Why I am still here (10 years+) New ideas to share?

[Lazy sweeper]

I just received a new badge, I was just logging in to check about civ VII news...
So it's more than 10 years that I got this avatar; actually I have been registered for more than 10 years,
going to the old forum...

Anyway, I HOPE THERE WILL BE CRUSADERS fron CIV VII Vanilla!!! AND Some special missions like BURN THE TEMPLE OF SALOMON, STEAL THE ARK,
and bring it on a pirate ship to North America to the temple of the Moon, with a scrambled map, that works like the Bermuda triangle, and you have to resolve some
mini puzzles cryptography to unlock the map PATH... And a ton of other stuff like that... Buil the Pyramids, you have to unlock all the Pantheons, find the Pitagorean secret society, unlock LEY LINES, then maybe be able to build the Pyramid...
Variable ERA's time flows (ERAS get longer if there is LOW SCIENCE or CULTURAL output- Time gets relative to the average science of all civs, giving time for weaker civs to catch up, and preventing stringer civs to win a MARS LANDING VICTORY in 14.600 B.C..
Spherical Earth, with Antarctic covered in Ice but HUGE FOR SCIENCE MISSIONS ( And Military)
Dino-Barbs and ICE-AGE BEASTS (Mammoth, Saber-Tooth, Dire Wolf, Irish Elk)
Navigable rivers, STONE BRIDGES, WOOD BRIDGES (And relative technology)
Early canals for trade, military, and navigation, POWER!!! Both Rome and China used Water power for their Early industrial ( And I believe Egyptians too) Canals techs, road techs, MATERIAL AND VARIOUS ALCHEMY TECH TREES!!!!
Vertical maps, DEEP OCEAN VALLEYS, EXTREME SEA LEVEL CHANGES (Unpredictable ICE AGE CYCLES)
CYCLOPEAN RUINS!!! LOST CITIES!!!! SMALL CITIES!!! NO 20 Tiles cities.... A LOT OF SMALL CITIES with FAST PRODUCTIONS!!!
STARVATION FOR Armies, and civilian units, traders, like CIV 2!!!
Hundreds of Engineering, Astronomy, Religion, and Culture Techs.
TECH EXCHANGES!!!
No ONE CIV should be able to complete ALL THE TECH TREE ALONE!!!
AI that would TRADE MAPS AND TECHS!!!
STACKED UNITS!! MUCH WEAKER UNITS WITH COMPLETE KILLS!!!
Generals and Armies in Civ 3 style!!!

Skyscrapers!! Towers!!!
Verticality means not just mountains and hillier hills, but also TOWERS. (Vertical cities, also can be build on mountaintops - MACHU PICCHU WAS NOT A WONDER, BUT A CITY). Towers are a symbol of power, control over the territory ( WILLIAM WALLACE TOWER, Anyone?)(Bologna and Pisa 1000 towers war)
Proper Tower defences, tower communications networks, to protect trade routes and far away COLONIES (Slaves! Horses! Luxuries! Food!)
And obviously, ROADS TECH, maybe that can only be built by specialized ENGINEERS WORKERS, Same for Canals and Bridges, actually it
would be cool if workers had PERKS, and could become engineers.
Maybe also SCIENTISTS ( Astronomers, Engineers, Military Science, etc) could have perks too... and be possible to BRIBE, STEAL or KILL.
Some perks trees could unlock some special buildings (Academies, Workshops, Libraries)
This would also give buildings (And districts) a new meaning, one would need to grow one of these special personalities to be able to build one Library, or Stone-Henge... Once one is founded new disciples could learn new Perks tree that could allow to build the copies of that building...

What do you think?
Am I asking too much?

