Do you guys want civ 4 to be more realistic?

I don't think I could care less about realism.

My orders of priority would be.

1. Gameplay
2. Gameplay
3. User Interface (ease and naturalness of use, not prettiness)
4. AI quality
5. Gameplay
6. Gameplay

After that, in some order are graphics (preferably not 3-D so I will play it -- 3D graphics cards aren't worth the money to me...and they're very hard for some of us to interpret -- give me 2-D on the computer every time!), realism, hexes/squares, and most everything else.

Arathorn
 
I agree with Arathorn here. I don't need flash to make a good game. The Icons of Civ III make me long for the simple Windows-like interface of Civ II.
 
you guys might not need flash but I, and and at LEAST 70% of other causal game players DO- we like our games to look cool, and dont mind at all if it is made a priority :D
 
The only thing I want from Civ 4 is for it to remain turn-based. And no xbox crossplatforming. Cross-platform development is slowly draining the life out of PC gaming. Lets keep Civ pure for the sake of our sanity.

On a technical side-note it would be nice to see Civ get some DirectX 9 acceleration, not particularly for flashy 3D visuals but for super smooth map scrolling and so on. I mean you could stay with the 2D animated sprites but have nice DX9.0 big momma nuke explosions with large blast waves (I always like a good blast wave). Also bombard animations and volcanic eruptions - basically many map animations could be done using 3D animations on a 2D backdrop like Temple of Elemental Evil does.
 
Originally posted by Xen
you guys might not need flash but I, and and at LEAST 70% of other causal game players DO- we like our games to look cool, and dont mind at all if it is made a priority :D

Civilization never seemed to be the pick of "casual gamers". The game isn't designed for casual gamers, either. Civilization requires alot of time and alot of attention to play.
 
Originally posted by Duke Togo


Civilization never seemed to be the pick of "casual gamers". The game isn't designed for casual gamers, either. Civilization requires alot of time and alot of attention to play.

True but every gem needs a lick of paint once in a while. Civ could do with one I think. There are ways of improving presentation without compromising ease of modding.

I mean Civ 3 may be amenable to modders right now but what if Civ 4 made it even easier? Bringing some 3D elements into the equation might actually simplify the modding process immensely.

I've always wanted to see some natural disasters in Civ games coupled with a new game concept of actually helping out in relief and aid supplies. Certainly these are a major feature of modern life right now, Civ fails to reflect this at all and concentrates too much on war and conflict.
 
1. give scenario writers options. bring back events file.
if you want historical fine utilize the events file to dupicate it.

if not don't use it . if you want to alter timing of things alter the events file. hey, it's a srategy simulator to a degree, but you can keep the options open.

how much realism do you need?


well anyway ijust favor keeping options open, and if standard setup doesn't suit you - write a scenario/mod.
 
I think what Oda said is entirly true.. Realism is relative, and we're not trying to re-construct history exactly as it happend.
Also.. with Oda's statment, resources should by on the map and visible from the get go, allowing civs to develope tech's based on their surroundings.
Example..If you need saltpeter to make gunpowder....how can you develope gunpowder without having access to that resource? as it is.. Your scientists can develope Gun powder..then saltpeter pops on to the map. A little backaward don't you think?
 
Originally posted by Duke Togo


Civilization never seemed to be the pick of "casual gamers". The game isn't designed for casual gamers, either. Civilization requires alot of time and alot of attention to play.

I'm a casuak game, and civ3 is certainlly my pick :goodjob:
 
I would like to see some sort of tactical element to the battlefield. Maybe something along the lines of Caesar or Civil War. Where manuever, use of terrain, and tactical decision making can have an impact on the overall game strategy.
 
Originally posted by Sir Bugsy
I would like to see some sort of tactical element to the battlefield. Maybe something along the lines of Caesar or Civil War. Where manuever, use of terrain, and tactical decision making can have an impact on the overall game strategy.

You can get this by going to a rudimentary wargame type combat system without straying to far from the strategic abstract.
 
I wouldn't go for additional tactical combat, since this would require a game in the game, thus making it even more probable that certain things would not function the way they should.
I would like to have the concepts in the game being thought to their end, instead.
One example:
Elevations. The higher your units are, the farther they can look (units/outposts on hills, mountains). Hills and mountains give combat advantages. So far, so good.
But, those advantages are just given to the defender. This is unrealistic.
Even an attacker should have an advantage when attacking from the higher position. For a certain reason, throughout history military units have tried to seize the higher positions on the battlefield.
Things like that should be given a lot more thoughts during the development phase of Civ4.
 
:) Here's some things to think about.
1)
Do you notice that all of the Civilizations
start at the city-state stage of development.
All of the civilizations in the game are city states
and begin to develop as such.
Think about that.
Were the Mongols at that stage of development?
Were there any Mongol cities? Yet look what they
accomplished. How come I can't develop a nomad
civilization. Ditto the Huns, Zulus and Sioux etc...
2)
Look at the Japanese. In 1865 they are still at the
level of feudalism, yet by 1940 they can take on the
most advanced nations. A tiny isolated nation had
no problem quickly acquiring advanced technology
and making good use of it to expand. In the game,
if you were in the same technological position, there
would be no way for you to advance so quickly,
especially with little or no resources. In reality
technology is transferred between Civilizations very
quickly, and at little or no cost.
3)
Where are the civil wars? How come in over a thousand
years no Civilization splits apart into civil war? The less
enlightened government the more the possibility. {Think
Soviet Union.}
I'm for more realism, the more realism the more interesting
the game, and the more challenging!!!


