More emphasis on an age?

Optimizer · February 4, 2003, 11:31

My opinion is that the industrial and so-called "modern" age take up too much of the game-time, a least in Civ 3. I would rather play a Civ game with more events in the ancient age, while there is still a lot to discover.

I think there are enough 20th century strategy games, but that might be a question of taste.

Centauri18 · February 4, 2003, 19:07

I think that a prehistoric age and a future age would both be very cool. And maybe a couple of ages ought to be longer.

DrSpike · February 5, 2003, 06:12

The way the turns are structured is fine IMO. You get more turns in the later eras when there is more action....that is how it should be.

I think a prehistoric focus would lose what many people like about civ.

Centauri18 · February 5, 2003, 06:15

I don't mean a focus on prehistory, I mean that the addition of a prehistoric period would be cool.
And wouldn't pre-history just be the period before you develop writing?

Nikolai · February 7, 2003, 20:04

I'd like the ancient age to be more emphasised(sp?).

DrSpike · February 7, 2003, 20:10

Quote:

Originally posted by Nikolai
emphasised(sp?).

No.

Dauphin · February 7, 2003, 21:19

I'd rather have each age expanded by 25% than have an additional age.

And repair that damned tech tree to its former style!

Panag · February 8, 2003, 01:11

hi ,

there is room for several new era's and a bigger emphasis on time , ....

have a nice day

DarkCloud · February 9, 2003, 15:18

Quote:

I think a prehistoric focus would lose what many people like about civ.

prehistoric would be TRIBES not CIVILIZATION...
It would be trash.

It would be better to expand the industrial and renaissance! To reflect their importance in the advancement of society!

(and anyways... what type of ujnits could you have for tribes in prehistory- Bushwarror #1, Slingshoteer #1, etc. Civ isn't age of empires or Rise of Nations, or even Empire Earth- it's about civilizations- not wars, or tribes)

Andemagne · February 9, 2003, 16:40

ancient and medieval. future age could be nice too.
industrial and modern ages are BOORING!

DrSpike · February 9, 2003, 16:44

Quote:

Originally posted by DarkCloud

prehistoric would be TRIBES not CIVILIZATION...
It would be trash.

It would be better to expand the industrial and renaissance! To reflect their importance in the advancement of society!

(and anyways... what type of ujnits could you have for tribes in prehistory- Bushwarror #1, Slingshoteer #1, etc. Civ isn't age of empires or Rise of Nations, or even Empire Earth- it's about civilizations- not wars, or tribes)

Agreed.......Civilization doesn't need to do any more for ancient time periods than it does now.

Panag · February 10, 2003, 08:46

Quote:

Originally posted by Andemagne
ancient and medieval. future age could be nice too.
industrial and modern ages are BOORING!

hi ,

with some new techs and expanded era's it could work out , .....

have a nice day

Cyclotron · February 10, 2003, 17:43

The ages of gunpowder and sail have been shafted in civ3. They weren't much better off in Civ2. The middle ages need to be longer.

moomin · February 10, 2003, 18:08

I'd like to see a game with a late roman to pre-napoleonic time span. Always seemed like the most dynamic, interesting part of history to me. Mass production may be effective, but good lord is it boring.

Lemmy · February 12, 2003, 18:41

Prehistoric/prewriting/tribal age

Don't think of it in terms of Civilization, but in terms of SimTribe.

A few months ago I've actually started designing a game that focusses on the time before the Civilization games start, when everything is still very small and contained. One turn would take one month, and the map would be no bigger then Great Britain. Your tribe would start out with 10-50 tribesmen and eventually end up with maybe several hundred of them.
All of them are true individuals with their own set of skills. The way their characters are described could be taken out of any RPG. For my design i've adapted most of the SPECIAL system used in Fallout, with some minor modification. This means a tribesman has several fixed attributes, and these cannot change, think of them as genes, and a potentially unlimited set of skills. Skills, at first depend on the main attributes, but can change through practice and studying. Not all tribesmen know all skills, but new skills can be learned, or discovered by accident mostly.

The map would also be more detailed then an avg Civ-map, for instance i'd like to implement a living, dynamic world, with animals and plant. Animals migrate from tile to tile, plants have their preferred weather/season in which they grow best. Also something that would be nice is a basic evolutionary system, the scale of the game is too small to implement any realisic evolution, but changing parameters of animals (to an extent) that may become extinct would be a nice balancing addition. For example Animal A is being overhunted, solution would be to make it less desirable to be hunted (eg it gives less food/other resources), make it tougher to hunt (eg make it faster, more deadly), or increase their numbers (by increasing their birthrate).

