Civ5- A Whole New Civ

A had an idea to slightly fix the promotion system that is similar to the initial training idea. Let XP work the same way, and promotions be available at exactly the same time. The difference is in this idea that promotions must be taken the turn after the XP level has been achieved, or as soon as they are available. If they are not taken then, they will not be available again until you reach the next level. This prevents unpromoted units from wandering around with the ability to become City Raider 3 at the drop of a hat, and would make things a lot more realistic.

Anybody remember my idea of initial training? They're like regular promotions, but you can't add to them after you build the unit unless you send them in for more training. This will keep a unit that just defeated a horseman from getting a promotion against riflemen.

I agree that it seems wrong to have such wide open promotions. I think that in-field promotions should be both immidiate and limited to either the promotion line(s) in which the unit originally trained (until it's maxed out ), and the ones applicable to it's actual experience.

For example- a unit would have to have healed some hitpoints to be eligible for a medic promo, succesfully attacked acrosss a river or from a ship to be eligible for Amphib, fought in a forest for Woodsman, defended a city for CG, attcked one for CR, defeated a melee unit for Shock, an archery unit for Cover, etc.

I guess promos that confer certain extra abillities such as Visibillity, or proposed promos such as Capture, Withdrawal, or Ambush would require XP and training in a barracks or port.
 
I agree that it seems wrong to have such wide open promotions. I think that in-field promotions should be both immidiate and limited to either the promotion line(s) in which the unit originally trained (until it's maxed out ), and the ones applicable to it's actual experience.

For example- a unit would have to have healed some hitpoints to be eligible for a medic promo, succesfully attacked acrosss a river or from a ship to be eligible for Amphib, fought in a forest for Woodsman, defended a city for CG, attcked one for CR, defeated a melee unit for Shock, an archery unit for Cover, etc.

I guess promos that confer certain extra abillities such as Visibillity, or proposed promos such as Capture, Withdrawal, or Ambush would require XP and training in a barracks or port.
Good idea, that's what I was thinking of if my initial training idea didn't work. :beer:
 
@Rusty Edge and Argetnyx: I would think that the initial or lower specialty promos, like CR1 or CG1, should still be available to the rookie units. After all you can train a fresh recruit how to assualt a city (CR1) or how to properly conduct an amphibious assault. Admittedly they wont be as well versed in it as a veteran who has done it, but they would be better at it than someone who hasnt been trained it at all.

So I would think that widening the gap between the initial promos and the high level ones would help signify how much better the veterans are. On top of making the high level ones only accesible to the ones who have performed the required tasks, as per the way the 2 of you have described it.

All this would also require singular promotions to gain levels; amphibious 1-3. And then the thresholds to gain more experience would need to be lowere to compensate for the extra promos, but both of these things are easy to do.
 
And later units would need to be stronger, otherwise spearman vs. tank could come back.
I dont think that spearman vs tank will ever go away. It can be made to, some mods have done it or made a promo that grants an automatic win at high enough odds. But I dont know if it should be done away with. Besides its not the strength vs strenght that matters so much its the actuall battle mechanics that make it possible. You could give a tank like a billion strength and there would still be a possiblity for a spearman to kill it (provided the computer handles that many decimals). It would just happen less. So as long as its a percentage based thing it will always happen.
 
What bothers me the most, is that there are always thousands of years old units lingering. In most of my games I remember having a warrior around till the end. It's not worth paying the gold they require to upgrade. And my thought is that it still is another city defender and you cant have enough defenders.

So what's your ideas on how to solve the problem? Automatic disband after some time? Automatic -cheaper- upgrade?
 
I didn't say military, but war. You don't like war, but you can afford to build some units, don't you?

Of course I do.

I'm in favour of a game that challenges me in more than one dimension; while I am vehemently opposed to Civ becoming Risk, I'm not arguing for it to become SimCity either.

As I said earlier multiple times, building military troops is very important for the strategical choice of buildings. You who want more strategical choice in the game, it seems contradictory to want only culture buildings to be viable.

Why do you keep reading "I want a viable set of alternatives to military" as "I want only non-mlitary strategies to work".

But I repeat myself, I do not see the link with Risk.

Risk was the first example to come to my mind of a game where military is as central as you seem to want it to be in Civ.

So if you don't like wars, don't say the contrary because you don't know how we can feel about it, and if you don't like war, I wonder why you play Civ in the first time.

