Civ V Ideas & Suggestions Summary
- Thread starter Camikaze
- Start date
I would like to see more plot tiles. By this I mean I would like to see valleys, craters, lakes, and canyons.
valleys could have +20% attack or -20% defense
craters can have a bonus to getting iron or stone later on
lakes could have a bonus to fish or crabs but wouldnt count as irrigation. (idk)
canyons could be impassable until later in the game
valleys could have +20% attack or -20% defense
craters can have a bonus to getting iron or stone later on
lakes could have a bonus to fish or crabs but wouldnt count as irrigation. (idk)
canyons could be impassable until later in the game
bob rulz
Prince
I don't like the ideas of valleys...they're essentially represented by grassland/plains squares surrounded by hills/mountains are they not? No reason to make it a separate terrain type.
Craters and canyons are too specific.
Having different terrain types is perhaps placing too much importance on terrain and natural features in what is an empire building and managing game. It's good to have some variety, but I don't see a need to make it any more complicated than the current system (not saying it is complicated, of course).
mythusmage
Prince
Which has to do with the directory structure in Civ 5. Namely all resources---art,sound, and text---is kept in one location; that just under the main directory. All scenarios call for resources from those top level directories and any sub-directories found under them.
Under "Art" for example would be found sub-directories such as "Terrain", Civilipedia", and "Wonder Splash". Wonder Splashes for a specific scenario would be found under the "Wonder Splash" sub-directory. So the wonder splashes for "Rhye's of Civilization" would be in "Wonder Splash\Rhye's Wonders".
Each scenario file would call for specific directories and files in directories under the resources directories. As a matter of fact, now that I think of it, all resources could be put into a "Resources" directory.
To install a new scenario one would place the scenario file itself into the "Scenario" folder, with the scenario's resource folders going into the appropriate higher level resource folders for the game itself. So a scenario's terrain would go under "Resources\Art\Terrain" while the same scenario's units would go under "Resources\Art\Units".
In addiition, the basic game would allow a choice of terrains, with a standard terrain pack, plus three or four alternate terrains that can be used with all scenarios allowing such selection.
BTW, a distinction would be drawn between game resources---the things used to play the game, and scenario resources---the things used for units etc. in a scenario.
My goal here is to simplify scenario and directory structure. I hope it succeeds. What do you think?
Update: As a matter of fact, Firaxis might try out this idea with a test bed version of Civ 3. Let's call it "Civ III Expanded". The basic directory for C3E would look something like this;
Top Level: The Civ III Expanded folder itself.
2nd Level: The C3E application, Resource Folder, Scenario Folder, Read Me, Manual, Registration app, Optionals.
Under Resources: Art, Sounds, Text
Under Scenarios: The scenario files.
To simplify directory structure the "Conquests" and "Play the World" applications would be integrated into "Vanilla" to produce the "Expanded" application.
Under "Art" for example would be found sub-directories such as "Terrain", Civilipedia", and "Wonder Splash". Wonder Splashes for a specific scenario would be found under the "Wonder Splash" sub-directory. So the wonder splashes for "Rhye's of Civilization" would be in "Wonder Splash\Rhye's Wonders".
Each scenario file would call for specific directories and files in directories under the resources directories. As a matter of fact, now that I think of it, all resources could be put into a "Resources" directory.
To install a new scenario one would place the scenario file itself into the "Scenario" folder, with the scenario's resource folders going into the appropriate higher level resource folders for the game itself. So a scenario's terrain would go under "Resources\Art\Terrain" while the same scenario's units would go under "Resources\Art\Units".
In addiition, the basic game would allow a choice of terrains, with a standard terrain pack, plus three or four alternate terrains that can be used with all scenarios allowing such selection.
BTW, a distinction would be drawn between game resources---the things used to play the game, and scenario resources---the things used for units etc. in a scenario.
My goal here is to simplify scenario and directory structure. I hope it succeeds. What do you think?
Update: As a matter of fact, Firaxis might try out this idea with a test bed version of Civ 3. Let's call it "Civ III Expanded". The basic directory for C3E would look something like this;
Top Level: The Civ III Expanded folder itself.
2nd Level: The C3E application, Resource Folder, Scenario Folder, Read Me, Manual, Registration app, Optionals.
Under Resources: Art, Sounds, Text
Under Scenarios: The scenario files.
To simplify directory structure the "Conquests" and "Play the World" applications would be integrated into "Vanilla" to produce the "Expanded" application.
ghostmaker650
Warlord
I think it would be better if a civs unit can't have an advantage over a unit it has never seen before. For example, If I'm on a continent with 3 other civs and I see that there is only one horseback resource on the entire continent, then I should think if I get that horseback I will be the only one on the continent who can build mounted units thus giving me a huge tactical advantage right? but before you can even finish the necessary research its already possible to build spearmen that are +100% against mounted units, thus greatly reducing the need for mounted units. If a civ hasn't researched horseback riding then that civs units should not be so effective against mounted units. Only after the civ is able to build that unit should it be able to properly defend against said unit. Additionally if the civ wins a battle against an unknown unit then and only then (or after necessary research is done) should that unit get an upgrade choice to be more effective against the unknown unit.
mythusmage
Prince
The thing is, you don't need to know how to ride horses to know how to hurt horses. Where pointy things are concerned---spears for example---you don't have to teach horses those are bad things and to be avoided. Horses are born knowing pointy things are bad things and avoid them as much as possible.
