civ 4 forums CIV6 wishlist

[duckstab]

I think this would be a great idea, if you could make it work. But I wonder if there's a problem that any good player who wants to get a really good result playing the game would feel compelled to use the full tactical map for all but the most trivial battles because of the near certainty that they could plan the battle a lot better than the AI would? So in practice, even if it was theoretically optional, in practice it wouldn't be for most players. (In much the same way that in Civ4 you can optionally automate workers or automate city production etc. but, apart from very occasionally in the very late game, basically noone ever does). Is there any way round that?

I think it depends on what's enjoyable. For myself, I think if the battle were so unbalanced the result were a foregone conclusion, I'd skip the tactical details.

There seem to be plenty of good Civ4 players who use stack attack rather than going through one unit at a time. I'm not one of those so I'm not really in a position to comment.

Of course, the other thing is that a tactical map is pretty pointless if the AI isn't good enough to be competitive on that level.

 

[MeatUnit2]

I remember a Romance of the Three Kingdoms game from many years ago that employed the strategic and tactical map switcheroo. I think it worked well because the strategic map was fixed, it was China, so they could map out all the tactical scale maps individually. If you fought a tactical battle in a tile on turn 10 and again on turn 25 the tactical map for that tile was the same. Much more complex problem when the strategic map is generated afresh with every game.

 

[Kid R]

I think this would be a great idea, if you could make it work. But I wonder if there's a problem that any good player who wants to get a really good result playing the game would feel compelled to use the full tactical map for all but the most trivial battles because of the near certainty that they could plan the battle a lot better than the AI would? So in practice, even if it was theoretically optional, in practice it wouldn't be for most players. (In much the same way that in Civ4 you can optionally automate workers or automate city production etc. but, apart from very occasionally in the very late game, basically noone ever does). Is there any way round that?

Perhaps turns in the tactical battle would cost turns out in campaign mode, well say 0.1 turns per battle turn or something. That way there would be a limit to the amount of grinding the human could do at the tactical level and it still be worthwhile.

In any case we might find the Civ community would diverge into two broad groups, one playing just traditional campaign mode and one playing scenarios focusing on mostly tactical battle. It's two different games in one really isn't it. Two different target audiences. Maybe not the best idea after all???

 

[duckstab]

I remember a Romance of the Three Kingdoms game from many years ago that employed the strategic and tactical map switcheroo. I think it worked well because the strategic map was fixed, it was China, so they could map out all the tactical scale maps individually. If you fought a tactical battle in a tile on turn 10 and again on turn 25 the tactical map for that tile was the same. Much more complex problem when the strategic map is generated afresh with every game.

I don't think it would be impossible to achieve the same effect if you were generating tactical maps on the fly. You could always save the map for a given battlefield and reconstitute it if there were a later battle on the same ground. Of course, you'd also need to adjust if, say, a tile that was forest in 1000BC had a town in 1000AD.

 

[duckstab]

In any case we might find the Civ community would diverge into two broad groups, one playing just traditional campaign mode and one playing scenarios focusing on mostly tactical battle. It's two different games in one really isn't it. Two different target audiences. Maybe not the best idea after all???

Well, and that goes to the more fundamental question of how far Civ should go down the tactical path. I give Jon Shafer a lot of credit just for trying to do something different here. But I myself probably wouldn't play Civ for the tactics, I'm much more of a narrative player.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

I don't think it would be impossible to achieve the same effect if you were generating tactical maps on the fly. You could always save the map for a given battlefield and reconstitute it if there were a later battle on the same ground. Of course, you'd also need to adjust if, say, a tile that was forest in 1000BC had a town in 1000AD.

I suspect that once you go down that road, you'd also need the option to generate tactical maps on demand even without a battle, as people would start wanting to be able to look at the tactical map of a particular area, in order to judge whether the tactical map could work sufficiently in their favour for it to be worth having a battle there.

 

[MeatUnit2]

I really like the idea of Macro/Strategic and Micro/Tactical levels in a wargame, but as DynamicSpirit points out, there would be some serious problems given the scope of time represented in a Civ game, not only with the terrain being altered over a thousand years, but with the length and scale of battles.

Turns represent smaller chunks of time as Civ progresses through the ages. A unit that can travel one tile per turn in the early part of the game effectively travels much faster in the later ages, even though it still only moves one tile per turn; the time represented per turn has shortened, the unit has 'accelerated'. Civ players just ignore this game mechanic. A turn is a turn. But...

An ancient siege could last multiple years, battles in the field did not. The only modern equivalent of a really long siege in modern times (that comes to mind) was the Battle of Stalingrad, which lasted roughly six and a half months, and to represent that battle tactically would be a major game in itself.

