What is your greatest wish for Civ 4? - Page 4

Odin · March 21, 2005, 15:51

Toby, I am guessing Arthur was Cornish, as he was supposed to have controled that part of England, but I do not know much about the different celtic groups in the early dark ages so that is just an assumption.

ozmono1914 · March 22, 2005, 22:53

I want an improved combat system It seems as though that will already be implemented and I will be happy with more variety of units longer unit life span with chances to improve it's EXP or equipment such as little upgrades.
I want to controll living cities I hope that cities or groups of cities can be built in a variety of ways and with a variety of pros and cons giving them a feeling of being unique
DIPLOMACY + TRADE!!!
I want to be able to negoiate peace as a third party. I want Defense agreements just for an idvidual country. I want to be able to guarentee a countries safety. Practically I want EU, Victoria and other games from paradox plaza level of diplomatic options available on the diplomatic table of civ3 and also CTP options such as limiting pollution, no trespassing, no piracy. Piracy brings me to trade If they don't want to make the game more complex and increase micro managment then just use the Galatic civilization style of trade and I hope it has the same importance as it did in GC

Longer Ages and more techs within an age If the combat system I mentioned is provided and the living city concept, trade and diplomacy then longer ages would be natural then the player wouldn't be bogged down in micro management and would recieve greater gratification of creating something and guiding something

DON'T BETRAY YOUR FANS. LISTEN TO THE POST ON THIS SITE. NOBODY WANTS TINY IMPROVEMENTS WE WANT A REVOLUTIONARY EXPERIENCE!!!!!!!!!!!!!WE WANT VALUE1

Toby Rowe · March 22, 2005, 23:13

Civ 3 made trade both harder and easlier to conduct- harder in the begining of the game, easier later on once roads/harbours were built.

The attitude programmed into the AI diplomatic model can earn you a fortune in the middle era, but once you hit the Industrial era and the "annoyed" and furious" attitudes of the AI take over, It becomes nearly pointless trading at all.

I did like the time and effort to send 3 caravans out from each city in Civ 2- other Island nations were most profitable, and the main reason I built warships early.

Perhaps building a caravan to begin trade to a nation, but once at war, the trade ceases, and the caravan can then travel to a new Capital city?

I suspect that in 3D the world will be rather smaller, and thus the nation sizes, so this isn't as daft as it may sound?

If Civ 4 allows 100+ citiy nations then the above is good, if less then 50, then even internal trade is good, and it's easy for the AI programming as well.

Odin,

Cheers mate- I doubt we'll ever know unless an Archeologist makes a stonking discovery in either nation.

Toby

ozmono1914 · March 22, 2005, 23:23

The impact of trade in CIV2 and CIV3 in regards to the power of your nations was almost irrelevant.

I agree with the caravans being reintroduced whilst maintaning the strategic and luxury resource trade seperate. But not only do I want it to stop when at war I want to keep trade embargos and increase the value of trade from caravans which is a substanable profit provided war and embargo's are not declared.

I also would like common market which would increase the profit of those countries trading within that market.
And most importantly a AI that would be able to make decisions to upset the top powers such as markets that increase the power of lesser powers

But common markets I can forget about so long as there is a general increase in the value of trade

Toby Rowe · March 22, 2005, 23:24

Quote:

Originally posted by ozmono1914
I want an improved combat system It seems as though that will already be implemented and I will be happy with more variety of units longer unit life span with chances to improve it's EXP or equipment such as little upgrades.
I want to controll living cities I hope that cities or groups of cities can be built in a variety of ways and with a variety of pros and cons giving them a feeling of being unique
DIPLOMACY + TRADE!!!
I want to be able to negoiate peace as a third party. I want Defense agreements just for an idvidual country. I want to be able to guarentee a countries safety. Practically I want EU, Victoria and other games from paradox plaza level of diplomatic options available on the diplomatic table of civ3 and also CTP options such as limiting pollution, no trespassing, no piracy. Piracy brings me to trade If they don't want to make the game more complex and increase micro managment then just use the Galatic civilization style of trade and I hope it has the same importance as it did in GC

Longer Ages and more techs within an age If the combat system I mentioned is provided and the living city concept, trade and diplomacy then longer ages would be natural then the player wouldn't be bogged down in micro management and would recieve greater gratification of creating something and guiding something

DON'T BETRAY YOUR FANS. LISTEN TO THE POST ON THIS SITE. NOBODY WANTS TINY IMPROVEMENTS WE WANT A REVOLUTIONARY EXPERIENCE!!!!!!!!!!!!!WE WANT VALUE1

Ozmono,

That is a stonking reply!! Well done, You've said more in fewer words than I could have.

