Civilization 5

[vsoma]

Good idea. What if we had both?

 

[rysmiel]

I especially agree with this, in a modified form: Unique National Wonders.

Some ideas:

Egypt: the Sphinx. 1 free Great Prophet, +2 trade routes in the city.

France: the Arc de Triomphe. 1 free Great General, +2 EP in the city.

America: Google. 1 free Great Scientist, + 2 trade routes.

...etc.

Oh, dear me, no. The more "unique" stuff each civilisation gets that no other one does, the more you are forced towards some preferred strategy and away from optimum flexibility. I'm all for lots more national wonders, but adamantly against limiting them in any way shape or form.

 

[vsoma]

These three examples could be made world wonders also. However, why exactly would Google be a world wonder? It's just a big searching engine, and not a perfect one I might add (it's good to use, but not perfect).

 

[toxictoaster737]

I know that I would like to see the perspective of the game change depending on the age that you are in. For example, the map shouldn't just be foggier when you are in the past, but look more ancient in style....perhaps in the ancient times, maps were more like crude drawings...

Civ4 suffers looking the same as you progress. The few changes such as the way the cities, and farms looked, is appreciated but not nearly enough.

What we can learn from games such as colonization is that civ players don't mind playing games in different styles. In Colonization the game zeroed in on what it was to be in that time in history and made the gameplay relevant to period in question. In that period the gameplay was centered around trade, exploration, liberty, and ocean travel. The level of intimacy is very appreciated, but leaves me now wanting more out of my current civ4 bts game experience.

You see currently civ4 smacks of hitting those eras without it 'feeling' different to the user beyond a few minor cosmetic differences. Make the differences in game play.

If the Colonization Era was about trade
then perhaps the industrial era should be about production and railways/trains
and the globalization era be about communication, and war on multiple fronts,
the future era be about learning to mend what separates us and greening the planet, and maybe extra-solar exploration.

I think everyone understands the basics of what im talking about,

Different Eras - Different Gameplay, Different look and feel.


Also I want civ to feel as real as CNN when it gets to modern era...with 'google earth like zoom in'


That's my dream civ, not everything mentioned...

 

[vsoma]

I wouldn't like moving my archers on a crude drawing.
My only problem with the game is the workshop. It should be some kind of industry at the age of industrialism and later, NOT such a little hut.

 

[battleaxe]

the map shouldn't just be foggier when you are in the past, but look more ancient in style....perhaps in the ancient times, maps were more like crude drawings...

Also I want civ to feel as real as CNN when it gets to modern era...with 'google earth like zoom in'

No thanks! In Civ the map is the main tool of interactivity. It should be intuitive, clean, efficient and functionally rich. It should be designed correctly to work in one way and this SHOULD NOT change throughout the game. The civ map is not trying to represent what maps looked like through history. The game's tools shouldn't advance through time, the objects at your disposal via those tools should.

 

[Skallagrimson]

I think the map itself is fine the way it changes just the buildings with the new eras. What would offer a richer playing experience would be if the leaderheads changed with eras, such that you don't have some tribal goon wearing feathers threatening to nuke you if you don't give him oil for his tanks.

 

[RulerOfDaPeople]

I just want diplomacy seriously improved. The worst is getting penalties for trading with someone, just because one civ might have a -1 modifier against your trading partner.

Even worse is that there is no flexibility to trade techs for any type of gold arrangment, or to offer yourself to go to war for another civilization either gold or techs that you need. (And yet those civs can still nag and threaten you to go to war for them. )

I also hate it when you play alot of civs and they all come nagging you to go to war with them and become furious with you when you tell them you can't. How freaking realistic is that?? Did the UK hate Woodrow Wilson when he told them he wanted to stay neutral? Did Churchill spite Roosevelt when Roosevelt stood up in front of the world and said he would not send any American sons overseas to die? NO. Without any ill feelings, he just kept on making his sencere and dire case for assistance. Eventually things came full circle.

 

[EmperorFool]

I just want diplomacy seriously improved. The worst is getting penalties for trading with someone, just because one civ might have a -1 modifier against your trading partner.

Each AI may choose another Civ as their Worst Enemy. You only get trade diplo modifiers for trading with that WE. You don't get it simply by trading with a civ that some other AI has a -1 penalty against.

Even worse is that there is no flexibility to trade techs for any type of gold arrangment, or to offer yourself to go to war for another civilization either gold or techs that you need.

I agree here. I wish AIs would offer techs and gold for you to Dow, embargo, change civics/religion.

