Nkot
Chieftain
Here are a few changes I have thought of that I think would make Civilization more realistic and more interesting. I know it's a long read, but I feel a lot of these ideas are pretty original and could definitely be used in Civ V. They are also open to a wide range of discussion.
It's actually a pretty quick read. BTW, the ones that don't really tie in to the XP system are at the bottom.
-----XP SYSTEM REDONE-----
-Field Promotions-
In the current system implemented in Civ 4, units gain promotions through experience points gained in battle, from "birth", and from Great Generals. It is usually a combination of two or three of these things that allows units to reach levels of three or more. However, my question has long been is it fair to have units gain the same generic experience from the result of a battle as opposed to experience earned from "birth" or a GG? It doesn't make much sense that a unit who has spent entire it's entire life fighting archers can have CRIII.
I propose that instead of having these strange, unrealistic situations, Field Promotions, or promotions gained as a result of battle, should be automatically given to units. Now, in the above example, that unit should have Combat I, Cover, Combat II instead of CRIII. Likewise, a unit that has fought only swordsman or axmen should only be able to get Combat I, Shock, Combat II. Other promotions such as Amphibious or City Raider should only be gained by doing the associated tasks, although some complications can arise. For example, say you have a unit that has killed three archers inside a city. What promotions should it receive? Some may say that is should ultimately have City Raider I, City Raider II, and City Raider III, but I am tempted to give each promotion simultaneously. In other words, a unit after the first battle would have both Combat I and City Raider I.
The reason why I don't want the XP system scrapped entirely is because its pretty realistic to have a unit trained at a barracks able to learn different promotions without actually being in combat. One could reason that one unit was trained specifically in combat against other melee troops, so they should be able to acquire Shock. Also, for some promotions such as the Medic I, II, and III this offers one of the few feasible ways for them to be obtained. Just like in the old system, XP gained from the start or a general should be able to be used on any promotion that could be obtained in the field with one exception I will talk about later.
Ok, ok, so I know what you're thinking. If field promotions can be so easily obtained (even simultaneously) so that a unit could only fight three battles and have Combat I, Cover, Combat II, CR I, II, and III, then all those hammers would be wasted building a barracks that could only supply one measly promotion and there would be no incentive to civics such as vassalage and theocracy. However, I have thought of a way to counter this.
Field Promotions would have only a chance of being given meaning that just because your unit defeats one archer doesn't mean it will get a promotion. In terms of moddability, every time on victory is called the promotions that the winner has a chance of winning will be individually rolled for, and if the number is high enough, then the winner will get the promotion. For example, a Swordsman that kills an archer is realistically very likely to learn something about combat, so its chances to gain Combat I would be very high (90%). If it already knows that, then it is somewhat likely to have learned something specific about fighting archers, so its chances to gain Cover would be somewhat high (50%). The percentages are based off the idea of how many units have to die before a promotion should be given. In the examples, it is very likely that you will gain Combat I from just killing one enemy, and it is also very likely to gain Cover after killing 2 Archers.
I'm not at all opposed to the idea of expanding on the existing line of promotions. Making more promotions opens up a more reasonable tree (instead of everything just reverting to the Combat tree) so that you would have Combat I (90%) (kill 1 enemy), Cover I (90%) (kill 1 more archer), Cover II (50%) (would have to kill 2 more archers), and Cover III (50%) (again, 2 more archers). Obviously, it would need to be tested to see how powerful to make each promotion but I was thinking along the lines of a cumulative, 10%, 15%, and 25%, respectively. Also, Combat II (30%) (3 more enemies) could now be awarded simultaneously since other paths would become "dead-ends." I think it is time to have a recap through example.
Battle 1
Swordsman kills Archer.
Available promotions: Combat I.
Computer rolls for Combat I. (Needs N>=1 where 0<=N<=9)
Rolls 2. Passes.
Swordsman gains Combat I.
Battle 2
Swordsman kills Archer.
Available promotions: Combat II, Cover I.
