What do we miss from earlier Civ games?

Optimizer · January 24, 2003, 07:40

Most game features in Civ games were imported to the next version, but far from all. Often, things that added atmosphere were excluded in the sequel.

Civ 1: The newspaper headlines, the animated city view, the replay (in Civ 1 & 3, but not Civ 2)
Colonization: The event splashes
Civ 2: The intelligence report (in Civ 1 & 2, but not in Civ 3), fundamentalism
SMAC: Detailed terrain

Solver · January 24, 2003, 13:54

Missing the newspaper from Civ1, as well as Dan Qualy screen (they promised it in Civ3!). Don't think I miss much from Civ 2 though.

Inverse Icarus · January 24, 2003, 16:51

i miss ZOC from civ2. i liked being able to pin people. even if it only worked during war, it would be handy. or in fortresses. whatever, i want ZOC back.

i miss both-gender leaders from civ2. stupid leaderheads.

sigh.

Dauphin · January 24, 2003, 17:02

Lack of ZOC is annoying, it now requires at least twice as many units as before to pin enemy units at your border.

Something I like about CtP that isn't in Civ1, 2 or 3 is the extra government types. It would be nice to have different governments suited to different aspects of the game. Commercial nations could go for Corporate Republic, industrial output nations could go for Communism, science nations go for Technocracy etc.

Solver · January 24, 2003, 17:20

ZOC were stupid. They were less strategic than they could be, and they didn't, to me at least, ever add to the overall enjoyment value of the game. Sure it now takes twice as many units to create a border, but whatever.

Actually, if you really want to, you can give all the civ3 units ZOC ability in the Editor.

DrSpike · January 25, 2003, 08:12

Civ with any ZOC is lacking IMO.

LDiCesare · January 25, 2003, 09:37

Quote:

ZOC were stupid. They were less strategic than they could be, and they didn't, to me at least, ever add to the overall enjoyment value of the game. Sure it now takes twice as many units to create a border, but whatever.

I don't think they were good or realistic, but ZOCs do have a big impact on strategy if you know how to use them. In CtP2, I very often corner a stack with a 12-stack whose mission is to destroy the enemy stack, and a few lonely warriors who just prevent the enemy from escaping (or forcing them to move a less direct route towards their objective).

The global replay at the end of civ, with the map showing territory changing hands and extending, is what I really missed in civ2.

DrSpike · January 25, 2003, 09:39

Quote:

Originally posted by LDiCesare

The global replay at the end of civ, with the map showing territory changing hands and extending, is what I really missed in civ2.

It's in Civ3.

War4ever · January 25, 2003, 12:42

i like public works for building roads in ctp.....too bad it wasn't incorporated in the real civ series

DrSpike · January 25, 2003, 12:44

Quote:

Originally posted by War4ever
real civ series

/me sniggers.

Dauphin · January 25, 2003, 13:13

Public works are good, but the problem of being able to build improvements outside of your territory was a pain.

Solver · January 25, 2003, 17:12

In CtP2, you can only build tile improvements within your borders.

Jamski · January 27, 2003, 08:41

I miss the catapult from Civ1. In my first game of Civ3 I tryed the same approach, and was dissapointed that my catapult armies were captured by a single warrior. BRING BACK THE 6/1/1 CATAPULT ! Or maybe not, it was too powerful.

-Jam

DrSpike · January 27, 2003, 08:44

Not at all......1 defence, 1 MP, and it's cost considered 'pults are not unbalanced.

Jamski · January 27, 2003, 09:06

Hey Doc Spike,
I mean unbalanced as in "One veteran catapult can beat all the defenders easily up to riflemen"

Of course you don't just use one catapult... It was VERY easy to conquer the world just using massed catapults and tirimes (and a bit of luck with the map)

-Jam

DrSpike · January 27, 2003, 09:09

It is true Civ1 was worse in this regard........Civ2 brought more balance. You can attack with 'Pults but it takes planning to pull off, and they are always vulnerable to counters.

Dauphin · January 27, 2003, 09:45

Quote:

Originally posted by Solver
In CtP2, you can only build tile improvements within your borders.

That's the problem. If you could build improvements on neutral territory adjacent to improvements it would be alright.

Occasionally you'd get an advanced tribe far from your main territory and the riot risk would be high due to capital distance. It would have been nice to build a road to connect it up early on. It would also serve as a useful way to transfer defensive units quickly. That aside roads outside of your city radius could act as a conduit to place settlers, saving a couple of turns.

The real bête-noir was when AI settlers would build cities in any interstices you'd left.

Immortal Wombat · January 27, 2003, 12:04

you can, so long as the adjacent improvement is a fort

Dauphin · January 27, 2003, 12:52

Building forts to expand territory is ok, but I'd rather not waste PW on them.

aaglo · January 30, 2003, 06:43

I liked the SE settings of SMAC. But I think they would be hard to bring to the history of mankind.

Or perhaps...

