Distinct civ abilities should appear during the game and no more world wonders

[hello]

Distinct civ abilities should appear during the game depending on the way so. is playing.
The tech tree should have many more unnecessary death ends that aren't required for further development. That should be implemented so that one will pick out only the ones that he needs for his strategy, because otherwise he would fall behind in the main technology tree. So civ specific abilities would appear during the game. E. g. a Knight with upgraded armour and weapons, best training and morale shouldn't be as efficient as a regular cavalry with rifles.
Then there should be no more unique World Wonders but only national (small) wonders. The idea is the same like that with the tech tree, that one will build only the ones he actually needs for his strategy, Building most of them would result in neglecting the infrastructure of his cities. Every national (small) wonder should lose its effect later on.
At the same time these extra efforts in tech research and national (small) wonders should be classified (in categories like military, government, education, comerce, science, religion, agriculture, industry, etc.) and as a reward, the nation should get a bonus for future efforts of the same kind.

 

[Garbarsardar.jr]

I think that all that would lead to a kind of parallel development of different civs, thus minimizing the interaction to warfare.
In search of some middle ground you could assign GW and technologies to culture groups like Colossus to Mediteranneans, Hanging Gardens to Near east, Temple of Tikai to Southamerican Copernicus to european and the same with "dead end" technologies.But still in the industrial age all these should converge to reflect cultural exchange or the gradual globalization...

 

[hello]

OK i've forgot to mention that these dead end Techs shouldn't be tradeable and the death end paths should be longer than one tech.
Sorry, i've used the wrong term, i meant that there should be only small wonders, that everyone can build, but that their costs and their temporary effect should force the player to chose only the ones he really needs for his strategy. And no wonder should replace city improvements, but add some specific ability.
Furthermore i would combine this with the idea from another thread that some techs have ressources as prerequisites

 

[warpstorm]

I disagree on the world wonders. One of the major parts of the game in my opinion is the race for Wonders. I'd miss it if it weren't there. No, it isn't the least bit realistic, but it's a part I enjoy.

I do like the idea of having a bigger tech tree such that you can't get everything.

GJr's ideas would probably be a bit better. You could at least have the tension of the Wonder Race within your group. It would also make Cultural Groups more significant.

 

[Garbarsardar.jr]

I like GW too

 

[vesuvius_prime]

Sure, the race for Great Wonders is fun, if you manage to build at least a few wonders and not just lose the competition to all of them, but they destroy the balance of the game. I wish there was a way in which the wonders could be preserved without allowing them to tip the scales so much. Maybe their benefit should be reduced or focused towards less disbalancing areas.

 

[collin_stp]

I don't know if GW unbalance things too much, except maybe in some conquests.

Back to the main point, I think similar ideas have been mentioned, and I would bet that this will be the case as a natural evolution of the game. It would make things much more interesting to have different types of units used by each civ depending on the branch you choose, instead of the usual offensive and defensive units used by all.
The only pitfal with this would that there would have to be great care taken to balance the strengths and weaknesses of each branch.

 

[Garbarsardar.jr]

there is a brilliant post by judgement that I think answers for that : http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?p=1872591#post1872591

 

[hello]

i don't like even the naming of civs after existing nations, and also wouldn't like culture groups.

i want to play with a new civ trying to avoid as many errors as possible that real civs did in history

 

[rcoutme]

In another thread on units, I suggested a very good balance to some of the points made here. The idea is:
1. Multiply all combat values by 10
2. At the beginning of a civ acheiving the ability to build a given unit, give +/- 20 % (in groups of 10) to the a/d values.
3. Allow a civ to "further research" a tech if the player does not like his 'roll'. The re-research would automatically give the player the maximum values for units in that tech.

Reasoning: historically, not all civs had equivalent units. German armor at the beginning of WWII was actually inferior to French and British armor. Their tactics and training were better, but the vehicles were lighter armored and had less firepower. Later in the war, the Germans had the best tanks (although the well-trained crews were hard to come by).

