I think Ryan is referring to the problem that a hex-tiled spherical polygon will have 12 spots that end up needing be pentagons. I suspect that difficulty can fudged. After all, IV had global zoom with square tiles.
Civilization 6: Ideas
- Thread starter Pepo
- Start date
I think Ryan is referring to the problem that a hex-tiled spherical polygon will have 12 spots that end up needing be pentagons. I suspect that difficulty can fudged. After all, IV had global zoom with square tiles.
TheMarshmallowBear
Benelovent Chieftain of the Ursu Kingdom
Pretty sure that zoom actually joined all the top and bottom ice squares into a "center", creating Arctic/Antarctic regions.
Yes, that is exactly what happened. We had a quadrilateral grid mapping out a cylinder. But the zoom out faked it all out to look like a sphere. There is no reason VI could not do the same thing, but using hexes.
RyanTheGreat
Warlord
That still wouldn't make the polar regions playable though. In IV it was faked, but not playable. Theres got to be a way to implement it. Hope you're listening civ devs 
A couple of fresh ideas here
New diplomacy modifiers
- 1. You have a strategic resource they need (strong negative)
(This effect will appear if an aggressive or expansionist AI who doesn't have access or has limited access to a strategic resource 'sees' another civ/or player with a higher gross amount of a particular resource that is required for particular units/buildings that the AI desires.
This modifier will disappear if the AI gains access to a particular resource, i.e if you sell them the resource they don't have or if the resource becomes redundant i.e. horses.
Lets face it - many wars in history have been fought to claim rare resources. So you think settling a city on top of that oil and aluminium is going to hand you an early victory, well think again -your neighbors might have something to say about that... I don't know if 'they covet your land' already incorporates this but this penalty is essentially a second 'we covet your land'...
- 2. You supported a revolution (Strong Positive)
If your tourism played a significant part in another civ flipping their ideology to yours (note this does not affect Civs that are choosing their ideology for the first time), members of the new government were heavily influenced by your civs ideals and possibly even covertly supported by your department of foreign affairs. Therefore the new government will have closer diplomatic ties to the Civ that influenced them.
The effect of this is to help wipe some of the accumulated negative diplomatic effects that can build up between civs of formerly different ideologies. After all a change in ideology is really a change in government so there should be a stronger 'clean slate' effect that can turn civs that were former enemies into friends...
So for instance if you have a Civ like the Huns that accrued a lot of denouncements and warmonger penalties that chose Autocracy. If you flip them to Freedom you not only get the share ideology bonus but you get a diplomacy benefit over the new government which can help to erase past tensions & should make it easier for former enemies to become friends. Therefore it should be easier for you and other civs that follow the freedom ideology to become friends with the Huns...
3. I would also add an additional change to diplomacy that if a civ flips ideology than all existing denouncements should be removed by Civs of the same ideology (and the 'Civs we liked more have denounced you' should be wiped as well from civs with the same ideology) and no civ with the same ideology can denounce that civ for 15 turns. Essentially it should give the civ that changed ideology a bit of a 'clean slate' and allow it the opportunity to form friends with Civs of the same ideology.
After all none of the democratic countries of the world are still denouncing Germany because of the actions of Hitler when the country was an autocracy.
New diplomacy modifiers
- 1. You have a strategic resource they need (strong negative)
(This effect will appear if an aggressive or expansionist AI who doesn't have access or has limited access to a strategic resource 'sees' another civ/or player with a higher gross amount of a particular resource that is required for particular units/buildings that the AI desires.
This modifier will disappear if the AI gains access to a particular resource, i.e if you sell them the resource they don't have or if the resource becomes redundant i.e. horses.
Lets face it - many wars in history have been fought to claim rare resources. So you think settling a city on top of that oil and aluminium is going to hand you an early victory, well think again -your neighbors might have something to say about that... I don't know if 'they covet your land' already incorporates this but this penalty is essentially a second 'we covet your land'...
