From Civ3 to Civ4

[Plotinus]

Originally posted by panag


or to put a couple games and scen's inside that can only be reached after playing all civs on the hardest level or so

That's a brilliant idea!

[Mad Bomber]

Originally posted by Platypus Rex
MUST HAVE

multi player allready with the game, no more buying another game

And a fully capable editor, this includes:

1. The ability to edit virtually any unit, city, citizen state, City Improvement, Wonder, ect.
2. The ability to add new units, wonders, and city improvements within the editor with minimal modding.
3. Ranking the mods and scenerios in the HOF (include the mod name to insure that it is a documented mod)
4. Allow the activation of the palace in mods.

[sabrewolf]

Originally posted by panag
or to put a couple games and scen's inside that can only be reached after playing all civs on the hardest level or so , ....

ok, is there anyone who was time and skills for that?

i voted "substancial changes"... something like civ2-->civ3. the addition of culture was a great step!

[Addled Platypus]

PROPS to Mad Bomber


Is anyone keeping notes?

[Panag]

Originally posted by sabrewolf




ok, is there anyone who was time and skills for that?

i voted "substancial changes"... something like civ2-->civ3. the addition of culture was a great step!

hi ,

more then you think , .... and it could be included in steps , for example two games on deity giv you this , two on this give you that , etc , ....

have a nice day

[GePap]

A significant change:

Using percentages, I want it to have SMAC's social model, Colonization's Economic model as a base, Civ3's resource model modified, a mix of the Civ3 and SMAC military model, EU's diplomacy and some of it's tech modes, the better features of CtP2 and so forth.

There have been great ideas in so many TBS in the last 10 years-I would love Civ4 to be a compilation of all the best ideas.

[Addled Platypus]

For the longest time Civ games set the standard


I would hate to see them use other games ideas


This is what makes Civ "Civ"


After all how many perfect games are out there?



Keep the juices flowing

[DrGerry]

Significant. I'm a little afraid about a total change that makes me feel an alien in Civ.

The Civ4 editor must add events like Civ2

[Krushchev]

Voted Significant.

I'd like to see an update that doesn't have graphics so slick they slow my computer down. That's getting to be an issue...I'd rather see Civ2 level graphics and an advanced AI than I would see great graphics and a mediocre AI. Less bark, more bite. And frankly, beyond a certian point, I'd like to be able to shut off the graphics since seeing units fight ad nauseam just bores me.

I'd also like to see a reworking of the UN concept. I honestly couldn't get into Civ3 because of the graphics and the fact that it didn't offer me some of the attributes I preferred from ToT.

One interesting idea would be allowing modern-era civs to have food distribution to prevent starvation, and to allow major cities to become truly great.

But the bottom line is this: Chuck the complex graphics, and give me a great game.

[Krushchev]

As a comment on GePap's comment...
"A significant change:

Using percentages, I want it to have SMAC's social model, Colonization's Economic model as a base, Civ3's resource model modified, a mix of the Civ3 and SMAC military model, EU's diplomacy and some of it's tech modes, the better features of CtP2 and so forth.

There have been great ideas in so many TBS in the last 10 years-I would love Civ4 to be a compilation of all the best ideas."

Ok. I love the SMAC Social Engineering model...give it a few more options to deal with the time covered, but this is good. And I love the EU diplomacy ideas, though some tweaking should be done. I preferred the terrain improvement model of CtP/CtP2 to some extent, since you didn't have to constantly shift settlers or workers or formers around. One addition I'd like is a 20th-Century diplomacy model, to become active later on. In other words, the later in the game you go, the harder it becomes to achieve a conquest victory, since the whole world might decide to gang up on you. Another idea would be to give the AI occasional fits of pacifism following really bloody wars. Essentially, draw enough blood and the AI for one country might decide to curl up in a corner for 20 turns and let you have concessions.

One thing I like about SMAC was that, if the chips fall decently well, I can win without firing a shot in battle(mind worms notwithstanding given their inherent non-human nature). Which can actually be trickier than winning via conquest(experimenting with this currently...it is its own brand of fun; strategy doesn't just mean 'how do I kill all my enemies quickly,' as Europa Universalis showed). But that's just me...

[Jawn Henry]

Needs events, and a good event editor/creator. And no cheap, flimsy memory limit on events - i want to be able to have FULL of event if i want. Memory allowance for events was too low in Civ2, and still too low in ToT. New triggers for events would be needed as well.

Also, a unit editor that can give easy access to making units animation pics (without having to resort to using "foreign" tools (that is not included with the game))

Oh, and i said this elsewhere, but i'll say it again: multi-tiered maps .

JH

[Lord_Davinator]

If you want a new game don't give it the name "CIV" if its a "CIV4" it god damn better be a CIV game... oh and 4 with a shift is $

[sabrewolf]

on swiss keyboard a SHIFT-4 is actually a 'ç' (a french cédille)

CIV would be better if 'C IV' or 'CivIV'... but then... who cares, as long as the game is good

[fezick31]

<herd-mentality>

Significant change

I agree with most people on this. If all we get is a smoother graphics and new units, I'll stick with Civ 3 and the many mods. However, if tptb see fit to really rework the game - knowing now what was most popular in the past three games - they could create something great.

