What is your greatest wish for Civ 4?

[Optimizer]

My guess is that a new title in the official Civ series will arrive every five years until a Civ title flops. Thus we can hope for Civilization 4 to be released in 2006.

Cladding Civ 1 in new graphics and adding a few new game features was enough for Civ 2 to become an instant classic. Civ 3 had to compete with an entire genre (which was started with Civ 1) and the number of civ type games will hardly shrink during the coming years. So, what do you want Civ 4 to have to be the game of games?

(This will be my last "What is-" thread for a while)

[DrSpike]

No real time, no tactical combat.

The AI is important, and good MP capability. As a hardered MP I should point out this does not mean the ability to play the SP game with other players.......what makes a good SP game and what makes a good MP game are often very different. It should only need a few thoughtful tweaks, not extensive (and expensive) major changes.

[Jamski]

A better "story shaping mechanism" where the game plays differently depending on how it is played. Something like what Brad is developing for GalCiv, I suppose. And more of everything, less generic units and improvements, more resources, better AI, the possibility of "pact of brotherhood" alla SMAC, a unit design workshop, more terrain types, tiles producing more kinds of things, not just food, shields & trade, small nations (like Switzerland) that affect the macro game and a religion model. And that's just for starters. I also want declining Civs, and superpowers, and some kind of way of reducing corruption through buildings, units and policys.
But most importantly, I want leaders that live for a length of time, and are then replaced, with the possiblity of civil war, with the leader of your civ having a big effect on the way your game plays. There - I don't ask for much, do I :)

-Jam

[Henrik]

I want more customization and scenario building tools! :doitnow!: (basicly the opposite of civ 3 which still with expansion and all has less cuztomization than the original civ 2 had...)

[Nikolai]

I think a better feeling of creating a civilization and a "real" history is important in an eventual Civ4.:) I feel this really helps making the "one-more-turn" feeling we all know so well!:D

[Rasbelin]

I voted AI as that's what makes a TBS game in SP mode, as previously proven and complained about. Expections were high for Civ III's AI, especially after hearing that no one on Firaxis had yet beated the AI on Deity, but things developed differently then as we know. So that's why I put high priority on the AI, dispite it can't be made unbeatble. As for Nikolai's suggestion, I agree with him as Civ II was great with it and the WoW concept, but Civ III screwed it somehow as they were more simplfied and not something that had depth and had an interesting background that reflected the history in a way like the WoWs in Civ II. Videos also made some of the atmosphere. Especially the council. :)

Irrevelant, but still... Having the head of Markos or Dan (or maybe even both) as one of the advisors would be cool. Civ III - Sid, Civ IV - Markos/Dan? :D

[Method]

i don't want civ4. not if it's anything like civ3

but barring that, for it not to be made by sid.

[ColdWizard]

that "just one more turn" feeling :b:

[Mark_Everson]

I voted for AI, big surprise there ;) :D

Just-one-more-turn if of course critically important also.

If it goes real time I'm not buying. . .

[Rasbelin]

TKG,

don't ruin the fun for the rest of us. :bored: If you don't like Civ III, fine, but having such premonitions about Civ IV (notive: a possible fourth version) is abit paranoia, and espcially condemning the idea that Sid would make it, is IMO quite stupid.

[Jamski]

Even if Sid didn't make it, then they would still want to put his name on the box, so he'd have some kind of input. I guess.

Oh forgot to mention that I'd want Civ4 to be more of a builder's game. I want to build an empire, not always have to steal an empire by force !

-Jam

[aaglo]

No RTS, but the strategic combat a'la MasterOfMagic/MasterOfOrion/ect. would be quite fun I believe. :b:

[Nikolai]

Didn't CTP2 have something like that?:confused: I didn't try the game, but I remember seeing a battle-screen of some kind in the screenies released on the Net.:)

[Panag]

hi ,

to bad we can only vote for one thing , ..... :(

we need an option "turnless on or off" , this way everyone is happy , let Soren develop the near perfect self learning AI :cool: :b:

radom events , helicopters that blow tanks up , a transport aircraft and a bigger map , together with at least triple maximums of cities and units , ....

and with a bit of luck we might get in with an XP or so , ....

who knows , who knows , .....

but deep inside every ones biggest wish is that the developers and distributors listen more to the people who buy the game , .....

have a nice day

[LDiCesare]

Turn based. No tactical combat and no real time.
Good AI, and easy to mod, which also implies either no 3D graphics or coming with all tools needed to edit the images.

[Maquiladora]

CtP3 please, but if it has to be Civ4 then no more workers/settlers and slightly more advanced combat than a board game.

[Nikolai]

I liked the split up between settlers/workers.:) I never liked using expensive settlers to do the building of infrastructure. Civ3 was in that sense very good!:b:

I've never tried CTP and it's system of PWs, but if that's a good solution, that could be smart to implement in a future Civ4.:)

[Optimizer]

Everyone wants better AI, but it's harder to do than to say. (However you say that in English.)

[HAND]

More atmosphere! Alpha Centauri managed wonder movies etc...I know they take time to make, but they really do give a great sense of a civilization progressing through the ages.
Better Graphics, better AI are to be expected regardless.
Also a flawless and powerful editor would make the game live on for years..

[XarXo]

A 3d planet divided in hexagons (and 12 pentagons, a bit deformed to have the correct shape), with the possibility to colonize the moon with a "expanded game" option (NOTE: the spherical planet avoid the problems with a 2D representation of earth).

City names are related to the tile more than a list.

A living planet with earthquakes and the other stuff.

Possibility to have multimapping with different spheres (inverted spheres too, for inner earth). Is great for fantasy games! :)

Possibility to create areas limiting expansion ("flat maps") or linking areas (one direction tiles, you can't return where you stayed before, this is great to represent forces that come and can't be destroyed, or areas that for access you need a condition.)

3D ALL!!! :)

If Age of Mythology is 3D now, in 2005 that is when the game shoudl appear it could be amaizing!! Remember Black & White!! ;)

[MrBaggins]

Extensible AI.
Extensible diplomacy.

Complete modification ability.
C-like scripting language
Every game value exposed (using objects for every entity)
Every game ability exposed
Every game event exposed, with the ability to override, and alter the outcome, or values thereof.

Effectively unlimited units, improvements, wonders, techs. flexible flagging for all entities, with the ability to define programmatically what that flag does

I.E. say you create a wonder "Spartan philosophy and give it a flag WONDER_Spartan" and define that flags effect in code... rather than picking from other wonder effects, and giving different values.

The 'ultimate' situation would be to have ALL of the non-UI non-graphics part of the game... basically every game state event coded in the scripting language... so that anything could be altered, even the formulae.

MrBaggins

[Centauri18]

Colonizing the moon! That would be so cool, I can't believe no one thought of that before. And possibly Mars, too. The problem is different options of units and such for every planet. You couldn't just drive a tank on the Moon, could you?

[Panag]

Originally posted by Centauri18
Colonizing the moon! That would be so cool, I can't believe no one thought of that before. And possibly Mars, too. The problem is different options of units and such for every planet. You couldn't just drive a tank on the Moon, could you?

hi ,

:hmmm: , we are not supposed to make war on the moon , ......:D

we could have a spaceshuttle or ISS , the benefits could be higher research results or so , .....

have a nice day

[Centauri18]

You do need the opportunity for an actual, honest-to-goodness storyline in Civ4. I haven't played GalCiv, so I wouldn't know what that was like. And it would be good to have the story differ depending on alliances and such. I mean SMAC had the same story no matter who you played as. I mean, sure, the aliens can win in different ways, but that's to be expected. You need a flexible storyline for Civ4.

[Centauri18]

Oh, yeah, and the ISS would be very cool.

[Maquiladora]

Originally posted by Centauri18
Colonizing the moon! That would be so cool, I can't believe no one thought of that before.

The moon? That terrain would look even worse than the smac one does!

[VJ]

Lots of more customization, Social Engineering concept.

[Optimizer]

Maybe I should have added "Better opportunities to edit and customize" as an option.

No one wants multiplaying? I've never multiplayed a civ game, but I thought that it was a higher priority for many other civers.

[MrBaggins]

Real time games just make so much better MP candidates. When I do want to MP, I generally play an FPS... and sometimes a RTS. You can play without serious commitment, and the 'loss' of a player is not a significant event.

MP is just there to solve an inherent problem in TBS games; the AI. The majority of people who buy TBS' buy them to SP... A great number of those who do MP, would SP more, if the AI was more capable and flexible.

Editing and customization is the whole ballgame, with TBS' for me... YMMV

[wilbill]

Governments that have more of an impact on the development of civs leading to...
Civs that are more varied and inherently different from one another. Possibly Civ-specific wonders.
More detailed diplomacy.

[Panag]

hi ,

:hmmm: , the re-introduction of the civ II cheat , .....

way more simple to create certain scenario's , ....

have a nice day

[Optimizer]

I've read that there's something like a debug mode in PTW. Is that the same as a cheat mode?

[Shogun Gunner]

I voted AI...it's consistently identified as a critical element in the next release.

[Donegeal]

:ana:

[bigvic]

i hate real time strategy - why not just play some first person shooter? well, 2 each his own....

[Brundlefly]

Find a way to display women breasts in the game. And lots of them.

[DrSpike]

I have a feeling that might be somewhat down the agenda. :D

[alms66]

I voted for something else, which will never happen as long as Firaxis is conservative with the changes between titles, but here it goes...

I want to stop wasting all those tiles between cities, because let's face it, they really are being wasted. Sure, a city's population does some resource "mining" on the tiles, but only if the city is big enough to work that particular tile. Otherwise, what function do these tiles serve?

Some argue that you must pretend cities in the current games are really provinces due to scale issues. I say let's stop pretending and make it so. Let's switch to a province-based model, with the center tile as the capitol. Let's put population on every tile in the province, and stop wasting them. There are surprisingly few changes that need to be made to the game to make this happen, and it provides a much more satisfying gameplay.

[Swissy]

AI is for those who have no hope for high-speed internet connection. However good it is it will be overcome. Multiplayer is the most important aspect in the next generation of civ. So what if you can beat the game, try beating a number of excellent players who can trash the AI just as well as you can. It would be a far more rewarding playing experience.

[Bkeela]

I want a historical earth map with historical civ placements.

[LDiCesare]

AI is for those who have no hope for high-speed internet connection. However good it is it will be overcome. Multiplayer is the most important aspect in the next generation of civ.
No. It's also for those who want to play a game over several days without the constraints of having to play when X is online and Y is not ill. MP is totally unimportant for some players.

[Panzeh]

I think TBS games of this day and age need to ditch 'spaces' altogether and go to vector-based movement, ala Highway to the Reich (http://www.highwaytothereich.com/) .

Spaces were originally used to make board games manageable and easy to play. Well, this is fine and dandy, but we now have mr.computer to handle our movement easily.

I could go on about my ideas on real-time, but then people would moan 'clickfest'.

[Adagio]

One of my greatests wishes for Civ 4 is a government system like in SMAC. This also opens for the possibility to make a more interesting difference in the nations in the game compared to Civ 3...

Another wish I have is to keep it as a TBS game :)

[Adagio]

Originally posted by LDiCesare
No. It's also for those who want to play a game over several days without the constraints of having to play when X is online and Y is not ill. MP is totally unimportant for some players.

Agree... I've never played MP Civ 3... I once was about to start one but because I'm behind nat it would make it too much of a hassle to get started so I gave up... I didn't care much about it either so no big loss



I prefer to play MP games against people I know, which takes Civ out of the question since I don't know anybody who plays Civ games :(

[Shogun Gunner]

ADG, no Civ3 PBEM?

[Adagio]

Ah yeah, forgot about that... yep I've tried a few games... got beaten in every game though... :( :)

[Fredric Drum]

My greatest wish for Civ4 is: RESPECT MY BORDERS, YOU AI SCUM!

[Adagio]

We have to be realistic... that is never going to happen... AI's always prefer to go to war with their one pikeman who crossed the borders against my army of tanks, than to respect the borders :(

[Shogun Gunner]

Originally posted by Adagio
Ah yeah, forgot about that... yep I've tried a few games... got beaten in every game though... :( :)

I wish there was a way to enter notes while playing the game. That would help to leave a reminder to where I saw an enemy unit or to remind me of my strategy. Sometimes weeks go by between turns if you have player participation issues.

[Fredric Drum]

Originally posted by Adagio
We have to be realistic... that is never going to happen... AI's always prefer to go to war with their one pikeman who crossed the borders against my army of tanks, than to respect the borders :(


If that's true, it's bye bye to Civ for me. I've played Civ1, 2, 3 + CTP 1/2 and SMAC, but this simply isn't good enough. The Civ3 system is retarded. Period.

[Adagio]

Yes it's a very stupid system they have for that in Civ games (don't remember if that problem existed in Civ1 + 2), but IIRC the system in ctp 2 was even worse than in Civ3. When (in ctp 2) I asked the AI to remove it's unit(s) from my borders there were a 90% risk that the AI would decleare war because it didn't want to remove the unit(s) even though the AI had no chance of winning the war... in Civ 3 the risk of AI declearing war because of this is "much" smaller



Would be great if they could make them respect the borders though... it's annoying to have to tell the AI turn after turn to get their units back to their side of the borders :shame:

[Fredric Drum]

It also takes away a bit of the atmosphere, the feeling of 'owning' and controlling a nation. It's not fun when foreign soldiers use your land as a highway whenever they please.

[Colon™]

An (ever) improved AI and less micromanagement.

[biru biru]

The absence of caravans in CIV III was a dissapointment to me. I enjoyed the challenge of establishing trade routes, building large cities with food routes, and being able to race to complete wonders.

Bring back caravans! (the increased diplomacy options in civ III were great, but not worth trading for freight units). Maybe allow civs to have trade embargoes, or tariffs through diplomacy, but bring back the caravans!

Also, got t obe able to race on wonders.

CIV; best game ever

[Adagio]

One of my greatest wishes for Civ3 was to get rid of caravans :b:

[Shogun Gunner]

I just started playing CtP2 and found that the diplomacy options are much better than Civ3. You can ask nations to remove their troops, and raise the tone of the negotiations. It's pretty good and worthwhile for Firaxis to infuse some of those concepts into the cIV diplo model.

[Nikolai]

Originally posted by Adagio
One of my greatest wishes for Civ3 was to get rid of caravans :b:
Yeah, thank heaven for that!:zzz:

[biru biru]

Originally posted by Adagio
One of my greatest wishes for Civ3 was to get rid of caravans :b:

I've seen this opinion hinted at elsewhere! A conversation on the topic must have occured b/f.

I wonder why you don't like caravans. Certainly you must be able to rush wonders in CIV IV, and it makes sense that multiple of your cities should be able contribute to a great project. Caravans are a reasonable and historically sensible (think of the resources pouring into Egypt to complete the Pyramids) way to reallocate resources.