To build a civilisation ? And to fight what wars are unavoidable as part of that as efficiently as possible ?

That, is only your interpretation, which is false. I never described reverse-engineering as being part of other level than military one, no more as a tactical weakness.

Pretty much every time I talk about expansions of the diplomatic part of the game, or learning the AI's strategic weaknesses and outplaying them, you dismiss it as "reverse-engineering".

And to answer to your last question, i think that the word reverse-engineering is pretty clear as it is, the difference between it and an organic, instinctive way of play is pretty clear.

You're not claiming that "instinctive" is universally the same for all players, are you ?

That is not enhancing war in any way.
There are enough in the game already, especially if you consider the modern age.

Opinions with which I vehemently disagree.

Why? To make tech advantages more decisive, though wars with this advantage more decisive? :D

So that sitting at home building libraries so that I end up with three cities and six knights means I will win in battle against the neighbour with ten tiny cities and thirty warriors, yes.

You can't be in disagreement with them as they are facts.

Oh, come on. Which of your opinions are you claiming as facts ?
 
Of course I do.

I'm in favour of a game that challenges me in more than one dimension; while I am vehemently opposed to Civ becoming Risk, I'm not arguing for it to become SimCity either.

Military advantage in Civ4 over difficult levels is not the only one advantage. It is not because AIs are better in military that it enhance the military aspect.

Why do you keep reading "I want a viable set of alternatives to military" as "I want only non-mlitary strategies to work".

Here:

rysmiel said:
Conquering with regular troops is not fun for me.

There's a little more than only "I want a viable set of alternatives to military" in that. ;)

Risk was the first example to come to my mind of a game where military is as central as you seem to want it to be in Civ.

I didn't say such a thing.

To build a civilisation ? And to fight what wars are unavoidable as part of that as efficiently as possible ?

And to do wars. :)

Pretty much every time I talk about expansions of the diplomatic part of the game, or learning the AI's strategic weaknesses and outplaying them, you dismiss it as "reverse-engineering".

It does not mean those are the only levels of reverse-engineering. By that, I do not favor military as you seem to think.

You're not claiming that "instinctive" is universally the same for all players, are you ?

Understanding the word "instinctive", as any other word, implies a certain good will, which you seem devoid of.

Opinions with which I vehemently disagree.

Errr... Why?

So that sitting at home building libraries so that I end up with three cities and six knights means I will win in battle against the neighbour with ten tiny cities and thirty warriors, yes.

Oh yes... I see more clear in you now. The fact is that you would want the AI easy to be defeated, taking advantage of its "AI weaknesses", and so direct your human will to massive-build libraries, when the AI makes missionaries. The fact that it does not happen like that in your games makes you engaging the game on its military aspect.

But I assure you, Civ4 military aspect is not dominant in any way... in high difficulty levels it is pretty all aspects that are leveled up, which make the game nearly impossible to beat if you do not reverse-engine.

Oh, come on. Which of your opinions are you claiming as facts ?

That, precisely, the military aspect of Civ4 is NOT prevalent. ;)
 
Here:
Conquering with regular troops is not fun for me

There's a little more than only "I want a viable set of alternatives to military" in that. ;)

There would be if you read me saying "this aspect of the game is not fun for me" as "this aspect should be obliterated", which is not actually what I am saying.

Understanding the word "instinctive", as any other word, implies a certain good will, which you seem devoid of.

Humans vary. Human brains vary. Some people find Windows instinctive; others find it unusable. What's instincitve to me and what's instinctive to you seem very much to be at variance; I don't think instinctive to anyone is a sensible criterion for game design.


Errr... Why?

I have posted at some length explaining why elsewhere; do you want me to do so agin ?

Oh yes... I see more clear in you now. The fact is that you would want the AI easy to be defeated, taking advantage of its "AI weaknesses", and so direct your human will to massive-build libraries, when the AI makes missionaries.

No, I don't. Again you are putting words into my mouth. Please stop.
 
I'm glad we could find some common ground.. :beer:
:yeah:
@Rusty Edge and Argetnyx: I would think that the initial or lower specialty promos, like CR1 or CG1, should still be available to the rookie units. After all you can train a fresh recruit how to assualt a city (CR1) or how to properly conduct an amphibious assault. Admittedly they wont be as well versed in it as a veteran who has done it, but they would be better at it than someone who hasnt been trained it at all.

