A better feel for civilizations in CivV

[RedRalph]

One feature I'd love to see would be a way to get more of a feel for what your average inhabitant of yours and rival civs are like. What I mean is, at present in civ you can see stats, cities, units etc etc. but you have no feel whatsoever for what the inhabitants of a civ are like. you dont know if you are attacking a civ whose inhabitans are generally conservative, liberal religious, left or right wing etc... there could be a long list of characteristics a civ could have, and they could be combined to make each civ unique in character, with events changing them over time.

It would add a nice layer of depth if this could be implemented. Especially in the early game, it could be used to decide whether a rival city nearby could be assimilated. Of course this could be done with simple pie-chart graphic, etc, but that really would give you a feel. how about a system where you could through espionage, meet inhabitants of a rival civ? you go to a screen where you meet a 'man on the street' form a rival civ, who tells you how people feel about their own govt, about yours, about your culture, how poverty stricken or prosperous they feel, etc etc, and this would instruct you on thne likely consequences of attacking/conducting diplomacy/trying to assimilate etc? Info about your own citizens could tell you how much they would tolerate war, changes in form of govt, likelyhood of them emigrating to a new city you found etc...


I'm really just thinking out loud here, so if anyone has better ideas on how to implement this feel free to chip in. But I think this would be a real boost to the depth of the game.

 

[RedRalph]

No support for this idea? Wouldnt it be nice to have a more personalised civ?

 

[toft]

In my opinion they need to start from scratch. Adding more features just doesnt justify another version of Civilization.

They need make the game fun ALL the way through the ages. Modern ages are waaay too boring and offer little, to no choice but spam units - a unit cap is needed.

When leading the scoreboard from the start, you can bet that you also will in the end... that isnt too exciting.

And yes, a better feel for each Civilization would be nice, but i fear that unique unit and building are being kept to the current 1 per civilization. I kinda miss the old civics too. Communism, Democracy and so on.

... something is definately missing... or wrong.

 

[RedRalph]

Yeah, there definitely need to be some form of stability, and something to stop an early tech leader racing ever further into the lead. Maybe a bleedover of techs? Sort of unrealistic when you have modern armour and the lads next door are using riflemen...

How do you mean a totally new start?

 

[RedRalph]

The more I think of it the more I agree. I really cant see how much can be added to the present systems to justify a new edition. Things like the city system, buildings, unit production etc all need to be overhauled. CivV should be more unpredictable, less formulaic.

Sid repeatedly mentioned Civ as a MMOPRG last year, the more I think of it the more i like it... you could have entire planets with hundreds of civs, forming proper alliances, completely uniqu civilisation with elements of many really life ones etc etc

 

[toft]

A Civ MMO would be awesome, but that wouldnt be civ5 then I would gladly pay 10 or 15$ to play a fun strategy MMO though.

By "a new start", I mean they need to drop the chess-like feeling, where everything can be calculated and foreseen. You rarely get any surprises in the current system - its a bit trivial.

And it seems that Civ4 had even less artwork and fun stuff than the previous versions; wheres the palace and advisors? I remember Civ1 also had some nice popups for new tech discoveries. Civ4 is just too plain - a chessboard, units, text and numbers - this isnt the 90's anymore.

If they continue with the dull chessboard style, they should at least give us Zone of Control back.

 

[RedRalph]

Yeah, I agree. Civ IV is a brilliant game, dont get me wrong, no game has ever haled my attention as strongly and for as long as it. But its like a very complicated mathematical equation that you eventually work out. Everything can be calculated, measured etc. I dont think it should be like that, for realism and for gameplay reasons. Everyting shouldnt be so definitive, combat odds, GP points, etc etc IMO are good ideas but make the game one of total calculation. Like, as you say, a game of chess. It would be so much better if culture, religions, social conditions etc changed and affected the nature of a Civ in unexpected ways instead of being calculable numbers.

 

[Churchill's Hat]

I agree with your idea about the average person in a civ-- I also think that this should affect wars. I.e., if the citizenry turns against your war, you may be at a disadvantage in negotiations as your people want peace more than anything else. Also, declaring war on a "friendly civ" would have civic repercussions.

 

[RedRalph]

I agree with your idea about the average person in a civ-- I also think that this should affect wars. I.e., if the citizenry turns against your war, you may be at a disadvantage in negotiations as your people want peace more than anything else. Also, declaring war on a "friendly civ" would have civic repercussions.