Perhaps you found the units cumbersome to use. There may be alternatives then to redistibuting food or establishing tade between civs. But still, caravans were one third of the unit classes in the originals, they are not much more difficult to use than military or diplomatic units, and their usefullness in the game made them a truly competitive choice rather than just pumping out armies. Real life cities and nations spend more resources building things to trade than things to blow things up.

:)

[Adagio]

They were just too boring/annoying

ctps model for this where slightly better...

[GeoModder]

Instead of using caravans to help hurry Wonders, the income of trade agreements could be diverted to Wonders as well instead of to citizens only, but perhaps with an added effect to make it more worthwhile using the profit on the Wonder then the citizens.

[GePap]

How do you "hurry wonders"? The only way to do so that in any way mimicks life if double the workload. Otherwise, it takes what it takes to build it- the caravan notion was a nice little game trick, but it makes it too easy sometimes.

NO, the civ 3 trade and resource system are much better concepts than caravans-thought the details can be imporved dramatically.

Given that there is only one choice possible, obviously the AI being better is best.

[DrSpike]

Don't really care whether it's realistic or not.

For me the rich trade system (in gameplay terms) in Civ2 has no counterpart in Civ3, and could exist in conjunction with what I'll call the resource trade system in Civ3. The only downsides are the fact that trade was too powerful in Civ2, and the AI couldn't handle the intricacies. Don't want to micromanage? Play something else. :D

A balance can be struck between the two approaches for Civ4, and I hope it is.

On wonder rushing balance, yeah insta wonders are too much. However, the Civ3 approach (only those lucky enough to get leaders can rush wonders) isn't ideal either.

[biru biru]

Originally posted by GePap
How do you "hurry wonders"? The only way to do so that in any way mimicks life if double the workload. Otherwise, it takes what it takes to build it- the caravan notion was a nice little game trick, but it makes it too easy sometimes.


The US-USSR race to the moon was a good example of two nations "rushing" to complete a wonder. Nations should be able to chanel resources to complete a great projects. The Manhattan Project is nice, but if WWII is over while you are waiting for it to be complete, it wasn't much fun in the game.

It takes a certain number of "shields" to build a wonder, but the time to accumulate those shields should depend on the skill of the player in some way.

One of my Civ pleasures is scraping that last temple, and finishing a road just in time to get that last caravan in in time to finish a wonder before a rival civ gets it.

Of course, once you know the caravan trick, it is possible to build a wonder sometimes very easily. Arguably too easy, granted. Still, I very rarely complete all of the wonders in a game of civII at diety lvl. The woder-race game is challenging and fun, and caravans are key to it, without alternative so far.

I still like the other functions of caravans too! Cities of 100 are not necessary, but they are cool! Also, protecting weak caravans with military escorts was interesting. Finally, using caravans when you're in a pinch for money, or science beakers, was always an option for the sophisticated player.

[XToDaZ]

A

[Gearyman]

I loved aspects of all 3 Civs, but I also voted no for a Civ4. Some day, yes...but it just seems too soon. Civ2 was the best because of its originality, interface, and simplicity of use. Civ3 did well, but a Civ4 needs to do something new, radical...over the top. If not done right, Civ4 may become a 'Call to Power' look-a-like, which would be a disaster.

[Sirotnikov]

empire building atmosphere
with movies
with gameplay changes mid-game (make the agricultural / scientifical revolution mean something!)
with fun lists and statistics
with more stuff to do than just conquer...

[Shogun Gunner]

Originally posted by Sirotnikov

with movies



:b: Want to agree quickly before you get responses from some that are down on this idea. I don't know why people think that putting wonder movies in the game will detract from the programming of the game. The impact is miminal to none to the programmer's time/effort.

[Odin]

1. A Social Engineering system, I want my Democratic Socialist paradise. :doitnow!:

2. Better Diplomacy system with more options, such as multilateral agreements. Get rid of the UN wonder, instead, when the modern age is reached players can use a system similar to the Orion Senate in MoO3, which represents the UNSC.

3. a more realistic economic and trade model

4. Scrap the cartoony talking leader heads, no leaderheads period. The diplomacy screen background should be a age-accurate diplomatic "round-table" or conference room, with the diplomatic options boxes look like pages of papyrus (ancient), parchment (medevial), or ornate paper. (industrial & modern)

5. I want a game that has an epic feal to it. Make it more epic than LotR, I want to FEEL like a ruler of an empire! Bring back the wonder movies and the talking, arguing, bickering, advisors (ELVIS!!!) :doitnow!:

[Toby Rowe]

The way and times I might wish to play an MP game will never suit my opponents- 1am, 2pm or 8pm. Online gaming is a way for companies to charge you for their own inadequacy- eg; They can't programme a decent AI after 20 years of trying, simply as they are too arrogant to ask the future customers what should happen. (If a sequel)

I used to buy at least 12 games a year, now I've brought 1 in half a year, lack of dosh dictates, but also corporate-produced games. Publishing houses have taken the human out of gaming, it's now a product only and ultimately in search of the dollar, the only market left will be 12-25 year olds. It shouldn't be so...does this make sense? (getting tired). (15 year olds all will eventually be 26, with kids, and want private time away from family once the nippers are fast asleep, but won't want "kick 'an' punch" type games aged 28+ etc)

Toby?

[Sandman]

Flexible city radii.

If I want to place a city by the coast to build ships, I shouldn't have to worry about losing squares. If I want to create a densely settled heartland, I shouldn't have to worry about overlap.

[Max Sinister]

I'd wish for a better AI, but the trade/economy system could be improved, too.

[GAZ082]

I want more complexity. Provinces, rebelions, much more diplo options, and of course, an intelligent AI who will take advantage of those multiple options.

[Toby Rowe]

Odin,

"Bring back the bickering advisors"

I loved that as well! It put a bit of humour into the game- occasionally I used to click on them to give me a laugh. Well done for mentioning that funny aspect of Civ 2!

Toby

Ps; Not being able to see all nations at once in the diplomacy screen when I first played Civ 3 made me uneasy regarding the quality of Civ 3.

This was confirmed once I understood the new trading system which demands the "around the table" you want as the trading screen is pretty useless to me at least.

[Brundlefly]

If there was such a thing as the "Miss Apolyton 2005" pageant, then the subject of this thread, "What is your greatest wish for Civ4?", would be one of the questions asked of the pageant contestants during the competition...

[Bkeela]

My greatest wish is that the game simply has a world map with historic start locations.

[Odin]

BTW, the reason I dislike leaderheads is that they make creating new civs a pain. Also, I was PO'ed that they picked many leaders in Civ4 on the basis on being politically correct (Joan of Arc, a BLACK Cleopatra ( :hmmm: ), etc. This is another reason I don't like leaderheads, I suck at putting in new ones when I disagree with the developers' leader choices.

[Sava]

1. More realistic passage of time combined with unit movement... think EU and HOI

2. Option for tactical combat like Rome: Total War

3. A FREAKING GLOBE MAP, NOT A CYLINDER

4. 1600x1200 screen resolution

5. 5.1 compatible audio

6. more leaders, heads of state even... think EU

[Toby Rowe]

Heh! Odin,

Us British working class are still blamed for the Colonial policies of the upper class that ruled the modern UK- Ireland? WTF did that have to do with me?- although the Irish side was binned by the English side in my family for taking part in the Dublin uprising- But they were ancestors of my family, and I wasn't responsible for rich upper class idiots that was the British government back then.

I can't believe that people actually think that moaning to me as a British person about the government in 1760/1916 or something has an effect on me and makes me bow my head with shame or something. They did what they did, but never in my name.

My government didn't even allow us "common" people a vote in Britain until WWI was finished in 1918, and it took New Zealand to lead the way, which the public knew about due to the war.

If I were to choose a British leader, King Arthur would suit me fine- mythical perhaps, but no historian can say he is mythical with conviction- the case now seems to be "prove he didn't exist", my Cornish side awaits the outcome, as another city claims the table as well, regardless of the French author....perhaps!!

Toby:)

[Alexander D]

multiple building queues (i.e. Master of Orion 1)

[Odin]

Originally posted by Toby Rowe

If I were to choose a British leader, King Arthur would suit me fine- mythical perhaps, but no historian can say he is mythical with conviction- the case now seems to be "prove he didn't exist", my Cornish side awaits the outcome, as another city claims the table as well, regardless of the French author....perhaps!!

Toby:)

Arthur was most likely a Celto-Roman millitary leader during the germanic invasions, fighting off the Saxons in the early 500s, he would be better as the leader of the Celts. The people there didn't become "English" untill the Angles, Saxons, and Vikings mixed in with the Romanized Celtic population (except in Wales and Cornwall ;) ).

[Toby Rowe]

What was I rambling about...

Ignoring issues we know are going to be fixed in Civ 4;

1) A diplomatic screen in which all leaders are visible.

2) A decent AI for the Navy.

3) Difficulty levels based upon challenging you, rather than making it easier for the AI by cheating. Simply making making the player pay more to discover each new tech might be the solution for this.

4) Fixed strategic resources, so that you can plan a war carefully, and/or defend your own carefully. Watching the AI fixated with trying to destroy, by bombardment, your Xth source of Saltpeter whilst you are building Modern Armour is daft, along with the fact that it might vanish next turn anyway.

5) I think all want a decent AI for diplomacy, and the Allied part is the weakest. Watching your single mutual defence partner ride upto one of your cities with 30 cavalry and then attack it is unforgivable. None of us would dream of doing such a thing.

6) A return to physically having to set up a trade route, it took planning time and effort, just like the merchants expended throughout history.

7) A return to being able to physically move a stack of 12 units (at least).

8) To counter the AI rushes, a chance to build a spy network in which you can place spies in each town in order to gain advance knowledge of them; if you are prepared to pay the placement and upkeep costs!

9) No return to partisans, they were the worst feature of Civ 2, whilst Civ 3 for pollution must hold the record for most ever irritating feature ever in a game!

10) A Public works system combined with the ability to build workers as well as a seperate unit, not least for working inside other nations territory if allied.

11) Border integrity: Move a military unit inside my border (using the cultural model, but without the culture aspect) and you've declared war on my nation- end of story. Hopefully a diplomatic model will cater for exploration and levels of Allied agreements, as exploring is fun, and it's a game, not an exam!

Toby ;-)

[Toby Rowe]

Hi Odin,

So out of interest, as an outsider looking in the UK (thus neutral!), which of the two nations would you say has the greatest claim on the chap, (real or not)?

With my limited knowlege of the dark ages I think the Romans never took Cornwall, and only parts of Wales?

Toby

Sorry mate, not reading closely: Romano-Celtic? That puts a wole new spin on it for me. I thought the Angles, Saxons and the other North German tribe never settled in either nation, just modern Southern England, whilst the Vikings took the North.

I do remember reading an OUP history book in the early '90's saying that it thought it unlikely that any native English peoples had survived beyond the Roman period, and if any did, only as slaves. (Just as well we tend to start our serious history lessons at school from 1066 onwards then!)

Still, Early British history might be useful when regarding modern nation states often made up from a patchwork quilt of peoples each with a strong seperate identity, Europe has it in abundance, whilst the US seems to a have avoided that problem completely?

Toby:)

[Odin]

Toby:

I think the Celts get Arthur.

The Celts had become "Romanized" to some extent at that time. The Angles took control of northern England, the Saxons took over southern England, but they never managed to get Wales and Cornwall. the Danes came later, and took control of northern Enlgand for a time, then the Normans came in 1066.

[Toby Rowe]

Hi mate,

I know Arthur is Celtic, I'm English, but my surname is Cornish. My queston is was he Welsh or Cornish in your opinion? As an outsider on it as they argue on the subject, not me in London!:)

I heard the book was written by a French man- from Normandy, who the Vikings were given simply in order that they stopped attacking what became modern France. 1066 was a result of that legacy.

I actually don't mind who might win the Welsh/Cornish arguement as I don't think the chap ever existed.

Whilst I dismiss it, I am aware that somone 800 years ago might also have dismissed Bede before them, had he been unable to write and record the world he knew.

Essentially, the Celtic tribes seemed to be far more advanced, with the Irish Scotti tribe giving Scotland her name once invaded for example, whilst the English tribes never seemed to do anything, except kill each other without actually changing anything.

If the King existed, he must be Celtic as England modern couldn't even produce a pork roast, but Welsh or Cornish? Which one as an outsider looking in?

(If you have no opinion on it, fine:)

As far as I know the Angles, Saxons and Jutes took over Southern England, and the Jutes were modern Dutch and gave us lot the English language in it's earliest form, I never heard of these tribes going North- the Danes were settled there and gave us Dane Law, and words like tithe, to and the. That is really stetching my knowledge to the limit.

Toby:)!

[Nikolai]

I think the Jutes came from what today is Denmark. Not sure though.

[Proteus_MST]

Originally posted by Nikolai
Didn't CTP2 have something like that?:confused: I didn't try the game, but I remember seeing a battle-screen of some kind in the screenies released on the Net.:)

Even the CtP-Combat isn´t really tactical,
as you aren´t able to choose which troops you want to put where (the Computer puts the units taking part in combat where he thinks they fit best, be it Bombard, Melee or Flanking)
But still the Combat system of Ctp is vastly superior to the Combat system in Civ 1-3 ;)

Therefore I voted for "Tactical Combat" as this is the thing which is most lacking in Civ 3 and some kind of Civ 3 with the Combat System of CtP2 would rock.

But to go more into detail here a ranking list of things I wish to be incorporated into Civ 4 (aside from things already present in Civ 3, like Resources as prerequisites to build certain units)

1. Tactical Combat (or at least a combat system which resembles the system used in CtP2)
2. Smart AI which doesn´t need to cheat and obeys treaties and not constantly trying to move into my borders (as long as I don´t allow it or we are at war)
3. A technology tree which reaches far into the future, in connection with this Moon and/or Underwater Colonies
4. A Public Works System like in CtP2 instead of having workers you have to send to certain tiles to improve the terrain there.
5. A System for Spionage as well as Counter Espionage, so that I am able to defend my precious High Tech from enemy spies stealing ist (as long as I invest enough in Counter Espionage)
6. Really big maps, where you are able to spread for the first millenia without having too much to worry about enemy players building cities everywhere on the continent (and maybe often don´t even encounter many enemy players during this time)

Edited: I really don´t know why I wrote strategic instead of tactical. Corrected.

[Toby Rowe]

Nickolai,

Jutland- very possible, just a BBC Radio 4 programme about 4 years ago on the origins of the language us lot talk in now said Holland, not Jutland, but I didn't listen closely, I listened better on part 46 or something, and they mentioned Freisland- to me at school this was the Polder area of Holland, made by the dykes, alas I'd missed the key to the entire series by then.

Toby

(When ever you wanna know something......):D

[Bkeela]

I wouldn't have a clue if this has been stated already, but trade has got to become more lucrative. In Civ 3, I felt continually ripped off in trade deals, even when I had a monopoly. Stupid.

