Areas of improvements you think is most important (feel free to add extra stuff!):

*AI (open source / smarter)
*Customisability (ie should be even more user-customisable)
*Diplomacy (more complex / AI made better / borders)
*End game (ie weird futuristic stuff, send spaceship to AC)
*Gameplay (ie interface/commands / multiplayer / multiple maps or production)
*Government Related Stuff (or "Social Engineering" as SMAC called it) (eg democracy & communism and how production etc is affected)
*Graphics Engine (3d)
*Historical Accuracy/Realism (BIG ISSUE eg ICS / religion / migration / slavery / pop- political- models)
*How much the game costs...
*Map (round/flat / terrain / terrain changing ala volcanoes / size)
*Micromanagement, the evil of Civ2 (governors)
*Militaristic matters (workshop / bases / commanders / SDI / Phalanx vs Tank / missiles)
*Multimedia (sfx / music / cut scenes)
*Scenarios (and their ease of design)
*Techs (what - ie should have futuristic ones / tech tree)
*Trade/economics (eg resources available / trade routes / inter or intra civ trade / corporations)
*Transportation (roads / rr / magtubes)
*Types and number of Civs
*Wonders (type / number / what)

But seriously the AI, multiplayer, diplomacy and scenario editors will have to be improved

I want to see a simple game that will run on almost any system and is easy to use and will have lots of replayability. Anyway just my 2 cents.

I don't think you'd need a powerful system to run 3D graphics anyway, lots of high 3D games can run easily on P200's as long as the programming is done well. Oh also, I seriously suggest people stop saying "They need to spend more time on this and that". I think what you should be saying to yourself is that they'll spend all the time they can to make all aspects of the game great.

I think the most important would definetly be the AI. I like customisability to, but whenever I custom the game, and then play the game, I feel bored because I made it, I know all about it, etc. So I don't know how important that really is, it's nice if other people custom it, even though it's not 'original' still puts me off a bit. Customisability makes the game last a long time tho.

1. Shift from a "city-centric" style to a "civ-centric" style. This involves lots of changes but should make the game work a lot better.

2. Reduction and/or elimination of ICS.

Trade

Civians(I made this up, your people have a mind, you like the name?)

Diplomacy

AI

Graphics

hehehe graphics gotta run on a p2 350 so nothing too big firaxis, ok?

Diplomacy
AI
"Social Engineering"
Trade
Energy/Resources
Transportation

Yes, I Know it ain't gonna happen...

Better AI: 40%

Alternative ways of winning (gee, I wondered where that came from?): 30%

Robust scenario editor: 30%

Are you serious? Or are you 'just kidding'?

Do you really agree with Ken Bregott who apparently thinks CivII is perfect allready as it is now?
I would be truly surprised!
Especially since my impression of Clash of Civilizations is just the opposite. I have only perused the Clash pages superficially, but I have to admit -though I have seen many elements I liked and some impressive models- it was a bit complicated even to my taste.

All newcomers should visit here
We went through it all!

My priorities are:
-more historical realism (like Religion, Domestic Politics, Recruitment, etc)
-a really difficult game to win (which of course needs better AI)

For me it is:
*Diplomacy (vital)
*AI (equally vital)
*And a good scenario editor would be nice.

Diplomacy - 55%
Better AI - 25%
Map layout/size - 20%

Smarter, but not at the expence of customizin g units and stuff

*Customisability (ie should be even more user-customisable)

This is very important and please use *.PNG as your graphics format.

*Diplomacy (more complex / AI made better / borders)

A nice touch.

*End game (ie weird futuristic stuff, send spaceship to AC)

I am not buying anything with weird futuristic stuff.

*Gameplay (ie interface/commands / multiplayer / multiple maps or production)

Some things should be abstracted, some should be given more detail.

*Government Related Stuff (or "Social Engineering" as SMAC called it) (eg democracy & communism and how production etc is affected)

I believe SE is very realistic.

