What can Civ learn from the Europa Universalis series?

[Ahriman]

If your goal as a game developer is to make money, turning Civ into EU would be a giant mistake.

If your goal as a developer is to make another great civ game, then turning Civ into EU would be a giant mistake.
Yeah, they care about making money, but most of the developers care about making a great game.

If Firaxis followed the advice of everyone on these forums, they'd end up with the most complex game ever made

And it would be much less fun than if they kept to a tight design like it appears they're doing.

 

[Woodreaux]

All I can say is, if you want to play EU, go play EU. Don't mess with my Civ.

I apologize in advance if this comes across as a troll, because Dale, I respect you as a poster... but I can't resist. For everyone drinking the 1UPT KoolAid:

All I can say is, if you want to play PanzerGeneral, go play PanzerGeneral. Don't mess with my Civ.

 

[Dale]

I apologize in advance if this comes across as a troll, because Dale, I respect you as a poster... but I can't resist. For everyone drinking the 1UPT KoolAid:

All I can say is, if you want to play PanzerGeneral, go play PanzerGeneral. Don't mess with my Civ.

See my post replying to you in the Unit Stacking thread.

PS: not taken as a troll.

 

[Ahriman]

I apologize in advance if this comes across as a troll, because Dale, I respect you as a poster... but I can't resist. For everyone drinking the 1UPT KoolAid:

Its perfectly reasonable for people to be suspicious of 1upt, its a valid opinion. There are lots of tricky design questions to solve.

But I'm glad they're doing it; there's a lot of potential there.

Insulting anyone who disagrees with you by calling them koolaid drinkers its likely to get you treated like a troll. Its a pretty insulting comment.

Some of us have though very long and hard about these design issues.
We support a change on the basis of a logic and reason, we're not mindless sheep.

 

[Woodreaux]

Its perfectly reasonable for people to be suspicious of 1upt, its a valid opinion. There are lots of tricky design questions to solve.

But I'm glad they're doing it; there's a lot of potential there.

Insulting anyone who disagrees with you by calling them koolaid drinkers its likely to get you treated like a troll. Its a pretty insulting comment.

Some of us have though very long and hard about these design issues.
We support a change on the basis of a logic and reason, we're not mindless sheep.

I suspect you're over-estimating the vitriol value of the "Drinking the KoolAid" expression. Yeah, accusing someone of drinking the KoolAid does imply questionable judgement. I'm not your life coach or anything, but if something like that gets you worked up, then I really feel bad for you.

But just to be civil, I'm now expanding my preemptive apology to Dale, for using his quote for something kind-of off-topic, to everyone who is bothered I accused them of being too optimistic about 1UPT.

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

I still don't see why its so wrong to add tactical combat systems to a game which-overall-is about strategy. I've usually avoided combat in previous Civ games because its just so mind-numbingly boring. Having a combat system which makes me *think* about where I place units prior to battle might finally add a bit of excitement to what has previously been the most lackluster part of the Civilization series. Heck, I might just start some wars simply so I can see the new combat system in action !

Aussie.

 

[attackfighter]

i thinks its wrong to say Civ is easy to learn , its not compared to most games

My first Civ style game was Alpha Centauri when I was 10, and it only took me about a day to figure out what I was doing (Alpha Centauri is less intuitive/more complex than Civ 4 btw). EU3 also took me about a day to learn, however I was much older and had a past familiarity with strategy games when I played it. Civ may be relatively hard to learn when compared to Mario and Halo, but there's really no reason for Civ to be compared to them. It's like drawing a comparison between The Cat and the Hat and Twilight and coming to the conclusion that Twilight's a masterpiece of literature.

and saying the graphics are shiny is nonsense , nobody buys Civ for the graphics.

Few people buy any game based solely on the graphics, that's an unfair argument to make. While not the sole selling point, graphics are a major one; people do not buy Halo because it has better gameplay than Quake, they buy it because it's prettier (and easy to learn - see point #1).

If your goal as a game developer is to make money, turning Civ into EU would be a giant mistake.

Civilization has it's target demographic: casual TBS gamers. It's beneficial for both parties if Civ caters to that demographic, so that's fine for them. Otth, someone like me - who doesn't fall into either of those groups - is going to have some gripes. That's why I've come here to discuss the merits of what I'd like to see. Simply stating that group A wants to take direction X is hardly relevant unless you're a fanboy; tell me why direction X should appeal to groups B, C and D instead!

 

[The_J]

If Firaxis followed the advice of everyone on these forums, they'd end up with the most complex game ever made (it'd make dwarf fortress look like child's play).

This game would have 5 different finno-ugiuric byzantine dinosaur civs with Hitler as leader and ethnic sealand swordsman units with 20 different types of swords which you can color yourself.

I hope they'll never listen to the users of this forum.

 

[chongli]

i thinks its wrong to say Civ is easy to learn , its not compared to most games , and saying the graphics are shiny is nonsense , nobody buys Civ for the graphics.

Haha. If you think Civ is hard to learn, you ought to try NetHack, Dwarf Fortress, Kaizo Mario or any of the Touhou series of games (such as Imperishable Night).

This game would have 5 different finno-ugiuric byzantine dinosaur civs with Hitler as leader and ethnic sealand swordsman units with 20 different types of swords which you can color yourself.

I hope they'll never listen to the users of this forum.

Hahahaha, you're totally right.

 

[snowlyon]

Personally, I would love to see something like this (CB) implimented, but more than likely won't. Given the direction they have chosen it "appears" to becoming nothing more than a turn based wargame versus a simulation on how civilations might grow and interact with one another through the ages.

Remember folks, civ is not a war game. It's a game about, yup, you guessed it: Civilization. So by that argument, you should pay penalties for attacking your friends for no reason other than being mean, or wanting more land.

a point a good number of folks should take note of and this needs to be stressed again and again.~