It would be very much a micro-management game, where each tribesman has to be given specific orders, but off course daily order can be automated/repeated.

Optimizer · February 14, 2003, 21:49

In Civ 3, you can prolong the ancient and medieval ages by increasing the tech costs during these ages and decreasing the tech cost for later ages.

If you also increase the shield cost for settlers dramatically (like 100 shields) and the work needed for terrain improvements, you'll have a long, nice ancient era.

To increase the action in the ancient era you can add new units between the ones available. For instance you can have dead-end techs that give all players access to certain civ-specific units.

DarkCloud · February 14, 2003, 23:49

Quote:

I'd like to see a game with a late roman to pre-napoleonic time span. Always seemed like the most dynamic, interesting part of history to me

...Sounds like you want Europa Universalis!

Panag · February 16, 2003, 09:17

hi ,

, ......

, a regular game with any age , all of a sudden you are in the middle of a scenario because of the age or so , .......

have a nice day

moomin · February 16, 2003, 13:24

Quote:

Originally posted by DarkCloud

...Sounds like you want Europa Universalis!

No, I said I wanted a game.

DrSpike · February 16, 2003, 14:01

What's wrong with EU?

DarkCloud · February 16, 2003, 17:35

EU is a lot like civ (at least in style) I don't really see how you could like one and not the other.

DrSpike · February 16, 2003, 17:39

Oh it is certainly possible to like one and not the other, since although they deal with the same material they are slightly different genres.

I do think EU was ok though, and EU2 pretty good.

Lemmy · February 16, 2003, 18:10

I don't like EU, because it just focusses on the era of civ i find least interesting. I like the ancient age, and modern/future era best.
Ancient age because you get to build everything up. And modern/future because you get acces to new nifty techs

Optimizer · February 27, 2003, 07:43

Maybe you could have the choice to get different levels of detail in different eras, but I don't know how that would be made.

HolyWarrior · March 2, 2003, 02:46

I would like a revised modern age. If you've ever played Liftoff!, you'll know what I'm talking about. Let's get things right--satellites come BEFORE space flight, mmmkay? And there's a lot more to building a starship than what's in the game. Where are cybernetics? Cryogenics? Genetic engineering should lead to many paths, not a dead end.

Panag · March 2, 2003, 11:01

Quote:

Originally posted by DarkCloud
EU is a lot like civ (at least in style) I don't really see how you could like one and not the other.

hi ,

, .... well you cant compare C&C tibsun - firestorm with civ neither , ....

eu and civ are maybe in the same family but there are many people who like only one of the two , .....

have a nice day

Optimizer · February 6, 2004, 15:45

Civ 4 should also have the option to start out in another era. Civ 2 alloed you to start 50 or 100 urns later, but that could be prolonged even more.

wrylachlan · February 6, 2004, 17:20

I think its misleading to put get rid of ages in the same poll that asks which age you want more flushed out. It would be a simple matter to get rid of civ "ages", go back to fluid tech development, AND at the same time flush out an age more. And I imagine that a few of the people who voted "No Ages" do have a preference as to which time period needs more techs, more units, needs more game time devoted to it...

lajzar · February 6, 2004, 20:28

The ages thing was too rigid in civ 3. Get rid of them. At most, they should affect graphical interface. Forcing you to research all the ancient texhs before hitting the medieval era was a bad move. It resulted in every game having the same research path.

I say, bring more techs (many more, a few hundred maybe), and have a boolean tech tree designed such that it is not possible to research them all. This should force choices on you that can emulate historical civs. Do I research longbows or crossbows, knowing I can only ever have one of them? Do I research blood cult, knowing that will forever prevent me from gaining democracy? This will help ensure every game is different and make the game feel bigger.

Switch · February 7, 2004, 06:00

I really don't mind the ages, though a bit more overlapping would be nice. What I would really like to see though is a bit of what SMAC had: unknown research. Now don't get me wrong, I still want to be able to pick research. But I should only be able to research things that I actually would be researching, like Cure for Cancer or Spaceflight. Things like the wheel, gunpowder, etc, should be random, as they were discovered more by mistake then by focused research. Same with nuclear fission and some basic laws of nature.