Which Games Influence Your Personal Future Civ Wishlist?

VetLegion · October 22, 2003, 18:53

You know what I mean. Not all your ideas have come to you during concentrated meditation in front of your old civ2 disc ... some must have been simply nicked from other games

So, what games influenced your ideas the most? This means both which games features you would like to copy and those that just made you think about some feature in a new way, or just served as inspiration to invent something different.

I have to say that recently, my perspective of Civ (the genre) has been significantly influenced by the very successful Europa Universalis series. I have played EU I quite some, and just a bit of EU II. Haven't played HoI yet.

It was the province system EU uses that intrigued me at first, but features of their new game, Victoria, simple leave me in awe.

Take a look at this pic for example: http://www.paradoxplaza.com/media/vi...vic_030527.jpg

Notice the left column. All we ever hoped for? The begining of the end?

I don't think so really, because province system and city based system can not be equalized, so it will not be a matter of simply copying these features if they turn out to be fun.

But Victoria promises to be a big tour-de-force of complex game models and we can sure learn a lot from it.

I have a hunch that these models can best work not in province system nor in tile system, but in a sort of amalgam of both. They are radically different though and at least I still haven't thought out a way how to conciliate them

Spiffor · October 22, 2003, 19:21

- Mostly Civ2, Civ3 and SMAC

- GalCiv has many great ideas. Too bad I wasn't so hot with many little details in the game, but I sure will have many Galcivish wishes.

- CtP had something interesting regarding trade routes. I actually believe the ultimate trade system would be along the lines of Civ3, but with CtPish trade routes that show and that have to be protected.

- Colonization to a little extent. It may not really lead me to have wishes, but it can have a little impact on my outlook.

- Rise of Nations, for my graphical wishes

Brent · October 22, 2003, 19:41

Colonization and SMAC. I want units to work like in Col. I want advisors that work like the Col Founding Fathers. Col style trade might be good.

I want a return to the complexity of SMAC. I want a SMACish number of automation options, and I want all units to be automatable. Maybe units should be more like SMAC than Col, or a combination. You would assemble units from components such as horses and elephants. Maybe terrain should work more like in SMAC. Let there be elevation like in SMAC, and let terrain squares have characteristics like in SMAC, like rockiness and different kinds of vegetation. Let forests grow and shrink like in SMAC. Do away with standard terrain types.

Solver · October 23, 2003, 17:56

My wishlist for a perfect Civ game would be the combination of all civ-games out there.

From Civ 3, generally cool interface, the Firaxis feeling, detailed information such as Mil. advisor, resources, luxuries, culture.

From SMAC, the sheer complexity. Things such as its terraforming, or SE choices made the game beautifully complex. Downside - the AI was worse than any other civ game, as it couldn't handle the game. Oh, and I want the SMAC council!

From CtP, the terraforming system and combat system. Those were great.

For diplomacy, I guess that a good one would be combination of Civ 3 (bargaining table, etc), with SMAC and CtP2 (the many proposals).

centrifuge · October 24, 2003, 17:24

A mix of the above as Solver posted,

but a Med: Total War like combat system. Thus making the combat a lot more interactive.

Spiffor · October 24, 2003, 18:46

Quote:

Originally posted by centrifuge
but a Med: Total War like combat system. Thus making the combat a lot more interactive.

I would hate that. Total War battles were great but:
1. They were the focus of the Total War games, whereas the risk-like campaign was rather fluff to give more attractivity to the battles themselves. If Civ developed a total-war like combat system as a sidekick, it will most probably suck.

2. unlike the total war province systems, Civ is based on tiles. As a result, there are many, many more battles happening, and total-war like battles would quickly become a terrible drag. You don't develop such a resource-demanding feature for the player to play 15-20 battles before being bored and have them resolved automatically.

Paddy · October 25, 2003, 06:27

along with the Civ family of games... I have been influenced by Atrain... Build that infrastructure and get the people moving and grooving...

DarkCloud · October 25, 2003, 11:49

-CTP (Public Works)
-Civ I (The powergraph)
-Civ II (the easily modifiable art and maps)
-Test of Time (the many layers of a game)
-Age of Empires (the Unique Units)
-Alpha Centauri (Semi3D terrain)

and proably some other games taht I'll have to rmember later

Solver · October 25, 2003, 13:53

I have forgotten a very important part of it all. The AI.

