Quoted for truth! screw civ5, SMAC 2 FTW!
Preferred future of the Civ franchise
- Thread starter Phlegmak
- Start date
Quoted for truth! screw civ5, SMAC 2 FTW!
warpus
In pork I trust
Also, you should be able to plan out battles with your allies/vassals/colonies.
As in "Attack here *click* in 20 turns" or a simple "Reinforcements needed for the defense of Krakow" would be very nice.
As in "Attack here *click* in 20 turns" or a simple "Reinforcements needed for the defense of Krakow" would be very nice.
EdwardTking
Deity
I'd like to see the requirements for logistical support of
units in the field, in terms of food, ammunition and fuel.
I'd also like to see inconclusive results like you order
a unit to attack and your order gets lost from time to time.
And artillery and bombers should occasionally hit the next
square and maybe wound neutrals or your own troops by mistake.
units in the field, in terms of food, ammunition and fuel.
I'd also like to see inconclusive results like you order
a unit to attack and your order gets lost from time to time.
And artillery and bombers should occasionally hit the next
square and maybe wound neutrals or your own troops by mistake.
Ansar
Détente avec l'été
Phlegmak - Have you played Civ 2: Test of Time?
It sounds like it has what you're looking for.
It sounds like it has what you're looking for.
SuperBeaverInc.
Groucho
Basically, an improved Civ III.
I tried the demo which only allows for 15 minutes.Phlegmak - Have you played Civ 2: Test of Time?
It sounds like it has what you're looking for.
It sounds like something I should try.kryszcztov
Deity
- Joined
- Mar 1, 2003
- Messages
- 2,423
I want the series to be natively released on the GNU/Linux system.
As for a future Civ5, I wouldn't mind going back to simple graphics, a 2D view, a rich but simple gameplay, and a powerful AI to go along. I'm dreaming.
On the whole, I think the series has always improved over time. Civ1 got me into it. Then Civ2 got me addicted to the series, despite being a mere upgrade of Civ1 : basically Civ2 made the game very good but there were limits that could only be broken with the addition of new concepts. That's why I welcomed Civ3, which brought something new, while still being based on the old engine. Finally, Civ4 came and was what I was waiting for : a new gameplay engine. Clearly the best game of the series, too bad I got bored with the series shortly after Civ4 got released.
As for a future Civ5, I wouldn't mind going back to simple graphics, a 2D view, a rich but simple gameplay, and a powerful AI to go along. I'm dreaming.
On the whole, I think the series has always improved over time. Civ1 got me into it. Then Civ2 got me addicted to the series, despite being a mere upgrade of Civ1 : basically Civ2 made the game very good but there were limits that could only be broken with the addition of new concepts. That's why I welcomed Civ3, which brought something new, while still being based on the old engine. Finally, Civ4 came and was what I was waiting for : a new gameplay engine. Clearly the best game of the series, too bad I got bored with the series shortly after Civ4 got released.
Masquerouge
Deity
Well that's my biggest beef with the Civilization concept: combat and unit management happens on the same timescale as scientific research and civilization development.
In other words, your unit will move on average two squares per turn, and sometimes this turn can mean 200 years, sometimes it means one year, but it's ridiculous to think that your unit has taken two hundred years to go from city A to city B. While the length of a turn is very well suited for city improvements and scientific research, it's really bad for warfare and unit management.
Ideally, there should be two different timescales, one is just like the regular Civ timescale, the other one would only happen in wartime, where the turns would suddenly be in weeks/days instead of years/centuries. That way your unit moving from A to B would actually take a time that's realistic to do it, and wars would be much more focused.
Once the war is over, the timescale switches back to the normal one.
Also, while in peace time, military units should be able to teleport pretty much everywhere on the map (adjusted to the age you're in: might take more, or be impossible, in medieval time to move to another continent or a really far away place)
Of course, constant war would be a challenge
Ball Lightning
www.sporedum.net
Minor civs, global warming and space.
Leonel
Breakfast Connoisseur
I'd love to see an option in which you could tactically take control of a battle instead of just moving a unit into an enemy and have them duke it out. Like what Total War does. Perhaps reincorporate the recruit to elite 5 notch thing from Civ 3 to represent how many individual units on the battle map you get. Although this might require the ability to throw together separate units into one army.
scherbchen
well that can´t be good
- Joined
- Aug 1, 2006
- Messages
- 3,530
Hearts of Iron II
scherbchen
well that can´t be good
- Joined
- Aug 1, 2006
- Messages
- 3,530
yes, God, yes! but please make it 2d!
You have given me a non-fake orgasm with that sentence.
History_Buff
Deity
- Joined
- Aug 12, 2001
- Messages
- 6,529
I just wanna see a SMAC II.
But I agree that improvement does need to be made on the timescale. Especially in the early game, you should be able to run a game like we always have, but with no standing armies. When war is declared, you'll have to call the levies from your cities (with some game mechanic controlling what you get). Once you have your army, you march it out somewhere, and it becomes first strategic army movements like in Civ now, and then descends to a tactical view like the common RTS, but with no building, kind of like the battles in Cossacks 2.
And I'd love to see it go back to 2D graphics, but I doubt it will happen.
But I agree that improvement does need to be made on the timescale. Especially in the early game, you should be able to run a game like we always have, but with no standing armies. When war is declared, you'll have to call the levies from your cities (with some game mechanic controlling what you get). Once you have your army, you march it out somewhere, and it becomes first strategic army movements like in Civ now, and then descends to a tactical view like the common RTS, but with no building, kind of like the battles in Cossacks 2.
And I'd love to see it go back to 2D graphics, but I doubt it will happen.
Please by all means, keep to the civ 3. I feel that not only did civ 3 in general had more substance but the current one is on the most part, just a bunch of eye candy used to replace any real substance. I also ask that they get rid of the in game world builder.
If you seriously think that Civ4 is just a bunch of eye candy, you're delusional. The modding capabilities of Civ4 is infinitely times superior to Civ3.
Civ2 > Civ3, btw.
Civ2 > Civ3, btw.
Nylan
Characters Welcome
History_Buff
Deity
- Joined
- Aug 12, 2001
- Messages
- 6,529
Civ 4 is not all just eye candy. It's a lot of eye candy for sure, but it had some really nice rule changes, namely the elimination of corruption that I really liked. But the game moves too fast, and the maps are too small, mostly because of high resource demand.
If I could get the Civ 4 rules on a Civ 3 graphics platform, with a bigger map, bigger tech tree, and scalable time frames, I would be a happy man.