- 2. You supported a revolution (Strong Positive)
If your tourism played a significant part in another civ flipping their ideology to yours (note this does not affect Civs that are choosing their ideology for the first time), members of the new government were heavily influenced by your civs ideals and possibly even covertly supported by your department of foreign affairs. Therefore the new government will have closer diplomatic ties to the Civ that influenced them.
The effect of this is to help wipe some of the accumulated negative diplomatic effects that can build up between civs of formerly different ideologies. After all a change in ideology is really a change in government so there should be a stronger 'clean slate' effect that can turn civs that were former enemies into friends...
So for instance if you have a Civ like the Huns that accrued a lot of denouncements and warmonger penalties that chose Autocracy. If you flip them to Freedom you not only get the share ideology bonus but you get a diplomacy benefit over the new government which can help to erase past tensions & should make it easier for former enemies to become friends. Therefore it should be easier for you and other civs that follow the freedom ideology to become friends with the Huns...
3. I would also add an additional change to diplomacy that if a civ flips ideology than all existing denouncements should be removed by Civs of the same ideology (and the 'Civs we liked more have denounced you' should be wiped as well from civs with the same ideology) and no civ with the same ideology can denounce that civ for 15 turns. Essentially it should give the civ that changed ideology a bit of a 'clean slate' and allow it the opportunity to form friends with Civs of the same ideology.
After all none of the democratic countries of the world are still denouncing Germany because of the actions of Hitler when the country was an autocracy.
I agree that Civilization could potentially be made into a non turn based game. How?
Easy,
Turn 1 (4000 BC):
All the players in the game (Human and AI) start the game right after the globe is generated.
There are specific game periods, each of them allocating a specific time-in minutes/seconds- period, allowable for your action(s), for example:
The first period , for example, 60 seconds, is solemnly dedicated to unit movement, engagements, tile improvements, etc. While in unit movement/engagement mode you cannot access any other screens, you just have to move/engage, settle, improve with your existing units.
Then, after all civs in the game have finished their unit movement sequence the second sequence comes around: City Building. This would include building queues in the cities, let's say 2 min max allowable for all cities.
After every civ is done with that then you get the prompt for other civ actions-the 3rd part of a turn, which would include your interactions with other civs and other aspects of the game, another 60 secs..
After that the game would go on, without prompting you to start a new turn, dates going forward on their own.
As the game progresses it would increase the maximum allowable time for each movement period due to expansion.
What do you all think?
As turn cycles get shortened in MP civ, the game moves towards playing real-time. StarCraft is good example of real-time 4X game, and, for its part, has the option to slowdown things so it is not so adrenalin based and can feel more like a building game. (But maybe it could use some additional VC?) So I would argue that time-per-turn is all along a continuum. The real distinction is, can players issue commands simultaneously?
I agree that the polar maps being playable would be a nice evolution. In lieu of that, I wish there was an option for torus maps that have north/south wrap like east/west do.
Sarin
Deity
- Joined
- Aug 18, 2013
- Messages
- 2,286
What I'd love is to put the map on a bit different scale. Say, instead of 2 move 2 sight, foot units would have 4 move 4 sight, cities themselves would, as they grow, occupy multiple tiles. This would increase amount of tiles on map exponentially, but I believe modern computers can handle that.
Making true globe map would be great too.
Making true globe map would be great too.
Carl5872
Prince
Make military and nonmilitary units groupable. Ex I can designate my settler and my archer as a group, and move them as one, instead of move the settler, then move the archer.
Also bring back movies for wonders.
As far as something completely new, I am not very creative, but possibly a colony option. You would build/buy a unit (cheaper than a settler), and then it would be able to "colonize" a plot of land. This would turn into a city-state like unit that would run on its own, but be allied with you to start. You can demand tax payments from the possible gold generated from its tiles, but at the cost of pissing it off. Barbarian attacks on it would lower its opinion of you as well, so if you want to keep it allied and with you, you must protect it. If things get bad enough they may revolt.
Just the shell of an idea, but I feel the brilliant creative minds of Civ could do wonders with it.
Also bring back movies for wonders.
