What is your greatest wish for Civ 4?

[GePap]

How do you "hurry wonders"? The only way to do so that in any way mimicks life if double the workload. Otherwise, it takes what it takes to build it- the caravan notion was a nice little game trick, but it makes it too easy sometimes.

NO, the civ 3 trade and resource system are much better concepts than caravans-thought the details can be imporved dramatically.

Given that there is only one choice possible, obviously the AI being better is best.

[DrSpike]

Don't really care whether it's realistic or not.

For me the rich trade system (in gameplay terms) in Civ2 has no counterpart in Civ3, and could exist in conjunction with what I'll call the resource trade system in Civ3. The only downsides are the fact that trade was too powerful in Civ2, and the AI couldn't handle the intricacies. Don't want to micromanage? Play something else.

A balance can be struck between the two approaches for Civ4, and I hope it is.

On wonder rushing balance, yeah insta wonders are too much. However, the Civ3 approach (only those lucky enough to get leaders can rush wonders) isn't ideal either.

[biru biru]

Originally posted by GePap
How do you "hurry wonders"? The only way to do so that in any way mimicks life if double the workload. Otherwise, it takes what it takes to build it- the caravan notion was a nice little game trick, but it makes it too easy sometimes.

The US-USSR race to the moon was a good example of two nations "rushing" to complete a wonder. Nations should be able to chanel resources to complete a great projects. The Manhattan Project is nice, but if WWII is over while you are waiting for it to be complete, it wasn't much fun in the game.

It takes a certain number of "shields" to build a wonder, but the time to accumulate those shields should depend on the skill of the player in some way.

One of my Civ pleasures is scraping that last temple, and finishing a road just in time to get that last caravan in in time to finish a wonder before a rival civ gets it.

Of course, once you know the caravan trick, it is possible to build a wonder sometimes very easily. Arguably too easy, granted. Still, I very rarely complete all of the wonders in a game of civII at diety lvl. The woder-race game is challenging and fun, and caravans are key to it, without alternative so far.

I still like the other functions of caravans too! Cities of 100 are not necessary, but they are cool! Also, protecting weak caravans with military escorts was interesting. Finally, using caravans when you're in a pinch for money, or science beakers, was always an option for the sophisticated player.

[XToDaZ]

A

[Gearyman]

I loved aspects of all 3 Civs, but I also voted no for a Civ4. Some day, yes...but it just seems too soon. Civ2 was the best because of its originality, interface, and simplicity of use. Civ3 did well, but a Civ4 needs to do something new, radical...over the top. If not done right, Civ4 may become a 'Call to Power' look-a-like, which would be a disaster.

[Sirotnikov]

empire building atmosphere
with movies
with gameplay changes mid-game (make the agricultural / scientifical revolution mean something!)
with fun lists and statistics
with more stuff to do than just conquer...

[Shogun Gunner]

Originally posted by Sirotnikov

with movies

Want to agree quickly before you get responses from some that are down on this idea. I don't know why people think that putting wonder movies in the game will detract from the programming of the game. The impact is miminal to none to the programmer's time/effort.

[Odin]

1. A Social Engineering system, I want my Democratic Socialist paradise.

2. Better Diplomacy system with more options, such as multilateral agreements. Get rid of the UN wonder, instead, when the modern age is reached players can use a system similar to the Orion Senate in MoO3, which represents the UNSC.

3. a more realistic economic and trade model

4. Scrap the cartoony talking leader heads, no leaderheads period. The diplomacy screen background should be a age-accurate diplomatic "round-table" or conference room, with the diplomatic options boxes look like pages of papyrus (ancient), parchment (medevial), or ornate paper. (industrial & modern)

5. I want a game that has an epic feal to it. Make it more epic than LotR, I want to FEEL like a ruler of an empire! Bring back the wonder movies and the talking, arguing, bickering, advisors (ELVIS!!!)

[Toby Rowe]

The way and times I might wish to play an MP game will never suit my opponents- 1am, 2pm or 8pm. Online gaming is a way for companies to charge you for their own inadequacy- eg; They can't programme a decent AI after 20 years of trying, simply as they are too arrogant to ask the future customers what should happen. (If a sequel)

I used to buy at least 12 games a year, now I've brought 1 in half a year, lack of dosh dictates, but also corporate-produced games. Publishing houses have taken the human out of gaming, it's now a product only and ultimately in search of the dollar, the only market left will be 12-25 year olds. It shouldn't be so...does this make sense? (getting tired). (15 year olds all will eventually be 26, with kids, and want private time away from family once the nippers are fast asleep, but won't want "kick 'an' punch" type games aged 28+ etc)

Toby?

[Sandman]

Flexible city radii.

If I want to place a city by the coast to build ships, I shouldn't have to worry about losing squares. If I want to create a densely settled heartland, I shouldn't have to worry about overlap.

[Max Sinister]

I'd wish for a better AI, but the trade/economy system could be improved, too.

