Intigrated FPS

[warpstorm]

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

That pretty much sums it up.

 

[Chaos_BF1942]

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.

 

[dylanhatesyou]

worst idea ever

 

[Tomoyo]

worst idea ever

You're just saying that to escape the wrath of Perfection's Giant Death Robots.

 

[Diogenes183]

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!!

 

[sir_schwick]

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.

 

[phoule]

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.

 

[sir_schwick]

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.

 

[phoule]

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 WTH!!! 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

 

[Diogenes183]

M:TW was a great game.

 

[sir_schwick]

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.

 

[Dr. Broom]

Worst idea I have ever seen in these forums.

 

[ManOfMiracles]

NO!!! No FPS and little or no 3D. 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!

 

[sir_schwick]

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

 

[MSTK]

I'm sorry to say this, but

Worst. Idea. Evar.

 

[Lennon]

NO!!! No FPS and little or no 3D. 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.

 

[ManOfMiracles]

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.

 

[warpstorm]

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

 

[The Last Conformist]

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.)

 

[troytheface]

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..)