If they stick with the old model, you end up trying to fit new ideas into the old model - sometimes it works (culture & borders) and sometimes it doesn't work as well (stacked combat).

However, if they begin from the ground up, they worry about how to make new features great, and how to make the game great, not keeping it within a predefined box.

With that approach, they may end up with a game that looks completely different, or or it may look very familiar, but it will be BETTER.

CIV is kinda like a car - it still needs wheels, but you don't see many Model T's on the road. I doubt the drivers of those antiques didn't mind them then, but what would they have thought if they could have compared them to a Ferrari?

</herd-mentaility>

[Vince278]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
I voted "slight", but I'm really somewhere between slight and significant. I want the feel of Civ3 to stay, but some things to change that can only be changed in a new game (I don't want this to simply be an XP in another guise).

Exactly how I feel.

[Bragelonne]

Well, I actually think the far limit for changes between Civ3 and Civ4 is the one we had seen from Civ2 to Ctp. We cannot expect Civ4 to be SO different from our old loved civ, just some little graphic/civ/unit/engine changes will make for.

By the way, maybe some 3D applied in here will do. What about full 3d city aereal views?

[Vince278]

Originally posted by Bragelonne
By the way, maybe some 3D applied in here will do. What about full 3d city aereal views?

Like SimCity2000?

[Addled Platypus]

How often have you civer's actually use the overhead view.


For me I stopped after the second time playing. I just think its a waist of time, it means nothing to the grand strategy of winning.


What say rest of you

[Shogun Gunner]

If you mean the city aerial view, its okay, but it's lower on the priority list for graphic enhancements.

I miss the infinite zoom feature (okay, it's not really infinite - but it's better than the two view zoom in CivIII). I hope cIV will return to the Civ2 zoom feature. If this could be integrated into the most granular view being the city view...that would be neat.

[Bragelonne]

Originally posted by Platypus Rex

For me I stopped (using aerial view) after the second time playing. I just think its a waist of time, it means nothing to the grand strategy of winning.

Listen, I know the Aerial view is not really NECCESARY (God damn my Anglish), but it is really cool; well at least some of us like watching our little cities grow in different areas, and particularly some aerial pics form Civ3 are really fantastic.

So, it´s true that you don´t use so much, but the times you use it it feels great. If it were only for the great strategy, you could turn back to the old Civ2 thingie.

[Addled Platypus]

Okay


How about adding aerial views of your favorite sieges/battles


That has possibilities..

[Bragelonne]

ya, it would be...

[Vince278]

Those city views would need redone anyway. My largest cities looked kind of sparse when I zoom in. A first person view of the streets would be neat (especially if tanks are rolling down them ).

[Lord God Jinnai]

I went with signifigant although i do think the map and movement need and overhall. I think point-to-point vector based movement system and all it entails for changing map would be great, but aside that i the rest would be conservative changes.

[conmcb25]

Significant departure for me

[CivalusMaximus]

I want a radical change. In particular I want realism. I believe the only way to achieve this is to abstract away city placement in favour of just national borders. (Having settlers being units that expand national borders). Special buildings or types of units might be required to create disconnected parts of a nation (on different contininents, etc). Each connected set of borders should manage as one city, but allow for simultaneous production (say a maximum of 5 queues with % assignment). Anyways details can be worked out. I think this qualifies as a very radical change.

[fezick31]

Originally posted by CivalusMaximus
I want a radical change. In particular I want realism. I believe the only way to achieve this is to abstract away city placement in favour of just national borders. (Having settlers being units that expand national borders). Special buildings or types of units might be required to create disconnected parts of a nation (on different contininents, etc). Each connected set of borders should manage as one city, but allow for simultaneous production (say a maximum of 5 queues with % assignment). Anyways details can be worked out. I think this qualifies as a very radical change.

That's an interesting concept, but I think it is hard to go for realism and ignore the impact of individual cities. The story of most civilizations is in their great cities - Babylon, Beijeng, New York, London, Rome - it's hard to tell the history of a civilization without mentioning these places.

Perhaps if their role was toned down - maybe several smaller cities, that with time could combine into the larger megalopis' of modern times as they grew.

I agree that cities may be too focused upon. The concept leaves entire areas of the map outside of any useful role except military strategy.

Is the point to get away from cities entirely, or to cut down on Micro-management?

[fezick31]

In writing my response to CivalusMaximus, I had another idea...It tends to be the case that undeveloped land isn't worth much in an empire. What if it could be worth something in happiness points, say as national forest or nature preserve. What if other civs got ticked at you for chopping down your rain forests?

[Vince278]

Originally posted by fezick31
In writing my response to CivalusMaximus, I had another idea...It tends to be the case that undeveloped land isn't worth much in an empire. What if it could be worth something in happiness points, say as national forest or nature preserve. What if other civs got ticked at you for chopping down your rain forests?

Nasty. I always liked to clear a continent's worth of jungle.

[realpolitic]

I've finally started playing ctp2, and I enjoy its features more than civ3. Public works and automatic assignment of workers makes the game much faster. Automatic assignment I thought would take away from strategy, it doesn't, you plan to develop rings around cities instead of tiles, and taking slaves is just fun. ctp2 doesn't have the game breakers of ctp1, like the Philosphers Stone, which could give you all the other civs techs.

Signifiant, but if you come up with good enough ideas, radical!