*Graphics Engine (3d)

Perhaps larger tiles

*Historical Accuracy/Realism (BIG ISSUE eg ICS / religion / migration / slavery / pop- political- models)

Perhaps a smoother transition through the ages, but the simpler in appearance (not guts), the better.

*How much the game costs...

Ha!

*Map (round/flat / terrain / terrain changing ala volcanoes / size)

Elevations and reasonable limits on size.

*Micromanagement, the evil of Civ2 (governors)

Imperialism II had good governors while Alpha Centauri had bad ones - please compare the implementations and/or feel.

*Militaristic matters (workshop / bases / commanders / SDI / Phalanx vs Tank / missiles)

CivII is fine in balance, but army based movement would be great.

*Multimedia (sfx / music / cut scenes)

*Drool*

*Scenarios (and their ease of design)

Falls under customizability.

*Techs (what - ie should have futuristic ones / tech tree)

No futuristic ones, please.

*Trade/economics (eg resources available / trade routes / inter or intra civ trade / corporations)

CivII model is fine.

*Transportation (roads / rr / magtubes)

No perversions of Maglev, please.

*Types and number of Civs

Falls under customizability - they can ship with sixteen in the box, as long as I can add a reasonable number (infinite/1024 being reasonable limits) and have them in one game.

*Wonders (type / number / what)

I'm with you. I often think it would be cool if after a certain number of cities the entire interface and game-style switches to a macro-level, "big decision" effort. So you go through all the city stuff for a while (which is fun for a few hours but then becomes tedious) and then get "promoted" to a higher-level. I mean, the President doesn't go around pulling workers and making them entertainers, does he? He should be working on intricate foreign policy, domestic economy, elections, war plans, etc.

(I was just going through the source code of the page and there were 2 /form tags but no form tags - could that be the problem?)

So I'll vote here
1.)Diplomacy

With AI a very, very close second.

quote: Originally posted by Tiberius on 06-27-2000 03:42 AM You only said "Shift from a city-centric style to a civ-centric style" but you didn't explain yourself what a "civ-centric style" means for you.

I thought it was obvious, maybe not.

Right now, Civ/Civ2/SMAC/CtP/ToT/etc. play like a collection of city-states. There is no need for a central government, and nobody notices if it goes missing. All you need is a capital and nothing more. There is absolutely no polling of resources -- caravans is a poor substitution -- no national policies, nothing. Every city for its own.

There are many things that must be done to fix this serious flaw:

1. Stockpiling of resources is allowed. If you don't need to use shields up, they can be stored just like food.

2. Building wonders and military units should come from the national stockpile, not the city one.

3. Have separate build queues for national items and city items (mainly improvements).

4. Military units supported on a national level. Use money instead of shields for support.

5. Espionage done on a national level.

6. Research done on a national level. That is, funding of research facilities should come from the civ's own coffers.

7. Military units operating away from the civ's territory under certain political systems no longer cause unhappiness in specific, i.e., home, cities. They cause a general drop across the entire national

A lot more should be done to integrate cities into a civilization.

Anyway the voting doesn't work I think it could but the lack of form tags or something.

What does it mean when the script asked me to enter a valid username?

I wanted to vote trade, but accidentally I pressed the "vote" button without actually selecting anything! So I guess I sent an empty vote, because trade has 2 votes, just like before my "vote". And of course I can't vote again.

quote: Originally posted by UltraSonix on 06-28-2000 01:51 AM The idea of a civ-centric style is good, but I not sure the civ3 needs to change a winning formula...

I am not so sure. I think SMACX (maybe CtP or ToT) has stretched the original design to its limits. Right now most of the improvement suggestions I have seen, while good, fail to correct some fundamental weaknesses. Some, such as having a separate screen for espionage, calls for this sort of fundamental redesign.

I like the idea of changing to macro management once you have built up some. It probably should be tied to change in government. as a despot, you tell your people what to build, under a democracy, economic pressure determines improvements with the leader making "suggestions".

Diplomacy:hate AI gang up! AI controlled civs need right behavior based on how powerful they are.

Military:No more units. we need division/regiment and such along with workshop.

Trade:should be vital element of the game.