hahntsak
Clueless Barbarian Fool
but loading / unloading train should deduct from movement.
The Official Civ4 Ideas Thread
- Thread starter Chieftess
- Start date
- Status
but loading / unloading train should deduct from movement.
Howard Mahler
Since Civ 1
- Joined
- Dec 7, 2003
- Messages
- 619
In Civ3 on a huge map (and maybe others) at the beginning of the game one has to set research to the minimum and take 40 turns to get a result.
At some point as your civ. increases this changes and the player can actually
make a useful decision as to the appropriate level of research.
Having a single right strategy is not good for a strategic game. This should be changed.
Howard Mahler
At some point as your civ. increases this changes and the player can actually
make a useful decision as to the appropriate level of research.
Having a single right strategy is not good for a strategic game. This should be changed.
Howard Mahler
Howard Mahler
Since Civ 1
- Joined
- Dec 7, 2003
- Messages
- 619
In Civ2, when you conquered a city, you get to a take scientific advance.
I think this made some sense, but it should be a percent chance, with the chance lower on larger maps.
Howard Mahler
I think this made some sense, but it should be a percent chance, with the chance lower on larger maps.
Howard Mahler
Howard Mahler
Since Civ 1
- Joined
- Dec 7, 2003
- Messages
- 619
The power of some wonders varies based on the size of map and the type of map (Pangea, archipelago.)
For example the Lighthouse is potentially much more useful on a huge archipelago map than on a small Pangea map. Hoover's Dam is potentially more useful on a huge pangea map than a small archipelago map. The same is true of most wonders that effect your cities on a single continent.
It would be helpful if the cost of these and similar wonders depended somewhat on the size and type of map.
Howard Mahler
For example the Lighthouse is potentially much more useful on a huge archipelago map than on a small Pangea map. Hoover's Dam is potentially more useful on a huge pangea map than a small archipelago map. The same is true of most wonders that effect your cities on a single continent.
It would be helpful if the cost of these and similar wonders depended somewhat on the size and type of map.
Howard Mahler
Howard Mahler
Since Civ 1
- Joined
- Dec 7, 2003
- Messages
- 619
Things I don't care about:
Better Graphics
Multiplayer
Scenarios
Howard Mahler
Better Graphics
Multiplayer
Scenarios
Howard Mahler
Win proof
This is only a multiplayer improvement.
The players who have just played a game should be able to prove that they have won or lost, and every body else should be able to check if he/her is right.
This could be done very easely by having a database store the data or by simply sending an e-mail to those who want it.
This will make it posible for others to make clans, clanwars, stats, ladders and best of all tournemts, and that would expand the community much, and make the mp players play much longer.
This is only a multiplayer improvement.
The players who have just played a game should be able to prove that they have won or lost, and every body else should be able to check if he/her is right.
This could be done very easely by having a database store the data or by simply sending an e-mail to those who want it.
This will make it posible for others to make clans, clanwars, stats, ladders and best of all tournemts, and that would expand the community much, and make the mp players play much longer.
SLOW DOWN folks! Though it's concept is far-reaching in time and space, Civilization will always be a computer game, and is therefore restricted in what it can allow and offer. Let's focus on what the game does well, and talk about ways of accentuating those attributes.
I, for one, have always liked Civilization for its modularity and organic tinge, akin to legos or even gardening. I like to make up new civs and I even name geological formations and important battle cites. So civ-specific units have always rubbed me the wrong way; if i make my own civ, why can't I go through some wizard to create my own units? Just set att/def/mov limits per era and tech, and assign values to special abilities, and I'll make something that corresponds to my particular situation. MOO already has this application, and I like it.
Mr. Cackle
Cacklin' since '95
DrMADD --
I knew I was forgetting something! Yes, I think that temples and cathedrals and Smith's Trading Company should definitely be nullified under Communism, making it harder to keep the people happy.
