civ 4 forums CIV6 wishlist
- Thread starter wolfblue
- Start date
Ok, could sound cool but this is all packed in one parameter strength. That doesn't fit. Tile size and unit size is important too avoid overcrowding and outbreak of scary diseases.
Second how do you explain siege units go to war? I can't think of a commander attacking with siege units this way. I think the combat model of CIV IV sucks (V too).
The combat model needs to be rewritten entirely and a new ai. Since that is a lot of work they should forget about the graphics. Civ IV graphics are more than fine to me.
its well known that seige is done poorly in civ4
i would much rather see seige as simply an addition to standard units rather than a unit in and ofthemselves. doing it as some kind of earned or purchased promotion is possible but limited.
i think the best way would be to limit stacks in such a way that all of the units on a stack are considered one army with all of the benefits of the units in the stack.
thus if a stack of say two swordsmen an archer and a catapult attacks a city the entire stack will first attack for collateral damage, deal ranged archer damage (with possible first strikes) and then deal melee damage from the combined swordsmen.
the pressence of cavalry or other units would provide different benefits or abilities to the battle stack.
one of the abilities of a general would allow a stack to be larger. for example a standard stack is up to 4 units and a general allows up to 6 or 7 units to form a battle stack.
i would much rather see seige as simply an addition to standard units rather than a unit in and ofthemselves. doing it as some kind of earned or purchased promotion is possible but limited.
i think the best way would be to limit stacks in such a way that all of the units on a stack are considered one army with all of the benefits of the units in the stack.
thus if a stack of say two swordsmen an archer and a catapult attacks a city the entire stack will first attack for collateral damage, deal ranged archer damage (with possible first strikes) and then deal melee damage from the combined swordsmen.
the pressence of cavalry or other units would provide different benefits or abilities to the battle stack.
one of the abilities of a general would allow a stack to be larger. for example a standard stack is up to 4 units and a general allows up to 6 or 7 units to form a battle stack.
Generally, I see and accept your points. What would require some thought, however, is what happens to the losing side. Do you envisage going back to CivII where the defeated units are all lost? I wouldn't be keen on that. An alternative could be that the losing "army" is pushed back off the tile (interesting if their backs are to the sea!), and takes damage that further reduces their combat ability. In this scenario, however, we still reach the problem of "when do units actually die?".
Yes all units will die unless there are some fancy retreat parameters. But don't make it too complex yet.
Because all units will fight attacker and defender will probably lose units. (Ok 1 front unit fighting against 3 front units and 2 siege units will probably surrender/utterly destroyed). Normal battles will look like:
5 attacking front units fighting against 2 defending front units and 3 siege units. The 3 siege units fire first hitting 3 attacking front units. Then the front units take up the battle. Say one unit is destroyed 2 half damaged and two full strength.
The attack strength is 3 and the defenders strength is 2. Now it depends on terrain, veteran status and other parameters who will win. If the defenders front units are destroyed and the defenders siege units don't have a front attack value they are also destroyed. Otherwise a new battle round will be played.
The victorius probably lost a lot too.
It is playing faster then the current combat system (waiting until the computer have smashed their sod's to death -> I often did get some coffee (I dont like quick moves -> chess is more fun then)) for this is all automatic (a combat view should be provided for those who like it).
Because all units will fight attacker and defender will probably lose units. (Ok 1 front unit fighting against 3 front units and 2 siege units will probably surrender/utterly destroyed). Normal battles will look like:
5 attacking front units fighting against 2 defending front units and 3 siege units. The 3 siege units fire first hitting 3 attacking front units. Then the front units take up the battle. Say one unit is destroyed 2 half damaged and two full strength.
The attack strength is 3 and the defenders strength is 2. Now it depends on terrain, veteran status and other parameters who will win. If the defenders front units are destroyed and the defenders siege units don't have a front attack value they are also destroyed. Otherwise a new battle round will be played.
