Preferred future of the Civ franchise

Let Civ be Civ, let GC be GC, let AC be AC, and let Total War be Total War.

I don't want to turn the Civ franchise into GalCivII, I just listed things that are in Civ and GalCivII that I think GalCivII did better (and would like to see implemented in the Civ series).
 
I'd like if Civ games stopped trying to be funny and hyper-easy. I'd like more realism in all aspect of the game

- politics (free elections, many different systems of government)
- economics (taxation, economic booms/recessions, realistic foreign trade, economic theories being "tested" in practice)
- science
- WMD's (realistic tactical nukes and the MAD doctrine, chemical weapons, biological weapons [imagine developing a doomsday virus, which would wipe out enemy population, but eventually mutate and destroy yours as well :lol: ])
- DIPLOMACY (enable player to demand more from the AI players, conventions, resolutions, many types of treaties, everything we know from real world)
- terrorism
- cultural politics (expand on the concept of religions, different culture etc.)
- RESOURCES (realistic use of resources [more oil needed if your civilization is big and industrialized, for example])
- combat (units shouldn't be destroyed in combat every time, just weakened - in fact I'd adopt HOI2 system)
- many more things
 
- RESOURCES (realistic use of resources [more oil needed if your civilization is big and industrialized, for example])

ooh that's a good one. I am ok with 1 gold making all my citizens happy, but 1 oil to fuel my army of tanks? that can't be right. HoI 2 did a good job in this department.
 
- Less realism, to prevent IMBA-troops, or possibly, dozens of extra units to bridge the gaps between tech levels (or maybe, allow units to capture tech from more advanced units and upgrade themselves, like the way the Indians got your guns and horses in Colonization).

- Better map editor + Easier to mod

- Return to a simpler, more fluid combat system, not the clunky RPG-style sytem.
 
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 :)

:agree:

..........
 
Quoted for truth! screw civ5, SMAC 2 FTW!

Agreed!

I liked Civ2 a lot, but resources and cultural borders were an improvement, making civ3 better. Civ4 struck me as simply a refinement of Civ3. I'd like Fireaxis to avoid a fifth version for a few years, so that people can develop more mods for a stable Civ4 version. So they could do a SMAC 2 instead.
 
Top Bottom