Civ 4 - The List of BAD Ideas.

Fosse · December 6, 2003, 11:45

Seeing as The List will quickly fill up with what we want, I thought a dedicated place for what we don't was in order.

So... what are the ideas for Civ 4 that you DON'T want to see? The things that you fear Firaxis (or other Civers) might want, that would kill the game for you?

For me...

The Future
I'm okay with technology in Civ progressing into the immediatly forseeable future before "Future Tech" becomes a research goal. 2050 is a good time for a Civ game to end. I don't want to see a "Diamond Age" or underwater cities in any circumstances.

Civ Specific Animations
I'm talking about leaderheads here. Lots of time and effort, lots of megabytes, and NO added playability or immersion. Why stand in the way of mod makers with such a silly thing as three expressions for leader heads. I have no problem whatsoever with a simple state portrait.

Less is more.

And because someone else will say it if I don't first....

BUGS!

Alex · December 6, 2003, 12:12

i don't want them to streamline the game even more in order to make the AI competitive...

Jon Miller · December 6, 2003, 13:21

I don't want to get rid of all tactical play by having CTP style stacked combat

Jon Miller

Solver · December 6, 2003, 13:47

I don't want to have non-tactical combat by not implementing CTP style stacked combat.

Nikolai · December 6, 2003, 14:07

I haven't played CTP, but as I understand the concept, I'm all for it.

Thereby I'm aganst NOT having it.(to follow the thread topic.

)

Solver · December 6, 2003, 14:12

For those who have never played CtP, here's a screen of the stacked combat.

Note - the attacking Cannon and Artillery are in back row, and take no damage, but deal damage to pink first row. Likewise, pink Horse Archers take no damage, but deal damage to blue first row. The first rows engage each other. Once the pink first row is killed, units from second row will move in their place...

Jon Miller · December 6, 2003, 14:15

but there is no tactics there

you just set up a stack

having a stack should be important, but not everything

civ3 has already gone too far this way I beleive (with having it so that a single stack dominates

Jon Miller

Jon Miller · December 6, 2003, 14:17

Quote:

Originally posted by Solver
For those who have never played CtP, here's a screen of the stacked combat.

Note - the attacking Cannon and Artillery are in back row, and take no damage, but deal damage to pink first row. Likewise, pink Horse Archers take no damage, but deal damage to blue first row. The first rows engage each other. Once the pink first row is killed, units from second row will move in their place...

my problem is that you don't control any of those units

all there is is a battle of armies that oyu watch (and yu can order a retreat)

civ has had the joys of different tactics to make sure that you win

Jon Miller

Solver · December 6, 2003, 14:19

Hmm, you don't have control while the battle happens, but you don't have it in Civ 3 really, either. There are also similar tactics in CtP2, by forming stacks with different abilities and stuff.

The upside is, it will never take you 5 attackers to wipe a single defender.

Jon Miller · December 6, 2003, 14:41

your troops ahve movement, attack and defense

so there is tactics

which is different than stacks fighting

Jon Mo;ler

Maquiladora · December 6, 2003, 15:30

Quote:

Originally posted by Jon Miller
I don't want to get rid of all tactical play by having CTP style stacked combat

Jon Miller

CtP1/2 troops have movement, attack, defence, range, flanking and grouped into armies, so there is more tactics. Thats better than roaming around with 100 of the same attackers and a few defensive units then throwing them one after another at cities, then it becomes about numbers and not tactics, different stacks have different abilities, thats tactics, IMO of course.

Im sure combat will be changed in civ4 but they wont use the CtP system (although they should and improve it) i expect itll be somethng totally new.

MattH · December 6, 2003, 15:40

I see nothing wrong with underwater cities... in fact, I was just about to mention them in the wish list...

I don't want CIV IV to be a lonesome single player game- I'm tired of playing 1-v-all.

Solver · December 6, 2003, 16:24

Maq, I'm not all so sure they will be changing the combat to something new in Civ 4. I fear that single units will remain as single as they are in Civ 3.

Brent · December 6, 2003, 16:45

I agree against Civ specific animations.

Theben · December 6, 2003, 18:02

Just out of curiosity, how do CtP2 scenarios deal with stacking?

FE, there are some civ2 scenarios that would not benefit from stacks.

