Do we want another expansion?

[Lightwave]

[snipped...]
Okay, okay.... back on topic. What game topics to add to an expansion? How about population migration? When a neighboring civ is exerting cultural pressure, perhaps the population of the closest city might decline and add itself to a city in the neighboring civ.

That is an interesting idea. It would probably make a lot of players aggravated though, but it is somewhat "realistic" and you would have to pay attention to culture. I tend to use culture only enough to claim my borders with only a very occasional culture battle to get a good resource (maybe twice).

As a balance, it could be made into a slight "double-edged sword" for the benefiting civ. A smaller culture clash between the new migrants would still exist since they are not "becoming" say French so there could be small unhappiness effects until they are fully assimilated. Also, until then if there were war between the two empires, the yet to be assimilated population might feel a little nationalistic nostalgia and become unhappy.

 

[Drakken]

Wow I came in here to say I want Civ 5 with hexagons and someone beat me to it. Further expansions are no longer necessary. To me the biggest flaw in the game is diagonal movement. It makes me crazy. For a game that makes military combat the most important part of the game they need to put Hexagons in.

Sorry to be insulting but comparing the current square grid game to an Octagonal Grid is freaking dumb.

When two units are in adjacent squares in this game diagonal to one another, an enemy unit or even a huge stack can just sneak right through the spaces between them. How is this possible. This isn't even taking the movement distances that are mentioned previously. Please Hexes in Civ 5.

 

[Lightwave]

[snipped...]
I agree with the idea of taking civ beyond the year 2050, sort of like Civ:Call to Power did. anyone ever play that? walk walkers were the most awesome unit. Leviathons and Fusion tanks were cool too.

I've been hoping for a Future Era for a long time. I did try Call to Power; but except for the future age, overall it was just inferior to Civ. A true Civ Future Age would meld the best of both worlds. I think they would probably need to careful with "science fantasy" effects, but there are a lot of "on the horizon" and other interesting technologies that would be viable for an expanded Civ game. It would even make an interstellar colonization mission more believable.

Maybe you could have the option of starting civ "afresh" when ur ship lands on alpha centauri in the same game, rather that just winning. they could even use the same concept as they did in SMAC because it was a pretty sound concept.
[...snipped]

Personally, I bought SMAC later, and I really did not like it at all. I barely got into a single game. I would hope they would not go that direction for a "continued" game of Civ myself. Something less drastic upon reaching Alpha Centauri might be interesting, but it was just too different to be united with Civ in my opinion. It was fine as a stand alone game since I could ignore it.

 

[anth]

I'd like to see a bit more realism at appropriate times during the game, but obviously not at the expense of gameplay. Would have to be careful not to annoy players with tedious micromanagement, as in the case of espionage and corporations. I'd like to see citizens being unhappy in other cities after you've built certain buildings in some cities, e.g. public transportation, hospitals, etc. They want it as well!

I'd like to see towns add to your population (if they don't already that is). And i'd like to see more emphasis on two major developments in terms of health in history, sanitation and water. I guess you would build a sewer network and water network. I know you have buildings like this already, but their should be specific buildings which have a drastic development on health in cities and life expectancy. Health would have to be a major battle in the game up to these discoveries. Maybe even a late game tech which would have the same effect on extending very old age in the game as modern health developments do. Maybe that's a bit too far though

 

[KrikkitTwo]

Well one thing I would Not want in an expansion or Civ V is Future Era in Epic game (except as a bit more fleshing out required for the A.C. Trip... or revising the A.C. trip to something more Modest like an interPlanetary colony, rather than an interStellar one)

 

[Peng Qi]

Please Hexes in Civ 5.

What would a city radius look like?

 

[Psyringe]

What would a city radius look like?

Probably the city square in the middle, then the ring of six squares surrounding it, then the ring of 12 squares surrounding that one.

 

[Peng Qi]

Probably the city square in the middle, then the ring of six squares surrounding it, then the ring of 12 squares surrounding that one.

It would also have the benefit, I suppose, of not requiring that you overlap cities at all. Of course, if you had to overlap, you'd necessarily overlap a lot more tiles in most cases.

