Civ4 Again

Archived from groups: alt.games.civ3 (More info?)

I would like to see the game be much more massive in all respects.
Expand the game to go much further into the future. Allow us to
explore other planets and colonize them. Have a much more robust
economic system. More techs to discover. Larger worlds. Etc...Think
along the lines of Civilization meets Alpha Centauri, MOO2 and Sim
City.

I envision huge games spanning accross the galaxy thousands of years
into the future. Aliens are welcome of course and can be played by the
players. Make a much more detailed and grand scaled simulation of a
civilization.

I think you get idea so I'll stop rambling on...
10 answers Last reply
More about civ4 again
  1. Archived from groups: alt.games.civ3 (More info?)

    Well, maybe this idea is a touch too grand....

    How about the following ideas?

    1) inprove economic system - allow the tax/science/lux. sliders to
    changed by 1% increments instead of 10%. develop national economies
    and base currencies on cultures similar to real world currency rates
    and exchanges. allow civs to integrate currencies similar to the euro.
    allow for upswings and downswings in the civs economy.

    2) more transportation options - start with roads. move up to highways
    (+1 move rate, national highway system wonder another +1 move after a
    number of cities connected by highways). railroads (another +1 on move
    rate transcontinential railroad wonder another +1 on move rate). high
    speed rail - maglev? (another +1 move rate). air transportation (move
    to any airport equipped city or airfield). not counting air moves, up
    to +5 on movement)

    3) larger, more detailed maps - no need to explain.

    4) longer games - this will allow for greater detail of the development
    of a civ. on a more realistic world scale and allow us to play further
    into the future.

    5) factions - something similar to the factions of Alpha Centauri.
    groups with differing ideaologies will take longer and much more work
    to come to terms with each other. something along the lines of
    religion in the early to mid game slowly changing into science vs.
    nature in the end game. civs can change this and will incurr
    advantages and disadvantages taht stack or modify with the gov't type.
    allow for custom gov't systems.

    6) governments - more options and customization see #5 above

    7) improved diplomacy - no need to explain

    Again, I think you get the idea..
  2. Archived from groups: alt.games.civ3 (More info?)

    Fair enough. We could stay away from future techs and scale back the
    size of the maps. I would still like to play a game that more
    accurately simulates real life.

    The Egyptians were around for thousands of years and made great strides
    in technology. Yet in Civ 3 we go from 4000 BC to 1 AD extremely fast.
    Also, for example, we currently have one tech to cover Mathematics.
    Why not have multiple techs such as geometry, trig, calculus etc...We
    have Philosophy(spelling) why not Philosophy, biology, physchology,
    sociology etc... They can be all interwoven as needed. You need basic
    Physics to develop a need for calculus, philosophy and biology for
    physchology and so on and so on...

    As for gov't, in Alpha Centauri, you can discover techs that allow you
    to sorta modify your gov't. Example - a Green ideaology has bonuses
    deal with environmental issues but negatives dealing with industry.
    With different gov't types as we now have, and these add on ideaologies
    we could customize our way of ruling. Different cultures would have
    these ideaologies "built in" and would be the base they start with.
    Think of it as an expanded version of the
    Militaristic/seafaring/scientific...attributes we now have in Civ 3.
    With these ideaologies come difference of opinions between cultures. A
    Green culture would not get along with and industrial culture,
    scientific vs. religious...
  3. Archived from groups: alt.games.civ3 (More info?)

    Proj_Eng wrote:
    > I would like to see the game be much more massive in all respects.
    > Expand the game to go much further into the future. Allow us to
    > explore other planets and colonize them. Have a much more robust
    > economic system. More techs to discover. Larger worlds. Etc...Think
    > along the lines of Civilization meets Alpha Centauri, MOO2 and Sim
    > City.
    >
    > I envision huge games spanning accross the galaxy thousands of years
    > into the future. Aliens are welcome of course and can be played by the
    > players. Make a much more detailed and grand scaled simulation of a
    > civilization.
    >
    > I think you get idea so I'll stop rambling on...
    >
    I'm not too fond of this idea; because what I like about Civ is the
    familiarity of planet Earth and it's history. What I didn't care for is
    esoteric future technology.

    I do like more techs; but not future ones, more along the lines of the
    Rise'N'Rule scenario for Civ3 Conquests.
  4. Archived from groups: alt.games.civ3 (More info?)

    Proj_Eng wrote:
    > Well, maybe this idea is a touch too grand....
    >
    > How about the following ideas?
    >
    > 1) inprove economic system - allow the tax/science/lux. sliders to
    > changed by 1% increments instead of 10%. develop national economies
    > and base currencies on cultures similar to real world currency rates
    > and exchanges. allow civs to integrate currencies similar to the euro.
    > allow for upswings and downswings in the civs economy.

