Is there scope for a true successor to Civ II

[Alexander's Horse]

Looking at Civ III, you could say it goes off on quite a tangent to Civ II with things like culture and so forth.

I wonder if there is scope for someone to take the best elements of Civ II, and even CTP II, and come up with a true successor.

The game I'm thinking of would be much more a Brian Reynolds product.

[Dis]

uhh, I'd say civ3 is the successor. whether it is good or not is open to intrepretation. Although one could argue SMAC is the actual successor to civ2. While civ3 is the successor to civ1.

[Alexander's Horse]

I think there is a real market opportunity for a company to take the best of Civ III and CTP II and make a great game.

[HalfLotus]

Sid & Firaxis were hell bent on making civ3 as simplified as possible. It just doesn't have the depth I was looking for. There are a broad range of strategies, but none of them are particularly engaging. Culture is okay, but it just seems like a side effect.

[ACooper]

Said it before and I'll say it again "Bananas cannot be improved upon."



mmmmmmmmm Bananassssssss......................

[Dis]

agreed

what more could you want. It's yellow, it fits nicely in the hand, it tastes good. Perfection

civ3 on the other hand. not perfection.

[notyoueither]

Civ3 with CTP1(?)/2 armies could be awesome.

Most of the detractors on these boards would be silent.

6 or 12 Workers in an *Anti-Pollution* Army. Click-move-Click-gone.

Combat would be different. Even successful conquerors would stand to loose many a unit (unlike now). And the tedium would be further reduced.

Psst, don't tell Lib, but I've been stuck on the same game for the last 5 weeks. 4 weeks have been spent since 1950. I made the mistake(?) of disabling Diplomatic and Space victories. I compounded that mistake by wading in on these boards.

Salve