What “killer feature” do you want to see in Civ 4? (Read, then pick up to 4 options)

[sir_schwick]

I did not vote for war.

I agree with dh_epic, a more tactically involved military model will be nice, but wouldn't improve gameplay the most. After replaying SMAC, the much better negotiation range and options made me sad when playing Civ III.

 

[Captain]

I did not vote for war. I also did not know how to make the previous sentence bold.

I agree that we need to see the non-war aspects of the game improved so that there is more that can be going on than just fighting. There aught to be more complex and sophisticated methods of achieving victory and progressing on the national scale. Aside from tending to domestic affairs in times of peace, there needs to be a lot more foreign relations and things that can be negotiated between countries (i.e. the AI and human player(s) should be able to interact at a far higher level together than ever before) for starters.

 

[Trade-peror]

Considering that economic and trade relations have been the bulk and basis of interactions between civs throughout history, a critical step toward a more balanced game that allows builders to compete effectively against warmongers would be a more in-depth economic system that has a significant effect upon foreign policy.

Therefore,

I did not vote for war.

but

I did vote for economics!

 

[dh_epic]

Damn, anybody who DID vote for war... was there anything in particular that enticed them? Was it just more units, or was there an actual strategy you felt like you were dying to see added for Civ 4?

 

[Slax]

I don't see why so many people want provinces. I can't see this addition adding anything to my enjoyment of the game.

 

[sir_schwick]

@Slax
I think the reason provinces seem appealing is for manageing those super-large empires. It would also make it easier to model regional effects and possbily trade. It would also make it really easy to model regionalism, seperatims, a deeper ethnicity model, etc.
Personally, there are a couple reasons I also did not vote for it. 1) There are features that need implementation more, this is rather advanced. 2) Firaxis would screw this up. 3) I like how city placement and civ growth just happen and the world ends up like it is. This is also a reason I do not like planning strategies, because it reduces interesting simulation to calculated gameplay.

@Captain
I bet you have not ever played SMAC. In SMAC you could request that other factions stop making war against your friend(3rd Party Negotiation, I did it effectively when I was a AC power). They could surrender to you so you would not have to stomp them out. Units could share the same spaces and bases(would have to modify sneak attack rules). The only part about Civ 3 diplomacy I liked was the idea of a bargaining table. But there should also be a way to just make demands or speak not in terms of trade. There was also the Planetary Council which acted as the UN should. YOu could enact trade treaties, change the sea levels, and even make atrocities legal.

@Trade-Peror
I think the big problem with Civ 3 trade was that trade was only encouraged when the vending nation could get ridiculous rates. A less player-controlled trade system would make controlling resources an economic, rather than strategic advantage. Currently resources make the player who controls oil uber-powerful and all others cannot possbily compete. War should be considered a method of profitability or security, and right now it is the only way to make money in the modern age(in Civ).

 

[Milan's Warrior]

GOVERNMENT Especially the Social Engeneering part
PROVINCES Especially the annexing, secession part
ECONOMICS
CIVICS
*Free: Quality Mod-Tools
*Free: Improved AI

Had I been allowed to choose more than 4:
NEGOTIATIONS
INTELLIGENCE
MORE OF THE SAME

Things that I NOT want into the game:
RELIGION -- because I don't like religion
DISASTERS -- because they annoy me (I would be ok with them if I could disable them)
More Civ-Specific Art -- because it confuses me (again, I would be ok with it, if I could disable it)

I didn't vote for war
The only thing that I think is worth improving in war (and it is a big one) is the ability to have global controls to send the units at the attack without having to move them manually. Something like: "as soon as created attack X" or "as soon as 5 are ready attack X" or "as soon as created attack X, then Y, then Z". I had a whole post on this, who knows how buried it might be now.
None of the "improvements" listed under "war" by dh_epic appeal to me

 

[Captain]

Your right Sir Schwick, I have never played SMAC but I know someone who has and the more I hear about it, the more I want to check it out. Chances are Civ4 will be the successor to that and all other previous SM models while incorporating the major points from each one (we can hope) becoming Thee Unified Game of all time.

