Fiend777Fits
Social Parasite
The Civ series is great. No doubt about it. They've done much in the way of simulation. Unfortunately they tend to follow the creed of not fixing whats not broken too strictly. Recycle this, reuse that. Add in a new idea here and there. Main focus is graphics and giving you a little spoonful at a time (expansion packs). To hell with realism. They'd prefer just to use the same old time tested civ 1 gameplay every time.
What I'd like to see is more world-based scenarios. The random maps are a bore to me honestly, they never turn out really real. The civs never react to each other like they would in the real world, because you have celts living next to incas and forming alliances against the japanese. All on a continent that has terrain thrown everywhere and only holds maybe 4 civs if you're lucky. Sure if you really don't pay attention to any of this and dont want a realistic world unfolding, this probably isnt a problem.
And the settlers, always settling. Spending every sec expanding your borders before the other civs take the land (until there is no more room left, then conquest). How about not relying on founding cities so much? You know the world was not as empty as 4000 b.c. makes it look like. What if instead of building settlers to found cities all the time, you instead had to convert your brethren around your start city. By military or diplomatic might this would be succeded. Imagine cities (more like huts) all over the map of uncivilized peoples. The ones nearest your first city would be your brethren while the others would be other civs brethren and combinations of loyalties. Even better, what if you started this game as one of these little huts. Struggling to understand the new tools you've fashioned at say 10,000 b.c. Some civs would have an easier comprehension than others... egyptians, mesopotamians, and sumerians. But the rest would just have to wait there turn to come to understand civilization. In the mean time, they could work on uniting their tribe and eventually bringing others under their domain.
How about this for an idea? A timeline not based on turns, but on the technological progress of civilization. Say it isn't 1500 a.d. or so until gunpowder is discovered by one or two civs. And as for technologies in civ games. They're not all really technologies. Some of them really are just intellectual concepts. Buddhism, republic, nationalism. Does any nation really spend money to research these? No, they're passed along and thought up by the intellectuals and spiritual gurus. These should be separated into some other kind of fund you can invest in. Different types of government should have different values in this affair. Communism would have an iron-grip on the spread of most intellectual ideas in their state, for example.
Propaganda would also be a nice add-in. Imagine convincing your own people of their superiority and need to fight a war (to keep them happy of course). With this you could convince the world at large of you're good attentions (if you're a propaganda efficionado) and perhaps sway neighboring civ cities to join you and rebel.
Religions have been overplayed in civ 4. They are the key element in the game now. They should be an element to unite your nation. Instead they are mostly a fixture of civ to civ relations. And what about most civs adopting buddhism first. This isnt even near realistic.
Culture is only represented in borders and swaying neighboring cities. Culture should be something mostly unique to every nation, its effects differing becuase of regional ties. The whole border thing really pisses me off. I gotta spend all my time making buildings with so-called culture just to keep other civs culture from overrunning me. Borders should be established by military presence and negotiation as well as if the land is being worked.
Which brings me to another issue. The limiting of a city's appetitie to 21 squares all equally distanced around it. I think any land in your territory should be available for consumption for any city. The only limit being the distances affect on your stockpile accumulation rate and any loss that may occur en route. Workers should be eliminated altogether. You should decide where the cities should focus (farmiing, mining, commerce, road to's, etc.) and how much of each should be done before coming back to que. Tiny workers flowing out of city to accomplish these tasks while you sit back and manage other affairs. Sounds nice. Of course you will need a small contingent of engineers to handle certain affairs (forts, castles, and to accompany your armies to build their defensive structures if you wanna give your soldiers a break).
Production, another area misconstrued. I believe this part should be mostly automated as well. With the choices being which sector of the city you will focus more gold on: industrial, commercial, scientific, religious, entertainment, defenses, etc. Marketplaces, libraries, and harbors are obsolete. Instead of having to specificly build these. They will be developed as your city grows all depending on how much of each you choose to finance. The limits being availabily of material (i.e. stone or wood you have accumulated), manpower (related to population size), and your funds. Of course every once in a while a project should come along that you might want to focus special attention on. Some kind of wonder, or an aqueduct or colloseum. As these were no easy undertakings and shouldn't be necessary for every growing city.
