New Game, take a look at it, whoever makes civ4!!!

[TVA22]

And other civ fans, to see if it looks good to you all too
It's called "war and peace."
It's a very slow paced rts, along the lines of europa universalis, and if you've ever played shogun or medieval total war, the map and gameplay are just like that, except the majority of the earth is modeled on one giant map. I wouldn't even care if civ4 was no longer turn based, as long as it was slow and deliberate like this game, with a definite limit on how fast you could play through.
At the very least, the way the map looks, as well as the cities and landmarks (pyramids for one) should definitely be how it should be.
If you can't come across this game, any screenshots of it, or anything like that, but you've played final fantasy 7, imagine civ on a map like that, but better graphics by a notch or two...
I sure hope the next civish game is like this, otherwise I don't think they'll be keeping up with the times!!!

 

[Inter4]

this belongs to Other Gmes or OT ...

 

[TVA22]

I think it's related enough to civ to be in the 'general discussions' section...

 

[superslug]

But it's not Civ, its a different game.

 

[Peebo]

where can we find info on it?

 

[Padma]

I will leave this here - for now. As long as the discussion is about Civ4, & this is just a game being used as an example, okay.


And as a poster, I sincerely hope CivIV is not a RTS game. I hate playing those. I don't care what the "pace" is, they just don't appeal to me.

(Besides, sometimes it's better to not "keep up with the times". )

 

[Xerol]

well i think civ4 should have the OPTION to be played real-time or turn-based, much in the same way that PTW has various different play modes(dont ask me about them though, i'm still using vanilla)

slow-paced? civ3 isn't really that fast paced in any way...like i said, having no experience with PTW there might be a fast-paced realtime mode but i have no idea so i'm just gonna shut up now....

 

[Sailorstick]

If civ goes real time and/or 3D then I am going to stop buying it. Simple as that.

 

[slothman]

I don't like real time games. I'm not very good at quick thinking. That's why I like the civ series. I like spending 5 to 30 minutes on a turn, later of course, getting it perfect. I haven't played any of the PTW real time versions and I probably never will.

 

[Junzi Nicuzn]

RTS is great for a war-type game, not a Civ-type game. I've played Empire Earth (another Civ RTS), and, IMO, except for the scenarios its not worth playing.

 

[TVA22]

really I thought the way the map is laid out in this game would be great for civ4. And it in no way feels like a rts along the lines of command and conquer, aoe, even rise of nations. It is most definitely NOT a clickfest... I wish I could just put the game up here on this website and let everone see what I mean... but that would be illegal.
Since I can't describe the gameplay, you'll just have to see for yourself, it's just VERY realistic. But the map is very analogous(sp?) to shogun total war. And in 'keeping up with the times' I meant civ4 ought to have a map like that--totally3d, with the ability to pan around and look at things from different angles, and real depth to the oceans, hight to the mountains, etc... a step above alpha centauri's semi-3d map.
I do not like the simultaneous play offered for civ3 in mp. I think it totally messes up the gameplay. perhaps some kind of combination for civ4 would be very good though, along the lines of the total war series? Battles in real time battlefields, with other things happening real time, such as air attacks, nuclear war, etc. But with some sort of turn based system set up into it for managing science. What I dislike about rts (like most of you I'm sure) is how you don't have time to think about anything, all you end up doing is clicking a million times, and the game is over with one big rush... no depth. I felt the total war games fixed that very nicely, since battles should be somewhat quick paced, there should be room for errors, and tactical blunders. This other game is a very delicate blending, had rise of nations been more like it, I would have liked it better.

 

[Porn*]

I agree with you TVA22...

I've been on holiday in the UK for the last three weeks... (away from Civ.... Ive had withdraws)... anyway my girlfriends younger brother has medievil: Total war so i had a go and was thinking how good civ would be in the same format....

Dont get me wrong though cause Ive played since the first version and Sid must be a frigging genious cause somehow Ive rarely gotten bored with it... you can leave it for a month ot 2 then come back and love it again... and there arnt many games i can say that about and i cant explain why but it could have something 2 do with the format and of cause you can say that if it isnt broken why change it.... but i reckon done properly it would be.... well.... mind-blowing.

Id still like it 2 be turn based (as in total war)

Id like cities 2 be done in the same way as well... provinces you can settle. This would stop the annoying problem of other civs building thier cities 2 close.

Resources handled in the same way as well.... so that its part of city infrastructure... you can build improvements 2 make it more profitable and that you dont have to build roads 2 access it.... its controlled by the province.

Combat would be awesome 2 controll yourself with maybe some computer aid for things like Sam missile launches against ground attack aircraft and things like that... and maybe an option like in total war for computer generated results if you only wanted to control major battles.

