We had a civ5 thread in the civ3 forum but they moved it here to the civ4 section. Be sure to add that when you sqeel on me to TF
Civilization V
- Thread starter bioelectricclam
- Start date
We had a civ5 thread in the civ3 forum but they moved it here to the civ4 section. Be sure to add that when you sqeel on me to TF
Thats right. I bet you didn't. No rebuttle except get lost we don't want to play witch you ?
Or
"IM telling the teacher! Comon guys! let him have his own playground, we'll all go over here n play!" 
Sound about right? Figures with the fan type
warpstorm
Yumbo? Yumbo!
To side with TA Jones (which is rare), there are some things I too liked better in Civ3 (and Civ2 and Civ1 for that matter) than Civ4. The designer for V should not look just at Civ4 for inspiration, but look at the series as a whole (and dare I say, outside the series).
Ah, Its no sweat. Im used to this by now. Actually I think they had a problem with my rsuhedd grammer. So I apolgize if I was lil rough and took the liberty to clean it up somewhat for some better rebutts hopefully
Here it is again..
Civ3 plays better on expanding empires so real equals more fun in this case.
On top of a general tone down to elimate a sea of red when you travel to another continent, you also have things like prisons to take out corruption but add maintence charges. Its easy to build because corruption ain't the crippler it once was. See this is how it should be for civ5
NO big deal you say? Well with 500 turns consisting of thousands of individual movements, you don't think we got a lil problem here?
So its not silly. The cartoon graphics cost you.
The solution as I said was in civ3's cityveiw window. Its common knowledge everything looked better in civ3 arial veiw then on the big poly mainmap.
Let the modder add his buildings to the arial veiw and soon youve got distinct city scapes the likes the game has never seen..Best none of it effects performance as each window is a seprate offshoot, not one giant map to weight down with the stacks of visual effects for units, terrain improvements, naked tiles, citys animations, all running on one giant pallete file. IS it any wonder you can't play a huge map late into the game
Whats that? Someone having a BAD computer is not your problem? OK you can 'print screen' a 400+ city globe from your game then please. Ya Didn't think so. You must like small maps .
What I talk about is the type of idea that would improve the look and performance drastically on todays rigs. Best, they could add more places where the worldwide artists can collectivly refine the graphics overtime like they did with civ3 but this time on a grand scale, not grand skinning
Im talking about potential to fill out city sets, production stamps, irrigation stamps, forts, but mostly the arial city graphics.
Have the flavour be spread out for potentially more variety in 'distinct era look' and 'culture look' in as many aspects as possable for This equals better historical representation not just eyecandy.
......Ok kids take out your text book and read pages 17-20 on BTS thread
THe main thing is civ3 AI respects you borders. Yet you have to respect thier strenght because they respect yours and thats why this system is real and why its the system civ5 should improve on.
First off Why don't you sign a RP with them? Whats the problem? Must be something you want to keep them away from I guess, but why should they let you keep them away from an enemy or a much need resource on the other side of you border?
If they are weak tell them to leave. Congrats you've got them out of you territory!!. But what If they are strong..stronger then you atleast? Well here you risk getted called out if you try to push them out. You can lower that risk by building strength and payin the cost of that strength not puttin up some magic wall that keep them from whatever you want for yourself at some conveinent later date.
In civ3 ITs a risk that encourages you to know whats going on around you. IT makes it a strategy game worth playin over n over.
As for plain clothed intrusions.... You think its not fair some civillian can walk across you borders? PLease!
Half the time they are there to help with joint trade projects like roads where you both benifit. Pretend your advisor autherized it cuz all its doing is saving you resources.
Now You can't complain at all because the program lets you both sneak workers on 'business trips' across the border without official pacts and this is what real AI spying is about! This is how you check out AI battles unlike waiting for the spy in civ4
ITs how you know when to let a civ pass through or even join him to share the prize. Its how you know its safe to kick him out. It costs populaton points but seeing the big picture is a part of the game and why Civ3's border sytem puts Civ4's to shame
As for settlers.... Well when settler are crossing you really think you have a safe cultural border? Its before the middle ages and you think some settler should not plop down because you have a few tents already in place in the area? Go kick his ass fool! If you felt that passionate about it do something about it, Jeez what a wimp! lol.
This lil 'securty blanket, this 'magic wall'. you feel you need in civ4's border system makes me understand why they call it Sesame civ. It has nothing to do with the graphics. lol
Actually I think they had a problem with my rsuhedd grammer. So I apolgize if I was lil rough and took the liberty to clean it up somewhat for some better rebutts hopefullyHere it is again..
No, unofficial civ3 lowered corruption with higher maintence. Civ4 has unreal levels of maintence and no corruption losses which is unreal.
Civ3 plays better on expanding empires so real equals more fun in this case.
On top of a general tone down to elimate a sea of red when you travel to another continent, you also have things like prisons to take out corruption but add maintence charges. Its easy to build because corruption ain't the crippler it once was. See this is how it should be for civ5
Thats cool but so what? These wern't bugs these were balance issues that got sorted out. Thats what civ4's unoffical patch did aswell.
The gameboard flaws really kill the game. In civ3 you can have your stack of workers chop a whole jungle in 1 second. Thats 10 chops rapid clicked. Not so with civ4 no matter the specs. The same with unit movement or scrolling the screen fast. Civ3 gameboard is rapid response and in civ4 ITs all bogged down with deleys.
NO big deal you say? Well with 500 turns consisting of thousands of individual movements, you don't think we got a lil problem here?
So its not silly. The cartoon graphics cost you.
Right back to what I said. Ditch the animated kiddie stuff and go back to the tactioners function for the main board. We don't need that kind of distraction I talked about that results when plotting and moving.
The solution as I said was in civ3's cityveiw window. Its common knowledge everything looked better in civ3 arial veiw then on the big poly mainmap.
Let the modder add his buildings to the arial veiw and soon youve got distinct city scapes the likes the game has never seen..Best none of it effects performance as each window is a seprate offshoot, not one giant map to weight down with the stacks of visual effects for units, terrain improvements, naked tiles, citys animations, all running on one giant pallete file. IS it any wonder you can't play a huge map late into the game
Whats that? Someone having a BAD computer is not your problem? OK you can 'print screen' a 400+ city globe from your game then please. Ya Didn't think so. You must like small maps .
What I talk about is the type of idea that would improve the look and performance drastically on todays rigs. Best, they could add more places where the worldwide artists can collectivly refine the graphics overtime like they did with civ3 but this time on a grand scale, not grand skinning
Im talking about potential to fill out city sets, production stamps, irrigation stamps, forts, but mostly the arial city graphics.
Have the flavour be spread out for potentially more variety in 'distinct era look' and 'culture look' in as many aspects as possable for This equals better historical representation not just eyecandy.
......Ok kids take out your text book and read pages 17-20 on BTS thread
THe main thing is civ3 AI respects you borders. Yet you have to respect thier strenght because they respect yours and thats why this system is real and why its the system civ5 should improve on.
First off Why don't you sign a RP with them? Whats the problem? Must be something you want to keep them away from I guess, but why should they let you keep them away from an enemy or a much need resource on the other side of you border?