Computer rolls for Combat II. (Needs N>=7)
Rolls 6. Fails.
Swordsman does not gain Combat II.
Computer rolls for Cover I. (Needs N>=1)
Rolls 9. Passes.
Swordsman gains Cover I.
Battle 3
Swordsman kills Archer.
Available promotions: Combat II, Cover II.
Computer rolls for Combat II. (Needs N>=7)
Rolls 0. Fails.
Swordsman does not gain Combat II.
Computer rolls for Cover II. (Needs N>=5)
Rolls 4. Fails.
Swordsman does not gain Cover II.
So after 3 battles, a Swordsman now has Combat I, Cover I.
One thing I have also considered is due to a units ability to gain multiple low level promotions quickly in the field, an attempt should try to be made to give a XP price tag to each promotion. This would allow units trained in a proper environment to have the same opportunity as field units. Instead of paying 2, 5, 10, 17, 25, a unit would pay 1 XP for Combat I, 1 XP for Cover I, 2 XP for Cover II (as you have to kill twice as many units to be likely to get it), 2 XP for Cover III, and 3 XP for Combat II. As you can see, a city running the right civics with a few advisors could perhaps have overly powerful units "out of the gate," so things may have to be adjusted which is addressed in the following two topics.
-Aggressive Trait-
Since Combat I is readily available and units no longer have to pay increasingly larger amounts of XP for each additional promotion, the Aggressive trait would need to be redone. One way would be to give each unit an additional 2 XP, but this may be too good because 5 XP could promote a unit to CR III (other 3 would come from a barracks). Also, I've had the idea to have each unit start out with Combat I and Combat II, but that would be quite an advantage over other units. An aggressive unit with 3 XP from barracks could be up to Combat III while another unit would only be at Combat I with, at best, a 10% specialization against the Combat III unit. At worst, it would have only Combat I.
Then again, it may not be that bad to just keep aggressive how it is. An aggressive unit already with Combat I and trained from a barracks could get a 25% specialization bonus or Combat II, compared to another unit that would only have Combat I with a 10% specialization. If that isn't powerful enough, maybe they could be given +1 XP as well.
-XP Balancing-
Now with promotions costing less the power of a great general has been increased severely. A unit with 20 experience would be a super-unit, capable of having Combat I, II, III, IV, V, (13 XP) 50% specialization or CR III (5 XP), and 2 more XP remaining. All well a few super-units isn't so bad right? One for each GG? Well, what about a unit coming out a city with a barracks, the right civics, and a few military advisors? An army full of super-units is what you would have.
If it was determined that this was too powerful, all of the XP civics' and the GG's XP bonus could be halved, or, more simply, the XP price tags could be doubled to be similar to the old upgrade system. Now a unit with 20 XP could only have Combat IV with no XP to spare which is closer to a vanilla unit that could also only have Combat IV as well.
Other supporting information for this method would be that this would also maintain balance simply because of the unit kill to XP ratio would, instead of the proposed 1:1, now be 1:2 which is what it is in the vanilla game (more or less), and aggressive would remain relatively unshaken where as, in the old version, it would be questionable whether it was as powerful.
-Redesign of Generals-
However, I do have to question whether a Great General should be represented by allowing it to give units XP and becoming permanent military advisors. Perhaps a better way would have Generals act as actual field Generals whereby giving units in the same stack a flat-out +20%(?) Strength bonus with a 50%(?) cap. This would create a real need to kill enemy Great Generals. Also, after a tech like Hereditary Rule, you should be able to build regular Generals that are a quarter as good, giving only +5%. It would also be welcomed if once you reach Hereditary Rule you would gain a free GG, but if you ran out of Great Generals, you would get a new one at a +2 Unhappiness per city for 10 turns.
Another thing for Generals to do would be to train fortified units. Basically, a unit with 5% or more fortifications would be able to be trained which means they would receive +.1 experience per turn from a GG and +.025 experience per turn from a General, as long as they are in the same stack. It could also be set that the stack needs to be in a fort in order to train to increase the necessity of forts.