How freaking realistic is that?? Did the UK hate Woodrow Wilson when he told them he wanted to stay neutral?

Did the U.S. bash France and Germany for listening to their own citizens and refusing to join the U.S.'s invasion of Iraq? Did the U.S. administration berate them in public? Was there a backlash against France renaming french fries "freedom fries"?

Of course not. People aren't that petty and stupid! I couldn't imagine things like that ever happening.

<whisper whisper>

What, really?! Oh geez.

 

[RulerOfDaPeople]

Haha, good point. Ya caught me there, however the US didn't continue to nag them about it again every other turn there after either, and forgot & forgave them in reletively little time instead of holding a grudge for over a thousand years.

I still hold true that YOU should be able to offer to go to war in exchange for techs/gold/resources without having to hope and wait for an AI to randomly contact you and ask you. Much like in Civ III.

 

[eduhum]

New medieval units:
Longsword man
Mounted spearman
Medieval Spearman
Ballista:8 strength
More?

 

[EmperorFool]

@eduhum - How about some ideas on how they would fit in to the current roster? How do their stats differ from, say, a regular Spearman or Swordsman. What difference would they make other than increasing the number of units (and minimum graphics requirements)?

For example, we currently have

Spearman
Str 4
+100% vs. Mounted

Pikeman
Str 6
+100% vs. Mounted

If you are proposing

Medieval Spearman
Str 5
+100% vs. Mounted

I don't think it's worth it.

 

[Levgre]

I am new to the discussion, so I will be adding my "vision", while gradually going through the thread. I may repeat some things, but perhaps people can take what I write, expand on it, or incorporate it into their own views.


My overall motivation in my design for civ 5 is the following. It is still to be a strategy game, not a reality simulator. 'However', many of the most influential factors in the history of civilization should be incorporated, in a way that is relatively true to how they behaved in actuality.

For example, culture is very dynamic, as we all know. Yet in civ 4 it is just a matter of land control.

Resources, and the abundance with which they are owned, has been a dominant force in history. Civ 4 makes resources relatively important, but trade does not explode when, for example, a civilization has 8 tiles of spice, and other civilizations have none. A civilization with an abundance of oil cannot make more tanks and planes than a smaller civilization, which would run out of oil and need to rely more on manpower.

And so on...both game play and entertainment value are important, but so is keeping to the spirit of true history. And in doing so, I believe the game would have a natural cohesiveness and playability that would be hard to match. Not to mention the players' intuitions would then serve them very well, since they have an awareness of the real world and how things work.



Here are some preliminary ideas. I will likely add more in future edits, especially if people are interests. For now I will avoid combat, as there is much to it, but good combat would depend on the rest of the gameplay, and has to accommodate the non-combat game.



CULTURE: Culture needs to be more dynamic and more faceted. A nation's culture effects how productive it is, how willing it is to expand, so on. For example, Manifest Destiny was a cultural phenomenon which greatly assisted in the expansion of the American empire... as did many other religious movements which motivated people to spread.


An easy way to envision the "cultural system" would be like the current civic system. There would be different attitudes that could be adopted by a nation. For example, "views of the afterlife". Ascension to another plane, wandering the earth as spirits, reincarnation, so on, all could have practical effects on a civilization. With spirits, people are more likely to stay in their homelands, as to not leave their relatives behind. With ascension to a another plane, the development of Gods and modern religions could be hurried, leading to more "advanced" or organized religious societies. You could see some civilizations go far into the modern age with keeping their views of spirits and reincarnation, while other civilizations "advanced". Reincarnation could make people more respectful of nature, resulting in lesser ability to exploit it for resources, but more happiness and richness of life (culture points or some such).


Only the more major cultural values throughout history would likely be included in the cultural system, as to not make it too complex, but still make it rich. Much of it would also be automated (although determined often by how the player acts) so much of it could just be ignored at times. But it would always effect things. Sometimes it could make a forward swing and help the goals of the human player. Sometimes there could be a cultural backlash and a changing of values, which impedes the player from his current decisions. Throughout history culture and values have ebbed and flowed, it would be no different here. Unless you truly made it your aim to make it static (low education, closed society, police state, so on).

At the very least, sharing views on the afterlife, etc., would make a civilization more friendly to other people who share their views.

There could also be "degrees" of attitudes. A simple example, would be "tolerance of outsiders". This would go from very low to very high.

With high tolerance, trade and sharing of ideas is higher, leading to more research, more money, but also, more impact on the nation's culture. You, the player, would have less control on your nation's values, if you led a high tolerance nation.

