Civilization 5

[rysmiel]

- new religion system - you can create your own religion. So if you want to have christanity - you name it "christanity" and "christian" (for monasteries, temples etc.) If you want a roman religion, you name it "roman" + full of symbols, temple and priest models to choose from. It's annoying when I have to play with christianity or islam (when I have no other choice) when I dislike them.

Visual fluff.

- much more techs!

Agreed.

- return of different clothing etc. for AI leaders in different eras. I hate to see Roosevelt in his suit in 2000 BC.

More visual fluff.

- optional scenario with future techs - something like Civ II Test of Time. So if you want to play "normal" civ, you can play normal. But if you want to research new technologies (like cloning, laser weaponry, androids), build future buildings (android factory, virtual reality center) or have future units (laser squads, micro black hole generators, UAVs) - you can play this scenario. But units and tech should be realistic, not idiotic like in Civ II ToT (so no more giant bacterias).

I'm all for future tech, but your notions of plausibility here are a bit suspect to me.

- simultaneous building of units and buildings - cities should build units and buildings in the same time.

Absolutely not under any circumstances.

- new worker ability - digg canals (for ships).

Agreed.

- huge units - not one figure of for example rifleman, not three, but 20 smaller (as one unit), so when one units start a battle we can see 40 "smaller units" figthing (optional - so if someone want to stay with "civ IV - like" units can be satisfied). The same with ships and planes - not one ship/plane per "unit", but three (except battleships, carriers and submarines).

Yuck. No, not at all; it's cluttered, it's fluff, the look of units has information to convey to you and that's all it needs to do.

- similar to Civ II ToT - space colonisation (optional)! So you can build colonies and labs on moon (after Apollo Program)

I'm fond of this notion, all right.

and after successful spaceship landing - on distant planets with aliens! Four other planets with 6 alien Civs would be fantastic. But beware - if aliens were first to launch a spaceship Earth will be under alien colonisation!

Not in the main game.

- Apollo Program and Manhattan Project should not give all civs ability to build spaceships or A-Bomb. Russians had to stole many vital blueprints to build their own A-Bomb, so players should have ability to steal A-Bomb plans or build their own Manhattan Project.

Agreed.

- Spy satellites. Reveal small area for one turn. Max 5 per Civ.

There should indeed be spy satellites, but this is not how they should work. There should never be max numbers of anything per civ.

- no more global climate change. It's not sure if it's caused by humans (I personally doubt it).

Disagree profoundly.

- ability to build bases on other country's territory. So players can build a base for example in Egypt and have there planes or troops without this mutual "open borders". Or simply - open borders not mutual.

Unilateral open borders and different levels of open borders, yes; being able to build somewhere you have not an agreement to be able to build, no.

- in civics that are similar to democracy/republic - political parties. Players can create their own political party. Every action made by the player would affect his voters. Player should have something like "public poll" which would tell him what his citizens demand him to do. If he choose to listen to them - he gets economic boost. If citizens are displeased with his actions - he looses elections and have negative effect on diplomacy.

What on earth is the point of this ? Happiness is already simulating exactly this effect.

- return of King units. But capturing King unit should not destroy enemy civilization. It could elect new one and gain terrible negative effects or accept to pay ransom for him (or sign humiliating peace). Besides - having your own Caesar is fun. In Civ III I always had Caesar unit named "Caesar Imperator Aquila SPQR" and treated him as an emperor - sometimes he was going on trip with his faithful Praetorians to inspect his cities

No; this is silly and the wrong scale.

- ability to make your country a heaven or hell for its citizens. Orwell's "1984" (one of the best books ever!) in action

Happiness mechanic already simulates this.

Of course this culture does not mean changing borders! In my opinion actual system with culture affecting state borders is ridiculous.

You're welcome to your opinion. (Still wrong though.)

- please, stop repeating this "we were working very carefuly on religion systems, treated all religions with equal respect and made all religions totally equal - we don't want to offend anyone" all over again. Religions are religions - they are all stupid. As Seneca said - “Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful.” And it should be so in Civ V. If someone can't survive critics of his religion and reacts with anger it's his problem, not ours.

It could easily become Firaxis' problem in the real world.

- all civ groups (like mediterranean, asiatic and american) should have different looks of infantry units (like in Civ IV), but player should have abiliy to choose tank, modern ships and planes models from many models.