Hellfire
Prince
Sorry, I hate the idea. All it will take is for you to not be one of those three civs to not have the horse resource to really ruin your game. It's unbalancing. From a game standpoint, you just created a rule that basically says "first civ to horses wins" because horses will be way to powerful.
Also, that's more tactical than strategic. The american indians never saw a horse before 1492, but it did not take them that long to adapt. A turn of game time is more than enough to adapt. Plus these are Strategic resources. This means you have enough horses to field an army, but it doesn't necessarily mean you have never seen a horse or have some people who ride and understand horse tactics. Once humans figured out how to domesticate horses, they went everywhere. In fact the current civ rules have never adapted to the fact that once horses were introduced to the americas, they actually became a strategic resource there and spread.
ghostmaker650
Warlord
I'm not saying spearmen shouldn't be somewhat effective, I'm saying they shouldn't be +100% right off the bat. Without horseback riding researched it should be more like +25% or +50%, and if a unit defeats a horseback then he could add +20% to that. A spearman shouldn't walk out of his house saying "hmm I don't know what a horse is but I know exactly what to do to best defeat them", aswell a swordsman shouldn't say "Ha I just killed that other swordsman, I don't know what a horse is but I think I just got a little better at killing them".
Only after learning about their enemy should they be at 100% of their potential in fighting them.
You wouldn't need a horse resource for a spearman to be 100% effective, just the knowledge of horseback riding. A Mounted unit should have a great superiority over non-mounted unit because in reality they do. Not that a mounted unit should have a great superiority over a spearman, but a mounted unit should have a little superiority over an inexperienced spearman who has never even seen a horse in his life.
This could apply to some (not all but some) other unit weakness/strength pairs too (which I will not get into for the lack of remembrance to specific stats or maybe this is the only one
)I'm only suggesting this idea because I hardly ever use mounted units, because I never have a good reason too, they're not as effective as they should be. Sure there is the extra move, but I don't move my stack without my siege weapons. I would have researched gunpowder by the time I even start into the horseback branch of the tech tree, and there always seems to be very little horses in the world (maybe like... 4-6 horse resources on the entire map, for 11+ civs) you would think you would be very lucky to have such a rare resource but there's no motive to utilize that rare resource. I don't know, but currently horseback riding just isn't worth it to me.
mythusmage
Prince
'Bout the only thing a fellow needs to know about horses is that when you stick a pointy stick in their face they very sensibly shy away.
You haven't worked with horses have you. They are characters. They are flighty little nits with over active imaginations. They can be sturdy beasts, and the most delicate things in the world. But more importantly, being prey animals they have a strong antipathy to getting hurt. So masses of men with spears are more effective than they would otherwise be.
In short, the only thing men with spears need to know about horses is; you stand firm and keep pointing your spears at them and given the choice, horses would much rather avoid you like the plague. Thus the bonus is warranted.
If I might make a suggestion... I can see where both of you are coming from... how about simply you cannot train spearmen until you have knowledge of horse riding or you have access to the horse resource. In this case the knowledge or resource simply means you are now aware of horses as animals that exist and have potential military applications, even if you don't necessarily field them yourself (or even have access to them).
In the game the only purpose of Spearmen is to act as a counter to horses. But if you've never even see a horse before how would you know what would be a good counter against them? And indeed why would you train people to fight against them in the first place?
Imagine the Spanish arriving in the New World only to find a cadre of Aztec warriors equipped with weapons which had been of limited use in all their previous wars, but were perfectly adapted for fighting against an enemy they couldn't possibly foresee.
I've always thought the Holkan replacing the Spearman for the Maya was a bit odd in the game for this very reason.
I think this also is rather more elegant in its simplicity than having varying % bonus's depending on what technology is researched, etc...
In the game the only purpose of Spearmen is to act as a counter to horses. But if you've never even see a horse before how would you know what would be a good counter against them? And indeed why would you train people to fight against them in the first place?
Imagine the Spanish arriving in the New World only to find a cadre of Aztec warriors equipped with weapons which had been of limited use in all their previous wars, but were perfectly adapted for fighting against an enemy they couldn't possibly foresee.
I've always thought the Holkan replacing the Spearman for the Maya was a bit odd in the game for this very reason.
I think this also is rather more elegant in its simplicity than having varying % bonus's depending on what technology is researched, etc...
Gooblah
Heh...