With very low tolerance, a nation would have low levels of trade and cultural influence, yet this would make the civilization able to be more stable and controlled, as it's "cultural system" would not be altered.


War effects tolerance greatly. The impressions other cultures make effects tolerance (a nation which has only met other nations it dislikes will be less tolerant). Education and the advancement of ideas effects tolerance... so on.

Some cultural aspects would make relatively minor effects on the game. Some could be very major, and determine a turning point in history. For example, the "nationalism" tech in Civ 4 is a cultural movement. "crusades" could be another development, which is a cultural movement.

You could choose historic civs with pre-determined starting cultural values. You could also create your own custom civ with cultural values, although some combinations would not be possible because you'd have to "purchase" the advances to make those values available at the beginning, or allocate points to set a slider for a certain value at very high or very low, increasingly so as you get to the extreme ends.


RESOURCES:

It is paramount that abundance of resources matters, instead of just "having" or "not having". A civilization with 3 coppers could leverage it to become a dominating force in the ancient period, even over those with 1 copper. Of course there would be things to balance this out, but the 3 coppers would be a matter of great importance.

Copper = weapons. Now, having more copper doesn't mean you necessarily make "better" weapons, but you can make more. So what would seem a natural possibility, is, the more copper you have, the faster you can build units.
However, an army isn't just a bunch of copper. You need soldiers, too. So there would some way to incorporate a "human" and "equipment" component to each unit, perhaps each consisting of 50% of the cost, although this would vary with units (the limiting factor for riflemen was usually manpower, so that may be a 70-30 cost).

So the player with 5 coppers would get, say, a 50% production bonus to metal equipment, making them able to quickly produce heavily armored infantry(heavy infantry would require more copper, as opposed to manpower), or quickly produce the equipment requirement for lighter infantry. While, perhaps, being light on the manpower aspect for the infantry. This could make interesting alliances where one nation with abundant hills and copper supplies a large farming nation with copper for weapons.


The ability to produce and maintain the "human" component would depend on many things. How many people the nation has in total, it's cultural values and willingness to fight or be conscripted, how much money you are willing to pay units (if you pay more, more people will be willing to enter your manpower pool).


PRODUCTION:
The system of production, where for normal production only a city can contribute to the projects inside it, should be altered. Workers and resources from all over the empire could be brought to the capital, to produce an immense wonder, for example.

However, it would all come with penalties, as opposed to only relying on local production capability. You would have to pay more money for labor, you would lose some overall production, you would use some more resources. When a player decides to re-route resources they will be notified of estimations for the penalties (could be a small random range). "collection" and distribution of resources (metal, wood, etc.) should not have to be controlled by the player to play well. The system should be user-friendly, yet still realistic. A player could go much of the game with never looking at the national pools, although they will not do as well.

However, there does need to be a variety of resources instead of just "hammers". Wood, stone, metal, so on. Later on in the game some would just be taken out of the pool as they become insignificant. You don't have to keep track of your stone once you reach the industrial and modern age.

So, all the resources could be collected and put into national pools, which are displayed to the player (100 wood production, for example, 1000 wood in your pool). If you run out of wood supply your production will not "stop", but you will just build more slowly. Just like with the copper for units, it just increases production rate. Wood would, however, naturally accumulate, as you don't have to "tell" your nation to go and collect wood, it just does.

So each city will tend to have wood available. However, you could put special emphasis on it, for example, shifting 70% of a cities laborers to lumber gathering, leaving 30% for stone collecting. If anyone has played sim ant, it could be like the system in that game, where you set your percent of ants to "nursing, gathering, building", simply by sliding a pointer on a circle display... if you slide it all the way to nursing, 100% of the ants would nurse.

But enough with possible details, as those could easily change... it would just be a highly automated resource system, that you could adjust to build up stores of resources, although there could be a limit to how much you could control it, and manipulating it too often or too greatly could bring about waste. As is the problem with a controlled economy, versus a natural one. (another idea for cultural values, libertarianism versus collectivism, could effect the dynamic of this, and other things).


RESEARCH:

Research should NOT be as directed and controlled as it is. Breakthroughs often come through personal efforts of random individuals, depending on the nation's surroundings and interesting. So, if this were applied in Civ 4, if you had 4 cows nearby your civilization wouldn't randomly research fishing. The people would quickly get around to researching the cows, and how to utilize them.

However, the government can also direct resources towards specific discoveries. But they would not be able to mobilize the whole nation's scientific potential for this.