I strongly disagree. It's fluff, it has no effect on gameplay, so it's a waste of developer time and energy.

 

[rysmiel]

- Alternative to using workers - placing work improvements CTP2 style. Perhaps select option before game starts or is an attribute - different civs use different styles or maybe effected by other things like government.

I'm strongly opposed to this one. It reduces flexibility.

- Restricted space for buildings - work spaces around city now partially allocated or zoned for buildings. Each building has a certain size and each tile has a certain amount of space. You need to decide which spaces should be worked for resources and which sacrificed for buildings.

I oppose this one too; it seems the wrong scale to confuse buildings and tile improvements.

 

[toft]

Rysmiel... you do know that the programmer isnt the one designing or drawing concept art? So all the fluff isnt really hurting anyone here.

 

[Hsinchu]

Rysmiel... you do know that the programmer isnt the one designing or drawing concept art? So all the fluff isnt really hurting anyone here.

Well, I think in the grand scheme of things, fluff is still a cost of production. If I pay 25 artists to design little things for a game, I'm going to be out the payroll I could potentially use for 10 developers. On the other hand, if I have 1000 concepts and 10 really great developers to move on these concepts and only 5 or 10 artists that are providing art as we go along, I'm pretty sure that between the artist's natural drive toward overcreation and the modding community, we will have no shortage of fluff in the long run.

 

[rysmiel]

Rysmiel... you do know that the programmer isnt the one designing or drawing concept art? So all the fluff isnt really hurting anyone here.

I am aware of that difference, yes; I do web database design in real life.

I would query the claim that the fluff is not hurting anyone, though. Because:

a) Development groups have finite resources, and money spent on fluff is coming out of potential expenditure on other aspects of the game.

b) There appears to have been, in Civ 4, a push towards levels of "realism" in the graphics trending away from "it is a game and meant to look like a game", as each of Civ 1-3 is doing. Which seems to me a failure mode as actual realism in the graphics, such as making units realistic sizes compared to the map, seems a priori impossible for a game that works like Civ does at all, and pulling away from looking like a game is losing one virtue and replacing it with something that is not actually a virtue.

c) a great deal of the fluff, in Civ 4 and even more so in Aquila's proposal, seems to me to be actively interfering with the point of the interface, which is to give you the information you need to be able to play the game. When you see a unit, you need to know what it is and whose it is; having the same (gameplay-wise) unit from different civs look distinctly different, rather than just be flagged with a different colour, is a step backwards from that imperative.

 

[Aquila SPQR]

For Gods' sakes man! Have you ever heard of CIV GOLD!!!

Nope. I don't want to download new content or buy new DVDs to have what I should have in standard game

Yes, there are a lot of suggestions here that can be done in Civ 4 with a MOD. This thread should be about changes that can't be made in a mod.

Like above. Why I should wait for a mod when I would like to have such things in Civ V? This thread is about our vision of Civ V - and that's my vision. I don't know how to mod a game and I don't want to persuade or wait for someone to do it - so I'd love to see this things in "normal" Civ V.

Map Preview is a cool option, but I have an ideia, when we're choosing the map, the window of the Map Preview, is black, we must click on a button to reveal it to us, so people may choose wether they want to see it in advance or not.

Splendid idea!

That would probably wouldn't be Civ, civilization is a series of interesting decisions (or something like that ) Civ I think is about choosing what do u want to do now if it allowed more to make several choices alltogether it might "damage" the "ideia" of Civ... dunno ...

So it should be optional. Just like "no tech trading", "no barbarians", "no goody huts" etc. And everyone will be happy

sry, but then I suggest that Portugal is placed in the "main Civ" always, it pisses me off seeing the spanish there and not Portugal... we were as "big" as they -_- and sorry but for me, we started the age of discovery... we should be among the rest of the bunch in the "main Civ".

Well, guys who are making games sometimes makes terrible mistakes... Sitting Bull? Come on... So why not Watussi tribe, or Inuit civilization? Many countries had fantastic history and they are not included in the game... Portugal and its great sailors, Poland as eastern european superpower, Sweden with its pikes...

and the other idea would be nice too, but the 40 smaller units would probably use lot's of requirements of the pc... but the option to turn it off would provide the balance needed to the game running smoothly...

Well, modern PCs have really good stuff inside. And of course - it should also be optional.

Visual fluff.

And...? Is that all? Because this don't make it a wrong advice.

