New to the forums, so forgive me if this idea has been suggested elsewhere (I did look @ the current topics thread but didn't see it there).

-----

I was thinking civ could really corner the market in the gaming world if it had a First Person Shooter (FPS) intigrated within it's core TBS gameplay.

It could work like this ...

- I attack on a move a computer "consript" warrior with my "veteran" warrior.

- The game screen shifts from the standard map screen of Civ that we all know, to a more traditional FPS screen (3D most preferably).

- I have allways viewed 1 unit of warriors (or other "attackers") as actually being 100 men ... something a little more realistic than just 1 guy.

- Now with a warrior versus warrior combination ... you would probobly have the more traditional street figting game ( but done on a "Dynasty Warriors" type engine ( http://www.koei.com/games/dynasty.cfm ))

- An archer versus archer could be different ... and gunman versus gunman could take on a "Medal of Honor" ( http://www.eagames.com/official/moh/franchise/us/home.jsp )type game, each engine changing when you enter a new age of discovery.

- Obviously, "Elite" soldiers would have some type of advantage verus "Vet's", "Con's", or "Reg's"

-----

I've got a ton more ideas on this ... including being able to "roll the dice" as the current system is if you dont want to participate in the FPS ...

I'd be glad to share them ... if you guys dont imediately think I'm off my rocker :crazyeye:

;)

I am sorry to turn down your first post, but this is a horrible idea in many, many ways. First of all, civ is a TBS-game - that's why I play it, not FPSs. Secondly, do you have any idea how much labour this would require?

Simply put: no way.

But welcome to CFC anyway, Pawn! Perhaps you should tone down that radicality a bit, now don't you think? ;)

EDIT: Perhaps we should make all cities small Sim Cities? And whenever we use airplanes, it would be like a simulated air-combat? And naval battles would be cool! And whenever you discover a village, it would be like Tomb Raider... :lol:

No

Horrible horrible! I feel dirty for even reading it.

No offense & welcome to CFC.;)

I don't want to see any kind of simulation or FPS. The game is fine as it is and that's the reason I bought civ3 and expansions. I like turn-based games, because is like chess: you can't simply charge out and see what's going to happen, one must think before he makes the smallest change. That makes the game so unique and have a HUGE replay value. Just ask youself in how many hours do you get bored to death with other games? I play civ3 3 years now, and it's like I just started playing.......

:vomit: :vomit: :vomit:

Agree Alex!
I hate that almost all new games today look so simular! I love turnbased games! Civ and Heroes are my favorites, and the only games I play, besides C&C Generals!

I'm sorry Pawn, but I have to agree with everyone who hates your idea. Keep in mind that games (or people, or anything really) that try to do too many things wind up doing none of them well. I'd rather have a really good turn-based strategy game by itself than a mediocre one combined with a mediocre FPS. And that's undoubtedly what wouod result: I doubt its possible to develop a game that's top notch in both genres, since its would take so long to develop that it would be outdated before even being released.

Furthermore, as others here have said, not everyone likes FPS games, and in fact, many of us are big Civ fans because we prefer to spend our time on turn-based strategy games than on FPS type games. Combining the two would force us to split our time between genres, when we'd prefer to focus on one alone.

If a top-notch strategy game could be combined with a top-notch FPS (which, as I said, I doubt), it would undoubtedly be a really cool game for those people who happen to be big fans of both genres. But I think there's a lot more people who would rather devote the majority of their time to one genre or the other. We can take for granted that Civ fans like TBS games... some might also like FPS games, but adding an FPS component to Civ would alienate all those who don't like FPS, and be unlikely to attract anyone who only likes FPS and doesn't go for TBS. In short, the total number of people who would want a game like you're suggesting (even if it was possible to do it well) would be less than the current number who enjoy Civ.

Luckily, I think there's zero chance that Civ 4 will incorporate any FPS concepts. Sorry if that disappoints you, though. And welcome to CFC- sorry your first post got such a negative response.

Pawn's concept might have some merit in that an integrated Battle View works well for multi-unit engagements: all your stacked units arranged opposite all the enemy's stack units, going through their individual animations and dropping one by one.

Just for the sake of argument: perhaps that idea could be developed into a temporary real-time combat simulation, limited to a small area and a couple of minutes? You could control your units individually or let them do their own thing, while the enemy units came at you simultaneously. If you found things going badly, you could retreat your remaining unit(s) off the edge of the combat zone, and back into the main game for the next turn.