If they are weak tell them to leave. Congrats you've got them out of you territory!!. But what If they are strong..stronger then you atleast? Well here you risk getted called out if you try to push them out. You can lower that risk by building strength and payin the cost of that strength not puttin up some magic wall that keep them from whatever you want for yourself at some conveinent later date.
In civ3 ITs a risk that encourages you to know whats going on around you. IT makes it a strategy game worth playin over n over.
As for plain clothed intrusions.... You think its not fair some civillian can walk across you borders? PLease!
Half the time they are there to help with joint trade projects like roads where you both benifit. Pretend your advisor autherized it cuz all its doing is saving you resources. Now You can't complain at all because the program lets you both sneak workers on 'business trips' across the border without official pacts and this is what real AI spying is about! This is how you check out AI battles unlike waiting for the spy in civ4
ITs how you know when to let a civ pass through or even join him to share the prize. Its how you know its safe to kick him out. It costs populaton points but seeing the big picture is a part of the game and why Civ3's border sytem puts Civ4's to shame
As for settlers.... Well when settler are crossing you really think you have a safe cultural border? Its before the middle ages and you think some settler should not plop down because you have a few tents already in place in the area? Go kick his ass fool! If you felt that passionate about it do something about it, Jeez what a wimp! lol.
This lil 'securty blanket, this 'magic wall'. you feel you need in civ4's border system makes me understand why they call it Sesame civ. It has nothing to do with the graphics. lol
Sam_Yeager
Another Original Geezer
Maybe they don't agree with your point of view either.
warpstorm said:
I don't have a problem with that point of view. It's possible that T.A.JONES may actually like something in Civ4, although pretty unlikely, but it's buried in the long essays (diatribes?) about why Civ4 is rubbish.
If great people are going to be in Civ 5, then please do us one HUGE favor and DO NOT auto place specialists.
They ruin my GP farms
Today was funny. i had my city with the Great Library, Uni of Sankore, National Epic, and 2 Scientist specialists pop a Great Engineer on a 80% chance of a Great Scientist spawn rate, because the game decides to auto place an engineer specialist every time the city grows.
God damn ******ed.
Oh, and graphics that will make my 3870 bleed to death please
They ruin my GP farms
Today was funny. i had my city with the Great Library, Uni of Sankore, National Epic, and 2 Scientist specialists pop a Great Engineer on a 80% chance of a Great Scientist spawn rate, because the game decides to auto place an engineer specialist every time the city grows.
God damn ******ed.
Oh, and graphics that will make my 3870 bleed to death please
I don't know why I get sucked into this...
My reference to bugs was in response to what I saw to be the main subjects of the threads that I browsed... graphics/performance, and bugs. As I said, I am not concerned about people who have trouble playing the game because their computer is too old. It sucks... my computer is finally getting too old to play the newest games, and I actually would not be surprised if I cannot play Civ V. But I am not going to claim that is a flaw with Civ V, or that I'd prefer not to have better graphics. I'm sure you will contend that Civ III has better graphics. I am not interested in this debate, because the graphics are relatively unimportant to me, and it will be a matter of taste. Feel free to post some beautiful Civ III screenshots if that's what floats your boat.
As I said, bugs are things that get patched. I had no trouble with an unpatched Civ III, and not with Civ IV either. So I am not especially concerned with that, though many others complained about it.
"No, unofficial civ3 lowered corruption with higher maintence."
That is not a response to my point. I said that if you take the good ideas from Civ IV (say, multiple units on the same square, religions, whatever) and apply them to Civ III, what aspects of Civ III are fundamental to the game for me to dislike?
I am guessing from your post that corruption is, which is a feature that I don't like. It's great that someone made it "work" with a mod... I just don't like the system at all. Production declining as a result of distance from the palace is not preferable to it merely costing extra money, which makes a great deal more sense to me.
You're not winning any converts by declaring Civ IV to be "Sesame Civ." People responded quite intelligently to the discussion of borders in the other threads; the fact that you were not convinced does not make them wrong, or make it so everyone must accept what you declared in that thread. Solid borders make more sense than having to constantly ask the computer to leave.
It's also stupid that you can successfully bribe away the computer infinitely; in Civ IV they will eventually crush you no matter what you have to offer, because they want your land (or will never ask for anything!). I'm sure that's been modded out of Civ III, and that, in essence, is why this debate can't actually be had if you have no clear boundaries of what is inherently "Civ III."
My reference to bugs was in response to what I saw to be the main subjects of the threads that I browsed... graphics/performance, and bugs. As I said, I am not concerned about people who have trouble playing the game because their computer is too old. It sucks... my computer is finally getting too old to play the newest games, and I actually would not be surprised if I cannot play Civ V. But I am not going to claim that is a flaw with Civ V, or that I'd prefer not to have better graphics. I'm sure you will contend that Civ III has better graphics. I am not interested in this debate, because the graphics are relatively unimportant to me, and it will be a matter of taste. Feel free to post some beautiful Civ III screenshots if that's what floats your boat.
As I said, bugs are things that get patched. I had no trouble with an unpatched Civ III, and not with Civ IV either. So I am not especially concerned with that, though many others complained about it.
"No, unofficial civ3 lowered corruption with higher maintence."
That is not a response to my point. I said that if you take the good ideas from Civ IV (say, multiple units on the same square, religions, whatever) and apply them to Civ III, what aspects of Civ III are fundamental to the game for me to dislike?
I am guessing from your post that corruption is, which is a feature that I don't like. It's great that someone made it "work" with a mod... I just don't like the system at all. Production declining as a result of distance from the palace is not preferable to it merely costing extra money, which makes a great deal more sense to me.
You're not winning any converts by declaring Civ IV to be "Sesame Civ." People responded quite intelligently to the discussion of borders in the other threads; the fact that you were not convinced does not make them wrong, or make it so everyone must accept what you declared in that thread. Solid borders make more sense than having to constantly ask the computer to leave.
It's also stupid that you can successfully bribe away the computer infinitely; in Civ IV they will eventually crush you no matter what you have to offer, because they want your land (or will never ask for anything!). I'm sure that's been modded out of Civ III, and that, in essence, is why this debate can't actually be had if you have no clear boundaries of what is inherently "Civ III."
TheWilltoAct
I am observe
Hmmm yea Civ is supposed to be fun, what is fun about losing production due to corruption...?
yea thats crap. Whats fun about losing? Cut it out...
MagisterCultuum
Great Sage
ahh!! how dare I lose my connection while trying to post my really long reply. I guess I'll try to keep this short now (and probably fail)
Here's what I want for Civ V (that I've thought of so far). I don't care if it takes until 2015 or later to get it.
Cities should not produce one thing at a time, but rather give you the option to allocate resources (hammers) to several different projects. In real like, any city that devoted all its efforts to only one thing at all times would certainly fall.
You should be able to construct multiple versions of the same building in the same city. This should follow a model of diminishing marginal utility, so each one improves the city but not by as much as the one before it. Eventually it becomes pointless to keep building more.
You should be able to allocate your research down multiple paths as well. It makes no sense for a society to devote all research to one specific goal either. Pursuing multiple goals is more productive, since you often make discoveries in one area that help out in another. There should be events that cause research in one area end up helping more in another. Some techs should also reduce the costs of others.