The victorius probably lost a lot too.
It is playing faster then the current combat system (waiting until the computer have smashed their sod's to death -> I often did get some coffee (I dont like quick moves -> chess is more fun then)) for this is all automatic (a combat view should be provided for those who like it).
thats a very good question about what happens when you lose.
i can imagine several possibilities and many dependencies.
first looking at damage i think that damage would be delt to individual units in the stack not necessarily an even accross the board reduction for example. a unit heavy in seige and a few pikes is attacked by a unit heavy in cavalry and a few swords. if the cavalry unit wins its assumed the cavalry flanked the pikes and destroyed the seige. Seige in the stack is destroyed while the pikes are relatively unharmed. if the cavalry losses however it is assumed that the pikes stopped the cavalry taking damage but decimating the cavalry forces.
second looking at what happens to the whole stack, a stack attacking another stack wins but does not destroy the entire stack. it is simply pushed back in the same way that a unit in civ4 attacks a stack kills one unit and returns to its start point. should the stack totally defeat the opposing stack (say the stack has already been damaged) then it occupies the opposing space totally destroying the loser.
this is just a random idea but leads to other thoughs. for example... suppose when you create a stack it is controlled by an AI "captain" you can allow the AI captain to run the stack as it sees fit. OR you can micromanage the stack strategy in the cavalry stack suggested above there may be a screen where your allowed to suggest that the cavalry units charge the front lines and the swords men mop up. OR the swords attack the front lines while the cavalry flanks. this would effect the outcome of battle.
however in no case would the player actually micromanage the battle itself. once strategy is determined or left to the AI the player does the good ol' move one stack into the other stack and the computer determines the results (if the player so choses he may even be able to watch a detailed animation of the battle.
another thought occores to me. but its a bit comples. it has to do with movement and presenting a "front line"
stacks and units would be treated very differently. suppose stacks receive a movement penalty due to organization. a stack for example can move at the speed of the slowest unit minus 1.
basic foot moves at 2, basic cavalry moves at 3.
a stack of anything plus foot moves at 1. a stack of all cavalry only moves at 2 a stack of say ... tanks and mecanized infantry may move at 4.
in a great war one may expect to see a front line of 2 or 3 stacks constantly resupplied by individual units joined to the stack.
front line stack attacks enemy front line stack. defending front line stack looses 2 units and 3 units injured. on defenders turn defender may chose to retreat or simply replace the 2 dead units with fresh units and heal the damaged units by merging new units into them. this would cause boarder wars to truly take place on boarders but once an persons primary front line was smashed hey may end up loosing a lot of land before forming another defense. on the other hand a reckless attacker may leave his front line open to a counter attack which may cost him lots of land.
although everything i suggested is a bit complex i dont think that in practice it would be overwhelming to the player. most of it is just unit movement which we are used to and the strategy screen can be left up to the "captain" or general. the rest is just calculations of odds and damage which while loads more complex than what you see in civ 4 or 5 would be nothing o modern multi-core processors.
i can imagine several possibilities and many dependencies.
first looking at damage i think that damage would be delt to individual units in the stack not necessarily an even accross the board reduction for example. a unit heavy in seige and a few pikes is attacked by a unit heavy in cavalry and a few swords. if the cavalry unit wins its assumed the cavalry flanked the pikes and destroyed the seige. Seige in the stack is destroyed while the pikes are relatively unharmed. if the cavalry losses however it is assumed that the pikes stopped the cavalry taking damage but decimating the cavalry forces.
second looking at what happens to the whole stack, a stack attacking another stack wins but does not destroy the entire stack. it is simply pushed back in the same way that a unit in civ4 attacks a stack kills one unit and returns to its start point. should the stack totally defeat the opposing stack (say the stack has already been damaged) then it occupies the opposing space totally destroying the loser.