So I would think that widening the gap between the initial promos and the high level ones would help signify how much better the veterans are. On top of making the high level ones only accesible to the ones who have performed the required tasks, as per the way the 2 of you have described it.

All this would also require singular promotions to gain levels; amphibious 1-3. And then the thresholds to gain more experience would need to be lowere to compensate for the extra promos, but both of these things are easy to do.
I was just having that same idea as I was reading the posts above. :pat:
And later units would need to be stronger, otherwise spearman vs. tank could come back.
IT WILL NEVER GO AWAY!!! :spear:
 
What bothers me the most, is that there are always thousands of years old units lingering. In most of my games I remember having a warrior around till the end. It's not worth paying the gold they require to upgrade. And my thought is that it still is another city defender and you cant have enough defenders.

So what's your ideas on how to solve the problem? Automatic disband after some time? Automatic -cheaper- upgrade?

That depends. If I'm playing straight BtS 3.19, I'll Build a lot of theocratic, etc. Longbowmen and disgard my low exp. archers. On the other hand, if I have a vassal, or somebody on the same continent fighting a war against my rival, I'll often gift obsolete units. If an obsolete unit has more exp than I can build, or promos such as CR that I can't get in a gunpowder unit, I'll upgrade it.

If I'm playing Legends of Revolution, I'll try to build Leonardo's workshop.

History in the Making has a different approach, which allows you to burn a GG to build an armory. An armory allows you to upgrade a unit built there for no cost, but it still takes the exp. point hit. This way is my personal favorite.
 
@Rusty Edge and Argetnyx: I would think that the initial or lower specialty promos, like CR1 or CG1, should still be available to the rookie units. After all you can train a fresh recruit how to assualt a city (CR1) or how to properly conduct an amphibious assault. Admittedly they wont be as well versed in it as a veteran who has done it, but they would be better at it than someone who hasnt been trained it at all.

So I would think that widening the gap between the initial promos and the high level ones would help signify how much better the veterans are. On top of making the high level ones only accesible to the ones who have performed the required tasks, as per the way the 2 of you have described it.

All this would also require singular promotions to gain levels; amphibious 1-3. And then the thresholds to gain more experience would need to be lowere to compensate for the extra promos, but both of these things are easy to do.

You have a point, and since I often think of CR and CG as promo lines of their own ( especially in HitM, which has level IV for those, ) I don't have a problem with it.
 
There would be if you read me saying "this aspect of the game is not fun for me" as "this aspect should be obliterated", which is not actually what I am saying.

Well you should, if you don't like battles at all. And, I repeat myself, you should go play another game. :)

Humans vary. Human brains vary. Some people find Windows instinctive; others find it unusable. What's instincitve to me and what's instinctive to you seem very much to be at variance; I don't think instinctive to anyone is a sensible criterion for game design.

It's a criterion you can comprehend in the context it is used with. By instinctive i mean obviously what does not need reverse-engineering, but only the informations you can see within the game. :)

I have posted at some length explaining why elsewhere; do you want me to do so agin ?

Sorry but I don't see yet why I should be agree to see more units in the game...

No, I don't. Again you are putting words into my mouth. Please stop.

Yes, you do! Ha, ha, ha, I see pretty clear in you now! :crazyeye: That's just it. Read it again, and question yourself seriously on it. And no, I do not put words in your mouth, that's not just like I was saying you said it, that's just what I see of you. :)

Naokaukodem said:
Oh yes... I see more clear in you now. The fact is that you would want the AI easy to be defeated, taking advantage of its "AI weaknesses", and so direct your human will to massive-build libraries, when the AI makes missionaries. The fact that it does not happen like that in your games makes you engaging the game on its military aspect.
 
Well you should, if you don't like battles at all.

Why would I want a game that never challenged me with things I didn't like ? It might as well be a big red button marked "Push this button to win".

I could begin to suspect you are intentionally not listening here.

By instinctive i mean obviously what does not need reverse-engineering, but only the informations you can see within the game. :)

This is not a fixed distinction. It's different for different players.

I'm a professional database and complex-system designer. The amount of patterns and underlying strategies I can see immediately when i watch an enemy for a few turns are not the same as what's instinctively obvious to a casual gamer. You're arguing for a phantom.

Sorry but I don't see yet why I should be agree to see more units in the game...

More strategic variety. More different ways to win.
 
Yeah, I'm definitely with rysmiel on more strategic variety and more ways to win. The broader the game is, the more possibilities you have with it, the more fun it is for a longer time. This is something that definitely should be kept in mind when developing Civ 5.
 
