Beyond Earth wishlist

[Lord Tirian]

I just remembered one thing from SMAC they really have to revisit:

Sea cities. It was just such an interesting concept and change to the standard Civ concepts.

 

[maglock]

1. Good diplomacy. Like trade relations, military alliances, military access, improving/worsening relations, casus belli system, economic and military aid, diplomatic guarantees, etc.
Civ 5 was an empty shell.

To the devs of Civ:BE - go and play Europa Universalis IV. Seriously. And then play it some more. And then a whole lot more. Then behold the awesome amounts of diplomacy in that game compared to the flimsy amount that Civ V gave us.

If Civ:BE has even half of what you can do in EUIV I will be a happy camper.

 

[Sonereal]

More varied diplomacy options, and better diplomacy in general.

Edit: Ninja'd

 

[Snownova]

I just remembered one thing from SMAC they really have to revisit:

Sea cities. It was just such an interesting concept and change to the standard Civ concepts.

More importantly Early sea cities. With AI that can handle it properly. In SMAC sea cities were awesome, but the AI did not understand how borders worked, and sea cities did not extend borders to land, which was quite annoying. Call to Power had sea cities, but they arrived way, way too late in the game to be remotely relevant.

 

[GeoModder]

I just remembered one thing from SMAC they really have to revisit:

Sea cities. It was just such an interesting concept and change to the standard Civ concepts.

Hell yeah!

More importantly Early sea cities. With AI that can handle it properly. In SMAC sea cities were awesome, but the AI did not understand how borders worked, and sea cities did not extend borders to land, which was quite annoying.

I don't think the border thing was the issue (new bases always got preference in border pushing), but sea shelfs placement on the map. At least my maps were never big enough (unless going for a 10% land map) to have much variation on the ocean layout.

 

[Commander Bello]

No Steam requirement.

This.

 

[SamBC]

To the devs of Civ:BE - go and play Europa Universalis IV. Seriously. And then play it some more. And then a whole lot more. Then behold the awesome amounts of diplomacy in that game compared to the flimsy amount that Civ V gave us.

If Civ:BE has even half of what you can do in EUIV I will be a happy camper.

You do realise that they are completely different sorts of games, right? And that a lot of EUIV diplomacy wouldn't really be applicable to a Civ-type game without, well, it not being a Civ-type game any more?

 

[Securion]

You do realise that they are completely different sorts of games, right? And that a lot of EUIV diplomacy wouldn't really be applicable to a Civ-type game without, well, it not being a Civ-type game any more?

Strategy game? With factions/nations? Warring/cooperating/trading?
How is it not the same?

Even the Manpower features of EU4 could be implemented if they really wanted to. Even add military leaders to units... They could even improve on the EU4 systems; like having buildings that give better military leaders (officer academies?), or buildings that improve the speed by which foreign military aid can be sent/received (foreign aid office?)... The possibilities are endless.
They could even add the Grand Strategy AI to its own thread and run in between turns, making deeper analysis of whats going on. (Is my neighbour continuously building military units? Is he very strong military? If so react by; 1. Build more military units. 2. Improve relations. 3. Create/join defensive alliance. .... etc.)

I would say CivBE is a better platform for advanced diplomacy than EU4 is.

The Civilization franchise have been known for deep and advanced gameplay, but that was 10 years ago. Today the Civilization franchise is increasingly looks like they are "dumbed down" and dont keep up with the competition.
If Firaxis goes lazy on the diplomacy and AI it would only cement the idea that Firaxis makes "strategy-light"-type of games and are not to be taken seriously by strategy gamers.
We dont want that.

 

[poom3619]

Wish : Being playable piece of novel. What should I say, I expect that I somewhat get the "feel" I have when I play SMAC. I want story that affect gameplay, I want gameplay that affect story.

Also, I want, by fans' standard. A good game.

Impossible wish : Release the complete game, expansions are expansions. Not something that complete the game.

Strategy game? With factions/nations? Warring/cooperating/trading?
How is it not the same?

In EUIV, there are like 400 nation-states, battle is something like two armies clashes until one is defeated. We can't just trading ala prebuilt Center of Trade because we have to made one. Look like you tried to abstract both game to make it look the same. It isn't.