So there would be multiple forces effecting research. Interaction with foreigners would also play a significant role, going back to the "intolerant" versus "tolerant", although only certain techs would be exchanged this way, for example many military technologies would not (nor would those military technologies typically be researched by the people, but only the government).

Also, there should be a degree of randomness in the tech tree. You CANNOT depend on opening up the path to a certain technology. In Civ 4 the tech tree is dynamic in that there are multiple routes to different technologies, but you always know any of those paths will unlock certain technologies.



Pre-requisites would increase the odds of "eureka moments", which would then unlock techs so you could put direct effort into a technology, to advance in a certain direction. But you will have to play to the development of science, you will not determine it yourself. You would not be able to know what technologies you will specifically get, or be able to get. But you can promote scientific endeavor in your nation, so a citizen is more likely to create the first working plane, or invent the light bulb.

There could be games where the telephone comes before flight, and vice-versa, and you could not know when these moments would come, although you can encourage them.

A small island nation could have a breakthrough in flight a significant amount years before all the larger ones, possibly bringing previously unheard of prosperity and foreign interest, or perhaps encouraging espionage.

However, military research would often be more predictable and directed. So players would not really get into situations where they lucked out in regards to a military technology, and were left in the dust. However, an isolated nation may go half a century longer without gunpowder, and have to rely on military prowess in other areas (which they could direct research in, for example, they don't have gunpowder but become very, very refined in archery, horsemanship, or infantry logistics, and can stand up to gunpowder armies).

One thing to note, is what has naturally emerged from my "rules"(ways to implement reality), is that isolated nations can develop very specialized and distinct cultures. They are more likely to master a type of military, out of necessity. They are more likely to develop a culture, which they stick to, and develop strong conviction in. This would also work for groups of nations, which would influence each other's cultures, but not be influenced by ideas of distant nations. You could have large "clashes" of ideas, as worlds meet, perhaps creating geographic wars, or distrust.

Even in multiplayer players could be driven to war in this way. The will of the people, of the culture, would be to go to war against those with very different, or even offensive ideas. The player could 'possibly' receive backlash if they didn't go to war (in a very aggressive society), or they would at least be passing up the opportunity for a relatively 'smooth' war, where the people were very gun-ho about fighting.



POWER

Windmills, watermills, power plants, and so on, should all be part of a national power system. A humongous city may require power siphoned from large tracts of the country (like, power from the area of 3 cities, in civ 4, could be directed to one city). However, the more distance the power is transported, the more waste there is, and the more expensive infrastructure is. So there would be algorithms somewhat similar to distance maintenance, in Civ 4. However, the maintenance would be paid in wasted power also, so if a nation had very short supplies of coal, natural gas, etc., they would have to take care to localize power, and perhaps not be able to sustain extremely large cities, or just have very polluted cities full of coal plants. An industrial era should 'definitely' be in there, during which most power would have to be localized, first in the form water mills and such, later in factories. Later technology would bring ability to transfer the electricity through large power grids.

EXPANSION


Expansion of population should have some automated elements to it. Cities should spring up in desirable places, or wither away if the area is no longer desirable(most of the citizens would return to other cities). A city with many attractions should automatically have people flock towards it. A large city without attractions will likely stagnate, or have people leave to other cities. This would actually make culture partially necessary to have a production or science monster of a city. It will be hard to have a huge workforce if people don't like living there (not that there aren't ways around that, slavery, etc ).

The player would be able to play a large role in expanding, directing people to settle in certain areas, and tell them what to build there(farms, mines, etc.). However, this would have more of a cost than natural expansion(it gets progressively harder to tell a nation of people to move around at your whim), so the best strategy would rely on both to certain extents, perhaps deciding which areas require more directed and aggressive settling (border pushing), while allowing natural expansion in other areas.

 

[wodvamp]

Improved Diplomacy particularly in the later games, for one thing. How about failed AI states, terrorism (or improved espionage), coups, rebellions/ revolutions, civil wars etc.

With regards to the idea of revolutions, Civ5 could include civilizations based on history (eg, a rebellion of English colonies not on the starting land mass form America). I’d also like a better recreation of modern history, perhaps with the concept of a Cold War and proxy wars.

 

[vsoma]

Resources, and the abundance with which they are owned, has been a dominant force in history. Civ 4 makes resources relatively important, but trade does not explode when, for example, a civilization has 8 tiles of spice, and other civilizations have none. A civilization with an abundance of oil cannot make more tanks and planes than a smaller civilization, which would run out of oil and need to rely more on manpower.

That's right, quantity of resources should be added.

