sebanaj
Prince
I'd love social stratification and a real market economy, currently all is communal.
Do you guys want civ 4 to be more realistic?
- Thread starter Veteranewbie
- Start date
I came across a company that was beginning development of a game like Civ - called Epoch, I think - but don't remember where - another loss to the Windows restart demon 
Things like -
- evolving and deformable 3d globe
- complex weather systems interacting with ocean, land, and ecology
- evolutionary approach to civilisation
- being able to let the game develop on it's own, and realistically
- affecting change through a changing social structure
- real time
Phrases - but they they caught my attention.
I liked the sound of having variable control - like taking control of the military, but leaving other aspects to the AI
they also called it SI - simulated intelligence 
and were developing for systems that might be common in 4-6 years. So, what's that? 6gighz?
Couldve been promising - as I'd take all that weather stuff with a grain of salt - current simulators require massive processing power to do our weather forecasts. But if the aim is for that far away... Does this mean that we needn't necessarily hang out for Civ 4?
More competition encourages better product
Things like -
- evolving and deformable 3d globe
- complex weather systems interacting with ocean, land, and ecology
- evolutionary approach to civilisation
- being able to let the game develop on it's own, and realistically
- affecting change through a changing social structure
- real time
Phrases - but they they caught my attention.I liked the sound of having variable control - like taking control of the military, but leaving other aspects to the AI
they also called it SI - simulated intelligence and were developing for systems that might be common in 4-6 years. So, what's that? 6gighz?Couldve been promising - as I'd take all that weather stuff with a grain of salt - current simulators require massive processing power to do our weather forecasts. But if the aim is for that far away... Does this mean that we needn't necessarily hang out for Civ 4?
More competition encourages better product
Commander Bello
Say No 2 Net Validations
Another idea could be to have all civs start with the same setting. That could be 1 point for agricultural, 1 point for commercial and so on.
Then, as the system would plot your decisions you could automatically get more points in certain traits. If you would build the first Curragh, you could get additional two points for seafaring, while building the 31st Galley worldwide would gain you just one point for that trait. The number of fights would give you more points for the militaristic trait, and granaries would add to the agricultural one and so on...
By that, the evolution of a nation would be simulated.
The more points you gain in a certain area, the better your capabilities become. With 50 points agricultural (just a number...) you would be able to irrigate hills, or could irrigate desert to 2 food. With 200 points for military, your units could get an additional hp. After a number of trades, your marketplaces could go up to 75% bonus, and so on....
That's a great idea, CB! 
Give it a Dungeon Siege sort of 'character evolution'. Although in this case, it would be a civ evolution.
Give it a Dungeon Siege sort of 'character evolution'. Although in this case, it would be a civ evolution.
Masquerouge
Deity
That's the best idea I've read yet !
It would allow you to adapt to your terrain / neighbours / advances... Add a little "RPG" customization fun...
RebornViking88
Chieftain
- Joined
- Jan 19, 2004
- Messages
- 4
I feel you.
Good idea
Evie
Pronounced like Eevee
Except not. I already explained why in my earlier posts. It's the notion of people who don't realize that what works in a RTS because they focus on localized moments in history (even RON) won't work in Civ which embraces history as a whole - not without rendering the whole notion of civ being a WHAT IF? game pointless.
ZXTT
Chieftain
Civ Traits:
The traits idea is a good one. My concerns would be about play-balancing. One is to ensure that a civ that is ahead doesn't get more traits and increase its lead. The other is that some traits are better than others and so we all always go for the same ones.
Tech Trees:
I agree that there should not be predefined tech trees. But I have some ideas on tech trees, not necessarily original though:
One comes from one of my favorite features of MOO1, and that is tech that is missing. Remember, MOO required you to research one tech in a quintile (tech #1-5, 6-10, 11-15... not every number had a tech, but there was a guarantee of at least one tech in the quintile). The game randomly dropped techs when the game was generated. You might find that your favorite strategy depended on getting a particular weapon and now it wasn't in the game! Or you could not research it, but someone else could and you had to steal it or trade for it. Of course, the tech tree has to be slightly different - a civ style tech tree would have multiple paths to get to any tech, so if one of the reqs was missing, the others would be enough to allow you to research the new tech.
