Actually, Firaxis made Civ3. Infogrames/Atari is the publisher.
Do you guys want civ 4 to be more realistic?
- Thread starter Veteranewbie
- Start date
Actually, Firaxis made Civ3. Infogrames/Atari is the publisher.
Masquerouge
Deity
Maybe because the designer of the CTP series was once a close collaborator of Sid Meier in the Civ and Civ2 games ?
The separation didn't go very well, as they had to fight a lawsuit about the ownership of the "Civilization" name. Hence Call To Power : civilization.
Bryan Reynolds, I think it's the name of the Ex-civ CTP man.
So in fact, the Civilization in CTP's name has a LOT to do with Civ3
More realistic? An emphatic 
I would personally like to see a battle system similar to, say, Master of Magic or CTP. I'm pretty sure I preferred Civ2's battle system as well, but I haven't played that in years, so I'm not completely certain on that point. Any one of those would probably be more realistic than the current, streaky battle system.
In addition, I believe resources need to be revamped. One should need certain quantities of a particular resource in order to build or support units, for instance, rather than the current system of having a single resource and having the ability to exploit it for all eternity. The current system has been unbalancing and unrealistic in too many of my games.
I also feel the economy is far too simplistic. Of course, overcomplication would be much worse than the current, more or less non-existent economic model, but I think the game should at least pay lip service to the economy.
The ability to engage in relatively complex, multilateral diplomatic negotiations would be a significant improvement as well. And at the very least, I'd like to have some flexibility in terms of a deal's length.
I also like the spirit of this particular idea.
I would personally like to see a battle system similar to, say, Master of Magic or CTP. I'm pretty sure I preferred Civ2's battle system as well, but I haven't played that in years, so I'm not completely certain on that point. Any one of those would probably be more realistic than the current, streaky battle system.
In addition, I believe resources need to be revamped. One should need certain quantities of a particular resource in order to build or support units, for instance, rather than the current system of having a single resource and having the ability to exploit it for all eternity. The current system has been unbalancing and unrealistic in too many of my games.
I also feel the economy is far too simplistic. Of course, overcomplication would be much worse than the current, more or less non-existent economic model, but I think the game should at least pay lip service to the economy.
The ability to engage in relatively complex, multilateral diplomatic negotiations would be a significant improvement as well. And at the very least, I'd like to have some flexibility in terms of a deal's length.
I also like the spirit of this particular idea.
Originally posted by Masquerouge
Maybe because the designer of the CTP series was once a close collaborator of Sid Meier in the Civ and Civ2 games ?
The separation didn't go very well, as they had to fight a lawsuit about the ownership of the "Civilization" name. Hence Call To Power : civilization.
Bryan Reynolds, I think it's the name of the Ex-civ CTP man.
So in fact, the Civilization in CTP's name has a LOT to do with Civ3
My point is that (sorry if im getting off the thread topic) its a completely different game. People always make comments to the effect of "well in call to power its like this why isnt it like that in CivIII?". It makes me sick to listen to that.
Enkidu Warrior
Ultramagnetic
Originally posted by EddyG17
nobody likes my pupet nation thing idea?
Yes!
Similar to the surrender option in Alpha Cenrauri. I often want to neutralise a rival but I can't be bothered to annex their entire empire. This is a must!
I am currently studying Political Science & Economy in school and I have to say... CivIII is honestly really fun for a game, but I still stand strong from my previous post, CivIII is incredibly unrealistic! CivIII did a really good job simplifing certain political/economical aspects to make the game fun, but as I dive deeper into my studies, I notice how much they're lacking... how much *more* they could of added...... The social engineering model sucked, basically you choose a stereotypical version of whatever goverment you want, SMACx did the best job of making the goverment model, where by choosing certain traites from theories you create a type of goverment.
CIVIII VS CTP
I mean when I first played CivIII without the expansion, I laughed cuz at all the things they where lacking! That buggy CTP had everything!! Even with CivIII getting 3 tries(ctp, ptw, conq), ctp is still better.
If you want to make Civ4 more 'realistic', they're gonna' have to bite a lot more concepts that CTP used. And borrow the social engineering model from their brother, SMACx.
CIVIII VS CTP
I mean when I first played CivIII without the expansion, I laughed cuz at all the things they where lacking! That buggy CTP had everything!! Even with CivIII getting 3 tries(ctp, ptw, conq), ctp is still better.