Generals may also be able to earn field promotions depending on how many units there stack kills. They would start out as one star generals, and every time a unit in his stack kills an enemy (offensively or defensively) there would be 20% chance to get a new star and +5% stack strength bonus. They could also have a 5% chance of getting Quartermaster I, II, and III for every turn they spend training units, which would give a +.025 to their base training ability. Great Generals could get Quartermaster IV which would mean a GG max training ability would be +.2, while a maxed, regular general would be +.1.
-Redesign of Forts-
Forts as they are are pretty weak. I previously suggested that Generals could only train units in forts which I think is a pretty good idea. Also, my big idea about this was for every unit that was fortified in a fort, a fort would gain .5 culture (rounded down), and it would start off with having a small city's cultural influence. To have a fort with increasing culture (+1) you would need at least 2 military units (no workers, settlers). A fort with 20 units in it would get +10 culture a turn and would quickly gain a the cultural influence of a city's fat cross. However, it would take a long time to reach 1000 culture, creating balance.
Also, if there were no units in a fort, the fort would essentially reset to a culture of -1, meaning it would have no cultural influence, not even within its own square. This would mean that the fort has become abandoned. If you reoccupied the fort, your culture would have to start from scratch, making it necessary to always keep a fort occupied if you want its cultural effects.
A few rules about forts would need to be made though. Forts should not be able to be made right next to each other, possibly not within two tiles of one another (like cities). Forts should be able to be made in neutral territory as well as their own (ideal for colonizing new land without killing your economy). They do not give in like other improvements to a cultural tide as long as they are not unoccupied. Instead, they must be culturally flipped like cities (it would be harder to flip them, but you would gain the bonus of converting the fort's troops in the process). Also, forts can be pillaged, cannot be culture bombed, and can gain extra defense from amassing culture, possibly +1% Defense for every 10 culture. Forts would keep their BTS canal and aircraft garrison abilities.
-Stack Limits-
If generals can now train units, there should be a cap on the number of units that can be moved into one tile, maybe something like 20 just to prevent people from overloading one tile with units and generals.
-Overall-
With Field Battles giving promotions at the proposed rates, XP pricetags, and better Forts and Generals, I think Civ could become an even better series. Currently, I'm more in favor of redesigning Generals and Forts and not doubling XP pricetags; however, I'm still somewhat undecided.
-----OTHER IDEAS-----
-Completely New Promotions-
Examples:
Veteran Promotion - Can only be gained through battle by killing any unit. Given at a 20% rate. Gives +10% Strength.
Hero Promotion - Can only be gained through battle by killing any unit. The Hero Promotion would be special because it would be given as the result of winning a fight you had 15%? chance or less to win. Given at a 100% rate.
-Greatly Increased Withdraw Rates-
Another military idea I've considered is that in history, very rarely does an entire attacking army die. Usually an army retreats from losses. I propose that a healthy infantry have a base withdraw rate of 100% and cavalry 150%. Too much? Circumstances could lower this withdrawal rate such as a unit that has only half the health would have half the rate of withdrawal, a healthy unit that attacks a city would have only half the chance of withdrawal, or an healthy unit that attacks a stack with a mounted unit in it would have only a third the chance of withdrawal. Also, you could have a line of promotions called Trap that would lower the enemy's chance of withdrawal. Equally, you could have a line of promotions called Retreat that would raise your infantry's (cavalry have flanking) chance of withdraw.
A unit's ability to withdraw also can work with the above idea of Field Promotions by giving units that withdraw a chance to gain a promotion since it is some combat experience. You could have the computer roll twice now for one promotion and both of the dice would have to pass, effectively halving the chance a unit will gain a promotion. Once you factor these things in it doesn't seem too extreme, but please comment!
