Yes but as far as I went looking in these mods, their quality is quite... low. I mean, they use the same models existing in the game, just giving them different clothes. I know modeling (especially human beings) is a hard work, still, that doesn't change that I don't want Matthias the Just (hungarian king) as Louis XIV, just with different clothes!
Also, it was funny that I wanted to try Rhyes and Falls, and it crashed, even though it's a mod distributed within the game (I mean, it's in the game without downloading it). So I'm little sceptic about mods' compatibility.
That is one of the things that aggravated me about the new leaderheads as well, but there are a handful of really well-done modding components available now. The quality has definitely improved over the last year especially. I've managed to incorporate some new wonders, and with the exception of the wonder movie, you would swear they came with the base game.
If you got a specific error message, you can post it in Rhye's subforum and he can probably tell you what is going on...it's also in the Creation and Customization area.
By the way, I noticed that random map generator isn't very random - it's easy to spot repetative terrain. E.g. an outstanding part of a continent very similar to Kamchatca in Russia, it's quite common in Custom Continents.
And not to be offtopic completely: Civ 5 must make fleets much more important. Currently you only need one or two better ship to defend yourself from the barbarian ships which appear every 1000. year and then you are protected. Pirates should pop-up a lot more often (perhaps Raging pirates and No pirates options besides barbarians? Or rather have a trackbar for both to determine exactly their amount).
Just a random idea: units should have "Readiness", "Supply", and "Morale".
Readiness: constantly decreasing while doing actions, only increases when resting or doing something light (e.g. going very slowly).
Supply: constantly decreasing, only increasing on spots with supply - these spots are: whole territory of yours, your vassals, permanent allies, places with supply routes (these supply routes can be disrupted therefore effectively cutting out the unit from gaining additional resources for fight).
Morale: constantly decreasing, especially after losing a fight (and withdrawn, of course, not wiped out). It increases when you win a fight, or rest.
If either of these attributes drop under (just saying a number) 15%, then there is a chance that the unit will disband (and the chance increasing with further decreasement in these numbers). I don't know what they should do, simply disappear (die) or become barbarians (disband) or turn to the enemy (betray). If there are multiple chances of these, nationalism civic should decrease the chance of the second two significantly.
I know this changes the combat system fully, just an idea. It should be optional I think, because it'll frighten off casual players, but it's a good thing to have for more advanced players to give additional depth to wars. It also prevents you from exploring the whole world with a warrior (which some of you mentioned to be a problem) because it'll run out of supply and die. I don't want it to be a mod because you can't load more mods at once.
Some really timid addition (optional of course!): individual units should cost more maintanence than stacks. That way you'll actually have armies on the battleground instead of lonely hunters.
What about it?
I actually liked the repetitive terrain, because it gave the feel of Earth when you saw Earth-like terrain patterns. However, I have switched over to using the Hemispheres generator instead of the Continents generator, and I think it is much better in terms of coastlines, rudimentary mountain ranges, and such. Hemispheres is now my #2 map type after Pangaea.
Blockades in BtS add more value to your fleets, letting you completely seal off your enemies' trade route income as well as steal gold with privateers. In some ways, the players provide the pirates.
The one thing your supply model does not include is foraging. The notion of bringing all your food along on your conquest is kind of modern--ancient armies would just steal food and supplies from the locals. Supply lines also are more important for modern armies because they are so much larger and more complicated. Even during the 19th century foraging was a common practice: Sherman's army was out of supply for months during the American Civil War, but they fed on Southern crops and livestock. Hannibal was out of supply in Italy for 16 (!) years or so, but his army kept fighting.
Here is my initial ideas on Civ V:
1. Different Graphics Engine: the cartoony graphics of Civ IV may be technically improved, but they are going in the wrong direction. Realistic, darker graphics would make the game more moody, dramatic, and realistic.
2. Provinces and Regions and Colonies: the game should generate pre-programmed names to regions (and eventually provincial states), possibly tied to the nation that first explores the area. This kind of nomenclature would give the game a much needed dose of 1) reality, and 2) potential for macro-strategy definitions. I explain macro-strategy definitions later. Also, these regions should include a unique bonus that is only found in that region of the map. These regional bonuses should be elaborate and require the possessor of that land to develop to a specific point before that bonus is fully utilized. For example, a boreal forested region should include many beaver, which, once fully acquired, should become a functioning colony that brings in a significant amount of money.
