Is this the last expansion for Civilization IV?!?!

[The Navy Seal]

Yea but if they did that half the people wouldn't get the third e-pack. Because it just does future stuff.

 

[dutchking]

I don't know who voted for this.

A lot of people have been saying they think it's the last one, I honestly don't think there ever will be a last one for a LOOOOONG time.

 

[Piko]

ok then.... lets do this another way..

Civilization (1991)
Civilization II (1996)
Civilization III (2001) Play the World (2002) Conquests (2003)
Civilization IV (2005) Warlords (2006) Beyond the Sword (2007)

so from this we can calculate 4.3 years average between releases, which points to 2nd half 2009 for civ V

or from judging civ III. 1 year per expansion, 2 for next full new version (civ IV).
2007 + 2 years = 2009. So i can't really argue with commander bello there.

[edit: Civilization II: Test of Time (1999) <=== 2 years before civ III]

As for directx and civ V. Civ has never EVER been a high end graphics game. ofcourse civ IV does go against the grain a little. However directx 11 sounds a little too far out for me, it deffinately would be directx 10 compatible. I don't ever see civ as being a "PC upgrade" game like half life 2 and other games have been. However i admit, i puchased a DVD drive and 512MB ram for civ IV hehe, but i'm on an 1800xp with a radeon 9000 pro which was due for such attention...ok ok i avoid huge maps, but it runs fine! always been the beauty of civ!

 

[NYHunter]

I would suggest that everyone here, if you haven't already, look into this thread created by dh epic.
Devil's Advocate: is this the end of creativity in Civ?

 

[MarkM]

what a strangely worded poll. Would if you think & want BTS to be the last civ4 expansion, and think there'll be a civ 5? what are you supposed to do, vote three times? And how on earth do indicate when you think civ5 will come out in your vote?!?

 

[dutchking]

And how on earth do indicate when you think civ5 will come out in your vote?!?

I gave the moderator some questions and he chose the format, not me. Otherwise, just ignore what you can't answer.

 

[Healz]

I would say 2009-2010 for Civilization V. I do think BTS is the last Expansion Pack for Civilization IV primarily because every real improvement has been made for that engine so it is now time to start on a new engine.

 

[Catharsis]

what a strangely worded poll. Would if you think & want BTS to be the last civ4 expansion, and think there'll be a civ 5? what are you supposed to do, vote three times? And how on earth do indicate when you think civ5 will come out in your vote?!?

It's a multiple choice poll - you can vote three times.

 

[ForesterSOF]

There is room to put a CivRome for every city for the micromanager and a CIV - SMAC MOD for after Final Frontier.

 

[Rusty Edge]

The main problems with tactical combat are:

1) Time. It would take an unreasonable amount of time to play even a few turns of civ.

2) $$$. You would basicaly be asking firaxis to make 2 games in one. Other games (notably RTW) do something similar, but the campaign is very poor. If we want to keep a very good campaign, and have a battle simulator which is just as good the game would take decades to make.

3) Timespan. How can you use the same engine to represent ancient battles and tank battles? It just doesn't make sence. The former requires a battle field a few hundred metres wide, while the latter needs a battle field several dozen km wide. You're not asking for 2 games, but for 3 now.

4) AI. While the AI in turn based strategies are increasingly good (we shall see just how good whe BtS comes out), I have yet to see a semi competent AI for a battle simulator. MTW2 springs to mind as an example.


So great idea, but entirely unfeasable.

One of the things I love about this game is that success depends on consistent wisdom and intelligence regarding my decisions, not the speed of my snap-judgements or my dexterity, or vision ( I can zoom in this game) or reflexes.

I generally don't have a problem with changes I can switch off. I've got money to upgrade or buy a new computer , just to play the latest version of Civ, I've done both. The cost of the game itself is very small to me considering the hours I use it. I have the time to put into a game, and the patience to do so.

But I don't think I'm the average player. From my reading of this forum, I don't think the average player welcomes costly features that eat memory, lengthens each turn and slows the computer when they use it.

Playing out the land battles with the multiple units just doesn't seem practical to me.

On the other hand, I enjoy the naval combat resolution in Sid's Pirates. It's one ship against another , or one against two at a time, and it's more about timing than quickness when it comes to firing.

As for Timespan, since the civ ships are on a smaller scale as they modernize, and water kinda looks like water whatever the scale, it might not be such a problem to incorparate the ship vs. ship tactics portion of that game into this one . It might be a low-cost semi- practical approach.

 

[dutchking]

One of the things I love about this game is that success depends on consistent wisdom and intelligence regarding my decisions, not the speed of my snap-judgements or my dexterity, or vision ( I can zoom in this game) or reflexes.

I agree, I like that civ is relaxing while it still leaves you on the edge of your seat. /

I generally don't have a problem with changes I can switch off. I've got money to upgrade or buy a new computer , just to play the latest version of Civ, I've done both. The cost of the game itself is very small to me considering the hours I use it. I have the time to put into a game, and the patience to do so.

Wow! You're so lucky it's not even funny...I've got plenty of patience but none of the other stuff...Hehe...I can't completely piss away all the 500$ I've saved up. And my parents aren't going to lend me that stuff! Hehe. But I've got a decent computer that I'm happy with so I don't really need to upgrade or anything.