[Aramis]

More tropical :ana: resources, maybe even mangoes.
And definately a more intimate feel--things to make me really engaged. Lately, between wars, I feel like some bored overseer sending workers off to clean up pollution here and there and over yonder turn after turn after turn.
Oh, yeah--replace pollution with some other system or remove it completely.:rant:

[Max Sinister]

Originally posted by Nikolai
I think the Jutes came from what today is Denmark. Not sure though.

I think that's right. Continental Denmark is called Jutland even today.

[Odin]

Toby, I am guessing Arthur was Cornish, as he was supposed to have controled that part of England, but I do not know much about the different celtic groups in the early dark ages so that is just an assumption.

[ozmono1914]

I want an improved combat system It seems as though that will already be implemented and I will be happy with more variety of units longer unit life span with chances to improve it's EXP or equipment such as little upgrades.
I want to controll living cities I hope that cities or groups of cities can be built in a variety of ways and with a variety of pros and cons giving them a feeling of being unique
DIPLOMACY + TRADE!!!
I want to be able to negoiate peace as a third party. I want Defense agreements just for an idvidual country. I want to be able to guarentee a countries safety. Practically I want EU, Victoria and other games from paradox plaza level of diplomatic options available on the diplomatic table of civ3 and also CTP options such as limiting pollution, no trespassing, no piracy. Piracy brings me to trade If they don't want to make the game more complex and increase micro managment then just use the Galatic civilization style of trade and I hope it has the same importance as it did in GC

Longer Ages and more techs within an age If the combat system I mentioned is provided and the living city concept, trade and diplomacy then longer ages would be natural then the player wouldn't be bogged down in micro management and would recieve greater gratification of creating something and guiding something

DON'T BETRAY YOUR FANS. LISTEN TO THE POST ON THIS SITE. NOBODY WANTS TINY IMPROVEMENTS WE WANT A REVOLUTIONARY EXPERIENCE!!!!!!!!!!!!!WE WANT VALUE1

[Toby Rowe]

Civ 3 made trade both harder and easlier to conduct- harder in the begining of the game, easier later on once roads/harbours were built.

The attitude programmed into the AI diplomatic model can earn you a fortune in the middle era, but once you hit the Industrial era and the "annoyed" and furious" attitudes of the AI take over, It becomes nearly pointless trading at all.

I did like the time and effort to send 3 caravans out from each city in Civ 2- other Island nations were most profitable, and the main reason I built warships early.

Perhaps building a caravan to begin trade to a nation, but once at war, the trade ceases, and the caravan can then travel to a new Capital city?

I suspect that in 3D the world will be rather smaller, and thus the nation sizes, so this isn't as daft as it may sound?

If Civ 4 allows 100+ citiy nations then the above is good, if less then 50, then even internal trade is good, and it's easy for the AI programming as well.



Odin,

Cheers mate- I doubt we'll ever know unless an Archeologist makes a stonking discovery in either nation.

Toby

[ozmono1914]

The impact of trade in CIV2 and CIV3 in regards to the power of your nations was almost irrelevant.

I agree with the caravans being reintroduced whilst maintaning the strategic and luxury resource trade seperate. But not only do I want it to stop when at war I want to keep trade embargos and increase the value of trade from caravans which is a substanable profit provided war and embargo's are not declared.

I also would like common market which would increase the profit of those countries trading within that market.
And most importantly a AI that would be able to make decisions to upset the top powers such as markets that increase the power of lesser powers

But common markets I can forget about so long as there is a general increase in the value of trade

[Toby Rowe]

Originally posted by ozmono1914
I want an improved combat system It seems as though that will already be implemented and I will be happy with more variety of units longer unit life span with chances to improve it's EXP or equipment such as little upgrades.
I want to controll living cities I hope that cities or groups of cities can be built in a variety of ways and with a variety of pros and cons giving them a feeling of being unique
DIPLOMACY + TRADE!!!
I want to be able to negoiate peace as a third party. I want Defense agreements just for an idvidual country. I want to be able to guarentee a countries safety. Practically I want EU, Victoria and other games from paradox plaza level of diplomatic options available on the diplomatic table of civ3 and also CTP options such as limiting pollution, no trespassing, no piracy. Piracy brings me to trade If they don't want to make the game more complex and increase micro managment then just use the Galatic civilization style of trade and I hope it has the same importance as it did in GC

Longer Ages and more techs within an age If the combat system I mentioned is provided and the living city concept, trade and diplomacy then longer ages would be natural then the player wouldn't be bogged down in micro management and would recieve greater gratification of creating something and guiding something

DON'T BETRAY YOUR FANS. LISTEN TO THE POST ON THIS SITE. NOBODY WANTS TINY IMPROVEMENTS WE WANT A REVOLUTIONARY EXPERIENCE!!!!!!!!!!!!!WE WANT VALUE1

Ozmono,

That is a stonking reply!! Well done, You've said more in fewer words than I could have.

If the producers of Civ 4 could talk to the developers of EU (Paradox) the world might really get a game that would "stand the test of time"

Toby

[Toby Rowe]

Ozmono,

What? a common market like the Commonwealth one used to be? Nar, the Commonwealth meant the Yanks didn't like that we all provided each other with what we needed within the Commonwealth, those pesky Germans started a war, and finally declared war on those pesty Americans Churchill so wanted, after we'd been fighting already for 3 years, but now those pesky Germans already owned all factories, mines and manpower in Europe, but really cos those pesky Japanese that liked the Germans and used to be allied to the British since they met them and but.......now we sell cheap grain we can't sell in Europe and America to Africa, keeps 'em alive, if the 50 cents subsidy was lifted they might even grow their own were it not for a famine and the subsidy- lazy bastards.

Trade is how you view it.

My piss-taking above is to mock how modern trade is compared to genuine trade even in 1900.

Toby

[TechWins]

DIVERSITY!!! DIVERSITY!!! DIVERSITY!!!


I want diverse governments, diverse gameplay methods, diverse military actions, diverse diplomacy, diverse AI, diverse units, diverse buildings, and more diversity.


The diversity of the game is what truly makes it great; there has clearly been lots of diversity in the Civ games up till now, which is what makes the game truly remarkable, and how much Civ4 can add onto that will determine just how good the game will be. Civ4 will be great; I'm not in question about that but how great will it be?

[ozmono1914]

Toby in relation to this game do you beleive that there should be a general increase in the importance of profits from trade?

[Toby Rowe]

Heh!:)

Just diversity in diplomacy would please me a lot.

Having a British Man'o' War as a unique unit in the Nuclear era whilst trying to build a Spaceship didn't seen like much of a bonus to me!!

Having "furious" Russians that once attacked me 200 years ago ,without reason, and remaining "Annoyed" as I simply refused to attack them back is stupid.

Diverse Diplomacy?

If the programmers of Civ 4 listen to anything, then even a logical "your pissiing me off mate", or a US "back off buddy" type of response would be most welcome in diplomacy if Civ 4 ignores diplomacy as well.

The human players need a serious response button to the irrationality Civ 3 has in diplomacy, I really pray Civ 4 diplomacy has a decent AI.:)

[TechWins]

I don't mean diversity as in UUs when concerning diverse units. I mean diversity when you think of using marines, artillery, tanks, infantry, air power, etc... all combined when attacking in the modern era. Make the units diverse and all of them actually worthwhile.

Diversity with regard to diplomacy I mean different alliances and different levels of peace and war than just peace - happy with each other, peace - unhappy, and war. There needs to be varying degrees of peace and war.


By diversity I didn't mean absurdity.

[Toby Rowe]

But that's what I mean as well!

At the moment I'm wondering if the programmers can even programme the concept of "Combined Arms" into Civ 4, let alone not be "furious" with failing to understand my lack of appreciation if.....

I'm furious!

I've vented my spleen and bored many to tears in so doing it.

But in 1992-ish to now? Civ 3 producers could only come up with more pollution, armies and cultural influence as idea's? After millions had brought the original game, is this the best they managed? "furious" and "annoyed" within your world as you tried to be peaceful, no chance.

I did get annoyed trying to be peaceful, as it was a "given" that it was impossible.

Toby:)

[TechWins]

Originally posted by Toby Rowe
But that's what I mean as well!

At the moment I'm wondering if the programmers can even programme the concept of "Combined Arms" into Civ 4, let alone not be "furious" with failing to understand my lack of appreciation if.....

I'm furious!

I've vented my spleen and bored many to tears in so doing it.

But in 1992-ish to now? Civ 3 producers could only come up with more pollution, armies and cultural influence as idea's? After millions had brought the original game, is this the best they managed? "furious" and "annoyed" within your world as you tried to be peaceful, no chance.

I did get annoyed trying to be peaceful, as it was a "given" that it was impossible.

Toby:)

I think they've done a little more than that lol, but I understand what you're saying. I never played the first Civ so all of my experience is based off of Civ2 and beyond. I'm not sure how legit or incredulous the story of Brian Renolds leaving the Civ3 project and the effects; if it is mostly true how damaging it was to the game, then I can understand how Civ3 didn't shape out to be better than what I thought it was going to be. At least this time around the Civ4 game isn't going to be based off of a game engine that was designed for P1/P2s. Hopefully that will allow for a lot more diversity (ah, there's that word) in Civ4.

I really like the idea of that AoM game (http://www.theagesofman.net/about.html) on Succession. "In AOM from early in ancient times until you discover modern Democracy, you must maintain a strong line of succession at all times. However, it is a balancing act. Your King will not live forever. If you have too many successors waiting for too long, history has shown that they may rebel and attempt to overthrow you and this is reflected in AOM." I'm hoping Civ4 takes on some revolutionary ideas, while sticking to the main theme of Civ. Maybe Religion will have a daunting effect on Civ4. They'll probably start releasing more info as E3 approaches. I think I remember Firaxis releasing a lot of info about Civ3 days before E3.

[Toby Rowe]

Hi mate,

Great as Sid Meiyer is, the original Civ still had the same irrationality in diplomacy, until you had nuclear weapons, when they suddenly became "polite", whilst before I think they were also at least "annoyed" from the industrial age onwards, again without any reason to be so.

The game you linked looks like it might be a real corker- but providing random events can be switched off, unlike EU, but like Sim City.

I want to build a nation, not have to put out random "fires" a programmer dreamt of, they tend to destroy, rather than enhance a good game.

In EU II they provided the "cheat" codes to simply turn them off, although it wasn't an option for a game, it was a step in the right direction.:)

Reynolds? Wasn't he the other chap who created the original Civ with Sid?

Whilst you see Succession as a strengh in AOM, I see it as a potential weakness- I remember buying Shogun I think it was called- I was having a rocking but defensive game and really enjoying every moment of it, I went to go to the next turn, and my Shogun died without a heir- that was it, end of game, I really was furious and never played it again!!

I'd invested so much time and energy in my little bit of Japan and then something so silly as a randomly generated heir failing to appear destroyed my two weeks of careful playing!

If the line of succession is problematic because there are too many heirs, that would also annoy me. Their example of Poland also seemed inaccurate to me- I thought it was a Swedish and Russian issue regarding the Polish Crown, due to the politics the Poles employed at the time?

If only 3 examples can be given to justify the idea in history just give us a heir, but keep historical events in the game at all cost, however annoyed the English Civil War in EUII makes me!!

Apart from that, the game looks good:)

Toby;)

[TechWins]

I agree the AI's moods are very predictable and simple; it's one of my main gripes, especially with Civ3.

That game link I got from someone who I thought mentioned it in one of these Civ4 threads. There should be a link about the game in the Community forum I believe it is. The game is basically a HUGE Mod of CtP2, almost making it a new game in and of itself.

The way you describe succession in Shogun sounds terrible to me, too, so if that's the way the AoM game has it implemented I don't think I would like it very much. A random heir being generated and leaving you with nothing but fate isn't very strategic or fun, IMO. It would be nice if you automatically got an heir to the thrown/presidency/leader based on the overall corruption level of your empire, capitol, or some determing meter. So if your capitol or empire is full of corruption expect a leader to follow that lead. Maybe some sort of randomness could be added to what type of leader you get but only to a small degree.

[DrSpike]

It's been a while so it is time for a rant on randomness in Civ.

Basically it shouldn't be there to any conspicuous degree. I do not mean the combat model should be deterministic, rather that you shouldn't have major events that can cripple your Civ no matter how well you prepare. I know people will argue that it's realistic for unforseen acts of god to affect you, and it's all about how you react, but to my mind these factors impact unfavourably on the overall strategic challenge that the game poses, and Civ4 will hopefully not have them, or have a toggle to turn them off. :)

[Toby Rowe]

Yep mate,

I've never seen random events to be productive, challenging or interesting, the longer you play a game, the more annoying they become for me.

They only seem to be put into serious games, whose type of customer is most likely to be annoyed by them in the first place.

I actually think it's a throwback to signing your work, whether an artist in painting or us builders writing in the plaster in the eaves of a building in older days.

Techwins,

Sad to hear that it's just a version of Civ 3- I'm currently trying to work out how to eliminate the population sizze pollution model in the editor, but really getting bored of it, as a different game, it did did sound OK, but using Civ 3, then of course not- what a pity.

Generally due to the arrogance of them- We are a captive market and companies know it.

Every new computer game since 2000 has the unwritten proviso that you must have an internet connection in order to download the patch the game needs later on, it's now getting to the point that some games are released before they are finished, once they determine sale levels they then decide whether or not to to provide a "patch".

"Railroad Pioneer" from JoWood is a good example of this, the game isn't finished, eats your memory and then crashes once your computer is devoid of it, which for my old one was quickly. My £35/$60 paid for two hours gaming, after which it refused to load again- ever.

Anyway, I've been musing over a game I've had about settlement in the US for a while, alongside another one about the Civil War in the US- dunno why but US history seems tailored to games of it!

So,
Any programmers that are interested in turning an idea I have into shareware or freeware please let me know! I have 3 programming tasks to test on the game to see if it might work, and of course you will own the work, and maybe the programme fullstop.

Toby:)

[Adagio]

Originally posted by Toby Rowe
Every new computer game since 2000 has the unwritten proviso that you must have an internet connection in order to download the patch the game needs later on, it's now getting to the point that some games are released before they are finished, once they determine sale levels they then decide whether or not to to provide a "patch".

That is one of the signs why the Internet is evil :(

Before the Internet connection was avaliable for everybody most games was actually finished before shipped out

[DrSpike]

And the bugs that remained (not always small) had precious little chance of ever being fixed.

Don't blame the internet - it is a tool for good. It's greedy and lazy companies that are to blame. :D

[Adagio]

Software companies are just not ready for a great invention like the Internet... yet :(

[TechWins]

Toby, it's actually Call to Power 2 since it allows for scripting. That's how, from what I've read and seen, almost a completely new game.


If you have any radical ideas on games that five year olds might like (Connect Four, Mazes) I could entertain/program your ideas. :cute:

[monolith94]

1. Make the graphics of the map easier on the eyes - civ 3's interface had more pixels, but I couldn't look at it for long before becoming annoyed. the simplistic elegance of civilization 2 made it easy and fun to play for 24-hour increments.