And so on...both game play and entertainment value are important, but so is keeping to the spirit of true history. And in doing so, I believe the game would have a natural cohesiveness and playability that would be hard to match. Not to mention the players' intuitions would then serve them very well, since they have an awareness of the real world and how things work.

No. In this game YOU make the history. If the true history would restrict you from playing, it'd be very boring after a short time (would you play Civ 5 if you could only have the civilizations in 4000 BC which existed then? I wouldn't).
Try Rhyes and Falls mod in Civ 4, it's historically accurate.

An easy way to envision the "cultural system" would be like the current civic system. There would be different attitudes that could be adopted by a nation. For example, "views of the afterlife". Ascension to another plane, wandering the earth as spirits, reincarnation, so on, all could have practical effects on a civilization. With spirits, people are more likely to stay in their homelands, as to not leave their relatives behind. With ascension to a another plane, the development of Gods and modern religions could be hurried, leading to more "advanced" or organized religious societies. You could see some civilizations go far into the modern age with keeping their views of spirits and reincarnation, while other civilizations "advanced". Reincarnation could make people more respectful of nature, resulting in lesser ability to exploit it for resources, but more happiness and richness of life (culture points or some such).

That's overcomplicating and unnecessary in my opinion. What do you mean with "more likely to stay in their homeland"? +100% Settler cost?
Remember, people want total control over their civilizations.

Only the more major cultural values throughout history would likely be included in the cultural system, as to not make it too complex, but still make it rich. Much of it would also be automated (although determined often by how the player acts) so much of it could just be ignored at times. But it would always effect things. Sometimes it could make a forward swing and help the goals of the human player. Sometimes there could be a cultural backlash and a changing of values, which impedes the player from his current decisions. Throughout history culture and values have ebbed and flowed, it would be no different here. Unless you truly made it your aim to make it static (low education, closed society, police state, so on).

Only if it is optional. I don't think if I was not annoyed by micromanaging my school system after a while.

There could also be "degrees" of attitudes. A simple example, would be "tolerance of outsiders". This would go from very low to very high.

With high tolerance, trade and sharing of ideas is higher, leading to more research, more money, but also, more impact on the nation's culture. You, the player, would have less control on your nation's values, if you led a high tolerance nation.

With very low tolerance, a nation would have low levels of trade and cultural influence, yet this would make the civilization able to be more stable and controlled, as it's "cultural system" would not be altered.

A strange one. Would these degrees be civics?

Some cultural aspects would make relatively minor effects on the game. Some could be very major, and determine a turning point in history. For example, the "nationalism" tech in Civ 4 is a cultural movement. "crusades" could be another development, which is a cultural movement.

What does a cultural movement do to your civ?

You could choose historic civs with pre-determined starting cultural values. You could also create your own custom civ with cultural values, although some combinations would not be possible because you'd have to "purchase" the advances to make those values available at the beginning, or allocate points to set a slider for a certain value at very high or very low, increasingly so as you get to the extreme ends.

I think we rather need more historically accurate scenarios (like a world map with all the civilizations at their real starting places). And more normal scenarios too.

RESOURCES:

It is paramount that abundance of resources matters, instead of just "having" or "not having". A civilization with 3 coppers could leverage it to become a dominating force in the ancient period, even over those with 1 copper. Of course there would be things to balance this out, but the 3 coppers would be a matter of great importance.

I agree. Though this need some modification, because having extreme amounts of e.g. Iron doesn't make you make swordsman 200% faster - you don't have the manpower to create the weapons.

Copper = weapons. Now, having more copper doesn't mean you necessarily make "better" weapons, but you can make more. So what would seem a natural possibility, is, the more copper you have, the faster you can build units.

So the player with 5 coppers would get, say, a 50% production bonus to metal equipment, making them able to quickly produce heavily armored infantry(heavy infantry would require more copper, as opposed to manpower), or quickly produce the equipment requirement for lighter infantry.

No, rather you could train more at once (in different cities of course). Like I said, having uncountable amounts of iron doesn't make you create swordsman in an instant.

However, an army isn't just a bunch of copper. You need soldiers, too. So there would some way to incorporate a "human" and "equipment" component to each unit, perhaps each consisting of 50% of the cost, although this would vary with units (the limiting factor for riflemen was usually manpower, so that may be a 70-30 cost).

Would that reduce the cities' population like drafting? If so, I agree.

The ability to produce and maintain the "human" component would depend on many things. How many people the nation has in total, it's cultural values and willingness to fight or be conscripted, how much money you are willing to pay units (if you pay more, more people will be willing to enter your manpower pool).