Modern warfare takes place much faster and at much greater ranges. The scale of the tactical maps appropriate for ancient battles would be far too small for modern battles.

While I can conceive of a game that could handle all the changes that would allow tactical as well as strategic play over the several thousand years of a Civ game, it would be an extremely complex game. Not something for the Civ 6 wish list, maybe the Civ 13 wish list. Playing a game of that scope would also probably be a career destroyer, personal life ender, and require a computer system not yet available.

There is also something to be said for a game that doesn't take several months or years to play. NTTAWWT.

Civ 5 has run into problems by trying to introduce tactical elements into what is inherently a strategic level game (archers able to fire across the English Channel, continent-wide traffic jams, etc.). It is better to do less, in my opinion, and do it really well.

 

[duckstab]

I basically have to agree with all of MeatUnit2's points. I'm far short of actually advocating that Civ go the dual map route, because in all honesty I don't really think I'd want to put such an emphasis on individual battles. Others may feel differently, but I really don't get the sense that most Civ players are in love with military tactics.

In any event, I am of the opinion the Civ5 approach of having battlefield-scale actions on a global-scale map isn't a good compromise. If I were actually designing Civ6 I'd probably keep the hexes, bring back stacks, and deal with the Civ4 SOD problem by imposing limits on the number of units that could actually be fielded.

 

[MeatUnit2]

I agree with duckstab. Limited stacks, however it is done.

At the risk of repeating myself: I want a fancy pants version of Civ 4, with more of everything and a shiny new look. I would like to see the political aspect improved too. If nothing else, I'd like the computer to keep track of how MY civ feels about the other Civs.

I shouldn't take it personally, but I get a little angry when my "friendly" neighbors send spies into my cities.
That's immersion. That's what makes a great game.

Damn you Isabella! I gave you Clams! Why do you torment me?!

 

[DynamicSpirit]

At the risk of repeating myself: I want a fancy pants version of Civ 4, with more of everything and a shiny new look.

Me2.

I would like to see the political aspect improved too. If nothing else, I'd like the computer to keep track of how MY civ feels about the other Civs.

I shouldn't take it personally, but I get a little angry when my "friendly" neighbors send spies into my cities.
That's immersion. That's what makes a great game.

Damn you Isabella! I gave you Clams! Why do you torment me?!

I've long thought that a great thing would be if attitude was attached to the population rather than the leader. Then your population's attitude can react to events in exactly the same way the AI does. That would answer your point about the computer keeping track of how your civ feels. It would also add another challenge to diplomacy: The risk that eg. if you open borders with or trade with a civ that your people don't like, your people will get unhappy. Or if another civ annoys you enough, you could even find your people are clamouring for you to go to war and getting unhappy if you don't.

DS

 

[Healz]

For Civilization VI, I have seen this done in mods for Civilization IV. I would like to see the air combat system get some attention. There have been some mods that have given it promotions in much the same way that ships and land units receive promotions. The range for air units is kinda limited at the moment. There should also be the option of playing with a national air defence project. I would have a project called Radar at the WWII aircraft level and then when you built a certain number of radars, you could build a National Integrated Defence Network, which where fighters are based in cities with radars can direct intercepts on enemy aircraft.

There should also be the reconnaisance over-flight special event which allows you the option to:
1. Shoot-down Enemy Plane. 2. Shadow Enemy Plane. 3. Do Nothing. Depending on what you choose and your status with that leader, a war could develop or a diplomatic incident with leader traits also playing a part...

Also there should be the option of building a MAD Bunker (National Project), which offers you the ability to set city targets for missiles when launched. Also why is SDI, a Project which can only be built by one country rather than many? And why shouldn't Manhatten Project require the player to build their own rather than one unlocking all the technology for everyone?

 

[oldskald]

For Civilization VI, I have seen this done in mods for Civilization IV. I would like to see the air combat system get some attention. There have been some mods that have given it promotions in much the same way that ships and land units receive promotions. The range for air units is kinda limited at the moment. There should also be the option of playing with a national air defence project. I would have a project called Radar at the WWII aircraft level and then when you built a certain number of radars, you could build a National Integrated Defence Network, which where fighters are based in cities with radars can direct intercepts on enemy aircraft.

There should also be the reconnaisance over-flight special event which allows you the option to:
1. Shoot-down Enemy Plane. 2. Shadow Enemy Plane. 3. Do Nothing. Depending on what you choose and your status with that leader, a war could develop or a diplomatic incident with leader traits also playing a part...

Also there should be the option of building a MAD Bunker (National Project), which offers you the ability to set city targets for missiles when launched. Also why is SDI, a Project which can only be built by one country rather than many? And why shouldn't Manhatten Project require the player to build their own rather than one unlocking all the technology for everyone?

