{The List} - Game Atmosphere

[Q Classic]

[placeholder for full post to come later. sorry!]

[Q Classic]

•City council over moving leader-heads
link
Skanky Burns

•Be Able to Do Things in Cities
link
Brent
Be able to search for a person or thing within a city. Have units that can wander the streets within a city. Be able to control battles within a city.

•Palace
link
Brent
Definately a Palace instead of a throne room. Plenty of alternative choices. If a throne room, give alternative choices.

•Reward for winning
link
Boris Godunov
One of the biggest disappointments of Civ3 is that there is little reward for winning the game. A lame text box saying "YOU WIN!!!' is laughably Java-game-esque. Why no victory movie for each condition? That'd be awesome.

•Leaderheads
link
Boris Godunov
Also, ditch the cutesy, cartoonish leaderheads with their dumb sayings. Make it feel EPIC, like SMAC. Can we not say that enough?

•Revolution
link
FinnishGuy
I'd like to get back the little fanfare that you heard when you changed government in Civ2. I miss it.

•City Screen
link
ixnay
I'd like to see the city view screen become a little more useful and have it a la Civ1: Showing animations in the city screen when they drop into revolt, build an improvement, get conquered, etc.

•The Look
link
altF18
I'd like Civ 4 to go back to appearing serious, historical, stylised and Civ themed, instead of disney- style. Like Imperialism was, and even CTP 1. Civ 2 kept it simple. 4 should emphasis on the history and seriousness that is Civ.

link
POTUS
I liked the basic look of Civ 2. I felt that all the information I needed was at my finger tips. Just by going down a menu, I could get all the information I needed. Now, just add better graphics, and the look could be great.

link
DarkCloud
Well, I'm not for darker (Alpha C's many blacks annoyed me) but a streamlined space-age style look sort of like Gal Civ's would be acceptable- it would be 'efficient/'cool'' without being too dark and it wouldn't be overly bubbly and fluffy.


skywalker
I think a "space-age" look should be for the Modern Era. During the Industrial Era it should have, well, and industrial look (brick and ash and stuff). During the Medievel Era it should look castle-y (or maybe if you're an Asian civ, it should look like those funky Japanese thingies). I'm not sure what it should look like during the Ancient Era.

[this is also a placeholder, before i organize it.]

(note: i realize that some ideas will have more than one person saying them. however, i will only credit the first post which i come across that has it.)

[POTUS]

Make it feel more epic than SMAC.

[Jamski]

Make it feel more epic than LotR. Make it big, make it have the feel you'll never see it all. Civ3 feels small because of map trading. But 1200 AD you have the whole world. Civ3 feels small because you're forced into the same pattern each game. SMAC feels big because there's so many ways to play each faction. There's always new things to try.

-Jam

[Rasputin]

hope we dont end up with a SIM Civ game !!!!

[Jamski]

I fear we may get it, whatever we say now

-Jam

[treedom]

Please throw your resources into something other than the leaderheads next time around. They're useless, they're ugly, they're annoying, they hinder mod-developers and I suspect they're the reason why each civ doesn't have a male and female leader like in civ2.

The other thing about them is they place too much focus on the most unrealistic part of the whole game...a civ having only one leader during the whole 6000 year span of the game.

[wrylachlan]

Originally posted by Jamski
Make it big, make it have the feel you'll never see it all. Civ3 feels small because of map trading. But 1200 AD you have the whole world.
-Jam

I just had a really cool idea:

What if when you trade maps you get a map that is era specific. Like in the ancient times you get a map painted on a stone that is rough, and grossly inacurate. Maybe it only shows the 2 or 3 major cities, and their relation to each other isn't quite right. What its good for is getting the basic lay of the land. You'll be able to see oceans and mountains, and roughly where cities are, but that's about it.

When you get to the Middle Ages, the map becomes more elaborate with cities placed more accurately, and better detail.

By the industrial age you have almost completely accurate maps, but they still look like maps of the period, not civ maps.

It's not till the modern age that trading maps gets you an actual civ map with all city locations and sizes, etc.

[Fosse]

I like the idea of period maps. Instead of placing them on your Civ's "official" world map, you could have an "Intelligence" screen, and look at maps that you've collected from various Civs.

So if you have "Greek Territories, 360 BC" you could trade that map alone to somebody else, or just hope it stays accurate enough to send some troops to where you think Athens should be.