:thanx:
 
Well, I've finally read all these posts, and just had do register to share my views,

First, I would really want to have some sort of control in the "battles", to set up tactics before the battle and place your units on the battlefield, but this function would almost have to change over the ages, in the ancient times the outcome of the battles would mostly depend on which side's got the most, best trained and strong warriors, and of course a big chunk of luck. I mean, if your cities got a good foodproduction, that would result in stronger and healthier warriors, a barracks and how long the soldiers been in the city's garrison would result in better training, and of course the units expirence in field. And here the the "higher" values would come in handy, a unit can have a default value, lets say the warrior could have a default value of 10/10, and these values could improve with both researched techs and training, for an example, you research bronze working, woho!, your warrior gets a point or two in both attributes due to a sharp metal weapon. And maybe you could have the option of determine if you should traing them for defense or attacking, this would be individually for each unit while the tech-improvements would be more general.
Now I feel I kinda lost the "combat-control" thingy, but this would of course have great impact on the result of the battle. And the graphics wouldn't have to be all tha great and 3d-ish, many old games have handled this good with nice 2d graphics.
I also think you shouldn't have to use a "Great Leader" to form an army, a military GL in charge of an army could just increase the disciplin and attributes of your army. And if you could compose armies without GL:s the battle scenes would be far more entertaining and complex.
I kinda have these visions of two battles, one in like 3600 bc, two bands of warriors run from two sides and clash at the middle, and another of a Battle in the 17:th century with large regiments of diffrent types line up, and the battle starts at a precise moment, the soldiers try to follow their orders, but after a while its just chaos in the thick foggish gunsmoke.
The setup of the battle would be kinda like Dark Omen, you got your little regiments and get to place them in your starting zone, when the battles begin you get a limited control of your units and all orders you give won't allways be done like you first wanted.
This system would work until sometime after the napoleon wars or maybe even past the "WWII" part, in this time you no longer put all your armies in two lines oppposing each other, and just "begin" the battle at a given time. Now its precision strikes with helicopters and special forces and god knows what, so i guess you'll just have to alter the reality a little and just continue as in the good ol'days. But you could still use aircraft to insert troops where the enemy leasts expect, cause in most modern cities people have a military police limit -100, so garrisoned troops wont be a problem.
Now i feel i've written a bit about how i would want the
battle system, and the whole military system in general.

I havent given the "money, shield and food" thingy much thought, but at least, you just gotta have the ability to ship food from one town to another, and that growth shouldn't be that 100% based on food.
The "where you chose which city improvement should be built the next 20 yrs" -system feels, kinda outdated... so this systen can only be used in the early ages, in the later stages I would want to se a function where u dont "shields", instead you could get tax money from your cities and invest in diffrent projects, these projects will be finished some time later and you could have many projects running at the same time. I saw someone write something like this earlier... I just devolped it a little, i think... =).

And about graphics changes, the post about a mix of 3d and 2d probably would work out perfect for civ4, TTOE have sweet graphics and doesn't require to much.
The tileset could sure use some of that "melt hills and stuff into the rest of the terrain" someone wrote about.

Well thats what i have for now, gotta go playing soccer now...

Sorry for my "probably" five-year level of speech, i'm swedish you know ;)
 
Welcome to CFC Smet!! Those are excellent points. Your English is better than my 14 year old's and she's been speaking it her entire life. :D
 
Thank you Sir Bugsy :)

Forgot a couple of things in my last posts... so here the come: ;) ... hmm, forgot what i was thinking about... i'll just start of with the tech-tree...

About the tech-tree and the "tribes". I would reallly like a more complex tech-tree, with more techs. I like the idea of every tech would give bonuses and "not bonuses" (really gotta learn some more useful words) to diffrentent aspects of the game, take for an example, when you research... industrialization, your farming gets penalities... or like in my last post, when you research bronze working some of your units will get slightly improved stats. But this kind of advantages/disadvantages shouldn't just be around techs. Another example, if you build a school or university, this should improve commercial, since increased education would benefit local trade.
And about diffrent tribes, I'm a bit radical ;), so i think you could get to customize your civilization at the start of a game, and decide if your building and culture style should be European, Asian or Mesoamerican. You could also get to chose from some of those cute faces if you really wanted to. :)
And about those "traits" or whatever they are called, I think they should develop depending on how you rule your civilization, you could have, lets say those diffrent traits, agricultural and all, have a "bar" for each of these and have a maximum points that move around the diffrent "bars", if you build lots of roads and stuff your industrial meter goes up, if you expand quickly the expansionist goes up, what kind of techs you go for would also effect this. But the number of "dots" in the 7 bars are always constant, so if you increase in one category you automaticly decrease in another which you havent been all that in to the latest century.
And if you have much in your industrial "bar" your workers work more efficently, etc.
So im totally for the "customize your own civilization" idea, but of course, if you like to make re-runs of our own history instead of making your own, new one, you'll always have some nice scenarios to lean back on.

Over n' out... for now at least ;)
 
Originally posted by ComradeDavo
My biggest hope for Civ4 is more individualised civs, with unique tech trees and far more special units.

That's an awesome idea!!! I guess balancing the game would be tough though....
 
Originally posted by ComradeDavo
My biggest hope for Civ4 is more individualised civs, with unique tech trees and far more special units.

That's an awesome idea!!! I guess balancing the game would be tough though....
 
I like your triats idea. But it will requier the AI to grow in different way to achieve a world with different traits for each civ
 
I wish that in civ4 there will be majorly Army fight, instead of individual unit fight.
Oh and also espionage, something HAVE TO be done about it, most probably be tuned up. Espionage in real life is one of the most important tools of governing :lol:
 
Back
Top Bottom