Why would I want a game that never challenged me with things I didn't like ? It might as well be a big red button marked "Push this button to win".

I could begin to suspect you are intentionally not listening here.

Lol! Not listening??? I think you are mixing things up here. Challenge and taste have nothing in common, although one can go with the other.

If you don't like a thing in a game, no matter the challenge, you still will not like it. And, the more there is challenge on a thing you don't like, the more you will hate the game because it obliges you to spend time on a thing you don't like.

I think taste needs not more debate, all this is pretty obvious...

This is not a fixed distinction. It's different for different players.

I'm a professional database and complex-system designer. The amount of patterns and underlying strategies I can see immediately when i watch an enemy for a few turns are not the same as what's instinctively obvious to a casual gamer. You're arguing for a phantom.

I'm not arguing for a phantom, I'm arguing for easier top difficulty levels, that do not need reverse-engineering.

More strategic variety. More different ways to win.

Well, if it allows you to build more dominant units with a slight tech advance, I would understand you, as your style of play is teching > attack.

But what now if in higher difficulty levels, you do not have any even slight tech advance? You would end up with weaker units all the game, and it would not change anything to have 10 ancient different units if the AI has the 5 first units of the middle age.

The fact is that your view of the game is based on your style of play, it is to say: tech advance. If you obliterate it, all your claimings about Civ5 fall into the water.
 
About 5% of my ideas:

No plots
-Movement should be a radius, as well as culture. However culture should not be a perfect circle, but depending on several factors:
1. Resources, Mountains, rivers, and coasts
2. Distances between other cities of that civ.
-Cities will be able to be founded on a river (depending on the dynamic thickness). Rivers wont move in just cardinal directions, but in all directions zigzagging across the frontiers.
-Mountains/ hills should come in all sizes and shapes.
-There should be islands of tiny proportions (such as 3 in per one Civ4 plot).
-Land taken in war should not come city by city, but with greater incentives for taking and controlling resources first, instead of just destroying them.



Resources
-The size of the military should depend on the resources, including population and demand for war/ public support (citizens should call for war rarely). There should not be 50 cruisers per 1 oil. There should be sufficient food productions as well. ( incentives for scorched earth).
-Currency should be set on the luxury (silver, gold, or salt for ex). The more of each, the stronger the currency.



There should be more consequences for rash decisions, agreeing with the evil/good feature. Decisions rapped around war, diplomacy, and civics.

-IRL, America declared war on Iraq, captured the cites, and now occupies the country, but is not another 'state' or territory. Same with America liberating France, Italy, Benelux, and others in WWII... when a nation in civ falls, it should not be permanently disbanded from the game; it should have the possibility to have territory annexed as well as occupied, and liberated. When Germany steamrolled France in WWII, it annexed some, captured the rest, but did not annex the whole country.

-In diplomacy, especially war, their should be direct reasons for invasion: Resources, land, relations, puppets; all affecting other civs relations towards each side, the peoples moral, and the terms or the treaty. If somebody is winning a war, their citizens whould not be angry, but supporting (Vietnam War for America = :mad:; Pacific War in America = :). Based on aggressor/ defender, reasons, and victories/ losses.

-Civics changes should be by demand of people first and foremost, with retaliations of rebellion, anarchy, and war, if not met. But only in some sectors of a nations, not all.


Other:
-Cultural diffusion should produce new civilizations.
-Starting civs should start close, but barbarians scattered.
-Not all civs should be created equal; where it civ starts should not be where it settles. If it happens to settle in a cruddy place, SOL. Strong civs should be created by chance.
-Dynamic rivers and islands.
-Some barbarian cities should be destroyed randomly, for reasons of location (food harvest, tsunamis, volcanic eruptions).
-Early civs (by birth, not era) should gain random cites (AI settlers), with increased odds with a city state civic.
-Entire civ annexation. Minor civs should rarely ask to be added to another country, depending on culture and enemies.
-New civs (by birth) should not start with their own culture all the time, unless it starts far from civilization. It should depend on distance to neighbors and the strength of their culture. They may start with a proportion of their own culture however and build up over time.
-Unions (I don't know how this would work, but based on history:
1. Aztec alliance
2. Kalmar Union
3. Iberian Union
4. Austria Hungary
5. Soviet Union
Etc)

Thank you for reading this far
 
Top Bottom