 

[Lazy sweeper]

Let me explain why I cave for marine valleys and general sea verticality.
I think the late game, with the advent of submarines, both military and engineerins, could exploit new mechanics of hide and seek.
And above all exploration of the deep sea as if was a completely new unexplored world.
With engineers and scientists submarines, prospectors, searching for underwater ruins, minerals, hot spots suitable for building an underwater farm,
or maybe even a small colony; as it be a district but detached, that could expand also but never develop into a city.
And no instant connections as if every tile is a road. No automatic traders that goes where they want.
Manual trader units, unique per features, are needed.
Sea charting should be a tech just like roads and bridge building. The sea floor should be mapped to determine safe routes.
Deep canyons and underwater volcanoes should lead to unpredictable sea conditions. Reefs should not just be an impassable tile but an hazard.
Winds and currents should get their part too. Reflected on the sea charts as galleys explore new territories.
Sea charts tech should improve with tech perks. A new perk could unlock visualization of surface currents and winds on the sea chart.
Later underwater currents. A strong current could take a weak ship with minimal movement into treacherous waters just to meet the deeps and never come back.
Or consume her 3 or 4 tiles movement to 1, so it can yet make a move to try end the turn on calm waters and save the hull.
Galleys should be allowed to go onto Ocean tiles. Even Canoes. Rafts.
To limit the game with few rules hes been proved detrimental. The game simply become obnoxious.
Some cards in civ 6 like the Great Admiral that allows every ship to immediately enter Ocean tiles, are the exception that confirms the rule...
the game was just too strict and simplified to be fun...
There's a way to do this in a scientific manner, and in a simplified version.
I think there should be a good balance, but definitely on the complex side, to reflect a more demandous civs fanbase...

 

[Bonyduck Campersang]

I feel exhausted just thinking about those mechanics

 

[luca 83]

The liberated cities should be real territories as well as city-states. revolutions under certain historical conditions should take place, power from the point of view of military,, economic power: lichtenstein is not a large state it does not even have an army but it is one of the richest in Europe best governments, addition of governments as in call to power of technocracy, ecologism, theocracy, modern

 

[luca 83]

It should be possible to create barbarian federations and simulate barbarian migrations like the Lombards who went from Sweden to Germany and then to Hungary

 

[luca 83]

One of the strategic problems is political and that the Civitas do not have a political agenda and objectives. Economical products. and in a war there is no strategy either common among allies, or single like conquest and campaign. Military

 

[civilizationfanatic2000]

civ as it is now can't simulate Alexander the Great's conquests, the splitting and reunification of China, the colonization of the New World, the spread of the wheel through steppe peoples, or even the Barbarian Invasions. the very first thing Civ should do is try to simulate those.

 

[luca 83]

civ as it is now can't simulate Alexander the Great's conquests, the splitting and reunification of China, the colonization of the New World, the spread of the wheel through steppe peoples, or even the Barbarian Invasions. the very first thing Civ should do is try to simulate those.

A better ai would help is the forum if instead of talking about useless things if the developers listen they should propose new game mechanics instead of proposing already existing things. We need to put politics in the foreground and the simulation is the possibility of certain events such as revolutions, religious excuses etc

 

[luca 83]

How to simulate for example the situation in North Vietnam and on. Or North Korea and South Korea? Or Taiwan? What about the ensuing Vietnam War? And you get Laos, Cambodia

 

[Bonyduck Campersang]

How to simulate for example the situation in North Vietnam and on. Or North Korea and South Korea? Or Taiwan? What about the ensuing Vietnam War? And you get Laos, Cambodia

As I have said before, not everything needs to be simulated in the game. Some of your demands would have to be met with a drastic revamping of the Civilization game mechanics, and some of them don't make a lot of sense with regards to the scale of the game.

Regarding conflicts like the Korean War and Vietnam War, my suggestion is that the idea apply to city-states. We already have Spies attempting coups on the behalf of hegemons (major civilizations) in order to install favourable regimes, I think that could be expanded to include supporting military factions as well. So for example in the City-State of Havana you have Babylon and Armenia struggling for influence. Babylon's spy effects a coup and installs a pro-Babylon government in Havana, but Armenia's spy encourages the ousted government to take arms. Babylon sends military aid to the Havanese government which pushes back the rebels. To save the situation Armenia sends their own troops who push back the government forces. Babylon intervenes and sends its own troops, and now both Armenia and Babylon are secondary participants in the civil war. Because two major civilizations are involved, and there is the risk of full-blown conflict occurring, the other major civilizations of the world hold an emergency World Congress meeting to mediate between the two sides. If they succeed, one of the governments is established in Havana, or the city-state is split into two. If not, war breaks out between Babylon and Armenia (where both are primary combatants) and due to cascading alliances or multi-civ pacts World War may occur.