PS: Can I call you Towelie? Please?

 

[sir_schwick]

Your right Sir Schwick, I have never played SMAC but I know someone who has and the more I hear about it, the more I want to check it out. Chances are Civ4 will be the successor to that and all other previous SM models while incorporating the major points from each one (we can hope) becoming Thee Unified Game of all time.

PS: Can I call you Towelie? Please?

Actually I doubt that Civ 4 will be any kind of successor to SMAC. Brian Reynolds no longer works for Firaxis and most of the AC team does not work for Firaxis. Sid Mier's did not have as big a role in SMAC as in the other civs. Also, in Soren's presentation he sited the SMAC market as being way too small. PLus, Civ 3 took maybe one or two features from SMAC(bombardment).

I really wish I could say something different, but for now we will have to look to mods or Brian Reynolds at Big Huge Games for a successor of SMAC. After playing Rise of Nations, I would not mind a RTS version of AC in the same spirit.

Officially my title is the 'Archbishop of Towels', but towelie is perfectly cool with me.

 

[dh_epic]

We'll leave the provinces discussion for later. I'm finding it the least bit odd, however, that nobody's standing up and saying why they felt war was the most compelling option.

Anybody? War? Come on!

 

[Elgalad]

I did vote for war.

I might have misunderstood the poll question at first, but in retrospect, I still agree that war aspects are important to my game experience in civilization even when I play a 'relatively' peaceful civ. I'm primarily a 'builder' at heart, but I do enjoy the options that military strategies open up. I'm by no means one of the 'experts' at conquering the world on the divine setting, I usually play on Empire, and often find my country (usually Germany slipping behind going through the middle ages, as the nasty AI's all seem to conspire against me! But I take heart when my first cavalry units start riding out to deal harsh wakeup calls to my closest neighbors... If I can get a leader or two out of the deal and rush build some late middle ages or early industrial wonders, great! I dont usually use war as a path to victory though, but more of an extension to diplomacy. If I play my cards right, build an alliance against a powerful neighbor, take a few cities and survive my 20 year war contract, I can sometimes make a quick comeback from obscurity. Additionally, the tactics in an extended war can be challenging and rewarding. Using chokepoints, slashing enemy supply routes (roads/railroads/naval blockade), amphibious assaults, combined arms attacks (artillery/infantry/cavalry), and capturing enemy workers. All of these aspects enrich the game for me. I would therefore like to see more of all of it:

Unique units (maybe one for each age with each civ?) would be neat. How about 'renting' units to another civilization (as mercenaries.. the 'lessor' would assume the risk, while the 'lessee' gets to move the units for X turns after paying for their service). I dont like the idea of outright selling a unit to another civ, but maybe military aid would be useful; Gold tradeunits that would be earmarked Only for military unit or building purchase and/or upgrading. You mentioned special bonuses vs other units.. how about receiving bonuses also from stacked units? New unit: General/Admiral - Special ability to add +1 to a military stack's movement or attack or defense once per turn. All ranged units (any infantry after the gunpowder invention) should have zones of control I think. All ground units should also get bombardment with the invention of rocketry (TOW missiles/stinger AA missiles).


I usually play the double your pleasure mod, which has Tons of extras like these. I hope that when CIV 4 comes out it isn't just a rehash of the earlier games with improved AI. That seems to be all I read about on these boards, some folks will give up everything else as long as the AI is on par with Deep Blue!

Anyway, that's my two cents.
-E

 

[Elgalad]

Argh, reading back over this thread again, I'm starting to get the SMAC bug! Might just have to start another game, it's been a while

I have played Rise of Nations and a few other RTS'.. Warcraft, Age of Empires, etc. They can be a lot of fun, even if they always seem to devolve into a click fast fest towards the end. I havent played Starcraft and probably never will, just dont see the appeal. SMAC really was on a whole other plane though, turning that into an RTS game wouldn't do it for me.

