Multiple Rulers per Civ

[Jon Shafer]

I would prefer 2d graphics also, but I view that as highly unlikely, unfortunately.

Which pretty much gives a finite cap on the number of civs OR number of leaders.

 

[sir_schwick]

In general I support nice looking 2D graphics. MTW is mostly 2D with slight texturing and very simple polygons. The map still looks great and the gameplay and AI are much better for it.

On the French leader, no one mentioned DeGaul

 

[Teabeard]

I would prefer 2d graphics also, but I view that as highly unlikely, unfortunately.

Which pretty much gives a finite cap on the number of civs OR number of leaders.

Civs are finite already. They'll just add more later through expansion packs.

I mean, they shipped CIV3 with fewer civs (initially) than CIV2 had. Of course, there was a trade off and that was that the civs they did ship had traits and UUs and 3D animated leader heads... maybe we can't have it all initially, but I'm sure they'll give it to us through expansions.

 

[thestonesfan]

Why do we need two? A leaderhead has no effect on the game whatsoever, and it shouldn't. Animated leaderheads take up a lot of space that could be used for something infinitely more useful.

FYI, the 8 leaderheads took up HALF the data on the PTW CD. Change that to 16, and we'd have gotten even less with that lame expansion!

 

[Teabeard]

Hopefully CIV IV will be on DVD as opposed to CD (or maybe also include a CD-Rom version with multiple disks?). You can hold ALOT on DVDs and so space wouldn't be an issue. On a DVD there would be enough room for tons of the things we are proposing.

 

[sealman]

I agree with TheStonesFan. We don't need 2 leaders since they have no impact on game play at all.

 

[Teabeard]

I agree with TheStonesFan. We don't need 2 leaders since they have no impact on game play at all.

It does if they have traits.

 

[sealman]

It does if they have traits.

But they don't.

And I would rather see the developers spend their tiem and resources working on other features than adding trait characteristics to the leaders.

 

[Jon Shafer]

It really wouldn't take long to give different traits to different leaders. The real problem is the resources spent (or not spent) making leaderheads.

 

[Teabeard]

It really wouldn't take long to give different traits to different leaders. The real problem is the resources spent (or not spent) making leaderheads.

I for one have no problem using portraits with various expressions to indicate emotion instead of 3D animated leader heads. After all, the leaderheads are just eyecandy, but having leaders with traits is something that adds alot of fun and flavor to the game.

 

[Jon Shafer]

I think we've already been over this on a related topic where quite a few people disagree with me.

More civs = more sales.

Pretty 3d leaderheads = more sales.

 

[dh_epic]

I'm not sure people would get into it for pretty 3D leaderheads. I think pretty 2D leaderheads would be equally as convincing and compelling. 40 nations with great 2D portraits would be more appealing than 20 nations with great 3D portraits. I'm sure some people will disagree with me.

I also think 40 nations with great 2D portraits would take up less CD space, too, than half as many 3D portraits. And less development time.

 

[Teabeard]

Hey, CIV 3 downgraded the eye candy of the wonder videos and the council videos from CIV 2, so why shouldn't CIV 4 downgrade the eye candy of the leader graphics from CIV 3? I for one will not complain if it means we have more civs and more emphasis on traits and other characteristics...

 

[Jon Shafer]

I'm not sure people would get into it for pretty 3D leaderheads. I think pretty 2D leaderheads would be equally as convincing and compelling. 40 nations with great 2D portraits would be more appealing than 20 nations with great 3D portraits. I'm sure some people will disagree with me.

I also think 40 nations with great 2D portraits would take up less CD space, too, than half as many 3D portraits. And less development time.

Why do you think more civilizations would be a better selling point than 3d heads?

Oh right, completely subjective judgements here, I'd forgotten.

 

[sir_schwick]

Civs are finite already. They'll just add more later through expansion packs.

I mean, they shipped CIV3 with fewer civs (initially) than CIV2 had. Of course, there was a trade off and that was that the civs they did ship had traits and UUs and 3D animated leader heads... maybe we can't have it all initially, but I'm sure they'll give it to us through expansions.

I have a solution that will fulfill both requirements. If you think about it, traits and UUs(besides the name) are just numbers and effects. Theorhetically they do not have to be hard-coded parts of civs, since you can change these things in the editor. Now imagine this, you take the game-affecting part of civs and the historical parts of civs and seperate them. You choose what kind of 'template' you want, meaning traits/UUs/shunned-liked-govts. These templates coudl be plentiful and play-balanced, maybe 20 or so. Then civs are just artwork, history, and appropriate names for all the units(no 3D leaderheads). UUs are just upgraded stats, so you could apply them to any unit. This means when you start a game you choose the template and the civ you want to play as. The currrent civ assignment of traits was based on current history, not the history you might play through.

 

[dh_epic]

I think that if you have high quality 2D leaderheads people won't notice. People will notice if they're bad, but they won't care if they're better than good.

If you have 40 nations versus 12 nations, people will notice. Someone who goes in and says "POLAND!!!" because it's their favorite nation would get more excited about the game. If they forgot Poland, then you lose that kind of legitimacy that people want from their Civ game -- they'd be like "I dunno, the game feels kind of limited".

It's the same thing when you play a racing game with only 12 cars versus a library of 50 cars. The expansiveness has a lot of appeal -- one graphical element that you don't see very often is less important. It would be the difference between putting a 2D billboard of a person's face in the car, versus taking the time to create a 3D head. I think more people would be excited by the 38 more cars than the additional head-dimension.

This is just drawing simple conclusions about how people react to different aspects of the game.

 

[Teabeard]

Variety is nice, but depth is also very important. This was what made Civ 3 better than previous games, because each civ differed from others in their traits and UUs, and I think Civ 4 can expand on this depth with multiple rulers (with traits).

 

[Longasc]

Lets have multiple rulers to chose from:

France e.g.:

Napoleon, Louis XIV, Joan of Arc...

Germany:

Bismarck, Hitler... me

Not necessary for every Civ to have a female ruler if there was one. But simply add a custom leader button, chose a certain female head and add a name - voila.

 

[Teabeard]

Lets have multiple rulers to chose from:

France e.g.:

Napoleon, Louis XIV, Joan of Arc...

Germany:

Bismarck, Hitler... me

Not necessary for every Civ to have a female ruler if there was one. But simply add a custom leader button, chose a certain female head and add a name - voila.

Unfortunately, I think there is PC issues with adding Hitler as a Ruler.

But nothing to worry about because you could easily add him. I'm sure someone would do the graphics and so forth... I just really doubt such a controversial figure would be added. It's kinda strange though, because they added Mao... and Caesar and some of the others were no angels either.

 

[rbis4rbb]

It does if they have traits.

This isn't Tropico. And it isn't Civ 2. It's a whooy unique game, Civ. 4. And you still haven't answered how to pick a female Babylonain, Aztec, Mayan, Scandanivian, Ottoman, or Mongol leader. Do you propose just making up someone like Txcetlysz for the Aztecs, or Helga for the Vikings? Use your noodle.