- simultaneous building of units and buildings - cities should build units and buildings in the same time.

Absolutely not under any circumstances.

Absolutely YES! But of course - optional. So every player would have ability to choose how he wants to play. In my opinion it is strange when we have to choose between buildings and units. It has no historical referrence and is absolutely not realistic.

Yuck. No, not at all; it's cluttered, it's fluff, the look of units has information to convey to you and that's all it needs to do.

A gray paper box with three first letters of units' name and dots showing health also gives you almost all necessary information. So? I'd like to see such units in the game (again - optional so we could choose how we would like to play).

Not in the main game.

As I've already said - this should be also optional.

Unilateral open borders and different levels of open borders, yes; being able to build somewhere you have not an agreement to be able to build, no.

Agreed.

What on earth is the point of this ? Happiness is already simulating exactly this effect.

No, it's not. Current unhappiness is far away from being a "simulation" of society. In all Civs citizens were considered as "numbers" or "heads". 12 size city - 12 "heads".

It should be different - no matter if it's 2 or 20 size city - all population should be considered as 100%. And then we should have statiscics - in Rome there should be for example 87% Roman culture, 3% Greek, 5% Persian and 5% Aztec. Then again - in Rome also should be 96% Roman religion, 3% Judaism and 1% Aztec religion. And again - in Rome 87% of citizens should like actions of its governement and 13% - don't.

Great complex information which would revolutionize (is there such word in English? well, nevermind ) Civilization series. No more "oh, we don't want a war, but you gave us an ivory so we will stay quiet and happy". And no more 500 000 people in the city with 100% hiduism.

And what mean +1 red, angry face? If city is 2 - it means that 50% citizens are angry, and when city is 10 size it means that only 10% of its citizens are angry? We should abandon this "faces" and treating citizens as "heads" - three happy faces, two angry faces and one sick face. Civ V should embrace percentage

Happiness mechanic already simulates this.

No, it's not. You can't have "1984" country in the game. In Civ IV all unhappiness is... unreal.

Of course this culture does not mean changing borders! In my opinion actual system with culture affecting state borders is ridiculous.

You're welcome to your opinion. (Still wrong though.)

So in your opinion building a huge theatres in Los Angeles will make California 25% bigger at the cost of Mexico? Borders are set by wars and diplomacy, not "culture" and are permament until next war or agreement changes them. Where is connection between modern borders and culture (and changing state borders beacuse of culture) - I have no idea.

Culture should influence only people - as it is in reality. How many Mexicans are in US? Does it mean that US should give some southern teritorries to Mexico because they are gaining more latinoamerican culture there?

Or should we make Wisła our new border river instead of Odra because Berlin has bigger museum than Warsaw?

I strongly disagree. It's fluff, it has no effect on gameplay, so it's a waste of developer time and energy.

You're right, instead of making special effects in "The Lord of the Rings" they should just show us paper screen with "BATTLE" written on it I can wait for a Civ V few months longer and have a great game. Not like Empire Total War.

I have few new thoughts:

- spreading religion should always be succesful. But at the beginning city should be 1% hindu (for example) and 99% pagan. This should increase slowly in time - after few turns it should be for example 15% Hindu and 85% pagan and so on. But - this shouldn't increase steadily and without superises. In some cities it should increase rapidly, in others it should stop at certain level or even decrease Sending new priests should increase only growing rate. So no more sending a missionary to a 20 size city 100% pagan - one turn and "puff", whole city is Hindu

And percentage system is better - we would have in cities for example 45% to 55%, 3% to 97% etc, no more just one or to symbols next to the city's name. It would create new opportunities and pave a way to events.

We also should add two new Great Wonders - Burj Dubai and World Trade Center (Twin Towers). A next, small blow and "f*ck you" to Al-Qaeda. And no - I don't want to wait for a mod or download a modto have these. I would like to have them in stardard game.

 

[Hsinchu]

Out of Box Civ 5 is going to have to look a lot different than any moddable version of Civ IV. While I stand behind Aquila's point that OOB retail versions are the standby we should go for, if it CAN be done in a mod there will certainly be a large number people that are going to download it instead of pay for it. Exemplum: CS Source.

Civ 5 needs to have at least a couple of groundbreakers. Hexagonal tiles might be too groundbreaking. Graphical Fluff is definitely not groundbreaking enough (as that can be modded).

