From Civ3 to Civ4

[Toby Rowe]

Fosse,

"I feel that if the series doesn't make truly signifigant steps forward in its models and gameplay, that it will degenerate into a series of graphics updates."

You are probably right sadly, seems to be that most versions of the original are- each developer "must" make it's new mark; graphics, not gameplay seems to be the route they take, desired or not. (both would be good, but they seem unable to do both at the same time.)

Toby

[Addled Platypus]

161 voted so far

1055 in the forums,

lets all tell two friends and they can tell two friends.


This message needs to be loud and clear

[Heresson]

I don't want a radical departure.
As I've posted many times, I want something You can easily update civ2 scns to, and a radical change could make it impossible.
Civ3, I didn't enjoy it, I want civ2 to be the base for civ4, not civ3, with some ideas of Colonisation, SMAC, other games even included.
I do not recall anything I was that fond of in Civ3, barbarians were a bit better perhaps.

The title of this thread, FROM CIV3 to civ4, makes me vote "no departure"
If it was "from civ 1,2,3 to civ4"
I'd vote a significant or slught change

[Brent]

I want radical improvements along existing lines. I want any change to tiles and cities to be slight. I'd tentatively be happy with slight changes to the editor.

I want more of the same: More civs, more scenarios.

[Toby Rowe]

Heresson,

Using Civ 2, not Civ 3 as a basis for Civ 4 would make me very happy indeed.

I disliked only 3 things in Civ2; Partisans (as annoying as pollution in Civ3; "Partisans take to the hills!!" is a sentence I never wish to hear again :-)

Very odd random maps that produce 100 2 tile islands- which made me always make my own maps instead- I maybe British, but a vast Royal Navy and 25 landing craft just to take the gits over was boring, and like many games, they always took over another 2-tile island to survive.

My third gripe was how most wars occur once the industrial age begins- I really would like to see the stroppy AI nations declare war on you during the Egyptian/Greek/Roman era's- certainly would concentrate your mind on advancement and protection and treasury, if we must have nations acting historically. Those pesky Mongols- whatever nation you are.......

Toby!!

[Addled Platypus]

From my experiences Toby, I seem to be attacked for reasons and no reason, in the eraly years and later on.

From ny memory, the earliest was about 2700 bc.

Maybe they don't like Platypi's?

[Mad Bomber]

Originally posted by Toby Rowe
Heresson,

Using Civ 2, not Civ 3 as a basis for Civ 4 would make me very happy indeed.

I disliked only 3 things in Civ2; Partisans (as annoying as pollution in Civ3; "Partisans take to the hills!!" is a sentence I never wish to hear again :-)

Very odd random maps that produce 100 2 tile islands- which made me always make my own maps instead- I maybe British, but a vast Royal Navy and 25 landing craft just to take the gits over was boring, and like many games, they always took over another 2-tile island to survive.

My third gripe was how most wars occur once the industrial age begins- I really would like to see the stroppy AI nations declare war on you during the Egyptian/Greek/Roman era's- certainly would concentrate your mind on advancement and protection and treasury, if we must have nations acting historically. Those pesky Mongols- whatever nation you are.......

Toby!!

I have been the unfortunate victim of many early wars, a few of them starting before 2500BC. I'd like to see the ancient age last a bit longer (no 50 or 100 turn years please!) but the AI aggressiveness is fine for my tastes. Of course, you could always increase the AI agression when starting a new game.

[Toby Rowe]

Mad Bomber,

Wow, that's a harsh sentiment to take about Republicans (your sig)- your nation after all has only 2 contenders for goverment which is only one single Party more than a dictatorship.

Like us in the UK. Old political system, and in dire need of reform, pretty much like the whole of Europe adopted Proportional Representation post WW2, except the UK, and the US. Just imagine- you live in a borough and your vote might even actually count if you don't want the current Parliament member to represent you, Imagine an close Liberal/Labour vote, then imagine your vote might mean something. Under the current system, my party (Labour) will always be returned- even if they win by one single vote- that Isn't democracy, PR is.

Anyway, like you, I'd like the game to spend far longer in the ancient period when we all struggle, but is very fun to play. Most wars happen once the Ironclad exists in the game, whilst in reality most wars began and finished before. (in History)

I'm bored with Destroyers, interested in Corvettes.....but still want the ancient world period drastically slowed down- like you say, changing the turn period is very easy- How about speeding up the "dark age" of Europe if they must do a 100/50-year turn due to programming limitations?

Toby

Toby :-)

[Mad Bomber]

Originally posted by Toby Rowe
Mad Bomber,

Wow, that's a harsh sentiment to take about Republicans (your sig)- your nation after all has only 2 contenders for goverment which is only one single Party more than a dictatorship.

The republicans get what they deserve. If you have cable, watch about 5 mins of the Fox network or CNN and you can see where this statement comes from.