Moreover, the drama of discovering a river valley, desert, island, etc.. with a specific and semi-unique name would make the game seem more real and dramatic. Thus, more exciting. it would also help the player engage with the world and set strategy accordingly.
2. Populations in Conflict: This is a complicated concept -> throughout history, even the absolute authoritarian leaders, such as Louis XIV, were unable to control every man within their empire. Civ games disregard this fact and place the player in a God-like position. We could utilize this fact by allowing "mini-conflicts" (for want of a better term) to occur on the frontier between competing powers. These mini-wars might occur every so often and provide results based on cultural strength, technological prowess. These mini-conflicts would occur primarily where two powers are competing for control of a distant resource. I am not entirely sure what the results of these conflicts would look like or how they would be generated, but I think I am on to something.
3. The game just generally needs to be more realistic. Colonies should be easy to establish, but difficult to control and retain. Graphics need to be darker, more realistic, and more random events such as climate changes and natural disasters should occur.
Personally, I would enjoy being interrupted from normal gameplay "work" with elaborate texts and otherwise that tell a story of what is happening on the ground. The place names given to regions and provinces could easily be inserted to the pre-programmed textual presentations and make the game come alive. I believe the next level of Civilization all starts with regional name specificity. From there, we can derive stories and narratives that are compelling and tie together all the best elements of the game.
These are just my initial ideas. Anyone agree? Or am I alone on this?
I think Civ kept the cartoony graphics to appeal to a wider audience. I always hated the longbowmen shooting their goofy red-and-white striped arrows, but it doesn't prevent me from enjoying an epic game of conquest and diplomacy.
You could probably achieve your "regional" effect by increasing the resource clustering in the map-generating Python scripts. Already, you will see "clumps" of 4 sugar resources or 3 spice resources...this can be made to apply to other types of bonuses as well. You can also drop your own signs with the interface, so having the game "force" a name for the region seems redundant to me. I also don't get how this will make the player more likely to engage with the world--if you are a good player, you know how to set up cities to maximize their effect without a sign popping up saying "Beaver Valley!" or something like that.
I think you could model the "Populations in Conflict" with a series of random events in the current game. I am working on a system right now that has automatic triggers when certain conditions are met, and I could probably figure out the share-a-border-with-a-strategic-resource condition with Python. Right now, I am programming events like discovering Communism with a representative government leads to a socialist party that agitates for State Property or causes riots.
I also don't think Civ 5 will become a RSG--a random story generator. The RNG would totally screw it over.
I really want to be able to instruct my military on how to proceed. I want to be able to chart out my military lines. Someone earlier posted about cutting off supply lines. This would be great. Also, pitched battles occurred throughout most of history. The AI should meet you in the field for pitched battles.
Back to my main idea: macro-strategy could be set by the player in a war-room screen of some kind. There, you could create draw the lines for military units to stay on and move as an army. This would let you keep your military in your cities until you decide to initiate your invasion.
I just want to be able to make battle plans like the military leaders did in history, by devising plans on maps with arrows and pieces. You should also be able to give tactical orders for when the units reach their targets. Flanking, guerilla tactics, etc...
Basically, I want to be able to design my war and watch it play out. i don't like having to control each unit on every turn. I want to be able to make changes as we go, but do not want to hold their hand for every move. But most of all, the excitement in planning an invasion or counter-invasion would make the game more realistic and more memorable. Similarly, names for provinces, regions, and mountain ranges would make the game more memorable.
The battle plans just sounds like a lot of work. Oh I built a new unit, so now I have to go modify my battle plans. Wait, do I have recent intelligence? It could just become burdensome.
Civilization has always been a strategic game of resource allocation and grand maneuvering, not a tactical game, which I why I don't think they will ever implement a battlefield command. That is taken care of in the combat odds.
Also, the AI
isn't meeting you for pitched battles? I got suprise-attacked by over 100 cavalry from Justinian last game! And this was a Standard-sized map, not some Huge monster!
I want nukes!