-Redesign of Siege Units-
Siege Weapons should give a bonus to defending stacks (5% each with cap at 50%?), and should be able to attack cities without dieing. In the past, siege units have been essential in defending and attacking, especially in terms of cities, without being put directly in harms way. Basically, I propose that once they destroy a city's cultural defense, they can continue to bombard a stack of enemy units to reduce HP. However, I also would like to see that a unit's fortifications can be bombarded as well. For example, five units would be selected to be bombarded. Those that do not have any fortifications will lose HP, while those that do will just lose % of fortifications. (20%?)
Second, siege units should not be able to attack under these new conditions. Bombard would take a more historical, realistic role in dealing damage. Also, they should not be able to defend either. The siege units' operating crew would not be able to hold their own against a fighting force. They can still earn promotions by bombarding, training, and "birth" instead of attacking. Now, bombard would just be considered an automatic win, and the computer would roll for promotions.
-Redesign of Culture-
For one, what really makes me mad is when a rival's city that is not an enemy's city takes over some of the land in a recently captured city radius. Ex: In WWII, when the Germans captured Paris, if it were Civ, Spanish culture would be overflowing in southern France. Here, realistically, I would tell my men to kill any Frenchman that now allies to Spain, and I seriously doubt Spain would declare war on Germany just to gain control over a few tiles that weren't even theirs to begin with. This should be changed so that a country you are not at war with cannot gain an increase in cultural borders from a nearby city losing some of its culture.
Also, one should be able to capture individual tiles. Again, in the WWII example, London's culture would be overflowing in France which is understandable because their forces would not have given up land to a nation they were at war with. Still, I don't understand why I would have to take London itself to gain control of these tiles. When infantry move through enemy territory it should automatically become the unit's owner's unless there are more than 4 tiles around it that belong to the enemy. This way you wouldn't accumulate long lines of territory in the middle of someone else's, while still being able to take important areas without capturing a city. However, it is important to note that these tiles cannot be culturally flipped. (May need rethinking)
Third, in some cases it wouldn't be so bad if you could just use the enemy's roads. When the barbarian invaders attacked the Roman Empire, part of the reason they could spread so quickly was due to the Roman road system. I can really see no reason why your army cannot figure out how to use the enemy's roads. I realize there is an upgrade that can allow you to do this, but it comes after Combat IV or V, which is pretty far along. A quick fix would be to just give every unit Commando from the start, but a more elegant solution should be thought of.
*Up to this point I think some of these changes are feasible in a mod, but I doubt the top two could be done in anything other than Civ V.
-Less Destruction of Buildings during Change of Owner-
Sometimes the amount of building loss resulting from a city capture is unbelievable. It's ridiculous when you take a Renaissance-era city, and all that is left is a granary and a library. I can understand a barracks, but did my troops really have to destroy that Monument? Sure, it might not be of me, but it still looks nice doesn't it? Also, what about the aqueduct and market? Did those really need to be destroyed? I remember thinking that the Civ III percentage of buildings surviving was more reasonable. Some way should be figured out to make the percentage of buildings remaining increased, like maybe randomly from 60-75%.
-Redesign of Open Borders-
Not a big priority, but units shouldn't be bounced out of a territory when you declare war (can still be if the open borders are closed). Now I know this protects the player form being unfairly destroyed from the inside out, but instead open borders should only allow a certain amount of military units to be in each other's territories (scouts, explorers, spies, etc. don't count but ships/loaded troops do). This value could start at 2-5 but could be negotiated up to as high as 10-15 once the two civilizations have friendlier relations.
-Redesign of Building Queues-
Don't you just hate only being able to build only one missionary each turn when it has the hammers to build three. A way should be devised that makes the game continue down the queue list until it runs out of hammers.
Also, it's not very realistic how 5 almost-completed units can be stored in the building queue during Pacifism to prevent gold loss. Likewise, you shouldn't be able to store nearly completed wonders such as the UN just because you don't want its effects. Anything that is not currently being worked on by the city should lose hammers quickly to represent how recruits would forget things and not yet completed building would fall into disrepair.
