 |
|  |
 |
|
VetLegion
|
|
|
|
23-10-2003 03:53
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#1
|  |
|
Which Games Influence Your Personal Future Civ Wishlist?
|
Tired of ads?
|
|
You know what I mean. Not all your ideas have come to you during concentrated meditation in front of your old civ2 disc ... some must have been simply nicked from other games 
So, what games influenced your ideas the most? This means both which games features you would like to copy and those that just made you think about some feature in a new way, or just served as inspiration to invent something different.
I have to say that recently, my perspective of Civ (the genre) has been significantly influenced by the very successful Europa Universalis series. I have played EU I quite some, and just a bit of EU II. Haven't played HoI yet.
It was the province system EU uses that intrigued me at first, but features of their new game, Victoria, simple leave me in awe.
Take a look at this pic for example: http://www.paradoxplaza.com/media/v.../vic_030527.jpg
Notice the left column. All we ever hoped for? The begining of the end?
I don't think so really, because province system and city based system can not be equalized, so it will not be a matter of simply copying these features if they turn out to be fun.
But Victoria promises to be a big tour-de-force of complex game models and we can sure learn a lot from it.
I have a hunch that these models can best work not in province system nor in tile system, but in a sort of amalgam of both. They are radically different though and at least I still haven't thought out a way how to conciliate them 
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Brent
|
|
Colonization and SMAC. I want units to work like in Col. I want advisors that work like the Col Founding Fathers. Col style trade might be good.
I want a return to the complexity of SMAC. I want a SMACish number of automation options, and I want all units to be automatable. Maybe units should be more like SMAC than Col, or a combination. You would assemble units from components such as horses and elephants. Maybe terrain should work more like in SMAC. Let there be elevation like in SMAC, and let terrain squares have characteristics like in SMAC, like rockiness and different kinds of vegetation. Let forests grow and shrink like in SMAC. Do away with standard terrain types.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Solver
|
|
Apolyton Duke Of Something
|
 |
Latvia, Riga
Sep 2000 time: 07:31
|
|
My wishlist for a perfect Civ game would be the combination of all civ-games out there.
From Civ 3, generally cool interface, the Firaxis feeling, detailed information such as Mil. advisor, resources, luxuries, culture.
From SMAC, the sheer complexity. Things such as its terraforming, or SE choices made the game beautifully complex. Downside - the AI was worse than any other civ game, as it couldn't handle the game. Oh, and I want the SMAC council!
From CtP, the terraforming system and combat system. Those were great.
For diplomacy, I guess that a good one would be combination of Civ 3 (bargaining table, etc), with SMAC and CtP2 (the many proposals).
|
|
|  |
 |
|
centrifuge
|
|
A mix of the above as Solver posted,
but a Med: Total War like combat system. Thus making the combat a lot more interactive.
|
|
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|
Solver
|
|
Apolyton Duke Of Something
|
 |
Latvia, Riga
Sep 2000 time: 07:31
|
|
I have forgotten a very important part of it all. The AI.
IMHO - never too good. The better the AI, the more I enjoy the game. Here's something, Civ 3 has a number of gameplay flaws (badly realised diplomatic negotiations, some useless units, not deep enough in some places, weird combat system), but I still love it for the AI. Civ 3's AI does actually play clever - I quite often get the feeling that I am competing against a real mind.
CtP2, with the mods, also has an adequate AI. Adequate, because it can provide a decent challenge, and can be hard to beat. But, not great as in Civ 3, because it does quite a ton of stupid things. Like, if it conquers a city, next turn it will usually move all units out, leaving the city for easy recapturing.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
pg
|
|
i have to say i too am almost barely interested in civ after many hours plugging away at eu2. each eu2 game is like a slice of history and a different scenario each time(because you can change countries which are all different strengths). civ is very linear most of the time and i find it boring. i pretty much always win at single player but after like 40 turns into the game i can tell i've already won so there's no point in continuing. i haven't played civ much multi because i have a feeling there'd be tons of micromanagement involved to be competitive compared to how i usually play single player.
anything that makes civ less like civ and more like eu2 is good. the ratio of work to fun is quite bad in civ compared to eu2 imo. micromanagement is bad!
i've given up on ai for the time being in civ or any game. the only way to get challenging ai is to use massive cheats and that just makes the game no fun. multi is really the only way to play games like these in the long run.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Brent
|
|
I also like the semi 3D nature of SMAC terrain. I don't like the way Civ3 does mountains.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
centrifuge
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Solver
Unlike most CtP players, though, I do quite often switch between CtP and Civ 3. That is, I do actually play both games. |
I play both as well, though my nod for the better game goes to CTP 1 and 2 over Civ3.
Civ3 most certainly has the better AI, and I like it's diplomacy and use of strategic resources better as well, but for everything else, CTP2 is loads better.
Though lately, I keep getting drawn back to Civ2, simply because of the volumes of outstanding scenarios.
I just wish that scenario making would have caught on more for CTP2...
|
|
|  |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:31. Apolyton Time is 00:31. |
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
|
|
|
|
|
|