    The change to sliders might be nice. Not sure if I'd favor the
    increased complexity of changing currency rates though.

    >
    > 2) more transportation options - start with roads. move up to highways
    > (+1 move rate, national highway system wonder another +1 move after a
    > number of cities connected by highways). railroads (another +1 on move
    > rate transcontinential railroad wonder another +1 on move rate). high
    > speed rail - maglev? (another +1 move rate). air transportation (move
    > to any airport equipped city or airfield). not counting air moves, up
    > to +5 on movement)

    This sounds like it might be interesting.

    >
    > 3) larger, more detailed maps - no need to explain.

    Well, I'm not sure I would play larger maps. For Civ3 I rarely play
    using the largest maps as it just takes too long to play and the
    in-between turn times get too long on my computer.

    >
    > 4) longer games - this will allow for greater detail of the development
    > of a civ. on a more realistic world scale and allow us to play further
    > into the future.

    While I don't have any interest in playing further into the future, I
    have found times when I would have liked to spend more time playing
    within the various ages. Scenarios work OK for doing that however. The
    real key for me is how to have longer games without loosing my interest.
    For example, when I know I am hopelessly behind I find myself
    anxiously awaiting the end of the game (so that I can begin again).

    >
    > 5) factions - something similar to the factions of Alpha Centauri.
    > groups with differing ideaologies will take longer and much more work
    > to come to terms with each other. something along the lines of
    > religion in the early to mid game slowly changing into science vs.
    > nature in the end game. civs can change this and will incurr
    > advantages and disadvantages taht stack or modify with the gov't type.
    > allow for custom gov't systems.
    >
    > 6) governments - more options and customization see #5 above

    Would like to hear more regarding 5 & 6.

    >
    > 7) improved diplomacy - no need to explain

    I agree.
    >
    > Again, I think you get the idea..
    >

    I sort of get the idea that you would like a longer and more complex
    game. I have very mixed emotions on this. Like I said above I
    personally get tired of overly-long games (especially when the
    time-between-turns gets long).

    In Civ3 I really like the "culture" aspect that was introduced. I also
    like the way strategic resources are needed in Civ3 (even though it's
    frustrating to not have some).

    I can envision some additions in this area, such as perhaps needing an
    explorer to actually search for these resources, then need to build
    facility (not just a road) in order to actually start obtaining the
    resource, and possibly having to assign workers to work the resource
    that controls how fast you can acquire the resource (which affects the
    rate at which you can produce units or improvements that require the
    resource).

    Some things I'd like to see changes are to keep other nations units our
    of your territory unless at war without having to keep threating them
    and still they keep coming back.
  5. Archived from groups: alt.games.civ3 (More info?)

    "Phil Pease" <ppease5@mchsi.com> wrote in message
    news:QgS6e.7608$xL4.5883@attbi_s72...

    > I'm not too fond of this idea; because what I like about Civ is the
    > familiarity of planet Earth and it's history. What I didn't care for is
    > esoteric future technology.

    I'm with you. I'd rather keep the future tech in games like AC or MOO.
    When I play Civ, I want the Earth familiarity.
  6. Archived from groups: alt.games.civ3 (More info?)

    >
    > I envision huge games spanning accross the galaxy thousands of years
    > into the future. Aliens are welcome of course and can be

    I think you have fallen into the trap of why Civ 3 is not a patch on Civ 2
    for addicted enjoyment.

    In trying to be more realistic it has lost some of the quirky charm of civ
    2, by taking so long to win it gets boring - yes I have said it - I the old
    Civ 1/2 adict finds Civ 3 boring.

    Civ 2 you could manipulate and try and control the game, games were often
    quite varied. Barbarian empires, Comp player super advanced, alliances that
    actualy lasted with just a simple bit of effort.

    Civ 2 you had to EXPLORE, there were islands to discover even late in the
    game, ships meant something, trade routes were vital to keep shipping safe,
    you had to maintain safe corridors to get your trade to the lucrative
    cities.

    It was not game over because of no iron, or another vital resource.

    Memorable comebacks were possible, in Civ 3 you just seem to follow a set
    procedure, first I will do this, then that and then tech race to end, try
    and avoid war and repeat.

    I imaging there is more depth there then I give credit in Civ 3, I won over
    50 times straight as deity in Civ 2 so knew the game in side out, but the
    sheer time of repetitive play puts me off delving much deeper it is hard it
    is challenging it is good but is it addictive fun?