-Quantifiable Resources-
Not my idea; however, I support it wholeheartedly. Here's the link: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=222884
Discuss.
It's actually a pretty quick read. BTW, the ones that don't really tie in to the XP system are at the bottom.
-----XP SYSTEM REDONE-----
-Field Promotions-
In the current system implemented in Civ 4, units gain promotions through experience points gained in battle, from "birth", and from Great Generals. It is usually a combination of two or three of these things that allows units to reach levels of three or more. However, my question has long been is it fair to have units gain the same generic experience from the result of a battle as opposed to experience earned from "birth" or a GG? It doesn't make much sense that a unit who has spent entire it's entire life fighting archers can have CRIII.
I propose that instead of having these strange, unrealistic situations, Field Promotions, or promotions gained as a result of battle, should be automatically given to units. Now, in the above example, that unit should have Combat I, Cover, Combat II instead of CRIII. Likewise, a unit that has fought only swordsman or axmen should only be able to get Combat I, Shock, Combat II. Other promotions such as Amphibious or City Raider should only be gained by doing the associated tasks, although some complications can arise. For example, say you have a unit that has killed three archers inside a city. What promotions should it receive? Some may say that is should ultimately have City Raider I, City Raider II, and City Raider III, but I am tempted to give each promotion simultaneously. In other words, a unit after the first battle would have both Combat I and City Raider I.
The reason why I don't want the XP system scrapped entirely is because its pretty realistic to have a unit trained at a barracks able to learn different promotions without actually being in combat. One could reason that one unit was trained specifically in combat against other melee troops, so they should be able to acquire Shock. Also, for some promotions such as the Medic I, II, and III this offers one of the few feasible ways for them to be obtained. Just like in the old system, XP gained from the start or a general should be able to be used on any promotion that could be obtained in the field with one exception I will talk about later.
Ok, ok, so I know what you're thinking. If field promotions can be so easily obtained (even simultaneously) so that a unit could only fight three battles and have Combat I, Cover, Combat II, CR I, II, and III, then all those hammers would be wasted building a barracks that could only supply one measly promotion and there would be no incentive to civics such as vassalage and theocracy. However, I have thought of a way to counter this.
Field Promotions would have only a chance of being given meaning that just because your unit defeats one archer doesn't mean it will get a promotion. In terms of moddability, every time on victory is called the promotions that the winner has a chance of winning will be individually rolled for, and if the number is high enough, then the winner will get the promotion. For example, a Swordsman that kills an archer is realistically very likely to learn something about combat, so its chances to gain Combat I would be very high (90%). If it already knows that, then it is somewhat likely to have learned something specific about fighting archers, so its chances to gain Cover would be somewhat high (50%). The percentages are based off the idea of how many units have to die before a promotion should be given. In the examples, it is very likely that you will gain Combat I from just killing one enemy, and it is also very likely to gain Cover after killing 2 Archers.
I'm not at all opposed to the idea of expanding on the existing line of promotions. Making more promotions opens up a more reasonable tree (instead of everything just reverting to the Combat tree) so that you would have Combat I (90%) (kill 1 enemy), Cover I (90%) (kill 1 more archer), Cover II (50%) (would have to kill 2 more archers), and Cover III (50%) (again, 2 more archers). Obviously, it would need to be tested to see how powerful to make each promotion but I was thinking along the lines of a cumulative, 10%, 15%, and 25%, respectively. Also, Combat II (30%) (3 more enemies) could now be awarded simultaneously since other paths would become "dead-ends." I think it is time to have a recap through example.
Battle 1
Swordsman kills Archer.
Available promotions: Combat I.
Computer rolls for Combat I. (Needs N>=1 where 0<=N<=9)
Rolls 2. Passes.
Swordsman gains Combat I.
Battle 2
Swordsman kills Archer.
Available promotions: Combat II, Cover I.
Computer rolls for Combat II. (Needs N>=7)
Rolls 6. Fails.
Swordsman does not gain Combat II.