As far as something completely new, I am not very creative, but possibly a colony option. You would build/buy a unit (cheaper than a settler), and then it would be able to "colonize" a plot of land. This would turn into a city-state like unit that would run on its own, but be allied with you to start. You can demand tax payments from the possible gold generated from its tiles, but at the cost of pissing it off. Barbarian attacks on it would lower its opinion of you as well, so if you want to keep it allied and with you, you must protect it. If things get bad enough they may revolt.
Just the shell of an idea, but I feel the brilliant creative minds of Civ could do wonders with it.
What you describe could be achieved just by dividing each hex we have now into seven hexes (a megahex or one hex surround by six hexes). Just that single change, the addition of scale, would make the game feel so much more epic. Luxes and strategics could still occupy just one hex of seven. Cities could grow as you describe. Mountain ranges and hills might not tile all seven hexes. Rivers could be whole hex (not a megahex) rather than a feature between hexes. 1upt could stay pretty much as-is, just with the base move doubled.
This is not an exponential increase in map data elements, but rather somewhere between squaring and cubing. But every civ iteration has required that I buy a new computer to handle it, and I do not expect 6 to change that pattern!
HorseshoeHermit
20% accurate as usual, Morty
beetle, I don't think the described pattern of seven hexes actually tessellate. Every change in scale is meaningful; it increases the granularity of the game, making the "rounding" of path distances less and less, for instance. But it does grow the game size polynomially.
You asked, can players issue commands simultaneously? ... yes, they can. Inasmuch as anything in computing is simultaneous.
But your question wasn't technical (or, was it?) Yes, you can design the game so that different players enter their orders simultaneously. What they can't do is -perform- their actions simultaneously, because that's not a turn based game anymore. That's starcraft with awful response time.
It needs refinement on the tail end of those phases. I think any finite amount of time for "diplo between players" is not sufficient, for a plethora of reasons.
Firstly, you ought to be able to communicate as much as possible, because arrangements can be quite complicated. The computer player can't understand outside of the trade screen, but players can actually arrange World Congress blocs, agree on unsettled territory, plan warfare, ... a million things.
Secondly, even sticking to trade screen stuff, there is an issue of initiative. This is a part of the game where he who acts last may have the advantage. Or he who jumps in, has given away some information (e.g., his desperation). Thus, for any amount of time you give, in a freeform arrangement, there will be players who wait until the last X seconds, and then make deals. But if you hogtie them with a prearranged sequence that's moving backwards too. Again, a hybrid arrangement is very fashionable. Players should be able to propose any deal, or declare that they are "done". Now, people are gonna want to pad that period of time with some 'fake' dealmaking, sure, so what the engine should do is threefold:
Not actually tell other players who has clicked "done" (this may have to be lifted for reasons*)
Continually allow dealmaking as long as deals are being made (proposals, counterproposals, or accepted arrangements are sent). If no one says -anything- for , say, 10 seconds, but not everyone has said "done", then a backup system kicks in to force everyone to make their final arrangements. If the last thing to occur was an -accepted- deal, pad the grace period by a bit more, to allow those players to process their change in resources.
Force players to make their arrangements. A weak system would be doing it in a preset order. I think better would be, again, desynchronizing it. First the engine tables all floating proposals. Then you enter deal proposals in a strict period of time. Then all proposed deals are sent. I guess at this stage you should only be allowed to accept or not accept; counterproposal chains shouldn't be rushed, plus you've had the whole time to negotiate in chat.
While we're on the subject of chat, please embed an in-context chat system that broadcasts to all met players, or all players who are designed to be able to see things you do. I.e., anyone who can see "[You] and [ThatGuy] are now friends!" should be an actual chat option, which sends your message, and a signature from the game proving that the message was sent to all and only everyone who met you.
I like the timer keeping up with expansion. Notice though, that this shares information about whatever the timer is based on, with all players. So by design, the demographics screen must be intended to also tell you the same information; whether it's "total standing armed units in the world" or "settled territory" or whatever.
You asked, can players issue commands simultaneously? ... yes, they can. Inasmuch as anything in computing is simultaneous.