2. a cooler palace, or a cooler throne room. the palace from civ 1 is still better than both civ 2 and civ 3s goodies.

3. have stalin give me a great big smile when we sign a peace treaty.

4. little screams when I use nukes

[Toby Rowe]

TechWins,

Heh!

Unfortunately Tetris has the market for that age group, failing that Pacman! You simply can't beat 'em :-) Or can you? ;-)

I dunno all, I'm disapointed with how the PC market is heading- companies that patch unfinished games after initial sales will eventually make the consumer choose a console over a PC for gaming, unfortunately consoles aim for the teen market only I feel.

About 2-ish years ago a console game was released that actually had a bug and it made the evening news in the UK (I'm not kidding)

Until developers force the Graphics card industry (the cause of so many bugs) to set a common standard I feel they are ultimately contributing to their own demise.

Still, PC gamers, following that full circle, if it does happen, will once again start to produce Freeware and Shareware (the latter is better!), including the hackers that occupy themselves currently by trying to break the protection instead of making their own games. What a waste of potential talent.

People that choose a PC over a console generally do so because the console market doesn't generally supply the type of games they tend to buy, yet PC games like the Sims and Hidden and dangerous led the market in breaking new ground the consoles were then forced to release?

Toby :-(

[spartak]

I'd like it to be like SMAX but without bugs and with a better AI. At the very least it needs the same depth and extended gameplay.

[Panda]

I'd just like add another vote for customisation. Whatever in-game functions and bonuses the programmers have for the vanilla game, I want to be transparent in the game files and easy to change.

[Zoid]

What is my greatest wish? I´m thinking of something else... Namely I hope they make the game fun all the way through. Once the game hits modern age (or even before that, really) I´ve lost interest. There´s nothing to do but race towards the finish line, or race...it´s more like crawling excruciatingly slow ;) I must have started like a 100 games, but I´m not sure I´ve actually finished more than, say 5... Now it may be that I suffer from some mild form of ADD, but I don´t really think so. ;)

[Zoid]

Originally posted by spartak
I'd like it to be like SMAX but without bugs and with a better AI. At the very least it needs the same depth and extended gameplay.

:b: SMAC was never boring IIRC.

[Nikolai]

Well, while SMAC/X was a great game, one of the better civ style games really, it was not much to do after you got those flying mind worms than mopping up the map. If you didn't want to restrain yourself and go for trancedence that is.

[Zoid]

Trancendence :) :b:

[Nikolai]

Yeah, pointwise and storywise, it was the best victory condition.:)

[Zoetrope]

What I wish for Civilization 4 is :idea: Master of Magic 2: :doitnow!: MoM was the only member of the civilization series :p to have immersive combat.

About King Arthur: he wasn't Cornish in the sense of dwelling in Cornwall, he was Welsh (sorry, Cumbrian), that is British, in the sense of being a native of Britain. My understanding is that he lived near the East coast, at Camulodonum (near Cambridge rather than Oxford).

In case it hasn't occurred to anyone else yet, :naughty: Arthur is supposed to have reigned _before_ the Anglo-Saxons invaded, and the ancient Britons occupied the _whole_ of southern Britain before the AS arrived.

Also, the AS first landed on the EAST coast, so that's where the early battles occurred. Arthur wasn't fighting a rear-guard action, he was trying to prevent the AS from settling Britain at all.

It took the AS centuries to push the "Welsh" (ironically, the AS word for "foreigner") front to the mountains of Wales; for that matter, most of the population of West England are of Welsh descent even now, just as most of the modern people of East Scotland are Angles. (Hint: "Edinburgh" and "Stuart" are not Celtic names.)

The recent movie seemed to place Merlin, Marion and most of the action in Scotland! As mentioned, the Angles did settle up north, but would a south-eastern military leader like Arthur have travelled so far for a fight?

Incidentally, Arthur _preceded_ the Dark Age. He lived around AD 400, whereas the Dark Age began in AD 535, the first "year without the sun".

Indeed, the early medieval "Dark Age" wasn't dark for lack of learning: it was a heyday of Byzantium and Eastern Europe, and it has to be remembered that Paris ("the City of Lights") never fell to the barbarians but instead reunified most of the West before by the late 400's and held it together in some form of political association (centralised or federated) right into the 800's and beyond.

The times were Dark for a while in England, thanks to the English ;) and their relatives the Vikings :scared: but even they learnt the value of scholarship - from the "Welsh" and the Irish. Perhaps it would have been better for England and France had the Scandinavians not become so educated, for when they did they became the pompous Normans.

[Toby Rowe]

Great reply,

But where did the Scotti tribe of Ireland that gave the name of modern Scotland fit in after they invaded it?

The arguement in the UK was only whether he existed, and if he did, was he Welsh or Cornish? I assume that means his base was in one or 'tother as a starter, if it is in modern East Anglia, I'm shocked- what nation are you learning the history of the modern UK in?

The Oxford University History of Britain states that during the Roman era, the very last natives of Briton within modern England were destroyed, the Angles and Saxons thus gave us our name at a later date. (I always laugh at my countrymen cheering England at Football matches- whom do they insult when playing modern Germany, Denmark, Norway, France and Italy?)

A recent BBC series called "What did the Ancients do for us?" which followed other series but in different era's, has cast doubt on just how dark the dark ages really were to Europeans- I saw just one half of one programme. (Soil conditions in S.England rot most timber, but they found a 3-ton capacity boat from that era showing at least a healthy trade to the mainland along with "advanced" metal working for the day on another site, just as "Utzi"(?) has shaken up History in general.

Still, no firm evidence Arthur existed! I do wonder if it was a myth. One day Albion might let us know from her soil:) :b:

(A member of Parliament recently claimed Robin Hood was from Wakefield, and received death threats as as result from the other counties' inhabitants- how silly.)

Civ 4?

For the English I'd like King Henry VIII- what a history he has, and thanks to the Spanish who created the Royal Navy for him, (as an Island nation.) Elizabeth would have been nothing were it not for that.

Toby:)

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Toby Rowe


The Oxford University History of Britain states that during the Roman era, the very last natives of Briton within modern England were destroyed, the Angles and Saxons thus gave us our name at a later date.



I'd be suprised if they said that the last natives were destroyed, given that some of them managed to move to Wales- Anglo-Saxon 'wealas':

" The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle:


473 Her Hengest Æsc gefuhton wiþ Walas genamon unarimedlico herereaf, þa Walas flugon þa Englan swa þær fyr.

473 This year Hengist and Aesc fought the Welsh and siezed countless spoils of war. The Welsh fled the English as one flees fire. "

http://www.vortigernstudies.org.uk/arthist/vortigernquotesasc.htm

The Welsh refers to the Britons, not to the modern day inhabitants of Wales, whose Celtic name is the more familiar Cymri- as in Cumbria, which was Celtic too.

" The people of Rheged were of ancient Celtic stock and called themselves Cymbrogi or Cymri, meaning "brothers". This is the source of the words Cymri (Wales), Cumberland and modern Cumbria. "

http://www.rheged.com/templates/index.cfm?id=34

The Britons also emigrated further afield- to Brittany, and Celts also resettled in Iberia, bringing with them the Celtic Christian church.

[biru biru]

Doc Zoidberg, dig the icon. cheers mate!

[Toby Rowe]

Hi mate,

I know little of this era.

The book I drew my knowlege from says this:

"~We can only say that there seems to have been a British war-leader called Arthur, who was associated with the battle of Mons Badonicus and subsequent campaigns"......."the last man to unite the former Roman province before it collapsed finally into a patchwork of British and Anglo-Saxon states. So general is our ignorance of major political events that there seems little point in speculating further"~

"The hardest task is to estimate British survival in the regions which were firmly Anglo-Saxon by 600"~

"~More generally, the Romano-Britons simply suffered a common fate of shattered societies"~

Roman era:

"~Significantly, the English word 'Wealh' ('Welshman', i.e. Briton) came to mean "slave", making it hard to know whether the place name Walton means 'the Britons' settlement' or 'the slaves' settlement'. However numerous, they were subservient: little of their culture passed to the Anglo-Saxons, and almost none of their language"~

If not mistaken, in the top 100 most used words in English, only 4 are ascribed to the original language- but all are in the "top 10" I think 'the' is original, whilst 'to' is 'tu' from the Vikings?

"~What had happened to the native peoples? 6th-century Scotland was still mainly Pictish, though the settlements of the Irish (the future 'Scots') on the West coast had created a settled kingdom, Dalriada. Centuries later, a King of Dalriada was to initiate the formation of a united Scotland"~

"~The main British enclave was, of course, Wales."~


All extracts taken from "The Oxford Illustrated History of Britain", Edited by Dr Kenneth O. Morgan, 1986, Book Club Associates by arrangement with Oxford University Press.
All quotes from: Ch 2. The Anglo-Saxon Period by John Blair.



One of my Uncles researched our family tree back to about 1800, whilst we also have Scottish and Irish branches, we have no connection to Wales at all during this time- yet we are all, on the English side probably descended from her. Who said Offa's **** was to keep us English out!

Toby:) :)

[curtsibling]

Extra units and the provision to custom-make mods and scenarios from all eras.

In short, massive moddability!

:)

[foxfire4321]

My one true wish is that they finally do something with the oceans in the game. I liked that CTP/CTPII allowed you to colonize the water, heck the technology is present in the endgame of Civ by implication (colonists on the SMAC/AX mission already know how to colonize the water). The Civilization series has used water as a barrier and transport system only... I want my Sea Colonies (the reason I still play SMAC/AX, but not Civ3 so much).

[Adagio]

My wish is for them NOT to unclude sea colonies. That is one of the features I really hate in SMAC/X and ctp1/2

[Nikolai]

In SMAX, the Pirates was the best faction around.:b: I'm all for it in SMAC2, but in civ... It should be in an eventual future era if implemented.

[foxfire4321]

I defintely feel that Sea Colonies should be very late game developments, but I feel that some utilization of the oceans should be intergrated.

One thing that should also be integrated is the ability to play the game in a window. A lot of us have way higher resolution screens than this game will require and systems easily capable of dealing with the game and other things at the same time... please let us move the thing into a window (makes it easier to hide it from the other employees :))

[Nikolai]

A window mode would be great, but I doubt it'll happen...

[alms66]

Originally posted by foxfire4321
My one true wish is that they finally do something with the oceans in the game. I liked that CTP/CTPII allowed you to colonize the water, heck the technology is present in the endgame of Civ by implication (colonists on the SMAC/AX mission already know how to colonize the water). The Civilization series has used water as a barrier and transport system only... I want my Sea Colonies (the reason I still play SMAC/AX, but not Civ3 so much).

I certainly wouldn't want to see ocean cities like in CTP, but (assuming resource quantities) fishing in coastal waters & oil rigs could be used in the ocean. Even without quantities on resources, rigs could allow access to oil in the seas, as a sort of "colony" on the resource.

[DrSpike]

Edit: to Nikolai.

Alt-tab is your friend. :)

[Nikolai]

Oh, I know.:) But a windowed mode would be great, if not a top priority. That's one thing Civ2 does better than Civ3.(and now I can expect a little flame war on Civ3, or what?:cute: )

[Adagio]

Nikolai, you've got it all wrong... not having windowed mode was one of the things Civ3 did better than Civ2 :p

[Nikolai]

Your opinion.;) I think the interface of Civ3 was horrible.:p

[Adagio]

I agree that the interface of Civ3 was horrible, but it was still better than Civ2 ;)

[Nikolai]

Then we can agree to disagree.;)

[foxfire4321]

A Windowed mode would take care of the artifacts you get when you "Alt-Tab" during a game. This results from the fact that most games run nowhere near the resolution of my monitor and therefore they shift the resolution while they are running.

[Max Sinister]

I didn't play that much CTP, but why are sea colonies that bad?

[Adagio]

They're just boring and in the end kinda eliminates the "point of water" meaning that you can have cities everywhere on the planet
I don't like to have cities all over the place, that's just ugly and gives you too many cities to take care of and too many cities that needs to be conquered
If you want to play a map where water doesn't make much difference in the game just play a map where there's little water at all

[Toby Rowe]

Underwater cities?

One of the most daft idea's ever: Civ is meant to represent the real world, not a sci-fi one.

I laughed when I saw that; Want an underworld?- buy Sci-fi.

Toby

[TechWins]

Originally posted by Adagio
My wish is for them NOT to unclude sea colonies.

[TechWins]

Originally posted by Nikolai
A window mode would be great, but I doubt it'll happen...

I don't think it would even be feasible with a 3D engine. Fullscreen mode allows for faster rendering and with a 3D engine a windowed mode would probably be far too slow. In light of Civ3, the last thing Civ4 needs to be is any slower.




EDIT: Although I do prefer windowed mode when practical.

[Shogun Gunner]

I want to see my civ in the greatest detail possible....that will mean full screen. I never ran Civ2 in a windowed mode. If I really need to get to some other information, I'll ALT-TAB... better yet, fire up the laptop for those other tasks.

[biru biru]

Looks like there is a lot of information about civ 4 coming out. Wishes to be fullfilled? If they were fishes, there's a trout or two worth fryin up maybe...

[Proteus_MST]

Originally posted by Toby Rowe
Underwater cities?

One of the most daft idea's ever: Civ is meant to represent the real world, not a sci-fi one.

I laughed when I saw that; Want an underworld?- buy Sci-fi.

Toby

Something which shouldn´t be a problem if you had a switch called "SciFi-Mode"
This way people like you could swicht it off and play the standard game which ends within the very near future,
whereas people like myself could switch it on and play a game which also includes the far future, just like CtP1 and 2 did.

As there are enough players of both styles of play, the people who prefer a history extending into the future as well as people wishing to end their game with todays technologies, this would be a great way to keep all of them satisfied ;)

[KyuuA4]

I - for one enjoy - water. I play on both Civ 2 and 3 Archipelago maps with 70% water on the Largest map possible. That means clusters of continents seperated by a lot of water.

By the way, I hope Naval warfare is handled by the AI a little better. It pleases me to know that Civ 4 will not allow the AI to know where everything on the map is.

It was darned annoying sending out a privateer; and suddenly, all these enemy ships home in on it.

[Paddy]

that it works....

[Shogun Gunner]

probably the best wish that can be made for Civ4. Simple, but yet, so important. :)

[DrSpike]

Given that the thread is the greatest wish I think Paddy is aiming rather low. :D

[Shogun Gunner]

I think he is very pragmatic.

[Krill]

I really hope that the shared victory works.

Or that you can turn it off.

[Toby Rowe]

Without water, the game would make a mokery of a Navy- Civ 3 abused all rules, not just naval, now we know Civ 4 is on the way we can relax , and forget how bad Civ 3 is in this area.

Like I said: This game goes straight from Civ2 to 4 as 3 is so bad (except for the army idea- your worst nightmare if the army isn't yours. If the AI nations are Mongol, Russian or Roman, but what a diversion from nation building!!)- and I think most fans want that most.

The army idea is good- you'll win, but who wins if the army is an AI one?