Not every army were mercenaries. And what about liability for military service?

PRODUCTION:
The system of production, where for normal production only a city can contribute to the projects inside it, should be altered. Workers and resources from all over the empire could be brought to the capital, to produce an immense wonder, for example.
However, it would all come with penalties, as opposed to only relying on local production capability. You would have to pay more money for labor, you would lose some overall production, you would use some more resources. When a player decides to re-route resources they will be notified of estimations for the penalties (could be a small random range). "collection" and distribution of resources (metal, wood, etc.) should not have to be controlled by the player to play well. The system should be user-friendly, yet still realistic. A player could go much of the game with never looking at the national pools, although they will not do as well.

It'd be easier and better to make it able to transfer people from one city to another, and make them workers in that city. With some penalty of course.

However, there does need to be a variety of resources instead of just "hammers". Wood, stone, metal, so on. Later on in the game some would just be taken out of the pool as they become insignificant. You don't have to keep track of your stone once you reach the industrial and modern age.

So, all the resources could be collected and put into national pools, which are displayed to the player (100 wood production, for example, 1000 wood in your pool). If you run out of wood supply your production will not "stop", but you will just build more slowly. Just like with the copper for units, it just increases production rate. Wood would, however, naturally accumulate, as you don't have to "tell" your nation to go and collect wood, it just does.

This central storage thing is unrealistic I guess.

So each city will tend to have wood available. However, you could put special emphasis on it, for example, shifting 70% of a cities laborers to lumber gathering, leaving 30% for stone collecting. If anyone has played sim ant, it could be like the system in that game, where you set your percent of ants to "nursing, gathering, building", simply by sliding a pointer on a circle display... if you slide it all the way to nursing, 100% of the ants would nurse.

How are you going to put this in the game?

RESEARCH:

Research should NOT be as directed and controlled as it is.

Strongly disagreed. Remember, Civ is about total control.

Breakthroughs often come through personal efforts of random individuals, depending on the nation's surroundings and interesting. So, if this were applied in Civ 4, if you had 4 cows nearby your civilization wouldn't randomly research fishing. The people would quickly get around to researching the cows, and how to utilize them.

Your idea that civs can't discover techs unless they need them is good, but I think they should be able to discover them, just less efficiently - or something like that. Like if you are in great need of animal husbandry, you'll become some bonus, but researching techs which you don't need (like sailing without any water access) would result in a penalty, like your ships can travel slower or something like that. Just a random idea.

However, the government can also direct resources towards specific discoveries. But they would not be able to mobilize the whole nation's scientific potential for this.

So you would have a government-based research and one (or more?) individual researches?

So there would be multiple forces effecting research. Interaction with foreigners would also play a significant role, going back to the "intolerant" versus "tolerant", although only certain techs would be exchanged this way, for example many military technologies would not (nor would those military technologies typically be researched by the people, but only the government).

Also, there should be a degree of randomness in the tech tree. You CANNOT depend on opening up the path to a certain technology. In Civ 4 the tech tree is dynamic in that there are multiple routes to different technologies, but you always know any of those paths will unlock certain technologies.

Randomness with big affect on the gameplay is not a good thing in a game. The player wants to depend on his abilities, not on his luck.

Pre-requisites would increase the odds of "eureka moments", which would then unlock techs so you could put direct effort into a technology, to advance in a certain direction. But you will have to play to the development of science, you will not determine it yourself. You would not be able to know what technologies you will specifically get, or be able to get. But you can promote scientific endeavor in your nation, so a citizen is more likely to create the first working plane, or invent the light bulb.

I want control over where my nation is advancing, so I disagree.

However, military research would often be more predictable and directed. So players would not really get into situations where they lucked out in regards to a military technology, and were left in the dust.

Players WILL get into such situations in non-militarian technologies if your idea (the individual researchers one) is going to be implemented.

One thing to note, is what has naturally emerged from my "rules"(ways to implement reality), is that isolated nations can develop very specialized and distinct cultures. They are more likely to master a type of military, out of necessity. They are more likely to develop a culture, which they stick to, and develop strong conviction in. This would also work for groups of nations, which would influence each other's cultures, but not be influenced by ideas of distant nations. You could have large "clashes" of ideas, as worlds meet, perhaps creating geographic wars, or distrust.

Interesting one. It'd be fun, but how would you implement it?

