What is your greatest wish for Civ 4?

Optimizer · January 28, 2003, 20:46

My guess is that a new title in the official Civ series will arrive every five years until a Civ title flops. Thus we can hope for Civilization 4 to be released in 2006.

Cladding Civ 1 in new graphics and adding a few new game features was enough for Civ 2 to become an instant classic. Civ 3 had to compete with an entire genre (which was started with Civ 1) and the number of civ type games will hardly shrink during the coming years. So, what do you want Civ 4 to have to be the game of games?

(This will be my last "What is-" thread for a while)

DrSpike · January 29, 2003, 05:44

No real time, no tactical combat.

The AI is important, and good MP capability. As a hardered MP I should point out this does not mean the ability to play the SP game with other players.......what makes a good SP game and what makes a good MP game are often very different. It should only need a few thoughtful tweaks, not extensive (and expensive) major changes.

Jamski · January 29, 2003, 05:56

A better "story shaping mechanism" where the game plays differently depending on how it is played. Something like what Brad is developing for GalCiv, I suppose. And more of everything, less generic units and improvements, more resources, better AI, the possibility of "pact of brotherhood" alla SMAC, a unit design workshop, more terrain types, tiles producing more kinds of things, not just food, shields & trade, small nations (like Switzerland) that affect the macro game and a religion model. And that's just for starters. I also want declining Civs, and superpowers, and some kind of way of reducing corruption through buildings, units and policys.
But most importantly, I want leaders that live for a length of time, and are then replaced, with the possiblity of civil war, with the leader of your civ having a big effect on the way your game plays. There - I don't ask for much, do I

-Jam

Henrik · January 29, 2003, 11:12

I want more customization and scenario building tools!

(basicly the opposite of civ 3 which still with expansion and all has less cuztomization than the original civ 2 had...)

Nikolai · January 29, 2003, 12:22

I think a better feeling of creating a civilization and a "real" history is important in an eventual Civ4.

I feel this really helps making the "one-more-turn" feeling we all know so well!

Rasbelin · January 29, 2003, 12:33

I voted AI as that's what makes a TBS game in SP mode, as previously proven and complained about. Expections were high for Civ III's AI, especially after hearing that no one on Firaxis had yet beated the AI on Deity, but things developed differently then as we know. So that's why I put high priority on the AI, dispite it can't be made unbeatble. As for Nikolai's suggestion, I agree with him as Civ II was great with it and the WoW concept, but Civ III screwed it somehow as they were more simplfied and not something that had depth and had an interesting background that reflected the history in a way like the WoWs in Civ II. Videos also made some of the atmosphere. Especially the council.

Irrevelant, but still... Having the head of Markos or Dan (or maybe even both) as one of the advisors would be cool. Civ III - Sid, Civ IV - Markos/Dan?

Method · January 29, 2003, 13:14

i don't want civ4. not if it's anything like civ3

but barring that, for it not to be made by sid.

ColdWizard · January 29, 2003, 19:01

that "just one more turn" feeling

Mark_Everson · January 29, 2003, 22:16

I voted for AI, big surprise there

Just-one-more-turn if of course critically important also.

If it goes real time I'm not buying. . .

Rasbelin · January 30, 2003, 02:34

TKG,

don't ruin the fun for the rest of us.

If you don't like Civ III, fine, but having such premonitions about Civ IV (notive: a possible fourth version) is abit paranoia, and espcially condemning the idea that Sid would make it, is IMO quite stupid.

Jamski · January 30, 2003, 03:48

Even if Sid didn't make it, then they would still want to put his name on the box, so he'd have some kind of input. I guess.

Oh forgot to mention that I'd want Civ4 to be more of a builder's game. I want to build an empire, not always have to steal an empire by force !

-Jam

aaglo · January 30, 2003, 05:34

No RTS, but the strategic combat a'la MasterOfMagic/MasterOfOrion/ect. would be quite fun I believe.

Nikolai · January 30, 2003, 11:56

Didn't CTP2 have something like that?

I didn't try the game, but I remember seeing a battle-screen of some kind in the screenies released on the Net.

Panag · February 1, 2003, 09:02

hi ,

to bad we can only vote for one thing , .....

we need an option "turnless on or off" , this way everyone is happy , let Soren develop the near perfect self learning AI

radom events , helicopters that blow tanks up , a transport aircraft and a bigger map , together with at least triple maximums of cities and units , ....

and with a bit of luck we might get in with an XP or so , ....

who knows , who knows , .....

but deep inside every ones biggest wish is that the developers and distributors listen more to the people who buy the game , .....

have a nice day

LDiCesare · February 1, 2003, 16:17

Turn based. No tactical combat and no real time.
Good AI, and easy to mod, which also implies either no 3D graphics or coming with all tools needed to edit the images.