Like all of this

 

[freeluos]

A few things they should pay attention to is mainly the combat system:

-Air: It is possible to spy into other countries even without open borders...
-Sea: I don't see much use for ships only to defend for invasions or pillage/blockade. Ships often has been used to bombard positions inland. Carriers are very weak. Even when it's full of fighters. They should engage attacking ships.
-SOD's should be eliminated to attach a parameter size to an unit. If the size exceeds the size of the tile penalties should be applied.
-Ranged combat (bombardments)
-A CTP simular combat system (melle in front with a backup from ranged units)
-Special buildings for defense (coastal fortifications, AA guns) (use spies, missiles to destroy them)
-More diverse units in the modern age. Now its only jet fighters, modern armor, mechanized inf. (cheap fantics that can do serious damage with stealth capabilties (revealed by spies would be awesome) for example.

I think these modifications would make the perfect civ for me.

 

[plasmacannon]

Civ6 = (Civ5+Civ4+Civ3+Civ2+Civ1) x (the best aspects of all of these).
ok, that was easy.

Seriously, I remember posting several months ago, about units that were absent, that needed to be added, and I summed up what several people said.
Search in the Civ5, Civ4, Civ3 sections, and combine the best elements.
IMHO, Civ5 is too different from its predecessors to be called a true Civ sequel. It is more of a Steam version of Colonization, or the Playstation version of Civ, then, an improvement to the series beyond Civ4.

If I find the link, I wil add it. I know starting the year earlier than 4000BC (like 20,000) and adding snipers, more early units (pre-bronze), Guard Towers and something after modern age. As the term "Modern" usually implies the current age, the, age of time from roughly after WW2 to roughly the year 2000?
Perhaps, that time frame could be renamed "Modernization Era", with the current era, well, be named just that, "Current Era". Then, "Future Era" would still follow it, the way it always has.
This "Current Era" would add technologies and units that are the new units of today, such as the LASER systems that are built into certain planes, Hummers, and Ground based facilities.
The Mass Driver that was tested in the past couple of weeks, that could be used on land or via a Naval ship, is another example of technology that exists in it's early stages, that could be a new unit of a "Current Era".

Overall, Civ4 has the best features. It does need much more dialoge options during communications.
It is annoying when another empire gets attacked, asks you for help, but, then declines to offer it's new macemen tech to you to be able to defeat it's enemy.
I had to wait until the "Big Bad Guy" took most of his cities, so, I would then, be powerful enough to be able to demand the tech from him. I consider that a lame game mechanic flaw.
By the time I got it and built 1 maceman, his civilization was destroyed.
Gilgamesh has to be one of the most aggressive "Protective" leaders that I've seen.
Once, he takes Monty's or Genghis's religon, the two of them become a diplomatic pain to deal with, which usually ends in war.

Add a Growth Rate Slider Bar. This will comsume food faster. Wonders increase pop growth. Certain buildings and techs would too (Agriculture, Granary, Grocer).
Yes. Granaries store food. Storehouses store Olive oil, metal, marble and other resourses.
As I accrue more trade routes like 6-10 per city, I should be able to bring in resourses from many lands (think Ancient Rome). Those resourses would fill up my Granaries and Storehouses. If my Growth Rate is too low, I could max out my capacity, and the rest would goto waste, unless I sold it off to other empires, or increased my Growth rate.
Slavery is not done right.
When empires conquer, they bring slaves back with them to use or sell. Our population would go up, and the empire's food needs would increase right along with it.

Add Happiness resourses to water tiles. The phoenicians got their dye from sea animals. Pearls could be another.
Uranium should create unhealthiness like flood plains.
Change Financial trait to eliminate the +1 gold/t, and add Trade route gold increased by 25%. Double speed production of markets.

When a city is placed, and a resourse is discovered on that same tile (such as Iron or Uranium), we should be given the option to evacuate the city (basically, move it to an ajacent tile) so that the resourse could be properly mined.

Random Events added: An increase in Shark attacks have delayed fishermen on 1 tile for 1 turn. (result: loss of that tile's output for 1 turn)
An increase in piranha attacks have delayed farmers on 1 tile for 1 turn (same as above except must be a river tile)

Diplomacy
When an empire wants me to help them, they should be more likely to exchange techs to help me be better prepared to fight those foes attacking them.
We should be able to demand a tech as a condition of a cease-fire, Not be forced to try afterwards and be turned down.

Add Israel. The rest of the religons have their founding country in Civ4, but, not Israel?
Add Emperor Trajan of the Romans (EXP/IND).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trajan

 

[Healz]

I do think that is a problem. I know there was one mod where you got the option of having a fighter or fighter-bomber upgrade with a torpedeo promotion which was meant to improve its ability to attack ships. Also there should be the ability to have bombers on carriers that are on a patrol mod, so that you have a button called something like Patrol mod which acts a bit like explore except that if the unit comes across a submarine it will ask for orders. You then have to weigh up the likelihood that that submarine is a friendly or an enemy submarine, just as they have to do in real war.