If the producers of Civ 4 could talk to the developers of EU (Paradox) the world might really get a game that would "stand the test of time"

Toby

Toby Rowe · March 23, 2005, 03:41

Ozmono,

What? a common market like the Commonwealth one used to be? Nar, the Commonwealth meant the Yanks didn't like that we all provided each other with what we needed within the Commonwealth, those pesky Germans started a war, and finally declared war on those pesty Americans Churchill so wanted, after we'd been fighting already for 3 years, but now those pesky Germans already owned all factories, mines and manpower in Europe, but really cos those pesky Japanese that liked the Germans and used to be allied to the British since they met them and but.......now we sell cheap grain we can't sell in Europe and America to Africa, keeps 'em alive, if the 50 cents subsidy was lifted they might even grow their own were it not for a famine and the subsidy- lazy bastards.

Trade is how you view it.

My piss-taking above is to mock how modern trade is compared to genuine trade even in 1900.

Toby

TechWins · March 23, 2005, 22:47

DIVERSITY!!! DIVERSITY!!! DIVERSITY!!!

I want diverse governments, diverse gameplay methods, diverse military actions, diverse diplomacy, diverse AI, diverse units, diverse buildings, and more diversity.

The diversity of the game is what truly makes it great; there has clearly been lots of diversity in the Civ games up till now, which is what makes the game truly remarkable, and how much Civ4 can add onto that will determine just how good the game will be. Civ4 will be great; I'm not in question about that but how great will it be?

ozmono1914 · March 24, 2005, 00:20

Toby in relation to this game do you beleive that there should be a general increase in the importance of profits from trade?

Toby Rowe · March 24, 2005, 00:20

Heh!

Just diversity in diplomacy would please me a lot.

Having a British Man'o' War as a unique unit in the Nuclear era whilst trying to build a Spaceship didn't seen like much of a bonus to me!!

Having "furious" Russians that once attacked me 200 years ago ,without reason, and remaining "Annoyed" as I simply refused to attack them back is stupid.

Diverse Diplomacy?

If the programmers of Civ 4 listen to anything, then even a logical "your pissiing me off mate", or a US "back off buddy" type of response would be most welcome in diplomacy if Civ 4 ignores diplomacy as well.

The human players need a serious response button to the irrationality Civ 3 has in diplomacy, I really pray Civ 4 diplomacy has a decent AI.

TechWins · March 24, 2005, 00:33

I don't mean diversity as in UUs when concerning diverse units. I mean diversity when you think of using marines, artillery, tanks, infantry, air power, etc... all combined when attacking in the modern era. Make the units diverse and all of them actually worthwhile.

Diversity with regard to diplomacy I mean different alliances and different levels of peace and war than just peace - happy with each other, peace - unhappy, and war. There needs to be varying degrees of peace and war.

By diversity I didn't mean absurdity.

Toby Rowe · March 24, 2005, 01:49

But that's what I mean as well!

At the moment I'm wondering if the programmers can even programme the concept of "Combined Arms" into Civ 4, let alone not be "furious" with failing to understand my lack of appreciation if.....

I'm furious!

I've vented my spleen and bored many to tears in so doing it.

But in 1992-ish to now? Civ 3 producers could only come up with more pollution, armies and cultural influence as idea's? After millions had brought the original game, is this the best they managed? "furious" and "annoyed" within your world as you tried to be peaceful, no chance.

I did get annoyed trying to be peaceful, as it was a "given" that it was impossible.