Although, if those were taken out and we kept the current stats for communism, then NO ONE, not even I would choose communism, because that would make it worse than despotism!
I knew I was forgetting something! Yes, I think that temples and cathedrals and Smith's Trading Company should definitely be nullified under Communism, making it harder to keep the people happy.
Although, if those were taken out and we kept the current stats for communism, then NO ONE, not even I would choose communism, because that would make it worse than despotism!
The major weakness in Civ 3 are IMHO the Diplomatic and Combat AI routines. I think these need tweaking in Civ 4
1: A more robust and realistic Diplomancy Function with less random and irrational actions by the AI Civs, especially the latter.
An example would be a warning that an action you are about to undertake, or are doing, will lead to War, like building up massive Stacks just outside their borders, or attacking a third Civ even though they have no treatys with it.
I am not fond of having to constantly Ass Kiss the AI Civs with Gold and great Tech Gifts or deals so they don`t launch Kamikaze attacks against me, especially when we are more or less equal in Military and Research, IMO a bad design feature in Civ3 1.29.
2: A more realistic Combat system with Ancient units VS Modern units, right now you get too many groaners when that AI Spearmen kills 2 or more Veteran Tanks in a row.
The ability to "buy" or "rent" Mercenary units, a nice design featue that many other Civ type games offer.
The ability to "bribe" an AI unit in your terriority during War, this and the above offer the player interesting " decision points" in how to use his Gold.
In general a more expanded Tech Tree and PLEASE, less build time for the Key early city growth enhancements like Grainaries.
For the 10,000th. request, please stop the AI Civs from trying to build Cities on every available location, especially within your area of influence. AC seems to have gotten this right.
Last; please extend the Game End time out to at least 3000AD.
1: A more robust and realistic Diplomancy Function with less random and irrational actions by the AI Civs, especially the latter.
An example would be a warning that an action you are about to undertake, or are doing, will lead to War, like building up massive Stacks just outside their borders, or attacking a third Civ even though they have no treatys with it.
I am not fond of having to constantly Ass Kiss the AI Civs with Gold and great Tech Gifts or deals so they don`t launch Kamikaze attacks against me, especially when we are more or less equal in Military and Research, IMO a bad design feature in Civ3 1.29.
2: A more realistic Combat system with Ancient units VS Modern units, right now you get too many groaners when that AI Spearmen kills 2 or more Veteran Tanks in a row.
The ability to "buy" or "rent" Mercenary units, a nice design featue that many other Civ type games offer.
The ability to "bribe" an AI unit in your terriority during War, this and the above offer the player interesting " decision points" in how to use his Gold.
In general a more expanded Tech Tree and PLEASE, less build time for the Key early city growth enhancements like Grainaries.
For the 10,000th. request, please stop the AI Civs from trying to build Cities on every available location, especially within your area of influence. AC seems to have gotten this right.
Last; please extend the Game End time out to at least 3000AD.
Civ 4 should seperate economics and politics
Political systems would include:
Despotism (i.e. Saddam's Iraq)
Monarchy (i.e. Saudi Arabia)
Republic (i.e. Current U.S. model)
Democracy (has not existed since ancient Greece)
I like the econ slider idea for economic systems:
To the left would be "Planned economy" or "Communism" with slow growth, lagging technological development, few happy or sad citizens (only content ones), and cheap military
To the right would be "Laissez Faire" or "Capitalism" with rapid growth, rapid technological advancement, demanding citizens that are either happy or sad (rarely content), and expensive military.
The notion that deficit spending hurts GDP is backwards. If anything, deficit spending boosts CURRENT GDP and income at the expense of slower FUTURE growth.
Political systems would include:
Despotism (i.e. Saddam's Iraq)
Monarchy (i.e. Saudi Arabia)
Republic (i.e. Current U.S. model)
Democracy (has not existed since ancient Greece)
I like the econ slider idea for economic systems:
To the left would be "Planned economy" or "Communism" with slow growth, lagging technological development, few happy or sad citizens (only content ones), and cheap military
To the right would be "Laissez Faire" or "Capitalism" with rapid growth, rapid technological advancement, demanding citizens that are either happy or sad (rarely content), and expensive military.