this is just a random idea but leads to other thoughs. for example... suppose when you create a stack it is controlled by an AI "captain" you can allow the AI captain to run the stack as it sees fit. OR you can micromanage the stack strategy in the cavalry stack suggested above there may be a screen where your allowed to suggest that the cavalry units charge the front lines and the swords men mop up. OR the swords attack the front lines while the cavalry flanks. this would effect the outcome of battle.
however in no case would the player actually micromanage the battle itself. once strategy is determined or left to the AI the player does the good ol' move one stack into the other stack and the computer determines the results (if the player so choses he may even be able to watch a detailed animation of the battle.
another thought occores to me. but its a bit comples. it has to do with movement and presenting a "front line"
stacks and units would be treated very differently. suppose stacks receive a movement penalty due to organization. a stack for example can move at the speed of the slowest unit minus 1.
basic foot moves at 2, basic cavalry moves at 3.
a stack of anything plus foot moves at 1. a stack of all cavalry only moves at 2 a stack of say ... tanks and mecanized infantry may move at 4.
in a great war one may expect to see a front line of 2 or 3 stacks constantly resupplied by individual units joined to the stack.
front line stack attacks enemy front line stack. defending front line stack looses 2 units and 3 units injured. on defenders turn defender may chose to retreat or simply replace the 2 dead units with fresh units and heal the damaged units by merging new units into them. this would cause boarder wars to truly take place on boarders but once an persons primary front line was smashed hey may end up loosing a lot of land before forming another defense. on the other hand a reckless attacker may leave his front line open to a counter attack which may cost him lots of land.
although everything i suggested is a bit complex i dont think that in practice it would be overwhelming to the player. most of it is just unit movement which we are used to and the strategy screen can be left up to the "captain" or general. the rest is just calculations of odds and damage which while loads more complex than what you see in civ 4 or 5 would be nothing o modern multi-core processors.
Pretty long thread, so I did some skimming and some skipping. If something like this has already been said, I'm sorry, but here's a quick and dirty idea about how to compromise between stacks and limited units-per-tile:
(Values are arbitrary and mostly illustrative)
Let's assign each tile an amount of space available for units...
"Open" Terrain (Desert, Plains, Grassland, etc): 2
"Rough" Terrain (Jungle, Forests, etc): 1
Next, assign "types" of units and how much space they take up:
"Light" Units (spears, swords, muskets, general footsoldiers...): 1
"Heavy" Units (Cavalry, Elephants, Tanks, etc): 2
"Support" Units (Archers, Artillery, Mortars, etc): 0
Units as we know them could be renamed to something like "regiment" or "component" as all soldiers on a tile would collectively be a "unit" or some other naming convention to distinguish between the individuals and the whole.
All components of the unit would collectively contribute to attack/defense values of the whole, and would fight (and die) together as one. If moved together, move at the speed of the slowest individual, and in combat, engage at the range of the shortest-ranged individual.
Melee units would engage in the same tile as their target. Simple/early ranged units (up to, say, muskets, excluding longbows) would engage from one tile away. Moderate ranged units (longbows and modern soldiers) would engage from two tiles away. Advanced units (tanks, and other mechanical/future types) from three tiles away. If an enemy unit tries to pass through a unit's engagement range, it has the option to intercept/engage the target (maybe not necessary, considering movement speed).
Foot units would travel at 1 tile per turn. Cavalry and modern infantry (using trucks/convoys etc) could move 2 tiles per turn, while purely vehicular individuals could move faster.
Support individuals would have no defense value of their own (though they could carry defensive modifiers to take advantage of city/wall/castle defense or bolster defense of other individuals). Also, the maximum number of support individuals would not be able to exceed the number of frontline ("light" and "heavy") individuals on any tile. Cities could allow a number of support individuals for defense based on size/fortifications.
Making units into modular structures would also go far to add variety to any particular engagement. Instead of simply "mace vs axe" you'd have, say, "sword+sword+archer+catapult vs spear+axe+longbow+longbow."
