Hi. I wrote this for my blog, so it's a bit preachy... but I can't work up the enthusiasm to rewrite. Anyway:
I've been thinking about some of the things that would really make Civ 4 into the Best Game Ever, and I wanted to share them before I forgot all about them.
Primarily, the game needs the Design Workshop and Social Engineering as was provided by Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri. Regular units and government types could be instantiated as 'templates' so that if someone wants to play with 'cookie cutter' predefined configurations then they will all be present. However, those of us who wish to tailor our strategy according to our exact needs can then delve into a deeper game.
The 'civ unique' traits of Civ 3 are somewhat disappointing - every civ gets a unique unit, but this unit either goes obsolete very quickly or is introduced so late as to be useless.
Let me give you a brief reminder of what the design workshop in SMAC was:
Each unit was made up of a combination of four main aspects: A chassis type, a weapon type, an armour type, and a reactor type. Each unit also had an optional two 'special traits' that could further specialise them. So, if I wanted an infantry chassis with tachyon weapons and no armour, I could have it... likewise I could have a hovertank with heavy armour and little weaponry. If I had a huge empire connected by mag-tubes, then I could use such units to provide an effective, 'quick deploy' defence garrison that meant I could concentrate my military on offence rather than defence.
On the other hand, if I wanted colony pod paratroopers, then I could have that also... or probe team hovertanks, or almost anything. The configureability was astounding.
A system like that would work great for Civ 4 - each unit could be combined in the same way to provide particular kinds of strategy. For example, I could combine swords and plate armour with an infantry chassis to produce a foot-knight. The same weapons with a horse chassis becomes a mounted knight.
Here's where it really starts to get interesting - each civilisation should have a range of unique 'special traits' as well as those chosen from a starting pool. Then we get genuinely useful civ traits that reflect their potential development through history - not just some predefined snapshot. For example, the English (an imperialistic, Naval society) may have a 'pacifier' trait which means that the unit is more effective at regaining control of rioting cities. Or a 'naval superiority' trait that gives +50% to offensive, defensive and movement for naval units. Combine these two, and you could have a parallel of the British gunboats that were sent to bring order to rioting colonial cities.
Each of the weapon/armour/chassis types could be governed by strategic resources, meaning that a society without, for example, coal... isn't necessarily crippled and unable to defend itself against an aggressor that does possess this. Instead, they have to adapt - electrical or nuclear engines attached to their tanks.
This strikes me as a phenomenally fun system that could prompt a huge amount of strategic options that the current game does not possess.
And then social engineering - each Faction in SMAC gains a few modifiers that define them as a unique race, and then different governmental options are combined to give an emphasis. This could also be successfully applied to Civ 3, allowing for people to choose the exact type of government they want. A government with full freedom of the press may find that more citizens are malcontent, but also more resistant to propaganda. A government with an emphasis on green policies would find its cities producing less pollution, but at a cost to efficiency. A government with an effective secret service would be able to keep its citizens in check easier (more content citizens), but would never be able to produce great happiness (fewer happy citizens). The possibilities are endless.
Another thing that I think needs to be introduced is a greater control over the budget. I would love to be able to fund initiatives in individual cities (a-la Sim City) to address particular concerns. Or failing that, I'd like to be able to assign x% of my income to individual governors for them to apply to social, scientific or industrial requirements.
I'd like to be able to distribute my income into various categories. Foreign Aid, for example - this could work as a general modifier to your international standing. Intelligence could be funded through this system, allowing for espionage to be more prevalent - the better funded it is, the more information comes your way. This is also something that could perhaps be associated with freedom of the press. I'd like to be able to set a particular budget for my military and ensure that it is adhered to by city governors.
Oh, and I'd like to be able to setup build plans for governors, so I could say: 'First, build a hoplite. And then build a library, and then a temple. Then build a barracks. Then build whatever you want'.
In Civ 2 you had a set of advisors who let you know how you were getting on - why not expand on that by letting you recruit a cabinet from the great minds of a civilisation, each of which would give you individualised advice. For example, I might have Plato as a scientific advisor, and Alexander the Great as a military advisor. This would be far more inversive than the standard vanilla advisors in Civ 3.
Finally, diplomacy needs to be fine-tuned so that it combines the best of SMAC and Civ 3. It should have the open-ended negotiation of Civ 3, but with the range of SMAC. I want to be able to broker peace deals for my allies. I want to be able to place my units under the control of an ally. I want for civilisations to react to me in terms of my civic and governmental model rather than on my military might.
Perhaps even allow for diplomats and embassies to be more useful, in that they are an irregular source of information regarding your relations with a particular nation. Every now and again, the diplomat for England may come up to me and say 'Our leader is most concerned with your military buildup along our common border', or 'The Chancellor of Germany is upset at your excessive freedom of the press, which he feels threatens the stability of his own land'.