    ATB
    Chris
  7. Archived from groups: alt.games.civ3 (More info?)

    > I think you have fallen into the trap of why Civ 3 is not a patch on Civ 2
    > for addicted enjoyment.
    >
    > In trying to be more realistic it has lost some of the quirky charm of civ
    > 2, by taking so long to win it gets boring - yes I have said it - I the
    > old Civ 1/2 adict finds Civ 3 boring.

    I agree. Once the modern age is reached, the game becomes boring and
    repetitive.

    Each move is the same, there's little or no further development possible,
    just keep building units and, if you're into the space race, space ship
    components until you launch the ship. If your on a "Conquer the World"
    trip, just amass units and fight, fight, fight, turn after turn after turn.
    Boring.


    --
    Cheers
    Roger T.

    Home of the Great Eastern Railway
    http://www.highspeedplus.com/~rogertra/
  8. Archived from groups: alt.games.civ3 (More info?)

    U¿ytkownik "Roger T." <rogertra@highspeedplus.com> napisa³ w wiadomo¶ci
    news:aa496be6e1a11fff0e037def33f22ff4@grapevine.islandnet.com...
    >
    >
    > > I think you have fallen into the trap of why Civ 3 is not a patch on Civ
    2
    > > for addicted enjoyment.
    > >
    > > In trying to be more realistic it has lost some of the quirky charm of
    civ
    > > 2, by taking so long to win it gets boring - yes I have said it - I the
    > > old Civ 1/2 adict finds Civ 3 boring.
    >
    > I agree. Once the modern age is reached, the game becomes boring and
    > repetitive.
    >
    > Each move is the same, there's little or no further development possible,
    > just keep building units and, if you're into the space race, space ship
    > components until you launch the ship. If your on a "Conquer the World"
    > trip, just amass units and fight, fight, fight, turn after turn after
    turn.
    > Boring.
    >

    The same was in civ2 after you reached the final technology. Almost nothing
    changed here for me.
  9. Archived from groups: alt.games.civ3 (More info?)

    On Fri, 15 Apr 2005 12:51:40 -0700, "Roger T."
    <rogertra@highspeedplus.com> wrote:

    >
    >
    >> I think you have fallen into the trap of why Civ 3 is not a patch on Civ 2
    >> for addicted enjoyment.
    >>
    >> In trying to be more realistic it has lost some of the quirky charm of civ
    >> 2, by taking so long to win it gets boring - yes I have said it - I the
    >> old Civ 1/2 adict finds Civ 3 boring.
    >
    >I agree. Once the modern age is reached, the game becomes boring and
    >repetitive.
    >
    >Each move is the same, there's little or no further development possible,
    >just keep building units and, if you're into the space race, space ship
    >components until you launch the ship. If your on a "Conquer the World"
    >trip, just amass units and fight, fight, fight, turn after turn after turn.
    >Boring.

    Only if you do it wrong. If you manage it well, the competition
    provides plenty of potential surprises.

    Once you are on the road to victory, the end game in most games
    tends to turn predictable. Fortunately, some of the Civ3 end game
    victory conditions aren't too hard to achieve - diplomatic if you're
    liked, cultural or domination if you've expanded well, spaceship if
    you've a huge tech lead (the time to victory isn't very long). And
    you can always end the game yourself if you no longer care about
    running up a score, since you know that you've won.

    Civ1/2 had the same issues, but only had the spaceship as an
    accelerator of the end. Though in all cases, if your goal is max
    score, then you want to hold of victory until the last turn -- which
    is boring *unless* you truly enjoy micromanagement.

    Some people do.

    --
    *-__Jeffery Jones__________| *Starfire* |____________________-*
    ** Muskego WI Access Channel 14/25 <http://www.execpc.com/~jeffsj/mach7/>
    *Starfire Design Studio* <http://www.starfiredesign.com/>
  10. Archived from groups: alt.games.civ3 (More info?)

    "The Chris" <chris_barry@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
    news:ynT7e.52185$mV1.51665@fe3.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
    > I imaging there is more depth there then I give credit in Civ 3, I won
    > over 50 times straight as deity in Civ 2 so knew the game in side out, but
    > the sheer time of repetitive play puts me off delving much deeper it is
    > hard it is challenging it is good but is it addictive fun?
    >
    > ATB
    > Chris

    It sounds to me like you could stand to take the time to look into the
    Apolyton version of Call to Power 2, if you have not done so already.
    Additionally, there is a project going on there to completely rewrite the
    game (CTP2).

    http://apolyton.net/
Ask a new question

Read More

Games Expand Video Games