ThunderLizard2
Warlord
- Joined
- Oct 6, 2010
- Messages
- 269
What we need is a Civ 2 and Civ IV BTS reboot with updated graphics - that's all.
Civ VI is done. So how does Civ V look in comparison?
How about FreeCiv?
Patine
Deity
- Joined
- Feb 14, 2011
- Messages
- 10,283
Civ2 with, "updated graphics," means they probably won't be editable in bitmap form anymore, which would kill the charm of how easily they were edited and made anew, even for non-graphic designers, and kill the massive custom graphics cottage industry on the Civ2 Scenario League, thus killing one of the most attractive features of the game, today. That would go over like a lead balloon to its devoted, and long-standing, fan base.
reddishrecue
Some dude on civfans
- Joined
- Nov 16, 2009
- Messages
- 6,070
I tried FreeCiv on older cell phones and it was like a mobile civ 2.
Patine
Deity
- Joined
- Feb 14, 2011
- Messages
- 10,283
FreeCiv is also immensely (and unnecessarily, if you ask me, and many other Civ2 Scenario League regulars) more difficult and annoying to put together custom scenarios for. It's completely different than Civ2, in that way, and the many extraneous complexities seem absolutely with need or value.
I certainly prefer civ VI, tbh i couldn't force myself to launch civ V even once since base VI released, even when i was burned out on VI. I don't think VI is perfect, but for me most of gameplay elements of ot seems to be better designed. Two mechanics, though, i think V did better. First one is world congress, ability to choose which resolutions will be proposed for voting next and resolutions being constant unless cancealed by another resolution gave some sense of international politics and soft power, VI's world congress failes at both.
Second mechanic is specialists, it's the biggest miss for me in Civ VI. I don't necessary want copy paste of specialists from V to VI, but can't help but think that very interesting system could be created on a base of specialist mechanic and could solve a bunch of VI's design problems. Cities being specialised due to districts was (and still is) an important feature of Civ 6, but it ended up with players rather specialise empire as a whole than individual cities. Trying to squeeze in as many cities as possible and building approximately same set of districts your empire specialise on. After early game most cities lose any individuality, if they ever had it. There is no distinct difference between big megapolis, specialised on maintaining big population that works mostly inside city (specialists in district) to be a great person point accumulator, and a smaller city with population working mostly outside city specialised on military production/power generation/strategic resource accumulation etc. Most bonuses are empire wide, and there isn't many tools that let you get city wide bonuses that allow you to effectively exploit city's speciffic surroundings, like some wonders (Petra, Etemenanki, etc) or specific adjacency bonuses (which become significantly less impactfull after early game when you get access to T2 buildings and manage to get 3 envoys in corresponding city-states). As a result we get bunch of problems, such as:
- Homogenisation of majority of cities, we have universal recipe for a good average city which is 10-13 population city working a bunch of well mixed food/production yield tiles and a set of 3-5 districts based on player's global strategy.
- More smaller cities being better than less bigger cities placed on the same amount of territory due to dublicated districts, less housing problems and better loyalty/religion pressure. It makes game more tedious as player have to manage more sities and due to overall clutter of cities on map.
- Objectively bad settling spots. Deserts and tundras are almost completely wortless unless player have access to very speciffic bonuses. Big flatlands with few features (rain/forests) and resourses have potential for big population cities (convinient for big farm clusters), but those are of very low value due to low production potential of terrain and district slots after first 4 having much less value.
Specialist could take a role of main GPP generator, as well as be providers of city wide bonuses allowing cities to adopt for surroundings individually. We could have different specialist of same specialist type (Scientists, Priests etc) which would give different bonuses beside base yields and GPP, here is some ideas:
- Сaravaneer Type: Merchant Building: Market Requirements: Commercial Hub must be placed on desert tile Bonus: District gets major adjacency bonus from Oasis, all merchants in the city gain bonus food yield equal to the district's adjacency bonus
- River trader Type: Merchant Building: Market Requirements: Commercial Hub must be placed on river tile Bonus: Tiles of the river CH placed on gain bonus +1 gold yield.
- Hunter Type: Merchant Building: Market Requirements: Commercial Hub must be placed adjacent to camp Bonus: District gets major adjacency bonus from Camps, +1 amenity in this city for each different resource improved with camp in this city.
- Provisioner Type: Merchant Building: Market Requirements: City must work at least 4 farm tiles, no international trade routes originated in this city Bonus: Domestic trade routes originated in this city give +1 food for each worked farm at destination, but don't give any food to originated city. Provisioner has no base gold yield. Can't send international trade routes from this city.
