 |
| |
|
|
winwithwallace
|
|
is Civ4 a confirmed go? people sure post like it is...
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Spiffor
|
 |
CPA - Evil Clone brigade
Nov 2001
time: 06:27
|
|
I agree with most ideas here : expanded diplomacy, more flexible tech tree depending on your playstyle, better espionage (but don't bring back spies from Civ2 !), and a real editor is a must.
However, there is something important that has been missed util now :
Make the game 3d
Civ3 couldn't have been 3d, or it would have eaten up even more resources that it does, and wouldn't have worked on many computers of its time. But when Civ4 comes, the computers will be powerful enough to let it play in whole 3d. There are many advantages to 3d:
- realistic maps. The Earth or randomly generated planet will now be spheres, not cylinders. Flat maps can still be flat in a 3d environment.
- dynamic levels of zoom, from gazing at the nose of your soldier to looking at the whole world.
- Terrains will be defined by two elements rather than one : in the current 2d environment, a hill is a hill, no matter if it is in Siberia, in Sahara, or in Normandy. With 3d terrain, elevation will be separated from climate, and both will be able to define the terrain. It would allow a hill in a desert no to bring any more food than the desert itself.
- much flexibility in the display of cities : A 3d Civ4 could use individual graphics of dwellings and big improvements, and gather them to create the display of a city. This way, no city will look strictly like another.
- It makes it easier to display the Great Wall on the map.
- much flexibility in the animation of units. It also gives modders the possibility to create skins (for various uniforms of the same unit for example). It would be nice if modders could modify the models or add those of their own.
- it graphically allows combined arms : if I put a pikeman, a longbowman and a knight on the same tile, such a group can be represented as a whole on the tile (by shrinking their individual size for example). If a combined arms system à la CTP is present in Civ4, 3d will be the best way to peresent it.
Really, I do not see any problem in making Civ4 to 3d. The CPUresources problem will be lifted by the time Civ4 exists, and the transformation doesn't force any radical change in the existing gameplay. 3d doesn't mean to get rid of tiles (and of the city radius / tile improvements / unit moves) as we know them. 3d will not get confusing, because the map will look pretty much flat when you'll zoom at it. And 3d shouldn't alientate graphic modders, if they can make skins, or if they can access and modify the existing models.
In Civ games, the depth of the game is much more important than eye candy. But I think the change to 3d is much more than eye candy : it allows many elements of gameplay to be added without the game requiring more abstract symbols to display them.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Spiffor
|
|
CPA - Evil Clone brigade
Nov 2001
time: 06:27
|
|
Actually, I too was a diehard opponent of the "everything has to be 3d" thingy until very recently, when I understood the biggest advantage of 3d : graphic flexibility. I have put some thought in putting Civ4 into 3d, and I really didn't see the drawbacks of such a thing :
- putting the graphics in 3d doesn't force any drastic gameplay changes. There is no need to change the way cities are selected, or units are moved : for example, there is no need to set an altitude to your planes. The game still mostly reasons in 2d.
- however, it allows a proper display for such gameplay changes (like terrain defined both by elevation and climate)
- at a normal zoom level, a 3d Civ map barely looks "round", but rather looks about as flat as a 2d map would be. There is no more need for fast and furious camera moves in a 3d environment than for fast and furious scrolling speed in a 2d environment.
- I think an aerial view of the map, like the one we have now, is the best view we can have in a TBS. 3d doesn't hinder us to have such a view, even though it offers the possibility to explore new ones.
- The 3d translation would be botched if it forced the player to change the camera angle to select a city / unit, or to get some info.
In short, a good 3d translation would make possible many new possibilities. A bad one would force them. It is a strong feeling that Civ3would have no interface change, should it be 3d. ADG, do you think 3d would have forced changes to Civ3 interface, had Civ3 been 3d ?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Spiffor
|
|
CPA - Evil Clone brigade
Nov 2001
time: 06:27
|
|
- More buildings
"More" doesn't always mean "better", but Civ3 suffers from the lack of buildings : once your empire has solid production capabilities, it can build all buildings in all cities before the next tech is discovered. It forces even hardcore builders to build massive armies for lack of more peaceful options.
From mid-game on, there is no drawback of a builder strategy, because it doesn't hinder the player to build troops. At this time, the choice between military and economy (the big rift of Civ3) is no more, because the player can afford both.
It hurts the complexity of the game, and this is bad.
- More (optional) techs
- More techs whose very discovery create a direct effect. Like Economics doubles the effect of wealth, we could have techs whose very discovery trigger a reduction of corruption, create culture, decrease the effect of cathedrals, increases the moves of boats and so on...
- completely change commerce (I'm not talking about trade between Civs).
Make it directly dependant from the population of the city, its trade connections, and its internal infrastructure (marketplace, banks, "trading posts", "supermarkets" and whatnot), not from the roaded tile around the city.
It is absurd that commerce, and the creation of wealth and research that go along, comes from the amount of peasants working on roaded tiles. It forces all tiles of the empire to be roaded. This is ugly, especially for newbies, and it is tedious for those who manage their workers.
In terms of fun, the separation of commerce and roads would make the game more simple and accessible without dumbing it down : commerce would still exist, there would still be ways to improve it, but tedious micromanagement and ugliness would be over. Besides, highly populated cities will now be attractive.
- Make it possible to have allied units on the same tile as your units. It would make allied warfare much more interesting, as you would be able to defend a failing ally's cities without them being taken by the enemy, and allied troops wouldn't block you the way.
- By the same token, please please please include unit trading. It would bring a tantamount of diplomatic / macchiavellian fun (many more details in the link).
|
|
| |
|
|
|
epics
|
|
Have any one mentioned this before?:
add new specialist citizen which will provide shields, lets call it carpanter/enineer
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Tiberius
|
 |
Europe
Jan 2000
time: 06:27
|
|
Essential civ3 list
There were 2 categories, new ideas and fixes. Obviously today, with the new features, rules, etc of civ3, the list is outdated, but an interesting reading nevertheless.
The "new idea" that received the fewest votes (namely Tourism) was mine  but I'm still proud of it 
Unfortunately I wasn't able to find the older, original, complete list. I had it on my hdd, it was a document with over 100 pages ... or was it 400? I don't really remember exactly, it was a long time ago and back then I was only a newbie on 'Poly
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:27.
Apolyton Time is 00:27. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
04-04-2003 14:45
|