Computer rolls for Cover I. (Needs N>=1)
Rolls 9. Passes.
Swordsman gains Cover I.
Battle 3
Swordsman kills Archer.
Available promotions: Combat II, Cover II.
Computer rolls for Combat II. (Needs N>=7)
Rolls 0. Fails.
Swordsman does not gain Combat II.
Computer rolls for Cover II. (Needs N>=5)
Rolls 4. Fails.
Swordsman does not gain Cover II.
So after 3 battles, a Swordsman now has Combat I, Cover I.
One thing I have also considered is due to a units ability to gain multiple low level promotions quickly in the field, an attempt should try to be made to give a XP price tag to each promotion. This would allow units trained in a proper environment to have the same opportunity as field units. Instead of paying 2, 5, 10, 17, 25, a unit would pay 1 XP for Combat I, 1 XP for Cover I, 2 XP for Cover II (as you have to kill twice as many units to be likely to get it), 2 XP for Cover III, and 3 XP for Combat II. As you can see, a city running the right civics with a few advisors could perhaps have overly powerful units "out of the gate," so things may have to be adjusted which is addressed in the following two topics.
-Aggressive Trait-
Since Combat I is readily available and units no longer have to pay increasingly larger amounts of XP for each additional promotion, the Aggressive trait would need to be redone. One way would be to give each unit an additional 2 XP, but this may be too good because 5 XP could promote a unit to CR III (other 3 would come from a barracks). Also, I've had the idea to have each unit start out with Combat I and Combat II, but that would be quite an advantage over other units. An aggressive unit with 3 XP from barracks could be up to Combat III while another unit would only be at Combat I with, at best, a 10% specialization against the Combat III unit. At worst, it would have only Combat I.
Then again, it may not be that bad to just keep aggressive how it is. An aggressive unit already with Combat I and trained from a barracks could get a 25% specialization bonus or Combat II, compared to another unit that would only have Combat I with a 10% specialization. If that isn't powerful enough, maybe they could be given +1 XP as well.
-XP Balancing-
Now with promotions costing less the power of a great general has been increased severely. A unit with 20 experience would be a super-unit, capable of having Combat I, II, III, IV, V, (13 XP) 50% specialization or CR III (5 XP), and 2 more XP remaining. All well a few super-units isn't so bad right? One for each GG? Well, what about a unit coming out a city with a barracks, the right civics, and a few military advisors? An army full of super-units is what you would have.
If it was determined that this was too powerful, all of the XP civics' and the GG's XP bonus could be halved, or, more simply, the XP price tags could be doubled to be similar to the old upgrade system. Now a unit with 20 XP could only have Combat IV with no XP to spare which is closer to a vanilla unit that could also only have Combat IV as well.
Other supporting information for this method would be that this would also maintain balance simply because of the unit kill to XP ratio would, instead of the proposed 1:1, now be 1:2 which is what it is in the vanilla game (more or less), and aggressive would remain relatively unshaken where as, in the old version, it would be questionable whether it was as powerful.
-Redesign of Generals-
However, I do have to question whether a Great General should be represented by allowing it to give units XP and becoming permanent military advisors. Perhaps a better way would have Generals act as actual field Generals whereby giving units in the same stack a flat-out +20%(?) Strength bonus with a 50%(?) cap. This would create a real need to kill enemy Great Generals. Also, after a tech like Hereditary Rule, you should be able to build regular Generals that are a quarter as good, giving only +5%. It would also be welcomed if once you reach Hereditary Rule you would gain a free GG, but if you ran out of Great Generals, you would get a new one at a +2 Unhappiness per city for 10 turns.
Another thing for Generals to do would be to train fortified units. Basically, a unit with 5% or more fortifications would be able to be trained which means they would receive +.1 experience per turn from a GG and +.025 experience per turn from a General, as long as they are in the same stack. It could also be set that the stack needs to be in a fort in order to train to increase the necessity of forts.