- Joined
- Jun 5, 2007
- Messages
- 4,282
Here's a thought:
Expanded Options
In the current Custom Game and Options windows, most of the options are geared towards gameplay, spec. unit interaction and diplomacy. One of the major options that doesn't fit into these categories (No Espionage) is pretty crappy. So how adding a BUG-like set of Interface options from the Options window to make it more relevant?
Expanded Options
In the current Custom Game and Options windows, most of the options are geared towards gameplay, spec. unit interaction and diplomacy. One of the major options that doesn't fit into these categories (No Espionage) is pretty crappy. So how adding a BUG-like set of Interface options from the Options window to make it more relevant?
bob rulz
Prince
I disagree. The terrain that a civilization has surrounding them is one of the primary factors to how powerful a civilization has become. This is already reflected pretty well in the game, but I still think more could be done.
For example, mountains have been significant barriers to travel, exploration, and settlement for all of human history, especially before the industrialization of the world. More could be done to accurately reflect this (such as what I said about there being 2 or even 3 different "levels" of mountains, seeing as not all mountains are made the same). There's no need for any sort of radical overhaul or in adding too much complication, but I think some changes could be made. Each Civ game should try to improve on each previous one in ALL ways - including tweaking even the base concepts if they think it will improve the game.
And now that I'm thinking about it, canyons wouldn't be such a bad idea either although I'm sure I could live without them (I would prefer they occur between tiles rather than being a separate terrain type themselves).
This debate is very interesting !!!
However, by taking account of the various debates in progress on the various upgrading capabilities of the game, it becomes impossible of all to read (especially if one is not naturally Anglophone!), and very difficult to answer individually and correctly all Thread which interests us (with the translation, that ends up taking much time!)!
So I thus temporarily will place this long text of general order in double, on the one hand in A Big Vision for Civilization 4" and on the other hand in Civ V Ideas & Suggestions Summary".
PREMISE
Hey Civ-Fans
This is not my scheme of work for the development or the modification of programs, because I am not at all data processing specialist (I only arrange ), but it is rather about a whole of suggestions made in the hope take part positively in the projection of this marvellous game towards new horizons
I read as much as possible (I am not a very good English-speaking) the various suggestions that you formulated on this Forum and I acknowledge that there is very interesting much, and -by chance- it appears that several spirits warm up on the same considerations !
I am thus delighted to present you this (as we would launch a bottle in the sea) by way of modest participation in these constructive debates, and in the hope that it can inspire at least meanwhile some Modders which maybe have still no good inspirations (that arrives at everybody!).
INITIAL POTENTIAL
Civilizations and Geography
- Aren't you opposed to have to begin a part with Byzantines far from the sea, or with Arabs in Arctic zone?
- To develop
Initial poverty
- The initial Colonist and the two funny ones which accompany it seem fallen from a flying saucer! Whatever the time chosen, the built City is hopelessly empty of any installation. Also, it is always necessary to lose innumerable Tours of play (very tedious!) before starting to have fun a little Thus, if you hope to be able to play in Antiquity, it is missed because you are already in the Classic Age one!
- In addition, Advanced starting makes it possible to limit these disadvantages somewhat. But the very limited visibility of the geographical environment makes that one arranges in the total ignorance of his context One is often surprised result (didn't you already make a port in a lake, or cavalry on an island?) !
Resources
- How to avoid having to face Viking's Elephants, or to have to beg for some Horses for your Carthaginian army?
- These aberrations could be however easily solved if the IA had a program which would make it possible to apply the resources to the map after the positioning of the People and a planned way (=resources according to Civilizations), rather than before the placement of those and a random way!
(This occasion has, it would be appropriate that Camel is added to the strategic resources and that ceases being an Arab exclusiveness (not true!))
- An alternative solution within the current system could be to allot some typical strategic resources to each civilization with/beside its initial placement (of the Camels only at the Arabs, the Mongols, the Indians, the Berber ones, etc / Seek documentation!).
- A Civ'-Fan (who?) presents the very relevant question of the inexistence of the Horses in America raised before "Conquista" and their development after It would be well to solve this question! For reasons of facility of programming won't one be able -for example, taking account of the Migrations- to make emerge certain resources at certain historical times?
- To develop
FEMALE ABSENCE
- By discovering this game, a girl-friend said me It's a game for Machos or Homosexuals?. I answered here while laughing Perhaps both, but not only! I then had to bait me in long explanations to recover here sympathy
- It is true that too much many is alas- those which think wrongly that the woman has only one role minor (if not very negligible) in the blooming and the decline of Civilizations. Also many are those which neglect the capacity of a game to influence (even unconsciously) the consciences
- To avoid this false perception of the world, I thus recommend that one introduces into this game at least some female characters in probable roles (Workwoman, Executive, etc), and -even if that can displease with some- which one adds in Technologies some notions forgotten such as Women's Education (some are unaware of it perhaps still, but mothers ignorant seldom generated geniuses) and Women's Vote (after the Republic).
- To develop
RIGHT-OF-TRANSIT
- Are you not shocked by this foreign artillery -or this tank- which walks quietly as a tourist in your peaceful Country? Or to be suddenly attacked by a very remote enemy who crossed incognito several countries -which are perhaps even favourable for you- with a powerful Army?