But your question wasn't technical (or, was it?) Yes, you can design the game so that different players enter their orders simultaneously. What they can't do is -perform- their actions simultaneously, because that's not a turn based game anymore. That's starcraft with awful response time.
It needs refinement on the tail end of those phases. I think any finite amount of time for "diplo between players" is not sufficient, for a plethora of reasons.
Firstly, you ought to be able to communicate as much as possible, because arrangements can be quite complicated. The computer player can't understand outside of the trade screen, but players can actually arrange World Congress blocs, agree on unsettled territory, plan warfare, ... a million things.
Secondly, even sticking to trade screen stuff, there is an issue of initiative. This is a part of the game where he who acts last may have the advantage. Or he who jumps in, has given away some information (e.g., his desperation). Thus, for any amount of time you give, in a freeform arrangement, there will be players who wait until the last X seconds, and then make deals. But if you hogtie them with a prearranged sequence that's moving backwards too. Again, a hybrid arrangement is very fashionable. Players should be able to propose any deal, or declare that they are "done". Now, people are gonna want to pad that period of time with some 'fake' dealmaking, sure, so what the engine should do is threefold:
Not actually tell other players who has clicked "done" (this may have to be lifted for reasons*)
Continually allow dealmaking as long as deals are being made (proposals, counterproposals, or accepted arrangements are sent). If no one says -anything- for , say, 10 seconds, but not everyone has said "done", then a backup system kicks in to force everyone to make their final arrangements. If the last thing to occur was an -accepted- deal, pad the grace period by a bit more, to allow those players to process their change in resources.
Force players to make their arrangements. A weak system would be doing it in a preset order. I think better would be, again, desynchronizing it. First the engine tables all floating proposals. Then you enter deal proposals in a strict period of time. Then all proposed deals are sent. I guess at this stage you should only be allowed to accept or not accept; counterproposal chains shouldn't be rushed, plus you've had the whole time to negotiate in chat.
While we're on the subject of chat, please embed an in-context chat system that broadcasts to all met players, or all players who are designed to be able to see things you do. I.e., anyone who can see "[You] and [ThatGuy] are now friends!" should be an actual chat option, which sends your message, and a signature from the game proving that the message was sent to all and only everyone who met you.
I like the timer keeping up with expansion. Notice though, that this shares information about whatever the timer is based on, with all players. So by design, the demographics screen must be intended to also tell you the same information; whether it's "total standing armed units in the world" or "settled territory" or whatever.
Since the ancient times naval vessels were in danger of being attacked by Pirates. Pirates could even attack coastal cities. Inland cities were from time to time, in danger of not only a few barbarian units and encampments but also of a full scale barbarian invasion.
To me unit production is too expensive, make the units cost less, let us build more of them, bigger armies, get rid of warmongering and imperialmongering penalties.
Even rational close border AI leaders should be swiftly going to war with you when you claim too much land they had their eye on, or beat them to a resource. Throughout history wars were often started because of land/riches disputes.
To me unit production is too expensive, make the units cost less, let us build more of them, bigger armies, get rid of warmongering and imperialmongering penalties.
Even rational close border AI leaders should be swiftly going to war with you when you claim too much land they had their eye on, or beat them to a resource. Throughout history wars were often started because of land/riches disputes.
Yes, they tessellate, but I failed to turn up any pictures. They were popular for a time with The Fantasy Trip (precursor to Gurps, by Steve Jackson Games). We had some big maps, but nothing approaching the scale Civ5 uses, let alone what Civ6 needs. But I found a PDFs that shows 24 hexes nested inside a larger hex grid, and a full page hex marked off by 17(!) hexes on each side. These are more along the scale that Civ6 would need anyway:
http://www.sjgames.com/gameaids/gurps/hexgrid-1.pdf
http://www.sjgames.com/gameaids/gurps/hexgrid-2.pdf
lefuet
Warlord
- Joined
- Nov 17, 2014
- Messages
- 101
- let the mouse over help and civilopaedia entries read the actual game values and not use (only) hardcoded help texts that get obsolete to fast.