The notion that deficit spending hurts GDP is backwards. If anything, deficit spending boosts CURRENT GDP and income at the expense of slower FUTURE growth.
barron of ideas
Barron
Lets dispense with the unique units and some of the other chrome that doesn't work very well (commercial, agricultural, industrious, whatever, and the costly artwork of leaders with four sets of clothing and at least as many expressions, and go back to Civ I, the real Civilization game, and start over, and make it better.
Randomize technology again, let there be more outcomes than we have now, don't make the tank and modern armor the uber units that defeat the world. Lets have some tension throughout the whole game. Being ahead in tech is nice, but what if the black death hits? They started down this route with Volcanos, I saw one kill off Constantinople last night, and that pretty much was that for the Byzantines (sorry Xen) as all their neighbors, including me, decided on piece. A piece of of our neighbor who lost her most productive city and a lot of her military in one mountain belch.
They need the redesign to keep us on our toes, intermittantly reinforced (get that rat to click for one more turn with a piece of food every 10 or 50 or 1000 clicks.) The is no one winning strategy for paper, sizzors, rock. We need some strategic choices like that that will work out right some of the time.
Whats wrong with Civ 3 in all its iterations, even SID, although I haven't tried it, and doubt I would do very well if I did, is that the good players can climb out of the deepest hole giving all that stuff to the AIs creates, and then beat them to death with it. The AIs aren't smart, or maybe they are too predictable. Maybe not all human players, but the good ones can get to a position where they are just going through the motions to get to one of the victory conditions, we aren't really threatened once we get our cities up and running.
So the redesign is easy, just challenge us all the way through the game. With different challenges, please, so we don't find them predictable and develop perfect plans that work. Perfect plans that don't alway work are great. I don't care if you have to sink continents to do it. If we can't lose, it isn't fun. But we have to win sometimes. How about a big asteroid that will destroy all life on earth, and you have to have space flight and a bunch of other techs to keep it from striking? As one of a hundred challenges, not every game has. If you spend all your reseach on space, AIDS will get you. Let there be strategic choices, and consequences, good and bad for the ones taken that mean you didn't take some other. You shouldn't be able to reseach everything!
Randomize technology again, let there be more outcomes than we have now, don't make the tank and modern armor the uber units that defeat the world. Lets have some tension throughout the whole game. Being ahead in tech is nice, but what if the black death hits? They started down this route with Volcanos, I saw one kill off Constantinople last night, and that pretty much was that for the Byzantines (sorry Xen) as all their neighbors, including me, decided on piece. A piece of of our neighbor who lost her most productive city and a lot of her military in one mountain belch.
They need the redesign to keep us on our toes, intermittantly reinforced (get that rat to click for one more turn with a piece of food every 10 or 50 or 1000 clicks.) The is no one winning strategy for paper, sizzors, rock. We need some strategic choices like that that will work out right some of the time.
Whats wrong with Civ 3 in all its iterations, even SID, although I haven't tried it, and doubt I would do very well if I did, is that the good players can climb out of the deepest hole giving all that stuff to the AIs creates, and then beat them to death with it. The AIs aren't smart, or maybe they are too predictable. Maybe not all human players, but the good ones can get to a position where they are just going through the motions to get to one of the victory conditions, we aren't really threatened once we get our cities up and running.
So the redesign is easy, just challenge us all the way through the game. With different challenges, please, so we don't find them predictable and develop perfect plans that work. Perfect plans that don't alway work are great. I don't care if you have to sink continents to do it. If we can't lose, it isn't fun. But we have to win sometimes. How about a big asteroid that will destroy all life on earth, and you have to have space flight and a bunch of other techs to keep it from striking? As one of a hundred challenges, not every game has. If you spend all your reseach on space, AIDS will get you. Let there be strategic choices, and consequences, good and bad for the ones taken that mean you didn't take some other. You shouldn't be able to reseach everything!