Furthermore, the tech tree probably ought to have different levels for things like temples, libraries, factories etc. Say, small medium and large temples, with each one 1, 2 or 3 people happy. But perhaps medium temples cannot be discovered in a given game. Now it's harder to keep people happy at a certain point in the game and the player has to adjust. Wouldn't this kind of thing create a nice variabilty from one game to the next?
Shields vs Money:
Before the research of economics, shields should be more important to building cities and units. After economics, money should become more important than before, so that improvements and units may be built cheaper than before with money. Perhaps all shields are converted to money after economics, but trade producing squares produce even more trade than before, so that commercial cities become more productive than resource (shield) cities.
The transition should be slow. Say economics is researched - then take 100 turns to fully transition to a modern economy with no shields. This represents private corporations building things that the state pays for. The state does not worry about the actual construction any more, just paying for it.
The traits idea is a good one. My concerns would be about play-balancing. One is to ensure that a civ that is ahead doesn't get more traits and increase its lead. The other is that some traits are better than others and so we all always go for the same ones.
Tech Trees:
I agree that there should not be predefined tech trees. But I have some ideas on tech trees, not necessarily original though:
One comes from one of my favorite features of MOO1, and that is tech that is missing. Remember, MOO required you to research one tech in a quintile (tech #1-5, 6-10, 11-15... not every number had a tech, but there was a guarantee of at least one tech in the quintile). The game randomly dropped techs when the game was generated. You might find that your favorite strategy depended on getting a particular weapon and now it wasn't in the game! Or you could not research it, but someone else could and you had to steal it or trade for it. Of course, the tech tree has to be slightly different - a civ style tech tree would have multiple paths to get to any tech, so if one of the reqs was missing, the others would be enough to allow you to research the new tech.
Furthermore, the tech tree probably ought to have different levels for things like temples, libraries, factories etc. Say, small medium and large temples, with each one 1, 2 or 3 people happy. But perhaps medium temples cannot be discovered in a given game. Now it's harder to keep people happy at a certain point in the game and the player has to adjust. Wouldn't this kind of thing create a nice variabilty from one game to the next?
Shields vs Money:
Before the research of economics, shields should be more important to building cities and units. After economics, money should become more important than before, so that improvements and units may be built cheaper than before with money. Perhaps all shields are converted to money after economics, but trade producing squares produce even more trade than before, so that commercial cities become more productive than resource (shield) cities.
The transition should be slow. Say economics is researched - then take 100 turns to fully transition to a modern economy with no shields. This represents private corporations building things that the state pays for. The state does not worry about the actual construction any more, just paying for it.
Listen, CivIII and CTP where both amazing games.... but the civ style of gameplay has to be changed . I mean its fun in all for a game, but overall, its incredibly unrealistic. Im sick and tired of the "city icon", and you have to "build buildings", that whole system has to GO! 
Doesn't anybody agree with me?
Or do you guys just want Civ4 to be another dervitive Civ style game with more 'realistic suprises'? 
. I mean its fun in all for a game, but overall, its incredibly unrealistic. Im sick and tired of the "city icon", and you have to "build buildings", that whole system has to GO! Doesn't anybody agree with me?
Or do you guys just want Civ4 to be another dervitive Civ style game with more 'realistic suprises'? when you capture a civ capital it should come to you offering peace and maybe a puppet nation. You will give back all conquered cities, but you will manage production, produce it UU withing the civ's cities and the palace of the conquered civ will work as a REAL second palace like if the center of your empire were that city.
wilbill
That Old Time Religion
The system has worked well and kept a lot of people interested for several years through several incarnations. If the basic design philosophy is changed, I think it had better be really good.Originally posted by Bart2k4
Listen, CivIII and CTP where both amazing games.... but the civ style of gameplay has to be changed
I don't necessarily disagree since you really didn't offer suggestions as to how you'd like the game to look and feel. But I do want one thing - I want it to be recognizable as the next generation in the Civilization family, not a WWII shoot-'em-up,Doesn't anybody agree with me?