I'd like logical reasoning by the developers- they merely have to view history to view if it happened (not Alexander!)

Toby:)

[Toby Rowe]

Proteus,

I made very clear my opposition to the Sci-fi model, as you should realise- you quoted me.

This game is about changing history, not distorting it- unlike the film U577 (?) etc,etc. (whatever the number of the boat)

Perhaps this is a problem, our 6 year war against a leader that could produce 4 times more, and even produce Dutch, Danish, Czech , French and Belguim soldiers (et al) whilst we fought for freedom, alone.

Current Britons? I blame nobody from any nation for being pissed off with us either, were it not for the 3 billion subsidy France has whilst they demand the 4 billion for the farmers they already have, now the Central European Nations have joined, France must understand that 50% of the budget is spent on her! It must stop.

She is now a parasite within Europe and it is time Europe stood upto her vision of Europe which is based in 1950 upon her. I appaude the French for standing up for workers rights, but it just too late.....

India is now getting most jobs, manufacturing is gone to China and India, Europe has had it's day, as has the US- What angers me most is ALL our Governments encourage it- based upon the US free-trade model us Britiish invented.

This model will bite us one day, and begining to wonder about the French model-- Protectionism isn't so bad after all.

Africa can get a free market on agriculture, damn! I've gone full circle, but a dream of a Europe not consisting of 4.1 billion subsidies to French farmers would be good, although setting up as a Czech farmer wouldn't help, so I won't bother....

[Tommar]

Originally posted by Swissy
AI is for those who have no hope for high-speed internet connection. However good it is it will be overcome. Multiplayer is the most important aspect in the next generation of civ. So what if you can beat the game, try beating a number of excellent players who can trash the AI just as well as you can. It would be a far more rewarding playing experience.

Nah, Civ can't compete with MMORPG's, a basic shooter, or even a simple chess game, if PvP floats your boat.

I play turn-based strategy games for relaxation, or when I need to go afk a lot. It's the extreme patience of a computer opponent that I play turn-based games for, and a good AI would make things more interesting.

[Tommar]

My greatest wish for Civ 4 is that it be SMAC2.

[Nikolai]

Originally posted by Tommar
My greatest wish for Civ 4 is that it be SMAC2.

You will be disappointed.;) This is Civ, not SMAC. Two similar, but different games.:)

[DrSpike]

I'd like to see both. :D

[Nikolai]

That I can agree on!:D I'd love to see SMAC2 after cIV's release.;)

[Tommar]

Originally posted by Nikolai


You will be disappointed.;) This is Civ, not SMAC. Two similar, but different games.:)

Not really. SMAC did a much better job of being an improved version of Civ 2 than Civ 3 did. The alien planet, new tech stuff is superficial. It's unfortunate that it didn't have the Civ name, because it's a lot more like an upgraded Civ 2 than Civ 3 was. Civ 3 was a step down from SMAC.

But yeah, you're right, Civ 3 was an entirely different game than Civ 2 or SMAC. It pretty much sucked. Does that make it more "Civ" than Civ 2 or SMAC?

I dunno. I do know that if Civ 4 is along the lines of Civ 3 (instead of Civ 2 and SMAC), I won't buy it.

[Nikolai]

Civ is civ, SMAC is civ in space in the future. A historical based game is not the same as a sci-fi game. Don't misunderstand me, I liked SMAC very much, it was a fantastic game. But it's not civ. Lots of the ideas from SMAC can, and will, be used in a form or another, but as I see it, cIV can't be = SMAC2. I want a separate game for that anyway.;)

[Tommar]

Originally posted by Nikolai
Civ is civ, SMAC is civ in space in the future. A historical based game is not the same as a sci-fi game. Don't misunderstand me, I liked SMAC very much, it was a fantastic game. But it's not civ.

I understand. I just think that the time period difference is superficial compared to game play and user interface.

[Adagio]

If modding is as good as they say it is, can't you just make a SMAC mod yourself? :)

[GeoModder]

Plans exist to mod it into SMAC, but without as much as possible of the known bugs. ;)

[Imran Siddiqui]

I picked atmosphere. Make the game world seem alive. The AI can never satisfy everyone, but I know they'll try. However with Civ3 they junked the atmosphere. This time it seems they are bringing it back (wonder movies, orcestral music, etc). I love to be drawn into the world. It makes it more addictive for me.

Now to have voice actors read quotes for all the tech advances, like they had in SMAC. That would really make me have to change my pants :D.

[GeoModder]

Multiple times? :cute:

[Jaybe]

What I would really like for Christmas ... I ain't gonna get:
1. A civilization SIMULATION, more of a role-playing realistic game with ups and downs and less control by the player. Plagues, famines, [edit: recessions, depressions,] occasional steps BACKWARDS after some steps forwards.

2. A game where the battles aren't concentrated on the city tile, wars of maneuver, where there might even be front lines in the late game. Front lines even by the AI! -- who knows, this might be possible in CIV.

[Tommar]

Originally posted by Adagio
If modding is as good as they say it is, can't you just make a SMAC mod yourself? :)

Well, if they do it right, I wouldn't need to ;)

Just to clarify, some things I like about SMAC that Civ3 doesn't seem to have (admittedly, I didn't play Civ3 much at all, since it was so disappointing after SMAC):

A good story.

Social Engineering, which allows a bit more fine-tuning than type of government.

Design Workshop. Not only do I miss my Deathsphere's, I hate having to do up-grades one by one. Then having to restore their orders, again, one by one. (For those who haven't played SMAC, the Design Workshop allows you design units using chassis types you've learned, attack power, defense power, hit points, plus other miscellaneous abilities (SAM, drop pods, anti-aircraft, etc. in any way you see fit. Load 'em all up, it will cost you a lot to build. Strip 'em down, lean mean fighting machine, or good cannon fodder, for a cheap build cost.)

The ability to remove spear chuckers from your build list when you can make mech infantry.

All options that a unit can do available from a menu, rather than having to read a 100 page plus manual to find out a unit can be commanded to explore, even though there's no icon for it.

Without caravans/crawlers, no means for an NYC to exist or to rush a project Manhatten style when in need. Can't even rush projects with cash in Civ3. Perhaps disbanding obsolete units could substitute, but with Design Workshop, there would be no obsolete units. Haven't tried disbanding to feed Wonders, although it's a great way of getting rid of obsolete units (grr, would rather up-grade them via Design Workshop) to rush other items under construction.

The ability to remove obsolete units from the build list.

The ability to modify terrain. Flatten mountains, or raise land over sea.

Automating formers/workers with some specifity without having to read the 100+page manual (AC could do better in this regard, too, at least with a "Plant Forests" option).

After automating/holding/fortifying, the ability to cancel orders globally. I want all 'copters to stop what they're doing and report for duty when needed. Rather than have to go hunt them down, one by one, even if it is via a garrison list.

Not being heavily dependent upon luck (random factors) to get the resources you need.

Not being penalized heavily if the resources you need are not near by. (To heck with diplomacy and the severe corruption hit for large empires!)

A "Go To" list that can be re-ordered by name, distance, etc. Unlike Civ 3, which idiotically only gives you a graphical means to find the destination (OK, so it saves me having to hold the mouse button down while I try to find the destination. Whoopee.)

Building queues. Yeah, I've seen the spot in Civ3 for queued items, but haven't figured out how to use them. Guess I need to read that 100+ page manual.

There's more, but hopefully you get my drift. Being able to make pink terrain isn't what distinguishes SMAC from Civ3.

If all of the above is available in Civ4, I'd be happy, no need to mod SMAC.

[Adagio]

SE is in the game, so no need to worry :b:

About the Unit Workshop I just hope it's not in, so far we have seen no reason to believe it's in :b:

The rest is of little or no interest for me

[Fistandantilus]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
I picked atmosphere. Make the game world seem alive. The AI can never satisfy everyone, but I know they'll try. However with Civ3 they junked the atmosphere. This time it seems they are bringing it back (wonder movies, orcestral music, etc). I love to be drawn into the world. It makes it more addictive for me.

Now to have voice actors read quotes for all the tech advances, like they had in SMAC. That would really make me have to change my pants :D.

Spot on.

"I plan to live forever, of course, but barring that I'd settle for a couple thousand years. Even five hundred would be pretty nice." or "We must... dissent" and tons of quotes from sun tsu or made by the genius who actually wrote the storyline that made playing SMAC an immersive and unique experience. Priceless.

Civs have to be made more unique, factions in smac were a perfect example of that. They had *personality*. Why not put in the civilopedia a small quote from a leader for every advance like in smac? It's really a little thing but it adds to the atmosphere.... And there are too many UU that are next to useless.

Wonders *have* to be epic. Civ3 went the wrong way imo, they were much harder to build (no rush, no multiple construction in different cities, etc) which is good but then they toned down the effect too much. And they came without cutscenes.

"So you built the Shakespeare's Theatre? Ok, you made some peaple happy, here is a static pic of it. Go ahead and keep playing."

If I spent 40 years and lot of effort to build that wonder I expect something more... gratification to the player, even in the form of eye candy is welcome.

I know they all are minor things that doesn't add anything to the actual gameplay, but the things that separate a good game from an epic one are these little details. And I find civ3 really lacking in this part. It's a bit.. cold.

[DrSpike]

Atmosphere comes with involving gameplay. Involving gameplay can only last with good game balance and design, as well as a challenge to focus on. Good AI is a component of the latter, though is neither a necessary nor sufficient condition.

[Kaak]

definately not real time...there are too many rts games out there already, and that is not what civ is about.

[hexagonian]

Originally posted by Jaybe
What I would really like for Christmas ... I ain't gonna get:
1. A civilization SIMULATION, more of a role-playing realistic game with ups and downs and less control by the player. Plagues, famines, [edit: recessions, depressions,] occasional steps BACKWARDS after some steps forwards.
2. A game where the battles aren't concentrated on the city tile, wars of maneuver, where there might even be front lines in the late game. Front lines even by the AI! -- who knows, this might be possible in CIV.
You really need to take an honest and objective look at the CTP2 AOM project then...because it has exactly what you are asking for.

[Adagio]

Originally posted by Kaak
definately not real time...there are too many rts games out there already, and that is not what civ is about.

It's a scary thought that at the very beginning Civ1 was supposed to be real time :scared:

[Tommar]

Originally posted by Adagio
SE is in the game, so no need to worry :b:

About the Unit Workshop I just hope it's not in, so far we have seen no reason to believe it's in :b:

The rest is of little or no interest for me

But do you still think you can mod SMAC out of Civ4? At least the elements that us SMAC fanboys and gals seem to like (which has nothing to do with pink terrain or out-landish tech. )

BTW, why don't you like the Design Workshop? I've heard someone else say the same, (or maybe it was just you in another post) but with no explanation why, so I'm curious.

[Addled Platypus]

Originally posted by Jaybe
What I would really like for Christmas ... I ain't gonna get:
1. A civilization SIMULATION, more of a role-playing realistic game with ups and downs and less control by the player. Plagues, famines, [edit: recessions, depressions,] occasional steps BACKWARDS after some steps forwards.

Killer thought

2. A game where the battles aren't concentrated on the city tile, wars of maneuver, where there might even be front lines in the late game. Front lines even by the AI! -- who knows, this might be possible in CIV.
You never did this?

I have sent a stack off in one dirrection, the AI bought it
and sent the SOD in for put'n the major hurt on

[Adagio]

Originally posted by Tommar
But do you still think you can mod SMAC out of Civ4? At least the elements that us SMAC fanboys and gals seem to like (which has nothing to do with pink terrain or out-landish tech. )


If the modding possibilities is as good as they say it is it *might* be possible to make the workshop, but it wont be easy since you have to change the way units "works". I'm pretty sceptical about this though, so I don't believe this can be done, but maybe I'll be suprised when the game is released and we can finally see what can be done and what can't be done

Originally posted by Tommar
BTW, why don't you like the Design Workshop? I've heard someone else say the same, (or maybe it was just you in another post) but with no explanation why, so I'm curious.

One of the reasons why I don't like it is because it makes the game too complex without any real advantages. (I have to admit I haven't played many games of SMAC, so if I had gotten into the game earlier I might have liked it now). In Civ games I prefer to have a set of units to be used instead of a set of Lego toys so I can assemble my own unit. In the end it'll probably just end up with same units for each game and then you could ask why didn't Firaxis just make these units the standard units in the game?
Or at least that's how I see it, but of course (as mentioned) I could have a different oppinion on this if I actually had played a descent amount of games

There's also another reason why I hate it, but a few months ago I was told a way to avoid that "problem" so I'm not going to mention that. I haven't tested it yet though so I can't be sure it actually works



/me wonders if the above actually makes any sense :hmmm:

[Jaybe]

You never did this?

I have sent a stack off in one dirrection, the AI bought it
and sent the SOD in for put'n the major hurt on
Sure I have. And I have had solid front lines in AI territory where there were high-density road networks near a city of theirs, but it was a contrivance on my part and the AI did not want to play.

And yes, there have been the occasional war of maneuver, especially the AI SOD (of either cavalry or mechanized infantry) who invades and I surround, redline, and destroy them.

But of course, most of the time -- particularly after the AI has expended their offensive forces in a spectacular (and foolish) show of force -- the AI holes up in their cities.

JB
Considering hexagonian's offer of playing CtP2-Age of Man to tide me over until cIV arrives.

[Protra3211]

I hope diplomacy is well be well thought out as this is the cornerstone of playing civilization,
I feel it can make or break the game as you want to feel you are dealing with a real person and not just a program.For example SMACK AI personalities worked well in diplomatic exchanges it was the best feature of the game. It can be done.
But if not it can be moded just look at games like CTP2 which had almost no diplomacy smarts at all has been updated and at least shows signs of life. Thanks to Dale Kent!

[hexagonian]

Originally posted by Jaybe
Considering hexagonian's offer of playing CtP2-Age of Man to tide me over until cIV arrives.
civ4 isn't going to be out for a few months anyhow.

IMO, you have nothing to lose (except possibly some time invested in a download and a playthrough) and everything to gain - and it is a way to pass the time until then.

The key is to put aside any past biases and to approach AOM with an objective mindset.

As a somewhat biased (in the past...) CTP2 player, I will say that civ4 looks to be very promising, and it will be on my must-play list.

(I'll say this too - I have been playing a (modified) C3C lately and have enjoyed it.)

[Dale]

Originally posted by Protra3211
I hope diplomacy is well be well thought out as this is the cornerstone of playing civilization,
I feel it can make or break the game as you want to feel you are dealing with a real person and not just a program.For example SMACK AI personalities worked well in diplomatic exchanges it was the best feature of the game. It can be done.
But if not it can be moded just look at games like CTP2 which had almost no diplomacy smarts at all has been updated and at least shows signs of life. Thanks to Dale Kent!

You're welcome, and rest assured I will be looking at modding Civ4 where-ever I think it needs it. :)

Dale


BTW HEX!

Empty your PM box. :doitnow!:

[hexagonian]

Box is emptied...

or email me my normal address.