A lot of people have a problem with the "infinite movement" of the trains, but it's an illusion. The seemingly infinite movement of railroads reflects the turn-based limitations of the game. The shortest amount of time to pass in a turn is a year, so it is entirely feasible that a unit expends zero movement points to get from one end of a continent to the other, then disembarks and goes on to spend its normal points. It's like a real-world battalion being shipped by rail from Ft. Stewart, GA to Ft. Lewis, WA in a year. It could be done with months to spare.
barron of ideas
Barron
I may have been too hasty on dropping UUs, Instead, make them avaliable to everyone, if you research it. Same with agricultural, seafaring, militaristic, industrious, etc. Research them, obviously you can't afford to research them all, and don't allow trading. Another option would be to allow research to improve a single statistic on a regular unit. Want Immortals? research improved offense for swordsmen. Want Legions? Research improved defense for Swordsmen. Want 4-3-1 units? Research both. You may want something else more, but then, again give us options. More options is good. Just like Ironclads are now researched for and not automatic. Maybe mil trad shouldn't give cavalry, just the opportunity to research up to plus 4 offense and plus 2 defense for horsemen.
You may need to take out goodie huts and expansionist civilizations if it unbalances the research driven approch to Civ 4. I never much understood how some of the technologies were known by little barbarian villages, but not by other civilizations. Getting workers (slaves) and gold make a lot more sense to me.
You may need to take out goodie huts and expansionist civilizations if it unbalances the research driven approch to Civ 4. I never much understood how some of the technologies were known by little barbarian villages, but not by other civilizations. Getting workers (slaves) and gold make a lot more sense to me.
sela1s1son
King
A feature better representing population
Each era the city size = a different number of people. IE Size one in Ancient times might be 50 to 100 people.
When you capture a city of another era, the size is adjusted to fit the population. To make this have little to no affect on production, each age should result in an increase of "pop head" production, and the size number adjusted to represent population.
The actual production of a city shifting to a new era won't change as the number of pop heads will be reduced to reflect population, and the increase in production will fit the downshift of heads. Of course, Food consumption will stay the same (and consumption the same) to reflect more productivity and more consumption per head. The reason why I'd increase productivity is the higher population per head. Leaving actual technological advances (Industrialization) to still be reflected.
This makes more sense to me as a city of 10,000 people in 4,000 BC is big. Plus, by increasing productivity (and adjusting for size) when era transistion occurs allows for this to work out.
Each era the city size = a different number of people. IE Size one in Ancient times might be 50 to 100 people.
When you capture a city of another era, the size is adjusted to fit the population. To make this have little to no affect on production, each age should result in an increase of "pop head" production, and the size number adjusted to represent population.
The actual production of a city shifting to a new era won't change as the number of pop heads will be reduced to reflect population, and the increase in production will fit the downshift of heads. Of course, Food consumption will stay the same (and consumption the same) to reflect more productivity and more consumption per head. The reason why I'd increase productivity is the higher population per head. Leaving actual technological advances (Industrialization) to still be reflected.
This makes more sense to me as a city of 10,000 people in 4,000 BC is big. Plus, by increasing productivity (and adjusting for size) when era transistion occurs allows for this to work out.
sela1s1son
King
I also would like to choose between a male or female leaderhead. Having the leaderhead of Cleopatra when I play the Egyptians, or Catherine when I play the Russians is very annoying.
Sandman2003
Prince
The additions I would like to see in Civ IV would be additions that enhance the playability and additions that add to the strategic options and flavour of the game. I am not in favour af additions that simply provide randomised luck to the game eg volcanoes.