[GAZ082]

I want more complexity. Provinces, rebelions, much more diplo options, and of course, an intelligent AI who will take advantage of those multiple options.

[Toby Rowe]

Odin,

"Bring back the bickering advisors"

I loved that as well! It put a bit of humour into the game- occasionally I used to click on them to give me a laugh. Well done for mentioning that funny aspect of Civ 2!

Toby

Ps; Not being able to see all nations at once in the diplomacy screen when I first played Civ 3 made me uneasy regarding the quality of Civ 3.

This was confirmed once I understood the new trading system which demands the "around the table" you want as the trading screen is pretty useless to me at least.

[Brundlefly]

If there was such a thing as the "Miss Apolyton 2005" pageant, then the subject of this thread, "What is your greatest wish for Civ4?", would be one of the questions asked of the pageant contestants during the competition...

[Bkeela]

My greatest wish is that the game simply has a world map with historic start locations.

[Odin]

BTW, the reason I dislike leaderheads is that they make creating new civs a pain. Also, I was PO'ed that they picked many leaders in Civ4 on the basis on being politically correct (Joan of Arc, a BLACK Cleopatra ( ), etc. This is another reason I don't like leaderheads, I suck at putting in new ones when I disagree with the developers' leader choices.

[Sava]

1. More realistic passage of time combined with unit movement... think EU and HOI

2. Option for tactical combat like Rome: Total War

3. A FREAKING GLOBE MAP, NOT A CYLINDER

4. 1600x1200 screen resolution

5. 5.1 compatible audio

6. more leaders, heads of state even... think EU

[Toby Rowe]

Heh! Odin,

Us British working class are still blamed for the Colonial policies of the upper class that ruled the modern UK- Ireland? WTF did that have to do with me?- although the Irish side was binned by the English side in my family for taking part in the Dublin uprising- But they were ancestors of my family, and I wasn't responsible for rich upper class idiots that was the British government back then.

I can't believe that people actually think that moaning to me as a British person about the government in 1760/1916 or something has an effect on me and makes me bow my head with shame or something. They did what they did, but never in my name.

My government didn't even allow us "common" people a vote in Britain until WWI was finished in 1918, and it took New Zealand to lead the way, which the public knew about due to the war.

If I were to choose a British leader, King Arthur would suit me fine- mythical perhaps, but no historian can say he is mythical with conviction- the case now seems to be "prove he didn't exist", my Cornish side awaits the outcome, as another city claims the table as well, regardless of the French author....perhaps!!

Toby

[Alexander D]

multiple building queues (i.e. Master of Orion 1)

[Odin]

Originally posted by Toby Rowe

If I were to choose a British leader, King Arthur would suit me fine- mythical perhaps, but no historian can say he is mythical with conviction- the case now seems to be "prove he didn't exist", my Cornish side awaits the outcome, as another city claims the table as well, regardless of the French author....perhaps!!

Toby

Arthur was most likely a Celto-Roman millitary leader during the germanic invasions, fighting off the Saxons in the early 500s, he would be better as the leader of the Celts. The people there didn't become "English" untill the Angles, Saxons, and Vikings mixed in with the Romanized Celtic population (except in Wales and Cornwall ).

[Toby Rowe]

What was I rambling about...

Ignoring issues we know are going to be fixed in Civ 4;

1) A diplomatic screen in which all leaders are visible.

2) A decent AI for the Navy.

3) Difficulty levels based upon challenging you, rather than making it easier for the AI by cheating. Simply making making the player pay more to discover each new tech might be the solution for this.

4) Fixed strategic resources, so that you can plan a war carefully, and/or defend your own carefully. Watching the AI fixated with trying to destroy, by bombardment, your Xth source of Saltpeter whilst you are building Modern Armour is daft, along with the fact that it might vanish next turn anyway.

5) I think all want a decent AI for diplomacy, and the Allied part is the weakest. Watching your single mutual defence partner ride upto one of your cities with 30 cavalry and then attack it is unforgivable. None of us would dream of doing such a thing.

6) A return to physically having to set up a trade route, it took planning time and effort, just like the merchants expended throughout history.

7) A return to being able to physically move a stack of 12 units (at least).

8) To counter the AI rushes, a chance to build a spy network in which you can place spies in each town in order to gain advance knowledge of them; if you are prepared to pay the placement and upkeep costs!

9) No return to partisans, they were the worst feature of Civ 2, whilst Civ 3 for pollution must hold the record for most ever irritating feature ever in a game!

10) A Public works system combined with the ability to build workers as well as a seperate unit, not least for working inside other nations territory if allied.

11) Border integrity: Move a military unit inside my border (using the cultural model, but without the culture aspect) and you've declared war on my nation- end of story. Hopefully a diplomatic model will cater for exploration and levels of Allied agreements, as exploring is fun, and it's a game, not an exam!

Toby ;-)

[Toby Rowe]

Hi Odin,

So out of interest, as an outsider looking in the UK (thus neutral!), which of the two nations would you say has the greatest claim on the chap, (real or not)?