 

[luca 83]

As I have said before, not everything needs to be simulated in the game. Some of your demands would have to be met with a drastic revamping of the Civilization game mechanics, and some of them don't make a lot of sense with regards to the scale of the game.

Regarding conflicts like the Korean War and Vietnam War, my suggestion is that the idea apply to city-states. We already have Spies attempting coups on the behalf of hegemons (major civilizations) in order to install favourable regimes, I think that could be expanded to include supporting military factions as well. So for example in the City-State of Havana you have Babylon and Armenia struggling for influence. Babylon's spy effects a coup and installs a pro-Babylon government in Havana, but Armenia's spy encourages the ousted government to take arms. Babylon sends military aid to the Havanese government which pushes back the rebels. To save the situation Armenia sends their own troops who push back the government forces. Babylon intervenes and sends its own troops, and now both Armenia and Babylon are secondary participants in the civil war. Because two major civilizations are involved, and there is the risk of full-blown conflict occurring, the other major civilizations of the world hold an emergency World Congress meeting to mediate between the two sides. If they succeed, one of the governments is established in Havana, or the city-state is split into two. If not, war breaks out between Babylon and Armenia (where both are primary combatants) and due to cascading alliances or multi-civ pacts World War may occur.

on the other hand, repeat for the last time you don't have the imagination, intelligence to propose new ideas, propose things. That already exist don't propose new game mechanics only new leaders, districts, uniforms and a useless discussion with you

Moderator Action: Please do not troll other members in this way. leif

 

[Bonyduck Campersang]

on the other hand, repeat for the last time you don't have the imagination, intelligence to propose new ideas, propose things. That already exist don't propose new game mechanics only new leaders, districts, uniforms and a useless discussion with you

You only propose ideas, but you never suggest how to implement them.

 

[Patine]

on the other hand, repeat for the last time you don't have the imagination, intelligence to propose new ideas, propose things. That already exist don't propose new game mechanics only new leaders, districts, uniforms and a useless discussion with you

I don't think insulting @Bonyduck Campersang, or any other poster's, capabilities is going to improve the inherent support for your ideas, or any possible desire of anyone to propose mechanics for them.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

We are talking about Civilization, the game, right?

Then let's start by admitting that the very scope of the game: 6000 years, world-wide source for civilizations, city states, Great People, Leaders, etc, places limitations on what we can expect out of it.

You want every possible political/diplomatic interaction? Not at this time scale, not in any computer most of us can afford, - at least not yet.

You want all the tactical detail of battles? Fergedaboudit. I've had this part of the discussion with people proposing the same thing in other strategic/grand-strategy games, so I've got a ready-made example: 1863. One year, in one war, and an internal Civil War at that, and there was a campaign culminating in battle at Chancellorsville, then a series of maneuvers naval and army culminating in a siege at Vicksburg, then another campaign culminating in a battle at Gettysburg, yet another campaign culminating in a battle at Chickamauga, followed by a retreat to Chattanooga, a movement of troops from the Vicksburg and Gettysburg forces to Chattanooga, a battle at Chattanooga.
4 major campaigns/movements culminating in 4 major battles and a siege, and I haven't even mentioned independent naval actions and this all in One Year out of 6000.

Now if you want to get a real headache, do the same compilation for 1944 - world-wide naval, ground, air and combined military, diplomatic, and political actions - again, all in One Year out of 6000.

New Ideas are one thing.
Focus is another.
If the game does not Focus it becomes unplayable by the average gamer with anything else in their lives and any normal computer.

 

[civilizationfanatic2000]

We are talking about Civilization, the game, right?

Then let's start by admitting that the very scope of the game: 6000 years, world-wide source for civilizations, city states, Great People, Leaders, etc, places limitations on what we can expect out of it.