Also, techs should be tied to your environment somewhat; iron working without iron or horseback riding without horses makes no sense. Some techs should require resources, perhaps not requiring you have already harnessed them but it should require that you know they exist.
Techs should not be simply "known" or "unknown." There should be different degrees of knowledge. When you first learn a tech the units/buildings/projects/ect it allows should be more expensive, less useful "prototypes." Building such prototypes should increase the research rate in to more advanced levels of a tech. When you are an expert on a tech, the thing it allows become cheaper and better.
Technological progression should not be one way. There are numerous examples of when technologies have regressed, such as the ancient greek and medieval dark ages. I say "use it or lose it." If the things a tech provides aren't used, your knowledge of it should decrease, even losing all knowledge of it altogether. Libraries, the internet, etc, should decrease the rate of tech loss.
Resources should also go by the law of diminishing marginal utility; having more of them should help, but each new source should be less useful than before. You should be able to trade different quantities of resources, and how much you have should effect unit/building/ect costs.
Obviously, inflation should follow a real world approach based on the amount on money in circulation, not be an arbitrarily rising percentage.
Tiles should be able to have multiple resources, improvements, features, ect. Some may synergize, some may simply coexist, some may be detrimental to each other, and others may be incompatible. For example, a jungle tile could have both aluminum and bananas, but a mine to access the aluminum would destroy the jungle and the bananas. On the other hand, cotton plantations and farms for multiple food resources could coexist, and even make each other more productive.
I think that many resources (especially crops and animals) should be rare at the beginning, but spread as they are domesticated. You should need thee resources in able to build farms, pastures, plantations, orchards, etc, but one you build the improvement it creates another source of them. It could also be possible for these resources to "mutate" or be "further domesticated" (probably through random events), creating superior varieties that you can plant and trade.
It would also be nice if terrain wasn't defined by specific tile types, but by climatic (high/low/average temperatures/rainfall, length of days, types of seasons), geology (soil type, elevation, etc), and biological factors (various biome types)
I think that Cultural borders should be replaced by "Infuence," which would be mostly the same but could also be boosted by the economy of border cities and my the military. Large military garrisons in cities and forts should provide temporary boosts of influence. Influence should be dynamic, not just something that constantly grows.
Borders should at first be determined by Influence, and then by border treaties (possibly requiring a tech like nationalism, although you could argue for it as early as cartography). You should negotiate borders separately with different civs, although they should be very likely to recognize the same borders as other civ in the mages do. Influence, not de jure borders, should control such things as revolts and the nationality of a cities citizens. The AI should always strive to keep as much of the are of their influence as they can within their de jure borders.
There should be several casus belli (valid reasons for war) in the game. These should effect war weariness, the likelihood of AIs declaring war, and the chances that (and sides on which) other AIs will join a conflict. Having large areas of your influence within rival de jure borders would be among these reasons.
There needs to be some sort of multilateral negotiations in the game, at least for peace treaties when civs are fighting multiple wars. You should be able to trade vassals (with the vassals consent). Vassalizing a civ at war should require that you contact their enemies, and either declare war on them or negotiate peace on their behalf. You should also be able to demand that civs free their vassals (at least during peace treaty negotiation)
I think it might work better for the UN and AP to follow a multilateral-negotiation model instead of the current approach. It might also be good not to exactly include them at all, but to allow for civs to create various leagues and alliances in multilateral treaties, the UN being only one of them.
I would like it if you could fight a civ without declaring war. This would greatly anger them, and would be a very good casus belli. You should also be able to violate all your diplomatic agreements if you want to (peace treaties, armistices, open borders, ect), but these too would be huge casus belli, leading many civs to turn on you and never trust you again.
The AI should also keep track of the types of agreements you break, and be less likely to agree to those with you again.
You should be able to trade instant and per-turn trades at the same time. Note that breaking these agreements would make AIs less likely to sign them again, and would be a casus belli.
I don't think there should be closed borders before open border agreements. You should be able to move freely through rival territory, but be ware that your units may be killed. (Intruding would be a slightly larger cassus belli than killing intruders, so this would not constitute them declaring war on you.) You should also be able to negotiate various types of Rite of Passage agreements, not just "open borders" (although that might be one option). You should be able to limit the type and number of units to enter, and limit where in your empire they can go. (For example, you might allow an army to pass through part of your border to get to an enemy, but not to get near your cities. Or, you could allow civilians to move freely but not let opposing armies make your lands into a battle ground)
I'd like to do away with the "city radius." Instead, yields of a tile would be reduced based on the distance from the city, due to inefficiencies. How much it is reduced would be a function of terrain, road type, civic options, and especially technology. Early on a city might only be able to effectively work a couple tiles, but as technology progresses and the economy globalizes then it can work any tile in the nation.
I liked how Alpha Centauri let you create unit in game, but I much prefer the modibility of Civ. If it could be recreated without hurting the ability ot mod in xml/python/C++, then I'd be all for it. I also think that worldbuilder needs to be improved greatly. First, I'd make sure you could search for things by typing in their names, instead of having to look through the various unit/building/ect icons. It should also be easier to add and remove civs in game, and to change the diplomatic standings. Ideally, I'd like to be able change anything that is defined in xml for specific units/buildings/leader/civs in game, without changing the base code. I'd like to be able to give specific units any ability I could give to a type of unit through xml, not just give out various promotions.
I'm thinking that xp should be divided into many different types of experience, and that units should get bonuses against types of units that they have often fought (possibly becoming a little worse at fighting new foes). Different promotions would have different xp costs and could be purchased at different prices with different types of xp. They could also have different costs, prereqs, and effects for different unitcombats. (Perhaps it would be better to introduce promotionclasses?) Also, units should be able to have multiple unitcombats (ex, horse archer is both archer and cavalry) and get the promotions form both types.
It might be nice if instead of just "upgrading" new units, you could change them entirely to be any type of unit you want (and can train). Of course, their specialized experience won't make them stronger if you change them to a completely different type of unit. They should keep some sort of marker though, so they can go back to their old type latter on. You could, for instance, turn a soldier into a worker during peace, and conscript workers into soldiers during war. (I'm thinking that workers should have their own sort of xp too, gained through building things, and it should allow them to build things better and faster.)
I don't like how CIV IV doesn't allow ships to enter the ocean, even just to cross one tile. I preferred the Civ III way of making them likely to sink.
I was thinking that a "morale" and/or "loyalty" mechanic could be good. Units with low values would be hesitant to enter dangerous tiles. They would be weaker at fighting, and slower at moving. Very low values would make them refuse your orders, so they would not attack if the odds were overwhelmingly against them, and they would not enter dangerous oceans. Low loyalty means they may defect and join the enemy. Loyalty and Morale would be influenced by civics, golden ages, great generals, war weariness, the influence you have in the city that built them, the distance from your territory/capital, unit strength/health, relative power between you and your enemies, line of sight, traits, promotions, random numbers, etc.