Units should be conscripted out of the local population and trained (with barracks). If you take the time to keep soldiers trained in your barracks you can have units ready anytime. The amount of time they spend training determines their initial skill (could never exceed anything a battle-hardened unit could achieve). And their weapons and armor (and horses or whatever) would be another material concern. If your civilization has enough iron forged (and smithed) and enough horses stabled (and trained) you can have as many knights as you want. Thats right iron and horses for all (well most all), but quanity is the key word here. Iron and other resources should be a figure based on your terrain and the work done to it. One iron resource supplying your massive armies so you can invade your ironless neighbors is ridiculous.
Unit size should be a choice when creating units. And taking different sized units and forming a cohesive fighting force should be commonplace. As armies were. No more waiting for a random event to build an army. Your generals, formed with the creation of an army, would be able to help enlist other units as needed. Their battle-hardened experience (reputation) would help enlistment rates when they visit cities. Mercenaries should be available to hire (in foreign and domestic cities), to fill your ranks (after losses) or just to fight alongside your units. Not many battles in ancient times or modern have been fought like they are in the civ games. With one unit waiting to attacking after another. A dynamic army battleplan would be possible, where you could decide how your army should attack the enemy. Mounted flanking maneuvers, box formation, ranged attack support, etc. This, of course could be set, if you didnt want to get down in it. The possibility of withdrawals to non-mounted units would be nice, too. If one army withdrew and the other didnt follow up, a draw. Statistical losses and opinion really would decide that. Supply trains should determine much of the mobility of these large units and armies. If a supply should be intercepted by an enemy unit or army, you would need to buy some grub out of a nearby city before your supply ran out or risk mutiny. Terrain conditions affecting health. Units based on health, stamina, and loyalty as well. Stamina being based on how long a unit has been moving (and if double-timed) as well as the terrain conditions. Loyalty being decided by the units make-up (non-national, mercenary, slave) and its losses, stamina, and health. Propaganda could play into this as well.
Finally, this may sound crazy. And will probably prove rather difficult to hash out but... no terrain squares. That's right. Think warcraft or one of those other real-time games. Except turn-based. Destination orders, waypoints, and alerts when other civs armies are spotted. Then you can change destination to intercept (if you can). Of course mounted units will move faster than infantry. And they might just slip by you while you try to intercept them.
But these are just a few ideas I thought of... (much in due to a very old shareware version of a game called Imperial Conquest)
What I'd like to see is more world-based scenarios. The random maps are a bore to me honestly, they never turn out really real. The civs never react to each other like they would in the real world, because you have celts living next to incas and forming alliances against the japanese. All on a continent that has terrain thrown everywhere and only holds maybe 4 civs if you're lucky. Sure if you really don't pay attention to any of this and dont want a realistic world unfolding, this probably isnt a problem.
And the settlers, always settling. Spending every sec expanding your borders before the other civs take the land (until there is no more room left, then conquest). How about not relying on founding cities so much? You know the world was not as empty as 4000 b.c. makes it look like. What if instead of building settlers to found cities all the time, you instead had to convert your brethren around your start city. By military or diplomatic might this would be succeded. Imagine cities (more like huts) all over the map of uncivilized peoples. The ones nearest your first city would be your brethren while the others would be other civs brethren and combinations of loyalties. Even better, what if you started this game as one of these little huts. Struggling to understand the new tools you've fashioned at say 10,000 b.c. Some civs would have an easier comprehension than others... egyptians, mesopotamians, and sumerians. But the rest would just have to wait there turn to come to understand civilization. In the mean time, they could work on uniting their tribe and eventually bringing others under their domain.
How about this for an idea? A timeline not based on turns, but on the technological progress of civilization. Say it isn't 1500 a.d. or so until gunpowder is discovered by one or two civs. And as for technologies in civ games. They're not all really technologies. Some of them really are just intellectual concepts. Buddhism, republic, nationalism. Does any nation really spend money to research these? No, they're passed along and thought up by the intellectuals and spiritual gurus. These should be separated into some other kind of fund you can invest in. Different types of government should have different values in this affair. Communism would have an iron-grip on the spread of most intellectual ideas in their state, for example.
Propaganda would also be a nice add-in. Imagine convincing your own people of their superiority and need to fight a war (to keep them happy of course). With this you could convince the world at large of you're good attentions (if you're a propaganda efficionado) and perhaps sway neighboring civ cities to join you and rebel.
