From Civ3 to Civ4

[Bragelonne]

Well, I actually think the far limit for changes between Civ3 and Civ4 is the one we had seen from Civ2 to Ctp. We cannot expect Civ4 to be SO different from our old loved civ, just some little graphic/civ/unit/engine changes will make for.

By the way, maybe some 3D applied in here will do. What about full 3d city aereal views?

[Vince278]

Originally posted by Bragelonne
By the way, maybe some 3D applied in here will do. What about full 3d city aereal views?

Like SimCity2000?

[Addled Platypus]

How often have you civer's actually use the overhead view.


For me I stopped after the second time playing. I just think its a waist of time, it means nothing to the grand strategy of winning.


What say rest of you

[Shogun Gunner]

If you mean the city aerial view, its okay, but it's lower on the priority list for graphic enhancements.

I miss the infinite zoom feature (okay, it's not really infinite - but it's better than the two view zoom in CivIII). I hope cIV will return to the Civ2 zoom feature. If this could be integrated into the most granular view being the city view...that would be neat.

[Bragelonne]

Originally posted by Platypus Rex

For me I stopped (using aerial view) after the second time playing. I just think its a waist of time, it means nothing to the grand strategy of winning.

Listen, I know the Aerial view is not really NECCESARY (God damn my Anglish), but it is really cool; well at least some of us like watching our little cities grow in different areas, and particularly some aerial pics form Civ3 are really fantastic.

So, it´s true that you don´t use so much, but the times you use it it feels great. If it were only for the great strategy, you could turn back to the old Civ2 thingie.

[Addled Platypus]

Okay


How about adding aerial views of your favorite sieges/battles


That has possibilities..

[Bragelonne]

ya, it would be...

[Vince278]

Those city views would need redone anyway. My largest cities looked kind of sparse when I zoom in. A first person view of the streets would be neat (especially if tanks are rolling down them ).

[Lord God Jinnai]

I went with signifigant although i do think the map and movement need and overhall. I think point-to-point vector based movement system and all it entails for changing map would be great, but aside that i the rest would be conservative changes.

[conmcb25]

Significant departure for me

[CivalusMaximus]

I want a radical change. In particular I want realism. I believe the only way to achieve this is to abstract away city placement in favour of just national borders. (Having settlers being units that expand national borders). Special buildings or types of units might be required to create disconnected parts of a nation (on different contininents, etc). Each connected set of borders should manage as one city, but allow for simultaneous production (say a maximum of 5 queues with % assignment). Anyways details can be worked out. I think this qualifies as a very radical change.

[fezick31]

Originally posted by CivalusMaximus
I want a radical change. In particular I want realism. I believe the only way to achieve this is to abstract away city placement in favour of just national borders. (Having settlers being units that expand national borders). Special buildings or types of units might be required to create disconnected parts of a nation (on different contininents, etc). Each connected set of borders should manage as one city, but allow for simultaneous production (say a maximum of 5 queues with % assignment). Anyways details can be worked out. I think this qualifies as a very radical change.

That's an interesting concept, but I think it is hard to go for realism and ignore the impact of individual cities. The story of most civilizations is in their great cities - Babylon, Beijeng, New York, London, Rome - it's hard to tell the history of a civilization without mentioning these places.

Perhaps if their role was toned down - maybe several smaller cities, that with time could combine into the larger megalopis' of modern times as they grew.

I agree that cities may be too focused upon. The concept leaves entire areas of the map outside of any useful role except military strategy.

Is the point to get away from cities entirely, or to cut down on Micro-management?

[fezick31]

In writing my response to CivalusMaximus, I had another idea...It tends to be the case that undeveloped land isn't worth much in an empire. What if it could be worth something in happiness points, say as national forest or nature preserve. What if other civs got ticked at you for chopping down your rain forests?

[Vince278]

Originally posted by fezick31
In writing my response to CivalusMaximus, I had another idea...It tends to be the case that undeveloped land isn't worth much in an empire. What if it could be worth something in happiness points, say as national forest or nature preserve. What if other civs got ticked at you for chopping down your rain forests?

Nasty. I always liked to clear a continent's worth of jungle.

[realpolitic]

I've finally started playing ctp2, and I enjoy its features more than civ3. Public works and automatic assignment of workers makes the game much faster. Automatic assignment I thought would take away from strategy, it doesn't, you plan to develop rings around cities instead of tiles, and taking slaves is just fun. ctp2 doesn't have the game breakers of ctp1, like the Philosphers Stone, which could give you all the other civs techs.

Signifiant, but if you come up with good enough ideas, radical!