(Values are arbitrary and mostly illustrative)
Let's assign each tile an amount of space available for units...
"Open" Terrain (Desert, Plains, Grassland, etc): 2
"Rough" Terrain (Jungle, Forests, etc): 1
Next, assign "types" of units and how much space they take up:
"Light" Units (spears, swords, muskets, general footsoldiers...): 1
"Heavy" Units (Cavalry, Elephants, Tanks, etc): 2
"Support" Units (Archers, Artillery, Mortars, etc): 0
Units as we know them could be renamed to something like "regiment" or "component" as all soldiers on a tile would collectively be a "unit" or some other naming convention to distinguish between the individuals and the whole.
All components of the unit would collectively contribute to attack/defense values of the whole, and would fight (and die) together as one. If moved together, move at the speed of the slowest individual, and in combat, engage at the range of the shortest-ranged individual.
Melee units would engage in the same tile as their target. Simple/early ranged units (up to, say, muskets, excluding longbows) would engage from one tile away. Moderate ranged units (longbows and modern soldiers) would engage from two tiles away. Advanced units (tanks, and other mechanical/future types) from three tiles away. If an enemy unit tries to pass through a unit's engagement range, it has the option to intercept/engage the target (maybe not necessary, considering movement speed).
Foot units would travel at 1 tile per turn. Cavalry and modern infantry (using trucks/convoys etc) could move 2 tiles per turn, while purely vehicular individuals could move faster.
Support individuals would have no defense value of their own (though they could carry defensive modifiers to take advantage of city/wall/castle defense or bolster defense of other individuals). Also, the maximum number of support individuals would not be able to exceed the number of frontline ("light" and "heavy") individuals on any tile. Cities could allow a number of support individuals for defense based on size/fortifications.
Making units into modular structures would also go far to add variety to any particular engagement. Instead of simply "mace vs axe" you'd have, say, "sword+sword+archer+catapult vs spear+axe+longbow+longbow."
sadly, I think there's a high chance that there won't be a civ 6 at all. The declining PC market, and the disappointmnet of civ 5 have really harmed the series. But if there is a civ 6, I'd like to see it designed fully to support multiplayer games. Single player is fun, but no AI can compare to a real human.
specialist
Chieftain
- Joined
- May 10, 2009
- Messages
- 25
Well said. a couple of additional pointers:
1) Keep to historical realism. This is what made Civ1-4 great.
2) Constrain the micromanagent and amount of options so that an average completed game takes ~1-4 hours, or one evening of playing. Or even shorter. You can always play marathor or epic if someone wants that. Handicaps for micromanagement of building/workers/units might work, this could simulate the way planned economies were less efficient due to central government interference.
I'm sure there will be great games that continue the CIV legacy.The CIV series is not a war or even strategy game. Its a resource development game. Even if CIV series was dead and buried, there are many other great pieces in the same genre. Master of Magic (and now Elemental) added fantasy elements to this genre, Master of Orion and Alpha Centauri added sci-fi elements. Maybe one of these will compare to CIV IV one day.
this fatalistic view has been around for years. Civilization fills a game nitch that few other games even attempt. there will be a civ 6. the only question is weather or not Firaxis will give CIV5 the 5 or so years that it gave to CIV3 and CIV4 or will they simply dump it and drop civ6 in say 2012 or 1013.
likely they will milk the investment and release a CIV5 expansion and depending on its reception either move to CIV6 or try to milk out a second expansion.
if we are lucky they will leave the way open for another civ war like CIV2/call to power/masters of magic/alpha centari which lead to the quality of civ3 and civ4. competition always breeds excellence.
LOL???? You want them to make me pay extra for watching over my cities making sure nothing gets randomly reassigned???
Bushface
Deity
I abhor the very idea of limiting micromanagement and player options. Just look briefly at Civ 5, in which micromanagement made little difference because there is so little variation and the tech tree is so simple. As for cutting the game time to a single evening, why not automate everything so that you load the "game", press Start, and watch what happens in glorious 3D for an hour or so ?
