Do you guys want civ 4 to be more realistic?

[Commander Bello]

Originally posted by Qpdaj
[...]
Seafaring starts on the coast (duh).
Industrius starts surrounded by lots of hills and forests.
Agricultural starts with lots of grassland and floodplains.
Commercial starts near lots of rivers / luxories.
Scientific starts pretty issolated from other civs.
Militaristic starts surrounded by other civs.
Religious starts near, um, lots of Mountains and Volcanos?
[..]
Also, for all civs, they should start near whatever resorces they need to build their UU. If their UU requires less than two resources, they should get other resources.

Sorry, I don't like those ideas, although for seafaring it is already in the game.
But, I think it would cause massive revision of the internal map editor and would slow down the process of map creation. Well, this would only happen at the beginning of the game, of course.
But, it would weaken certain civs considerably. For example, the Germans. As being militaristic, they would be surrounded by many other civs. Any other militaristic civ would be somewhere in there neighbourhood, automatically. But, the Germans are one of those civs who have a very late UU. So, they would just be moved to the bottom of the list of desirable civs. Most probably, they would almost everytime have to meet the Romans, for instance.
Commercial civs would "reserve" the starting locations at rivers for themselves and would almost automatically become science leaders.
And so on...

It would make for a very deterministic start of the game, thus minimizing the diversity of game starts.
By that, it would limit the chance to develop individual, own evolution of the civilisation, one has chosen.

And, it is almost nothing else than Civ3, conceptually.

Much more would I like the idea to have your individual path you follow in a given game influence your traits.
This way, maybe the Germans wouldn't be always militaristic. Or the Mongols would become religious and seafaring. The English could become a farmer's nation...
This would make every game being an individual one. Currently, some settings are almost given as soon as you have chosen your nation (or have accepted, what the game offered you).

[edit] And it would cause the need for much more ressources, since all civs with the need for iron would just block it for others, since those would have much longer ways to it. So, any unit with the need for it would become almost unobtainable for those nations. The French and the Russians would almost block the access to saltpeter, the Romans the one to iron and so on...

 

[capslock]

I want to have a more customizable military. What I mean is the ability to define the statistics for a specific unit. Obviously there would be limits, and modern units would be more customizable than ancient. Also, buildtimes, support costs, etc. would be affected by the stats you want and the amount of customization allowed would be affected by resources available, scientific advances, etc. This would allow each player to build a unique military and would open up a whole new level of strategy for the game.

For this to happen, though, I think that the stats for units need to be changed. There needs to be a much bigger gap between ancient and modern units(I think many people mod Civ3 this way). This will also help fix the tank losing to the spearman problem.

 

[Naokaukodem]

I want a more realistic game if this solves gameplay "issues", like the limitation of city number and of civilization building and the high randomness/importance of the starting location.
Also i think that civ isn't that a game full of gameplay... it is first an addictive game and a "see what you have built and how it can look, surprisingly, huge and realistic" [war-like, diplomacy-like] game. So with this point of view, civ4 would have to be more realistic. Or more precisely... more realistic-like. Indeed civ never pretended to reproduce reality, but with simple rules to give the player the feeling he is in reality as a game. Much about reality it is about geopolitical reality of course, in one word civ is a civilization simulation.

 

[Evie]

One argument against hex (back to that debate) is that they are counter-intuitive in terms of directions you can move in. They might make distance calculations easier, true, but it would be really annoying at least as I view it that the only way to go eastward or westward is to go in a zigzag line - which is somewhat counterintuitive. So it's not a perfect system either. The squares have the benefit of being intuitive in geographical terms : you can move north, east, south, west, south-east, south-west, north-east, north-west.

These are intuitive geographical direction people are used to. A 6-point system on world maps is counter-intuitive in geographical term.

Which is not to say the above rules out hexes. Simply, that they are not "universally better" as some like to claim - they happen to be less intuitive in terms of how they are to be used (keyboard shortcuts), and they are also geographically counter-intuitive in that you have to move in Z lines to go in two out of the four basic directions on a map which the human mind is used to grasping.

The question at this point becomes whether the distance calculations advantages of hexes outweigh their counter-intuitive aspect considering westward and eastward movement.

 

[Harrier]

We are all posting what we want to see in Civ4 - as improvements to civ3 in gameplay, difficulty, realism etc.

Fair enough.

But when Civ4 is released in say 4 years time - Atari will also have to consider newcomers to the series - not just us old timers.

So the basic game can not be too complex - or it will not sell to first time buyers. Those kids who do not know about or can not yet get on the Internet.