Similarly, a couple of new wonders and a leader or two have already been done in mod form, albeit not as clean as a core game package, but fun and interesting to a huge community of players.

Groundbreakers that make sense:

-Espionage has obvious room for change/upgrade/improve/rework.
-Naval either needs to be redone from scratch or reworked.
-AI basics: blindness needs to be more tightly adhered to and AI improved to have memory.
-AI upgrade: fewer cheating handicaps and more psychic decisions. I'd rather not waste processing power on visuals if I can "chess up" my Civ game.
-Resources: Current rules are great but, as detailed elsewhere, there are significant limitations to diversity. While this is actively moddable, it really should become a core game feature adding to the immersion factor.
-Combat: There is no way a spear can take down a tank. A tech differential needs to be put in place to balance large scale differences between damage types as opposed to simplifying them as percentage bonuses. Gunpowder can blow through walls, fine, but anything short of a rail gun ain't piercing my modern armor.

I'm sure there are other things in this 70+page thread, but we need to distinguish groundbreaking from pleasant-to-have features .

 

[nizanthor]

Need atlantis scenario, perhaps like smac or planetfall mod but under water.

 

[techathon]

Ok, I thaught of something that existed in real life that could fix the religion dilihma.
Insted of temples monasteries and the religion just making people happy, you as the government could modify the religion slightly to fit your needs. China did this w/ dioism and buhiddesm and protastatism was adopted along time ago in britian where the king wanted to be more independant of the pope.

Anyways, you can build buildings or something that can unlock manipulation of religion where you could get not only happiness, but whatever you need. You could get hammers, commerse, esponage, extra culture, XP by manipulating the religion to do so.

 

[rysmiel]

Well, modern PCs have really good stuff inside.

You want to kill Civ for people who can't afford newest computers ?

And...? Is that all? Because this don't make it a wrong advice.

I've explained in my post above why i think fluff is inherently bad.

Absolutely YES! But of course - optional. So every player would have ability to choose how he wants to play.

Which means twice as much work balancing the game.

In my opinion it is strange when we have to choose between buildings and units. It has no historical referrence and is absolutely not realistic.

Realism has no place in Civ unless it benefits gameplay.

It should be different - no matter if it's 2 or 20 size city - all population should be considered as 100%. And then we should have statiscics - in Rome there should be for example 87% Roman culture, 3% Greek, 5% Persian and 5% Aztec. Then again - in Rome also should be 96% Roman religion, 3% Judaism and 1% Aztec religion. And again - in Rome 87% of citizens should like actions of its governement and 13% - don't.

How does this make playing the game more fun ?

And what mean +1 red, angry face? If city is 2 - it means that 50% citizens are angry, and when city is 10 size it means that only 10% of its citizens are angry? We should abandon this "faces" and treating citizens as "heads" - three happy faces, two angry faces and one sick face.

Yes, we should; Civ should go back to how Civ 1-3 handled unhappiness.

So in your opinion building a huge theatres in Los Angeles will make California 25% bigger at the cost of Mexico? Borders are set by wars and diplomacy, not "culture" and are permament until next war or agreement changes them. Where is connection between modern borders and culture (and changing state borders beacuse of culture) - I have no idea.

Again, that's a realism argument. Culture should be in the game because it's a good mechanic, particcularly for weakening military.

You're right, instead of making special effects in "The Lord of the Rings" they should just show us paper screen with "BATTLE" written on it

No, instead of making three awful movies they should have just told you to read the sodding book.

- spreading religion should always be succesful. But at the beginning city should be 1% hindu (for example) and 99% pagan. This should increase slowly in time - after few turns it should be for example 15% Hindu and 85% pagan and so on. But - this shouldn't increase steadily and without superises. In some cities it should increase rapidly, in others it should stop at certain level or even decrease :

I'm all for religion working citizen-by-citzen rather than city-by-city.

And percentage system is better - we would have in cities for example 45% to 55%, 3% to 97% etc, no more just one or to symbols next to the city's name. It would create new opportunities and pave a way to events.

but that burs out any effct of the actual size of the city, no.

We also should add two new Great Wonders - Burj Dubai and World Trade Center (Twin Towers). A next, small blow and "f*ck you" to Al-Qaeda.

Oh, absolutely not. That's way too trivial an event to remember as a Great Wonder.

 

[Öjevind Lång]

I personally do not think that civ 5 would be a good idea. I mean with bts they prety much made the game so open and complex that i dont think there is any new significant changes that could be made to alter the game. The game already is really good and there could be some small changes but ones that aren't significant at all...