You want every possible political/diplomatic interaction? Not at this time scale, not in any computer most of us can afford, - at least not yet.

You want all the tactical detail of battles? Fergedaboudit. I've had this part of the discussion with people proposing the same thing in other strategic/grand-strategy games, so I've got a ready-made example: 1863. One year, in one war, and an internal Civil War at that, and there was a campaign culminating in battle at Chancellorsville, then a series of maneuvers naval and army culminating in a siege at Vicksburg, then another campaign culminating in a battle at Gettysburg, yet another campaign culminating in a battle at Chickamauga, followed by a retreat to Chattanooga, a movement of troops from the Vicksburg and Gettysburg forces to Chattanooga, a battle at Chattanooga.
4 major campaigns/movements culminating in 4 major battles and a siege, and I haven't even mentioned independent naval actions and this all in One Year out of 6000.

Now if you want to get a real headache, do the same compilation for 1944 - world-wide naval, ground, air and combined military, diplomatic, and political actions - again, all in One Year out of 6000.

New Ideas are one thing.
Focus is another.
If the game does not Focus it becomes unplayable by the average gamer with anything else in their lives and any normal computer.

i actually have an idea for that which hopefully doesn't reduce the focus on national level events. when the player enters a major war (as opposed to tribal conflicts or city-state skirmishes, which will be ai generated. 'So and so beat So and So at Thisplace in Thistime'), the game will come to a stop and enter War Time, where all turns become seasons within a greater turn. Spring-Summer-Autumn-Winter over and over again until it matches the limit set by the turn (150, 15, 5, 2 years, etc). and then it goes to the next turn and continues until the war is over which is determined by defeat of the enem(ies)y. the normal map is the same, but as I discussed earlier units are made much faster and move much faster which means Alexander the Great can replicate his conquests, which are certainly on scale with Civ.

this can't solve the problem fully but it helps

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

i actually have an idea for that which hopefully doesn't reduce the focus on national level events. when the player enters a major war (as opposed to tribal conflicts or city-state skirmishes, which will be ai generated. 'So and so beat So and So at Thisplace in Thistime'), the game will come to a stop and enter War Time, where all turns become seasons within a greater turn. Spring-Summer-Autumn-Winter over and over again until it matches the limit set by the turn (150, 15, 5, 2 years, etc). and then it goes to the next turn and continues until the war is over which is determined by defeat of the enem(ies)y. the normal map is the same, but as I discussed earlier units are made much faster and move much faster which means Alexander the Great can replicate his conquests, which are certainly on scale with Civ.

this can't solve the problem fully but it helps

This is similar, but on a strategic rather than tactical scale, to the separate 'battle maps' to play out combat used in Humankind and numerous other games. This allows the game to 'drop down' to a different time and distance scale more in keeping with the actions being reproduced/modeled.

Full Disclosure: I loved the Humankind 'battle map' system when I first saw it during play testing because it related the battle terrain to the general strategic map terrain, among other things. Unfortunately, I became aware of the problems with it: see below.

The problem with the system for both Campaigns and Battles to some degree is that:
1. Everything else stops while you play out the individual battle/campaign. That makes it a real problem for multiplayer, because everyone not involved in the battle/campaign (like, in the case of Alexander's conquests, everyone from America to East Asia to Africa and Northern Europe, which is a LOT of Civs!) gets to sit around a reread War and Peace while waiting for everything to be resolved.
2. Even in a single player versus AI game, individual turns with more than one battle/campaign to resolve can take up a massive amount of time. Imagine, say, reproducing World War Two for an extreme example, with campaigns/battles going simultaneously in France, Russia, Italy, China, Burma, and a massive air-sea campaign in the Pacific Ocean or its equivalent. A single half-year turn could wind up taking an entire weekend to play out!
3. Which brings up another potential problem in a campaign version of the 'drop down' system: while the majority of battles throughout history lasted less than a day and took place on a relatively small area (Alexander's climactic battle against the Persians at Gaugamela, for instance, took place on a flat plain about 3 - 5 kilometers wide and maybe 1.5 - 2 kilometers deep) campaigns can spread over a large percentage of the planet's surface (like the Pacific campaign of WWII, or the Mongol invasion of eastern Europe, which started east of the Caspian Sea and went all the way to Hungary) OR could be enclosed in a relatively small area but be hugely important, like Marlborough's campaign in Germany in 1704 that culminated in the Battle of Blenheim, that took place entirely between Netherlands and Bavaria (about 250 x 80 kilometers) within a period of less than 3 months, but established the British Army's reputation for the next century.
That means a 'campaign' in this system will be hard to define, because the initial area covered is so variable (and can change during the campaign: Hannibal's invasion of Italy culminated in a Roman invasion of North Africa: the initial area of the campaign got dramatically enlarged during the process) and the time scale is also wildly variable: Alexander took over 10 years to get to India, Marlborough took 10 weeks to get to Blenheim. Definitions of time and distance are going to be a really big problem.