With my limited knowlege of the dark ages I think the Romans never took Cornwall, and only parts of Wales?

Toby

Sorry mate, not reading closely: Romano-Celtic? That puts a wole new spin on it for me. I thought the Angles, Saxons and the other North German tribe never settled in either nation, just modern Southern England, whilst the Vikings took the North.

I do remember reading an OUP history book in the early '90's saying that it thought it unlikely that any native English peoples had survived beyond the Roman period, and if any did, only as slaves. (Just as well we tend to start our serious history lessons at school from 1066 onwards then!)

Still, Early British history might be useful when regarding modern nation states often made up from a patchwork quilt of peoples each with a strong seperate identity, Europe has it in abundance, whilst the US seems to a have avoided that problem completely?

Toby

[Odin]

Toby:

I think the Celts get Arthur.

The Celts had become "Romanized" to some extent at that time. The Angles took control of northern England, the Saxons took over southern England, but they never managed to get Wales and Cornwall. the Danes came later, and took control of northern Enlgand for a time, then the Normans came in 1066.

[Toby Rowe]

Hi mate,

I know Arthur is Celtic, I'm English, but my surname is Cornish. My queston is was he Welsh or Cornish in your opinion? As an outsider on it as they argue on the subject, not me in London!

I heard the book was written by a French man- from Normandy, who the Vikings were given simply in order that they stopped attacking what became modern France. 1066 was a result of that legacy.

I actually don't mind who might win the Welsh/Cornish arguement as I don't think the chap ever existed.

Whilst I dismiss it, I am aware that somone 800 years ago might also have dismissed Bede before them, had he been unable to write and record the world he knew.

Essentially, the Celtic tribes seemed to be far more advanced, with the Irish Scotti tribe giving Scotland her name once invaded for example, whilst the English tribes never seemed to do anything, except kill each other without actually changing anything.

If the King existed, he must be Celtic as England modern couldn't even produce a pork roast, but Welsh or Cornish? Which one as an outsider looking in?

(If you have no opinion on it, fine

As far as I know the Angles, Saxons and Jutes took over Southern England, and the Jutes were modern Dutch and gave us lot the English language in it's earliest form, I never heard of these tribes going North- the Danes were settled there and gave us Dane Law, and words like tithe, to and the. That is really stetching my knowledge to the limit.

Toby!

[Nikolai]

I think the Jutes came from what today is Denmark. Not sure though.

[Proteus_MST]

Originally posted by Nikolai
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.

Even the CtP-Combat isn´t really tactical,
as you aren´t able to choose which troops you want to put where (the Computer puts the units taking part in combat where he thinks they fit best, be it Bombard, Melee or Flanking)
But still the Combat system of Ctp is vastly superior to the Combat system in Civ 1-3

Therefore I voted for "Tactical Combat" as this is the thing which is most lacking in Civ 3 and some kind of Civ 3 with the Combat System of CtP2 would rock.

But to go more into detail here a ranking list of things I wish to be incorporated into Civ 4 (aside from things already present in Civ 3, like Resources as prerequisites to build certain units)

1. Tactical Combat (or at least a combat system which resembles the system used in CtP2)
2. Smart AI which doesn´t need to cheat and obeys treaties and not constantly trying to move into my borders (as long as I don´t allow it or we are at war)
3. A technology tree which reaches far into the future, in connection with this Moon and/or Underwater Colonies
4. A Public Works System like in CtP2 instead of having workers you have to send to certain tiles to improve the terrain there.
5. A System for Spionage as well as Counter Espionage, so that I am able to defend my precious High Tech from enemy spies stealing ist (as long as I invest enough in Counter Espionage)
6. Really big maps, where you are able to spread for the first millenia without having too much to worry about enemy players building cities everywhere on the continent (and maybe often don´t even encounter many enemy players during this time)

Edited: I really don´t know why I wrote strategic instead of tactical. Corrected.

[Toby Rowe]

Nickolai,

Jutland- very possible, just a BBC Radio 4 programme about 4 years ago on the origins of the language us lot talk in now said Holland, not Jutland, but I didn't listen closely, I listened better on part 46 or something, and they mentioned Freisland- to me at school this was the Polder area of Holland, made by the dykes, alas I'd missed the key to the entire series by then.

Toby

(When ever you wanna know something......)

[Bkeela]

I wouldn't have a clue if this has been stated already, but trade has got to become more lucrative. In Civ 3, I felt continually ripped off in trade deals, even when I had a monopoly. Stupid.

[Aramis]

More tropical resources, maybe even mangoes.
And definately a more intimate feel--things to make me really engaged. Lately, between wars, I feel like some bored overseer sending workers off to clean up pollution here and there and over yonder turn after turn after turn.
Oh, yeah--replace pollution with some other system or remove it completely.

[Max Sinister]

Originally posted by Nikolai
I think the Jutes came from what today is Denmark. Not sure though.

I think that's right. Continental Denmark is called Jutland even today.