Civ 4: The Game That Keeps on Giving!

[Shaka II]

Originally posted by Crossfire
... waiting for someone to provide the ultimate game which would be to combine the complexity of Civ4 with a great (and intelligent) battle engine.

Civ5?

[Crossfire]

One can only hope!

[TheHateMale]

The sort of detail people are looking for will probably require dual-core processors to run properly. It should be viable by the time they bring the next one out.

[bucephalus12]

My first TBS game was Alpha Centauri. When I started playing that game I was really blown away by its complexity and the AI. The diplomacy system was excellent. At the time I only had a PC at the office and I would stay late into the evening falling victim to "one more turn" syndrome. My wife would call me and wonder what the h*ll I was doing. That game became the one which I judged all other strategy games by.

I too am really enjoying Civ 4. I think alot of my enjoyment is due to many concepts from Alpha Centauri being incorporated into the game - different paths available in the tech tree, civics options, unit promotions (instead of designing individual units) and a diplomacy system that actually feels right again (I never could warm up to diplomacy in Civ 3).

While I think the battle animations are great in Civ 4, a battle engine of some kind would definately enhance the game. Although I think one as complex as the Total War series games could really bog down the pacing of an already epic game. The small game developer Slitherine has a battle engine I think would fit nicely with a Civilization game, especially their latest iteration of it in their game "Legion Arena". (I am not trying to plug Slitherine and I am in no way affiliated with them - just using them as an example.) The battles are not overly complex to manage and most are finished within 2-3 minutes. At the very least a battle engine something like Call to Power 2 would be nice.

[Hauptman]

Alpha Centauri was based on civ, not visa versa, show us old timers some respect!~

[Axxaer]

Yeah but his point is that some of the concepts were first introduced in Alpha Centauri.

[bucephalus12]

Originally posted by Axxaer
Yeah but his point is that some of the concepts were first introduced in Alpha Centauri.

Exactly. I know AC was based on Civ, I just liked the direction AC took it in feature-wise.

[OneFootInTheGrave]

Well I liked CTP style wars, they brought a little complexity and some variety to war in Civ type game, a RTS style war system would be just too much except if you want to create a game that lasts a 50 hours on average in standard single player mode

Threre are so many battles and if you could play RTS style each one of them that would just be - the longest possible game and that it still makes sense (but the longes would prevai perhaps that could be an option, and for us old-timers just get the dice rolled like now

[player1]

Yes, real stacked combat is something that Civ developers should give a try for next version of Civilization.

[Shaka II]

Originally posted by bucephalus12
While I think the battle animations are great in Civ 4, a battle engine of some kind would definately enhance the game. Although I think one as complex as the Total War series games could really bog down the pacing of an already epic game. The small game developer Slitherine has a battle engine I think would fit nicely with a Civilization game, especially their latest iteration of it in their game "Legion Arena". (I am not trying to plug Slitherine and I am in no way affiliated with them - just using them as an example.) The battles are not overly complex to manage and most are finished within 2-3 minutes. At the very least a battle engine something like Call to Power 2 would be nice.

I think of Civ as a chess game on a much larger scale. The discrete movement of pieces, even in battle, characterize both games. I'm not sure that RTS makes sense in many battle situations, such as one on one combat (e.g., warrior vs. warrior). Maybe it could be reserved for larger battles, such as sieges or battles of at least three on three in the open playing field. RTW implements this nicely in establishing a perimeter around the battle scene, allowing reinforcements to arrive within that perimeter. This would be a nice feature, but I don't think the one on one battles should be included.

It might be possible and desirable to include this kind of option down the road. Even RTW offers the user a choice between computer resolved battle or RTS battle. The TBS Civers can elect for simplified, while the RTS Civers could elect for the full blown RTS battle. The idea is to keep the Civ base happy (make no compromise ), while bringing in new players.