Generals may also be able to earn field promotions depending on how many units there stack kills. They would start out as one star generals, and every time a unit in his stack kills an enemy (offensively or defensively) there would be 20% chance to get a new star and +5% stack strength bonus. They could also have a 5% chance of getting Quartermaster I, II, and III for every turn they spend training units, which would give a +.025 to their base training ability. Great Generals could get Quartermaster IV which would mean a GG max training ability would be +.2, while a maxed, regular general would be +.1.
-Redesign of Forts-
Forts as they are are pretty weak. I previously suggested that Generals could only train units in forts which I think is a pretty good idea. Also, my big idea about this was for every unit that was fortified in a fort, a fort would gain .5 culture (rounded down), and it would start off with having a small city's cultural influence. To have a fort with increasing culture (+1) you would need at least 2 military units (no workers, settlers). A fort with 20 units in it would get +10 culture a turn and would quickly gain a the cultural influence of a city's fat cross. However, it would take a long time to reach 1000 culture, creating balance.
Also, if there were no units in a fort, the fort would essentially reset to a culture of -1, meaning it would have no cultural influence, not even within its own square. This would mean that the fort has become abandoned. If you reoccupied the fort, your culture would have to start from scratch, making it necessary to always keep a fort occupied if you want its cultural effects.
A few rules about forts would need to be made though. Forts should not be able to be made right next to each other, possibly not within two tiles of one another (like cities). Forts should be able to be made in neutral territory as well as their own (ideal for colonizing new land without killing your economy). They do not give in like other improvements to a cultural tide as long as they are not unoccupied. Instead, they must be culturally flipped like cities (it would be harder to flip them, but you would gain the bonus of converting the fort's troops in the process). Also, forts can be pillaged, cannot be culture bombed, and can gain extra defense from amassing culture, possibly +1% Defense for every 10 culture. Forts would keep their BTS canal and aircraft garrison abilities.
-Stack Limits-
If generals can now train units, there should be a cap on the number of units that can be moved into one tile, maybe something like 20 just to prevent people from overloading one tile with units and generals.
-Overall-
With Field Battles giving promotions at the proposed rates, XP pricetags, and better Forts and Generals, I think Civ could become an even better series. Currently, I'm more in favor of redesigning Generals and Forts and not doubling XP pricetags; however, I'm still somewhat undecided.
-----OTHER IDEAS-----
-Completely New Promotions-
Examples:
Veteran Promotion - Can only be gained through battle by killing any unit. Given at a 20% rate. Gives +10% Strength.
Hero Promotion - Can only be gained through battle by killing any unit. The Hero Promotion would be special because it would be given as the result of winning a fight you had 15%? chance or less to win. Given at a 100% rate.
-Greatly Increased Withdraw Rates-
Another military idea I've considered is that in history, very rarely does an entire attacking army die. Usually an army retreats from losses. I propose that a healthy infantry have a base withdraw rate of 100% and cavalry 150%. Too much? Circumstances could lower this withdrawal rate such as a unit that has only half the health would have half the rate of withdrawal, a healthy unit that attacks a city would have only half the chance of withdrawal, or an healthy unit that attacks a stack with a mounted unit in it would have only a third the chance of withdrawal. Also, you could have a line of promotions called Trap that would lower the enemy's chance of withdrawal. Equally, you could have a line of promotions called Retreat that would raise your infantry's (cavalry have flanking) chance of withdraw.
A unit's ability to withdraw also can work with the above idea of Field Promotions by giving units that withdraw a chance to gain a promotion since it is some combat experience. You could have the computer roll twice now for one promotion and both of the dice would have to pass, effectively halving the chance a unit will gain a promotion. Once you factor these things in it doesn't seem too extreme, but please comment!