I don't think BtS is the ultimate in Civ, good though it is. I'd like to see quite a few changes and improvements. Some features from Civ II (the High Council, the Trone Room, and also the fact that if you dismissed a suggested city name, it did not turn up again in that game), and also I want to see the spy slider go away, and better diplomacy and trade, and quite a few other things. A less steep learning curve would be nice. An immediate between Warlord and Noble where the human player doesn't get any freebies but where the AI civs aren't quite so fiendishy clever, having been programmed with every trick old gamesters have thought up.

 

[chrissifniotis]

Groundbreakers that make sense:

-Espionage has obvious room for change/upgrade/improve/rework.
-Naval either needs to be redone from scratch or reworked.
-AI basics: blindness needs to be more tightly adhered to and AI improved to have memory.
-AI upgrade: fewer cheating handicaps and more psychic decisions. I'd rather not waste processing power on visuals if I can "chess up" my Civ game.
-Resources: Current rules are great but, as detailed elsewhere, there are significant limitations to diversity. While this is actively moddable, it really should become a core game feature adding to the immersion factor.
-Combat: There is no way a spear can take down a tank. A tech differential needs to be put in place to balance large scale differences between damage types as opposed to simplifying them as percentage bonuses. Gunpowder can blow through walls, fine, but anything short of a rail gun ain't piercing my modern armor.

I'm sure there are other things in this 70+page thread, but we need to distinguish groundbreaking from pleasant-to-have features .

I have to completely agree to all these points; especially to espionage, too overpowering in my games, and combat, I took a city garrisoned by a Machine Gunner with a War Elephant. [Closest I've gotten to a Spearman vs. Tank situation] While yes, I launched Cannons at it before hand, it's still not right.

 

[The Rusty Gamer]

Radical change - a dynamic element which makes every game of Civ 5 quite different. No more of this "well, i do this and this and this and then i win". Every game should unfold in such a different manner that you maybe never feel completely on top of things or ever develop any overall strategy for the game in general except in the short term during the current game. No more exact linear tree where you know just where to research for what building. Strategy for this game should never become an exact science.

Every game the research is different, the buildings are different, costs are different, culture development is different, because your society is different - unique to that game and unlike any other Civ 5 game you will play. It evolves dynamically as you play. I'm not just talking about a random element here but something quite radical - a genuinely unique experience each time.

 

[Hsinchu]

Radical change - a dynamic element which makes every game of Civ 5 quite different. No more of this "well, i do this and this and this and then i win". Every game should unfold in such a different manner that you maybe never feel completely on top of things or ever develop any overall strategy for the game in general except in the short term during the current game. No more exact linear tree where you know just where to research for what building. Strategy for this game should never become an exact science.

Every game the research is different, the buildings are different, costs are different, culture development is different, because your society is different - unique to that game and unlike any other Civ 5 game you will play. It evolves dynamically as you play. I'm not just talking about a random element here but something quite radical - a genuinely unique experience each time.

I have a genuinely unique experience each time. With different maps, different leaders, different opponents, different difficulties, different victory conditions, and different game speeds being just a few of the "fingerprinting" aspects already built in. If you are talking about having an uber-dynamic tech tree that is shrouded in mystery, I have to respectfully disagree. I don't think winning the game is an "exact" science right now. More like an "inexact" science. The most seasoned Deity players will tell you that they will scrap a game if they know its over, and occasionally some games will be over whether you like it or not. If I feel the game is not unique enough for me, I ratchet up the difficulty and BAM! I just forgot how to play.

 

[rysmiel]

Radical change - a dynamic element which makes every game of Civ 5 quite different. No more of this "well, i do this and this and this and then i win". Every game should unfold in such a different manner that you maybe never feel completely on top of things or ever develop any overall strategy for the game in general except in the short term during the current game. No more exact linear tree where you know just where to research for what building. Strategy for this game should never become an exact science.

Every game the research is different, the buildings are different, costs are different, culture development is different, because your society is different - unique to that game and unlike any other Civ 5 game you will play. It evolves dynamically as you play. I'm not just talking about a random element here but something quite radical - a genuinely unique experience each time.

Well, that would make the game not worth playing, for me, because it would destroy the experience of learning to do well.