Toby

TechWins · March 24, 2005, 17:30

Quote:

Originally posted by Toby Rowe
But that's what I mean as well!

At the moment I'm wondering if the programmers can even programme the concept of "Combined Arms" into Civ 4, let alone not be "furious" with failing to understand my lack of appreciation if.....

I'm furious!

I've vented my spleen and bored many to tears in so doing it.

But in 1992-ish to now? Civ 3 producers could only come up with more pollution, armies and cultural influence as idea's? After millions had brought the original game, is this the best they managed? "furious" and "annoyed" within your world as you tried to be peaceful, no chance.

I did get annoyed trying to be peaceful, as it was a "given" that it was impossible.

Toby

I think they've done a little more than that lol, but I understand what you're saying. I never played the first Civ so all of my experience is based off of Civ2 and beyond. I'm not sure how legit or incredulous the story of Brian Renolds leaving the Civ3 project and the effects; if it is mostly true how damaging it was to the game, then I can understand how Civ3 didn't shape out to be better than what I thought it was going to be. At least this time around the Civ4 game isn't going to be based off of a game engine that was designed for P1/P2s. Hopefully that will allow for a lot more diversity (ah, there's that word) in Civ4.

I really like the idea of that AoM game on Succession. "In AOM from early in ancient times until you discover modern Democracy, you must maintain a strong line of succession at all times. However, it is a balancing act. Your King will not live forever. If you have too many successors waiting for too long, history has shown that they may rebel and attempt to overthrow you and this is reflected in AOM." I'm hoping Civ4 takes on some revolutionary ideas, while sticking to the main theme of Civ. Maybe Religion will have a daunting effect on Civ4. They'll probably start releasing more info as E3 approaches. I think I remember Firaxis releasing a lot of info about Civ3 days before E3.

Toby Rowe · March 24, 2005, 20:06

Hi mate,

Great as Sid Meiyer is, the original Civ still had the same irrationality in diplomacy, until you had nuclear weapons, when they suddenly became "polite", whilst before I think they were also at least "annoyed" from the industrial age onwards, again without any reason to be so.

The game you linked looks like it might be a real corker- but providing random events can be switched off, unlike EU, but like Sim City.

I want to build a nation, not have to put out random "fires" a programmer dreamt of, they tend to destroy, rather than enhance a good game.

In EU II they provided the "cheat" codes to simply turn them off, although it wasn't an option for a game, it was a step in the right direction.

Reynolds? Wasn't he the other chap who created the original Civ with Sid?

Whilst you see Succession as a strengh in AOM, I see it as a potential weakness- I remember buying Shogun I think it was called- I was having a rocking but defensive game and really enjoying every moment of it, I went to go to the next turn, and my Shogun died without a heir- that was it, end of game, I really was furious and never played it again!!

I'd invested so much time and energy in my little bit of Japan and then something so silly as a randomly generated heir failing to appear destroyed my two weeks of careful playing!

If the line of succession is problematic because there are too many heirs, that would also annoy me. Their example of Poland also seemed inaccurate to me- I thought it was a Swedish and Russian issue regarding the Polish Crown, due to the politics the Poles employed at the time?

If only 3 examples can be given to justify the idea in history just give us a heir, but keep historical events in the game at all cost, however annoyed the English Civil War in EUII makes me!!

Apart from that, the game looks good

Toby

TechWins · March 25, 2005, 03:57

I agree the AI's moods are very predictable and simple; it's one of my main gripes, especially with Civ3.

That game link I got from someone who I thought mentioned it in one of these Civ4 threads. There should be a link about the game in the Community forum I believe it is. The game is basically a HUGE Mod of CtP2, almost making it a new game in and of itself.

The way you describe succession in Shogun sounds terrible to me, too, so if that's the way the AoM game has it implemented I don't think I would like it very much. A random heir being generated and leaving you with nothing but fate isn't very strategic or fun, IMO. It would be nice if you automatically got an heir to the thrown/presidency/leader based on the overall corruption level of your empire, capitol, or some determing meter. So if your capitol or empire is full of corruption expect a leader to follow that lead. Maybe some sort of randomness could be added to what type of leader you get but only to a small degree.