The ability to use multiple maps would be very good. I want to fight in two theaters of war at once, without having to deal with large areas of the map that are irrelevant to the conflict. (I would also like it FfH were adapted to Civ V and could have its "creation" and "hell" maps as originally intended.)
Here's what I want for Civ V (that I've thought of so far). I don't care if it takes until 2015 or later to get it.
Cities should not produce one thing at a time, but rather give you the option to allocate resources (hammers) to several different projects. In real like, any city that devoted all its efforts to only one thing at all times would certainly fall.
You should be able to construct multiple versions of the same building in the same city. This should follow a model of diminishing marginal utility, so each one improves the city but not by as much as the one before it. Eventually it becomes pointless to keep building more.
You should be able to allocate your research down multiple paths as well. It makes no sense for a society to devote all research to one specific goal either. Pursuing multiple goals is more productive, since you often make discoveries in one area that help out in another. There should be events that cause research in one area end up helping more in another. Some techs should also reduce the costs of others.
Also, techs should be tied to your environment somewhat; iron working without iron or horseback riding without horses makes no sense. Some techs should require resources, perhaps not requiring you have already harnessed them but it should require that you know they exist.
Techs should not be simply "known" or "unknown." There should be different degrees of knowledge. When you first learn a tech the units/buildings/projects/ect it allows should be more expensive, less useful "prototypes." Building such prototypes should increase the research rate in to more advanced levels of a tech. When you are an expert on a tech, the thing it allows become cheaper and better.
Technological progression should not be one way. There are numerous examples of when technologies have regressed, such as the ancient greek and medieval dark ages. I say "use it or lose it." If the things a tech provides aren't used, your knowledge of it should decrease, even losing all knowledge of it altogether. Libraries, the internet, etc, should decrease the rate of tech loss.
Resources should also go by the law of diminishing marginal utility; having more of them should help, but each new source should be less useful than before. You should be able to trade different quantities of resources, and how much you have should effect unit/building/ect costs.
Obviously, inflation should follow a real world approach based on the amount on money in circulation, not be an arbitrarily rising percentage.
Tiles should be able to have multiple resources, improvements, features, ect. Some may synergize, some may simply coexist, some may be detrimental to each other, and others may be incompatible. For example, a jungle tile could have both aluminum and bananas, but a mine to access the aluminum would destroy the jungle and the bananas. On the other hand, cotton plantations and farms for multiple food resources could coexist, and even make each other more productive.
I think that many resources (especially crops and animals) should be rare at the beginning, but spread as they are domesticated. You should need thee resources in able to build farms, pastures, plantations, orchards, etc, but one you build the improvement it creates another source of them. It could also be possible for these resources to "mutate" or be "further domesticated" (probably through random events), creating superior varieties that you can plant and trade.
It would also be nice if terrain wasn't defined by specific tile types, but by climatic (high/low/average temperatures/rainfall, length of days, types of seasons), geology (soil type, elevation, etc), and biological factors (various biome types)
I think that Cultural borders should be replaced by "Infuence," which would be mostly the same but could also be boosted by the economy of border cities and my the military. Large military garrisons in cities and forts should provide temporary boosts of influence. Influence should be dynamic, not just something that constantly grows.
Borders should at first be determined by Influence, and then by border treaties (possibly requiring a tech like nationalism, although you could argue for it as early as cartography). You should negotiate borders separately with different civs, although they should be very likely to recognize the same borders as other civ in the mages do. Influence, not de jure borders, should control such things as revolts and the nationality of a cities citizens. The AI should always strive to keep as much of the are of their influence as they can within their de jure borders.
There should be several casus belli (valid reasons for war) in the game. These should effect war weariness, the likelihood of AIs declaring war, and the chances that (and sides on which) other AIs will join a conflict. Having large areas of your influence within rival de jure borders would be among these reasons.
There needs to be some sort of multilateral negotiations in the game, at least for peace treaties when civs are fighting multiple wars. You should be able to trade vassals (with the vassals consent). Vassalizing a civ at war should require that you contact their enemies, and either declare war on them or negotiate peace on their behalf. You should also be able to demand that civs free their vassals (at least during peace treaty negotiation)
I think it might work better for the UN and AP to follow a multilateral-negotiation model instead of the current approach. It might also be good not to exactly include them at all, but to allow for civs to create various leagues and alliances in multilateral treaties, the UN being only one of them.
I would like it if you could fight a civ without declaring war. This would greatly anger them, and would be a very good casus belli. You should also be able to violate all your diplomatic agreements if you want to (peace treaties, armistices, open borders, ect), but these too would be huge casus belli, leading many civs to turn on you and never trust you again.
The AI should also keep track of the types of agreements you break, and be less likely to agree to those with you again.
You should be able to trade instant and per-turn trades at the same time. Note that breaking these agreements would make AIs less likely to sign them again, and would be a casus belli.
I don't think there should be closed borders before open border agreements. You should be able to move freely through rival territory, but be ware that your units may be killed. (Intruding would be a slightly larger cassus belli than killing intruders, so this would not constitute them declaring war on you.) You should also be able to negotiate various types of Rite of Passage agreements, not just "open borders" (although that might be one option). You should be able to limit the type and number of units to enter, and limit where in your empire they can go. (For example, you might allow an army to pass through part of your border to get to an enemy, but not to get near your cities. Or, you could allow civilians to move freely but not let opposing armies make your lands into a battle ground)
I'd like to do away with the "city radius." Instead, yields of a tile would be reduced based on the distance from the city, due to inefficiencies. How much it is reduced would be a function of terrain, road type, civic options, and especially technology. Early on a city might only be able to effectively work a couple tiles, but as technology progresses and the economy globalizes then it can work any tile in the nation.
I liked how Alpha Centauri let you create unit in game, but I much prefer the modibility of Civ. If it could be recreated without hurting the ability ot mod in xml/python/C++, then I'd be all for it. I also think that worldbuilder needs to be improved greatly. First, I'd make sure you could search for things by typing in their names, instead of having to look through the various unit/building/ect icons. It should also be easier to add and remove civs in game, and to change the diplomatic standings. Ideally, I'd like to be able change anything that is defined in xml for specific units/buildings/leader/civs in game, without changing the base code. I'd like to be able to give specific units any ability I could give to a type of unit through xml, not just give out various promotions.
I'm thinking that xp should be divided into many different types of experience, and that units should get bonuses against types of units that they have often fought (possibly becoming a little worse at fighting new foes). Different promotions would have different xp costs and could be purchased at different prices with different types of xp. They could also have different costs, prereqs, and effects for different unitcombats. (Perhaps it would be better to introduce promotionclasses?) Also, units should be able to have multiple unitcombats (ex, horse archer is both archer and cavalry) and get the promotions form both types.
It might be nice if instead of just "upgrading" new units, you could change them entirely to be any type of unit you want (and can train). Of course, their specialized experience won't make them stronger if you change them to a completely different type of unit. They should keep some sort of marker though, so they can go back to their old type latter on. You could, for instance, turn a soldier into a worker during peace, and conscript workers into soldiers during war. (I'm thinking that workers should have their own sort of xp too, gained through building things, and it should allow them to build things better and faster.)
I don't like how CIV IV doesn't allow ships to enter the ocean, even just to cross one tile. I preferred the Civ III way of making them likely to sink.