IMHO - never too good. The better the AI, the more I enjoy the game. Here's something, Civ 3 has a number of gameplay flaws (badly realised diplomatic negotiations, some useless units, not deep enough in some places, weird combat system), but I still love it for the AI. Civ 3's AI does actually play clever - I quite often get the feeling that I am competing against a real mind.

CtP2, with the mods, also has an adequate AI. Adequate, because it can provide a decent challenge, and can be hard to beat. But, not great as in Civ 3, because it does quite a ton of stupid things. Like, if it conquers a city, next turn it will usually move all units out, leaving the city for easy recapturing.

hexagonian · October 27, 2003, 01:55

The more I play EU2, the less I feel drawn to the conventional civ-style games. In terms of deep gameplay, it's not even close anymore. EU2 has the feel of empire building in the actual context of real history. The mechanics of the game are actually simple, but the strategy and considerations that you make as a player are vast.

Solver
I would agree that from an AI standpoint, civ3 is the best, but the game suffers more from tedious gameplay and narrow decision-making, especially in the Industrial Age and beyond, than any other game I've played.

I'd rather have a game offer a good challenge that is coupled with a great atmosphere, rather than a tough game that drowns in tedium.

I get enough tedium at work.

pg · October 27, 2003, 08:01

i have to say i too am almost barely interested in civ after many hours plugging away at eu2. each eu2 game is like a slice of history and a different scenario each time(because you can change countries which are all different strengths). civ is very linear most of the time and i find it boring. i pretty much always win at single player but after like 40 turns into the game i can tell i've already won so there's no point in continuing. i haven't played civ much multi because i have a feeling there'd be tons of micromanagement involved to be competitive compared to how i usually play single player.

anything that makes civ less like civ and more like eu2 is good. the ratio of work to fun is quite bad in civ compared to eu2 imo. micromanagement is bad!

i've given up on ai for the time being in civ or any game. the only way to get challenging ai is to use massive cheats and that just makes the game no fun. multi is really the only way to play games like these in the long run.

Solver · October 27, 2003, 18:06

I agree with Hex. This is why I prefer CtP overall. Although I like the Civ 3 atmosphere, CtP provides more of a "in control of country" feeling... and the decisions to be taken remain broad and strategic at all times.

Unlike most CtP players, though, I do quite often switch between CtP and Civ 3. That is, I do actually play both games.

Brent · October 27, 2003, 18:10

I also like the semi 3D nature of SMAC terrain. I don't like the way Civ3 does mountains.

centrifuge · October 29, 2003, 13:23

Quote:

Originally posted by Solver

Unlike most CtP players, though, I do quite often switch between CtP and Civ 3. That is, I do actually play both games.

I play both as well, though my nod for the better game goes to CTP 1 and 2 over Civ3.

Civ3 most certainly has the better AI, and I like it's diplomacy and use of strategic resources better as well, but for everything else, CTP2 is loads better.

Though lately, I keep getting drawn back to Civ2, simply because of the volumes of outstanding scenarios.

I just wish that scenario making would have caught on more for CTP2...

VetLegion · October 30, 2003, 20:33

I should have been more precise. I ment what games outside the narrov civ genre influenced you most, gave you ideas, etc.

Everyone likes something in SMAC, but what did you pick up from Dress My Barbie II: The Return Of The Miniskirt?

Anaway

be that as it is, I would appreciate if you check out the Victoran link and tell me what you think about it: is it the ultimate god game?

DrSpike · November 1, 2003, 08:24

Civ2 core
SMAC treatment of stacking
Civ3 resources (for SP at least)
Galciv AI
CTP cd as coaster, because I don't like to get coffee rings on my desk when I play.

Asmodean · November 1, 2003, 10:11

For AI, definately Galactic Civilizations.
For empire modelling, none. (I have my own ideas, that I am developing)
For combat, SMAC
For Graphics, CTP2

Asmodean

Panag · November 1, 2003, 13:07

hi ,

C&C , CIV III & PTW , to a certain extend half live

have a nice day

Inverse Icarus · November 6, 2003, 23:57

Lords of the Realm.