-Redesign of Siege Units-
Siege Weapons should give a bonus to defending stacks (5% each with cap at 50%?), and should be able to attack cities without dieing. In the past, siege units have been essential in defending and attacking, especially in terms of cities, without being put directly in harms way. Basically, I propose that once they destroy a city's cultural defense, they can continue to bombard a stack of enemy units to reduce HP. However, I also would like to see that a unit's fortifications can be bombarded as well. For example, five units would be selected to be bombarded. Those that do not have any fortifications will lose HP, while those that do will just lose % of fortifications. (20%?)
Second, siege units should not be able to attack under these new conditions. Bombard would take a more historical, realistic role in dealing damage. Also, they should not be able to defend either. The siege units' operating crew would not be able to hold their own against a fighting force. They can still earn promotions by bombarding, training, and "birth" instead of attacking. Now, bombard would just be considered an automatic win, and the computer would roll for promotions.
-Redesign of Culture-
For one, what really makes me mad is when a rival's city that is not an enemy's city takes over some of the land in a recently captured city radius. Ex: In WWII, when the Germans captured Paris, if it were Civ, Spanish culture would be overflowing in southern France. Here, realistically, I would tell my men to kill any Frenchman that now allies to Spain, and I seriously doubt Spain would declare war on Germany just to gain control over a few tiles that weren't even theirs to begin with. This should be changed so that a country you are not at war with cannot gain an increase in cultural borders from a nearby city losing some of its culture.
Also, one should be able to capture individual tiles. Again, in the WWII example, London's culture would be overflowing in France which is understandable because their forces would not have given up land to a nation they were at war with. Still, I don't understand why I would have to take London itself to gain control of these tiles. When infantry move through enemy territory it should automatically become the unit's owner's unless there are more than 4 tiles around it that belong to the enemy. This way you wouldn't accumulate long lines of territory in the middle of someone else's, while still being able to take important areas without capturing a city. However, it is important to note that these tiles cannot be culturally flipped. (May need rethinking)
Third, in some cases it wouldn't be so bad if you could just use the enemy's roads. When the barbarian invaders attacked the Roman Empire, part of the reason they could spread so quickly was due to the Roman road system. I can really see no reason why your army cannot figure out how to use the enemy's roads. I realize there is an upgrade that can allow you to do this, but it comes after Combat IV or V, which is pretty far along. A quick fix would be to just give every unit Commando from the start, but a more elegant solution should be thought of.
*Up to this point I think some of these changes are feasible in a mod, but I doubt the top two could be done in anything other than Civ V.
-Less Destruction of Buildings during Change of Owner-
Sometimes the amount of building loss resulting from a city capture is unbelievable. It's ridiculous when you take a Renaissance-era city, and all that is left is a granary and a library. I can understand a barracks, but did my troops really have to destroy that Monument? Sure, it might not be of me, but it still looks nice doesn't it? Also, what about the aqueduct and market? Did those really need to be destroyed? I remember thinking that the Civ III percentage of buildings surviving was more reasonable. Some way should be figured out to make the percentage of buildings remaining increased, like maybe randomly from 60-75%.
-Redesign of Open Borders-
Not a big priority, but units shouldn't be bounced out of a territory when you declare war (can still be if the open borders are closed). Now I know this protects the player form being unfairly destroyed from the inside out, but instead open borders should only allow a certain amount of military units to be in each other's territories (scouts, explorers, spies, etc. don't count but ships/loaded troops do). This value could start at 2-5 but could be negotiated up to as high as 10-15 once the two civilizations have friendlier relations.
-Redesign of Building Queues-
Don't you just hate only being able to build only one missionary each turn when it has the hammers to build three. A way should be devised that makes the game continue down the queue list until it runs out of hammers.
Also, it's not very realistic how 5 almost-completed units can be stored in the building queue during Pacifism to prevent gold loss. Likewise, you shouldn't be able to store nearly completed wonders such as the UN just because you don't want its effects. Anything that is not currently being worked on by the city should lose hammers quickly to represent how recruits would forget things and not yet completed building would fall into disrepair.
-Quantifiable Resources-
Not my idea; however, I support it wholeheartedly. Here's the link: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=222884
Discuss.