I guess thats a no then?

lol

Thanks for the response, I guess I was being a bit too extream ...

I guess I will tone back my thought and jump on Pariah's bandwaggon to see just a bit more action in the fights / challenges of unit V unit match-ups ...

Once again thats for the criticism guys ... I'll try not to deviate from course too much from here on out ;)

Well, Pawn, you have almost achieved something nobody has probably ever achieved: unanimosity ;) . Without our dear Pariah here, you would have hit the jackpot by making everyone agree that your idea is bad - and that would be something! :lol:

Thanks for being such a sport :)

Originally posted by Shyrramar
Without our dear Pariah here...

Nice that to be appreciated, even if "dear pariah" is almost a contradiction in terms...:rolleyes:

:vomit:
Yuck
No FPS, No TPS and NO RTS
Keep those to themselves PLEASE

-sorry-

i'm sorry this just makes me :vomit: :shakehead :thumbdown

Yeah no FPS, although it would be pretty cool if Firaxis moved in on the Medieval: Total War scene by giving the option to have battles take place in a 3D real time tactical environment, rather than based solely on the RNG. If any of you have played M:TW you know what I mean.

Otherwise what happens in M:TW is; based on the terrain the two armies occupy it generates a 3D landscape for all your units to duke it out. You temporarily become the General of your forces and get to take tactical control of your forces, so with a single unit of archers and a couple horse archers or cavalry, if you were good enough at the tactical level of using terrain and knowing how to use hit and run tactics, you could defeat a force of 6 swordsmen and 2 spears (even in M:TW this example scenario would be extremely difficult to win). Alternately they also would allow for auto-resolution which would be the equivalent of letting the RNG let your MA be defeated by a spearman ;) Civ already takes a long time though, adding another 30 minute tactical battle to each combat could be wearisome, but it's a great feeling to start a war against a stronger nation with superior units and still win because you use better tactics to win the fights. As a simple example Horse Archers don't just run at a unit of spearmen and fight toe to toe, they pepper their formation and run away, then dart back in and pepper them again and so on and so forth, there is simply no way that a unit of spearmen should be able to defeat horse archers, unless the units of spears should happen to catch the unit of horse archers in the middle of the night sleeping at their camp site, I miss using better tactics to win battles. I'd like to see tactics play a role in Civ4 beyond fortifying on a hill behind a river. Also in M:TW you can't crack a city open without siege once they grow beyond a level 2 city...you must have siege weapons to break down the defenses.

Although this idea certainly takes Civ in a different direction and probably would mean having to drop some of the other better features they have over M:TW, which are numerous. M:TW is a WAR game, where as Civ can be what you make of each map and doesn't necessarily (although it usually does for me) have to be a war game. I don't necessarily think my idea is a good match for what Firaxis is looking to do with the Civ franchise but I would like to see it nonetheless ;)

Wow i have yet to see anyone get everyone in this thread to agree this well, Horrible idea you should change your name and go into a small cave for awhile :devil2: YOUR IDEA IS EVIL

Some FPS games are cool, some RTS games are cool, alot of RPG games are cool ( there was this one game i played, it was awesome, a boardgame from like the 80s with dungeons and stuff.. heros quest i think.) but, I like civ the way it is. The only thing i'd like to see would be an option to "hit and run" the target or "attack" for certain special units.. Special forces, a UU here and there (mongle UU ect). but even then, I dont think it could be well implemented.
And Welcome Pawn.

Welcome to the Forum Pawn

Your idea is.... not good.... congrats on getting everyone (ex Pariah) to reject this idea. Ive tried getting my ideas rejested like this a couple times. :D

anyway, bienvenido seas al Forum...

welcome,

I understand your idea and had it been RTS it may have fitted in, but alas no.

And as for cornering the market with the idea, I know it was RTS an not TBS, but didn't Dungeon Keeper allow you to "possess" a unit?

The only way this could be implemented would be the modding of an existing FPS engine that would be suited for Civ. It could never be programmed by the actual makers of Civ, because their precious time is needed to make, well, Civ. :D It would also be highly preferable if this would be optional, since I see a lot of people shunning this idea. But if someone would take UT 2004 (or whatever, I'm not expert) and turn it into a Civ mod, well adapted to Civ, it might be fun. But generally my advice would be: if you want an FPS, play an FPS. :)

But generally my advice would be: if you want an FPS, play an FPS. :)

That pretty much sums it up.