[Tommar]

Originally posted by Adagio


If the modding possibilities is as good as they say it is it *might* be possible to make the workshop, but it wont be easy since you have to change the way units "works". I'm pretty sceptical about this though, so I don't believe this can be done, but maybe I'll be suprised when the game is released and we can finally see what can be done and what can't be done



One of the reasons why I don't like it is because it makes the game too complex without any real advantages. (I have to admit I haven't played many games of SMAC, so if I had gotten into the game earlier I might have liked it now). In Civ games I prefer to have a set of units to be used instead of a set of Lego toys so I can assemble my own unit. In the end it'll probably just end up with same units for each game and then you could ask why didn't Firaxis just make these units the standard units in the game?
Or at least that's how I see it, but of course (as mentioned) I could have a different oppinion on this if I actually had played a descent amount of games

There's also another reason why I hate it, but a few months ago I was told a way to avoid that "problem" so I'm not going to mention that. I haven't tested it yet though so I can't be sure it actually works



* Adagio wonders if the above actually makes any sense :hmmm:

Yes, that makes sense, thanks for explaining.

Yes, the Workshop allows you to make some very uber units (like Deathspheres), and hence make you wonder why they don't appear by default. But they cost a lot a build. Tone them down a bit, via the Workshop, and they become much more cost effective to build, but yet still quite powerful.

The Workshop does make things more complex, but more interesting. You are given the choice to make very powerful units at high cost, or weaker units, at lower cost. Most times, building the weaker units makes more sense, so it's not always clear which is "better".

I also like the Workshop for being able to eliminate obsolete units from the build list or to make upgrades globally. Clicking the same thing over and over again is not fun, it's tedious.

This is a major factor that game devs need to learn, and the fact that the Design Workshop helps to eliminate "clicking the same thing over and over again" is it's greatest appeal to me, and is much more important than the ability to create custom units.

Though making a flying tractor, so heavily armored that it brings most units down that try to attack it, is fun. It's not cost-effective. But it's fun ;)

Very cost-effective is adding drop pods to colony units.

[Adagio]

I also like the Workshop for being able to eliminate obsolete units from the build list or to make upgrades globally. Clicking the same thing over and over again is not fun, it's tedious.

I agree that upgrading one unit at a time can be annoying, but even Civ3 has a way to upgrade all of one type of unit with two clicks so I can't see how this makes the Workshop special?

You are given the choice to make very powerful units at high cost, or weaker units, at lower cost. Most times, building the weaker units makes more sense, so it's not always clear which is "better".

This could be done just as well if the game shipped with 2-3 different types for each unit: 1 powerfull but expensive, 1 standard but a bit cheaper and 1 less powerful but the cheapest
That way you still get the options without the annoying micromanagement with the workshop

[GeoModder]

You could always rely on the game to 'prototype' you a bunch of units and only use those. :cute:
Less micromanagement, but your base build list will lengthen considerably after a few significant weapon/armour breakthroughs.

Serious, the workshop represents the flexibility of a technologically advanced society in which they can prototype and construct units at necessity. It's a marvellous addition to the game IMO, and I gladly take the micromanagement drawback with it, for with a bit of experience I know quite well when and how to remove obselete units in no time.

[Adagio]

Originally posted by GeoModder
You could always rely on the game to 'prototype' you a bunch of units and only use those. :cute:
Less micromanagement, but your base build list will lengthen considerably after a few significant weapon/armour breakthroughs.


That was my second problem with the game. Until recently I didn't know about an option to turn this off, so I got very annoyed by the HUGE list of units it created and I found no quick way to get rid of the 90% of the units on the list that I was never going to use

[GeoModder]

Yes, but since you <i>do</i> know now how to remove them relatively easy, has your opinion on the feature (workshop) changed?

[Adagio]

Can't say since I haven't played a game since I was told about it

[Yarco_TW]

To be honest, there are five of them. So it was hard to vote (chose "Other"). List from most to least important.

1) Better barbarians (it looks like it is implemented). Civ III barbarians are so much more pathetic then in Civ II, that I like Civ II more because of them. They can capture cities, arrive from seas, have reasonable AI, and after capturing city # 1 go for city # 2 (and do not disappear, shame on Civ III barbarians)

2) Better corruption. With inventions, such as horseback riding, printing, mail and post office, telegraph, internet, mass education, etc. distance-based corruption MUST decrease. And it should also depend on culture per head (this makes culture buildings necessary, you know). If population grows, and you do not improve your culture, you should get more corruption. (Or maintenance, do not care about names).

3) Better trade - yes!!! Greek, Phoenician, Dutch and British trading empires !!!. Sea trade routes! Land trade routes! Land trade should be also costly before railroad, but still possible. Trade routes (not roads) should provide for much of your taxes. And wars should hamper trade.

4) Better end-gaming (so that it would not take so long). And better AI for end-game wars. In CivIII I can remove soldiers from island city, it will be bombed, but there will never be a paradrop or landing of enemy for 10 turns or so. Never happened in Civ II.

5) Civil wars (see civil wars thread).

[Yarco_TW]

Originally posted by biru biru
The absence of caravans in CIV III was a dissapointment to me. I enjoyed the challenge of establishing trade routes, building large cities with food routes, and being able to race to complete wonders.

Bring back caravans! (the increased diplomacy options in civ III were great, but not worth trading for freight units). Maybe allow civs to have trade embargoes, or tariffs through diplomacy, but bring back the caravans!

Also, got t obe able to race on wonders.

CIV; best game ever

I also liked caravans
1) Food routes 2) Trade routes 3) Cash 4) Transfer shields for great wonders 5) There ain't any other decent trade trade in Civ3.

Caravans had only one disadvantage - variable size of one food caravan always equalled 1/2 of granary volume, which allowed to have cities with minus 20 food shortage living well, and providing a lot of cash from increasing numbers of taxmen. Food size should be fixed.

I think, trade routes should be re-allowed (might be without caravan units).

1) To shift shields and food from town to town. Such routes will allow to maintain mining camps, and not to build factories in the steppe.

2) To generate more trade by taxing trade routes, not road squares. Then you need only ONE road between two cities for wholesale trade, remaining roads are either for retail trade (should give you less taxes then wholesale) or for security reason.

3) To enhance the visibility of sea trade !!! To allow great trading empires of Greeks, Phoenicians, Dutch and British

4) To build wonders. That AI did not use it in Civ 2 is not an excuse. Caravans provide real collective approach to Great Wonders. Imagine Civ3 Pyramids being built by people of Giza only !!! And Pharaoh paying very little attention to the project!!!

5) To have embargoes, loss in taxes due to war, privateering, and trading diplomacy. And to have increased profits from international trade.

Without all of this Civ 3 is Warmonger oriented. In Civ2 when I had nothing to build, I built caravans. In Civ3 I build units. Even if I do not need them. Also, trading Uranium brought

In my opinion there should be many more trade non-strategic resources in Civ3. And you should be able to trade them within your empire and abroad. You should build roads, and sea trade vessels which cost few shields (20 or 30) and actually allow to "create a route", which after that exists untill broken. Trade route should create profit. And taxes. And under such sircumstances game would be resource driven. You would research dye production, and attempt at capturing the supplies of dyes. Not for happiness (poor concept), but for tax. And you would trade jade, glass, wine, everything.

Route has its cost (especially on land) and revenue. The difference is taxable profit. I really want 50, or even 100 of routes. Maybe even created by "private business", but I will have to get access to resources, which allow me to build up my trade.

And I want some differentiation of factories after Industrialisation (like textiles, iron and steel, electronics, etc.), so that I can trade in computers and in softwares.

And I want people to work on factories and in service sectors. If there are factories, people should stop working the bloody tiles.

Sincerely,
Yaroslav

[Tommar]

I agree that upgrading one unit at a time can be annoying, but even Civ3 has a way to upgrade all of one type of unit with two clicks so I can't see how this makes the Workshop special?

Cool! how? I'm trying to play Civ3 again, but am finding it's limitations very frustrating.




This could be done just as well if the game shipped with 2-3 different types for each unit: 1 powerfull but expensive, 1 standard but a bit cheaper and 1 less powerful but the cheapest
That way you still get the options without the annoying micromanagement with the workshop

True, but I also find a lengthy build list annoying - having to scroll through a bunch of junk to find the unit I want to build.

And it doesn't allow you to make some esoteric, but interesting units. Like the colony drop pods I mentioned. Or adding the ability to see far to crawlers, or add armor to them (turning them into sentrys rather than just ferrying resources). Making formers (workers) using a flying unit chassis and heavily armored. Putting probe cababilities into a marine unit. Making probe units with drop capability, etc.

If the game provided all those options by default, without allowing you to delete them from the build list, it would be annoying. The key is to have both the ability to create custom units AND the ability to limit the amount of junk you have to scroll through to find what you want.

[Alexander D]

Do we still have multiple queues for city production? Or building more than one unit in a turn for that matter?

[Adagio]

Originally posted by Tommar
I agree that upgrading one unit at a time can be annoying, but even Civ3 has a way to upgrade all of one type of unit with two clicks so I can't see how this makes the Workshop special?

Cool! how? I'm trying to play Civ3 again, but am finding it's limitations very frustrating.


IIRC you just need to press ctrl+u while having selected the unit type you want upgraded, then you get an option (and price) if you want to upgrade all units to the newest unit of that type, or at least all units that can be upgraded (the units needed to be in a city right?)
It's been more than a year since I last played Civ3 so there's a high risk it was other keys that needed to be pressed instead... :hmmm:

[Tommar]

Originally posted by Adagio
Originally posted by Tommar
I agree that upgrading one unit at a time can be annoying, but even Civ3 has a way to upgrade all of one type of unit with two clicks so I can't see how this makes the Workshop special?

Cool! how? I'm trying to play Civ3 again, but am finding it's limitations very frustrating.


IIRC you just need to press ctrl+u while having selected the unit type you want upgraded, then you get an option (and price) if you want to upgrade all units to the newest unit of that type, or at least all units that can be upgraded (the units needed to be in a city right?)
It's been more than a year since I last played Civ3 so there's a high risk it was other keys that needed to be pressed instead... :hmmm:

No means to do this thru the GUI? Rare resources + penalties for large geographical empires + incomplete GUI are my major pet peeves with Civ3 so far. (There should be NO keyboard commands that do not have a GUI equivalent. Keyboard commands should be a shortcut, not the only means of executing a command. I'm finding way too many of those in Civ3. And way too many commands that are not well thought out, like Control-Shift-R - build Railroads To. Must start in a square that has a road, must locate the end point graphically rather than thru a drop down list.)

These are things that made Civ3 a step backwards from Alpha Centauri that need to be rectified in Civ 4 before I will buy it.

I'm spoiled and used to better. I've played too many games that are less like work. (I bought Civ3 as soon as it was released, based upon my love of Civ2 and Alpha Centauri. After a game or two, Civ3 has languished until now. I'm playing Civ3 finally to see if it has any redeeming qualities to justify buying Civ4 without research. So far it does not. Civ4 might be worth buying, but Civ3 pretty much hosed the "buy without checking" mentality I had before.)

[Th0mas]

My greatest wish for CIV4 is....

...To give me back the old CIV 1 just one more turn feeling!

[xen001]

Here Here, I agree with tommar on the pet peeves for keyboard commands not having any graphical interface counterpart..

[Adagio]

I agree, everything should be doable both via the GUI or by shortcuts, it's often via the GUI I learn the shortcuts

[Tommar]

I forgot to thank you for the info, Adagio. I really do appreciate it.

My foray back to Civ3 has been both frustrating and fun. Frustrating mostly because of interface issues, but once learned, it does have the "just one more turn" aspect that Civ2 and SMAC has.

I'm learning it, but still haven't found a way to flag events, like riots. In SMAC, you could set your Warning Preferences to call up you city screen for rioting cities. Anyway to do this in Civ3? It's a pain to have to watch this between turns, and try to remember which cities it was, or try to search for them later.

Add this to my wishlist for Civ4. ;)

Other than rare resources and penalties for large empires (which I can get over and learn to deal with) my biggest wish for Civ4 is to have all the interface options that SMAC has at the very least (which I can't get over, because I only play games for fun, and the amount of time I have to spend looking for things and making repetitive commands is way too high in Civ3. And my tolerance is low, after SMAC. ;))

[DrSpike]

Originally posted by Adagio
I agree, everything should be doable both via the GUI or by shortcuts, it's often via the GUI I learn the shortcuts

RTFM! :cute:

[Adagio]

I hate manuals, the only thing I ever read in the manuals is the shortcuts, but often that part sucks. I remember when I got SimCity 4 (bought the danish version... installed the American version) the manual was in danish. I spent a long time searching the manual for a certain shortcut but with no luck. After asking on a forum for that shortcut I checked the manual and was not suprised that I couldn't find it since the danish translation for the function didn't have anything to do with what it actually did
And since most manuals are in danish this happens quite a lot :(

[Adagio]

Not to mention that often the games doesn't have a manual :)

[Tommar]

Originally posted by DrSpike


RTFM! :cute:

Reading a 170 page manual seems a bit too much like work. That's not why I play games. I do read them, that's why I know that there's stuff in there that are not availble via the GUI.

And then heartedly despise the game devs for being so freaking lazy. It's not like I owe them anything. I'm the one paying them to entertain me. Not spend days reading their FM.

It's worse in the case of Civ3, since they did a major back-slide or deliberately ignored the interface improvements in SMAC.

They need to fix this in Civ4, and the SMAC interface needs to be their baseline.

Finding out that flying SAM units take a penalty when attacking ground units is worth reading the manual for (SMAC manual). Finding out that units can explore by hitting "e" (Civ3), is not.

[Addled Platypus]

Originally posted by Adagio
Not to mention that often the games doesn't have a manual :)


whats your take on civpedia?

[Tommar]

Originally posted by Platypus Rex



whats your take on civpedia?

You didn't ask me, but I'll answer anyways. Civpedia (and it's Alpha Centauri equivalent), is great for finding out info about the items you can build.

If it provides info about what keyboard commands, like "e", "cntrl-r", "cntrl-shift-r", "shift-i", "shift-p", "shift-a" are used for, I haven't found it. These abilities should be available from a unit command menu, not Civpedia, anyway.

They are in the manual *yawn*.

[Adagio]

Originally posted by Platypus Rex
whats your take on civpedia?

I love it :b:

I wasn't talking about any Civ games as I posted the above comment though ;)

[DrSpike]

Originally posted by Adagio
Not to mention that often the games doesn't have a manual :)

Yes, if you don't pay for them. :)

[Tommar]

Originally posted by DrSpike


Yes, if you don't pay for them. :)

For old, esoteric games, you're lucky if you can find the games period. Still trying to find a "legal" copy of SMAX for my husband. My legal copy of it did not come with a manual (no complaints there, SMAX didn't need it, and I've got the SMAC manual, as well as Civ3, but you really need the Civ3 manual, since it's GUI sucks compared to SMAC).

All the more reason to despise an incomplete GUI. and those who advise RTFM.