- keep the mechanics simple enough that the ai can read and understand actual game values and does not need magic numbers (that get obsolete to fast, are inflexible, and might be wrong from the start) to govern their behaviour. Let them adjust to changes or if some strategies do not seem to work ..
I think it is a mistake to introduce features (double attack, move attack, ..), traits, or others (ideologies: I had the ai choose an ideology disregarding influence and instantly go into civil war) that the ai cannot use/understand.
Chess programmers learned this lesson. First they used well established opening libraries for the first moves. But sometimes the program did not understand the value of a position and tried to undo the 'mistakes'. Now they evaluate all moves in the opening library by the ai and keep only moves the ai understands. ..
- keep the mechanics simple enough that the ai can read and understand actual game values and does not need magic numbers (that get obsolete to fast, are inflexible, and might be wrong from the start) to govern their behaviour. Let them adjust to changes or if some strategies do not seem to work ..
I think it is a mistake to introduce features (double attack, move attack, ..), traits, or others (ideologies: I had the ai choose an ideology disregarding influence and instantly go into civil war) that the ai cannot use/understand.
Chess programmers learned this lesson. First they used well established opening libraries for the first moves. But sometimes the program did not understand the value of a position and tried to undo the 'mistakes'. Now they evaluate all moves in the opening library by the ai and keep only moves the ai understands. ..
reddishrecue
Some dude on civfans
- Joined
- Nov 16, 2009
- Messages
- 6,213
Why not bring back old wonders that used to be missed in civilization 5? Hollywood from civilization 4 or sun tzus war academy from civilization 2 could be brought back also. Lots of things from the old civilization often get left out when the new version of civilization comes out.
AuganM
Chieftain
We'll we can't include all the winders otherwise there'd be too many, however it's nice to see the wonders each civ game gets, I for one hope we get lots of new wonders in the next game
HorseshoeHermit
20% accurate as usual, Morty
There's a mod out that makes CiV barbarians evolve throughout the ages. They actually become different kinds of units : barbarians, brigands, pirates, and eventually terrorists.
I think the last bit is a tad naive, but I love the idea and it goes to some deeper sophistications than just name changes. One thing he doesn't do that I think could be done is to take away the natural combat bonus against all the groups after brigands. Would up the value of other combat bonuses with the supercategory.
I'm not using the same 'tessellate' as you. I certainly don't see how either of those images helps to prove other than that hexes tile the plane, and that a certain large arrangement of trapeziums, rhomboids, and hexagons are a p6 wallpaper group.
I verified that indeed, the 7 hex supertile previously mentioned does tessellate, but the formalisms as I understand it have nothing to do with the things you said and what those images highlight (i.e. make easy to notice about hexagons).
I think the last bit is a tad naive, but I love the idea and it goes to some deeper sophistications than just name changes. One thing he doesn't do that I think could be done is to take away the natural combat bonus against all the groups after brigands. Would up the value of other combat bonuses with the supercategory.
I'm not using the same 'tessellate' as you. I certainly don't see how either of those images helps to prove other than that hexes tile the plane, and that a certain large arrangement of trapeziums, rhomboids, and hexagons are a p6 wallpaper group.
I verified that indeed, the 7 hex supertile previously mentioned does tessellate, but the formalisms as I understand it have nothing to do with the things you said and what those images highlight (i.e. make easy to notice about hexagons).
SupremacyKing2
Deity
I do like the social policy system in civ5 and I think it should stay in some form in civ6. But, I feel like social policies in civ5 mix social and governments together so it is not clear enough what government you are. For example, if go tradition first, then liberty, are you a combo monarcy and democracy? How does that work?
I would propose changing the social policy system so that each header is a government type. Each policy under the government type would add perks to your government. This way, you could still have social policies but they would fit under different government types. Unlike the civ5 system, you could only have one tree active at once. You could switch but at penalty.
I would propose changing the social policy system so that each header is a government type. Each policy under the government type would add perks to your government. This way, you could still have social policies but they would fit under different government types. Unlike the civ5 system, you could only have one tree active at once. You could switch but at penalty.
killmeplease
Mk Z on Steam
Constitutional monarchy, like Great Britain