POWER

Windmills, watermills, power plants, and so on, should all be part of a national power system. A humongous city may require power siphoned from large tracts of the country (like, power from the area of 3 cities, in civ 4, could be directed to one city). However, the more distance the power is transported, the more waste there is, and the more expensive infrastructure is. So there would be algorithms somewhat similar to distance maintenance, in Civ 4. However, the maintenance would be paid in wasted power also, so if a nation had very short supplies of coal, natural gas, etc., they would have to take care to localize power, and perhaps not be able to sustain extremely large cities, or just have very polluted cities full of coal plants. An industrial era should 'definitely' be in there, during which most power would have to be localized, first in the form water mills and such, later in factories. Later technology would bring ability to transfer the electricity through large power grids.

As long as it's optional. Casual players don't want such micromanagement, only the fanatics do.

EXPANSION

Expansion of population should have some automated elements to it. Cities should spring up in desirable places, or wither away if the area is no longer desirable(most of the citizens would return to other cities). A city with many attractions should automatically have people flock towards it. A large city without attractions will likely stagnate, or have people leave to other cities. This would actually make culture partially necessary to have a production or science monster of a city. It will be hard to have a huge workforce if people don't like living there (not that there aren't ways around that, slavery, etc ).

Dynamic cities, huh? I'd be rather statisfied of being able to leave my cities. I don't want automatism like this in the game, but as long as it's optional, I don't mind.

The player would be able to play a large role in expanding, directing people to settle in certain areas, and tell them what to build there(farms, mines, etc.). However, this would have more of a cost than natural expansion(it gets progressively harder to tell a nation of people to move around at your whim), so the best strategy would rely on both to certain extents, perhaps deciding which areas require more directed and aggressive settling (border pushing), while allowing natural expansion in other areas.

This automatic expansion is not an idea of my favor. I want total control over my expansion too.

When I play a game, I don't want to be restricted. I play the game because I want to get away from reality, not to further get into it.

 

[Levgre]

The root problem is, if you make the human control everything, you are always going to be limiting the scope and complexity of the game, because the human can only control so much.

The ideal system, in my opinion, has the player having just as many choices and level of control as in civ 4, but just having MORE options. And then having a portion of them be automatic, that the player can monitor, and guide to effect it in more subtle ways. Like setting policy, micro-managing "specific" aspects they chose to micro-manage, etc.
So while I understand your concern about too many things being out of the players control, I think if you reach a fine balance between control and automatism the player will hardly even notice, and be plenty busy with other tasks.


The level of automatism also would increase as the game goes on, early on you control a much greater portion of things, while later on when the game is on a more epic scale, you shift more to the guiding role, versus total control. Many people voice the concern that late civ game gets tedious and overwhelming, because the player has to control everything.


Also, just a quick question, if you disagree of production bonuses from resources, do you think the production bonus of wonder resources, for example, stone for pyramids, should be removed? I think if you made abundant resources "only" increase quantity, the effect of them can be underwhelming, or possibly 'too' powerful, like one player can build 20 axemen, the other player is strictly limited to 5, or less. I think a possible good thing is being able to build ANY unit, despite resources, but just having it be more difficult. You can always scrounge up some copper from hills, but without big reserves it's going to be costly, time/effort/resource wise. But both methods could likely be made to be balanced. I was thinking of the "bonus by quantity" as a closer modification of the current system.

 

[vsoma]

The root problem is, if you make the human control everything, you are always going to be limiting the scope and complexity of the game, because the human can only control so much.

I agree here.

The ideal system, in my opinion, has the player having just as many choices and level of control as in civ 4, but just having MORE options. And then having a portion of them be automatic, that the player can monitor, and guide to effect it in more subtle ways. Like setting policy, micro-managing "specific" aspects they chose to micro-manage, etc.
So while I understand your concern about too many things being out of the players control, I think if you reach a fine balance between control and automatism the player will hardly even notice, and be plenty busy with other tasks.

The most important thing is to make players able to create strategies. But if cities just keep appearing random, that already decreases your strategy-making possibilities.
I know you didn't say they have to appear random, but some of them will. And what if you didn't want a city to appear at that position it did, because (e.g.) you wanted to put it a little norther, on a hill, to make it better protected? And what if you lose a war because of this? Players would curse - at least I would

The level of automatism also would increase as the game goes on, early on you control a much greater portion of things, while later on when the game is on a more epic scale, you shift more to the guiding role, versus total control. Many people voice the concern that late civ game gets tedious and overwhelming, because the player has to control everything.

That's true, I rarely achieved world domination since it gets boring to move all stuff. But I think we should let the player decide what he wants to manage and what he wants to automate (like now, I always have the Citizen automation on...). Your idea is better for casual players, mine is better for fans I suppose.