 

[Badtz Maru]

I think they should do away with grids altogether. Cities and units would have a circle highlighted on the map to show their influence and/or how far they can move (perhaps two circles showing how far you can move, and how far you can move and attack the same turn). These circles would be deformed by terrain effects - stretching out along roads, pushed in over rough terrain. When moving a unit, before confirming you wanted to move it to a certain location, you could press a key to see where it could move next turn. If you need to know how many turns it would take to move somewhere, you could do a "Go To" command and it would calculate it for you, showing where you would end up on each turn.

 

[Hsinchu]

I think they should do away with grids altogether. Cities and units would have a circle highlighted on the map to show their influence and/or how far they can move (perhaps two circles showing how far you can move, and how far you can move and attack the same turn). These circles would be deformed by terrain effects - stretching out along roads, pushed in over rough terrain. When moving a unit, before confirming you wanted to move it to a certain location, you could press a key to see where it could move next turn. If you need to know how many turns it would take to move somewhere, you could do a "Go To" command and it would calculate it for you, showing where you would end up on each turn.

Wow... That's scarier than hex tiles. "real terrain" seems to be a huge step away from turn based gameplay.

I think Soren says something in the companion DVD about this.

"Civilization is not a turn-based game. Well, it is a turn-based game, but that's not what it's all about. Civilization is a tile-based game."

This reasoning is why they abandoned hybrid tiles and tiles that were half water and half land. There used to be desert grassland riverside hill forest jungle tiles, if i recollect. And these were impossible to balance given the tile-based nature of the game.

While it would be fun to have a game where units have to map out a path around a hill/mountain until your railroad can run through it, I don't think Civilization should be that game.

 

[rysmiel]

I think they should do away with grids altogether. Cities and units would have a circle highlighted on the map to show their influence and/or how far they can move (perhaps two circles showing how far you can move, and how far you can move and attack the same turn). These circles would be deformed by terrain effects - stretching out along roads, pushed in over rough terrain. When moving a unit, before confirming you wanted to move it to a certain location, you could press a key to see where it could move next turn. If you need to know how many turns it would take to move somewhere, you could do a "Go To" command and it would calculate it for you, showing where you would end up on each turn.

Yuck. You'd have to explicilty check everything you wanted rather than just instantly being able to see it from the grid; that massively overloads logistical planning, no ?

 

[Badtz Maru]

Yuck. You'd have to explicilty check everything you wanted rather than just instantly being able to see it from the grid; that massively overloads logistical planning, no ?

I think players would adapt rapidly to it. You could have a key that showed the 1, 2, and 3 turn ranges of all units on the screen, and another that went further for a single unit. You could make it so that whenever a unit was within attack range of another, a line would appear connecting them so you wouldn't have to guess or check.

It would also provide a small benefit for someone defending their own territory. Players would become familiar with the range of differing units from their own cities and forts - you would soon know that your cavalry is able to attack units at the nearest edge of the forest north of your capital, but ground troops can only reach them once they've crossed the river to the south. You could also add variables to the range of units to add some of the uncertainty of war - in reality, you can never be certain that your troops can reach a certain point within a certain time in wartime with all the variables. When invading someone, you might think you could reach their capital in three turns, but it may turn out they have units hidden along the way that will harrass and slow down your army. There could also be a randomization added to movement in unfamiliar territory that is not present in territory you know well.

Getting rid of the grid can really add a lot of detail to unit movement and make the game more interesting.

 

[The Rusty Gamer]

You could have a key that showed the 1, 2, and 3 turn ranges of all units on the screen, and another that went further for a single unit.

And you ability to see ahead could be improved with research. Initially, for instance, you may only be able to see one turn ahead, and even then not very accurately. A scout would have better accuracy and accuracy in general could be improved in units via individual unit promotions.

There could also be a randomization added to movement in unfamiliar territory that is not present in territory you know well.

IMO, a certain randomisation of movement could or should be incorporated in the game, even if square grids are adhered to. In fact, I suspect you can probably do it in Civ 4 with a mod. Terrain which, for instance, cost 2 movements points but the unit has only 1 - currently it lets you do the movement. It would be good if instead there was a 50% chance in that instance of the movement's success (1/2), the percentage being calculated based on movement points left divided by terrain movement cost. I'm not sure but I think that was actually done in AC. If you don't like it, it could simply be an option to switch on or off at the start of the game - "Allow randomisation in movement" - or somesuch.