C7 Feature Requests

[Vuldacon]

Quintillus... Your Point concerning the need to have Specific Threads organized for New Features and Game Ideas to prevent them from being "buried" is well taken.
My question is who will determine what warrants its own thread from what has already been posted. Either an individual or Group could decide what needs to be preserved on its own thread.
Would it be better to have 200 separate threads for New Features and Game Ideas?
I suppose it would allow faster scanning of suggested New Features and Game Ideas as well as offer desirability from the numbers of posts each thread gains concerning them.

 

[Takhisis]

I was thinking of what would happen if barbarians could be tweaked to be counted on in specific maps as irregulars for one side. In EFZI there could be ‘Zombie’ barbs emerging anywhere and attacking anyone but the AI!Zombies.

 

[Vuldacon]

I was thinking of what would happen if barbarians could be tweaked to be counted on in specific maps as irregulars for one side. In EFZI there could be ‘Zombie’ barbs emerging anywhere and attacking anyone but the AI!Zombies.

That would be an Advantage to help an AI CIV ... It would at least offer a specific way to Use Barbarians

 

[Virote_Considon]

Perhaps feature requests would be better served with their own subforum, in order not to clutter the main development forum?

 

[Quintillus]

Quintillus... Your Point concerning the need to have Specific Threads organized for New Features and Game Ideas to prevent them from being "buried" is well taken.
My question is who will determine what warrants its own thread from what has already been posted. Either an individual or Group could decide what needs to be preserved on its own thread.
Would it be better to have 200 separate threads for New Features and Game Ideas?
I suppose it would allow faster scanning of suggested New Features and Game Ideas as well as offer desirability from the numbers of posts each thread gains concerning them.

My best prediction is that it would work similar to how the "Modding Q&A" in Civ3 C&C, or the "Computer Questions Not Worth Their Own Thread" in the computer forum work - if you just have a short, "hey, it's be nice if this thing worked this way", you could toss a suggestion in this thread (or its future equivalent), but if you have a more involved question you'd break it out into its own thread. A more subjective distinction than scientific.

It would also be fewer than 200 separate threads, since some of the replies so far have been responses to suggestions rather than suggestions of their own. Well, eventually it would be more than 200, but you know what I mean.

My wish list feature for this feature request feature? In more recent versions of XenForo than what CFC has, there is the ability to have forums where threads can be upvoted, allowing the most popular suggestions to rise to the top. If I understand it correctly, it's essentially designed for this problem. Then, the suggestions forum would act somewhat similarly to the GOG Wishlist.

Of course, votes/popularity isn't everything - the difficulty of implementing a suggestion is another relevant factor, for example. But even without a XenForo upgrade, I think having separate threads would help evaluate the popularity of various ideas.

Perhaps feature requests would be better served with their own subforum, in order not to clutter the main development forum?

One of the pieces of feedback that both @WildWeazel and I have heard is that one forum for development and non-development items is not ideal. We've been attempting to not flood the forum with as much development work, by keeping that more on GitHub (and part of that is also that we're more organized than a few months ago, so there is less need for threads to organize development). But there's probably cause to poll the community on whether there should be two forums. I can see the value of having development updates visible here, but I can also see how too much of it results in everything else getting lost in the noise.

 

[Takhisis]

I'm leaving here the for now rough thought that unit production, upgrades and replacement could depend not only on discovered techs and available resources but also on government and on the time elapsed since the beginning of the game.

 

[Vasyl]

I wasn't playing for a few years, but now I am happy to see that there is such a great project.

A few suggestions from my experience. I would really love to see some more diplomatic features.

First of all - selling military units. So, for example, if I see a friendly country is attacked, I can sell (or make a gift) them some Modern Armors, avoiding getting involved in the military action myself. Maybe those military units should have no upkeep (because otherwise, it can cause economic collapse), but on the other hand, they will get the conscript level to get everything balanced...

Another thing - is the ability to demand from the aggressor to stop the war. I love helping small civilizations survive, and currently, in Civ III, all I can do is encircle the capital with my troops to stop the aggressor from capturing it. So, such a demand would be great. If the aggressor doesn't stop the actions, it should provide a kind of casus belli to start the war against the aggressor. And improve the relations with the country you're defending. And maybe other perks, like removing penalties from starting this war while your units are on the aggressor's territory, etc.