Religions have been overplayed in civ 4. They are the key element in the game now. They should be an element to unite your nation. Instead they are mostly a fixture of civ to civ relations. And what about most civs adopting buddhism first. This isnt even near realistic.
Culture is only represented in borders and swaying neighboring cities. Culture should be something mostly unique to every nation, its effects differing becuase of regional ties. The whole border thing really pisses me off. I gotta spend all my time making buildings with so-called culture just to keep other civs culture from overrunning me. Borders should be established by military presence and negotiation as well as if the land is being worked.
Which brings me to another issue. The limiting of a city's appetitie to 21 squares all equally distanced around it. I think any land in your territory should be available for consumption for any city. The only limit being the distances affect on your stockpile accumulation rate and any loss that may occur en route. Workers should be eliminated altogether. You should decide where the cities should focus (farmiing, mining, commerce, road to's, etc.) and how much of each should be done before coming back to que. Tiny workers flowing out of city to accomplish these tasks while you sit back and manage other affairs. Sounds nice. Of course you will need a small contingent of engineers to handle certain affairs (forts, castles, and to accompany your armies to build their defensive structures if you wanna give your soldiers a break).
Production, another area misconstrued. I believe this part should be mostly automated as well. With the choices being which sector of the city you will focus more gold on: industrial, commercial, scientific, religious, entertainment, defenses, etc. Marketplaces, libraries, and harbors are obsolete. Instead of having to specificly build these. They will be developed as your city grows all depending on how much of each you choose to finance. The limits being availabily of material (i.e. stone or wood you have accumulated), manpower (related to population size), and your funds. Of course every once in a while a project should come along that you might want to focus special attention on. Some kind of wonder, or an aqueduct or colloseum. As these were no easy undertakings and shouldn't be necessary for every growing city.
Units should be conscripted out of the local population and trained (with barracks). If you take the time to keep soldiers trained in your barracks you can have units ready anytime. The amount of time they spend training determines their initial skill (could never exceed anything a battle-hardened unit could achieve). And their weapons and armor (and horses or whatever) would be another material concern. If your civilization has enough iron forged (and smithed) and enough horses stabled (and trained) you can have as many knights as you want. Thats right iron and horses for all (well most all), but quanity is the key word here. Iron and other resources should be a figure based on your terrain and the work done to it. One iron resource supplying your massive armies so you can invade your ironless neighbors is ridiculous.
Unit size should be a choice when creating units. And taking different sized units and forming a cohesive fighting force should be commonplace. As armies were. No more waiting for a random event to build an army. Your generals, formed with the creation of an army, would be able to help enlist other units as needed. Their battle-hardened experience (reputation) would help enlistment rates when they visit cities. Mercenaries should be available to hire (in foreign and domestic cities), to fill your ranks (after losses) or just to fight alongside your units. Not many battles in ancient times or modern have been fought like they are in the civ games. With one unit waiting to attacking after another. A dynamic army battleplan would be possible, where you could decide how your army should attack the enemy. Mounted flanking maneuvers, box formation, ranged attack support, etc. This, of course could be set, if you didnt want to get down in it. The possibility of withdrawals to non-mounted units would be nice, too. If one army withdrew and the other didnt follow up, a draw. Statistical losses and opinion really would decide that. Supply trains should determine much of the mobility of these large units and armies. If a supply should be intercepted by an enemy unit or army, you would need to buy some grub out of a nearby city before your supply ran out or risk mutiny. Terrain conditions affecting health. Units based on health, stamina, and loyalty as well. Stamina being based on how long a unit has been moving (and if double-timed) as well as the terrain conditions. Loyalty being decided by the units make-up (non-national, mercenary, slave) and its losses, stamina, and health. Propaganda could play into this as well.
Finally, this may sound crazy. And will probably prove rather difficult to hash out but... no terrain squares. That's right. Think warcraft or one of those other real-time games. Except turn-based. Destination orders, waypoints, and alerts when other civs armies are spotted. Then you can change destination to intercept (if you can). Of course mounted units will move faster than infantry. And they might just slip by you while you try to intercept them.
But these are just a few ideas I thought of... (much in due to a very old shareware version of a game called Imperial Conquest)
.