Also, just a quick question, if you disagree of production bonuses from resources...

I don't disagree, I just modified your idea that it will be more logical. Having more resource also requires more manpower to work on it. So one city won't be producing axeman faster if you have five coppers, but five city can produce simultaneously axemen since you have five coppers to work with.

...do you think the production bonus of wonder resources, for example, stone for pyramids, should be removed?

No I don't. It's unreal already being able to build the Eiffel Tower without Iron (and Iron only boosts it).

I think if you made abundant resources "only" increase quantity, the effect of them can be underwhelming, or possibly 'too' powerful, like one player can build 20 axemen, the other player is strictly limited to 5, or less.

If Civ1 has 50 iron and 50 cities, let him produce 50 swordsman simultaneously (one in each city!). And let him rush down and kill Civ2 who has only 10 iron and 10 cities. I don't think this is too powerful nor unfair.

Let resources have units of quantity (so not like you have 50 000 tons of wood but 50 unit wood, just an example). And possibly keep the unit numbers low, that is the goal of using units instead of real units (like kg).

I think a possible good thing is being able to build ANY unit, despite resources, but just having it be more difficult. You can always scrounge up some copper from hills, but without big reserves it's going to be costly, time/effort/resource wise. But both methods could likely be made to be balanced. I was thinking of the "bonus by quantity" as a closer modification of the current system.

Let the resource quantity decide how much war production the civilization shall have. A civilization in the Sahara cut off from every resources should NOT be able to produce any troops at all, since they can't arm their soldiers, even if they have a lot of man to arm (it's questionable in the Sahara...).

Perhaps the central storage was a good idea... I just wouldn't liked the situations like a surrounded city being able to arm himself while having no weapons inside it. Having individual storages would result in tediousness, players would centralize their armories (in e.g. the capital city) not to have to remember where the weapons are and if they lose the city they practically lose the war. So this needs some refining. Maybe have a central storage what you mentioned, but cities cut-off from trade routes can't obtain them? But then we can't pile a lot of weapons up in a city in danger for defense... Mixing global and local storages wouldn't make much sense in my opinion. What is your advise on this?

(I get increasingly frustrated with the damn AI, they behave like beggars and 8 years old children combined. Get rid of the penalty bonus if you don't accede to their demands like stop trading with that or come to war, and drastically reduce the amount they keep asking you for these. Maybe more in the ancient times and less and less while advancing towards modern era).
(I also love when China declares war on France in the Earth 18 civs scenario and keeps asking me to come war and eventually his attitude changes from pleased to annoyed. I'm annoyed too!).

 

[RulerOfDaPeople]

I think the way the Manhatten project is done should be reformed. I mean just because you build it doesn't mean every civ in the rest of the world automatically knows how to split the atom! They should have to steal it (great spy) or build/research one for themselves.

I also think it would be a great idea if leaders that have the same leadership traits get a diplomatic bonus for being so similar, and like each other more. That is after all, how it usually works in real life politics. Like minded leaders like each other more than others.

It would also be pretty neat if there was a way to pre-program that certian leaders/civs automaticly start out diliking other civs. For example historical enemies and rivals like Ramesses disliking the Hittites and Israel. Or Roosevelt disliking Hirohito's Japan while starting friendly towards Churchill. Washington disliking any English Monarchs... Reagan disliking Stalin (and vice versa) and pretty much hating the communist civics in general but also being very friendly to the English and democracy. Etc etc etc.

 

[Ekmek]

i'll just throw in that i like the colonization specialist system. its cool that yo have to arm your citizen to get a unit. Thta way your populationa nd military size are better correlated.

on top of that i think there should more factors than food that lead to citygrowth - happiness, culture, prosperity - whatever

i'd love to see resource trading like colonization into the civ4 game - but i know tahts just dreaming


finally I hope civ5 atleast is easy to nake graphics or maybe compatible with civ4 graphics - we've done 5 years of work. it kind of sucks that we have to start from scratch each time a civ game comes out. Mods tend to be there best right about the time they release a new Civ

 

[RulerOfDaPeople]

I also want to add that I think by a certain era like the industrial age, a city should not be limited to it's fat cross for food and such. Make the trade routes matter more and make it more like in real life. Where we ship things from the valley in california and also stuff from Florida to all of the USA for our food. By the time certain techs become available a city should not be limited to it's own t boarders and should be able to recieve/ship extra food and commerce from all across your empire (if it's on the same continent).