I was thinking that a "morale" and/or "loyalty" mechanic could be good. Units with low values would be hesitant to enter dangerous tiles. They would be weaker at fighting, and slower at moving. Very low values would make them refuse your orders, so they would not attack if the odds were overwhelmingly against them, and they would not enter dangerous oceans. Low loyalty means they may defect and join the enemy. Loyalty and Morale would be influenced by civics, golden ages, great generals, war weariness, the influence you have in the city that built them, the distance from your territory/capital, unit strength/health, relative power between you and your enemies, line of sight, traits, promotions, random numbers, etc.
The ability to use multiple maps would be very good. I want to fight in two theaters of war at once, without having to deal with large areas of the map that are irrelevant to the conflict. (I would also like it FfH were adapted to Civ V and could have its "creation" and "hell" maps as originally intended.)
Magister: Wow, there are a lot of great ideas in that post. I particularly like the beginning few paragraphs.
"I'd like to do away with the "city radius.""
This paragraph is interesting. Realistically, cities are not the foundation of an empire, except the capital in ancient times (Babylon, Rome, etc.). So really the most logical way to accomplish the goals you're discussing in this paragraph is to free Civilization from the city entirely, rather than your rather strange suggestion of having cities "work tiles" across the empire. This would, of course, completely revolutionize the game to the point that it is only in spirit "Civilization."
You would still have cities, of course, but you wouldn't build them, they would naturally rise up in areas that make sense (in natural harbors like New York, along important rivers like Paris and London, on hills like Rome...). You can send "settlers" to areas you think would make for a good "city," but you would have far less control than you do now on how big or how fast that settlement would grow. Maybe your settlement would fail entirely and disappear. Maybe it would never get larger than a small trading post for local farmers/hunters/trappers. But maybe it would develop into the next Boston or NYC.
"Health" and "happiness" are kind of silly concepts anyway, that you wouldn't really worry so much about. If your city grows to size 10, then wow, great, think of the things you can do! Rome had over 1,000,000 residents in ancient times; it wasn't strangled by citizens declaring "it's too crowded!" and refusing to work. There was a great deal of entertainment and bread, of course, but the citizenry was more upset about its poverty than the size of the city.
Cities wouldn't have a "radius," because your farmers in the countryside would naturally provide food (by selling it to the people in the city). Your entire territory would be what matters... rather than having "blank spots" between your fat crosses, everything that is in your territory would determine how much food you can produce, how much iron or coal or whatever you have, etc. etc. Your job as a leader would be to regulate the economy, foster culture and commerce, and develop infrastructure to encourage growth and the movement of goods/people. In other words, when those farmers start up in the middle of your territory (in some fertile ground), you build the canals they need, the roads they want, and appoint them some magistrates and mayors (or let them elect some).
Having this empire-wide view would also allow for some of the suggestions others have made about combat and raising armies. You could build a standing army, but it would be expensive and unpopular. Most of your troops you raise when you want to go to war, and then they go home.
This would basically be an entirely different game than Civ. But it would be one kind of like how it really is to run a country... you're guiding, encouraging, and sometimes coercing your freely-acting citizens, not commanding your cyber-minions to build a barracks in 5 turns, work that mine but not that farm within 2 "squares" of the city you built (with a settler who took 10 turns), defended by two axemen you "built" 500 years ago.
"I'd like to do away with the "city radius.""
This paragraph is interesting. Realistically, cities are not the foundation of an empire, except the capital in ancient times (Babylon, Rome, etc.). So really the most logical way to accomplish the goals you're discussing in this paragraph is to free Civilization from the city entirely, rather than your rather strange suggestion of having cities "work tiles" across the empire. This would, of course, completely revolutionize the game to the point that it is only in spirit "Civilization."
You would still have cities, of course, but you wouldn't build them, they would naturally rise up in areas that make sense (in natural harbors like New York, along important rivers like Paris and London, on hills like Rome...). You can send "settlers" to areas you think would make for a good "city," but you would have far less control than you do now on how big or how fast that settlement would grow. Maybe your settlement would fail entirely and disappear. Maybe it would never get larger than a small trading post for local farmers/hunters/trappers. But maybe it would develop into the next Boston or NYC.
"Health" and "happiness" are kind of silly concepts anyway, that you wouldn't really worry so much about. If your city grows to size 10, then wow, great, think of the things you can do! Rome had over 1,000,000 residents in ancient times; it wasn't strangled by citizens declaring "it's too crowded!" and refusing to work. There was a great deal of entertainment and bread, of course, but the citizenry was more upset about its poverty than the size of the city.
Cities wouldn't have a "radius," because your farmers in the countryside would naturally provide food (by selling it to the people in the city). Your entire territory would be what matters... rather than having "blank spots" between your fat crosses, everything that is in your territory would determine how much food you can produce, how much iron or coal or whatever you have, etc. etc. Your job as a leader would be to regulate the economy, foster culture and commerce, and develop infrastructure to encourage growth and the movement of goods/people. In other words, when those farmers start up in the middle of your territory (in some fertile ground), you build the canals they need, the roads they want, and appoint them some magistrates and mayors (or let them elect some).
Having this empire-wide view would also allow for some of the suggestions others have made about combat and raising armies. You could build a standing army, but it would be expensive and unpopular. Most of your troops you raise when you want to go to war, and then they go home.
This would basically be an entirely different game than Civ. But it would be one kind of like how it really is to run a country... you're guiding, encouraging, and sometimes coercing your freely-acting citizens, not commanding your cyber-minions to build a barracks in 5 turns, work that mine but not that farm within 2 "squares" of the city you built (with a settler who took 10 turns), defended by two axemen you "built" 500 years ago.
I think the problem with yours and Magister's suggestions is that they break certain game elements down into too much detail. We have to ask ourselves what the spirit of Civ is. I don't think focusing too much on realism helps - some level of abstraction is always going to be necessary and just because something could be made more detailed does not mean the gameplay will be any more fun.
Magister had some nice ideas but I don't think any of them really stood out as creating a fun, significant component of the game. A lot of the suggestions were along the lines of spreading out things rather than focusing them. While this may be more realistic it has the potential to actually restrict strategic options rather than enhance them. It would need A LOT of thinking through. Also, greater detail usually means the AI has a lot more trouble coping with it; This doesn't mean you should shy away from gameplay improvements but it does mean you really need to be especially careful when introducing more complicated game mechanics for the AI.
It should be noted that when things are difficult for the AI you can more or less equate that to the AI taking more time and resources to make decisions, increasing memory usage and turn times.
Frankly I think Civ 4 is nearly detailed enough. There are certainly many parts of the game that could use an improvement mainly due to micro managing issues and diplomacy etc., but already I find that many of the game mechanics are quite complicated. Stepping into the strategy articles forum you find there are dozens of threads where people have gone to great length to expose the core mechanics in detailed formulas.
So the game is already a pretty big number crunching exercise for high level players.
Also consider that generally the more detail you break things into, the longer games become. That's a simple consequence of there probably being more things to do each turn. Again this is something the community is divided over but in my opinion games at the moment take too long. Don't tell me about the gamespeeds because I'm fully aware they're there, but quick speed is hardly used outside of multiplayer because the war game is less fun in quick.