-20% is not completely devastating, +20% is not overly powerful. The combination does give a 3:2 possible advantage, but that would still be playable. This would allow each and every civ to have its own plusses and minusses. The cost of re-researching a tech would limit how often someone decided to upgrade his technology to maximise units.

As for GW's, I believe that carryover of 1/2 of the shields should be allowed for any excess shields at all times. Thus, if you have 390 shields toward the Pyramids and get stuck building a swordman (let's assume you produce 10 shields per turn), you would normally lose 370 shields (400 - the 30 needed for a swordman). If 1/2 were carried over, then you would have 185 left. The next turn, if you produced another swordman, you would have 82 left over. This would continue on, thus buffering the blow from having been beaten out for one of the GW's. This would also allow a city to produce a cheap unit and not have to lose so much production (i.e. you may have a metropolis producing 40 shields and want to build a worker, the next turn you would have 15 extra shields carried over).

 

[WarMonkeY]

This would also allow a city to produce a cheap unit and not have to lose so much production (i.e. you may have a metropolis producing 40 shields and want to build a worker, the next turn you would have 15 extra shields carried over).

This gives me an idea of a "shield-bank" where you can store your surplus and maybe even sell it to other civs

 

[warpstorm]

Oh, I'm sure I could find a way to use a big ol' pile of shields (pre-build anyone?) I think they should bring back the penalty for switching production so that the cascade effect is lessened.

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

Well, I personally thought that Civ2's production penalty for switching from a unit to an improvement (or vice versa) could help to dissuade the cascade effect WS is referring to-though perhaps the penalty should be GREATER to truly dissaude reckless switching!
On a final note, though, I am definitely a fan of trading shields-and food-to other cities and nations!

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

 

[neilxt]

Distinct civ abilities should appear during the game depending on the way so. is playing.

There are several ideas in your post but this is the one I want to comment on because I've been thinking about those abilities a lot and I think I have an excellent implementation idea to go along with this...

First; the problem!

Special units tied to original civs are completely unwieldy because their value often enhances or disappears by pure luck depending on the terrain and aggressiveness you may need and use. England developed Man 'O' War because she was an island nation at a warlike time in her history, not because Elizabeth liked boats. A landlocked England in a pangea world completely wastes Man 'O' War.

So. The special; units should evolve depending on your playing style - but how would you implement it and limit it.

Here's what I would suggest - Have some techs available to make them - but only "researchable" by spending a GL derived from the underlying unit class. A GL derived from archers can teach the bowmen skill to the civilization. From Cavaly, Cossacks, From Fragate, Man 'o' War, etc...

Units would be upgraded Free at their respective barracks, ports, etc...

Do you spend the leader on a wonder? The Tech? or an Army? NO!!!!!

I'd also like to see the appearance of leaders be less purely random and derived more from the difficulty of a conflict, the relative health and strength of the protagonists changes the chances from maybe 50/50 in warrior beats modern armour to 1/100 for MA beats warrior.

Addendum to that idea... Tactics shouldn't affect GL chances - so a spearman on a mountain might stand a chance of holding off a tank and that tactic improves your chance of getting a leader; i.e. great leadership and tough battles get more great leaders, routine destruction doesn't.

So whaddya all think? First; the problem!

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

OK, I can see two things that could be done to improve things in Civ4.

First of all, make certain that each civ has more than 1 UU. Perhaps an average of 1 per age would be good-though the balance might be shifted towards either the ancient or modern ages-depending on the civ. For instance, the English might have a special longbowman and the Man O War in the Middle Ages, wheras the Germans might have a Visigoth unit in the Ancient Age, a Teutonic Knight in the Middle Ages and the Panzer Unit in the industrial age.
This would help to prevent the situation of a single UU being useless if that civ is in the wrong place. To further improve things, a civilizations characteristics and UU should have some effect on a civs starting position-though it would still ultimately be random!
Lastly, we need more Great Leader types-ones that cover most, if not all, of the possible civ characteristics, like Great Explorers, Great Cultural Leaders, Great Industrialists and Great Economists. Just like Military and Scientific Great leaders, civs with certain characteristics will have a better chance of getting one type of leader over another type!