But even RTS has troubles perfecting AI battle, so it would seem a better choice for Civ at this point to put the resources at perfecting and enhancing it's own AI, without introducing the RTS liability. In other words, I think most Civers would prefer to see an AI that no longer receives a bonus at higher levels, but instead is simply smarter. Just some ideas.

[TheHateMale]

I don't think battles you can run would be good for civ. It would place the focus on warring too much.

A superb general could let the civilization starve and rot yet still conquer the world. Equally, a person who built a balanced empire with excellent trade, food and happiness would be at a huge disadvantage if they couldn't run a battle well.

The more control given over battles, the closer to the scenario I depicted the game will become.

They could release a second set of Civ:Generals games or something though, if the demand for it was high enough.

[bucephalus12]

Originally posted by TheHateMale
I don't think battles you can run would be good for civ. It would place the focus on warring too much.

A superb general could let the civilization starve and rot yet still conquer the world. Equally, a person who built a balanced empire with excellent trade, food and happiness would be at a huge disadvantage if they couldn't run a battle well.

The more control given over battles, the closer to the scenario I depicted the game will become.

They could release a second set of Civ:Generals games or something though, if the demand for it was high enough.

I didn't think about the focus being put on warring. You are absolutely right and that would take too much away from other non-warring aspects of the game for my taste.

Your idea about the "Civ:generals" game is excellent. It's probably the best way to satisfy those who yearn for RTS type battles.

[Crossfire]

Even in the Total War series, there are many players who have never fought a battle themselves. The game would function exactly as it does now. Even those of us that prided ourselves on being good generals, many battles that were obvious wins and where you could afford to lose a few extra troops are autocalced. This is especially true late game where you are in mop up mode and are so far ahead nobody can touch you. Those other times though, were you have equal or even a weaker force, battle tactics can let you win battles that you otherwise might lose. By the same token, if you screw the pooch, you lose your entire army. It just adds an entire additional feature set (and skill set) to the game.

I guess if CA had done a reasonable job with RTW we might not be having this conversation. I hope they can get their series back on track but I am not sure that is the direction they are taking the company. Given that situation, I was thinking that Firaxis, which actually knows how to create a reasonably AI, might think about adding that additional layer to a future CIV product.

[bucephalus12]

I like the idea of the autocalculation option. It would allow those that weren't particularly interested in a war heavy game to bypass the added scope of in depth battles. By autocalculating all the battles, it seems the game would essentially play as it always has.

A turn-based battle system ala "Pirates" with an option to autoclaculate might work nicely - and the game already uses the same engine.

[yin26]

Back to the topic...

Another game, this one on Continents (with "low" sea levels adjusted in XML to -9 instead of -8, which produced 3 large masses, 2 - 2 - 1 distribution of the 5 of us). I replicated my same early game and was looking to see if 3-5 cities could once again win a Space Race.

Well, Mali got situation by itself on a huge landmass, and I realized too late that Continents --as opposed to Highlands, which I had been playing exclusively-- really meant that unless somebody challenged him, there'd be no way I could win. Indeed, that's what happened. So I went to an earlier save and tried faster expansion against the guy (Peter) sharing my continent. I pressed pretty hard, finding that balance between expansion and tech -- the middle ground I mentioned before -- but I was relying on culture to take over Peter's cities. While partially successful (I took two of his cities this way), it's clear to me that culture alone won't do it! I need this continent to myself early enough in order to be able to keep pace with Mali.

Once again, diplomacy proved interesting and fun. You *really* need to watch that moment at which the AI is "Annoyed" -- if you aren't ready for war, you'd better darn well get ready. So I plan to go back once again to an earlier save and start mixing in selected warfare. I'm now confident about doing well peacefully, but unless I'm placed on a huge continent by myself, the strategy for victory needs to be more aggressive -- but carefully so!

And this is the thing that keeps drawing me back to the game: Sure, you might get lucky and draw a great map that lets you speed to victory with little thought, but there is some great interplay of map, resources, AI stances, tech, etc.