- In this formula -as in all realities of times of peace- it would be necessary that only freedom of movement of Scouts, Merchants, Personality and various Ships and Planes is allowed (ports, overflights and not based !).
But it appears inadmissible to me that one can walk there of true Troops of combat, even of the whole Armies (As on your Nation now I Hope)!
- This military transit should not be authorized that within the framework of an Alliance, even of what one could define as a wide Right-of-way.
- Accordingly -for these uses- I recommend that current Scout is replaced by the Tourist.
In complement, the possibility of creating Companies of Voyage maritime (specific unit Steamer) and air (Transport aircraft) could allow to improve the visibility on its neighbours. Once indicated the target, the IA could automatically manage the movement of these elements which could also generate an economic no-claims bonus!
In addition to how being more realistic, it would be prettier!
COMMANDS
- We manipulate at present the armies as a God since his satellite and in direct contact with heaps of units scattered here and there. That is not very realistic, especially beyond its borders and if it is a question of coordinating attacks!
- Generals and Admirals should be indispensable to move strengths outside. These could have a "Zone of Command" (equivalent to the cultural Zone of cities / or in that recommended for the units) which -only- would authorize the movement of the units outside roads and attack in these conditions.
So, these new characters could have tactical capacities (=bonus, surcharge / not cumulative if some) who would apply to the strengths situated in their zone. Besides that realist, this can be an important playful element !!!
LOGISTICS
Abstract Representation
- The logistic references can be represented in an Abstract way in the form of Zone of logistic influence are equivalent to the cultural Zone and calculated starting from the Deposits (Cities and Forts contain some automatically) controlled or Allied like starting from the Roads, Rails and Ports connected to these structures and not cut by the enemy.
This -joined to the high maintenance costs of the armies except territory- would preserve the spirit of simulation and would confer obviously a certain comfort to the player.
But the abstraction of these networks is not possible that if the IA has a program able to evaluate these bonds (traced artificially at sea) and that most probably requires the creation of a complex program!
Figurative Representation
- Alternatively, a Figurative representation more of logistics (This was partially already carried out successfully in the MOD Charlemagne) would simplify the work of the programmers!
It would be a question of simply creating new Logistics units which could circulate only on the Road (=Wagon, Camion) or Rails (=Locomotive) and which would be renewed automatically if they are connected to the known as zones without cut of the network by the enemy.
Idem for fleets specific (=supply ship) adjacent to the coast accessible and under the same conditions from support of Armies.
- The absence of figurative elements logistic limits in fact -more than it enriches it- the intelligence of the strategic play to a simple succession by conquest of cities and territories what is finally very unrealistic, repetitive and tedious!
- This figurative formula implies however an special attention of the players on creation (all the same fast!) and the displacement of these specific units which -in spite of their paramount interest in a strategic game- however do not attract generally much the sympathy of the youngest players
As, let us not forget as certain wandering armies (or sometimes not) all the same could be freed from these rules! But that could be easily solved in their allotting -thus that with new Recognition units- a particular specificity
Finally
1) Logistics is not an invention of the Middle Ages (ask Alexander)!
2) It there forever have invasions by the large deserts (the quantity of water necessary is excessive, and it does not resist long transport in these climates)!!!
Evolution of Logistics
- The advent of the Powder, then by the Motorization, increased each time the needs (thus the cost) of the supply. But it is as true as the economies and technologies of the countries evolved quasi in parallel to support that
On the other hand, because of these dependences, it all the same became increasingly difficult for an army to survive only on the goods of the surrounding country!
OPERATING SPEEDS AND RANGES
- Regrettably, in this system of play (= quasi essential mixture of Strategy and Tactic), the distortion of the space-time necessary for simulation and the ludic interest implies stylizations which sometimes result in mixing these characteristics
Fatally, the Navy and Aviation suffer the most these distortions.
- To respect probability and to preserve the strategic interest of the game, it is advisable that the maritime movements are much faster than those on the ground.
However, if one allotted to the Ships a proportionally realistic speed (on a temporal scale of the game) compared to the Armies, the Fleets would go sometimes so much quickly that some could reach into 1 Turn of activity several times the limit of their range
Why not, it would be even much more realistic (if it took one month to go from Venice to Cyprus, during this same time one could make several alleys and returns between Palermo and Tunis!), if not that regrettably- the Ships only have right to 1 only combat by Tour!!!
- And that to then say Planes which have only one mission per Tour of play?!!! It seems to me that there is all the same for the moment a real lack of coherence!
- To correct this, it would not be more judicious -and simple to realize- to grant to the Planes the same prerogatives of movement as to the Ships (=renewal of the movement in active Tour until exhaustion of the potential), and to authorize to both an unlimited number of engagements?!!!