Only problem i can see is that modification would be near impossible (but im not sure)... but done properly from the start
with lots of civ flavored units and civ specific abilities it would be
absolutely necessary anyway...

 

[The Last Conformist]

I'd be very sad if Civilization IV was to be real-time.

Not that I don't like RTS games - I've spent untold hours on Warcraft and Starcraft, and loved the first Settlers - but a real-time game just wouldn't be Civ.

And a "tactical" combat system, like what Porn* suggests, would make me not buy the game, period. Games should not combine grand strategy and on-battlefield tactics.

 

[YNCS]

If I wanted a tactical battle game, then I'd buy one. If I wanted a RTS strategy game, then I'd buy one of those. I haven't bought either of those types of games because I don't want them. I play Civ because I like it. Two of the reasons why I like Civ is (1) it's not a tactical battle game; and (2) it's not an RTS game. If Civ4 is a tactical battle game or an RTS game, then I won't be buying Civ4.

 

[Porn*]

yeah i understand... but thats the point of being able 2 toggle the feature on and off.... I wouldnt be interested in being in control or even having 2 view every battle....and if you didnt want 2 then it would be very close 2 how its decided at the moment... but the way its done in total war would be a great alternative if in fact you did want 2 so as to allow for leadership misjudgements made by yourself instead of some calcuation by the computer, and having a time limit such as total war would help ensure that battle wasnt 2 draged out

 

[YNCS]

Porn*,

There is a word in English spelt "to." The symbol "2" is a number. If you don't understand the difference, send me a PM, I'll be happy to explain it and when to use the word or the symbol.

 

[TheDS]

I wouldn't mind seeing Civ done in a style closer to EU, and having some one go the extra mile and add the ability to play as not just the emperor and army commander, but also the field marshall. Battling it out between territories is kinda fun, and makes it a little easier to visualize your empire growing. While I don't care much for RTS, if it was done right (like EU is), I'd still play it.

It's a shame people are so violently reactive against things they THINK they don't want, even if they have the ability to never activate those particular options. I thought all RTS had to suck, until I saw EU. My dad thought all games that took more than 15 minutes had to suck until he saw Civ3. As long as it's done right, or people don't HAVE to do it, why not take a look at it and see if you like it, based on it's own merits?

Civ has sorely lacked a tactical combat mode for 10+ years. It's high time we had one. There are those without the skills to fight the battles, or without the desire to be the field marshall. Fine, turn off that option, and live your life shrouded in whatever you want. I like the extra option. It's been done quite well in games like MOO2, Imperialism, Archon, and other games too numerous to mention. There's no harm in adding it to the current game, if you want.

Don't rush to judgement on something you haven't even tried yet. Let the majority of us who like to do it all have a chance to.

 

[wilbill]

Originally posted by TheDS
I wouldn't mind seeing Civ done in a style closer to EU, and having some one go the extra mile and add the ability to play as not just the emperor and army commander, but also the field marshall.

Sorry, but I've found EU's "warfare" to be considerably less interesting than Civ 3's. EU has some really great features, but IMO warfare is not one of them

It's a shame people are so violently reactive against things they THINK they don't want, even if they have the ability to never activate those particular options.

But you know we really DO want them even though we THINK we don't? Maybe it's because some people think these proposals through a little more thoroughly than others do. What's being proposed here isn't a trivial change but a complete reworking of the game. If it were adopted into Civ 4 it wouldn't be a "toggle on/off" option - it would be the way the game was played.

Civ has sorely lacked a tactical combat mode for 10+ years. It's high time we had one.

And the lack of that tactical combat is one of the things that make the Civ games what they are. Civ was never intended to be purely a wargame. It doesn't need a tactical combat mode. Civ combat could certainly stand some tweaking, but in no way does it need to borrow a system from games that aren't even similar in their design or scope.

Don't rush to judgement on something you haven't even tried yet. Let the majority of us who like to do it all have a chance to.

What majority is this you speak for? I must have missed that election.

 

[Ivan the Kulak]

I certainly hope Civ never becomes a RTS game. That's would ruin its appeal for a lot of people. The only way to implement it in that way would be to have an option to pause the timeline so you could take a look at your empire and manage your cities when you wanted to, and rethink your strategy. I would like to see a 3d globe map for civ4 (probably won't happen though).

 

[The Last Conformist]

See Mriswith's "Tactical Combat" thread as to why even an optional tactical combat system would be bad.

I've played and enjoyed sufficiently many RTS games and turn-based tactical combat games that know perfectly well what I want. And that's such elements not included in Civ.

My prediction: They won't dare make any drastic changes to Civilization IV. If anything, they're likely to want to decrease the focus on military matters a bit further.