more than the Total War series usually requires. that's pretty good.

But it's not that many. It's 500 turns on Normal speed, 750 on Epic and someone will have to help me out on Marathon. I play this very meticulously (as I do all strategy games), so 40 hours over a 2 weeks period is normal for me. That was about the same as when I played Medieval.

[Alan T]

ok, but here's my thing - in the early part of humanity/civilization, progress was made primarily through the sword. that should be reflected in the early going of the game. it's only in the last 2 decades of humanity has the world become a smaller place with this whole global effort. otherwise, command and conquer. if the game only touches on education, military, finances - then what else do you do? what is the meat and potatoes? or is this more of a jack of all trades game where you don't spend too much focus on any one aspect of a civilization?

obviously there's a lot to this game or it wouldn't be so popular, but i guess this is just one of those times where i have to resign to the fact that i'm not the audience the game is trying to reach.


I think it actually addresses what you say in this post pretty well..

In Civilization, the early game is indeed all about things from early civilization time.. Your main efforts are to do things such as build up a primative army of men carrying clubs, or after a while spears or axes, or such. You can also look into trying to discover a religion or help it flourish.. your "technological" advances are things such as basic writing, etc. You don't really have to worry about domestic policy as you don't have many known neighbors at this time. You don't have to worry alot about finances as well you don't really have alot of currency of any form.

Some people in early game actually enjoy working towards getting a ton of axemen built up and trying to take over your neighbor through war or fighting, and then advancing your kingdom that way.

The great thing about this game is that there is no "correct" way to play. You pick the way you want and go from there. I simply say if your main goal is to move troops around, there are other games that do that far better. if you want a game that plays the stock market mainly, there are other games that do that better. This game in my opinion is on the short list of games that does all of it with some limited depth fairly well.

[Anthony]

thanks Alan, much appreciated.


that confirms why i haven't played this game. just not for me.

[TargetPractice6]

I was playing Rome: Total War before I bought Civ 4. All I can say is if you enjoy the turn-based component of TW more than the real-time part then Civ 4 is for you. Civ's overworld is much more detailed, and I even find the placement of troops more strategic. Otherwise, yeah, you should probably stick with an RTS.

(also, whoops didn't realize I was so far off in the number of turns. It's been awhile since I've fired up the game.)

[Anthony]

since i've played Medieval2:TW so much, yes, i do tend to gloss over the battles a lot. early on, not so much. since everyone starts out at the same level the difference maker in determining the outcome of battles is strategy and tactics. towards the middle and end i only fight key major battles, because you get to a point where it's all about who has advanced the most and who has access to the better troops. i do spend much more time on a more macro level. the key to the Total War series (and in real life i would imagine) is to set up your territoriess so that they can make a lot of money, so you can afford to carry much larger standing armies and afford to invest in advancing your military might, so that you can in turn be able to successfully attack another enemy territory to add to your property to generate more wealth to continue the cycle. the main point about the Total War series is everything revolves around military might, and i agree with that. no one will give you land just cuz you ask. but i do find the inter-country relations/interaction to be lacking. i'm sure that's where Civ 4 shines.

overall my point is i probably don't participate in the battles all that much, it's just nice knowing i have the option to do so. it's just a little troubling to accept that while the TW series is about 200 or so turns, that's over a particular era of history. Civ4 apparently double or triple that, but over the course of entire humanity.

too bad they don't have a way, like Spore, to "zoom" in or out of particular eras. like the Colonial/Imperialism era? then you can spend more turns on that. don't like the height of ancient Egypt? you can gloss over that era quicker. it's be nice if the Civ series allowed that zooming in and out at your leisure, so you cherrypick which eras of human civilization you like spending more time in.

all in all, i guess that was a pretty good deal. should've jumped on it. can't go wrong for $20. its actually funny that Civ4 was $20 and Maximum Football costs $50.

[Draft Dodger]

I was playing Rome: Total War before I bought Civ 4. All I can say is if you enjoy the turn-based component of TW more than the real-time part then Civ 4 is for you. Civ's overworld is much more detailed, and I even find the placement of troops more strategic. Otherwise, yeah, you should probably stick with an RTS.

(also, whoops didn't realize I was so far off in the number of turns. It's been awhile since I've fired up the game.)

I reinstalled RTW this weekend and played it for the first time in a long time. To me, it was jarring to see how poorly Rome held up to Civ in so many areas. And yes, even if the battle modeling isn't as "realistic" as it is in Rome, it's still plenty complex and requires a lot more strategy than Rome does IMO.

[TargetPractice6]

It's not quite what you're looking for, but the game does come with some standalone scenarios that cover some major points in history.

But there would be no way to slow or fast forward parts of the main game. I think you'd have to play it to really get it's pacing. The only way to advance eras is to advance through your tech tree. So the choice is really up to you as to how fast you want want your nation to grow and in what areas.