 

[Rusty Edge]

Yes, I am quite lucky. ( See my profile ) . But only in the last four years or so.

 

[dutchking]

Wow, the thread's getting rusty...anybody got anything else they'd like to add?

 

[Pangur Bán]

I think there is enough potential material to have just one more xp. New civs and new leaders sell and are easy for the developers to make, and the developers have a thing for pushing scenarios ... so you've got a basic push and pull. There are plenty of new game concepts available, just look at other games or be creative (like Rhy's mod). And they've still to do an editor. Yes Civ 4 is more moddable, but no editor makes it far more off-putting and restricts the demographic. As a result, Civ 4 has a few mods far better than anything for Civ 3, but Civ 3 had more mods in general and a better and larger modding community.

My basic problem with Civ 4 as a whole is that I never have enough time to fight long wars and use all the units available. I want to fight well-balanced wars that last 100s of turns but take no more than 10 years in time and technological development ... with the same kind of unit output you have in a normal game. The game is simply too fast, esp. on small and standard maps, and the micromanagement (worse than Civ 3, and a million times worse than CtP2) is so tedious that large maps put me off. A special long game would be all they'd need to make to make me shell out $20, esp. if they tacked on a future era (it's becoming increasingly obvious I think that no space ship will be going to AC by 2050 ).

ADDENDUM: Civs that would sell

I'm adding this in response to the idea that the major civs have now gone. Actually, most of the great non-Western civs haven't been touched. However, I know for market reasons they prolly never will be. Anyways, knowing the popular imagination as I do, and the inclinations of certain people, I'd suggest the following civs would have appeal (note, to people in general, not ... definitely not ... to me):

* Poles - large nationalistic Polish population, both in Poland and Western Europe, as well as North America
* Britons - King Arthur as leader, would inspire the dark age fantasy crowd, as well and Welsh and Breton nationalists
* Any modern state with a big market ... e.g. Australia, Canada
* Huns - more for that dark age war monger crowd
* obscure but important civs from non-West would appease the intellectual crowd from the anger generated by Australian and Hun civs
* Anasazi ... every 2nd discovery civ channel is a documentary about them

I could go on ... more Indian civs like the Iroquois, the Mapuche, would prolly get a coolness crowd, but I dunno.

Scenarios will sell too if they are chosen correctly and have appeal. Narrated scenarios such as those in Age of Empires might be given more use, esp. if the one in BTS is a success.

Anyways, I think I've said enough for now ...

 

[potto]

I think the only way forward is the complete link up of the lands geography with the growth and form of a city and the battles that take place creating very intensely detailed experiences on each game. Also the tech tree idea needs a major overhaul as it has now just become a click and forget experience and not really tied in with what is happening on the ground. So Civ V will be the next release.

 

[seasnake]

Yeah, while I still want the RTS element in the game, I know myself well enough that if Firaxis wanted 30 more bucks from me, all they'd half to do is through a handful of civs and leaders, a couple of new wonders and something interesting I can't think of and I'd buy it the day it came out. I bought Warlords and loved it, loved Vassal states and Charismatic traits and the Chinese Unification scenario. Gotten a lot of mileage out of the music (part of my Itunes Civ IV mix, retro synthetic CivIII action).
I really think the next step is to develop a new trait that is unique but balanced. My current vote is for "strategic" which has three parts:
1) Spy missions 15% less espionage point cost
2) +3 XP Air/Seige Units
3) Double worker speed building roads/forts

This allows you to build quicker routes to cities, but with normal cost settlers and workers. Combine with Hagai Sophia and Serfdom to make ultra quick forts and roads, and start aquiring resources for corporations.

Basically, we need one new trait, six new civs, and I want some maps that allow for bigger than 18 civs. I want them to work on the lag so I can get a lot of friends and enemies. Throw in six new leaders and a few wonders, and I'll be good to go.

 

[eric_]

There is room to put a CivRome for every city for the micromanager

Likewise, a Rise of Nations model of war (and city development, actually) could be an option for fighting battles. A quick speed game that employed this could be loads of fun. I'm thinking, when you start a battle, the zoom continues until one unit expands from three to, say, 10 units. You can spread them out in various formations, run your horses around to flank the cats while your axemen distract the spearmen, etc. I know an old Civ designer broke with the Civ team to develop that game...I think they should join forces.

Short of that level of change, it probably isn't worth creating a new installment, imo. I'd rather they just keep patching and expanding on CIV.

I want to fight well-balanced wars that last 100s of turns but take no more than 10 years in time and technological development ...

YES! The model I'm thinking of could totally work for this. Having less time pass per turn during wartime would be fantastic, although travel times from a distant city to the battlefield could become a major problem...

 

[Healz]

But would you be able to disable that if you wanted a more classic Civilization Experience?

 

[Monkeyfinger]

There will, of course, be a BtS patch to smooth out the kinks in the engine and balance that will inevitably show up.

That, I think, will be the last handling of Civ4 done by Firaxis. They'll move on to a new game after that. They'll leave everything else to the fans.

 

[Macha]

Therefore, I would assume that a Civ5 could be expected for late 2009, maybe Christmas. That wouldn't leave any time nor ressources for a third expansion.

There already devoloping spore for 2 years and thats release date is late 09, how can a game they haven't started yet be as near (or far, in this case.)