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

 

[rcoutme]

@Aussie: If so many different types of GL's exist, then they would need to be a lot less powerful. Thus, an economic GL could help finish only economic wonders, scientific GL could only help finish scientific wonders, etc. Additionally, if the wonders exist (this thread was suggesting otherwise but I would still like to have them) then the GL's should only give a % of the wonder--maybe 1/2 the shields needed or maybe 75 shields per age (since later wonders generally cost more shields).

As for UU's, I think that civs should either have to research an extra tech to get a UU or they should get it from the random generator I suggested above. The Romans created the Legionary, but it could just as easily have been the Greeks if they had been getting pounded by naked Celtic hordes and decided that they were tired of having their cities sacked! Often the UU's were created (in real life) due to external pressures. I think that the Aztecs should be able to create hoplites, the Romans F-15's and the Americans Jaguar Warriors. It should simply depend on the player who tries to get such advantages (as the Civilizations who created them actually did).

If my suggestion of +/- 20% combat values were adopted, UU's might be all but irrelevant (since the RNG would create pseudo-UU's anyways). The only missing pieces to the UU's with the system would be with movement and special abilities (enslaving, amphib assault, those types of things). These could be added as special bonuses for someone who re-researched a tech when the unit involved was already at maximum (or nearly so). Thus, you could get the Panzer blitz and movement bonus if you already had maxed-out tanks and re-researched Armored Combat. Similar things could be done for other units.

The one caveat that I would add is that units coming from cheap technologies (e.g. Warrior Code, Bronze Working) might require that more research be done for maxing out and improving units than the original tech actually costs (thus preventing players from trying to unbalance the game with better, early units while either trading agressively for new techs or relying on goodie huts).

 

[hello]

if there are goodie hats (which i don't like) then only mainstream techs should be discovered there.

if you break the advantages of UUs down they consist in better attack, defense, movement points, lesser costs or special abilities. you could get any of these improvements theoretically by extra research or a small wonder or buildings (like in rts games or m:tw), without introducing a design workshop.

benefits like more productivity, lesser corruption, more developed government, trade bonus and so on, could be achieved in the same way.

to maintain balance all this bonuses (for units or sth else) should be temporary.

to make it a bit fair again for the 'investor' and to create differences between the civs, repeated investments in the same field should be rewarded by lesser resource need for future investment in the same field

imo GL are very nice but unbalance the game and create micromanagement

 

[warpstorm]

if there are goodie hats (which i don't like) then only mainstream techs should be discovered there.

I'm 180 degrees out on you on this one. I think goody huts (which I do like) should only give out techs that aren't in the main paths. Giving out main path techs allows you to move on to the next era quicker (assuming techs work in a similar fashion as they do in Civ3) and bigger and better stuff. The other techs while cool, should be dead ends that don't pan out in the long run but rather give flavor to the game.

 

[hello]

I'm 180 degrees out on you on this one. I think goody huts (which I do like) should only give out techs that aren't in the main paths. Giving out main path techs allows you to move on to the next era quicker (assuming techs work in a similar fashion as they do in Civ3) and bigger and better stuff. The other techs while cool, should be dead ends that don't pan out in the long run but rather give flavor to the game.

You are right, goodie hats are fun, and shoudn't provide techs from the main path.
(Though my feeling about goodie hats is mixed)

 

[Evie]

I love NeilXT's idea on Unique Unit (and completely agree with his criticism that it makes no sense for the English to have MoW UUs if they start landlocked and so forth - that's just the big problem of people insisting on "OH! I want everyoen to build the units they really had and nothing else" because that's absolute nonsense on a random map).

That said, would the AI be able to handle it?