Yep, and it;s a great book, but it's not Civ.
No they shouldn't; realism is not the same as fun.
You point out a number of things here that would make the gameplay less fun by making it more realistic. These aren't features, dude; they're bugs.
Civ5- A Whole New Civ
- Thread starter Camikaze
- Start date
Yep, and it;s a great book, but it's not Civ.
No they shouldn't; realism is not the same as fun.
You point out a number of things here that would make the gameplay less fun by making it more realistic. These aren't features, dude; they're bugs.
Which is why we need sea improvvements, because this "accuracy" in Civ 3 is a gameplay weakness.
Leaders should be bribable to stop a war (a civ with a strong military might start a war against a weaker enemy just to force a very unfair "deal"), but not armies bribable to stop their march.. Doing so would be considered treason.
A weak army usually comes in hands with the lack of excuses
Okay, I was thinking a trade deal more of a "we lack oil. Supply us constantly with 1k tons/turn of oil in exchange for money" kind of deal. The model you describe could be used for weapons deal. You are more towards having unique dedicated units on specific jobs
, whereas I am more towards presenting trivial tasks through logistic screens 
. A scenario of a trade route attack as I envision it:
Civ A is in war with civ B. Civ A knows that civ B is constantly supplied with x tons/turn of oil from civ C from the trade route Athens-Bourgas, so it orders a small fleet of subs to attack the route. When the order is issued, the trade ceases to be just a graphics represantation and we see actual trade ships (different kinds according to the goods they carry -tankers here-) with hit points moving in between the 2 harbours. Then the attacker has the choice of which ship to attack, and sinking it wins the submarine a small amount of xp. But it isnt always sure that the submarine will be able to intercept the trade ship, thus a chance of interception is added (which depends on the length of the route, the number of the attackers, the type of attackers and the capacity of the trade route). The owner of the ships in the trade route, has the choice of applying convoy tactics to reduce the chance of interception -and when intercepted, a standard defender vs attacker battle sequence begins, with the attacker having a slight bonus due to the element of surprise- in the expense of reducing the trade route capacity, or just assign x destroyer to guarding the trade route, without reducing the chance of interception but with the chance of a battle sequence between the defender and the attacker. Sounds confusing I know, but also a lot of fun. It could also become more simplified. Notice that this whole process can be automated (reduce micromanagement), with both parts involved sitting back and enjoying a series of battle sequences -the results of their strategies-, or getting their feet wet and issueing direct commands to units. The attacker tries to find weak pray and the defender adapts his strategy through convoys or changing the route's destination (lenghten the route->interception chances go down, capacity goes down as well). Espionage can come to play here too, by missions such as "uncover trade routes" when the defender changes the destination harbour.. Interesting naval strategies emerge. Anyways many ideas come as I write
The civ in demand of oil has of course made the choice of ordering a little more oil than he consumes, in order to build up a strategic reserve. That last bit is a showcasing of the strategic elements introduced through quantitive resources. It may become a little more of a numbers game but it is definitively worth it.
TheLastOne36
Deity
- Joined
- Jan 17, 2007
- Messages
- 14,045
I prefer simulation over fun, because simulation for me is fun. If you want fun, play civ revolution.
OK stop (hammer time). Everybody get this clear, my idea of Civ5 is a completely new game, not civ4 (or Civ3 for that matter). My ideas are to make it as realistic as possible. NOT for the casual afternoon play, but a game that you can actually get into.
If you gamers want to play a tactical game or rpg, GET ANOTHER GAME. Civ is not the game for you (except civ4).
If you gamers want to play a tactical game or rpg, GET ANOTHER GAME. Civ is not the game for you (except civ4).
Hail
Satan's minion
instead of wasting time creating a game from scratch, i suggest you build upon civ2 + some good ideas from CtP.
Naokaukodem
Millenary King
- Joined
- Aug 8, 2003
- Messages
- 3,939
No you don't. Because my arguments was not there at this state of my speach.
So I will say to you to try the higher difficulty levels. In Emperor, AIs have an honest number of units pretty early in game. If you choose to build cities instead of war units, you may not be able to catch up.
The way you described it was like it was useless to build military units, and much more usefull to build libraries and monasteries. I am curious of the system you would find in order to balance this kind of stuff.
As to culture, I would like it to totally disappear, on the form it is nowadays at least. I would not object to culture if it was not defining borders and spread like religions through roads and rivers.
Naokaukodem
Millenary King
- Joined
- Aug 8, 2003
- Messages
- 3,939
I second that! Well, if you meant "hardore gamers". It is so frustrating to play in the highest difficulty levels in Civ4. Need to know every aspect of the game as a program. It's not gaming!
So you want it both ways depending on what's actually happening ? That seems a more complex coding task than either abstract routes or caravan-type units, to me.
Why not just simulate it as a standard battle ?
I am noting that, and thinking how incredibly frustrating it would be not to be in control of it.
Go back and look at my suggestions, dude. Civ Rev is the last thing I would consider fun.
I'm entirely in agrrement with you except for the bit about "realism".
I am not opposed to "realism", I just think every argument from "realism" needs to be carefully looked at as to whether it actually improves gameplay or not.
(I say "realism" because any actual realism involved in the running of an entire country is beyond the scope of a game.)
I have been paying attention to your posts in other threads, though.
This is not a feature; this is a bug. Your notion of "honest" number of units seems flawed to me; it's "honest" if you think everyone should be warmongers and the game should reward that, which are not premises I agree with.
Chance of cultural conversions of each individual unit depending on the difference between attacker's culture and defender's culture, for one thing. Then see how it plays and tweak it.
This is not, for example, the first time you have said this.
Some people have made suggestions that go some way towards implementing those realistic notions; I think they'd be unbearable as game play goes, myself.
This one is relatively straightforward to jettison, though. It's only in Civ 4 that being a specific leader is given a significance beyond the country which one is leading, and to my mind the best solution here is:
You are not playing a leader. You are playing a civilisation..
You're right it is more complex, so if I had to choose which one I'd prefer, I'd go with the abstract routes with just graphics representation. You can omit the whole conversion of the traders to individual units and the choice of which ship your sub will attack and the basic mechanics are still the same. I feel that caravan-type units give a more immersive experience to the player but prevent more accurate mechanics plus they have to be built by someone, and that's not something I'd like to be bothered with.
Because without interception chance every trading ship would be trackable from any submarine and the trade route would cease to exist. Not to mention that traders wouldnt stand a chance. So it would be reduced to a trivial "find target-destroy-repeat".
You can control what's worth controlling strategically. Giving orders to individual trade ships to avoid interception? Sounds awful.
warpstorm
Yumbo? Yumbo!
Who are these gamers you speak of and why should a new version of a game not be for them?
Similar threads