[Proteus_MST]

Originally posted by Tommar

For old, esoteric games, you're lucky if you can find the games period. Still trying to find a "legal" copy of SMAX for my husband. My legal copy of it did not come with a manual (no complaints there, SMAX didn't need it, and I've got the SMAC manual, as well as Civ3, but you really need the Civ3 manual, since it's GUI sucks compared to SMAC).

All the more reason to despise an incomplete GUI. and those who advise RTFM.

Normally, if a paper-version of the manual isn´t included,
it comes as pdf-file on the Game-CD itself.
Most of the times within a folder called "manual",
but sometimes more hidden.

I never encountered a legal version of a game,
which contained not even an electronic version of the manual..
(Of course if you bought it secondhand from ebay and the original owner lost its manual that´s another story ;) )

[Tommar]

Originally posted by Proteus_MST


Normally, if a paper-version of the manual isn´t included,
it comes as pdf-file on the Game-CD itself.
Most of the times within a folder called "manual",
but sometimes more hidden.

I never encountered a legal version of a game,
which contained not even an electronic version of the manual..
(Of course if you bought it secondhand from ebay and the original owner lost its manual that´s another story ;) )

Well, as I noted above, I have the manuals for SMAC and Civ3. It's only SMAX that I don't have the actual book for, but I never worried, since I got the SMAC manual.

I bought SMAX from Amazon, Laptop Collection, brand new. It came with no paper manual, but I never looked for an electronic version. SMAC and SMAX both seem to incorporate the most useful commands in the user interface.

But this is all stupid fluff that diverges from the point. The point is that the Civ3 GUI is deficient, because there are unit commands that are NOT available in the game interface.

They are in the manual. I know, because I read it. Which as I stated, I don't wanna read 170+ pages for basic stuff (yeah, I'll read it for something more interesting. OK, I read the Civ3 manual, but I'm really pissed that I did.)

[DrSpike]

Most manuals have a page or pullout which has all the keyboard shortcuts on it. It's been a while - doesn't Civ3?

[Tommar]

Originally posted by DrSpike
Most manuals have a page or pullout which has all the keyboard shortcuts on it. It's been a while - doesn't Civ3?

I bought the Collector's Edition. It did not. Dunno about the others. Nice tin box though.

But my point is that basic unit commands SHOULD BE IN THE GAME INTERFACE. They are in SMAC/SMAX, which preceded Civ3. Stupid oversight in Civ3, that needs to be corrected in Civ4.

[DrSpike]

Most of the hotkeys are in the menus though.

[Tommar]

Originally posted by DrSpike
Most of the hotkeys are in the menus though.

No, they are not. Show me screenshots of the following commands before I will believe you. Better yet, tell me how you know what they mean, if you learned them in game rather than from the manual.

"e", "cntrl-r", "cntrl-shift-r", "shift-i", "shift-p", "shift-a"

The first 3 at least are very useful to avoid tedium, don't you think?

But the second two still annoy me that I have to locate the end points graphically, unlike SMAC, which preceded Civ3, which not only provides this info via menus, but provides a list of end points, rather than require me to locate the end point graphically.

[Adagio]

I've never learned any commands from manuals and only once I needed someone else to tell me the command
Often you can find the commands in the game, but sometimes you could always try some key-strokes that you believe could do what you want it to do (like if you want to build a road but don't know the shortcut, the first key most people would press is 'R' for 'Road')

[DrSpike]

Originally posted by Tommar


No, they are not. Show me screenshots of the following commands before I will believe you. Better yet, tell me how you know what they mean, if you learned them in game rather than from the manual.

"e", "cntrl-r", "cntrl-shift-r", "shift-i", "shift-p", "shift-a"

Some of those were added after release. :)

I found them all out through forums/manual.

[Tommar]

Originally posted by DrSpike


Some of those were added after release. :)

I found them all out through forums/manual.

Are they in the menu as you asserted? Because that's my complaint. They aren't there.

[Tommar]

Originally posted by Adagio
I've never learned any commands from manuals and only once I needed someone else to tell me the command
Often you can find the commands in the game, but sometimes you could always try some key-strokes that you believe could do what you want it to do (like if you want to build a road but don't know the shortcut, the first key most people would press is 'R' for 'Road')

"Road", I'm happy to report, is one of the few in the game menu.

[Tommar]

Originally posted by DrSpike


Some of those were added after release. :)

I found them all out through forums/manual.

No, I only have the release version of Civ3, cool tin box and all, but nothing added.

[DrSpike]

Originally posted by Tommar


Are they in the menu as you asserted? Because that's my complaint. They aren't there.

My assertion was 'most'. I'm sure if you count all the hotkeys you will see my assertion is true.

[Adagio]

Originally posted by Tommar
"Road", I'm happy to report, is one of the few in the game menu.


I wasn't just talking about Civ3 but talking about shortcuts in generel. I don't remember what shortcuts was in the menus in Civ3, but let's just assume the "road to" wasn't there but you wanted to find the shortcut to it it would be naturally to try 'R' in combination with Shift or ctrl (or both) and hopefully you find it
Of course sometimes you can't find the shortcut using logic (or familiarity (sp?) :q:

[Tommar]

Originally posted by DrSpike


My assertion was 'most'. I'm sure if you count all the hotkeys you will see my assertion is true.

No. You are incorrect. I'll make this easier for you. The following commands are all available to workers (I omitted obvious ones like C, W). Which ones are available through the interface? Do they amount to "most"?

A
shift-A
shift-I
shift-P
shift-F
shift-J
B
control-F
m
shift-R
control-shift-R
R
control-R
control-B
shift-c
D
G
H
I
Ctrl-I
B
N

(edited note: these are all in my release version, nothing added)

[Tommar]

Originally posted by Adagio



I wasn't just talking about Civ3 but talking about shortcuts in generel. I don't remember what shortcuts was in the menus in Civ3, but let's just assume the "road to" wasn't there but you wanted to find the shortcut to it it would be naturally to try 'R' in combination with Shift or ctrl (or both) and hopefully you find it
Of course sometimes you can't find the shortcut using logic (or familiarity (sp?) :q:

Well, you know, the only reason this point ticks me off so much is because I AM so familiar with games, and Civ3 was so retarded in comparison, even compared to its own preceding game, SMAC. Civ3 should have exceeded SMAC, but it did not, in some very basic interface ways (ignore the pink terrain/weird tech, interesting story, cool movies differences, design workshop, the ability to issue global commands, etc.).

I really hope Civ4 is better.

[Adagio]

I do agree with you that it should all have been in the interface, I'm just saying that it wasn't as bad in Civ3 as you make it out to be. I never had any problems with the interface in Civ3 and I never read the manual for the game

[Tommar]

Originally posted by Adagio
I do agree with you that it should all have been in the interface, I'm just saying that it wasn't as bad in Civ3 as you make it out to be. I never had any problems with the interface in Civ3 and I never read the manual for the game

Fair enough. Did you ever play SMAC or a better game?

[DrSpike]

Originally posted by Tommar


No. You are incorrect. I'll make this easier for you. The following commands are all available to workers (I omitted obvious ones like C, W). Which ones are available through the interface? Do they amount to "most"?

A
shift-A
shift-I
shift-P
shift-F
shift-J
B
control-F
m
shift-R
control-shift-R
R
control-R
control-B
shift-c
D
G
H
I
Ctrl-I
B
N

(edited note: these are all in my release version, nothing added)

Can we discuss without your bad attitude please? Otherwise I'm stopping now.

All the hotkeys in my statement refers to, well, all the hotkeys. Hotkeys are not limited to worker actions. Yes many advanced worker actions are not in the interface at all. Many on your list are without the associated hotkey.

Maybe the more advanced actions should be. However, as long as the basic ones are in the interface (along with other basic hotkeys) and the advanced ones (both worker actions and other hotkeys) in the manual I'm fine with it. Interfaces can lose usefulness by being too cluttered in my opinion.

That's just my preference. You can feel free to disagree, but really, you should be able to do so by arguing your case not derogatorily "making it easy for us". Many here have played more Civ than you, I suspect. :)

[Solver]

Firstly, a Civ game will have a big manual, because it's complex. And you can't expect to know every detail if you don't read it.

Secondly, there is a good reason why games ship in big cardboard boxes. One of the best reasons for it is that a fold-out chart can be included with all the hotkeys.

My dream would be a small booklet with all hotkeys, and a fold-out chart with the tech tree, as well as the unit/improvement info.

[DrSpike]

Originally posted by Solver
Firstly, a Civ game will have a big manual, because it's complex. And you can't expect to know every detail if you don't read it.

Secondly, there is a good reason why games ship in big cardboard boxes. One of the best reasons for it is that a fold-out chart can be included with all the hotkeys.

My dream would be a small booklet with all hotkeys, and a fold-out chart with the tech tree, as well as the unit/improvement info.

Yes, much more sensible than building the entire manual into the interface. :cute:

[Adagio]

Originally posted by Tommar
Fair enough. Did you ever play SMAC or a better game?

Yes, I've played SMAC, but I wouldn't call it a better game, more on the same level as Civ3 (both has some good and some bad sides)
I didn't like the interface in SMAC though, IMHO the Civ3 interface was better. I believe it would be easy to create an interface for a civ-game that's better than both of those games

[Tommar]

Originally posted by DrSpike


Can we discuss without your bad attitude please? Otherwise I'm stopping now.

All the hotkeys in my statement refers to, well, all the hotkeys. Hotkeys are not limited to worker actions. Yes many advanced worker actions are not in the interface at all. Many on your list are without the associated hotkey.

Maybe the more advanced actions should be. However, as long as the basic ones are in the interface (along with other basic hotkeys) and the advanced ones (both worker actions and other hotkeys) in the manual I'm fine with it. Interfaces can lose usefulness by being too cluttered in my opinion.

That's just my preference. You can feel free to disagree, but really, you should be able to do so by arguing your case not derogatorily "making it easy for us". Many here have played more Civ than you, I suspect. :)

You were correct for reproving me. I should have simply pointed out the facts without my derogatory remark about "making it easier for you.". I apologize for that.

[AeonOfTime]

I went for the atmosphere - I'm going to be spending a whole lot of time playing that game, and a nice immersive atmosphere would really improve the experience.

Thinking of Civ3, the atmosphere was really bland - I usually turned off all sounds and had my media player running in the background. That wasn't very immersive...

I'd like a Civ game with an original soundtrack and not so invasive unit sounds, that can stay on and actually add to the play experience. Maybe it's silly, but I'd really like to have environmental sounds like wind blowing in the leaves of a forest, waves splashing on the shoreline, spearmen polishing their shields :rolleyes: Has anyone here played Black and White? That game had a really immersive sound environment.

What I have read about music in civ4 so far hasn't got me convinced. Here's an excerpt from an <a href="http://pc.ign.com/articles/628/628695p2.html">interview at IGN</a>:


The game's presentation relies very heavily on music, so much so that Firaxis president Jeff Briggs is personally taking charge of the game's scoring. Since music was Jeff's first career (he did, among other things, the music for the original Pirates!) he's well equipped to handle the composition and music selection tasks required here. But that doesn't mean his job is easy; he anticipates that the game will have more music than any other game ever released. Not only will the game include many of Jeff's original compositions, it will also include licensed performances of pieces by the old greats (Bach, Mozart, Beethoven, and company) as well as contemporary greats like John Adams and soon-to-be greats like Christopher Tin.

Jeff is also composing the music for the 28 new wonder movies being included in the game and all of the diplomacy music. Where possible he's tried to use folk tunes that represent the character and attitude of each civilization and each ruler. The music for Franklin D. Roosevelt for instance is the Marine Hymn. Jeff's even gone so far as to arrange each piece to suit the various time periods of the game. If you meet with Roosevelt in the early part of the game, you'll hear ancient instruments playing the theme. By the end of the game, the tune will have swelled and taken on a more Sousa-like quality.


I hope that's not going to be midi music again :scared:

[Tommar]

I still stand by what I said other than my horrible lapse in manners though. ;)

I find the interface in Civ3 to be a horrible step backwards from SMAC. And most commands, contrary to your assertion, are not in the interface. Commands like "Go To" are poorly implemented, since they require you to locate the end point graphically, rather than via a drop down list of cities. What's the point? You could have drug your mouse there. Using "go to" only saved you having to hold your mouse button while you did it.

I want ALL unit commands to be in the interface. SMAC allows you to use a simplied interface, btw. I've not tried it, but I've seen the option.

Why is this important? I bought SMAC when it first went retail, as I did Civ3. I've bought upteen games since then, mostly MMORPGs (Everquest, Asheron's Call, Anarchy Online, Dark Ages of Camelot, Earth and Beyond, Horizons, Final Fantasy, City of Heroes, World of Warcraft) as well as games with non-persistant worlds (SimCity (all),Starcraft (all), Warcraft (all), Might and Magic (some), Age of Empires (all), Rise of Nations, Emporer, Baldur's Gate I and II, Icewind Dale, Neverwinter Nights, Black and White, Port Royale I and II, Homeworld, Dungeon Siege, Sacred, etc.)

When I get bored with them, I go back to SMAC/X, each and every time. Why? I know that I only need a vague idea of what it can do, and all I need do is find the SMAC/x disk to start playing again, no matter how much time has passed. Instead of having to reread the manual or remember that CNTRL-SHIFT-R does something useful that's not in the interface. I can poke around in SMAC menus until I find what I'm looking for. (tech tree is the major exception, and a good cause for complaint.)


I can set SMAC to pause when cities are rioting, when they build anything at all, build just a city improvement, when they've reached max population limit, or queue up a list of 8-items I want a city to build or not bother me at all with any of the above, just do what it thinks best.

Civ3's interface was a step backward, which is annoying since it came AFTER SMAC, but if all the options listed above are too confusing, they could be turned off.

Perhaps a reasonable compromise would be to have all the options, but only if you read the manual to find out how to turn them on?

[Tommar]

If you meet with Roosevelt in the early part of the game, you'll hear ancient instruments playing the theme. By the end of the game, the tune will have swelled and taken on a more Sousa-like quality.

Sousa scares me more than midi. ;) There's some nice tunes in midi. Struggling to think of good march band music I've heard, even produced by real musical instruments. ;)

[Proteus_MST]

Originally posted by Tommar
I still stand by what I said other than my horrible lapse in manners though. ;)

I find the interface in Civ3 to be a horrible step backwards from SMAC. And most commands, contrary to your assertion, are not in the interface. Commands like "Go To" are poorly implemented, since they require you to locate the end point graphically, rather than via a drop down list of cities. What's the point? You could have drug your mouse there. Using "go to" only saved you having to hold your mouse button while you did it.

I want ALL unit commands to be in the interface. SMAC allows you to use a simplied interface, btw. I've not tried it, but I've seen the option.