Second mechanic is specialists, it's the biggest miss for me in Civ VI. I don't necessary want copy paste of specialists from V to VI, but can't help but think that very interesting system could be created on a base of specialist mechanic and could solve a bunch of VI's design problems. Cities being specialised due to districts was (and still is) an important feature of Civ 6, but it ended up with players rather specialise empire as a whole than individual cities. Trying to squeeze in as many cities as possible and building approximately same set of districts your empire specialise on. After early game most cities lose any individuality, if they ever had it. There is no distinct difference between big megapolis, specialised on maintaining big population that works mostly inside city (specialists in district) to be a great person point accumulator, and a smaller city with population working mostly outside city specialised on military production/power generation/strategic resource accumulation etc. Most bonuses are empire wide, and there isn't many tools that let you get city wide bonuses that allow you to effectively exploit city's speciffic surroundings, like some wonders (Petra, Etemenanki, etc) or specific adjacency bonuses (which become significantly less impactfull after early game when you get access to T2 buildings and manage to get 3 envoys in corresponding city-states). As a result we get bunch of problems, such as:
- Homogenisation of majority of cities, we have universal recipe for a good average city which is 10-13 population city working a bunch of well mixed food/production yield tiles and a set of 3-5 districts based on player's global strategy.
- More smaller cities being better than less bigger cities placed on the same amount of territory due to dublicated districts, less housing problems and better loyalty/religion pressure. It makes game more tedious as player have to manage more sities and due to overall clutter of cities on map.
- Objectively bad settling spots. Deserts and tundras are almost completely wortless unless player have access to very speciffic bonuses. Big flatlands with few features (rain/forests) and resourses have potential for big population cities (convinient for big farm clusters), but those are of very low value due to low production potential of terrain and district slots after first 4 having much less value.
Specialist could take a role of main GPP generator, as well as be providers of city wide bonuses allowing cities to adopt for surroundings individually. We could have different specialist of same specialist type (Scientists, Priests etc) which would give different bonuses beside base yields and GPP, here is some ideas:
- Сaravaneer Type: Merchant Building: Market Requirements: Commercial Hub must be placed on desert tile Bonus: District gets major adjacency bonus from Oasis, all merchants in the city gain bonus food yield equal to the district's adjacency bonus
- River trader Type: Merchant Building: Market Requirements: Commercial Hub must be placed on river tile Bonus: Tiles of the river CH placed on gain bonus +1 gold yield.
- Hunter Type: Merchant Building: Market Requirements: Commercial Hub must be placed adjacent to camp Bonus: District gets major adjacency bonus from Camps, +1 amenity in this city for each different resource improved with camp in this city.
- Provisioner Type: Merchant Building: Market Requirements: City must work at least 4 farm tiles, no international trade routes originated in this city Bonus: Domestic trade routes originated in this city give +1 food for each worked farm at destination, but don't give any food to originated city. Provisioner has no base gold yield. Can't send international trade routes from this city.
Patine
Deity
- Joined
- Feb 14, 2011
- Messages
- 10,283
I must confess, I can't take either game's World Congress mechanics seriously, or most ideas or proposals by fans to improve it, because of the bad jokes and toothless lions the League of Nations and United Nations have become in RL, and the nature of sovereign nations (as much I am personally a critic, and wary, of, Nationalism as viewpoint, in line with Einstein's famous quote about it being the, "measles of mankind,") to be unable to cooperate in this way, in the long-term, globally (only in like-minded, regional alliances, like NATO or the Arab League).
vorlon_mi
Emperor
The in-game idea of the United Nations / World Congress was first introduced in Civ3. Very simple, only one issue to vote on, "who should be the winner?" No such mechanic was included in Beyond Earth or the Rising Tide expansion.
Each of Civ4, Civ5, and Civ6 tried to stretch and enhance the game mechanic in different ways. The Civ4 Apostolic Palace gave an "opportunity" to win an early diplomatic victory, but was more frequently used by one group of nations to impose their will on the others. A player who had a vassal state had more influence that one who did not.
With the addition of city-states, Civ5 and Civ6 changed the dynamic yet again. None of these variants ever really resembled the real life UN or League of Nations; I don't think that they were intended to. They were intended to take international relations *in the game* beyond the simple "trading table" that Civ3 offered.
Each of Civ4, Civ5, and Civ6 tried to stretch and enhance the game mechanic in different ways. The Civ4 Apostolic Palace gave an "opportunity" to win an early diplomatic victory, but was more frequently used by one group of nations to impose their will on the others. A player who had a vassal state had more influence that one who did not.
With the addition of city-states, Civ5 and Civ6 changed the dynamic yet again. None of these variants ever really resembled the real life UN or League of Nations; I don't think that they were intended to. They were intended to take international relations *in the game* beyond the simple "trading table" that Civ3 offered.
Patine
Deity
- Joined
- Feb 14, 2011
- Messages
- 10,283
Ah. You see, in Civ2 (which I mentioned is my favourite Civ iteration a couple times, in this thread) the United Nation is a Wonder of the World!
Given its RL lack of effectiveness in its stated purposes, and strong tendency to blatant bias, that's not an entirely inappropriate portrayal, in my opinion.
reddishrecue
Some dude on civfans
- Joined
- Nov 16, 2009
- Messages
- 6,070
They should make the United Nations back as an improvement to the world congress and make nuclear proliferations so that they could put a stop to the nuking, just a thought.Ah. You see, in Civ2 (which I mentioned is my favourite Civ iteration a couple times, in this thread) the United Nation is a Wonder of the World!
Given its RL lack of effectiveness in its stated purposes, and strong tendency to blatant bias, that's not an entirely inappropriate portrayal, in my opinion.
Similar threads