 

[Vasyl]

I recalled a few more things.

1. Ability to fine-tune the price in gold during negotiations. Now you need to erase the sum and enter the new one, but it would be great to have some kind of arrows in the diplomacy window to increase or decrease the price in gold by one.
   
   
2. Diplomacy advisor. I like to play games with 31 nations available, but seeing all the diplomatic relations is too tricky. Currently, it is a pain to use if you play with more than 8 nations. So it would be good to get this screen reworked. Or maybe add some kind of “table view” where all the relations could be seen easily.
   
   
3. Stats on F11 page. I really like to see them, but I still want to see more. For example, similar stats for each and every nation in the game. Hopefully, it shouldn’t affect the balance and (hopefully) shouldn’t be difficult to implement.
   
   
4. Make the ages limit adjustable. Yes, there should be 4 ages by default, but it should not be a hard limit. Mods with many technologies, such as RARR, could split the techs to 6 or 8 ages. And mods dedicated to some local war may need only one.
   
   
5. CivAssist II. It was a great app, but it doesn’t work on the latest Windows versions (not mentioning Linux or Mac). I really miss notifications about workers on sale, wealthy nations, trade options, and polluted cells. Also, there were awesome city tables. Is there a chance to add the functions of this app to the game?

 

[Alcoron]

Just a few random thoughts (I didn't manage to read the whole thread, sorry if some suggestions are repetitive):

Roads & bridges

I have always somehow disliked the concept of building roads/railroads in every single tile. I would suggest the following concept:

- introducing stone or a kind quarry as a common and relatively evenly spread resource on the map with one within reach of the starting location of each player or directly under the first settler, let’s call it stone. Each source of stone would be able to support certain amount of roads (and if bridges are introduced – one or two bridges, so that rivers cannot be just crossed everywhere). For example, one source of stone could support say 100 “units” of road and 1 bridge. Lowland terrain would require 1 unit of stone to complete a road, a hill 3 units, a mountain 10 units (so that they are actually difficult to traverse). And there could be an indicator to expand the cost depending on the tile distance between the closest settlement. Thus, the player should prioritise where to build roads. Resources in tiles without roads to linked in the economy with “paths” or something similar, built for free but without any movement bonuses for passing units. Then the same concept can be applied for railroads and probably asphalt roads. Of course, all those figures above are just as an example. Precise calculations should be made to find the best balance.

Resources in general

I like the idea to capitalise on having more resources – now not counting the clumsy trade mechanics, it is one and the same if you have one or ten sources of rubber, iron, etc. I suggest that every source cover a certain amount of units, and also – to have variable value: for example one source of oil could provide anywhere between 100 and 300 “units” of oil. And every unit may require a certain amount of a resource in order to be produced. After the limit is reached, units can no longer be produced unless more quantities are secured.

 

[B-29_Bomber]

I like the idea to capitalise on having more resources – now not counting the clumsy trade mechanics, it is one and the same if you have one or ten sources of rubber, iron, etc. I suggest that every source cover a certain amount of units, and also – to have variable value: for example one source of oil could provide anywhere between 100 and 300 “units” of oil. And every unit may require a certain amount of a resource in order to be produced. After the limit is reached, units can no longer be produced unless more quantities are secured.

I absolutely agree with resource limits on the number of units built because I think that was one of the best innovations of later civ games.

This along with unit promotions, units being able to survive single defeats, and one unit per tile (fight me!). This all led to fewer, but more precious units.

I also agree with road spam being a problem.

 

[Takhisis]

one unit per tile (fight me!)

 

[B-29_Bomber]

dodges

Bullet Time, Son!

 

[WildWeazel]

compromise: 9 units per tile!

 

[Kyriakos]

Wouldn't it make more sense to have an upper limit for units per tile but tie it to the type of the tile? Jungles usually can't sustain armies as well as crop-fields near a city

 

[B-29_Bomber]

compromise: 9 units per tile!

3 units per tile, take it or leave it.

Wouldn't it make more sense to have an upper limit for units per tile but tie it to the type of the tile? Jungles usually can't sustain armies as well as crop-fields near a city

Sounds like it would add too much complexity.

 

[Takhisis]

compromise: 9 units per tile!