I think armies/stack will be necessary (to reduce lag time) but an option to turn them off might be warranted.

Solver · December 6, 2003, 18:13

Because of the excellent CtP2 bugs, there weren't really any scenarios

.

Jon Miller · December 6, 2003, 18:17

you haven't addressed my concern of tactics

all I see is that you make up an army, and send it at the enemy (I did play some of both CTPs)

both are strategic decisions

I liked how past civs have included some tactics, it makes the game more fun

Jon Miller

Fosse · December 6, 2003, 18:29

I don't want to see caravans or supply crawler-type units for storing shields.

Maybe caravans are a good way to deal with trade, but there should be no "flash build" units.

Maquiladora · December 6, 2003, 19:24

Quote:

you haven't addressed my concern of tactics

all I see is that you make up an army, and send it at the enemy (I did play some of both CTPs)

both are strategic decisions

I liked how past civs have included some tactics, it makes the game more fun

Jon Miller

As i said, in CtP1/2 there are different stacks for different situations, but in civ the best attacking unit and best defensive is all there is and there is no other tactical choice on how to compose the force.

Quote:

Just out of curiosity, how do CtP2 scenarios deal with stacking?

Not sure what you mean, but the scenarios that came with the game use stacks like they do in a normal game.

Jon Miller · December 6, 2003, 21:13

no

civ has way more than 4 types of units

it has defender infantry
it has offender infantry
it has bombard
and it has calvary

there is also an additinoal infantry type (the archer - TOW)

besides specials (paratrooper/marine/whatever)

as well as air support

and that is ignoring modern times

Jon Miller

Jon Miller · December 6, 2003, 21:14

composing forces is not tactics

that is strategy

tactics is how you use your forces

which civ has a lot of (but sometimes gets lost in the problems with having too many units)

Jon Miller

Skanky Burns · December 6, 2003, 22:27

It would probably be better to move the debate out of this thread so that this one can concentrate on things most of us don't want in Civ 4. So I present to you the Stacked vs Single Unit Debate Thread for your enjoyment.

I agree against Civ-Specific animations and shield-storage units. Below-sea cities would be beyond the scope of a standard civ game, although I wouldn't be too upset if it was allowed in scenarios.

Maquiladora · December 6, 2003, 22:52

edit/

(To try and not kill this thread completely) i dont think civ4 should be in 3D.

Fosse · December 7, 2003, 00:17

Maq - Agreed on no 3d.

I don't want ages. At all.

Solver · December 7, 2003, 07:00

SMAC-Crawler style units are mainly bad because they favor human much more than the AI.

Fosse · December 7, 2003, 10:55

Quote:

Originally posted by Solver
SMAC-Crawler style units are mainly bad because they favor human much more than the AI.

Plus, they are tedious!!!!!

Seriously, even when the payoff was great, how much fun was it to blanket an entire empire, tile by tile, with little units. Especially knowing that if you didn't, the other guy would crush you (in MP, of course)?

Father Beast · December 7, 2003, 14:21

OK, here's my take...

First, the things I didn't like about Civ3

1. 3D. took resources and tended to crash the game, without adding anything.

2. outrageous corruption and waste. building cities with 1 shield of production was constant and absurd. It was only to keep ICS down anyway, and that should be fixed otherwise.

3. the tech tree. The way it was divided into ages made it impossible to follow a close line of research, because of the neccessity of researching most of an age before moving on. I may be alone in this, but I prefer the old humoungous tech tree of Civ1 and Civ2, where you could research narrowly for centuries before you got stuck and found yourself having to go back in order to go forward.

I probably have more but my brain just went down. I need a nap.

Brent · December 8, 2003, 03:23

Simplify the end of game map replay. We don't need distinction of terrain. We don't need cities. We don't need wonders or golden ages. Just one color for land, one color for water, and show the border changes.

Stuie · December 8, 2003, 11:30

I don't want any extraneous crap that does nothing for gameplay, including Wonder Movies, Throne Room and City Views.

Solver · December 8, 2003, 11:45

Quote:

I don't want any extraneous crap that does nothing for gameplay, including Wonder Movies, Throne Room and City Views.

It adds to the atmosphere. You can also that way argue that graphics add nothing to gameplay - though I, personally, prefer the neat Civ 3 graphics to those from Civ 1.