Civ4 - where's the meat?

[KrikkitTwo]

A thought i like with the idea of what happens to the cities if there is a civil war (do rebels form new civ?, do rebels use the second leaders face?,etc.) is to just turn those cities into barbarian controlled cities.The city should retain all cultural value,and barbarian cities should be able to make use of all upgrades in the city and outside improvements. With the thought of what type of units can be produced, the game should have a trigger where troops are equivalent to the average tech between all countries. If every country knows rifleman, then the barbarian troops can produce rifleman. There should be no cap on how many or how fast they produce units, it is what the city can normally do. This is my version of civil wars i want to mod in. What do you guys think?

Well I'd like that more thn nothing, but you have to consider that two of the most powerful countries in the Twentieth Century were formed (or reformed) by rebellions (US v. the British and Russia v. the Mongols).

So while cities going barbarian is a good idea (and I think I heard somewhere that barbarians Can capture cities), I'd prefer that cities become a new civ.

 

[zeeter]

I've only read about half of this thread, so pardon if I touch on something that anyone else did already. First, the spearman vs. tank thingy. I've said before, and I'll say it again. It's not spearman vs. tank, it's one rating vs. another rating. What the unit is makes no difference. The picture and name of the unit are only there for our aesthetic pleasure (did I spell aesthetic right?).
Second - we're getting into a lot of complicated stuff here. Remember - first and foremost the game has to be playable, as uncomplicated as can be, and fun. That is what the joy of Civ is all about. It's building an empire without worrying about the minute details. Firaxis is a business. They cannot just cater to the folks out there who want absolute realism and micromanagement down to the last penny. If that were the case Firaxis would be without any pennies themselves. They need to make their game playable for everyone - casual to diehard. What I've always enjoyed about Civ is the ability to keep is simple. Two sliders - happiness, and technology. The rest going into the coffers.
About the only thing that I'd like to see that didn't work for me in Civ3 is the ability to broker peace between two nations like in SMAC. Nothing like being in a thirty year war because you keep being drawn in by your ally. Theres a bunch of other things I'd like too, like colleges devoted to certain disciplines rather than just adding to overall technology. That is, a college of science, a military college, an agriculture and a business college. Stuff like that. Can only build one or two colleges per city. Universities that act like three different colleges. A wonder that caters to all disciplines. Etc...

 

[Savage Discipil]

How about when there is a civil war the leader you didn't choose
from your civ,ex.(George Wasington) when your playing as FDR
becomes the leader of the rebellion against you.

 

[Mountain-God]

How about when there is a civil war the leader you didn't choose
from your civ,ex.(George Wasington) when your playing as FDR
becomes the leader of the rebellion against you.

Cool idea

 

[Herr Doktor]

I really hope I'm wrong but I'm detecting an ominous silence from Firaxis on some well known strategic deficiencies in Civ 3:

1) infinite resources (1 oil well can supply your worldwide empire indefinitely);

That's true. If resources weren't infinite and AI weren't so childish ( it's ridicolous I break a treaty agreement with them 3000 years before and still every nation coming in contact with that civ, continues to tell me "you are a bad guy, we don't want to sign again a pact like that!!!!1111" ) but playing like a nation with its own personality ( England could be more selfish than France, for example, while Germany can react in a different way but under a particular government type they start to act as an aggressive superpower etcetera ) there would be better games.
The fight for economic and strategic resources is the key to do that. Without them there is only a great deathmatch between the human player and a poor A.I.

2) the (unhistoric) irrelevance of sea warfare
3) trade routes (especially over water) that can't be attacked

In my opinion, as I said before, resource wars ( just look at the modern world ) are the key to generate a Civilization that depicts the reality of the human societies around the time.
Sea Warfare will become important as far as trade routes over water can be threatened.
Looking back to WWII, if England in a game needs food carried over water and strategic resources, they will have a strong navy and a medium army ... in Civ3 they have a random navy and a random army ... :|

4) absence of a realistic secession/ civil war model

For this point i don't really have any opinion.
But I think it's related to revolutions and cultural influence.

5) infinite movement railways

Nah ... it's the minor point, I believe.
There should be an entire reworking around movements and railroad capacity of a nation.

Instead Firaxis seems to be priding itself on more superficial stuff - new interface, revamped combat system, wonder movies, two leaders, landscapes. Given how much these topics are discussed, it's surprising, but I continue to live in hope. Otherwise Civ 5 will be due around 2009-10.

Congratulations on reviving the SMAC government system though...

I've tryied many games - almost every game came out for pc - and for many sequels I've seen I've noticed game don't lie outside the market logic: "I do change the box, I give it a new name and maybe I change something, then I obtain the old product for the modern market today".

 

[Naokaukodem]

1) I also am for a quantified ressource system myself. Not for the sake of it, or for the sake of realism. But because it would simulate a very important thing economically wise, at the root of trade, culture, civilization: the need of raw material. When you look at economy/trade/money mechanisms, the available raw materials decides of the level of an economy, and the wealth/hapiness of the people. When you look at economy, it is the key root of all things. That's why if Civilization would ever want to simulate a little more deeply the economy of a country, quantified ressources would be the simple key.

2) 3) Well; I think that 2) and 3) are linked, they may not be as much of sea warfare as if sea trade routes can be attacked in one maneer or the other. But i'm not expert in this, I bet it is usefull to look about History about that, but I think Sid & co. are well placed for this especially with their Pirate! game.

4) I don't see civil war as an essential feature as it. However, I see it as an important element of a bigger system, involving civilization growing, treaties, alliances, absorptions, empires...

5) I can't care less about infinite railroad movement.

6) Same goes for Tank vs Spearman, it can happen, but it is not as if Spearmen were effectively stronger than Tanks... or even half as powerfull... well, it IS a concern, indeed, but a minor one. I am quite sad at the idea that Firaxis could have spent time on this on particular.

 

[keureous]

Maybe its just me, I'm really not liking the screenshots I'm seeing; it looks completely wonky; all the units are way out of scale against the landscape, the borders look really funky. There's a visual disconnect I'm having thats going to make it hard to really feel the environment. I don't think the look of the game is a small complaint, although I'm pretty sure its going to play great.

Are their optional views, that would keep the units in scale?

 

[Volstag]

Are their optional views, that would keep the units in scale?

According to info I've read, you can adjust the scale/size of the units.

 

[mccandless]

Well I disagree naval movement should be scaled with the map, but I agree it should be much faster. Why scale it with the map by the way, if a small map continent takes less time to cross than a large map continent, shouldn't a small map sea take less time than a large map sea?

But I do think some uplift for larger maps is needed to preserve gameplay - although probably not full scaling. Basically the reason is this:

Projecting military power across large oceans with 5-movement point vessels is too difficult on a huge map, and this means outcomes like running a global British Empire or US intervention in WW2 across a large ocean aren't feasible. Extra movement points for naval units on larger maps would give a more realistic feel in the middle and later game IMO.