This idea adds a ton of cool atmosphere, and can also have some nice gameplay impact as well. Good idea!

[Fosse]

Originally posted by treedom
The other thing about them is they place too much focus on the most unrealistic part of the whole game...a civ having only one leader during the whole 6000 year span of the game.

Three cheers for treedom!!

How many people actually like the leaders in Civ 3? Judging by posted opinions I would say to Firaxis: Dump them.

[wrylachlan]

Originally posted by Fosse
I like the idea of period maps. Instead of placing them on your Civ's "official" world map, you could have an "Intelligence" screen, and look at maps that you've collected from various Civs.

So if you have "Greek Territories, 360 BC" you could trade that map alone to somebody else, or just hope it stays accurate enough to send some troops to where you think Athens should be.

This idea adds a ton of cool atmosphere, and can also have some nice gameplay impact as well. Good idea!

I'm not sure I like the idea of having to switch back and forth between the main map and an intelligence screen to use them... I'd rather see something like the AI always knows which of the maps is most reliable and shows that on the main map screen. If you trade with another civ which has a more reliable map of a certain area, it just gets replaced by the new one. I think the "stitching" together of various maps you might have would be better and less tediously done by the computer.

A few corrolaries:
1) Maybe an Expansionist civ makes better maps, so they demand a primium in trade.
2) If you've had a ship sink in heavy seas, when you trade a map it shows that area as having sea monsters!
3) When you trade a map that someone else gave you an additional margin of error is introduced, so 2nd or 3rd hand maps are even less accurate.
4) This would have interesting ramafications in mp. "You attack Athens from the North, I'll bring my Galley's in and attack from the West... hey wait a minute. Where are you going?"
5) Goody huts could give you the period appropriate maps.
6) If you can't see a tile, after a certain number of turns, it reverts back to the stylistic map. The difference between a stylistic map of places you've actually been, versus a map you've traded for is that your map is, though stylistic, totally accurate. Also the traded map should be in muted colors or sepia.
7) This could allow almost RPG type elements where you pop a Goody hut, and it gives you a map of a region far away, or maybe on an island with treasure. In civ terms, "The friendly indians give you a map of the nearby island of Atlantis where it is rumored a great store of knowledge is guarded by the Atlantian guards" If you go to Atlantis and kill the barbarians there is another goody hut that gives you a tech.

[Fosse]

Originally posted by wrylachlan
I'm not sure I like the idea of having to switch back and forth between the main map and an intelligence screen to use them... I'd rather see something like the AI always knows which of the maps is most reliable and shows that on the main map screen.

You make a good point. I suppose having stylistic maps on the main map might be kind of enchanting, but I do fear it might not look great. But you know what? I don't care! Count me for wanting sytlized traded maps on the main map!

Also... having the screen I talked about in addition to that, so you can indeed see what your various maps are, so you can consider trading them piecemeal.

2) If you've had a ship sink in heavy seas, when you trade a map it shows that area as having sea monsters!

That's brilliant, and should be in!

3) When you trade a map that someone else gave you an additional margin of error is introduced, so 2nd or 3rd hand maps are even less accurate.

You mean that's not obvious!

6) If you can't see a tile, after a certain number of turns, it reverts back to the stylistic map. The difference between a stylistic map of places you've actually been, versus a map you've traded for is that your map is, though stylistic, totally accurate. Also the traded map should be in muted colors or sepia.
[/quote]
I don't like this.... once you expose an area you should be able to see it as is (minus changes since you last saw it... new cities, units, etc). I don't want to have to remember what areas my own cartographers have visited, and which ones were traded.

[wrylachlan]

Originally posted by Fosse
I don't like this.... once you expose an area you should be able to see it as is (minus changes since you last saw it... new cities, units, etc). I don't want to have to remember what areas my own cartographers have visited, and which ones were traded.

You missed my point. You would be able to tell where your own cartographers visited. Those areas would be in vivid colored stylized maps and absolutely accurate. Whereas the maps you've recieved from others would be in a distinct muted tone or sepia.

[Fosse]

Ah, yes. I would still prefer areas I haven't been to in a while looking "normal." Though I recognize that now I'm debating a minor preference, rather than your idea itself.

I do apologize for misreading your post.

[Rasputin]

how bout being able to trade false maps!!!!!