Honestly, if I were the dev. I would read books or whatever about psychology and politics, or maybe try to see how GalCivIII deal with this and adapt.

I agree to you that Civ serie isn't competitive in deepness of gam, though.

 

[SamBC]

Strategy game? With factions/nations? Warring/cooperating/trading?
How is it not the same?

Fixed map, discrete provinces, pre-defined nations with pre-defined territory and relationships, highly abstracted combat, dynastic mechanics, and play-by-spreadsheet, to name a few key differences. Not that any of those are bad things - I love EUIV. It's just a very different sort of game. I see it referred to as a "grand strategy" game, and I like that distinction.

Civ has more boardgame-like mechanics, which is also not a bad thing.

 

[KevinLancaster]

Yeah, I also believe the AI in EU4 is kind of cheaty. Also they implemented a crossing over the English Channel IIRC because they couldn't get the English AI to get involved in enough continental wars. Their current (main?) AI programmer is actually a modder, his forum name is Wiz on the Paradox forums.

 

[Chapel]

Some of the things already mentioned as well as Drone riots that can result in a city revolting and breaking off into something like a city state.

 

[Traejun]

Wish list...

1. Don't make this just another Civ game in space. There shouldn't be city-building. Main colony and outposts only.
2. More hard science. We're allegedly colonizing a planet that probably isn't 100% perfect for human life. That brings in a whole set of problems and requirements. Make us really focus on those to survive.
3. Difficulty level set to high. What I really want is to be able to lose - for my colony to actually fail if I do stupid things. Why? Because that's precisely what would happen.

...I'll likely add more over time, but those are the big 3 for me.

 

[KevinLancaster]

Some of the things already mentioned as well as Drone riots that can result in a city revolting and breaking off into something like a city state.

Foreman Domai reporting!

EDIT: Wait we might not even know if they are called drones here.

 

[Chapel]

Wait we might not even know if they are called drones here.

Just riots then. Drone or otherwise, Also I really like the outpost thing they are doing. Where you have to grow it into a city. I hope they implement it well.

 

[Lyoncet]

1) Casus belli system.

2-10) Casus belli system.

No, really. It would directly or incidentally fix a boatload of exploits and problems that the Civ series, especially the later ones, has had to clumsily work around and root out.

 

[sendos]

Another wish I forgot to add:

- Combination of SMAC economy and civ 5 economy, where unit maintenance costs production rather than gold. If civbe follows the civ 5 economic system, militaristic factions wouldn't be so attractive until you got your economy sorted out.

 

[maglock]

The Civilization franchise have been known for deep and advanced gameplay, but that was 10 years ago. Today the Civilization franchise is increasingly looks like they are "dumbed down" and dont keep up with the competition.
If Firaxis goes lazy on the diplomacy and AI it would only cement the idea that Firaxis makes "strategy-light"-type of games and are not to be taken seriously by strategy gamers.
We dont want that.

This is exactly what I refer to when I say that I wish Civ:BE would have even half the diplomacy of EUIV. Sure, not of all of it is applicable to a civ game. They are different. But they are both high level strategy games.

Civ has never been a tactical game. It has always been a strategy game. Yet Firaxis seems to be heading down the path of making a battle simulator with economy features tacked on.

Strategy games have moved on from the Civ I days, yet Civ V seems to be heading back in that direction. ie regressing back to 1991. My hope is that with Civ:BE the devs can distance themselves somewhat from the direction Civ V was headed down, take some cues from Paradox and head back in the direction of making great STRATEGY games again.

We know they can do it.

 

[KevinLancaster]

Guys have you ever considered that you've just gotten bored of Civ since you've gotten used to it and that they need to attract new players as well?

I see a lot of comparisons to EU4 here, it's funny since there were a lot of complaints the EU4 was dumbed down compared to 3, which I feel true to a degree but it doesn't matter since the thing plays better as a whole (generally speaking).

 

[Traejun]

Guys have you ever considered that you've just gotten bored of Civ since you've gotten used to it and that they need to attract new players as well?

I see a lot of comparisons to EU4 here, it's funny since there were a lot of complaints the EU4 was dumbed down compared to 3, which I feel true to a degree but it doesn't matter since the thing plays better as a whole (generally speaking).

No... its all about me and the people like me