To Firaxis, learn from other games and give us something new

[KaiserIsak]

Civilization 2 introduced me to strategy gaming, and it was a great game. But after playing it tousands of times, i feel it need something fresh, and i guess many agrees with me.
Two other games i have played (europa universalis and imperialism) have added many fresh things, but they tend to loose much of what made civ2 so interesting.
So my biggest wish is that one day we get a combination of the games. Introducing the economic system of imperialism into civilization is my dream.
I say the best thing firaxis can do with civ3 is to give us something new, and i would then suggest them to play imperialism I & II and Europa Universalis II.

I know it is probably to late for them to implementing it, but its worth giving them the idea. (=

[Galvatron]

Re: To Firaxis, learn from other games and give us something new

Originally posted by KaiserIsak
So my biggest wish is that one day we get a combination of the games. Introducing the economic system of imperialism into civilization is my dream. (=

Wohoo that would be a very cool game looks like we have the same dreams at night. Well I would add the following:

the game engine of Civ, the Economical system of Imperialism PLUS the huge variety of diplomacy in EU (vassal states,...).

This would be a perfect game but only if another company as Firaxis is producing it otherwise we will have a nice collection of all the bugs from these games combined in one (like the buggy program called Civ III ).

[WarpStorm]

Isak, I'm sure that the people at Firaxis have tried these games. They are strategy gamers after. (Maybe they can even do it at work -- research ).

BTW, are you the Isak associated with DYP?

[KaiserIsak]

Yeah i guess they have tried it, and since DYP says me nothing, i guess i am not that Isak )=

Would have been great work to "research", eh?

[XOR]

Re: To Firaxis, learn from other games and give us something new

Originally posted by KaiserIsak
Civilization 2 introduced me to strategy gaming, and it was a great game. But after playing it tousands of times, i feel it need something fresh, and i guess many agrees with me.
Two other games i have played (europa universalis and imperialism) have added many fresh things, but they tend to loose much of what made civ2 so interesting.
So my biggest wish is that one day we get a combination of the games. Introducing the economic system of imperialism into civilization is my dream.
I say the best thing firaxis can do with civ3 is to give us something new, and i would then suggest them to play imperialism I & II and Europa Universalis II.

I know it is probably to late for them to implementing it, but its worth giving them the idea. (=

Hmm... Civ3 will be "expanded", not "remade". This means new features, new fixes, new bugs, new Civs and some tweaks to existing things. Not a full remake of something as such vital part of the game.

Maybe some day far away (the closer the better) with Civ4 when they start by figuring out a much better combat system other than the old A/D/M. Like something that acount's each unit's Agility Vs Targeting speed, HP Vs Damage, etc. Something more similar to what Planetarion's combat engine was (I dont know if it's still is, I only played the 3rd round.

[Carver]

...turnless mode?... I don't know about any of you but I think, if they implement it right, this could be kickarse.

[WarpStorm]

I have to disagree with you on the combat system, XOR. I like the current one. It's like the board games I used to play (I'd still play them if I could find enough people who were into that kind of thing ). More detailed combat doesn't make a lot of sense at the grand strategic scale that Civ has. If I wanted detailed tactical combat I'd fire up Combat Mission (and do). (Combat Mission 2 is just around the corner, you can't really have WW2 without the Russians). There are many wargames at the operational level that are excellent. This doesn't mean I want all their features in Civ.

[SpencerH]

Add in tactical combat resolution something on the order of total/medieval war.

[WarpStorm]

But then it wouldn't be Civ. If wanted to play Total war, I'd play Total War (and I do). I like Civ as a strategic level game. I don't want to mire myself the tactical details of taking a city. I want to move a few units and move on with the plan.

[WarpStorm]

I was just thinking that the title of this thread is kinda contradictory. If Firaxis copies other games, how are they giving us something new?

[SpencerH]

Originally posted by WarpStorm
But then it wouldn't be Civ. If wanted to play Total war, I'd play Total War (and I do). I like Civ as a strategic level game. I don't want to mire myself the tactical details of taking a city. I want to move a few units and move on with the plan.

No it would be civ with tactical combat when you wanted it

[Traelin]

Hrm I'm not sure I want something COMPLETELY new. I was addicted to Civs I and II, so why would I want them to reinvent the wheel? I like (nay, love) how they've "evolved" Civ III, with the exceptions of the limited UN functionality and the limited types of diplomatic treaties one can ratify.

[WarpStorm]

Actually, Traelin, those are the two things I miss most from SMAC. If Civ3 had the diplomatic features of SMAC it would be awesome.

[player1]

As far as I have seen, only "fresh" things introduced in PtW are unique and original (at least in TBS) MP modes.

Could be fun (or could be disaster).

[Blue Moose]

Well, they could at least have a more strategic combat system....stacked combat and the like, and resolutions that made more sense (they'd need more units, clearly...cavalry should easily be able to take out knights for instance, so you need some units inbetween). They could have taken some ideas from the Call to Power series (public works is much nicer than the worker system).

And as it has been said before, they should have taken some of the ideas from SMAC and put them in Civ III. Diplomatic options for one, but others as well. The Government system there kicked ass, and makes even more sense in a historic system, where you can have various economic systems and political ones. To say nothing of social issues that can have a role. In a remake of the modern world, you'd not be able to characterize the difference between Western Europe's socialist democracy, and America's...whereas you'd be more able to in SMAC (free market vs. green). Sure, some of the government ideas from SMAC would have to change since this would be set on earth, but the basic idea is sound. Hmm...almost makes one want to mod SMAC for a different version of 'Civ III'....you'd lose what culture...but anything else? Hmm, armies, leaders, maybe one or two other things, but you'd gain a lot.

Even the unit system of SMAC could be adjusted. What's a swordsman but a warrior with iron weapons and some decent armor? What's an archer but a warrior with a bow? Later on you'd get small arms and the like for the aforementioned updated warrior, but infrantry is infrantry. Then you'd get some nice little historical simulations for scenerios. Like the difference between panzers (even the various Tiger tanks and the like) and america's sherman tank (that latter was extremely inferior to the Tiger, but it was much more easily produced). It would kick ass, no?

I, for one, was very disappointed to find that Civ III incorporated none of the innovation of Alpha Centauri.....almost like different companies made them. Hell, they even could have improved on the innovations. Instead they took a step back in a number of areas. Civ III's a good game and all...it just could have been a lot better.

-Moose