So what I propose is an option in the New Game Start up screen.

"Additional difficulty levels."

If selected, you get a pop-up screen were you choose the more complex game play options.

i.e. - Tactical battles, complex economics, advanced diplomancy, more complex trade, etc.

This way newcomers to the game, get the new game features of Civ4 - new inovations to the game, in trade and diplomacy, for instance, plus better (maybe 3D) graphics, AI improvements (more realistic) etc. Without the initial game play experience being to difficult.

Veteran players can then add the more complex/realistic game play features as they improve their gaming experience.

This way all sides are kept happy.

Except of course the game designers and programmers who have to produce this game.

 

[Commander Bello]

@ Oda Nobunaga:

I don't think that a hex system is counter-intuitive.
All, a player wants his units to do, is that they move from tile A to tile B. That is done via mouse or by the "goto" command.
Noone makes it a scout exercise and enters: "move 8 square north, then 3 squares northeast". We just point to given tile and send our units. Or we send them to a town. Period.
All of the above can be done by both systems, may it be a 6-directional or a 8-directional one.
So, the hex system has no disadvantages versus the shifted (btw, for what reason did they shift it???) orthagonal system.
For anyone new to this game, it would make no difference. For us, who we know the current system of movement, it would be a change, of course.
But is there really a person who would stand up and explain: "I will not be able to get accustomed to this system in less than 3 hours?"

The benefit of a hex system would be given by every distance calculation, on the other hand. Here, the hex system is the intuitive one, and the orthagonal system looses. Especially, since distance calculation and travel times do not match. And this is something, which is really counter-intuitive!
I shall need 10 turns for my worker to move from town A to town B, or 10 turns to move from town A to town C, but C has higher corruption because it is farther away???? Gosh... that's intuitive...

As many wargames prove, a hexagonal system makes things easier as soon as having units to be stationed "shoulder at shoulder".
A hexagonal system would make any calculation easier (that is, take less time for the cpu to calculate), as soon as travel times or fire ranges are concerned. Nowadays, my artillery in principle shoots 50% farther in NE, SE, SW, NW direction. Why? Because the wind changes with every salvo?

So, as far as benefits are concerned, they are found by the hexagonal system... With the only exception that such a system cannot be developed using a squared piece of paper.
But, to be honest, I am tired of finding all those algorithms in the game, which have been designed late night at a bar on a piece of paper and just don't work very good in reality....

 

[Evie]

And what about people who use keyboard for moving, Bello?

They don't use the goto command. Just because YOU use the mouse doesn't mean other players do, and given the nature of civ as a game, the keyboard is generally more practical for moving units around. Having to slide every unit around to give them a go to command when you are trying to do exploring early in the game (ie, are trying to find the interesting spot to settle, and don't know from turn to turn where your unit will be going next) would be just plain ludicrous.

Also, what about having to build "Z" roads east-west but straight roads north-south? That too is counter-intuitive.

So no, contrary to what you fanatically claimn about hexes, they are not the "only obvious choice" - both sides have advantages and inconvenients, and to claim the choice should be obvious is just plain out of place.

 

[Commander Bello]

@Oda Nobunaga:

Most times, I use the numeric keypad for moving my units (that is, for shorter distances).
Of course, it is easy to do it with the numeric keypad. But hexagonal moves wouldn't be more complicated. Just use 7,8,9 and 1,2,3 for the directions, and everything is fine. 5 would just do nothing (as nowadays) and 4 and 6 could be used to switch through stacked units. Or they wouldn't do anything, either.
It is just a matter of some minutes (ok, 2 hours) to get used to it.

And let's be honest... Anyone who had to move his units for the first time under the current system, had to face some difficulties in identifying to which field he was directing his units, either.
But all of use (the one more, the other less) has had the intellectual capacity of managing it. Don't underestimate people.. they will learn about the hex movement quite quick, I promise you.

 

[Evie]

Yeah, I know about the movement, but having to build "Z" east-west roads is really counter-intuitive. Not hard to manage, just counter-intuitive, and therefore *very annoying*.

It's one thing to learn quickly about a system, it's another thing to like the system, and I predict most casual players will find Z east-west roads but straight north-south ones quite the turn-off where this game is concerned. If Civ was only about war, perhaps, but in war-games, roads are already built when the game start, you don't have to make them yourself. And in those cases, having to move your unit "one square up-left, one down-left, one up-left, one down-left" and having to build your roads likewise would get annoying, quickly.