Wouldn't it make more sense to have an upper limit for units per tile but tie it to the type of the tile? Jungles usually can't sustain armies as well as crop-fields near a city

I've already said that for specific scenarios like EFZI that could work great, but not for epic civ.

 

[Ozymandias]

If I ever get around to writing up some AI suggestions for C7, stacking limits are front and center - working hand-in-hand with a plethora of notions to evoke far more intelligent, emergent behavior from an AI.

Stacking (like everything else) would be a variable. Different Techs would unlock higher stacking limits. A single Unit could have a stacking value of 0 (skirmishers) 1 (infantry) or 2 (armor.) These values could also directly translate into what a Transport could carry: if its limit is "4" 9and using the above example) then it could carry 2 infantry + 1 armor; etc. (Stacking limits in Cities would always be "infinite.")

Stacking could also vary by both Terrain and Unit Type: In a "Dien Bien Phu" scenario, armor could be 2 on plains; 0 in jungle; 1 on a road in a jungle.

... Etc,

 

[Takhisis]

^Ha! I've always thought of a ‘Tet offensive’ Viet Nam War scenario with different win conditions for the North and South sides.

Also, for tile limits, I've always wanted ‘cliff’-like terrain, i.e. terrain that doesn't allow you to move in all directions. One or more directions in a specific tile might be blocked.

 

[Ozymandias]

^Ha! I've always thought of a ‘Tet offensive’ Viet Nam War scenario with different win conditions for the North and South sides.

Also, for tile limits, I've always wanted ‘cliff’-like terrain, i.e. terrain that doesn't allow you to move in all directions. One or more directions in a specific tile might be blocked.

Apropos, I've always wanted terrain types to delineate critical elevated plateaus, like the Iranian one.

Also, I have an entirely uninformed suspicion that blocking Tile sides might be somewhere buried in the witch's brew of code, as Rivers were moved from flowing through Tiles in Civ2 to the sides.

 

[tjs282]

Not sure if this thread is still in use, but I had another couple of thoughts the other day regarding Civ-traits.

First of all, goody-huts: in the epic-game, GH results tend to get worse with increasing difficulty, but (AFAIK) the only trait-related result is that Exp-Civs won't ever pop Barbs. Buuut... what if the most likely GH result(s) were instead all related more directly to the traits of the Civ which popped it? That is, while all GH results would still be possible for each Civ, the 'possible-outcome' table would be differently ordered/scored for each trait such that the most likely result(s) might be (e.g.):

Mil = Warrior (or "Worker(Barbarian)")
Ind = Worker
Rel = Worker (i.e. a "convert") or even a town (buffs Rel)
Exp = Settler, or a town (buffs Exp)
Comm = Gold-payment
Sci = Tech, or maps
Sea = Maps (or a boat, if the GH is coastal?)
Agri = Barbs (nerfs Agri, arguably the most OP trait)

...with the proviso that, since each Civ has (at least) 2 traits, the possible-outcome tables for each trait would need to be combined/averaged per Civ.

I can't remember which thread prompted it (apparently not this one), but the other thought I had (/stole?) recently would be to have the Civ-traits modify Cultural output from buildings, e.g. by +1 Culture-point per trait per building. So buildings with nonzero Cultural values, such as Temples and Libs, would become more Culturally valuable to Rel- and Sci-Civs, respectively. But the trait-specific Cultural boost would also apply to zero-Culture buildings — and could also be cumulative, so a Harbour might give +2 Culture to England (Sea + Comm), but only +1 Culture for Carthage (Sea + Ind).

(I think) It would also improve the game if nonzero-Culture buildings which matched a conqueror's trait(s) were not destroyed on capture, e.g. if the Greeks captured a town from Babylon, they would get to keep the Lib/Uni (Sci) — even if not the Temple/Cathedral (Rel). And then (rather than being forced to rebuild that building from scratch) after a reasonable delay, the captured building's Culture-points could now begin accruing to the conqueror instead, e.g. once all resistance was quelled — or after the majority of citizens held the conqueror's nationality (similar to how the "Xenophobic" gov-flag works).

The Cultural changes would compliment — or possibly even replace — the halved building-shield-cost by trait, which provides a significant benefit only during the early game when shields are scarce (and provides no benefit at all to Ind-, Comm- and Exp-Civs).