Like us in the UK. Old political system, and in dire need of reform, pretty much like the whole of Europe adopted Proportional Representation post WW2, except the UK, and the US. Just imagine- you live in a borough and your vote might even actually count if you don't want the current Parliament member to represent you, Imagine an close Liberal/Labour vote, then imagine your vote might mean something. Under the current system, my party (Labour) will always be returned- even if they win by one single vote- that Isn't democracy, PR is.

I like the British system better that the US federal system where third parties and independents are essentially irrelevent. At least in Britain you do have other parties to vote for if you disagree with the two major parties.

Anyway, like you, I'd like the game to spend far longer in the ancient period when we all struggle, but is very fun to play. Most wars happen once the Ironclad exists in the game, whilst in reality most wars began and finished before. (in History)

I'm bored with Destroyers, interested in Corvettes.....but still want the ancient world period drastically slowed down- like you say, changing the turn period is very easy- How about speeding up the "dark age" of Europe if they must do a 100/50-year turn due to programming limitations?

Toby

Toby :-)

I appreciate the comments. I must admit I don't really like ancient age warfare, but I do often get involved with them. There are a few ways to increase the timespan for the ancient era:

1. Have a high Barbarian rate (or no barbarians): This is necessary because expansionist civ's often shorten the ancient age by popping goody huts (I have exited the ancient age by 1500 BC w/ an expansionist civ on at least 5 occasions just with luck in hut popping)

2. Play with the maximum # of civs for the given map size
3. Increase the Corruption rate
4. Increase the research cost for techs
5. Make Literature a required tech for advancement
6. Increase the Maximum and Minimum # of turns for researching tech (default for C3C is min=4, max=50; an increase by 25% would slow down tech research dramatically unless played at Emperor or higher)

[Toby Rowe]

Mad Bomber,

"6. Increase the Maximum and Minimum # of turns for researching tech (default for C3C is min=4, max=50; an increase by 25% would slow down tech research dramatically unless played at Emperor or higher)"

I agree.

But all this could be achieved at the single press of a button before you start a game: "Slow research"

After I'd played "Rise of Nations" for the first time I first laughed and then laughed louder once I realised the "4000 years of history" was played and finished within 2 hours. I certainly don't wish to waste £32/$55 ish on crap like that ever again.

The Civilisation series is the benchmark on a long game that makes you think. I simply wish to make the game longer, in what I percieve to be the most interesting era(and most fun; the ancient era)

I think pre-BC, a Plalanx moving 60 squares will put the unit into the "ancient unit" category alone- that was a long 6,000 year march, shame about the Pikemen waiting for them!!

Bet you Firaxis will shorten the game to try to grab the very short attention span of the youth within our various nations.

I tried to play the highest level, but gave up once my second city went Russian by cultural influence (I bumped into a Russian Plalanx, the next turn I lost the city)- I like fun in my game, not torture!

As for Republicans or Democrats- that's for you Yank's to decide- I personally think a 3-party system is better than a two-party one, but I prefer the European PR system (Italy excluded)- More than 5% of the vote means you get a seat, less you don't. Simply, Easy.

I want the UK to adopt it- we British set up the German system after WWII afterall- good enough for them, clearly not good enough for us peasants in Britain however....

If Fireaxis persists with government "types" then PR must be within it (I want the slider values instead).

Toby

[Addled Platypus]

Originally posted by Toby Rowe
Mad Bomber,


The Civilisation series is the benchmark on a long game that makes you think. I simply wish to make the game longer, in what I percieve to be the most interesting era(and most fun; the ancient era)

I think pre-BC, a Plalanx moving 60 squares will put the unit into the "ancient unit" category alone- that was a long 6,000 year march, shame about the Pikemen waiting for them!!

I tried to play the highest level, but gave up once my second city went Russian by cultural influence (I bumped into a Russian Plalanx, the next turn I lost the city)- I like fun in my game, not torture!

As for Republicans or Democrats- that's for you Yank's to decide- I personally think a 3-party system is better than a two-party one, but I prefer the European PR system (Italy excluded)- More than 5% of the vote means you get a seat, less you don't. Simply, Easy.

I want the UK to adopt it- we British set up the German system after WWII afterall- good enough for them, clearly not good enough for us peasants in Britain however....

If Fireaxis persists with government "types" then PR must be within it (I want the slider values instead).

Toby

Well said, and from a Yankee

[Didymus]

I voted slight, but I really lean toward the 'significant' end of that range.

[10BRAVO]

i want Civ4 3D!
i want to be immersed into the game.

In the multiplayer mode i want teams of players to get together to form a civilization that would exist on the game server "worlds".

and of course fight other teams of players that would represent another nation.

This is broad and very general but that what I want...

CIV 4 3D!

[Fake Boris]

Originally posted by Flinx
Civ is Civ. If you change it too much then it will not be Civ it will be something else. Do you want Civ4 or do you want CTP3 or AOE2 or....

Civ3 is Civ3, but Civ4 will be Civ4.

[Fake Boris]

Originally posted by Heresson
I don't want a radical departure.
As I've posted many times, I want something You can easily update civ2 scns to, and a radical change could make it impossible.

I wouldn't count on it if I was you.