What do you want most

[mortalmadman]

I'm sorry if this has been done before but I look hard and came up emptie.

What are you looking forward most to?

Me?

BETTER AI

The rest would be great. I don't know how this unique army thing is suppose to work, but sounds cool. But all I really want is better AI.

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

If I had to list ONLY one thing, then I would have to agree with you, MMM, and say a MUCH more superior AI!! Assuming this will be the case just as a natural progression of the Franchise, however, then my second choice would have to be a better resource/diplomacy system (i.e. the interphase between resources, trade and diplomacy!)

 

[searcheagle]

I think we all assume better, smarter, more intelligent AI will be included. If not, we shall be disappointed.

 

[bkwrm79]

Better diplomacy options, starting with the ability to demand/threaten/bribe a civ into calling off a war against one of my friends.

 

[Sturmgewehr]

"living", dynamic terrain.

 

[Trade-peror]

I would like Civ4, in general, to be more dynamic, flowing, and organic in terms of growth. My idea of achieving that would be to first establish a "living and breathing" economic model as the basis of Civ, and then build up to the political, social, military, and other aspects of the game from there. Thus, all of my suggestions, whether they seem immediately economic in nature or not, are ultimately connected and integrated into my Unified Economic Theory (the latest being the 2nd Edition).

 

[Jon Shafer]

Both TP and AL are walking advertisements for their design ideas.

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

hey, are you taking a jibe at us, Trip? I have to say, I won't make any apologies for 'pushing' my ideas wherever possible, but am equally quite realistic about how likely they are to get up ! Still, as I have said elsewhere, for whatever reason, about 50% of the ideas I had championed during the Civ3 creation process did get up in one way or another-so there is cause for hope!!

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

 

[Trade-peror]

Oh, I don't mind...I will readily admit that it is easier for me to just say "go look at the thread where my ideas are" rather than spend hours rewriting all of my ideas into a single, 15000-character post that will not attract many readers. Besides, the UET II summary is organized in an outline format that is much easier to peruse than if I wrote a long essay explaining the same thing. So why should I bother?

 

[Jon Shafer]

hey, are you taking a jibe at us, Trip?

Just tellin' it like it is...

 

[mortalmadman]

If I had to list ONLY one thing, then I would have to agree with you, MMM, and say a MUCH more superior AI!! Assuming this will be the case just as a natural progression of the Franchise, however, then my second choice would have to be a better resource/diplomacy system (i.e. the interphase between resources, trade and diplomacy!)

True, I would have to say besides AI... even though I haven't had a real chance to play multiplayer, I would like to see an improvement in that. Mostly because

1)No stupid AI.
2)I don't have to set sci. research to 0, no matter how good I get.
3)So I'm not always playing with myself

 

[Jon Shafer]

I think these sorts of threads and polls should exclude the better AI option - because that's what EVERYONE wants, and it's obviously something the dev team will be working on, so it's kind of moot to discuss it.

 

[Sirian]

Oh, I don't know, Trip. AI gets second or third billing in most games.

Civ's AI has a lot to cope with, but I wouldn't call the Civ1 or Civ2 AI anything special. The Civ1 AI is remarkable for being functional at all, because the original Civ invented (or at least redefined) the entire genre.

Civ3's AI is quite good, relative to its tasks and the AIs of competing titles, but I disagree that we should take a desire for stronger AI for granted. If that really is a top priority among the players, let them say it over and over and over again. This cannot do any harm. Either it validates what Firaxis already knows, or it will wake them up.

You're starting to sound like Ybbor. "Hey, we've covered that. {Link to sticky threads} See?"


By the way, why do you think that it is "obviously" something that the devs will be emphasizing? One look at politics, in any corner of the world, will reveal that what some take to be obvious, others take to be obviously wrong, and vice versa. What you see depends on where you sit.


- Sirian

 

[Black_Hole]

I dont care about the AI as much as multiplayer.
I really really hope multiplayer will be fixed, examples include:
Less micromanaging required(this works for rest of game to)
A total redesign of multiplayer engine, the lag kills me and so does the sudden drops etc

 

[Jon Shafer]

Oh, I don't know, Trip. AI gets second or third billing in most games.

Civ's AI has a lot to cope with, but I wouldn't call the Civ1 or Civ2 AI anything special. The Civ1 AI is remarkable for being functional at all, because the original Civ invented (or at least redefined) the entire genre.

Civ3's AI is quite good, relative to its tasks and the AIs of competing titles, but I disagree that we should take a desire for stronger AI for granted. If that really is a top priority among the players, let them say it over and over and over again. This cannot do any harm. Either it validates what Firaxis already knows, or it will wake them up.

You're starting to sound like Ybbor. "Hey, we've covered that. {Link to sticky threads} See?"

By the way, why do you think that it is "obviously" something that the devs will be emphasizing? One look at politics, in any corner of the world, will reveal that what some take to be obvious, others take to be obviously wrong, and vice versa. What you see depends on where you sit.

Call me a visionary.

 

[Stid]

nooooo dont improve AI they're unstopable cheatin b******s on my games. making the AI wont mean them thinking about strategy etc it will basically just mean they can make 5 units in one city in one turn. anyhow this would probably mean a more advanced comp is needed n id love to hav civ4 bt at the expense of a new computer, it just wouldnt be prudent

 

[Sirian]

OK, Trip, so you're a visionary.

I notice that you are catching up to me in post count. Well, at least on this forum you are.


- Sirian

 

[Jon Shafer]

You spammer. I'm busy working on stuff instead of posting. What have you done lately you lazy bum, besides shoot down other peoples' ideas?

 

[mortalmadman]

nooooo dont improve AI they're unstopable cheatin b******s on my games. making the AI wont mean them thinking about strategy etc it will basically just mean they can make 5 units in one city in one turn. anyhow this would probably mean a more advanced comp is needed n id love to hav civ4 bt at the expense of a new computer, it just wouldnt be prudent

Making '5 units in one city in one turn' isn't AI. That's cheating. We're talking about AI in the since of Artifical Intellegince. Not the computers advantage.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

Put me solidly in the better AI camp. My next choice would be better Diplomacy, though mostly what I want to see there is better decision making, which is a subset of the better AI.