DrSpike · March 25, 2005, 06:46

It's been a while so it is time for a rant on randomness in Civ.

Basically it shouldn't be there to any conspicuous degree. I do not mean the combat model should be deterministic, rather that you shouldn't have major events that can cripple your Civ no matter how well you prepare. I know people will argue that it's realistic for unforseen acts of god to affect you, and it's all about how you react, but to my mind these factors impact unfavourably on the overall strategic challenge that the game poses, and Civ4 will hopefully not have them, or have a toggle to turn them off.

Toby Rowe · March 26, 2005, 00:15

Yep mate,

I've never seen random events to be productive, challenging or interesting, the longer you play a game, the more annoying they become for me.

They only seem to be put into serious games, whose type of customer is most likely to be annoyed by them in the first place.

I actually think it's a throwback to signing your work, whether an artist in painting or us builders writing in the plaster in the eaves of a building in older days.

Techwins,

Sad to hear that it's just a version of Civ 3- I'm currently trying to work out how to eliminate the population sizze pollution model in the editor, but really getting bored of it, as a different game, it did did sound OK, but using Civ 3, then of course not- what a pity.

Generally due to the arrogance of them- We are a captive market and companies know it.

Every new computer game since 2000 has the unwritten proviso that you must have an internet connection in order to download the patch the game needs later on, it's now getting to the point that some games are released before they are finished, once they determine sale levels they then decide whether or not to to provide a "patch".

"Railroad Pioneer" from JoWood is a good example of this, the game isn't finished, eats your memory and then crashes once your computer is devoid of it, which for my old one was quickly. My £35/$60 paid for two hours gaming, after which it refused to load again- ever.

Anyway, I've been musing over a game I've had about settlement in the US for a while, alongside another one about the Civil War in the US- dunno why but US history seems tailored to games of it!

So,
Any programmers that are interested in turning an idea I have into shareware or freeware please let me know! I have 3 programming tasks to test on the game to see if it might work, and of course you will own the work, and maybe the programme fullstop.

Toby

Adagio · March 26, 2005, 05:10

Quote:

Originally posted by Toby Rowe
Every new computer game since 2000 has the unwritten proviso that you must have an internet connection in order to download the patch the game needs later on, it's now getting to the point that some games are released before they are finished, once they determine sale levels they then decide whether or not to to provide a "patch".

That is one of the signs why the Internet is evil

Before the Internet connection was avaliable for everybody most games was actually finished before shipped out

DrSpike · March 26, 2005, 06:51

And the bugs that remained (not always small) had precious little chance of ever being fixed.

Don't blame the internet - it is a tool for good. It's greedy and lazy companies that are to blame.

Adagio · March 26, 2005, 09:48

Software companies are just not ready for a great invention like the Internet... yet

TechWins · March 26, 2005, 16:56

Toby, it's actually Call to Power 2 since it allows for scripting. That's how, from what I've read and seen, almost a completely new game.

If you have any radical ideas on games that five year olds might like (Connect Four, Mazes) I could entertain/program your ideas.

monolith94 · March 27, 2005, 22:29

1. Make the graphics of the map easier on the eyes - civ 3's interface had more pixels, but I couldn't look at it for long before becoming annoyed. the simplistic elegance of civilization 2 made it easy and fun to play for 24-hour increments.

2. a cooler palace, or a cooler throne room. the palace from civ 1 is still better than both civ 2 and civ 3s goodies.

3. have stalin give me a great big smile when we sign a peace treaty.

4. little screams when I use nukes

Toby Rowe · April 8, 2005, 04:05

TechWins,

Heh!

Unfortunately Tetris has the market for that age group, failing that Pacman! You simply can't beat 'em :-) Or can you? ;-)

I dunno all, I'm disapointed with how the PC market is heading- companies that patch unfinished games after initial sales will eventually make the consumer choose a console over a PC for gaming, unfortunately consoles aim for the teen market only I feel.