I would like to see some sort of logistics model in the new version of Civ. At least some sort of abstract supply system needs to added. Isn't it true that the majority of the game is driven by conflict? Logistics is just too important in warfare not to include! It is said that 'Neophytes talk tactics, professionals talk logistics...' I agree.
lol, WWII shoot'em up . Absolutly not!!
I strongly agree with the people who argue about making the game more evolutionary.
And heres my idea about redesigning the build function to make it seem so
Problem to Build function
We all know that in real life the build function doesnt work that way. You see, government can own industry/business/media and it would be called: National, State or Public Property. Which means government pays for those controlled owned property and does whatever they want with it. When we, Civ players, build a building (any), were basically nationalizing property and have to pay it. While in real life, it is possible to privatize property, meaning, we sell national industry/business/media to the privately owned businesses. To make civ4s building system more realistic, you should be able to do use both methods . Each one having its pros and cons spread ownership around or centralize it . Its up to your civ!
Crazy Twist
Or you can use 4 methods of ownership, Yourself, Government, Business or special group and each one is learnt throughout time. So naturally when you own everything, your king/tyrant
, when special group owns everything, your civ is aristocratic/oligarchic when government owns everything, your civ is left-wing socialistic/dictatotorial or when business owns everything, your civ is Capitalistic/ Techno-oligarchic. Whether you get a good or evil title depends on your choices
. Absolutly not!!I strongly agree with the people who argue about making the game more evolutionary.
And heres my idea about redesigning the build function to make it seem so
Problem to Build function
We all know that in real life the build function doesnt work that way. You see, government can own industry/business/media and it would be called: National, State or Public Property. Which means government pays for those controlled owned property and does whatever they want with it. When we, Civ players, build a building (any), were basically nationalizing property and have to pay it. While in real life, it is possible to privatize property, meaning, we sell national industry/business/media to the privately owned businesses. To make civ4s building system more realistic, you should be able to do use both methods . Each one having its pros and cons spread ownership around or centralize it . Its up to your civ!
Crazy Twist
Or you can use 4 methods of ownership, Yourself, Government, Business or special group and each one is learnt throughout time. So naturally when you own everything, your king/tyrant
, when special group owns everything, your civ is aristocratic/oligarchic when government owns everything, your civ is left-wing socialistic/dictatotorial or when business owns everything, your civ is Capitalistic/ Techno-oligarchic. Whether you get a good or evil title depends on your choices
Enkidu Warrior
Ultramagnetic
I disagree.
There's no reason why that Aqueduct you're building has to be state owned just because you gave the order to build it. You could be directing private companies to build it, they're still limited by available construction materials and build-time. Do we really want to sit around waiting for private citizens to build an Aqueduct on their own accord? And how would this work when we want to build military units/buildings?
Private/state ownership should be decided by social engineering choices, not by the manner in which you built the improvement.
The player doesn't really represent the government anyway, after all we don't get voted out under democracy, and we live a bit longer than most political leaders. We just set the direction of our civilization.
I definately want economic policy seperated from form of government. Alpha Centauri had the right idea, except drop the attributes thing.
There's no reason why that Aqueduct you're building has to be state owned just because you gave the order to build it. You could be directing private companies to build it, they're still limited by available construction materials and build-time. Do we really want to sit around waiting for private citizens to build an Aqueduct on their own accord? And how would this work when we want to build military units/buildings?
Private/state ownership should be decided by social engineering choices, not by the manner in which you built the improvement.
The player doesn't really represent the government anyway, after all we don't get voted out under democracy, and we live a bit longer than most political leaders. We just set the direction of our civilization.
I definately want economic policy seperated from form of government. Alpha Centauri had the right idea, except drop the attributes thing.
Ukraineboy
Warlord
- Joined
- Dec 30, 2003
- Messages
- 244
Volunteer system!!!
I invade Rome, the Roman capital will automatically produce the Legionarry every 5 turns. These will represent "Volunteers" from Rome.. in WWII, Germany used Czech Tanks and the Waffen SS had plenty of Volunteers from belgium, and various other countries.
I invade Rome, the Roman capital will automatically produce the Legionarry every 5 turns. These will represent "Volunteers" from Rome.. in WWII, Germany used Czech Tanks and the Waffen SS had plenty of Volunteers from belgium, and various other countries.