Not to say it's impossible, just full of problems, like so many Game Mechanics. I suspect the answer might be a 'battle system' which includes the preliminary maneuvering for a battlefield, and so combining the individual battle and the campaign into a single movement between tiles or even within a tile. In military terminology, this would be combining the Operational and Tactical levels of combat into a single set of actions - not a bad idea, because the Operational (maneuvering for advantage) has been sadly neglected in the majority of both Tactical and Grand Strategy (like Civ) games.

 

[civilizationfanatic2000]

This is similar, but on a strategic rather than tactical scale, to the separate 'battle maps' to play out combat used in Humankind and numerous other games. This allows the game to 'drop down' to a different time and distance scale more in keeping with the actions being reproduced/modeled.

Full Disclosure: I loved the Humankind 'battle map' system when I first saw it during play testing because it related the battle terrain to the general strategic map terrain, among other things. Unfortunately, I became aware of the problems with it: see below.

The problem with the system for both Campaigns and Battles to some degree is that:
1. Everything else stops while you play out the individual battle/campaign. That makes it a real problem for multiplayer, because everyone not involved in the battle/campaign (like, in the case of Alexander's conquests, everyone from America to East Asia to Africa and Northern Europe, which is a LOT of Civs!) gets to sit around a reread War and Peace while waiting for everything to be resolved.I

This is a little painful but tolerable if unfixed. I think the way to fix this is to essentially make the entire region(s) involved split off into their own 4-D bubble of time while everyone else plays along, unable to interact with them beyond minor fashion unless they want to join the war. When the war is done, the 5-D time manager merges the 4-D bubble together after speeding up the time in that bubble to match the greater bubble. This would only happen if the Spring-Summer-Autumn-Winter loop exceeds the turn limit, which most historical wars don't do to my knowledge (IIRC on Standard turn speed a single turn takes 25 years from 1000 BC to 500 AD https://civilization.fandom.com/wiki/Speed_(Civ6), Alexander's conquests lasted 11 years) and is very unlikely to do because of how the loop works in the first place.

This is probably impossible. Maybe.

2. Even in a single player versus AI game, individual turns with more than one battle/campaign to resolve can take up a massive amount of time. Imagine, say, reproducing World War Two for an extreme example, with campaigns/battles going simultaneously in France, Russia, Italy, China, Burma, and a massive air-sea campaign in the Pacific Ocean or its equivalent. A single half-year turn could wind up taking an entire weekend to play out!

I don't see the problem with this aside from personal preference.

3. Which brings up another potential problem in a campaign version of the 'drop down' system: while the majority of battles throughout history lasted less than a day and took place on a relatively small area (Alexander's climactic battle against the Persians at Gaugamela, for instance, took place on a flat plain about 3 - 5 kilometers wide and maybe 1.5 - 2 kilometers deep) campaigns can spread over a large percentage of the planet's surface (like the Pacific campaign of WWII, or the Mongol invasion of eastern Europe, which started east of the Caspian Sea and went all the way to Hungary) OR could be enclosed in a relatively small area but be hugely important, like Marlborough's campaign in Germany in 1704 that culminated in the Battle of Blenheim, that took place entirely between Netherlands and Bavaria (about 250 x 80 kilometers) within a period of less than 3 months, but established the British Army's reputation for the next century.
That means a 'campaign' in this system will be hard to define, because the initial area covered is so variable (and can change during the campaign: Hannibal's invasion of Italy culminated in a Roman invasion of North Africa: the initial area of the campaign got dramatically enlarged during the process) and the time scale is also wildly variable: Alexander took over 10 years to get to India, Marlborough took 10 weeks to get to Blenheim. Definitions of time and distance are going to be a really big problem.

