Whats up with the need for more civilizations?

[toft]

I always read about what civilizations people want in or not, but I cant really see what any of them bring to the game

I would settle for ~7 civilizations if they all had unique units and buildings, making them totally different from each other.

 

[Janus0]

I find games with 18 civs to be quite enjoyable. I don't really care WHO the civs would be, but the ability to play against more opponents makes things alot more interesting. Diplomacy is harder, teching happens faster, there's more competition for land, and wars are shorter. All of that makes the game more appealing to me.

 

[toft]

Well then maybe give complety different units depending on which culture they belong to; European, Asien, African and so on. I find Civ4 a bit boring, when theres is little to none difference between the civilizations.

 

[Crowqueen]

The differences don't make for radically different games so much as different strategies to achieve the same things. I find with Organised leaders (Asoka, Zara Yaqob - or as I know, Citroen Xsara Picasso - and Julius Caesar) you can sprawl better and therefore do better on land-based maps; on sea-based maps go for a Financial leader because each coast tile produces three coins instead of two and you can support your empire better overall.

There ought to be more differences between handicaps or bonuses for each civ; the AI will be reasonably historically correct (e.g. I played with Choose Religions once and the AI Isabella, who founded the first religion, naturally went for Christianity) and I would go further and impose handicaps and bonuses on religions but I can see why that will never catch on (for example my idea would have Judaism give a bonus to commerce but not be permissible as a state religion, for example; despite Israel and ancient Judah the Jews - and my Jewish OH said this, by the way - have never managed to keep a state together for long) given sensitivities. It's in Civ Revolutions that different cultures have significant benefits and handicaps so I foresee this happening in Civ 5 unless Sid wants to keep the console game going in one direction and the PC version in another.

But I think you underestimate the appeal of Civ 4 and if you think things are a little boring you have not yet tried Beyond the Sword. Again I'd expand the range of quests and random events, but they keep you on your toes.

 

[toft]

The differences don't make for radically different games so much as different strategies to achieve the same things. I find with Organised leaders (Asoka, Zara Yaqob - or as I know, Citroen Xsara Picasso - and Julius Caesar) you can sprawl better and therefore do better on land-based maps; on sea-based maps go for a Financial leader because each coast tile produces three coins instead of two and you can support your empire better overall.

There ought to be more differences between handicaps or bonuses for each civ; the AI will be reasonably historically correct (e.g. I played with Choose Religions once and the AI Isabella, who founded the first religion, naturally went for Christianity) and I would go further and impose handicaps and bonuses on religions but I can see why that will never catch on (for example my idea would have Judaism give a bonus to commerce but not be permissible as a state religion, for example; despite Israel and ancient Judah the Jews - and my Jewish OH said this, by the way - have never managed to keep a state together for long) given sensitivities. It's in Civ Revolutions that different cultures have significant benefits and handicaps so I foresee this happening in Civ 5 unless Sid wants to keep the console game going in one direction and the PC version in another.

But I think you underestimate the appeal of Civ 4 and if you think things are a little boring you have not yet tried Beyond the Sword. Again I'd expand the range of quests and random events, but they keep you on your toes.

I have all the expansions - while BTS seemed more stable, it brought some unwanted features IMO.

 

[lugaru]

I've been stuck with the same problem while working on my mod. On one hand I'm already adding content so why not add a couple of civs, on the other hand what do they actually bring to the table?

For sure I want to turn the native americans into a specific tribe or even break it up into two specific civilizations since the name bugs me (it would be hilarious if france, england, germany and portugal where condense into "the europeans"). Beyond that the one thing I am into is tracking down really unique leaderheads and tossing them into the game, with the goal that every civ has two leaders at least. I think this helps with the colony system and gives you more variety in your games, since while civilizations are quite similar some leaders are a lot more insane than others.

 

[AbbieRevo]

I think a lot of people want more civs out of patriotism... I see a lot of requests for Poland , Canada, and Israel.

But more civs in general just makes for variety.

Problem is they've almost run out of leader trait combinations.

 

[Sisiutil]

I find Civ4 a bit boring, when theres is little to none difference between the civilizations.

This statement surprises me. I find each civilization to be substantially different in character. The starting techs, traits, and unique unit and building all result in substantial differences in gameplay for each leader.

And in addition, the programmers have given each leader a fairly distinct personality that affects how you'll have to play each game. If you start next to Montezuma or Shaka, for example, you'll either have to convert to their faith and do everything they say, or kill them off before they do you the same favour.

 

[Molybdeus]

Sisutil, I think you are misreading his comment. He means that when there is no difference he does not like the game, rather than there isn't any difference.

As to the need for more civs, many people have a preferred style of play, and would like to have several options for that style. If you like building wonders it is nice to have multiple civs with the industrious trait. If you like cottage economies it is nice to have multiple leaders with the financial trait. If you like playing specialist economies it is nice to have expansionist and/or charismatic leaders, and so on.

And then there are people who don't like playing as a particular civ. I don't like playing as America because it seems silly to me to have an American civ in 30,000 BC. Other people don't like playing as the French, or prefer playing as their own country of origin or a similar country. IE, Khmer if you are Indonesian.

 

[Feanor01]

To some extent Alpha centaria was significantly better at civ specialization then Civ 4. In AC, each faction build specific buildings and neglected others (same with civics). However, the game seemed a bit more constrained then Civ4.

I would like to see more civ specific buildings and units. Right now the civ specific content is just tweeked regular content. However, a civ specific building should be unique and not just a slightly upgraded regular building. Rome should get bath houses that add 2 happiness; Persia should get bizzares that add an extra 10% commerce and 1 happiness. Something like this. As well, UU should be totally unique. America should have navy seals as well as marines.

Different civs should emphasize different strategies. It would also be kind of cool if as your (or the AI's) civilization grew larger there was a chance of a civil war. You either had to fight your own civilization or lose a portion of your civ to a new civ. Sometimes this happened in Civ 2, sad it was removed.