Civ V Ideas & Suggestions Summary

[Camikaze]

Just putting this out there- I think it's important to remember that Civ is not a military game. It is an empire building game. That, to a large degree, involves military aspects, but the game shouldn't become military-centric. Any massive focus on combat, as one part of military endeavours, would greatly shift the balance of the game in this regard.

 

[Flying Pig]

100% agreed. If you bother to read that massive manual that ships with teh game, the last bit talks about detail and realism at the expense of fun and how much they tried to avoid it. It's a game, not a history simulation machine

 

[Kullervo]

Adressing aerial units in Civ IV...

The thing that annoys me most is the fact that you can't order a group of planes to bomb a target. I doubt that there has ever been even one solo bombing mission (large scale, on the order of cities, that is. Impovement bombing is fine with a solitary bomber). And it takes some time to go through 30 different bombers in a 3-front war.

Also, there should be an option of aerial combat available. If a fighter tries to intercept another fighter, it should take damage.

3rdly, there should be an option for selling military services. When I know that a civ is going to ask me to join in their crusade against the treacherous French, I want to get something for it... a tech or something.

Lastly, PLEASE let the modern soundtrack be changed... frankly, it sucks. If anyone with a say in that process is reading this thread, I suggest something like the Beatles (well, softer, 60-70's rock in general), or Mahler's 7th symphony. They seem so much more apt and pleasant than what sounds like random scratching of a violin...

Sorry if I repeated what someone else already said.

 

[kochman]

Actually, you can group aerial units to attack a target... there just isn't a button for it, like with the other units. I learned this gem here recently, really speeds up later era combat!

Hold down shift, and select each one, this groups them. Then select bombard/attack and they all do it until culture or enemy strength is gone.

They could have made the button for it though!

 

[Thoughtful Thug]

I guess it would be awesome if you play Civ for the combat.

TBH, I play Civ for the math. You can literally calculate your likelihood of victory, quantify your combat success rates, and most of your victory is based on your ability to plan, rather than your ability to engage. If I wanted to play RTS, Starcraft is still on my shelf and Warcraft III box is right next to Civ IV.

I think the P-i-P screens would be a greater burden on an already processor burdening game. Really, I would prefer a graphics upgrade over a new "combat" feature. The implications for an AI that can out maneuver you when you have the odds are just staggering. The AI already cheats, they already get the micromanage advantage, and this is just one more tool in the toolbox that can ruin a perfectly victory condition because the AI launches a surprise attack and I really don't enjoy the idea of managing a real-time battle punctuating a long periods of planning.

The current military in Civ IV is intended as a tool, a means to an end, rather than an activity. The activity is winning the game. Military units are there to make sure that happens (or does not happen).

Well, all I am saying is that the existing features of the game will still stay the same (or some added stuff or deletion). I see no harm in adding just one thing and that is the battle itself between units. You can still do the math and other things, but when it comes to fighting war, it depend on how you meneauver your units and your ability to use your eye/hand coordination on how you response and adapt to your enemy movements in the field.

My processor and graphic card is up to date. Take notice that GTA 4 ( which is a game that requires good speed and memory) sold quite reasonably well in the PC market. I don't see this a problem.

 

[Thoughtful Thug]

Just putting this out there- I think it's important to remember that Civ is not a military game. It is an empire building game. That, to a large degree, involves military aspects, but the game shouldn't become military-centric. Any massive focus on combat, as one part of military endeavours, would greatly shift the balance of the game in this regard.

What about full empire building and military tactics in one single package? To me, that is a recipe of a great marriage.

 

[kochman]

That's pretty much what I was saying... you could, just as in CIV now, turn tactics off... like you can turn espionage off for example, or huts, or etc etc etc... just a new feature.

I really don't understand the push back for an optional addition...

 

[Camikaze]

What about full empire building and military tactics in one single package? To me, that is a recipe of a great marriage.

Sure, if the game developers have the capability of creating two full games, each of great depth, intertwinging them into one, that would be great. But, there is a finite capacity of creation by the developers, and this should be spent on strategic aspects until there are no more strategic aspects to improve. And I don't really see that happening. And even if it did, there would still be the problem of unfairly disadvantaging strategy players through the implementation of tactics within a strategy game.

That's pretty much what I was saying... you could, just as in CIV now, turn tactics off... like you can turn espionage off for example, or huts, or etc etc etc... just a new feature.

I really don't understand the push back for an optional addition...

Turning off game features (i.e. huts, espionage) is different to turning off game mecahnisms (i.e. strategy, tactics, RNG). As said previously, the very presence of tactics in the game would either have to be redundant (making it useless) or would unfairly advantage those that are good at using the tactics; unfair in the sense that skill in a strategy game should be determined by strategic skill, not tactical skill.

P.S: I won't be around until about November 5th, due to very important, life determining exams, so don't worry, I'm not dead.

 

[techathon]

Turning off game features (i.e. huts, espionage) is different to turning off game mecahnisms (i.e. strategy, tactics, RNG).

This is true, however, esponage, IMO, is important to the way I play (and probably many others) CIV. So isf you can turn off esponage, you could, in theroy turn off tactics.

 

[kochman]

I think Camikaze must own stock in the TW company, and is trying to short sell it... this is the only thing that I can think of to account for this completely rigid approach to an OPTIONAL addition, that would add great fun for people despite his insisting it is "redundant".