 

[JFLNYC]

The problem with hexagons is that, depending upon how they're laid out, you can either move 90 degrees left/right or up/down, but not both. For example, if the hexagons are aligned with flat sides on the top and bottom, you could move straight up or straight down, but movements to either side would have to be on the diagonal.

 

[KrikkitTwo]

Although that would be no problem for pathfinding

you would have 6 directions
N, S, NE, NW, SE, SW

It would make for a lot nicer maps

 

[Antilogic]

My vote is for Civ5--Civ4 just seems finished to me with BtS. I only want to see ~2-3 new Civs and ~8-10 new leaders, maybe. The game feels complete when I play it.

My wishlist right now has hexes for Civ5. The problem with "squares" is that when you move diagonally, you are actually moving a greater distance than by moving horizontally or vertically (remember trigonometry from high school algebra?). With a hex grid, you are moving the same distance irrelevant of which direction you select. Also, with hex grids, you can taper off the top and bottom so you can get more realistic-looking globes without the "stretching" near the poles. This doesn't work with square grids as well--try to imagine how to "seam" the two sides together.

 

[MrCynical]

I very much doubt we'll see another expansion for Civ 4, and it can't be that long now before they start thinking about Civ 5. Yes you could make an expansion that adds in a bunch more leaders, but that isn't really much of a bonus to the game. Thanks to mods and unrestricted leaders, such changes would be purely cosmetic. Piling in more wonders, techs and units similarly is going to suffer from diminishing returns as far as improving gameplay is concerned. Enough mods have been made that demonstrate too many buildings and so on just become tedious, and the balance is likely to drift further and further out the more stuff you add in.

Hexagonal grids would be interesting to see, but are obviously too fundamental a change for an expansion. As to a future age, I guess you could tack one on like in the innumerable iterations of Civ 2, but I never found they added that much. I think, after another couple of patches, Civ 4:BtS is going to be complete.

 

[Gaius Octavius]

Every civ game up till this point has added an important new concept to the series, as well as (for the most part) all the old stuff.
What could be added to another civ game or expansion?

Quite simply, Quantitative Resources. This is the most fluid aspect of civ and QR is the next logical step in the series.

Civ 1 & 2 -- Resources didn't really exist apart from their location on the terrain, and granted only a food/production/commerce bonus to that tile. There was no conception of real trade or links to unit/buildings.

Civ 3 -- Resources became strategic and tradable. You couldn't build tanks anymore unless you had oil, or swordsmen without iron.

Civ 4 -- Every resource is now tradable, and resources have bigger implications with the corporation system and the new health system.


What I have been proposing tirelessly is that we take the next step for Civ 5, and quantify resources. What's that? It's simple: instead of having some kind of abstract "one-size-fits-all" resource that can supply your entire needs for a huge world empire, each deposit produces a set amount every turn, which goes into your empire's stockpile. Units and buildings would require a certain amount to be constructed.

As an example, suppose an iron mine produced 10 iron per turn. A swordsman might require 5 iron to be built, which would be deducted upon it being queued. That means you can only build 2 swordsmen at a time, or more, if you have a large stockpile of iron already built up, or if you have several iron deposits in your territory.

A more modern example that we can all relate to is oil. Without oil, no more tanks, no more planes, no more ships (until nuclear power). This is already reflected in Civ 4 somewhat, but suppose you have only one oil deposit while your enemy has 10? There's no difference in game! With QR, all this changes. Trade becomes much more interesting and the balance of power can shift rapidly, making the late game much more exciting.

Several of us modders even have a preliminary system worked out for Civ 4, but we're still trying to get it going...

 

[seasnake]

I love this idea for Civ V. QR is going make it an incredible game when it happens (sure it will).
I believe we could have one more expansion for Civ IV, but if not then not. Still, I think 40 civs is a nice round number and I would love to see a new trait and dipomacy/espionage improved. Add a few units and I'd buy that pack.