The idea of combining TBS and FPS sounds pretty cool, but then you have to remember how many FPSers has Firaxis made? Also this would have to mean we would have to wait longer.

worst idea ever

worst idea ever
You're just saying that to escape the wrath of Perfection's Giant Death Robots. ;)

I was thinking civ could really corner the market in the gaming world if it had a First Person Shooter (FPS) intigrated within it's core TBS gameplay.


Hilarious!! When you get to the modern age, you can have Xerxes battling with invading Covenant warriors. Freakin Awesome!! :p

I will give your idea props on one point, it did make me laugh. Come on guys, have a sense of humour. Pawn here is just a little confused about where he is posting.

Sometimes I envision FPS, or actually M:TW, style battles in my head while playing civ, even using Perfection's GDR engine.

Phoule, I do agree its annoying that tactics never help you out. It is also annoying that everyone has Longbows, but it doesn't really help them against the Knights. Imagine trying to win battles with just an army of Knights. I'm glad someone besides me plays M:TW, I was starting to feel wierd on this forum.

sir_schwick nice to see another M:TW player, I haven't seen many around here either.

Yep some of M:TW features would make me drool if integrated into Civ4, others like random Vices after nurturing a unit to some incredible combat virtues would make me want to smash my monitor.

On the topic of Longbows vs Knights though, I do think the Knights would absolutely wreck a unit of longbows especially from a loose formation unless the longbowmen were ambushing from the woods and had the high ground, even with the added melee strength of longbowmen over regular archers, I think the Longbowmen would probably route too quickly once the few remaining Knights got close enough to engage, leading to the slaughter of the whole unit while they were fleeing.

On the topic of Longbows vs Knights though, I do think the Knights would absolutely wreck a unit of longbows especially from a loose formation unless the longbowmen were ambushing from the woods and had the high ground, even with the added melee strength of longbowmen over regular archers, I think the Longbowmen would probably route too quickly once the few remaining Knights got close enough to engage, leading to the slaughter of the whole unit while they were fleeing.

I should probably test it out before commenting, but I do see what you mean. If the Longbows had at least 3-4 Valour they might reduce the Knights enough to win in the downhill charge. On open ground the Longbows will always loose, unless another unit absorbs the charge. THen the other unit just has to tolerate being a pincushion. Actually, that is usually how I use my Longbows. Poor Feudal Sargeants.

NOthing like Severe Alcoholic to mess up a good general.

Well I did forget Knights would be classified as heavy horsemen so because of longbow damage vs armor casualties would be very high for the Knights. But still I don't think they would route seeing as they are Knights and have the Tempetuous(sp?) trait and once engaged the longbows probably would. One of my big problems with ranged is that it was virtually impossible to gain valour for these units from combat.

One of my personal favorite units were the Novgorod I loved their King/Prince unit, 40 man horse archers that could fight like heavy horsemen in melee and chase down other horse archers like light cavalry, they were probably my favorite unit next to beserkers ;)

Ironically, the incident above where I wanted to smash my monitor came from gaining the Severely Drunk (or whichever was the second level of drunk) Vice on an 8 valor unit of beserkers with a 7 star general as the leader, who I'd nurtured very carefully to gain the second attack bonus along with the second attack when outnumbered bonus.....this unit was hellish to opposing armies, I could plow them into the flanks of a fully upgraded unit of Huscarls and it would rip through them in seconds. This unit was my game breaker in every battle, because I'd nurtured them so closely. I let him sit in Mercia for two turns and bam he's a dead drunk with a huge negative to attacking, I was liek WTF!!! Even with that vice, the battle that finally annihalated the unit they got surrounded by 3 separate units of huskarls and had no escape, yet only 10 huscarls were left standing out of 180, 170 of the best units the Mercians have to kill 12 ;)

M:TW was a great game.

Yes, Berserkers and Hashinin both pwn on anything they face. For just regular operations I liked Gallow-Glasses, the ultimate unit for attacking for the price and buildup time. They have the same charge as Mounted Sargeants and are armour piercing. I sometimes charged them directly against Cavalry, although I usually went for the dedicated flanking manuever.

Boyars are pretty nice too. I've seen them take out Katatanks in melee.

Worst idea I have ever seen in these forums.

NO!!! No FPS and little or no 3D. [c3c] will be the last Civ I buy if that kind of stuff is added to Civ4.