Cause see, the thing that made SMAC so wonderful was the immersion. It combined quality aspects of unit design, government economy tweaking, diplomacy, wonder races that MEANT something more than a 50 turn bonus cause yes, you got the wonder movie reward, ha! Top all that off with an actual by God rpg story underlying the whole game. Sure, it was basically just a scripted plot, but it added so much character to that game!

Civ 3 continues to be a fine game, I still play it today. It has a permanent (until 4 comes out) spot on my hard drive. But if I were TPTB working on CIV 4 right now, I would take a good long hard look at SMAC as my reference of a game that will Always be a true classic.

-E

 

[dh_epic]

Elgalad, thanks for your input. I'm definitely understanding where the warmongers are coming from

Even though I'm someone who thinks there's "enough" war to keep people happy in Civ, I really still feel as though there could be improvements. Right now it's too much "my higher numbers against your lower numbers, multiplied by luck". Renting units, units that provide bonuses to the stack, units with bonuses against other units would make war a lot more strategic. In Civ 3, if I build up a huge enough army of the "best" unit, I'll probably win. But in this kind of Civ 4, I could build up a huge army of one unit, and then realize that my opponent built up an army of that unit's weakness!

 

[sir_schwick]

Unfortunately Soren decided that the 'Single Best Unit' paradigm was better than RPS because RPS quote, 'does not make for a good game'.

 

[dh_epic]

That's BS if you ask me. I don't think he said that explicitly, but come to think of it you might be onto something. He did basically analyze AOE and then more or less dis it.

 

[sir_schwick]

I do see his point that too much of a RPS distinction turns any system into, guess what the enemy has. A good vs. bonus and penalty system allows for comprehensive situations which favor a variety of tactics, but certainly not absolutely stupid ones. A bad one makes it so combat has to be fought one way or you lose.

 

[MeatWad]

I didn't vote for war.
I think Civ suffers from a 'build and bash' complex as it is. Not that that's a problem, but there is soooo much more to this game than build and conquer. More actual governing. That requires a strategic mind of an entirely different kind. Anybody can set production to all military units and then try to thrash everybody around them. BORING!!!! (and predictable). It needs more social advances and tech tree tweaking, especially for modern times. Current tech tree favors militaristic development, I think.

 

[RageThere]

all of the above!

 

[dh_epic]

...

Okay, ignoring that last post, the kind which never ceases to annoy me...

It seems as though the most vocal people are not really into pushing war in Civ, arguing that the game needs to allow other diverging strategies. I guess it's the silent majority who would love Civ if it had new war elements -- even if they can't exactly point at what that entails.

Rock-Paper-Scissors wouldn't bug me too much, seeing as it's pretty simple to learn and would at least correct the "build the best unit" obviousness that plagued Civ until now. Plus it would still leave a lot of room for complexity in other areas, seeing as it's such a simple tweak.

 

[viper275]

-More of the same! More new techs, civs, governments, units, and so on.
-Religion. You could then have special units per religion and that sort of thing, almost the way governments work.
-Intelligence. I have an idea that sounds very fun, and extremely evil. A new option with your spy would be an asssassination, which would put the enemy civ in Anarchy but they can't choose a new government after the anarchy. A killer feature... literally .
-Something else. Make it have less loading times, even on slow computers!

*Better Multiplayer. I don't know if this is possible or not, but make Multiplayer easier! Somehow figure a way to make it so that you don't have to mess around with everything to be able to play it, somehow get past firewalls
*Quality mod tools. Make modding easier and make literally everything possible!
*Last one, make the AI smarter! The current AI is too stupid. Obviously, this another variable in difficulty levels, so they'll probably need to add difficulty levels to support this, which is fine.