- To develop (To read Chapter Detection and Reaction)
VISIBILITY & GROUNDS
- It is true that we see farther since a hill and even more if we are by plane... But (certainly by will of simplification) we forgot to consider that what we really see does not depend only on the position of the Peeping Tom, but also on the surface to be considered and of the nature of the object which we can see
Since the zero level, we can see in the naked eye the Maritime horizon up to approximately 30 km (by good weather), what is sharply upper to the visibility on the Ground, even in Forest where nevertheless hid from the allied aviation of the whole regiments of Panzer (bigger than simple Antitank)!
Regrettably, I am sorry that some lines in the XML for these distinctions are at present missing...
DÉTECTION & RÉACTION
- The IA is very inequitable with the human players on this matter A unit of player in phase activates pass generally in quoted(esteemed) by an enemy -or of quite other element- whom she did not see from her movement, without stopping automatically (=temporary interruption) during her discovery and often without seeing him(it) even (=too fast execution in the screen). This should be true only for the Aviation
So, the units often prevent you of the presence of an enemy only if you gave them the specific order And, in that case, they make only that !!! It is improper (it is as if it was necessary to give to you the order to breathe and what this would prevent you from eating !)!
ZONES OF TACTICAL INFLUENCE
- Are you not deprived to be made often and with impunity to cross by the enemy in his active Tour? This arrives even at your fast units which are overtaken by slower enemies!
Impossible to hold a "Front" (in the Antiquity it is almost normal, but since rifles and high-cadence artillery?)!
- This would not arrive if every military unit (Planes and Ships in the port excepted) had its own "Zone of tactical influence" which would block the movement, or would oblige the engagement of the enemy.
To develop
However, by taking account of the various debates in progress on the various upgrading capabilities of the game, it becomes impossible of all to read (especially if one is not naturally Anglophone!), and very difficult to answer individually and correctly all Thread which interests us (with the translation, that ends up taking much time!)!
So I thus temporarily will place this long text of general order in double, on the one hand in A Big Vision for Civilization 4" and on the other hand in Civ V Ideas & Suggestions Summary".
((Note: PLEASE excuse the probably uncomfortable English generated by my translation system / French Original text available on request))
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Game-Design applied to Civilization 4 +
" Dissertations N°1 "
Game-Design applied to Civilization 4 +
" Dissertations N°1 "
PREMISE
Hey Civ-Fans
This is not my scheme of work for the development or the modification of programs, because I am not at all data processing specialist (I only arrange ), but it is rather about a whole of suggestions made in the hope take part positively in the projection of this marvellous game towards new horizons
I read as much as possible (I am not a very good English-speaking) the various suggestions that you formulated on this Forum and I acknowledge that there is very interesting much, and -by chance- it appears that several spirits warm up on the same considerations !
I am thus delighted to present you this (as we would launch a bottle in the sea) by way of modest participation in these constructive debates, and in the hope that it can inspire at least meanwhile some Modders which maybe have still no good inspirations (that arrives at everybody!).
INITIAL POTENTIAL
Civilizations and Geography
- Aren't you opposed to have to begin a part with Byzantines far from the sea, or with Arabs in Arctic zone?
- To develop
Initial poverty
- The initial Colonist and the two funny ones which accompany it seem fallen from a flying saucer! Whatever the time chosen, the built City is hopelessly empty of any installation. Also, it is always necessary to lose innumerable Tours of play (very tedious!) before starting to have fun a little Thus, if you hope to be able to play in Antiquity, it is missed because you are already in the Classic Age one!
- In addition, Advanced starting makes it possible to limit these disadvantages somewhat. But the very limited visibility of the geographical environment makes that one arranges in the total ignorance of his context One is often surprised result (didn't you already make a port in a lake, or cavalry on an island?) !
Resources
- How to avoid having to face Viking's Elephants, or to have to beg for some Horses for your Carthaginian army?
- These aberrations could be however easily solved if the IA had a program which would make it possible to apply the resources to the map after the positioning of the People and a planned way (=resources according to Civilizations), rather than before the placement of those and a random way!
(This occasion has, it would be appropriate that Camel is added to the strategic resources and that ceases being an Arab exclusiveness (not true!))
- An alternative solution within the current system could be to allot some typical strategic resources to each civilization with/beside its initial placement (of the Camels only at the Arabs, the Mongols, the Indians, the Berber ones, etc / Seek documentation!).
- A Civ'-Fan (who?) presents the very relevant question of the inexistence of the Horses in America raised before "Conquista" and their development after It would be well to solve this question! For reasons of facility of programming won't one be able -for example, taking account of the Migrations- to make emerge certain resources at certain historical times?
- To develop
FEMALE ABSENCE
- By discovering this game, a girl-friend said me It's a game for Machos or Homosexuals?. I answered here while laughing Perhaps both, but not only! I then had to bait me in long explanations to recover here sympathy
- It is true that too much many is alas- those which think wrongly that the woman has only one role minor (if not very negligible) in the blooming and the decline of Civilizations. Also many are those which neglect the capacity of a game to influence (even unconsciously) the consciences
- To avoid this false perception of the world, I thus recommend that one introduces into this game at least some female characters in probable roles (Workwoman, Executive, etc), and -even if that can displease with some- which one adds in Technologies some notions forgotten such as Women's Education (some are unaware of it perhaps still, but mothers ignorant seldom generated geniuses) and Women's Vote (after the Republic).