If you add FPS, then people will want more realistic (gory) graphics which would blow the game's E rating. I want my daughter to play the game from a young age because I think it does strengthen some critical thinking processes. FPS games, as a rule, do not.

I also object to some 3D graphics because they make it difficult for people with certain vision problems to "see" the game and make it work. There is also the issue of "camera motion" in games causing motion sickness. BTDT and hated it with the Loco-Commotion demo on RT3.

In regard to these issues, I aver that the current game ain't broke so don't fix it!

I think he understands the problem already. Lets all calm down and move onto legitimate topics.

I'm sorry to say this, but


Worst. Idea. Evar.

NO!!! No FPS and little or no 3D. [c3c] will be the last Civ I buy if that kind of stuff is added to Civ4.

If you add FPS, then people will want more realistic (gory) graphics which would blow the game's E rating. I want my daughter to play the game from a young age because I think it does strengthen some critical thinking processes. FPS games, as a rule, do not.

Easy now, no reason to go all ballistic over an idea we all know won't be in the game anyway.

I agree FPS won't happen. The 3D graphics, however, are a potentiality. As long as things are done well (and Civ normally is), I will give it a go. Just can't stand herky-jerky panning in games...unless of course the game is supposed to simulate a roller coaster ride.

The 3D graphics are a given. Firaxis has publicly stated that they are happening.

2nd worst idea ever posted here.

(The worst was sending in the actual ruler to do spy missions in FPS mode, with regicide - you lose the game if you fail.)

while the idea would not work for the fan base, it does touch on something...the idea of some kind of tactical control of battles as oppossed to the logistical predominence in the game...i for one think u should get an attack bonus if u are able to surround an enemy for instance. Have no idea how such could be worked out, but the history channel has a show where they use computer animations showing ancient battles-very Civ like....now if one could have a zoom in for a battle where manuevers were like that....
(Skip indivdual units, u can only build armies...then when two armies face
off- it zooms in and gives you a view and then u can manuever the various battalions...that way if someone has an army of say only immortals, and they face an army of archers, horse and sword, the latter army would actually have an edge..)

Troy, I think you may be referring to Decisive Battles. If you are, then they are using the Rome : Total War engine. If you have ever played Medieval or Shogun :Total War you would have experience with these engines. They are really good combat simulators, but adding something similair to civ would easily double game time to each game.

Also, while I like tactical unit interactions, Soren specifically said he does not want to add in a Rock-Paper-Scissors combat model.

It would be kind of fun if you could(as an agent, not the ruler) act out espionage, sabotage, and assasination missions. Definitely does not belong directly in game, but it would make a good Ghost Recon or Unreal Tournament mod.

i hear ya ol Sir...someone else suggested TMW and i never played that, but yes it was "Decisive Battles" that i was referring to, and i suppose ur right, it would double the time, sure looked cool tho.
By the way, what will be 3d? (Warp mentioned that it was a done deal..3d engine...what does that mean graphically? I mean the terrain and units are already 3d.

don't get me wrong, I was both drooling and lamenting over RTW(I probably won't be able to hit system specs). I thought of an idea such as integrating Civ and TW, but then realized that TW is so good cause they have such a wide range of tactical units. Maybe someone could make a Civ mod for MTW.

For an idea which was initially so unpopular, this thread has certainly continued long enough..!

I was thinking civ could really corner the market in the gaming world if it had a First Person Shooter (FPS) intigrated within it's core TBS gameplay.
For a moment I had a terrible thought that Pawn is really from the Atari marketing department, and was "testing the water" for an idea they've had for the future of Civ.

For a moment I had a terrible thought that Pawn is really from the Atari marketing department, and was "testing the water" for an idea they've had for the future of Civ.

Dunt-dunt-dunnnnnnnnnnn! I never thought of that possiblity. When I first read the post I assumed it was a great joke and laughed my ass off. I even showed it to a freind last night who couldn't stop laughing for five minutes. Has anyone noticed Pawn really hasn't posted on other subjects since this royal flaming? I hope we did not scare him off.

Hey if he was form atari at least we know they are getting input form us and using it

Has anyone noticed Pawn really hasn't posted on other subjects since this royal flaming? I hope we did not scare him off.

The guy probably just lost interest, or is too busy to visit CivFanatics regularly. Heck, even Simon Darkshade seemed to have disappeared for several months this year.

I joined in Feb 2003, but didn't start posting regularly until the following November.