Nerd Alert: Five things I'd like to see in Civ V - or why Civ III is better than Civ IV

Nerd Alert: The following will only make any sense to you if you are at the very least familiar with any of the games from Sid Meier's Civilization series. If you've not even heard of Civ, then it's probs best you don't bother with this. For those of you understand what I mean when I say 'Phalanx Beats Tank' read on. Otherwise, please return tomorrow when normal service will be resumed...

~~~


The timing of this blog post isn't exactly great - Civ IV has been out for over three years now (it's exactly three years and a day since it went on sale here in the UK) and not counting last year's Colonization mod we've seen two expansions - Warlords and Beyond the Sword - both of which contributed a ton of new tech, civs and scenarios. There's even been a sequel of sorts, Revolutions that's made its way onto the next-gen consoles, the Nintendo DS and even the smegging iPhone. Apparently, there's also plans to release a Facebook version of Civ. Take that Farmville.

Still neither of these games in any iteration touch the sides for me as much as Civ III did and still does. I've recently become re-acquainted with Civ III (Complete, that's Play The World plus Conquests) during down time when I've been working late these past couple of weeks.

Civ III for me is still quintessential Civ because it strikes that perfect balance between being casual enough to dip in and out of (like when you're wokring late) and in-depth enough for you to should you want to tinker and micromanage. Sure it's missing a lot of the neat features of Civ IV - Civics, Religion - but it also dispenses with a lot of things which really tick me off about it too.

Whilst I'm not the first person to post a wish list of things I'd like to see on the inevitable Civ V (allegedly already in the works) my mind has been turning towards that of late. Recent replays of the Napoleonic scenario from Conquests may have had an influene on my last post. Anyway, here goes:



1. Better visual design.

You can't really fault Civ IV for presentation. They got Leonard Nimoy in to do voiceovers, and the music - especially the opening theme 'Baba Yetu' - was fantastic. However I still maintain that Civ IV is a pig of a game to look at. Visually, I think it's horrible. Yes it's in 3D and you can change the camera angle but so what? Blocky, ugly terrain is going to look bad whichever angle you view it from and just as ugly in any number of dimensions. The landscapes of Civ IV have nothing in common with the gently undulating terrain of Alpha Centauri, nor the indented coastlines of Civ III which have a pleasant and almost hand-painted/water-coloured look them.

Additionally, Civ IV commits the design fail of having the majority of its text in Times New Roman. Everyone knows that TNR looks best in print and that plainer fonts like Verdana or Arial look better on screen. I realise that a clever bit of tweaking with font files will allow me to change this, but I shouldn't have to do that...


2. Spherical maps.

When I heard that Civ IV was going to be in three dimensions I immediately assumed that the maps would be spherical. They wouldn't just have a 3D world on a rotating drum... would they? If you're going to have a 3D world for a Civ game, don't half-step it. The earth isn't a cylinder. Spherical maps would not only look nice but they'd also literally open up a new tactical front. Once you've researched a relvent tech that would allow you to search for a North West Passage, you'd be able to sail armies over the poles and land on your enemies shores in a handful of turns. Imagine being able to pilot fleets of submarines underneath ice caps like the Americans and Soviets did in the Cold War.


3. Development of Regicide and Royal Families.

One of the game options I really liked about Civ III was Regicide mode where you had one or multiple King/Queen units sat in your cities. The loss, capture or death of any or all of these would spell game over for you, like losing the King piece in chess. This was fun as it added a real element of risk to a besieged player - the monarch unit pretty much acted as the player's unit in the game, like the Commander in Total Annihilation.

I'd really like to see King and Queen units take a more prominent role in future Civ games, such as having it linked to diplomacy - your rulers would marry, have children which you could then marry off to the monarchs of other civs to cement alliances etc. This could then lead to interesting game developments thanks to problems associated with dynastic succession. You could finish one turn and have your king die without siring any offspring and find that four other civs are all suddenly vying for your lands. Accidental unions and wars of succession could add a random element to the game which would make the proceeds that more interesting and give civs more of a reason to go to war with one another.


4. Corruption and Civil War.

As well as having dynasties of various royal families, it would also be interesting to see civil wars and schisms implemented in games. An empire is as likely to be torn apart due to infighting as it is to succumb to external pressures.

One of the reasons lead designer Soren Johnson put a cap on the growth of a city in Civ IV whenever you wanted to build a Settler or Worker unit was to help limit the so-called 'city-rush' which plagued earlier versions of Civ.

Instead of this, a system where your empire is vulnerable to a schisms if you expand too far without consolidating your authority would allow players the freedom for their cities to grow at a normal rate as in previous versions of the game, but also act as a barrier to a the aforementioned Settler rush.


5. Barons, Princes and Generals.

Each new city you build would have a governor, baron or feudal lord who is in theory loyal to you. Distance from the capital - your seat of power - means that corruption is a problem. Unlike in previous games where this would mean a drop in productivity and GNP, corruption that is significantly high could translate into cities formally ceding from your reign and perhaps forming federations of their own, leading to potential Holy Roman Empires of disparate city-states.

As well as the other Great People of Civ IV - Artisans, Engineers etc - you should be able to promote units that have performed well in combat (and acheived sufficient experience points/elite status) with titles of governship. By rewarding units which have fought well with the control of a city could help dispel the corruption and prevent rebellions from forming internally.

OK, so the last two points sort of inter-related. But so what? I've had enough of writing for now. Off to play some Civ III for an hour before I catch up on the next part of Andrew Marr's History of Modern Britain.

~~~

I think from now on I'm going to preface anything remotely geeky with a Nerd Alert tag. n00bz, J00 h4v b33n w4RN3d.