- To develop
RIGHT-OF-TRANSIT
- Are you not shocked by this foreign artillery -or this tank- which walks quietly as a tourist in your peaceful Country? Or to be suddenly attacked by a very remote enemy who crossed incognito several countries -which are perhaps even favourable for you- with a powerful Army?
- In this formula -as in all realities of times of peace- it would be necessary that only freedom of movement of Scouts, Merchants, Personality and various Ships and Planes is allowed (ports, overflights and not based !).
But it appears inadmissible to me that one can walk there of true Troops of combat, even of the whole Armies (As on your Nation now I Hope)!
- This military transit should not be authorized that within the framework of an Alliance, even of what one could define as a wide Right-of-way.
- Accordingly -for these uses- I recommend that current Scout is replaced by the Tourist.
In complement, the possibility of creating Companies of Voyage maritime (specific unit Steamer) and air (Transport aircraft) could allow to improve the visibility on its neighbours. Once indicated the target, the IA could automatically manage the movement of these elements which could also generate an economic no-claims bonus!
In addition to how being more realistic, it would be prettier!
COMMANDS
- We manipulate at present the armies as a God since his satellite and in direct contact with heaps of units scattered here and there. That is not very realistic, especially beyond its borders and if it is a question of coordinating attacks!
- Generals and Admirals should be indispensable to move strengths outside. These could have a "Zone of Command" (equivalent to the cultural Zone of cities / or in that recommended for the units) which -only- would authorize the movement of the units outside roads and attack in these conditions.
So, these new characters could have tactical capacities (=bonus, surcharge / not cumulative if some) who would apply to the strengths situated in their zone. Besides that realist, this can be an important playful element !!!
LOGISTICS
Abstract Representation
- The logistic references can be represented in an Abstract way in the form of Zone of logistic influence are equivalent to the cultural Zone and calculated starting from the Deposits (Cities and Forts contain some automatically) controlled or Allied like starting from the Roads, Rails and Ports connected to these structures and not cut by the enemy.
This -joined to the high maintenance costs of the armies except territory- would preserve the spirit of simulation and would confer obviously a certain comfort to the player.
But the abstraction of these networks is not possible that if the IA has a program able to evaluate these bonds (traced artificially at sea) and that most probably requires the creation of a complex program!
Figurative Representation
- Alternatively, a Figurative representation more of logistics (This was partially already carried out successfully in the MOD Charlemagne) would simplify the work of the programmers!
It would be a question of simply creating new Logistics units which could circulate only on the Road (=Wagon, Camion) or Rails (=Locomotive) and which would be renewed automatically if they are connected to the known as zones without cut of the network by the enemy.
Idem for fleets specific (=supply ship) adjacent to the coast accessible and under the same conditions from support of Armies.
[Example: Like the Allies in Normandy, Persians in war against the Greeks supplied already their troops by the sea
This justified -between others- the presence of combat's fleet which finally clashed in Salamina!]
- The absence of figurative elements logistic limits in fact -more than it enriches it- the intelligence of the strategic play to a simple succession by conquest of cities and territories what is finally very unrealistic, repetitive and tedious!
- This figurative formula implies however an special attention of the players on creation (all the same fast!) and the displacement of these specific units which -in spite of their paramount interest in a strategic game- however do not attract generally much the sympathy of the youngest players
As, let us not forget as certain wandering armies (or sometimes not) all the same could be freed from these rules! But that could be easily solved in their allotting -thus that with new Recognition units- a particular specificity
Finally
1) Logistics is not an invention of the Middle Ages (ask Alexander)!
2) It there forever have invasions by the large deserts (the quantity of water necessary is excessive, and it does not resist long transport in these climates)!!!
Evolution of Logistics
- The advent of the Powder, then by the Motorization, increased each time the needs (thus the cost) of the supply. But it is as true as the economies and technologies of the countries evolved quasi in parallel to support that
On the other hand, because of these dependences, it all the same became increasingly difficult for an army to survive only on the goods of the surrounding country!
OPERATING SPEEDS AND RANGES
- Regrettably, in this system of play (= quasi essential mixture of Strategy and Tactic), the distortion of the space-time necessary for simulation and the ludic interest implies stylizations which sometimes result in mixing these characteristics
Fatally, the Navy and Aviation suffer the most these distortions.
- To respect probability and to preserve the strategic interest of the game, it is advisable that the maritime movements are much faster than those on the ground.
However, if one allotted to the Ships a proportionally realistic speed (on a temporal scale of the game) compared to the Armies, the Fleets would go sometimes so much quickly that some could reach into 1 Turn of activity several times the limit of their range
Why not, it would be even much more realistic (if it took one month to go from Venice to Cyprus, during this same time one could make several alleys and returns between Palermo and Tunis!), if not that regrettably- the Ships only have right to 1 only combat by Tour!!!