Space of Campaigns: Total land area of everyone involved (actively inviting) + the land area of whoever's stuck in the middle. To make it so that small scale wars can happen between two large powers, there should be goals to set by either the enemy or yourself that measure how much force either of you will use. When the goal is finished, or one side surrenders, the war is over. A war of total extermination will involve your entire country and your surrounding allies, while a war over a trade route will end pretty fast and involve only one area even though the same amount of space is sent into War Time. You can ramp up your Goals or scale them down.

I should mention you can keep making buildings during War Time.
Time of Campaigns: The campaign will take as much time as it needs for either side to give in. 1 year, 10 years, 100 years. When a significant delay happens, the War is ended to either be permanently ended or rekindled, sending them back into War Time.

Not to say it's impossible, just full of problems, like so many Game Mechanics. I suspect the answer might be a 'battle system' which includes the preliminary maneuvering for a battlefield, and so combining the individual battle and the campaign into a single movement between tiles or even within a tile. In military terminology, this would be combining the Operational and Tactical levels of combat into a single set of actions - not a bad idea, because the Operational (maneuvering for advantage) has been sadly neglected in the majority of both Tactical and Grand Strategy (like Civ) games.

If my idea is too problematic for the majority, then your idea is good.

 

[Patine]

This would only happen if the Spring-Summer-Autumn-Winter loop exceeds the turn limit, which most historical wars don't do to my knowledge (IIRC on Standard turn speed a single turn takes 25 years from 1000 BC to 500 AD https://civilization.fandom.com/wiki/Speed_(Civ6), Alexander's conquests lasted 11 years) and is very unlikely to do because of how the loop works in the first place.

This works in games covering numerous European, Feudal Japanese, and U.S. Civil War campaigns (which are ALL VERY common, on the market), but breaks down in a global game, where these seasons have no universiality of impact, occurance, relevance, and are flipped on the other hemisphere. Random map options affecting age of the world and cooler and warmer worlds than normal moreso throw it for a loop. Using the classic, temperate Northern Hemisphere seasons in such a limiting and defining way is utterly unworkable in Civ.

 

[civilizationfanatic2000]

This works in games covering numerous European, Feudal Japanese, and U.S. Civil War campaigns (which are ALL VERY common, on the market), but breaks down in a global game, where these seasons have no universiality of impact, occurance, relevance, and are flipped on the other hemisphere. Random map options affecting age of the world and cooler and warmer worlds than normal moreso throw it for a loop. Using the classic, temperate Northern Hemisphere seasons in such a limiting and defining way is utterly unworkable in Civ.

One could perhaps divide a 12 month year into 4 3-month parts. The environment would change according to the local equivalent of seasonal fluctuations, like a dry season or a monsoon season.

 

[civilizationfanatic2000]

also, speaking of temperature and humidity, i had an idea.

Koppen Climates



abstract them down into Heat, Humidity, and fluctuation, which create a Growing Season. First two are obvious, but the last one measures the temperature difference between seasons. Hot summers with mild winters, the opposite, or hot summers and cold winters? This would then influence the Biome that can appear here. Simulated wind direction, tides, elevation, and distance from the equator influence climates. It should also take into account Sunlight. The longer the Growing Season that results from this, the more food that can be produced. This would be one part that would simulate the rise of civilization in hotter areas (generally) like the Indus River Valley, Mesopotamia, and Egypt (Greece and China followed soon after).

some crops cannot grow in certain areas, preferring other areas instead. rice can't grow in dry areas for instance without significant irrigation.