About 2-ish years ago a console game was released that actually had a bug and it made the evening news in the UK (I'm not kidding)

Until developers force the Graphics card industry (the cause of so many bugs) to set a common standard I feel they are ultimately contributing to their own demise.

Still, PC gamers, following that full circle, if it does happen, will once again start to produce Freeware and Shareware (the latter is better!), including the hackers that occupy themselves currently by trying to break the protection instead of making their own games. What a waste of potential talent.

People that choose a PC over a console generally do so because the console market doesn't generally supply the type of games they tend to buy, yet PC games like the Sims and Hidden and dangerous led the market in breaking new ground the consoles were then forced to release?

Toby :-(

spartak · April 9, 2005, 17:42

I'd like it to be like SMAX but without bugs and with a better AI. At the very least it needs the same depth and extended gameplay.

Panda · April 9, 2005, 19:01

I'd just like add another vote for customisation. Whatever in-game functions and bonuses the programmers have for the vanilla game, I want to be transparent in the game files and easy to change.

Zoid · April 10, 2005, 17:38

What is my greatest wish? I´m thinking of something else... Namely I hope they make the game fun all the way through. Once the game hits modern age (or even before that, really) I´ve lost interest. There´s nothing to do but race towards the finish line, or race...it´s more like crawling excruciatingly slow

I must have started like a 100 games, but I´m not sure I´ve actually finished more than, say 5... Now it may be that I suffer from some mild form of ADD, but I don´t really think so.

Zoid · April 10, 2005, 17:40

Quote:

Originally posted by spartak
I'd like it to be like SMAX but without bugs and with a better AI. At the very least it needs the same depth and extended gameplay.

SMAC was never boring IIRC.

Nikolai · April 10, 2005, 18:05

Well, while SMAC/X was a great game, one of the better civ style games really, it was not much to do after you got those flying mind worms than mopping up the map. If you didn't want to restrain yourself and go for trancedence that is.

Zoid · April 10, 2005, 18:19

Trancendence

Nikolai · April 10, 2005, 18:33

Yeah, pointwise and storywise, it was the best victory condition.

Zoetrope · April 12, 2005, 03:09

What I wish for Civilization 4 is

Master of Magic 2:

MoM was the only member of the civilization series

to have immersive combat.

About King Arthur: he wasn't Cornish in the sense of dwelling in Cornwall, he was Welsh (sorry, Cumbrian), that is British, in the sense of being a native of Britain. My understanding is that he lived near the East coast, at Camulodonum (near Cambridge rather than Oxford).

In case it hasn't occurred to anyone else yet,

Arthur is supposed to have reigned _before_ the Anglo-Saxons invaded, and the ancient Britons occupied the _whole_ of southern Britain before the AS arrived.

Also, the AS first landed on the EAST coast, so that's where the early battles occurred. Arthur wasn't fighting a rear-guard action, he was trying to prevent the AS from settling Britain at all.

It took the AS centuries to push the "Welsh" (ironically, the AS word for "foreigner") front to the mountains of Wales; for that matter, most of the population of West England are of Welsh descent even now, just as most of the modern people of East Scotland are Angles. (Hint: "Edinburgh" and "Stuart" are not Celtic names.)

The recent movie seemed to place Merlin, Marion and most of the action in Scotland! As mentioned, the Angles did settle up north, but would a south-eastern military leader like Arthur have travelled so far for a fight?

Incidentally, Arthur _preceded_ the Dark Age. He lived around AD 400, whereas the Dark Age began in AD 535, the first "year without the sun".

Indeed, the early medieval "Dark Age" wasn't dark for lack of learning: it was a heyday of Byzantium and Eastern Europe, and it has to be remembered that Paris ("the City of Lights") never fell to the barbarians but instead reunified most of the West before by the late 400's and held it together in some form of political association (centralised or federated) right into the 800's and beyond.

The times were Dark for a while in England, thanks to the English

and their relatives the Vikings

but even they learnt the value of scholarship - from the "Welsh" and the Irish. Perhaps it would have been better for England and France had the Scandinavians not become so educated, for when they did they became the pompous Normans.