- And that to then say Planes which have only one mission per Tour of play?!!! It seems to me that there is all the same for the moment a real lack of coherence!
[Daily Courses of reference (approximate): - Pedestrian: 5 kmH x 8:00 = 40km /// - Motorized: 30 kmH x 6:00 = 180km /// - Ship: 30 kmH x 24:00 = 720km /// Plane: from 1 to 3 missions per day (Course = Range)]
[Operating Ranges minimum WW2 (approximate): Fighter = 400 km /// light Bomber = variable (800 km?) /// Destroyer = 3000 km /// Cruiser = variable (6000 km?)]
[Autonomy (for transfers) = operating Range x 2]
[Operating Ranges minimum WW2 (approximate): Fighter = 400 km /// light Bomber = variable (800 km?) /// Destroyer = 3000 km /// Cruiser = variable (6000 km?)]
[Autonomy (for transfers) = operating Range x 2]
- To correct this, it would not be more judicious -and simple to realize- to grant to the Planes the same prerogatives of movement as to the Ships (=renewal of the movement in active Tour until exhaustion of the potential), and to authorize to both an unlimited number of engagements?!!!
- To develop (To read Chapter Detection and Reaction)
VISIBILITY & GROUNDS
- It is true that we see farther since a hill and even more if we are by plane... But (certainly by will of simplification) we forgot to consider that what we really see does not depend only on the position of the Peeping Tom, but also on the surface to be considered and of the nature of the object which we can see
Since the zero level, we can see in the naked eye the Maritime horizon up to approximately 30 km (by good weather), what is sharply upper to the visibility on the Ground, even in Forest where nevertheless hid from the allied aviation of the whole regiments of Panzer (bigger than simple Antitank)!
Regrettably, I am sorry that some lines in the XML for these distinctions are at present missing...
DÉTECTION & RÉACTION
- The IA is very inequitable with the human players on this matter A unit of player in phase activates pass generally in quoted(esteemed) by an enemy -or of quite other element- whom she did not see from her movement, without stopping automatically (=temporary interruption) during her discovery and often without seeing him(it) even (=too fast execution in the screen). This should be true only for the Aviation
So, the units often prevent you of the presence of an enemy only if you gave them the specific order And, in that case, they make only that !!! It is improper (it is as if it was necessary to give to you the order to breathe and what this would prevent you from eating !)!
ZONES OF TACTICAL INFLUENCE
- Are you not deprived to be made often and with impunity to cross by the enemy in his active Tour? This arrives even at your fast units which are overtaken by slower enemies!
Impossible to hold a "Front" (in the Antiquity it is almost normal, but since rifles and high-cadence artillery?)!
- This would not arrive if every military unit (Planes and Ships in the port excepted) had its own "Zone of tactical influence" which would block the movement, or would oblige the engagement of the enemy.
To develop
bob rulz
Prince
You certainly raise some interesting ideas (and your English can be difficult to read but I understood most of what you said), but I definitely can't say that I agree with all of them.
I don't like the idea that certain civilizations always begin in certain areas or with certain resources near them. Not only would that greatly unbalance the game, but Civilization isn't supposed to be a representation of history.
However, I agree entirely about the transit. In Civilization III, the computer basically had unlimited power to trample all over your territory. In Civilization IV, you had the option to close off your borders, but this would often hinder exploration and could be inconvenient in numerous other ways as well.
I think that the computer should have to ask your permission (and vice versa) before crossing your territory with military units, even if you have open borders. Not only would this eliminate the issue of entire militaries crossing your territory, but it would also solidify alliances.
Also, I don't believe that closed borders should apply to workers. I should have the right to move a worker across my borders to an exclave territory. The AI should know just as well as you that a mere worker is not a threat.
I don't like the idea that certain civilizations always begin in certain areas or with certain resources near them. Not only would that greatly unbalance the game, but Civilization isn't supposed to be a representation of history.
However, I agree entirely about the transit. In Civilization III, the computer basically had unlimited power to trample all over your territory. In Civilization IV, you had the option to close off your borders, but this would often hinder exploration and could be inconvenient in numerous other ways as well.
I think that the computer should have to ask your permission (and vice versa) before crossing your territory with military units, even if you have open borders. Not only would this eliminate the issue of entire militaries crossing your territory, but it would also solidify alliances.
Also, I don't believe that closed borders should apply to workers. I should have the right to move a worker across my borders to an exclave territory. The AI should know just as well as you that a mere worker is not a threat.
The solution here is to have different levels of "open borders".
I can see at least four levels:
a) Nobody can enter your territory.
b) Scouts can enter your territory. (Should be the starting default.)
c) Settlers and worker-type units can enter your territory. (Possibly with a single defending military unit so that it can build a city on the other side of your territory without being undefended.)
d) Military units can enter your territory. (Probably only useful when you are in a military alliance against a third party.)