If you want to make Civ4 more 'realistic', they're gonna' have to bite a lot more concepts that CTP used. And borrow the social engineering model from their brother, SMACx.
hey, if you forget CTP's certain bugs, and minor future age flawes(levithian & Robot), and compare the two titles. CTP wins by a long shot, and even when with CivIII's two expansion packs, CTP STILL has a lot more features and better concepts.
Don't tell me when you play CivIII, you never ask yourself these questions: Gee wouldn't it be cool to: Launch terrorist attacks? Biological? Nano? .... global warming is turing out to be a problem, maby I sould make a treaty with other nations to stop it? .... Have fundamentalism,fascism?(common two exp. before they included it!) Build space/sea citiies? .. blah blah..[List goes on] :devil2:
The point is, CTP had a lot more features, and in my opinion, better. Your right, they are two VERY different games. Whats your reason for not liking a superior civ. game?
DaviddesJ
Deity
We all agree on that. It's just that many (I think most) of us don't want it to be more realistic.
No. No. No. No. No. No. (The list goes on....
)
IMO, I DO like the superior Civ game.The point is, CTP had a lot more features, and in my opinion, better. Your right, they are two VERY different games. Whats your reason for not liking a superior civ. game?
MattII
Prince
I think they should bring the Partisan back.
Hygro
soundcloud.com/hygro/
Right now I want two games: one super simulator and one abstract spoofy game. I dont know which one civ4 should be.
I like that idea of evolving civs, and I like the point into traits idea. Maybe if you start in the cold areas by coast and rugged terrain, your nation might develope longboats and strong water trade, but since you are peaceful you don't get the whole viking raider thing. Then, later in the game you get into a war where, based on your resources and your focus, you end up being the most rocketly advanced nation.
Most these things you could warp but not much you have full control over. What do you all think?
I like that idea of evolving civs, and I like the point into traits idea. Maybe if you start in the cold areas by coast and rugged terrain, your nation might develope longboats and strong water trade, but since you are peaceful you don't get the whole viking raider thing. Then, later in the game you get into a war where, based on your resources and your focus, you end up being the most rocketly advanced nation.
Most these things you could warp but not much you have full control over. What do you all think?
Commander Bello
Say No 2 Net Validations
That was exactly my point.
Your decisions as a player determine what path your civilisation goes. Nevertheless, as you are compared with the other civilisations, your improvements in a given trait will be relative.
Let's stay with the militaristic trait (since that is the most easy one to be counted). Every battle your civ fights, counts for 1 point in the militaristic trait. Every battle won will add an additional point. After a while, you will have accumulated - let's say - 1000 points. Nevertheless, two other civilisations already got 1200 and 1300 points in that trait. So, your's is just #3 in militaristics, thus making any improvement you get by this in the militaristic fields, is not as much as the other two would get.
Of course, a lot of people now will argue that this will make you even weaker in a direct confrontation. This is right. On the other hand, as we all know, large military campaigns will slow you down in other areas, e.g. scientific research (since the shields/gold spent for units are not used for science improvements). So, there is a good chance that you are ahead of those other civilisations in the scientific area. This could mean that you get the scientific advances at a cheaper price since your people are more accustomed to research.
So, the whole evolution of your civ would be both, absolute (by certain achievements in a given area) and relativ (since your position relative to other nations would determine your ranking as well).
Such an approach seems to be easy to be implemented, since the game engine already counts a lot, if not most of the things needed for such a calculation and it seems to be very likely that this won't change for Civ4. So, it would just need some tables to track these data, and a comparative calculation at the beginning of each turn. The last shouldn't either be complicated nor very cpu-time consuming.
Commander Bello
Say No 2 Net Validations
Sorry for posting twice on this subject, but another idea I just got:
As I've stated in another thread, one of the weaknesses of the current engine/setup is using *small* integers for unit values.
If all attack/defense and bombardment values were just multiplied by 10, this would give the musketeer 20/40/1, at a price of 60(?) - don't remember it, yet.. Now, even musketes have been subject to evolution. With any advance beyond Gunpowder, there could be a new "Musketeer" - let's call it Musketeer2, Musketeer3 and so on - with slightly improved stats. Maybe Musketeer2 would have 22/44/1 at a cost of 65. That way, you would be able to upgrade at low cost, but you wouldn't gain that quantum leap between different units as we see it in the moment. Even, if you would miss one or two upgrade circles, your position wouldn't be that bad.
But, any further advancement could improve your position, especially when having to fight vs a stronger opponent.
I suppose, this could balance things more.
Any comments welcome.
As I've stated in another thread, one of the weaknesses of the current engine/setup is using *small* integers for unit values.