First, some of the changes that enhanced playability in Civ III over Civ II was the ability to set up build queues and defaults to make the same unit again etc You could put your build plan into the game rather than have to track it externally, an dhave your strategic vision continually interrupted with "I have just finished my temple in nowhere important, what do I build now?" questions at the start of every move.
Civ IV should extend this concept further so that city micromangement can be predetermined, and programmed into both individual worker actions, and predetermination of city tile working over a series of tuns.
eg Worker actions - you should be able to set up a job queue (graphically) so that you could say make a worker:
- move to tile X
- then road
- then mine
- then move to tile Y
etc
Worker actions should be performed after all non-preprogramed actions, so if you need to interrupt (due to barb activity say) you can.
eg Tile managment - this is to enable the automated settler factory as an example. You would specify the priorities for tiles to be worked by the city population up to the maximum 20 tiles (city centre always worked) for each and every turn up to whatever number of advance turns you like, and with a repeat function available.
If you specify less than the current city pop, then the excess reverts to the current system of tile selection.
If you specify more than the current pop level then the higher priorities are worked first.
This would enable the full power of micro management without the need to manaually make changes to each city every turn, and therefore greatly enhance playability without sacrificing power.
Second, the strength of the AI is a major issue, and one that I am sure is not nearly as easy to fix as many in these forums would like to believe. I suspect the best approach is to consider what are the AIs key failings and what can be done to improve these in an incremental approach.
Some of the AIs weaknesses appear to me to be:
a) Poor use of worker turns.
ie 1) before a city has expanded, the AI only considers the immediiate surrounding squares to work on, and works the most powerful. Instead, the foresight that the city will expand after so many turns should be applied to the worker for a more strategic set of turns evolved.
ie 2) the AI looks to work the most powerful square first in isolation as to how to get there and which square it may wish to work next. A more powerful sequence would be available if it considered the most powerful sequence, instead of the most powerful individual square
b) Combat
ie 1) Failure to concentrate force sufficient to wage a successful offence.
ie 2) Unit selection based on unit id rather than most appropriate unit for the job.
etc
I am sure others can add to the list, and the list of ways to improve the AI that are realistic to program.
More later...
First, some of the changes that enhanced playability in Civ III over Civ II was the ability to set up build queues and defaults to make the same unit again etc You could put your build plan into the game rather than have to track it externally, an dhave your strategic vision continually interrupted with "I have just finished my temple in nowhere important, what do I build now?" questions at the start of every move.
Civ IV should extend this concept further so that city micromangement can be predetermined, and programmed into both individual worker actions, and predetermination of city tile working over a series of tuns.
eg Worker actions - you should be able to set up a job queue (graphically) so that you could say make a worker:
- move to tile X
- then road
- then mine
- then move to tile Y
etc
Worker actions should be performed after all non-preprogramed actions, so if you need to interrupt (due to barb activity say) you can.
eg Tile managment - this is to enable the automated settler factory as an example. You would specify the priorities for tiles to be worked by the city population up to the maximum 20 tiles (city centre always worked) for each and every turn up to whatever number of advance turns you like, and with a repeat function available.
If you specify less than the current city pop, then the excess reverts to the current system of tile selection.
If you specify more than the current pop level then the higher priorities are worked first.
This would enable the full power of micro management without the need to manaually make changes to each city every turn, and therefore greatly enhance playability without sacrificing power.
Second, the strength of the AI is a major issue, and one that I am sure is not nearly as easy to fix as many in these forums would like to believe. I suspect the best approach is to consider what are the AIs key failings and what can be done to improve these in an incremental approach.
Some of the AIs weaknesses appear to me to be:
a) Poor use of worker turns.
ie 1) before a city has expanded, the AI only considers the immediiate surrounding squares to work on, and works the most powerful. Instead, the foresight that the city will expand after so many turns should be applied to the worker for a more strategic set of turns evolved.
ie 2) the AI looks to work the most powerful square first in isolation as to how to get there and which square it may wish to work next. A more powerful sequence would be available if it considered the most powerful sequence, instead of the most powerful individual square
b) Combat
ie 1) Failure to concentrate force sufficient to wage a successful offence.
ie 2) Unit selection based on unit id rather than most appropriate unit for the job.
etc
I am sure others can add to the list, and the list of ways to improve the AI that are realistic to program.