Also the whole idea of intercept mod is that if you have the integrated air-defence system or air-defences in that area where the reconnaisance unit is flying over, you have the option of an event which allows you to decide what to do with the possibilities of what could happen listed.

Also with spies the military advisor should be able to use this information more. I would like to be able to use spies especially in the capital to be able to obtain detailed enemy positions at a potential risk to myself.

 

[bestbrian]

I would just like a building. Call it "City Services", and have it come in with, say, Economics. It provides +1 Happy/+1 Health (for Fire/Sanitation), and eliminates "We Demand Military Protection" unhappiness (Police), allowing me to finally disband the woefully obsolete Warriors and Archers that are garrisoning my interior cities.

 

[Healz]

The Patrol option should give a range of options to use such as aggressive chase to passive watch to ignore totally for fighters and bombers. Submarines should have the option of being able to perform a guerilla attack on ships but have the negative of potentially starting a war.

Also tech tree should start earlier in mechanized with A7V and Mark VII, and the Sopwith Pup and Fokker. As well as some anti-aircraft guns and an advanced radar at rocketry.

 

[MOOtwobee]

I'm just starting Civ4 and haven't played Civ5, but the first thing that turned me off about Civ5 is the aesthetic. With Civ4 the game immerses me into what feels like a sunny environment and Civ5, from what I've seen, makes it feel like you're stuck in a wet bog on an overcast day. I prefer the game to give me the impression of conquering in the sun than marching through mud.

 

[wolfblue]

what many people fail to take into account is that each "battle" takes place over the time space of a turn and is not necessarily a formation of guys attacking an opposing formation of guys.

I find it difficult to see axemen taking on rifflemen but at the same time if its 10 axemen vs 1 riffle man its not like the axemen attacked down a hall way one at a time. you have to imagine the whole stack of 10 axemen brigades attacking 1 rifflemen brigade which has to defend its area. that means that some time the axemen ambush patrolls, some time the axemen choke off supplies and some time the axemen suicide attack.

over the course of the turn (a year or two) the axemen lose 80% of their people but their determination wins through and try even eventually defeat the rifflemen and reform into 1 full and 1 degraded unit.

this is why i dont see stacks as horrible. CIV combat takes place at a strategic level not a tactical level.

However.... If over all balance of units is truely an issue i propose the following.

an official method of technology diffusion as found in the LoR mods where the more civilizations that your in contact with have a specific technology the more bonus science your civilizations get in learning that technology. this will make it less likely that units in the renaissance are caught facing units in the modern age. also upgrades should not stack. I dont think upgrading a unit from axes to infantry requires that they be trained through every iteration ... thus it should cost no more to upgrade from axes to infantry than it costs to upgrade from axes to muskets.

with these two changes (and an AI tendency to upgrade where possible) I think the issues that are posted in this thread would go away.

I would just like a building. Call it "City Services", and have it come in with, say, Economics. It provides +1 Happy/+1 Health (for Fire/Sanitation), and eliminates "We Demand Military Protection" unhappiness (Police), allowing me to finally disband the woefully obsolete Warriors and Archers that are garrisoning my interior cities.

absolutly wonderful idea. I love it, I think it would be a great building to make available with Civil Service.

 

[Armor (Veteran)]

My 10-point recipe for Civ VI:

1. Start with Civ IV BTS gameplay/design as a reference.
2. Analyze features and identify ones that don't work well, are unbalanced, unfun, or just not really used all that much.
3. Decide which ones are worth keeping and improving, and which ones should just be dropped entirely from Vanilla.
4. Try and identify other "unfun"/tedious parts of the game (including user interfaces/menus), and introduce a few new concepts to try to improve them. Be careful not to reduce player choice or over-simplify the game. Optional governors and automation to guide newbies and casual players are OK.
5. Play-test the heck out of the game to balance the new stuff in #4 and make sure it is an improvement and fits within the rest of the game.
6. I repeat, play-test the heck out of the game. Be sure to involve Civ veterans, both single-player and multiplayer, in beta testing.
7. Implement new design on a more modern graphical engine. Try to design things under the hood to utilize multi-core processors as much as possible.
8. Don't worry too much about leader animation or having leaders read text in their native language. Just make sure they're not too freaky-looking (*cough* Sury *cough*).
9. Go with Grammy-nominated Baba Yetu for the menu theme, unless you are REALLY sure some other song would work better. Leonard Nimoy would be nice for the tech voice-overs, but you can't always get everything you want.
10. Did I say play-test the heck out of the game before launching?