Now, *that* would be a game that I would be able to lose myself in.
I've been thinking about some of the things that would really make Civ 4 into the Best Game Ever, and I wanted to share them before I forgot all about them.
Primarily, the game needs the Design Workshop and Social Engineering as was provided by Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri. Regular units and government types could be instantiated as 'templates' so that if someone wants to play with 'cookie cutter' predefined configurations then they will all be present. However, those of us who wish to tailor our strategy according to our exact needs can then delve into a deeper game.
The 'civ unique' traits of Civ 3 are somewhat disappointing - every civ gets a unique unit, but this unit either goes obsolete very quickly or is introduced so late as to be useless.
Let me give you a brief reminder of what the design workshop in SMAC was:
Each unit was made up of a combination of four main aspects: A chassis type, a weapon type, an armour type, and a reactor type. Each unit also had an optional two 'special traits' that could further specialise them. So, if I wanted an infantry chassis with tachyon weapons and no armour, I could have it... likewise I could have a hovertank with heavy armour and little weaponry. If I had a huge empire connected by mag-tubes, then I could use such units to provide an effective, 'quick deploy' defence garrison that meant I could concentrate my military on offence rather than defence.
On the other hand, if I wanted colony pod paratroopers, then I could have that also... or probe team hovertanks, or almost anything. The configureability was astounding.
A system like that would work great for Civ 4 - each unit could be combined in the same way to provide particular kinds of strategy. For example, I could combine swords and plate armour with an infantry chassis to produce a foot-knight. The same weapons with a horse chassis becomes a mounted knight.
Here's where it really starts to get interesting - each civilisation should have a range of unique 'special traits' as well as those chosen from a starting pool. Then we get genuinely useful civ traits that reflect their potential development through history - not just some predefined snapshot. For example, the English (an imperialistic, Naval society) may have a 'pacifier' trait which means that the unit is more effective at regaining control of rioting cities. Or a 'naval superiority' trait that gives +50% to offensive, defensive and movement for naval units. Combine these two, and you could have a parallel of the British gunboats that were sent to bring order to rioting colonial cities.
Each of the weapon/armour/chassis types could be governed by strategic resources, meaning that a society without, for example, coal... isn't necessarily crippled and unable to defend itself against an aggressor that does possess this. Instead, they have to adapt - electrical or nuclear engines attached to their tanks.
This strikes me as a phenomenally fun system that could prompt a huge amount of strategic options that the current game does not possess.
And then social engineering - each Faction in SMAC gains a few modifiers that define them as a unique race, and then different governmental options are combined to give an emphasis. This could also be successfully applied to Civ 3, allowing for people to choose the exact type of government they want. A government with full freedom of the press may find that more citizens are malcontent, but also more resistant to propaganda. A government with an emphasis on green policies would find its cities producing less pollution, but at a cost to efficiency. A government with an effective secret service would be able to keep its citizens in check easier (more content citizens), but would never be able to produce great happiness (fewer happy citizens). The possibilities are endless.
Another thing that I think needs to be introduced is a greater control over the budget. I would love to be able to fund initiatives in individual cities (a-la Sim City) to address particular concerns. Or failing that, I'd like to be able to assign x% of my income to individual governors for them to apply to social, scientific or industrial requirements.
I'd like to be able to distribute my income into various categories. Foreign Aid, for example - this could work as a general modifier to your international standing. Intelligence could be funded through this system, allowing for espionage to be more prevalent - the better funded it is, the more information comes your way. This is also something that could perhaps be associated with freedom of the press. I'd like to be able to set a particular budget for my military and ensure that it is adhered to by city governors.
Oh, and I'd like to be able to setup build plans for governors, so I could say: 'First, build a hoplite. And then build a library, and then a temple. Then build a barracks. Then build whatever you want'.
In Civ 2 you had a set of advisors who let you know how you were getting on - why not expand on that by letting you recruit a cabinet from the great minds of a civilisation, each of which would give you individualised advice. For example, I might have Plato as a scientific advisor, and Alexander the Great as a military advisor. This would be far more inversive than the standard vanilla advisors in Civ 3.
Finally, diplomacy needs to be fine-tuned so that it combines the best of SMAC and Civ 3. It should have the open-ended negotiation of Civ 3, but with the range of SMAC. I want to be able to broker peace deals for my allies. I want to be able to place my units under the control of an ally. I want for civilisations to react to me in terms of my civic and governmental model rather than on my military might.
Perhaps even allow for diplomats and embassies to be more useful, in that they are an irregular source of information regarding your relations with a particular nation. Every now and again, the diplomat for England may come up to me and say 'Our leader is most concerned with your military buildup along our common border', or 'The Chancellor of Germany is upset at your excessive freedom of the press, which he feels threatens the stability of his own land'.
Now, *that* would be a game that I would be able to lose myself in.
