Discussion in 'Civ - Ideas & Suggestions' started by Live trash can, Jan 5, 2019.
I am curious. Why haven't you played V or VI? You are missing out on a lot of civ.
Basically, in the first couple games, the civilizations were different in name only, though the AI did have general play styles, so Mongols were aggressive, etc.
Then each civilization got things specific to it, so like in 4, America had the Navy Seal and England had the Redcoat. The leaders in 4 also had a pool of traits where each one got 2.
In 5, each civilization had a unique ability, and 6 went with that and also added leader abilities.
A lot of people have posted the idea of civilizations going a more natural route and developing based on what's around them, so like starting with horses would give you a horseman unique unit, which is kind of the opposite of what they've been doing.
Your idea is a bit different than that, but made me think of it. Most people end up specializing their cities anyway, and your idea wouldn't really change the direction that the developers are going in with the games, so it fits better.
I love this idea but I would still give each civ 1 unique starting ability that would affect how you play that civ. That way you would get the best of both worlds. You would still get a unique bonus but you would get future bonuses based on how you play. I would also have culture where you could pick unique culture traits. In that way, you could pick extra unique bonuses for your civ. For example, picking say Rome, you would get 1 starting roman unique trait, maybe you find horses first so you get a unique horse unit, then as you collect culture, you could pick 2-3 unique culture traits as the game progressed. So you would create a unique civ as you play.
In 5 and 6, you be pretty much been able to build your own religion with the different abilities that are available.
I am glad you see it that way. To be honest I haven't been able to play any civ games for about 5 years do to mental health issues. I sometimes play civilization without a computer (see my thread in the Civ 4 forum for more on this). That is plan and strategize - for when I will be able to play it again. This means I am stuck in Civ IV. But I have also heard that IV is the best.
I think I now plan to play V and VI, in the future... As well as my long prepared go at IV on Monarch. I haven't really had a go at that difficulty before. I have some ideas. Which might end up in my future thread called "Your worst ideas when playing Civ IV?"
It's all a lot of fun!
I am so sorry to hear about your mental health issues. I hope you are getting treatment and that it is working to help you get better.
In terms of civ4 being the best, that is highly subjective of course. There are a lot of fans who still love civ4, especially with all the mods and scenarios, and feel like it provides the most content and depth. There are also a lot of fans who love civ5 and civ6 too. Civ5 is a very different civ experience than civ4. It did mark a radical turn in the civ franchise. It introduced 2 fundamental changes, hexes instead of square tiles and the infamous 1 unit per tile rule that banned stacking completely. Whereas civ4 allows for big empires and more empire management, civ5 really focuses on small empires (4-5 cities), city management and moving units one by one. Civ6 kept the hexes from civ5 and mostly kept 1 unit per tile with some improvements but focused on big empires again and added some big new features like policy cards, builders instead of workers, loyalty, wonders on the map, districts on the map etc. So civ6 actually plays very differently than civ5. And with 2 expansions now, civ6 has a lot of new content and a lot of new added features that make it a full game.
I hope that gives you a general sense of what the games are like.
Ed Beach is on twitter and sometimes answer to the questions...
Yes, I have been getting treatment and medicines that make life much easier! I am feeling much better than I was.
Stacking seems to me to be fundamental to combat. How does non-stacking combat work? Does it play like Warhammer or?
I don't know Warhammer. But basically non stacking works just like it sounds. You can never put 2 units on the same tile at the same time. This means that all your units have to occupy separate tiles and a unit must move if you want to move up another unit into that tile. To keep things fairly manageable, civ5 and civ6 usually have far less units to move than in civ4. In civ6, your entire army can just be 5-6 units total. If you want to capture an enemy city, you must move each unit separately. You generally move your melee units to surround the city and place a ranged unit like a catapult close enough (withing 2 tiles) that it can hit the city with its ranged attack. Cities with walls will have their own ranged attack to damage one of your units each turn. Once you've knocked down the walls, your melee units can attack the city. Once the city's hit points are down 0, you take the city.
Also, because you can no longer stack units in your city center, the devs have to make cities stronger. So in civ5 and civ6, cities can have a ranged attack of their own to hit enemies even when there is no defending unit in the city center.
The no stacking rule was implemented because the developer of civ5 thought that it would introduce more tactics and strategy to the game since you could no longer just move a huge stack and attack the city in one turn but rather would need to consider what tiles each unit should go on to maximize their benefits. He was apparently inspired by the game Panzer General.
Ranged units on hills can strike further. Units on plains can move further. So the terrain matters a lot more. Also, ranged units are very useful at damaging units at a distance whereas melee units are great at killing off certain types of units. So placing some ranged units like archers behind your melee units is useful to damage the enemy before your melee units strike. So it does introduce some of the tactics that you might expect in combat.
The problem I have with 1 unit per tile is that it tries to bring tactics to a strategic map. On a tactical scale, it would make sense but when you are playing on a civ map where a few tiles can represent hundreds of miles, moving your units around tactically does not make sense. Plus, it creates weird situations like ancient archers being able to shoot units in France from England on a small Earth map. The other big problem is that it is adds more frustration and micromanagement in moving units since you have to move individual units one at a time and units can block each other's paths. Lastly, the AI really struggles sometimes with moving units around since they can accidentally block each other.