Also, it really should be possible to demand uneven open borders agreements, particularly as part of a peace treaty. If i've just beaten the heck out of montezuma, I should be able to demand that my troops can cross his land without having to let his cross mine.
I am not at all sure I follow all of what you are saying, but I strongly disagree with pretty much everything you suggest that I can make out.
No. I am very much in favour of it, in general.
There are real-world specific mods that do more historical accuracy if that's what you want, for an earth map, but forcing civilisations to match their historic locations on a random map would be very bad.
I disagree strongly here too. Starting as minimally as one does is part of the fun, because every choice made at that point multiplies into the later game.
This is not a bug. This is a feature.
These are not aberrations, they are benefits. However, if you see them as benefits, there are Earth maps out there with resources realistically placed.
This is a place where "realism" is opposed to good gameplay, because it would make some civilisations inherently weaker than others.
Again, "realism" here would make the experience of playing the game less fun because it would reduce your control.
"tactical"'s a bad word around here..
It;s unrealistic because it's an abstraction, of large-scale strategy. Because many players are not interested in, or actively opposed to, tactical and small-scale logistical play.
Yes, but it would also be drastically unbalancing of the game. Air missions are unbalancing already; planes should go back to behaving like other units.
(ETA: correcting messed-up quoting. My apologies.)
No. I am very much in favour of it, in general.
There are real-world specific mods that do more historical accuracy if that's what you want, for an earth map, but forcing civilisations to match their historic locations on a random map would be very bad.
I disagree strongly here too. Starting as minimally as one does is part of the fun, because every choice made at that point multiplies into the later game.
This is not a bug. This is a feature.
These are not aberrations, they are benefits. However, if you see them as benefits, there are Earth maps out there with resources realistically placed.
This is a place where "realism" is opposed to good gameplay, because it would make some civilisations inherently weaker than others.
Again, "realism" here would make the experience of playing the game less fun because it would reduce your control.
"tactical"'s a bad word around here..
It;s unrealistic because it's an abstraction, of large-scale strategy. Because many players are not interested in, or actively opposed to, tactical and small-scale logistical play.
Yes, but it would also be drastically unbalancing of the game. Air missions are unbalancing already; planes should go back to behaving like other units.
(ETA: correcting messed-up quoting. My apologies.)
bob rulz
Prince
Maybe reduce this to 3 levels...I see no reason why scouts should be able to enter but not settlers or workers. The others I generally agree with.
Perhaps with the middle level, you can have a certain number of military units enter at any one time. This would allow you to shift a few defenders to a distant city but still keep them from moving armies across your territory.
Also, I agree with lopsided border agreements. If you've just kicked the crap out of them, you want to really rub it in sometimes...show the computer who's boss.
Vassal states were certainly a good start.I thank you for your answers, even if you often contradict me. Thus allow me to react on some points.
I can include/understand your reaction compared to the constraints which would impose a little more a Realistic and/or Historical simulation.
But I nevertheless make a point of underlining the direction of the word Simulation! When one makes or one practises a simulation's game, it is necessary to be able to simulate the subject correctly that one treats, is to represent something which is at least "credible" (It is thus also a question of Culture) if not one does not believe in it, and then that limits the interest considerably!!!
[Example : A game which claims to simulate Cycle races should not represent the bicycles with square wheels, nor the road of the stage like a circuit of F1! Unless one is not satisfied to interest with this game of the players who never saw a bicycle
]
However, certain deficiencies of historical references (tolerable in some limiting) and of realism do not simulate -in my opinion- that one lack of will (commercial, or other/or a technical incapacity) to better do!
I specify that this is not at all a virulent criticism against the originators of the game, because accomplished work is very "méritoire" and already imposing but I fear that it simply did not reach its level of maturity yet. So, I am aware/conscious that this could never be perfect because the requirement of the covered subject is incommensurable (it is the natural and inevitable problem of all the games with historical reference!), but of progress can be realized!
Moreover, we discuss well for that
Admittedly, one can always say that is only a (commercial) game But personally- if I want to practise a non-realistic game, I prefer to play Chess sets; and if I want strategic of fun without historical references, I prefer to play "(Science-)Fiction" games (That will not wound my small intelligence)!
With regard to the Tactical capacity that I suggest for the Commanders, it is not a question to introduce tactic into a play which must remain before very strategic (I am of agreement!).
In my suggestion, this would be represented only by capacities similar to the promotion's bonus of the troops, but whose titles could be - for example: Attacks city / Combat on Hills / Oceanic movement / etc and whose benefit would go to all the troops influenced by the commander.
This would by no means introduce a tactical dimension with the play! And the choice to send a commander who rather has certain capacities (rather than others) in a particular sector than elsewhere remains a strategic choice!
In connection with the Planes, I do not see how the possibility of a better simulation of their specific activity could unbalance the play since the damage which they can cause (as for artillery) is rather judiciously reached a maximum!
Similar threads