There are a number of different reasons people have for enjoying civ. Historical accuracy and simulation detail are definitely things a lot of people enjoy - especially people in these forums because they appreciate the depth of the game. But I simply want to point out not all players, myself included, care that much about accuracy and detail. What matters most is the variety in challenges from game to game and the interesting decisions that need to be made each game (I'm almost quoting Sid himself there).
Magister had some nice ideas but I don't think any of them really stood out as creating a fun, significant component of the game. A lot of the suggestions were along the lines of spreading out things rather than focusing them. While this may be more realistic it has the potential to actually restrict strategic options rather than enhance them. It would need A LOT of thinking through. Also, greater detail usually means the AI has a lot more trouble coping with it; This doesn't mean you should shy away from gameplay improvements but it does mean you really need to be especially careful when introducing more complicated game mechanics for the AI.
It should be noted that when things are difficult for the AI you can more or less equate that to the AI taking more time and resources to make decisions, increasing memory usage and turn times.
Frankly I think Civ 4 is nearly detailed enough. There are certainly many parts of the game that could use an improvement mainly due to micro managing issues and diplomacy etc., but already I find that many of the game mechanics are quite complicated. Stepping into the strategy articles forum you find there are dozens of threads where people have gone to great length to expose the core mechanics in detailed formulas.
So the game is already a pretty big number crunching exercise for high level players.
Also consider that generally the more detail you break things into, the longer games become. That's a simple consequence of there probably being more things to do each turn. Again this is something the community is divided over but in my opinion games at the moment take too long. Don't tell me about the gamespeeds because I'm fully aware they're there, but quick speed is hardly used outside of multiplayer because the war game is less fun in quick.
There are a number of different reasons people have for enjoying civ. Historical accuracy and simulation detail are definitely things a lot of people enjoy - especially people in these forums because they appreciate the depth of the game. But I simply want to point out not all players, myself included, care that much about accuracy and detail. What matters most is the variety in challenges from game to game and the interesting decisions that need to be made each game (I'm almost quoting Sid himself there).
Well PieceofMind, I actually think that the system I'm describing would make Civilization less detail-oriented, and require less micro-management and less number-crunching. I guess the key to answering this question is an analysis of what takes time in Civ:
The thing that takes the longest time in Civ, by far, is warfare. If you play a game entirely peacefully on a normal map, you can play all the way to space race in less than five hours. Warfare usually at least doubles that number. The kind of game I'm describing doesn't really have bearing on warfare, but the best way (in my mind) to speed it up would be eliminating the game's silly, 1v1, Stack of Death combat system. What if stack warfare took place all at once? Instead of a 2-3 minute "battle" of crashing your suiciding trebs into a city and then mopping up the attackers, you could actually pick some strategies or move troops strategically, and then have the battle wrapped up in a couple of seconds.
Second, managing "working tiles" and "specialists." What I'm describing is a system where you simply DON'T. The "people" of your empire do what they do... they farm the land, they open mines, they operate businesses, they manage trade routes. Your job is to help them do that, and to guide them into doing it in the way that you wish, to help you achieve certain goals (whatever your victory of choice is). You do that through taxing different things, establishing tariffs, building infrastructure, building and funding education, supporting the arts, commissioning projects, etc. etc.
The third is worker action. This is actually the part of the game that I would change least. In my imagined game, instead of building farms (those farmers are already out there) or towns (how does one do that anyway?) you'd be building power lines, roads, canals, railroads, bridges, telephone and telegraph lines, trading posts, levees, dikes and dams, etc. etc. etc. In other words, instead of building what your people would actually make themselves (farms, mines, towns, mills) you build them the things that make them work better, and help them get the products to and from where they need to go.
Fourth, determining a city's builds. Again, this is something that you wouldn't do. You would "build" things on the world map, or undertake policies to build them around your civilization. You wouldn't count up the hammers you have in a city and determine how long it will take to build. It frankly just doesn't make much sense to have a bank be harder to build in Coventry than in London. It's just a building. Armies, likewise, would be "raised" on a national level, not by "building" the unit within a particular city (which ironically your huge cities might be poorly suited to do in current Civ, because you're producing too much "food" and not enough "Hammers"). You'd pay to have them outfitted, but you'd be drawing them from the population, not the same bag of "hammers' that you built that bank with earlier (or even better, the 'overflow' from that build!).
In my opinion you are asking the wrong question. It is not "what is the spirit of Civ." The spirit of civ, what makes the game fun, is being a world leader. You interact with other leaders, you make peace and war, you trade, build armies, attack neighbors, fight barbarians, grow massive cities, develop infrastructure, etc. etc. The question is HOW you do those things.
What you really mean to ask is "what do we mean by "Civ"?" which means a fat cross, 1v1 combat, food/hammers/commerce development, the technology tree, and worker improvements. I have little doubt that the next Civilization game will include all of those things. But I think those things are limiting and unrealistic, and so I'm thinking big (even if doing that is unrealistic in itself).
I think that if my imagined game were actually released as Civ V (I'd have a better chance convincing Maxis to release SimCiv), the biggest objection would be that things were too broad and too loose, rather than "too detailed" or "too time-consuming."
The thing that takes the longest time in Civ, by far, is warfare. If you play a game entirely peacefully on a normal map, you can play all the way to space race in less than five hours. Warfare usually at least doubles that number. The kind of game I'm describing doesn't really have bearing on warfare, but the best way (in my mind) to speed it up would be eliminating the game's silly, 1v1, Stack of Death combat system. What if stack warfare took place all at once? Instead of a 2-3 minute "battle" of crashing your suiciding trebs into a city and then mopping up the attackers, you could actually pick some strategies or move troops strategically, and then have the battle wrapped up in a couple of seconds.
Second, managing "working tiles" and "specialists." What I'm describing is a system where you simply DON'T. The "people" of your empire do what they do... they farm the land, they open mines, they operate businesses, they manage trade routes. Your job is to help them do that, and to guide them into doing it in the way that you wish, to help you achieve certain goals (whatever your victory of choice is). You do that through taxing different things, establishing tariffs, building infrastructure, building and funding education, supporting the arts, commissioning projects, etc. etc.
The third is worker action. This is actually the part of the game that I would change least. In my imagined game, instead of building farms (those farmers are already out there) or towns (how does one do that anyway?) you'd be building power lines, roads, canals, railroads, bridges, telephone and telegraph lines, trading posts, levees, dikes and dams, etc. etc. etc. In other words, instead of building what your people would actually make themselves (farms, mines, towns, mills) you build them the things that make them work better, and help them get the products to and from where they need to go.
Fourth, determining a city's builds. Again, this is something that you wouldn't do. You would "build" things on the world map, or undertake policies to build them around your civilization. You wouldn't count up the hammers you have in a city and determine how long it will take to build. It frankly just doesn't make much sense to have a bank be harder to build in Coventry than in London. It's just a building. Armies, likewise, would be "raised" on a national level, not by "building" the unit within a particular city (which ironically your huge cities might be poorly suited to do in current Civ, because you're producing too much "food" and not enough "Hammers"). You'd pay to have them outfitted, but you'd be drawing them from the population, not the same bag of "hammers' that you built that bank with earlier (or even better, the 'overflow' from that build!).