Ukraineboy
Warlord
- Joined
- Dec 30, 2003
- Messages
- 244
3D Fight scenes!
No more of the
"Cavalry shoots, Infantry shoots.. meter slowly falls"
I want to see a 3D Battle showing Cavalry fighting Infantry! now that would be cool!
No more of the
"Cavalry shoots, Infantry shoots.. meter slowly falls"
I want to see a 3D Battle showing Cavalry fighting Infantry! now that would be cool!
Ukraineboy
Warlord
- Joined
- Dec 30, 2003
- Messages
- 244
Sorry for the 3rd post but...
in Diplomacy...
When making Alliances, you should be able to decide who gets which cities. When Germany made the pact with USSR, USSR got Eastern Poland, and Germany got Western Poland....
I want to say to another Civ...
"Look, you help me invade America, you get New York, Detroit... etc"
Now, to make this more simple, lets say you have an Alliance with Iroquois against Americans, Iroquois get Denver, BUT you invade and capture Denver... automatically, Iroquois get Denver BUT, you can be a jackass and get a bad rep hit, and maybe even get declared war from Iroquois, and NOT give them Denver.. but thats like attacking during a Passage agreement.
in Diplomacy...
When making Alliances, you should be able to decide who gets which cities. When Germany made the pact with USSR, USSR got Eastern Poland, and Germany got Western Poland....
I want to say to another Civ...
"Look, you help me invade America, you get New York, Detroit... etc"
Now, to make this more simple, lets say you have an Alliance with Iroquois against Americans, Iroquois get Denver, BUT you invade and capture Denver... automatically, Iroquois get Denver BUT, you can be a jackass and get a bad rep hit, and maybe even get declared war from Iroquois, and NOT give them Denver.. but thats like attacking during a Passage agreement.
Originally posted by Bart2k4
Listen, CivIII and CTP where both amazing games.... but the civ style of gameplay has to be changed
Doesn't anybody agree with me?
First of all CTP is not made by the same company as CivIII. Activision made CTP and Microprose made CivII and CivI and Infogrames(used to be Microprose, now Atari) made CivIII. Why do people assume just because CTP had civilization in its name it has anything to do with CivIII. Second, wilbill is right. If people didnt like the system that civ uses than people wouldnt have played them all these years.
CivIII is not 'incredibly unrealistic'. In fact its one of the most realistic strategy games i've ever played. If you want to call something 'incredibly unrealistic' play a real time strategy.
Goober
Turning Right ...
YES!!! That is EXACTLY what I mean by the "3D Combat bit" I actually never owned Caeser I, but I do have Caeser II and III, and the combat is really cool, I think. You could go into a whole seperate "Battle scene", where you could guide your armies against the enemies armies, you could watch your armies destroy the enemies cities.
On second though, some people might not like this. Maybe this could be an option, in the Preferences, "Guide Battles" or whatever . . .
Or maybe even as an expansion for Civ 4 (it is early, I know . . . Civ 4 hasn't even been released yet . . . ). I can imagina it now; Civ 4: Armies . . .
Evie
Pronounced like Eevee
I don't think this is a good idea for Civ. Yes, it sounds very cool - but it's essentialy expanding ressources - and heavy ressources to make all the 3d sprites and battle animations - for something that cannot be more than an option for some people, as there are a number of players who would MUCH rather have the simple-style combats where two units fight and that's that.
Essentialy, my opposition to this idea is that it eats up entirely too much ressources which could be better spent on any number of other pursuits for something that add an extreme layer of micro-management to the game.
Plus, imagine trying to make scenarios with custom units in a game with that kidn of graphic involvement. And the Civ scenario community is one of its mainstay. Would you rather have a game where you get some slight additional control over battle as an option, or a game where extensive mods like DYP are a possibility?
I'd much rather have the later.
Essentialy, my opposition to this idea is that it eats up entirely too much ressources which could be better spent on any number of other pursuits for something that add an extreme layer of micro-management to the game.
Plus, imagine trying to make scenarios with custom units in a game with that kidn of graphic involvement. And the Civ scenario community is one of its mainstay. Would you rather have a game where you get some slight additional control over battle as an option, or a game where extensive mods like DYP are a possibility?
I'd much rather have the later.
Similar threads