But then I am an obsessive micromanager, and a game lasts me up to 160 hours of playing time. Should I build a road or a farm ? In which cities should I build the units I think I shall need to kill Shaka ? What units should they be ? Pondering such matters is, for me, the great attraction of this game, and it takes time.
But then I am an obsessive micromanager, and a game lasts me up to 160 hours of playing time. Should I build a road or a farm ? In which cities should I build the units I think I shall need to kill Shaka ? What units should they be ? Pondering such matters is, for me, the great attraction of this game, and it takes time.
sav
Prince
Lol, wut? Are you serious? It takes me about 5-6 hours to play an 'epic' length game, and I do alright without spending 32 times longer on each turn... I can't imagine what you'd be doing in that time?
Lol, wut? Are you serious? It takes me about 5-6 hours to play an 'epic' length game, and I do alright without spending 32 times longer on each turn... I can't imagine what you'd be doing in that time?
Marathon/Large/Immortal, and occassional Deity, player and my games take a couple of months to play out. That's one of the things that's good about Civ IV; it accommodates a wide range of play styles, and preferences.
Some very good ideas in here. 
Healz
General
Personally I like the idea of a Civ VI that returns and builds on what Civ IV created, but I really do hope before that they return and give us the Colonization II we deserved. Colonization by all accounts was a poorly created mod dropped on top of Civilization IV and it showed. It was a really great game in its day and if done properly with the update could be a good seller. The Colonization II we just saw was more of an attempt to get sales by dropping the name Civ IV and Colonization onto a product.
This was the problem that led to Civ V's poor sales. They didn't really understand who they were trying to create the game for. It shows that they weren't really sure whether they wanted RTS or Turn-Based Strategy and so they ended up falling into the realm of failing badly at both. Colonization was the same. I was really looking forward to the rebirth of Colonization until I tried the demo and found that the only real thing it had in common with the original game was the name...
Firaxis and Sid Meier need to get back on the ball and thinking about who they are creating these games for, before they seriously do kill the goose with the golden egg, because at the moment that goose is starting to look a bit sick...
This was the problem that led to Civ V's poor sales. They didn't really understand who they were trying to create the game for. It shows that they weren't really sure whether they wanted RTS or Turn-Based Strategy and so they ended up falling into the realm of failing badly at both. Colonization was the same. I was really looking forward to the rebirth of Colonization until I tried the demo and found that the only real thing it had in common with the original game was the name...
Firaxis and Sid Meier need to get back on the ball and thinking about who they are creating these games for, before they seriously do kill the goose with the golden egg, because at the moment that goose is starting to look a bit sick...
specialist
Chieftain
- Joined
- May 10, 2009
- Messages
- 25
Currently you can't win in CIV 4 in the harder difficulties without micromanaging. The AI is ok, but not good enough. You need farms when a new city starts, mines for the producing cities and cottages when you need money. AI doesn't do these at the right time and the best way to play is to micromanage a lot. There could be a reduced upkeep for units and cities when they are automated ("Free entrepreneur") and a tiny cost in switching from "Central planning" to "Free entrepreneur" for a city/unit. This way letting the AI do the micromanaging would be the best choice in almost most cases, and most of the time-consuming micromanaging would be removed.
whats a navy
Prince
I would love to see more power put into the navies. Currently navies in Civ 4 aren't very necessary and land armies are 10x more important but in history Britain became the biggest empire ever and was extremely powerful all through its navy. In the Peloponnesus War (Athens vs. Sparta) it could be described as "the elephant vs. the whale" because Sparta had such a good land army and Athens had such a good navy that they were evenly matched. If they had that war on civilization Sparta would win everytime. I don't really have any good ideas how to make navies so strong though except for making trade routes more valuable over seas (which I think is a good idea by itself).
Similar threads