How's this?
After researching certain techs you would get an option to enact certain ordinances, which would have somekind of effects on the characteristics of your empire. Thus it would be somekind of mixture between SMAC and SimCity. These ordinances could also have sub-ordinances.

Jamski · January 30, 2003, 07:04

I'd rather see a government/social system that took the shape of a number of sliders:
Elitism vs Equality
Centralisation vs Devolution
Religious vs Athiest (sp?)
Millitaristic vs Peaceful
Controlled vs Free

With each slider having 5 settings with the central setting having no effect. Elitism for example would increase research/income, but at the cost of additional unhappy citizens, or something. Religious would make your people happier(?) but at the cost of alienating other civs (and captured population) etc.
Failing that, the SE in SMAC is pretty cool

I agree.

-Jam

aaglo · January 30, 2003, 07:12

Hmmm... those sliders seem interesting...

What if some techs would have an effect on one of those sliders: Before a certain tech you could have the scale of a slider from -2 to +2. After that tech (or a combination of techs) the scale of that slider would be from -3 to +3. So, when time passes, the differences would become greater.

Jamski · January 30, 2003, 08:50

Ah, I'm glad someone likes my idea. I'm trying to build up a following. Perhaps it will make Civ4 ? ? I prefer the idea of the techs allowing the constuction of buildings, which in turn would let you adjust one or more of the sliders, for example masonry allows castle, allows more control/less freedom. Each improvement would give you more room to play with. For example with a prison and a printing press you could move the freedom slider between -2 and +1, or something...

-Jam

aaglo · January 30, 2003, 09:29

Ahaa... so those sliders would be city-specific... that can cause exessive amounts of micro-management...

Jamski · January 30, 2003, 09:47

No, they would be region specific (6-10 cities) with about 20-40 regions on the map. You could also develop techs which worked accross the whole civ.

Example:
Castle (Masonry) allows you to decrease freedom down to the -2 setting in the region it is built in (appears on the map, useful for other things too?)
Supreme Court (Code of laws and Courthouse) allows you to decrease freedom down to -2 in all regions.

Of course that Castle will lose its effect (reduce to a poss -1) when the first Cannons are built. Then a police station will be required, or perhaps a more liberal government...

What do ya think?

-Jam

Dauphin · January 30, 2003, 12:07

Rather than culture flipping which many hate, perhaps those sliders could cause emmigration or immigration, aswell as internal migration. If you have a region that is devolved, free, peaceful and equal it would attract immigrants from the tyrannical regions.

It could be an idea for bringing balance if needed.

Panag · February 3, 2003, 10:25

hi ,

farming , random events , ......

civ3 is something different , however there are many things we would have liked to see back in the game , more inproved naturatly but somehow the where left out , .....

have a nice day

wilbill · February 8, 2003, 05:05

Quote:

Originally posted by War of Art
I'd rather see a government/social system that took the shape of a number of sliders:
Elitism vs Equality
Centralisation vs Devolution
Religious vs Athiest (sp?)
Millitaristic vs Peaceful
Controlled vs Free

EU 2 uses that system. It was one of the few things about the game that I really liked. Instead of picking a "Militaristic/Scientific" civilization you determine how your civilization evolves. Want a Slightly Militaristic/Non-Religious/Highly Centralized Constitutional Monarcy? Just set the sliders and wait a few hundred years.

MrBaggins · February 8, 2003, 13:30

Space Bombers (and the space layer) from CtP1... removed in CtP2.

It was just excellent to bomb an inferior culture to death, from orbit, without their having any ability to respond, in any way

plus you could stage invasions from space too...

Master Zen · February 8, 2003, 13:46

aaglo and War of Art:

love those SMAC ideas. I think they should have put more out of SMAC in Civ3 than out of Civ1 or 2.

Here's what I would have liked:

Civ 1:

- A more comprehensive replay screen. In Civ1 it showed the civ which first built a certain unit. It also dumped the data into a .txt file.

- Natural disasters. I could be wrong but weren't there natural disasters in Civ1? Something like "Earthquake hits Athens, temple destroyed".

Civ 2:

- I think the way HP and FP was handled in the Civ2 combat system was better than in Civ3.

- Scenarios with events!!!!!!!

- Showing who was #1 in the Demographics screen if you had an embassy (also in Civ1)

- Ability to give units (trade wouldve been great)

- Cruise missiles actually worked like cruise missiles

CTP2

- Public works instead of workers

SMAC

- variable settings for government types (like aaglo and WoA said)

- unit creation with prototypes.

- Ecological side effects. Would give a reason not to chop down forests and jungle.

OTHER

- The combat system of Panzer General

The SMAC style unit creation could be easily used for a Civ game. For example, you would start with a basic "foot soldier". For armament you could have different subtipes like arrows (Bow, Longbow, Crossbow), spears (Spears, Pike, Lance), later firearms (Musket, Rifle, Assault Rifle). Then you would also select armor, and engine (this would be say, Horse, Car, Truck)
etc etc etc