More later...
1. mines
new ability: "place minefield"
have some units capable of mining terrain. the mine should be invisible to others (until some of their units got blown to pieces), have no nationality, be capable of killing/wounding most enemies.
new ability: "clear minefield"
for the couterpart units - capable of removing mines, they should not be able to see minefields in neighbouring tiles, and have some risk involved in removing them. (like losing a hitpoint or two if you have bad luck)
tiles with minefields should not be workable by towns, so can't just place them all over your terretory like roads or fortresses (given you have enough manpower)
mines would allow players to increase the security of their borders without stationing additional units.
this could also be useful to prevent the AI from running through your territory all the time.
1b) the same kind of system for naval combat.
2. bombardement to ranged units
just like it's currently used in the dyp mod, allow ranged units (archer, musketman, etc.) to choose to bombard an enemy with something less than their attack value instead of attacking them personally.
it simulates ability to attack from distance and could help to increase unit diversity.
--
i also like the idea of limiting the railroad movement, because it would get people to use other modes of transportation more often. (maybe i'll ship my units across that sea instead of going waaaay round, or should i airlift them to get there faster)
i don't think it would harm the "realism" or be illogical as your first units could certainly _walk_ around the earth in 40 years (if they move at least 1000 meters an hour, 3 hours a day)
new ability: "place minefield"
have some units capable of mining terrain. the mine should be invisible to others (until some of their units got blown to pieces), have no nationality, be capable of killing/wounding most enemies.
new ability: "clear minefield"
for the couterpart units - capable of removing mines, they should not be able to see minefields in neighbouring tiles, and have some risk involved in removing them. (like losing a hitpoint or two if you have bad luck)
tiles with minefields should not be workable by towns, so can't just place them all over your terretory like roads or fortresses (given you have enough manpower)
mines would allow players to increase the security of their borders without stationing additional units.
this could also be useful to prevent the AI from running through your territory all the time.
1b) the same kind of system for naval combat.
2. bombardement to ranged units
just like it's currently used in the dyp mod, allow ranged units (archer, musketman, etc.) to choose to bombard an enemy with something less than their attack value instead of attacking them personally.
it simulates ability to attack from distance and could help to increase unit diversity.
--
i also like the idea of limiting the railroad movement, because it would get people to use other modes of transportation more often. (maybe i'll ship my units across that sea instead of going waaaay round, or should i airlift them to get there faster)
i don't think it would harm the "realism" or be illogical as your first units could certainly _walk_ around the earth in 40 years (if they move at least 1000 meters an hour, 3 hours a day)
yes but the two points I'd make regarding the matter are:
1. on large continents it takes longer to transfer a unit between cities in an aircraft than by train - which just seems silly (unless it takes several months to load and unload aeroplanes and only a few minutes for trains)
2. it's bad enough waiting for AI to take their turns when you're in the last fifth of the game and you can see everything and everyone moves dozens of units per turn - and it can be rather irritating to see the AI whizzing it's units around the railroad trying to expend all it's movement points
one other possible solution though could be to make railway stations with worker units like outposts and airfields and such (includes all cities as having railway stations)- then units moving normally would only get the normal road bonus and units on a station or city square would have a 'railway' hotkey to pick a station to get transferred to - then travelling between cities works pretty much the same as airlifts and you need to set up temporary stations on some combat fronts. (like someone said maybe limit airlift distance by tech perhaps then limit railway travel similarly - going from steam to electric to maglev or something)
although granted this idea doesn't account for the shield production bonus of railroads so if anyone has ideas how to adapt it..
- Status