In my opinion you are asking the wrong question. It is not "what is the spirit of Civ." The spirit of civ, what makes the game fun, is being a world leader. You interact with other leaders, you make peace and war, you trade, build armies, attack neighbors, fight barbarians, grow massive cities, develop infrastructure, etc. etc. The question is HOW you do those things.
What you really mean to ask is "what do we mean by "Civ"?" which means a fat cross, 1v1 combat, food/hammers/commerce development, the technology tree, and worker improvements. I have little doubt that the next Civilization game will include all of those things. But I think those things are limiting and unrealistic, and so I'm thinking big (even if doing that is unrealistic in itself).
I think that if my imagined game were actually released as Civ V (I'd have a better chance convincing Maxis to release SimCiv), the biggest objection would be that things were too broad and too loose, rather than "too detailed" or "too time-consuming."
White Elk
99 > 1
There are some great ideas here. I've no interest in Civ5 but I would like to see a Civ4 mod incorporate some of these concepts. In fact I would love to see a mod which totally reworks Civ4 into a better game. From reading posts made by modders I understand that there are some limitations to modding Civ4. But there have been some amazing mods created for Civ3 using the very limited tools of that games editor. So I imagine that even more barriers can be broken with Civ4.
I'm guessing that the firaxian hands are full with their revolution right now so I wouldn't think that Civ5 will be here anytime soon. So perhaps one way to spur the developement of that game would be for those of you with bright ideas to team up and mod them into a Civ4 mod. From there you can balance test etc and then firaxis can follow and take it from there.
So my dissatisfaction with Civ3 and Civ4 equates to a total lack of interest for Civ5. I do still hold a small glimmer of hope that a new publisher buys out firaxis, or that firaxis changes their management or production paradigm. But I won't hold my breath, nor will I buy Civ5 on faith like I did with BTS. No other game has gained my interest as much as Civilization has. But its time for me to find a surrogate Civ. Civ is dead to me. Long live the King.
I'm guessing that the firaxian hands are full with their revolution right now so I wouldn't think that Civ5 will be here anytime soon. So perhaps one way to spur the developement of that game would be for those of you with bright ideas to team up and mod them into a Civ4 mod. From there you can balance test etc and then firaxis can follow and take it from there.
I'm not satisfied with Civ4. I love the new concepts, but I loath the firaxian/2k patching paradigm, and I'm frustrated at how patch needy this game has become. I do understand that the game of Civ is an adventurous project requiring tons of coding and what not. But I don't appreciate buying a product that isn't finished. And I've grown angry waiting for patches that either never come or come so late that I may as well have waited a year and more to buy the game in a second hand store.
So my dissatisfaction with Civ3 and Civ4 equates to a total lack of interest for Civ5. I do still hold a small glimmer of hope that a new publisher buys out firaxis, or that firaxis changes their management or production paradigm. But I won't hold my breath, nor will I buy Civ5 on faith like I did with BTS. No other game has gained my interest as much as Civilization has. But its time for me to find a surrogate Civ. Civ is dead to me. Long live the King.
Well another point I didn't touch on much is that it was generally believed by Civ's designers that those elements of the game that were out of player control were less fun. This is basically why they avoided putting in natural disasters in vanilla civ4. Actually it's funny they then went and decided to put them back in for BtS. I think in that case they gave in to customer pressure and they decided it might be ok so long as there were decisions to make and the harmful events did not set the player back too much. I'm guessing they didn't double check the barbarian uprising event since that turned off many players. Anyway, I digress... What I was really trying to say is you need to be really careful making suggestions for removing control of large parts of the game from the player. eg. population movements and development and so on. The player wants to be a sort of deity or almighty king commanding his minions, not merely an observer who has more of a legislative role and who can only influence his/her people.
Maybe I'm not using the right words. I should be more careful about making the distinction between how the game is played and the spirit or role of the player in the game. In fact my biggest suggestion for improvements for Civ 5 are in the broad category of interface and information accessibility as well as ergonomics ("please, save our wrists from CTS!" - anyone who's tried one of those mouse odometer programs would have found, like me, that a huge amount of time is spent moving the pointer, pressing mouse buttons and using the mouse scroll wheel). I was fairly pleased with the introduction of corps to BtS for example, but not terribly pleased with having to manually send out hundreds of separate executives (I play huge maps and sort of go corp spamming). The same goes for spies - especially spies! So I guess this all falls under the "how" part of the gameplay.
I see what you mean by saying speaking in broader terms does not necessarily imply going into greater detail. To be honest I was mostly talking about Magister's post. Anyway, you recognised yourself that your ideas might be a tad too drastic a change for a civ5. Don't get me wrong either - I'd probably happily support many of those changes but I argue they need to be thought through, especially at this early stage, so we don't merely introduce all this stuff for the hell of it. You need to set some broad objectives first, eg. better diplomacy, and then decide on new mechanics that would help achieve that goal. Better diplomacy could come about by new border mechanics, trades that aren't based on seemingly arbitrary diplo modifiers etc.
Broadly speaking again, I think vanilla Civ4 was a pretty well rounded game without too many unnecessarily tedious tasks. I didn't play warlords a lot but I noticed in BtS they basically crammed in a whole bunch of new features that were all great in theory and all looked really exciting on the advertising on the box but happened to be ... well hardly thought through. The espionage system had the potential to be a lot more fun than it is at the moment. Most of the espionage features could have in fact been achieved without an actual spy unit - it wasn't thought through very well. The corp system, while fixed by 3.13, was initially horribly buggy and flawed. One has to decide whether it was the play testing that they skimped on or the design and implementation but in either case they stuffed it up.
So I guess what I'd like to see is with new suggestions, a reasoning behind why they would improve the game. Whether that be through more strategy, less micromanagement, more fun, more balance, more realism, more player control, player immersion, game graphics etc. etc.
Sorry for a long rant but I think it's important to consider these things when giving ideas for civ5. I know I can't expect people to have the cold rationale of a game designer/developer - I know I don't - but I generally try to be critical with my approach.
I feel your pain. I seem to recall you being involved in a mod which was negatively affected by one of the patches. It's points like the one you're making that make me want to write to Sid and ask how on Earth he can head a team who don't finish a game before they move onto another.
Back on topic, I'd like to add I don't like the idea that many people are making, to allow a separate slider for individual cities.
Firstly this will almost certainly imply more micromanagement.
Secondly, it removes the importance of the decision of where to put the slider, because you could obviously just max out the sliders for the specialization of each city. In other words, there is less sacrifice in your decision and hence the decision is less interesting.
Thirdly, if anyone tries to suggest that it could be left up to the player whether or not to do separate sliders, I'd remind them that when you play competitively, eg. in MP or in higher difficulties in SP, you're basically forced to micro manage these sorts of things. How many high level players do you know who automate workers? So IMO the suggestion for city's having their own sliders was thought up by some people who weren't happy to make some sacrifices in their games and not by people who've thought about it critically and with regard to improving some important gameplay feature.
