 |
| |
|
|
Q Cubed
|
 |
t3h y3ll0w p3ril
Apr 1999
time: 23:33
|
|
•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.)
Last edited by Q Cubed on 01-01-2004 at 04:09
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
wrylachlan
|
|
quote:
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
|
|
U.S.A.
Mar 2002
time: 23:33
|
|
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
|
|
U.S.A.
Mar 2002
time: 23:33
|
|
quote:
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
|
|
quote:
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
|
|
U.S.A.
Mar 2002
time: 23:33
|
|
quote:
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.
quote:
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!
quote:
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
|
|
quote:
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
|
|
U.S.A.
Mar 2002
time: 23:33
|
|
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.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Kramsib
|
 |
Father and protector of PROGRESSIVE GAMES, SANTANDER, Cantabria, España (Spain), Unión Europea (European Union)
Sep 2001
time: 06:33
|
|
FROM THE SPANISH COMMUNITY LIST:
quote:
22. Include more leaderheads per civ, wonder movies and animations for conquest of cities, victories, civil disorders, “we love the leader days”, advisors, …
23. EVENTS.
|
Events are excelent to give a real atmosphere to each scenario, they should be brought back and they should be editable.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Fosse
|
|
U.S.A.
Mar 2002
time: 23:33
|
|
Fewer leaderheads per Civ! At least, fewer of the Civ 3 style ones, which tend to suck the atmosphere right out of the game!
I'd rather the art team make the wonder movies and other animations you talked about, or rather that the art money go to other parts of the game.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Plotinus
|
|
I don't know what everyone has against the animated leaderheads. I know they must eat up development time and computer resources that could go on other things, but I rather like them.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Fosse
|
|
U.S.A.
Mar 2002
time: 23:33
|
|
I think that they cost too much for any benefit they have. Also, many feel that the Civ 3 leaderheads went a long way toward removing players from the immersion. It's hard to feel like you're negotiating an important history breaking deal with a great foreign power when they look like a doofus and say the absurd jokey things that they say.
Civ 2's heralds certainly used up resources at the time, but tended to add a bit of integrity to the diplomatic process.
I would rather that the game treat itself seriously.
Also... leaerheads limit mod making which nobody in the Civ community likes too much.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
wrylachlan
|
|
Another Atmosphere thing:
Allies in a war send messages letting you know what's happening on their fronts.
i.e. The French and you (England) are at war with Germany. At the beginning of your turn you get a pop-up with the french diplomatic envoy saying "Aproximately 50 divisions of German Panzers are closing in on Paris. We don't think we can hold them off for very long. Please send reinforcements".
|
|
| |
|
|
|
CaptainVW
|
|
Denver
Dec 2001
time: 21:33
|
|
OK, here's an idea I've had for a long time; now that I've read that CivIV is official, I guess I decided it was time to stop haunting these boards and share my ideas for once.
Anyway, one of the things I missed about Civs I and II was that it was commonplace for two cultures of vastly different tech levels to meet, resulting in a matchup of, say, tanks vs. knights. In CivIII, ai civs contact each other early and trade techs so rapidly that there becomes a worldwide technology level, with only a few techs dividing the leader from the most backwards nation. One fun way to combat this problem would be to create an old world / new world distinction, both in map creation and cultural starting times.
Maps would need to be created with two continental clusters, separated by wide oceans. The Old World continent cluster would contain 3 to 6 continents, either touching each other or fairly close, the New World 2 or 3. The oceans separating these clusters would need to be wide enough to be impassible to triremes. (the a.i. would be forbidden to use the "trireme cheat" in this scenario) Additionally, "deep ocean" squares could form a barrier that would require advanced ships to cross.
All Old World civs (lets say there are 7 in the standard game) start at the beginning of the game, i.e. 4000 b.c. Sometime later in the game, perhaps 1000 b.c. or 1. a.d., the New World civs (perhaps 2 or 3 in number) are allowed to start.
This could be combined with another idea I read in the "civilizations" thread (by azazel), in which a greater number of civs start the game, but as tribes rather than full-fledged civs. With this addition, unsettled areas of the Old World and scattered islands can be seeded with "tribes" at the later time the New World civs start.
The New World could possibly be seeded with denser resources than the Old World.
With a few more tweaks and additions, I think this could be a fun feature. Generally, the a.i. would play the New World civs, but it could be a fun occ-type challenge for a human to play one. It would be important to be able to disable this feature and play a "classic" civ game sometimes too.
What do you guys think?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
CaptainVW
|
|
Denver
Dec 2001
time: 21:33
|
|
While most people hailed civ2's isometric viewpoint and 3D-style graphics as an improvement, I felt that the series took a slight step back immersively. Obviously, no king, no matter how powerful, could look over the earth and see his units towering above forests and hills. But kings and rulers often look at tactical maps of their domains, and that is what the "representative" or "game-piece" feel of the original civ's graphics imparted to me. It would nice to be able to choose between the 3D modern-style presentation and one that would represent the units as 3D gamepieces with a boardgame feel.
Maybe I'm crazy, but I believe that a step away from a realistic graphic representation, and more towards a representative one, would help with game immersion. How about you?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Naokaukodem
|
|
civ is sticking to the time... civ2 was the start of a global view, well, just like it anyway. civ1 was between civ3 and civ2, with portraits and leader escort completly gay from time to time, place to place. "Who is this guy, by the way? I thought i was just in a civilization simulation game, nobody told me that i would have to deal with this pale reproduction of this no-civ leader-like" civ3 is much convenient about history... ironically. People who sticks to facts only are people who may look cynic. Civ is not about real civilizations, i feel that it's the key. **** to cynic people and cold-warmongers who want to cell in us in our fears so that we could not see what's the beginning and the end of the obviousness.
Psychology is the weapon Number 1. And we are all victim of it. This weapon who have been forbidden by God and used for the Irak invasion.
I think civ should be an experience game as we might be able to apprehend it. Civs or some of them could be original. Tech tree could be reproduced or and forward-reverse-engineered so that new ways may arise. The system could be theorised so that civs designs and evolutions would be "proper".
So that i could hunt Canibals and exterminate every of them. °o °
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Plotinus
|
|
And what's wrong with being gay?
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:33.
Apolyton Time is 00:33. |
top of page
|
|
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
31-12-2003 05:11
|