 

[Commander Bello]

Ok, let's agree upon that we disagree
Or let's continue to convince each other via pm's :-D

Otherwise people get the impression, the whole thread would be about 8 or 6 directions

 

[Harrier]

Originally posted by Commander Bello
Just use 7,8,9 and 1,2,3 for the directions, and everything is fine. 5 would just do nothing (as nowadays) and 4 and 6 could be used to switch through stacked units. Or they wouldn't do anything, either.
It is just a matter of some minutes (ok, 2 hours) to get used to it.

I have played hexed based war games as well as the civ PC games.

IMO hex is good for board games and oct (psuedo) is good for PC. What is the problem here? Oct gives you more movement options so should be better.

If a hex method was adopted my instinct would be to use 741 and 963, instead of 789 and 123. Just adding more confusion to the debate.

 

[Endureth]

I imagine the player would be able to assign any keys she wanted for movement. Then he can pick any six keys he likes for his new octogonal movement system.

Squares suck, get rid of them I say.

I don't use the keyboard anyway, I use a mouse.

-E

 

[Naokaukodem]

I don't see where is your problem. As squares are euclidian, we can do a move in the two ways and take another direction, and come at home in the exact same number of moves/time.

The ONLY thing at what squares are unprecise is the natural human apreciation of distance: because squares are stretched, some distances seems as well. If one boat sees one enemy away, we might think that he could not be upon us before two turns instead of one. If a stack is at one of the four empty edges of one culturally extended city, we might think that it could reach us in two turns as well instead of one.

But hey come on, this happens only when we are not familiar with any of Civilization game, and again, it is much less annoying than some other things as the system is purely logic and, strawberry on the cake, there is a lovely grid to help us to count if we have any problem, at first, because i can tell you that i don't really remember the time when i had such problem, as an experienced Civ player.

So it is clear for me that a hexagonal system would be inferior in all ways, with even 6 directions instead of 8 (!), and it is not that much realistic you know. Distances are also distorded, as long as you don't move straightly... (yes they are, you will notice it as long as you have to zig zag to move on a little distance if you play strategy board games)

The only justification for a hexagonal map is if the developpers want to do a SPHERIC map, what would be nice but not that usefull, or maybe for some strategic points. (Civ can be superior to reality too! )

So definitively classic hexagonal map system sucks IMO.

- It reduces possibilities (directions)
- makes moves more strange
- slightly falsificates the distances as well, less obviously than squares, but still.*

*= Hexagonal distorsion is not oriented and you are moving your units "from nowhere to nowhere" with unprecision due only to hexagon restriction and nothing else. At least square distorsion is oriented to east and west. (not north and south due to the perspective distorsion)

Even Nintendo chose this kind of map for its Wars series (except for the one on classic game boy), but doesn't allow to move by the angles. The result is that an unstraightly away unit "seems" (is) closer than another straightly away, which is not. Wars series is 1 diagonal for 2 edges, Civ is 2 diagonals for 2 edges (best ratio i think). If it can be an argument for the better simplicity of square system...

Anyway, any grid map isn't that perfect. It's better on a table to have a grid, so that you can't accuse the other players to cheat with the meter. So for me, the best solution would be no grid at all, and welcome to the spheric map. Ok, it would create some minor problems like exploitation areas, roads etc... well the roads would have to be built from one point to another, and they would be generated automatically (or not) between random villages too, and the map could continue to be divided in exploitable squares.

Hope i have been understandable... at least. :tank:

 

[Endureth]

A game without grids or hexes would be nice also. Movement could be done by pixel distance or something, but I digress...

The third installment of Total War is implementing no grids, hexes or territories. They are trying a distance-based system. I definately hope they pull it off. If done properly it could be very nice indeed. I hope for it to be so good that it influences some design considerations of Civ 5.

-E

 

[Naokaukodem]

Movement would be done like in any real time strategy game or some turn by turn others.

But i'm thinking... A..And what about Civ6 to be a First Person Shooter?

 

[Vietcong]

units shold have moral

 

[tmarze]

I do like the U.N. idea,plus I think when you buld barricks you should be able to build your army then but with 10 or more units and still keep the leaders just when they appears you can create
special forces instead of just an army and rework the way the units do in battle for instance just an infantry soilder should not be able to defeat a tank that is where a unit called a
grenade launcher or mortar launcher would come in
I have to ask have anyone tried EMPIRE EARTH I just want to know what do you all think.

 

[tmarze]

plus make it easier to move by letting you move 10 or more military units at the same time

 

[EddyG17]

Let the game be on Octagones, they don't fit together but nahh... who cares?

 

[purplengold14]

armies should be created like in civ call to power. you should be able to stack forces and attack as one, just as in real life.