next »

[apgames]

So have a design for a civ like game that has been lying around for a couple of years and thinking about finally doing something with it. What would you guys say is mandatory in a civ game? What would you like to see in civ like game or maybe even in a turn based strategy game?

[James Edward Smith]

I'd like to see.

• Supply chains for armies including supply units like supply wagons, transport helicopters, etc (these could and perhaps should serve other purposes too
• Other things you can build on the map other than just cities, roads, and irrigation. I think the ability to change your environment and build up things that weren't there before or plant seeds if you will that grow into different things is one of the enjoyable aspects of Civ.

[Ashkin]

The basics:

• Creation of units
• Capturing territory
• Relationships and war with foreign powers
• Expansion of an empire
• Direct link between empire maintenance and empire production (people have to be happy to produce more units)

There are probably a few more, but those are the ones that come off the top of my head.

[apgames]

Geothermal: Supply chains sounds interesting, they have and good supply system in a board game called Friedrich but not sure it would work on a grid. I also like the idea about being able to build other things on the map besides the usual stuff.

Ashkin: Thanks yes I agree with all your points 

[1982]

Simulate reality; sociology, economics, geopolitics, realistic religions and diplomacy. Like said earlier, also environmental simulation is imporant. Now you can start to build the next Civ. Maybe I forgot something important...

Well seriously, you would need those but they are impossible to implement. You need dumbed down version, but not as much in Civ series.

These are things I would definitely like to have:

- Real parliament simulation. More decisions go through AI parliament voting, and parliament is reflection from sociological situation in your country. Of course not usually feature in totalitarian government.
- Strategic religions. Used as tools for state and civil control (if player wants so).
- Some sort of global economics. Includes corporates that grow into independent AI controlled strategic elements. Also more sophisticated trade.
- Dynamic resource management. You have set X-amount of every possible resource in the map, which you collect, trade, transform, eat, blow up, or whatever. Variety of how resources are scattered, fertility rate of soil (some areas cannot be irrigated for ever). Etc..
- More long term problems from pollution, and radiation pollution from nukes or nuclear plant destruction cannot be cleaned. I'm with mixed feels with global climate change, if its caused by human or sun. But should be implemented anyway.
- No random wars at least in modern era. AI declaring war has to be based on something concrete instead of other Ai or player being a douche bag. Also more emphasis on strategic civil wars.
- Larger variety in nation personalities.
- Modern times concentrate more on sociological, economical and environmental aspects than wars.
- Intelligent diplomacy with other nation leaders. Please anything than Civilization-kindergarten style.
- Tech should evolve more real world style. There is no one or two known paths from gunpowder to nuke, but many possible paths which player cannot know beforehand.
- Concept of colonialism and slavery

These came first to my mind, I can explain further if needed...

[s0]

You should play Europa Universalis.

[mirosurabu]

You should play Europa Universalis.

Ditto.

[1982]

You should play Europa Universalis.

I've always meant to, but carried off because the setting doesn't get me interested... At least I can read about the good features from Wiki :D

[s0]

You could play Hearts of Iron instead if a WWII setting is more to your liking. 

[1982]

You could play Hearts of Iron instead if a WWII setting is more to your liking. 

I really love the Civ setting as gradual progress from prehistory to near future, while loving modern times in that game most. Hearts of Iron is too focused to actual wafaring, heck WW2... That is also problem with Civ's, too much warfaring going on all the time. But Paradox clearly has right hold on these things.

[apgames]

1982 you wouldn't like my game  it would be a simpler version of Civ. A mix between Civilization Revolutions, a couple of board games and a some ideas from some social games.

[s0]

Well, EU is less war-centric than HoI and is more about politics and diplomacy than combat. You can't just go around attacking random nations either, you have to have a casus belli against them or your nation's stability will take a huge dent. I really like that about it.

[Geeze]

What I'd like to see in a RTS is realistic command chain. Usually you can just magically control every unit (well this actually makes sense in games that set in the future).

[Pishtaco]

What I'd like to see in a RTS is realistic command chain. Usually you can just magically control every unit (well this actually makes sense in games that set in the future).

Panther Games do that. Their latest is Battles from the Bulge: http://www.matrixgames.com/products/377/details/Command.Ops:.Battles.from.the.Bulge.

It looks like a turn-based wargame, but plays like a pausable RTS with primitive graphics and a very deep modelling of military stuff.

[Derakon]

Hearts of Iron is too focused to actual wafaring, heck WW2... That is also problem with Civ's, too much warfaring going on all the time.

To be fair, there's conflict going on somewhere on the Earth basically all the time. This is of course exacerbated in a game setting, since anything you can do to drag down your opponent is typically equivalent to boosting yourself. I used to be on the Civ4 forums, and people would make reference to the "Axeman Wonder", a Great Wonder you could build that consisted of an army of axemen who would go out and capture a neighboring civ's capital for you.

As far as the essentials for a civ game, well, they're 4X games, so you X-plore, X-pand, X-ploit, X-terminate. Everything therefore basically comes down to how much detail you want to have for each of those items, and how they interconnect.

[1982]

To be fair, there's conflict going on somewhere on the Earth basically all the time. This is of course exacerbated in a game setting, since anything you can do to drag down your opponent is typically equivalent to boosting yourself. I used to be on the Civ4 forums, and people would make reference to the "Axeman Wonder", a Great Wonder you could build that consisted of an army of axemen who would go out and capture a neighboring civ's capital for you.

As far as the essentials for a civ game, well, they're 4X games, so you X-plore, X-pand, X-ploit, X-terminate. Everything therefore basically comes down to how much detail you want to have for each of those items, and how they interconnect.

There are conflicts sure, but they are more civil wars and terrorism acts. They have nothing to do with stupid massive intercontinental wars which last for centuries that Civ games seem to produce. That's why Civ's are rather plausible coming into WW era's, but then it completely ignores how our modern world seems to operate. Times has surely change. Also it seems to be impossible to play Civ's without having to go into armed conflict (in modern era), even as being two democratic nations. It is really a shame... How about instead having modern means e.g. embargo? Actually I have done "manual" embargos sometimes, but for AI players it doesn't seem to make any difference :D

Civ games have great idea, nice setting which involves almost whole human history, but then it comes short by being too laid back arcade. Compared to Paradox games, it seems that you cant have both in a same game. Again. I know Civs are 4X games like you said, but it doesn't have to be like that.

Still I like to play these games even with all those flaws, it is just too easy to see where you could make it a lot better.

[gimymblert]

How about victoria 2, kay it's not modern, bye

[team_q]

I want to see a game that manages to emulate real troop reinforcement and movement a bit more. Civ games have soldiers that take decades to traverse a mountain. Also when you get to modern Era, it really doesn't make sense that it takes a couple years to move to a different country. I wonder if, when you reach the industrial revolution, it becomes more about moving and reinforcing fronts then moving abstract giant men.