What made me think of it is the paradox game Victoria. Now I dont think its should be implemented in the same way at all - but it just strikes me that Civ completely ignores so many aspects of how the people affect the govt, EVEN in early slave societies etc... maybe each civ's population could have a liberty value, an equality value, a progressiveness value, a tolerance value, a measure of how the public feels towards other civs etc etc (loads of them), each one of which would be tweaked and would affect your actions as the ruler of the country. Also, just for flavour purposes, it would be nice to have an idea what type of people you are dealing with/attacking... are they a peaceful nation? are they a religious people? Are they progressive? etc

 

[rysmiel]

No support for this idea? Wouldnt it be nice to have a more personalised civ?

Um, if you like it, sure. As I've said before, I'd sooner have civs that were Green, Yellow, Blue, Red, Purple and so on than that were linked to historical civilisations, because personalisation and flavour is to my mind the very opposite of fun.

 

[rysmiel]

Yeah, there definitely need to be some form of stability,

Bring back unhappy people who give you civil unrest and have revolutions. There's no need to impose a stability mechanism from without when there's one that fits with the Civ system that has been gapingly amputated.

and something to stop an early tech leader racing ever further into the lead.

Hell no. What's the point in playing better than the dumb AI if the game keeps trying to push you back to level ?

 

[rysmiel]

But its like a very complicated mathematical equation that you eventually work out. Everything can be calculated, measured etc. I dont think it should be like that, for realism and for gameplay reasons. Everyting shouldnt be so definitive, combat odds, GP points, etc etc IMO are good ideas but make the game one of total calculation. Like, as you say, a game of chess. It would be so much better if culture, religions, social conditions etc changed and affected the nature of a Civ in unexpected ways instead of being calculable numbers.

I don't think I have good words for how strongly I disagree here; everything being calculated and measured is what makes a strategy game fun. I mean, it's not as if the possibilities of chess have been exhausted, lots and lots of people still play it.

Randomness is the enemy of fun because losing things or gaining things for reasons beyond your control make a nonsense of the very concept of a strategy game.

 

[RedRalph]

Well, try playing some Paradox games. one way they have an edge over Civ is that you cant calculate everything with near-certainty. Frankly, if thats your idea of fun, youre probably better off with a book of math problems

 

[RedRalph]

Um, if you like it, sure. As I've said before, I'd sooner have civs that were Green, Yellow, Blue, Red, Purple and so on than that were linked to historical civilisations, because personalisation and flavour is to my mind the very opposite of fun.

I presume this is sarcastic?

 

[toft]

Hell no. What's the point in playing better than the dumb AI if the game keeps trying to push you back to level ?

I agree that the game shouldnt push you back, but please consider a multiplayer game where one guy has twice the points you do because he won the minigame of stacking GPs in one city and discovering the right techs first - how would you ever compete against that? The game is already over

This is when the game gets boring to me, and thats why I would love to see something new and fun.

 

[toft]

I don't think I have good words for how strongly I disagree here; everything being calculated and measured is what makes a strategy game fun. I mean, it's not as if the possibilities of chess have been exhausted, lots and lots of people still play it.

Randomness is the enemy of fun because losing things or gaining things for reasons beyond your control make a nonsense of the very concept of a strategy game.

If Firaxis want to attract more than Sudoku fans, then changes are needed

 

[RedRalph]

I agree that the game shouldnt push you back, but please consider a multiplayer game where one guy has twice the points you do because he won the minigame of stacking GPs in one city and discovering the right techs first - how would you ever compete against that? The game is already over

This is when the game gets boring to me, and thats why I would love to see something new and fun.

Exactly, preventing this would mean the game would remain competitive until the end

 

[rysmiel]

I presume this is sarcastic?

No, I am absolutely serious.

If you want to make enemy civilisations distinct, give them different strategies. Not units, not bonuses, and above all not look and feel.

 

[rysmiel]

If Firaxis want to attract more than Sudoku fans, then changes are needed

I don't do sudoku, fwiw; both because I would too easily become addicted, and because I have a lingering fear that when one too many of the right numbers is put in the right place, the sky will open and Great Cthulhu will eat us all.

In all seriousness, I have difficulty swallowing that there are people who find the game too predictable, considering how much more variation there is in set-up and possibilities in Civ than in, say, chess. Even if all combat was fully deterministic and predictable in advance, there's way too much space for strategic variation; knowing what you need to do to win is not the same as knowing how best and most efficiently to do it, and I am sure there will still be new strategic insights falling out of Civ IV for years to come, just as there are still new ones falling out for Civ 3.

 

[Churchill's Hat]

Enemy civilizations cannot be Purple, Green, Yellow and so on. First of all, UUs and UBs help create different strategies for each civilization, and to my mind personalization and flavour are part of the fun. Besides, Firaxis would never have purple, green and yellow civilizations: the marketing wouldn't work and although it would please some people, it will likely not attract new players to civilization and repel some players.