 

[rysmiel]

You can still do the math and other things, but when it comes to fighting war, it depend on how you meneauver your units and your ability to use your eye/hand coordination on how you response and adapt to your enemy movements in the field.

This is exactly why this is a game-killingly bad idea.

Civ is playable and fun for me precisely because it does not lean on hand-eye co-ordination or anything else realtime; because it gives me the time to figure out what I want and to do it despite being a low-dexterity sort of person.

 

[rysmiel]

What about full empire building and military tactics in one single package? To me, that is a recipe of a great marriage.

Not for those of us who enjoy empire building and hate tactical-level military stuff it isn't.

If tactical stuff makes a difference, it will be harming the game for me; if it makes no difference, what's the point ?

 

[rysmiel]

That's pretty much what I was saying... you could, just as in CIV now, turn tactics off... like you can turn espionage off for example, or huts, or etc etc etc... just a new feature.

I really don't understand the push back for an optional addition...

Any optional addition is develpopment time going in one direction rather than others. There are other places that level of development effort could do things that were actually good for the game.

 

[kochman]

Not for those of us who enjoy empire building and hate tactical-level military stuff it isn't.

If tactical stuff makes a difference, it will be harming the game for me; if it makes no difference, what's the point ?

Why is time limited? Re: developing things like this...

So, basically, your argument is, I don't want it because, so I don't care if it would make it better for you and I could turn it off, I just don't want it.

 

[rysmiel]

I think Camikaze must own stock in the TW company, and is trying to short sell it... this is the only thing that I can think of to account for this completely rigid approach to an OPTIONAL addition, that would add great fun for people despite his insisting it is "redundant".

The logic is simple.

If you can't achieve any better result from playing the tactical game than you can by just playing the game without it, then it isn't adding anything meaningful. It's totally superfluous.

If on the other hand you can influence the game for the better by playing tactical combat, then you are requiring those of us who hate and despise tactical combat and are physically incapable fo being any good at real-time combat situations to either do something we hate or accept a version of Civ that actively precludes us being good at it.

 

[kochman]

IT'S OPTIONAL! LIKE ESPIONAGE!

If I and others enjoy it, it is not superflous. Superflous to you doesn't mean superfluous to the world. You guys are only thinking about your point of view.
Our point of view, add it optionally, allows you to turn it off if you don't want it.
Your point of view says... too bad, our group doesn't want it, so tough toenails for you all if you do want it.

 

[rysmiel]

IT'S OPTIONAL! LIKE ESPIONAGE!

If I and others enjoy it, it is not superflous. Superflous to you doesn't mean superfluous to the world. You guys are only thinking about your point of view.

OK, define "optional" for me; what difference do you see playing out a tactical combat making to the larger scale of the game ? Can it change anything in the outcome of a larger battle, as you want it, or not ?

 

[kochman]

OK, define "optional" for me; what difference do you see playing out a tactical combat making to the larger scale of the game ? Can it change anything in the outcome of a larger battle, as you want it, or not ?

Optional...
As in, you can turn the function off or on at the beginning of a custom game, just as you can espionage. So, purists can opt never to turn this function on. Just like you can with espionage.

I really don't understand the confusion here. I thought the word optional was pretty clear.

 

[Hsinchu]

Optional...
As in, you can turn the function off or on at the beginning of a custom game, just as you can espionage. So, purists can opt never to turn this function on. Just like you can with espionage.

I really don't understand the confusion here. I thought the word optional was pretty clear.

I think I get what kochman is trying to say. It is like turning off barbarians. The problem I have with that is the instant play (Play Now!) option would default this "option." More importantly, we have to account for the fact that this is a game-altering as opposed to game-modifying option. Turning off espionage does not change the basic principles of the game. Unfortunately, combat is one the major tenets of the game, and combat odds are among the hallmarks of civilization.

Real time combat would imply two things. First, AI need to be programmed with this in mind and we'll have issues like we have with Always Peace in terms of AIs not being able to make best decisions. Secondly, we are assuming that players are going to appreciate what is essentially going to be a minigame in the midst of their play, a minigame that can alter results. It takes away from the planning aspect and shifts the skill set over to hand-eye coordination. For HOF Play and bragging rights, most players already disdain the fact that luck can play a factor in a fastest finish. Adding this in, you now have the issue where players that have mastered RTS skills can claim better overall gameplay than planning players, which is not where this community is headed.

My suggestion is that if you wanted to develop/design an entirely NEW franchise with this concept of turn-based punctuated by RTS, that might be feasible, though I fail to see a market for it. There was a game I once played that combined RPG third person back view (like WoW) with RTS strategy "summoning". My roommate at the time thought it was the greatest thing since sliced bread. I found the controls and lack of continuity to be distracting. The game, I believe, may have done moderately well, but definitely not franchise worthy.

Good games focus on the thing they are good at and don't waste alot of resources on features that are not part of that focus. Sort of like how people that have high paying jobs aren't typically jack-of-all-trades and master of none. They find what they do well and they do it. The contractor that can roof your house but can't landscape very well doesn't force you to landscape with him if he wants repeat business.

 

[kochman]

Simple fix... don't make it the default... just like aggressive AI isn't... make it something you have to click on during the custom game settings.
Anyhow, I am not 100% behind the real time aspect necessarily. A turn based, yet more detailed combat could be an option too. In fact, I don't like RTS much, because the computer can multiprocess more efficiently that I can.