 

[Gaius Octavius]

The thing about "quantified resources" is that it's by no means a new idea. I know of several good TBS and RTS games that use this and it adds a new dimension to the level of play without being overly complicated. Ironically, there was a game about 10 years ago (1996) called Destiny, which was made by Sid Meier's longtime partner "Wild" Bill Stealy, that had this down pat. What I find so surprising is that it also had some elements in it that should be very familiar to you, like religions, ethnically diverse unit art, etc. Funny that they should take so long to get implemented in Civ...

 

[ezwip]

I love this mod I would prefer they release Alpha Centauri II, or something else along that path. After all that is where the Civ rocket is heading. However, I love this game and I'll buy every mod they release.

Better yet, release Alpha Centauri as the next mod.

 

[Lobsang1979]

The problem with hexagons is that, depending upon how they're laid out, you can either move 90 degrees left/right or up/down, but not both. For example, if the hexagons are aligned with flat sides on the top and bottom, you could move straight up or straight down, but movements to either side would have to be on the diagonal.

I agree. To me it seems that, while hexagonal tiles would offer more options for movement than we currently have, would it not still be limited by the same basic principle: restricted movement options?

Civ4 made the jump to using a limited 3D engine for the first time in the series and, as I have been playing Civ since the Commodore Amiga days, this was one aspect that really enhanced my immersion in the game.

Could the whole tile concept not be done away with altogether? I know this would be a radical movement away from one of the foundation blocks of the Civ games, but imagine a fully 3D map upon which units could move in any direction, limited only by their movement value and terrain. I'm thinking of something like the Rome Total War map, but designed to be much more tactical and fitting of the Civ ethos.

What do we think, would this game dynamic work?

 

[Antilogic]

Quite simply, Quantitative Resources. This is the most fluid aspect of civ and QR is the next logical step in the series.

Civ 1 & 2 -- Resources didn't really exist apart from their location on the terrain, and granted only a food/production/commerce bonus to that tile. There was no conception of real trade or links to unit/buildings.

Civ 3 -- Resources became strategic and tradable. You couldn't build tanks anymore unless you had oil, or swordsmen without iron.

Civ 4 -- Every resource is now tradable, and resources have bigger implications with the corporation system and the new health system.


What I have been proposing tirelessly is that we take the next step for Civ 5, and quantify resources. What's that? It's simple: instead of having some kind of abstract "one-size-fits-all" resource that can supply your entire needs for a huge world empire, each deposit produces a set amount every turn, which goes into your empire's stockpile. Units and buildings would require a certain amount to be constructed.

As an example, suppose an iron mine produced 10 iron per turn. A swordsman might require 5 iron to be built, which would be deducted upon it being queued. That means you can only build 2 swordsmen at a time, or more, if you have a large stockpile of iron already built up, or if you have several iron deposits in your territory.

A more modern example that we can all relate to is oil. Without oil, no more tanks, no more planes, no more ships (until nuclear power). This is already reflected in Civ 4 somewhat, but suppose you have only one oil deposit while your enemy has 10? There's no difference in game! With QR, all this changes. Trade becomes much more interesting and the balance of power can shift rapidly, making the late game much more exciting.

Several of us modders even have a preliminary system worked out for Civ 4, but we're still trying to get it going...

I'm going to second your motion here...I always thought the next move for Civ was hex grids and "real-valued" units...no longer would you build a swordsman "unit", but rather create an army of 20,000 troops composed of longbowmen, pikemen, and some heavy cavalry, or something along those lines. Quantitative resources fits in with this model nicely (having 1 iron unit allows you to create an army of 1,000 swordsmen, or something along those lines).

Also, a combat system that is not glorified one-on-one combat integrated into the game would be an advantage as well. Actually have the armies engage each other as one giant force against another, and give you some elementary controls like selecting an overall strategy for your troops (Fabian style withdrawal, slash and burn, constant skirmishing, etc.)

 

[GeneralMatt]

Another thing for the QR I would like to see (I would like to see QR) is that luxuries or health resources provide on a basis of population, so (Say for an example) 1 unit of dye keeps 1 population happy. This then stacks so that you can have huge cities of happy citizens with a bunch of say one type of resource though you would probably have to have some sort of limi.
And I would also like to see a way to import food, so that cities do not have to grow it all for themselves..