But please, prove me wrong.
Rhye
's and Fall creator
I do agree that Civ3 had some superior aspects, but not the ones T.A.J. said (performance, empire size, graphics). I refer instead mainly to civ diversification and diplomacy, which in fact I modded out completely.
That said, I don't want to see any Civ V before 2012. Give me the time to finish modding civ4 and actually play a couple of games, please.
That said, I don't want to see any Civ V before 2012. Give me the time to finish modding civ4 and actually play a couple of games, please.
-FC-Commando
Warlord
- Joined
- Oct 30, 2007
- Messages
- 114
2012
No please..Civ 2 1996, Civ 3 2001 and Civ IV 2005.
It's time for Civ V. 2009 would be my best guess.
PieceofMind: Yeah, what I'm talking about would not be tenable, because you're right, most players are now used to being dieties over their civilizations, rather than leaders/governors. I don't think what I'm talking about could occur unless it was released as a separate game, like SMAC, or as I suggested, SimCiv.
To me though, if people see a problem with micromanagement, the most sensible response is to stop making the player responsible for those things. Does anyone really find it fun to click the + sign for "Scientist" twice in each city? To have every city build a bank simultaneously? To have multiple cities pumping out catapaults? The fun is in moving those catapaults and seeing enemy cities fall. Watching your returns increase after the banks are finished. Watching the beakers rise and the GP points mount after you find the extra food for those scientists.
You can tap into those feelings of satisfaction in different ways, ways that are both more realistic and less tedious. Instead of clicking "axeman," you raise an army and train it in the way you want, so that later you can fight pitched battles with them. Instead of clicking "bank," you establish a national banking system. Instead of clicking "scientist" you foster education by founding universities.
I imagine this could be done by simply "building" them instantly within cities (or out in the countryside or something). The question wouldn't be "should I spend 12 turns of hammers on this?" but "do I have the money to handle it? Do my people really want/need it? Do I already have TOO MANY Universities in my country?" In other words, instead of being the diety who uses his "slave" labor to construct things (slower in some cities than others, for some reason?) you are a leader, who considers costs and benefits.
Strategically, I think this sort of system might really open up the game plans, because not all buildings would be desireable at all times, everywhere, the way they are now.
Oh well, I guess I'm done with these imagined posts of a different game.
As far as actual, concrete changes for the next game, I REALLY would like to see the following changes, suggested here:
Combat: Abandon 1v1 system. Siege more realistic, less important. Raising an army costs population and money.
Research: Multiple Tech research, an education slider, and either more techs (to research concurrently) or the "refinement" system described earlier.
Diplomacy: Complete overhaul. You can become friends with a civ you warred against, you can make secret deals, and most of all, you can negotiate with barbarians. Drastically increase the number of "civs" in the game, so that you are fighting for influence over vassals as much as making war on enemies.
Miscellaneous: Guerrilla units, fewer jumps in warfare, national wonders, greater diversity of terrain (and subsequent worker improvement), navigable rivers, multiple open border agreements, throne room, hex map, terraforming.
To me though, if people see a problem with micromanagement, the most sensible response is to stop making the player responsible for those things. Does anyone really find it fun to click the + sign for "Scientist" twice in each city? To have every city build a bank simultaneously? To have multiple cities pumping out catapaults? The fun is in moving those catapaults and seeing enemy cities fall. Watching your returns increase after the banks are finished. Watching the beakers rise and the GP points mount after you find the extra food for those scientists.
You can tap into those feelings of satisfaction in different ways, ways that are both more realistic and less tedious. Instead of clicking "axeman," you raise an army and train it in the way you want, so that later you can fight pitched battles with them. Instead of clicking "bank," you establish a national banking system. Instead of clicking "scientist" you foster education by founding universities.
I imagine this could be done by simply "building" them instantly within cities (or out in the countryside or something). The question wouldn't be "should I spend 12 turns of hammers on this?" but "do I have the money to handle it? Do my people really want/need it? Do I already have TOO MANY Universities in my country?" In other words, instead of being the diety who uses his "slave" labor to construct things (slower in some cities than others, for some reason?) you are a leader, who considers costs and benefits.
Strategically, I think this sort of system might really open up the game plans, because not all buildings would be desireable at all times, everywhere, the way they are now.
Oh well, I guess I'm done with these imagined posts of a different game.
As far as actual, concrete changes for the next game, I REALLY would like to see the following changes, suggested here:
Combat: Abandon 1v1 system. Siege more realistic, less important. Raising an army costs population and money.
Research: Multiple Tech research, an education slider, and either more techs (to research concurrently) or the "refinement" system described earlier.
Diplomacy: Complete overhaul. You can become friends with a civ you warred against, you can make secret deals, and most of all, you can negotiate with barbarians. Drastically increase the number of "civs" in the game, so that you are fighting for influence over vassals as much as making war on enemies.
Miscellaneous: Guerrilla units, fewer jumps in warfare, national wonders, greater diversity of terrain (and subsequent worker improvement), navigable rivers, multiple open border agreements, throne room, hex map, terraforming.
Rusty Edge
Deity
Back on topic, I'd like to add I don't like the idea that many people are making, to allow a separate slider for individual cities.
Firstly this will almost certainly imply more micromanagement.
Secondly, it removes the importance of the decision of where to put the slider, because you could obviously just max out the sliders for the specialization of each city. In other words, there is less sacrifice in your decision and hence the decision is less interesting.
Thirdly, if anyone tries to suggest that it could be left up to the player whether or not to do separate sliders, I'd remind them that when you play competitively, eg. in MP or in higher difficulties in SP, you're basically forced to micro manage these sorts of things. How many high level players do you know who automate workers? So IMO the suggestion for city's having their own sliders was thought up by some people who weren't happy to make some sacrifices in their games and not by people who've thought about it critically and with regard to improving some important gameplay feature.
But please, prove me wrong.
Not to argue, but to elaborate..
First, I've never played Civ as multi-player, so I'm sure I don't fully appreciate the consequencess of any of my suggestions in those games.
To me Civ is like a great book, your imagination may take you to greater levels of enjoyment in some parts more than others. You may want to savor some and draw them out, while others you may rush through. A very personal experience.
I have some fond memories of CIV I with a federation gov. I sometimes get nostalgic for those features lost from previous versions of CIV. I enjoy historical fiction and sometimes Civ is a lab for me.
To my way of thinking, leagues of cities and federations were interesting forms of government IRL, a little more diverse and libertarian than other forms of national government , with different priorities and tax rates. The flipside of the increased independence was weak cohesion.
I figure that as a civic you could use it to manage unhappiness hotspots and try to flip some neighbors into your federation in peacetime, but there would still be unhappiness penalties from nations with Universal Suffrage, for example.
Maybe it needs more balance( maybe a % of
&
should be lost due to duplication instead of central planning ), but I figure as a cvic, it would be another choice , another set of consequences, and probably not a game-long option. Sure if the No city flipping options are in place it alters the relative usefulness of the civic, but always peace & always war options alter the usefulness of the Police State civic, too.
On the downside,it would probably be harder for the A.I. to use than the human, but if it's mostly drugery, then it favors the computer.
Similar threads