Why is this important? I bought SMAC when it first went retail, as I did Civ3. I've bought upteen games since then, mostly MMORPGs (Everquest, Asheron's Call, Anarchy Online, Dark Ages of Camelot, Earth and Beyond, Horizons, Final Fantasy, City of Heroes, World of Warcraft) as well as games with non-persistant worlds (SimCity (all),Starcraft (all), Warcraft (all), Might and Magic (some), Age of Empires (all), Rise of Nations, Emporer, Baldur's Gate I and II, Icewind Dale, Neverwinter Nights, Black and White, Port Royale I and II, Homeworld, Dungeon Siege, Sacred, etc.)

When I get bored with them, I go back to SMAC/X, each and every time. Why? I know that I only need a vague idea of what it can do, and all I need do is find the SMAC/x disk to start playing again, no matter how much time has passed. Instead of having to reread the manual or remember that CNTRL-SHIFT-R does something useful that's not in the interface. I can poke around in SMAC menus until I find what I'm looking for. (tech tree is the major exception, and a good cause for complaint.)


I can set SMAC to pause when cities are rioting, when they build anything at all, build just a city improvement, when they've reached max population limit, or queue up a list of 8-items I want a city to build or not bother me at all with any of the above, just do what it thinks best.

Civ3's interface was a step backward, which is annoying since it came AFTER SMAC, but if all the options listed above are too confusing, they could be turned off.

Perhaps a reasonable compromise would be to have all the options, but only if you read the manual to find out how to turn them on?

You should get Gothic I (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/B00005QIQY/qid=1121174934/sr=8-2/ref=sr_8__i2_xgl63/104-0396903-1236739?v=glance&s=videogames&n=229534) and Gothic II (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/B000069D75/qid=1121174934/sr=8-1/ref=sr_8__i1_xgl63/104-0396903-1236739?v=glance&s=videogames&n=229534)

I never found an RPG more immersive than these ones. You absolutely identify with your CHaracter after a short while of playing and have hours of play alone to get familiar with the surroundings, find the camps of the various factions within the large area, to discover which relationships the factions have to each other and to gain in rank with one or more of these factions.

[DrSpike]

Originally posted by Tommar
I still stand by what I said other than my horrible lapse in manners though. ;)

I find the interface in Civ3 to be a horrible step backwards from SMAC. And most commands, contrary to your assertion, are not in the interface. Commands like "Go To" are poorly implemented, since they require you to locate the end point graphically, rather than via a drop down list of cities. What's the point? You could have drug your mouse there. Using "go to" only saved you having to hold your mouse button while you did it.

I want ALL unit commands to be in the interface. SMAC allows you to use a simplied interface, btw. I've not tried it, but I've seen the option.

Why is this important? I bought SMAC when it first went retail, as I did Civ3. I've bought upteen games since then, mostly MMORPGs (Everquest, Asheron's Call, Anarchy Online, Dark Ages of Camelot, Earth and Beyond, Horizons, Final Fantasy, City of Heroes, World of Warcraft) as well as games with non-persistant worlds (SimCity (all),Starcraft (all), Warcraft (all), Might and Magic (some), Age of Empires (all), Rise of Nations, Emporer, Baldur's Gate I and II, Icewind Dale, Neverwinter Nights, Black and White, Port Royale I and II, Homeworld, Dungeon Siege, Sacred, etc.)

When I get bored with them, I go back to SMAC/X, each and every time. Why? I know that I only need a vague idea of what it can do, and all I need do is find the SMAC/x disk to start playing again, no matter how much time has passed. Instead of having to reread the manual or remember that CNTRL-SHIFT-R does something useful that's not in the interface. I can poke around in SMAC menus until I find what I'm looking for. (tech tree is the major exception, and a good cause for complaint.)


I can set SMAC to pause when cities are rioting, when they build anything at all, build just a city improvement, when they've reached max population limit, or queue up a list of 8-items I want a city to build or not bother me at all with any of the above, just do what it thinks best.

Civ3's interface was a step backward, which is annoying since it came AFTER SMAC, but if all the options listed above are too confusing, they could be turned off.

Perhaps a reasonable compromise would be to have all the options, but only if you read the manual to find out how to turn them on?

Extra options aren't bad. I wouldn't mind a detailed interface and a non-detailed one being available. However, if I had to pick I think that with a lot of options you are better off having key ones in the interface and all the others on a hotkey card like the ones that come with many games.

Of course, you'd have to make sure you didn't lose the card. Maybe a copy could be put on the cd for the poorly organised. :)

[Tommar]

Originally posted by DrSpike


Extra options aren't bad. I wouldn't mind a detailed interface and a non-detailed one being available. However, if I had to pick I think that with a lot of options you are better off having key ones in the interface and all the others on a hotkey card like the ones that come with many games.

Of course, you'd have to make sure you didn't lose the card. Maybe a copy could be put on the cd for the poorly organised. :)

Oh, yes, I'm lucky if I can find the CD.

Although truthfully, I can find the folder I've got on SMAC techs when I want to.

[Tommar]

Originally posted by DrSpike


Extra options aren't bad. I wouldn't mind a detailed interface and a non-detailed one being available. However, if I had to pick I think that with a lot of options you are better off having key ones in the interface and all the others on a hotkey card like the ones that come with many games.

Of course, you'd have to make sure you didn't lose the card. Maybe a copy could be put on the cd for the poorly organised. :)

Oh, yes, I'm lucky if I can find the CD. Hotkey card? That's what my computer is for, organizing data.

[DrSpike]

And for making +2s. :)

[kofeiini]

Voted for feeling & atmosphere. Of course things such as good AI and smooth interface are important but after Civ3 I'm afraid that people at firaxis focus even too much in "serious issues". Like I said those are also important things and really should not be forgotten but I want to see also some "useless" stuff.

Things like newspapers from Civ1 or advisors from Civ2 were nice. I'm also a stats and graphs freak and would love to see things such as top 5 cities, demographics and stats about how many military units I have and how many in production. Maybe it would also be cool to see some sort of diagrams about which percentage of the world population are christian, which percentage are hindu and so on. Same diagram could also show which percentage of the world belongs in which country. Some of this information could actually be even useful (depending on how religions & diplomacy work in cIV) If somebody don't like this kind of information they don't need to watch the graphs but I like to take a brake from actual playing every once in a while and just watch things around in my empire and notice things like: whoa it's year 1650 and my literacy rate is 96%!

Oh yeah, one thing I also wish from cIV that I believe hasn't been mentioned yet is that it would be in good balance when relased. I hate if there's going to be months of balancing unit stregths (and things like that) through various updates after relase.

[Adagio]

Originally posted by kofeiini
Things like newspapers from Civ1 or advisors from Civ2 were nice. I'm also a stats and graphs freak and would love to see things such as top 5 cities, demographics and stats about how many military units I have and how many in production. Maybe it would also be cool to see some sort of diagrams about which percentage of the world population are christian, which percentage are hindu and so on. Same diagram could also show which percentage of the world belongs in which country. Some of this information could actually be even useful (depending on how religions & diplomacy work in cIV) If somebody don't like this kind of information they don't need to watch the graphs but I like to take a brake from actual playing every once in a while and just watch things around in my empire and notice things like: whoa it's year 1650 and my literacy rate is 96%!


I agree with you completely. Even if those features doesn't change how the game is played it still gives a nice feeling that you're in a "living world" instead of just some "dead" computer game

[AeonOfTime]

@kofeiini: I hate if there's going to be months of balancing unit stregths (and things like that) through various updates after relase.

I agree - but I don't think that will be the case. From what Soren said, the featureset of the game is implemented, until release they are only giuong to do some polishing and betatesting/balancing gameplay. If they do that for four months straight, it may very well be the most bugfree and balanced Civ yet. It better be! ;)

[DrSpike]

I like the ones related to real gameplay factors (I am not really much of a Simser), but many were kept for Civ3. They could add more though, and bring back the ones they didn't keep. :D

[thinkingamer]

-First of all, one word: I don't have time for 12-24 hour single game. One of the greatest reason why Homm2-3 was popular (even among some of the rts worshipers) because the a single map playing time was about 2-4 hours each. When Homm4 made the game significantly longer, (about 1-2 hours more each game) with more micromanaging, and other "time wasting mechanics" (such as micromanaging hero portions, ugh!) I believe that was one of the main reason that it turn me off at Homm4.



-Less luck plz.

1) The random map should be at least as balanced as Age of Empires 2 random map.

2) Plz Firaxis, do not implement ideas like a some kind of a elit unit "promoted" to leader in one of random combat win, then able to sac. it to finish a wonder.

3) In general, less rolling die, and more strategy (the amount of rolling die should not exced that of Civ 2)


-manual details. I won't spent any more of my precious time to find a basic detal written in a some "strategy guide" a basic information in a game. For example, in SMAC: formulas like percentage chance for ecological damage = MODIFICATION x DIFF x TECHS x (3-planet) x LIFE /300 was writen in a strategy guide that cost that I paid 10-14.95$. WELL, lets me say something that is no STRATEGY, BUT BASIC INFO.!!!

Well, at least Civ 3 's manual was not as bad as Europa Universalis 2' manual (it full of useless info and just description). Also, another tip: in order to make the manuals shorter, less words, and more number charts.

Some examples of an outstanding manuals:

IceWind Dale: not just includes most of DnD 2nd edition rules, including nice background-tutorial stories (not required, but nice), etc.

Homm3: perhaps they missed one or two very specific info, but very organized and simple, and most importantly, the information it provides about the game is near-complete.


All I want is a very refined Civ4, without all its time unefficiency (for example, instead of moving workers around, why not improve the land within the city micromanaging screen, ala queve?)

Provably I already pissed some ppl in board with my opinions... I'll stop now.

[DrSpike]

Originally posted by AeonOfTime


I agree - but I don't think that will be the case. From what Soren said, the featureset of the game is implemented, until release they are only giuong to do some polishing and betatesting/balancing gameplay. If they do that for four months straight, it may very well be the most bugfree and balanced Civ yet. It better be! ;)

Unfortunately, it wont work in practice. A few gametesters cannot think of everything a large group of dedicated players will. :D

As long as they are willing to tidy up afterwards it's fine. But of course many of the loose ends in Civ3 were never tied up - a fact many have not forgotten I'm sure.

[yin26]

thinkingamer: I don't see a thing wrong with what you wrote. Good manuals are rare these days, and the "strategy" guides are a rip off. As for less rolling of the dice, I think I know what you mean, but how would you do it in practice?

DrSpike: It will be interesting indeed to see what the "new and improved" Firaxis will do with QA this time around. In fact, that's obviously where the future of the series lies at this point.

[AeonOfTime]

@thinkingamer: formulas like percentage chance for ecological damage = MODIFICATION x DIFF x TECHS x (3-planet) x LIFE /300 was writen in a strategy guide that cost that I paid 10-14.95$. WELL, lets me say something that is no STRATEGY, BUT BASIC INFO.!!!

Expectations have limitless variations in all possible directions. You seem to like numbers and tables (and I agree that these come in very handy) - but do not forget there are players that actually do not like numbers at all, and that are absolutely fine with basic explanations that help them just play the game.

What you want, and which many Civvers here on apolyton like too is getting deeper in the game, and play it on a much more detailed level. I think a good thing would be a complete reference in the manual, or even a separate booklet in which we can look up all those shiny numbers :)

@thinkingamer: All I want is a very refined Civ4, without all its time unefficiency

There again, Civ demonstrates how flexible a game it is in that it offers a lot of different playstyles under the same hood. I don't know any civ veteran who does not turn off unit animations to have more time to focus on the action - but then there are those who like to play with them on because it gives the game another feel.

@thinkingamer: Plz Firaxis, do not implement ideas like a some kind of a elit unit "promoted" to leader in one of random combat win, then able to sac. it to finish a wonder.

Why not? I thought that was quite a cool idea - and not that unrealistic. There have been many great leaders in history who had so much influence on the people that they accomplished wonders in their names.

@thinkingamer: Provably I already pissed some ppl in board with my opinions

There are many open-minded people here, and I for one am always open for new ideas, so shoot away. You will probably get to defend your opinions, but the occasional clashes are mostly due to a good amount of thickheadedness :)

@DrSpike: Unfortunately, it wont work in practice. A few gametesters cannot think of everything a large group of dedicated players will.

We have absolutely no idea of how many people Firaxis has for betatesting, but you can be sure they also have a few dedicated players there to betatest. It's not like they don't know the game at all... hell, they have been bathing in it for years. Most of them are probably as addicted to the game as we are.

You will have to agree that the fact alone that they invest so much time in betatesting can only be good. I find it very reassuring, because they won't release the game for christmas just because they need the sales and do a patch afterwards: they will release it because it will be as good as it is going to get without us testing it ;)

And I'm sure they know we are ferocious beasts and that we will do what ferocious beasts do with their lunch when it does not comply :evilgrin:

[yin26]

By the way, on the issue of beta testing, it really must ruin the gaming experience. Any thoughts? I know some great players who won't agree to beta test just for that reason. And while I'm sure the group they are using is top-notch, I just can't help but feel that some of the best people to test Civ 4 just aren't interested in doing so for fear of ruining their enjoyment of the game overall.

Of course, the bigger issue really is not just number of beta testers but number of various computer configurations. The first is a gameplay/balance issue while this second is a no less tricky stability issue. So a release to the wild is the only real way to move forward at a certain point, and this is where the QA response is critical. Patches that are done merely to fulfill a contract with the publisher (and not done in the spirit of building your franchise) run the risk of leaving gamers feeling betrayed if a few key issues aren't fixed.

It seems these days that two patches is what publishers will allow, so if the first one is spent quickly fixing issues that in all likelihood were already known before the game goes "gold" then you've really only got one more patch to get at a whole lot of larger issues that take time and careful planning to address. So if the first patch is almost just bringing the game up to code so to speak, there's a lot at stake with that second patch, and that's the one I hope Firaxis take a good long time to put together.

[yin26]

Hey, so that's my wish: A patching process that a) doesn't buckle to the masses' wish for a quick release and b) that doesn't look merely to plug the more glaring holes but also looks to build substantially on real-world feedback developed over several months.

Pro-active. Long-ranged.

[AeonOfTime]

A patching process that a) doesn't buckle to the masses' wish for a quick release and b) that doesn't look merely to plug the more glaring holes but also looks to build substantially on real-world feedback developed over several months.

:b:

BTW, there is one company that does this: Stardock. I experienced it first hand with Galactic Civilizations, and enjoyed it enormously.

[yin26]

Yeah, Brad Wardell is a unique figure in gaming. In fact, I just bought Political Machine for a kick--a kind of show of support (that game is really pretty bad, though, and their official Website is gone already). Part of his secret is direct distribution and the success of his other projects like the desktop stuff and JoeUser.com

If anything, I hope he brings his focus back to gaming, but I'm really pulling for him and others to show that direct distribution can go a long way to unlocking the publisher shackles!

[AeonOfTime]

direct distribution can go a long way to unlocking the publisher shackles!

I agree. I really like that distribution model - in many ways it is also easier for the customers, at least if you have an internet connection. Their total gaming network is also a good idea, but it needs more games. I'd really like to buy Civ that way :D