Maquiladora · February 1, 2003, 17:13

CtP3 please, but if it has to be Civ4 then no more workers/settlers and slightly more advanced combat than a board game.

Nikolai · February 1, 2003, 18:04

I liked the split up between settlers/workers.

I never liked using expensive settlers to do the building of infrastructure. Civ3 was in that sense very good!

I've never tried CTP and it's system of PWs, but if that's a good solution, that could be smart to implement in a future Civ4.

Optimizer · February 4, 2003, 11:18

Everyone wants better AI, but it's harder to do than to say. (However you say that in English.)

HAND · February 4, 2003, 11:28

More atmosphere! Alpha Centauri managed wonder movies etc...I know they take time to make, but they really do give a great sense of a civilization progressing through the ages.
Better Graphics, better AI are to be expected regardless.
Also a flawless and powerful editor would make the game live on for years..

XarXo · February 4, 2003, 11:37

A 3d planet divided in hexagons (and 12 pentagons, a bit deformed to have the correct shape), with the possibility to colonize the moon with a "expanded game" option (NOTE: the spherical planet avoid the problems with a 2D representation of earth).

City names are related to the tile more than a list.

A living planet with earthquakes and the other stuff.

Possibility to have multimapping with different spheres (inverted spheres too, for inner earth). Is great for fantasy games!

Possibility to create areas limiting expansion ("flat maps") or linking areas (one direction tiles, you can't return where you stayed before, this is great to represent forces that come and can't be destroyed, or areas that for access you need a condition.)

3D ALL!!!

If Age of Mythology is 3D now, in 2005 that is when the game shoudl appear it could be amaizing!! Remember Black & White!!

MrBaggins · February 4, 2003, 11:42

Extensible AI.
Extensible diplomacy.

Complete modification ability.
C-like scripting language
Every game value exposed (using objects for every entity)
Every game ability exposed
Every game event exposed, with the ability to override, and alter the outcome, or values thereof.

Effectively unlimited units, improvements, wonders, techs. flexible flagging for all entities, with the ability to define programmatically what that flag does

I.E. say you create a wonder "Spartan philosophy and give it a flag WONDER_Spartan" and define that flags effect in code... rather than picking from other wonder effects, and giving different values.

The 'ultimate' situation would be to have ALL of the non-UI non-graphics part of the game... basically every game state event coded in the scripting language... so that anything could be altered, even the formulae.

MrBaggins

Centauri18 · February 4, 2003, 19:05

Colonizing the moon! That would be so cool, I can't believe no one thought of that before. And possibly Mars, too. The problem is different options of units and such for every planet. You couldn't just drive a tank on the Moon, could you?

Panag · February 5, 2003, 05:17

Quote:

Originally posted by Centauri18
Colonizing the moon! That would be so cool, I can't believe no one thought of that before. And possibly Mars, too. The problem is different options of units and such for every planet. You couldn't just drive a tank on the Moon, could you?

hi ,

, we are not supposed to make war on the moon , ......

we could have a spaceshuttle or ISS , the benefits could be higher research results or so , .....

have a nice day

Centauri18 · February 5, 2003, 06:13

You do need the opportunity for an actual, honest-to-goodness storyline in Civ4. I haven't played GalCiv, so I wouldn't know what that was like. And it would be good to have the story differ depending on alliances and such. I mean SMAC had the same story no matter who you played as. I mean, sure, the aliens can win in different ways, but that's to be expected. You need a flexible storyline for Civ4.

Centauri18 · February 5, 2003, 06:14

Oh, yeah, and the ISS would be very cool.

Maquiladora · February 5, 2003, 12:00

Quote:

Originally posted by Centauri18
Colonizing the moon! That would be so cool, I can't believe no one thought of that before.

The moon? That terrain would look even worse than the smac one does!

VJ · February 5, 2003, 16:05

Lots of more customization, Social Engineering concept.

Optimizer · February 7, 2003, 12:49

Maybe I should have added "Better opportunities to edit and customize" as an option.

No one wants multiplaying? I've never multiplayed a civ game, but I thought that it was a higher priority for many other civers.

MrBaggins · February 7, 2003, 13:10

Real time games just make so much better MP candidates. When I do want to MP, I generally play an FPS... and sometimes a RTS. You can play without serious commitment, and the 'loss' of a player is not a significant event.

MP is just there to solve an inherent problem in TBS games; the AI. The majority of people who buy TBS' buy them to SP... A great number of those who do MP, would SP more, if the AI was more capable and flexible.

Editing and customization is the whole ballgame, with TBS' for me... YMMV

wilbill · February 8, 2003, 04:48

Governments that have more of an impact on the development of civs leading to...
Civs that are more varied and inherently different from one another. Possibly Civ-specific wonders.
More detailed diplomacy.