If all attack/defense and bombardment values were just multiplied by 10, this would give the musketeer 20/40/1, at a price of 60(?) - don't remember it, yet.. Now, even musketes have been subject to evolution. With any advance beyond Gunpowder, there could be a new "Musketeer" - let's call it Musketeer2, Musketeer3 and so on - with slightly improved stats. Maybe Musketeer2 would have 22/44/1 at a cost of 65. That way, you would be able to upgrade at low cost, but you wouldn't gain that quantum leap between different units as we see it in the moment. Even, if you would miss one or two upgrade circles, your position wouldn't be that bad.
But, any further advancement could improve your position, especially when having to fight vs a stronger opponent.
I suppose, this could balance things more.
Any comments welcome.
Commander Bello
Say No 2 Net Validations
Correct, but with less steep jumps in both, relative combat strength and costs.
As I tried to point out, it should be a very small improvement for Musketeerx to Musketeer(x+n), but the costs for upgrading should be minimal as well.
Of course, if (n) would be high enough, you would note some distinct differences between both units...
Evie
Pronounced like Eevee
I disagree with the notion of having the civilization "traits" change based on how you act during the game. Yes, it is realistic - but with that realism comes the problem of (you know it) micro management to get to a specific traits set - something the AI likely could not handle very well. Thus we'd wind up with the human micro-managing to get the best trait set for his position, and the AI just dumbly getting whatever traits come along based on their actions and the human's.
A trait/points system on the other hand is relatively simpler to code.
I'd see the following ways to gain skill points :
-The first wonder you build from each age grants you a skill point.
-The first battle won by your UU grants you a skill point.
-Defeating an enemy civilization grants you a skill point.
-You can sacrifice a great leader (any form, there would likely be more GLs than just the sci and mil ones) to gain a skill point. ALTERNATIVELY, you have a GL form corresponding to each trait. You can then disband each GL to get you to the next level *in that particular trait*. IE, a military Great Leader would give you the next military level.
A trait/points system on the other hand is relatively simpler to code.
I'd see the following ways to gain skill points :
-The first wonder you build from each age grants you a skill point.
-The first battle won by your UU grants you a skill point.
-Defeating an enemy civilization grants you a skill point.
-You can sacrifice a great leader (any form, there would likely be more GLs than just the sci and mil ones) to gain a skill point. ALTERNATIVELY, you have a GL form corresponding to each trait. You can then disband each GL to get you to the next level *in that particular trait*. IE, a military Great Leader would give you the next military level.
a few ideas...
A) if present, the Byzantine empire should have cataphracts as its UU
B) if we look at history, we can see that, until modern times at least, armies tend to e incrediblly varried, in both looks, and exact usage, and tactics, which, IMO, lends very well to each civ haveinbg a UU for each era- this also has the bonus of makeing up for crappy UUs, like was so rampantlly said about man UUS (and was narrolly avoided in the Byzantine Dromon, that said, cataphracts still would have been 100 times better
)
now yes, this would mean for civsd like the ancient greeks, and ROmans, since they are not present in the modern world (Modern Greece is NOT a direct link to ancient greece, and Itlay is not a link to the Roman republic/empire) but if we look at the troops a civ used for real in its life time, and apply it to modern them, we get very good UU choices- even if its essentiall a super version of the ancient age unit, it would still be cool, a show how militaries evolve over time
C)the sea needs to be more important in game play- I suggest ocean based resources that can be claimed without a nation haveing to have a city near by...
thats all for now
A) if present, the Byzantine empire should have cataphracts as its UU
B) if we look at history, we can see that, until modern times at least, armies tend to e incrediblly varried, in both looks, and exact usage, and tactics, which, IMO, lends very well to each civ haveinbg a UU for each era- this also has the bonus of makeing up for crappy UUs, like was so rampantlly said about man UUS (and was narrolly avoided in the Byzantine Dromon, that said, cataphracts still would have been 100 times better
)now yes, this would mean for civsd like the ancient greeks, and ROmans, since they are not present in the modern world (Modern Greece is NOT a direct link to ancient greece, and Itlay is not a link to the Roman republic/empire) but if we look at the troops a civ used for real in its life time, and apply it to modern them, we get very good UU choices- even if its essentiall a super version of the ancient age unit, it would still be cool, a show how militaries evolve over time
C)the sea needs to be more important in game play- I suggest ocean based resources that can be claimed without a nation haveing to have a city near by...
thats all for now
Similar threads