Civ6 did add some notable tweaks that improve the no stacking rule. In civ6, you can stack civilian units and attach them to a military unit. So you can finally escort a settler with a military unit. There are also support units like the battering ram which help you take cities in the ancient era which you can also stack and attach to a military unit. Lastly, around the mid game, you unlock corps and armies that allow you to merge two or three identical units into one single more powerful unit. This does allow you to clean up the map a bit by merging units together to give you more space to maneuver.
I would say that III and IV have like the same game engine (if there exists such a thing) but with different particulars. Is V and VI more like different games from III and IV? Different game engines?
And is combat intuitive? I would say combat in IV is far from intuitive, but that it part of what makes it interesting!
It seems to me risky to change the "game engine" of something that is so successful. Do you feel they have succeeded?
Civ5 has a completely new game engine form civ4 and is a radically different game from civ4. Civ6 has a new game engine too but feels a bit closer to civ5. There are big differences between civ5 and 6 but they share some basic commonalities like hexes and 1 unit per tile.
I guess combat in civ5/6 is somewhat more intuitive, only because you only need to deal with 1 unit attacking one unit and don't have to worry about stacks. And when you learn the differences between melee, ranged and calvary, then yeah, I guess it is pretty intuitive how combat will work. And of course, the game does show you in advance what the results of combat between two units will be before you start fighting. So you always know in advance how combat will go and who will win between the two fighting units. So combat is very predictable.
Personally, I feel like civ6 is much better than civ5. I personally hated civ5 and don't play it. But I do play civ6 a lot. In some ways, civ6 has definitely made some big improvements over civ4. However, there are areas that I think still need to be fixed.
From what you said it seems that VI has a lot of new exciting content.
Sorry if i skipped some of what you have written! I read kind of slow!
Since I am not done playing IV (not by a long shot) it makes little sense to start with VI!
It's not the first time a game company has screwed up a sequel. It happened in my opinion for instance to Halo. The people that are best at developing sequels is in my view Nintendo.
Edit: Perhaps they (the developers) are catering to new customers with new iterations?
I would recommend skipping civ5. I do hope you get to play civ6 with both expansions (rise and fall and gathering storm). I warn you, going straight from civ4 to civ6 will be a huge leap. But yes, civ6 with the 2 expansions adds a ton of exciting new content that will thrill you. So it will a good kind of radical change.
And yes, the devs do change game engines and make some big changes from one civ version to the next, in order to appeal to new customers.
Although I didn't like the idea initially, a promotion-tree for cities might be a good idea!
What I like is a way of developing cities and getting bonuses for certain behaviors. Bonuses that for instance could make a city in a barren place viable because it could act like a trade center.
But should the "promotions" be based on behavior and be determined by the game or should they be chosen from a list?
I like the idea of cities' development being beyond the player's control...
I think whether to implement the one or the other would take some serious thinking about the pros and cons.
Any more thoughts?
I am currently tilting towards promotions being beyond the player's control. Makes it more dynamic and organic.
I see arguments for both sides. A pre-determined list is probably easier to do. Plus, it is always good to give the player control over as much of the game as possible. Like with unit promotions, the player has to make to a strategic choice when picking a promotion. Strategic choices are always good in a strategy game. On the other hand, letting cities auto-promote based on the map or events would be more "organic" and would be more logical. And we know the civ6 devs love making the player "play the map". So this would be a good way of doing that. For example, coastal cities could automatically get promotions like "+production towards harbors and ships" and "increase yields from sea based trade routes originating from this city". So players would be encouraged in this instance to build coastal cities and make them sea based powerhouses.
I just thought that you can relate to "organic" parts of the game in a strategical way. You know this or that can happen and take actions according to what you think is best!
IMO the problem with the idea of getting auto-specialization on cities is contradictory with the identity of Civ as a 4X game.
In Civ you specialize your city by building things in it actively. In the same way, you pick a civilization (and even select a victory) at the start of the game and don't organically evolve depending on what happens. You also get a fixed tech tree, even if Civ6 added the eureka system to make it more context-dependant.
I really love the idea of a more organic and granular 4X game (and that's kinda what Ea was supposed to be more Civ5) where everything evolves depending on your decisions and the environment. But it's just not Civilization - the main series, at least. It's probably what Beyond Earth was trying to do, and should have been: a game with a very deep map and civilizations that start very similar, but slowly diverge depending on choices and environmental constraints.
It's also probably very hard to do, because it's both asymmetrical AND "random".
Back to specialized cities - if you want to specialize a city for trade, build the "trade center" buildings (market etc) in your cities, OR replace this kind of abstract decision by a combination of friendly cities not being very far, valuable ressources and maybe a possibility to encourage trade. But you can't really have both in the same time. Basically, you can't play both Civ and Victoria at the same time.
I am pretty sure my suggestions go "against the grain" of many civ-players. But I like the organic, random feel more than many players.
What do you think of the events (earthquake relief etc.) and the spy-game of BtS?
Separate names with a comma.