 

[Legal_My_Deagle]

I think that would be a good idea for ANOTHER game, not being Civ.

Civ4 BTS is already about as complicated as you can make a game while still being fun.

The thing is, is that Civ is a turn based strategy game, and for one, that proposed change would turn Civ in to nothing more than a glorified RTS. I don't want to play that game. If you want to, then you should go play Rome Total War, not Civ.

I like that you just have to HAVE a resouce, and not macromanage it to the point where you actually have a numerical amount of it, and can only build so many of each kind of unit that requires it. Again, in my opinion that wouldn't go well with what Civ is meant to be.

You might as well be saying "Hey, it would be cool if you could control an individual soldier from first person view and wage war with the other enemy units".

And what typically happens when something tries to be more than what it was designed to be, containing too many dimensions to where you get the feeling they had problems stuffing the game in the box? Well it gets to the point where any aspect of the game becomes diluted to the point where any individual part of the game is no longer fun.

I realize that controlling a soldier individually is somewhat different than more of an "RTS mode" in that the "RTS mode" has to do more with strategy in GENERAL, however I want to point out that it is a completely different kind of strategy and management.

The analogy seems silly, but this is what happens to restaurants that try to serve good quality of too many different kinds of food. If they specialize, they keep good food. Maybe they got famous for their good hamburgers...but then like many chains they just start adding more and more to their menu to the point where they have a hard time serving good hamburgers AND good fried chicken, for example. It gets to the point where sticking with this example, people stop going to the restaurant all together because if they want hamburgers they will go to McDonalds, if they want fried chicken they would just go to KFC, or any number of other places. You all get the idea.

But this is not at all unlike what would happen to Civ5 under your model. In order to keep the base game fun, either they would have to water down the RTS element enough to where it became tedius and uninteresting, or they would have to water down the base game enough to where it was no longer Civ, but an elaborate and round about way of having RTS gameplay. So we would all give up and decide if we wanted to play a Civ game we should go back to Civ4 or play GalCiv, or if we want to play an RTS game we could play Rome Total War or many, many others.

Even if you forget about the RTS element all together and just try and include the original suggestion, which was that a strategic resource should for example only produce X amount of Iron per turn, and each individual unit requred Y amount of Iron...I even have doubts that THAT would be fun. Reason being, the whole step-by-step of how each Civ game got more advanced isn't directly pointing at fun at all. Making something more advanced does not necessarily mean more fun.

With that in mind, you could say that the reason resource management in Civ4 got more fun than Civ3 wasn't because it is more advanced, but because it is fun to trade and compete for these resources. We should be working towards evolving the fun factor of Civ, not making it more complicated simply for the sake of making it more complicated, because that won't necessarily be fun.

With all of THAT in mind, I want to say that I don't imagine managing finite numerical amounts of resources in Civ would be as fun as it would be in, say, most any RTS game. At all stages of game developement the developers should be asking themselves, "is this gameplay fun? Is every part of what I am doing in this game a fun and relevant thing to do? or are there just unnecessary steps in here that make the game overly complicated, as is more like a stepping stone on the way to having fun as opposed to fun in and of itself?

Competing for and trading these resources is fun but it is enough I think. Making it more complicated in the suggested way I think would just make the game a lot more tedius than it would be adding fun to the game.

I personally do not want to ever have to keep track of how much Iron, Oil, Copper, Coal, Horses, Aluminum, or Ivory I have, let alone anything else that I have probably forgetten that is debatably a strategic resource. Let alone if you want to implement this system for wonder building, like Stone and Marble...or for feeding your cities, which is an amount of separate resources that I do not care to list because hopefully by now you get the idea. Can you even imagine having to actually keep track of how much of each resource you had? Or what kind of monster the HUD would morph in to?

Most people would be so overwhelmed just by looking at the HUD that they wouldn't even give the game a chance...and Civ4 already is complicated enough that it took me since when I was still playing Civ2 to actually give the series a chance, with Civ4. Even then I had to sit there for at least an hour or two and explain to him the many different systems going on in the game so he could understand what was going on, haha.

Hell, I have been playing this game for a while now and I still don't understand how everything works.