Let's make Civ 5

[rysmiel]

Another idea: I think each civilization should start with no unique traits, but develop them in the Ancient/Classical period, based on what you produce, where your gold goes, etc. So to be a financial leader, you build a lot of cottages to start with to earn the x1.5 economy bonus. And to become a spiritual leader, you focus your efforts on religious buildings. The benefits of an agressive leader are earned by building an army early on, and the benefits of a protective leader are earned through producing archers and building walls. And the more valuable traits (Philosophical and industrial, in particular) are harder to get. Therefore, it would be possible to be a Philosophical/Industrial leader, but it would difficult to achieve and would involve shifting focus away from military production to achieve, weakening you to attack. So it still balances out.

I'm with this a notion but I don't think it should be limited to ancient/classical age; I have I think argued before for leader traits changing regularly (ideally once an Age in a game with seven or more distinct Ages) to reflect whatever your priorities are, and also possibly how well you are doing in any given direction of development compared to the other civilisations in that game,

 

[rysmiel]

1.) Replace the current turn-based system with an active-time system that pauses when one of your units or cities needs new orders, or when you want to revise orders. All units from all civs carry out orders simultaneously.

2.) Movement is no longer tile-based. Units can move in any direction, not just 8, and diagonal movement is no longer more cost-effective than lateral or vertical movement. Units do not crowd onto a single tile, but instead gather in one general location. Larger armies naturally require more space. And any unit that can be reached can be attacked, so strategic army formation is key.

This is another one of those "might be a good game but it wouldn't be Civ and I'm not interested" notions. Turn-based allows me to think as long as I like, set the pace of my game how I want it, and default to nothing happening I do not specifically order.

I also don't get why people think diagonal movement being more cost-effective is a bug, rather than a feature of a specific representation to be taken into account in one's strategic thinking.

 

[Ramesses]

This is another one of those "might be a good game but it wouldn't be Civ and I'm not interested" notions. Turn-based allows me to think as long as I like, set the pace of my game how I want it, and default to nothing happening I do not specifically order.

Well, time wouldn't run constantly. The game would pause while you're being prompted to give a command, but when you're not giving commands, everything plays out simultaneously, in real-time.

 

[rysmiel]

Well, time wouldn't run constantly. The game would pause while you're being prompted to give a command, but when you're not giving commands, everything plays out simultaneously, in real-time.

So then you can't do the classic "move worker here, build road, move next worker along road to next square, build road, move next worker along to next square again, build road, then move military units along that road" tactic that depends on moving your units in a selected sequence within your turn, no ?

 

[Ramesses]

So then you can't do the classic "move worker here, build road, move next worker along road to next square, build road, move next worker along to next square again, build road, then move military units along that road" tactic that depends on moving your units in a selected sequence within your turn, no ?

Well you would order a worker to build a road from one point to another (city to city, for example), and give orders to your soldiers to move along that road every time a section was completed. And you could watch the road construction and pause the action to give orders to your soldiers.

--OR--

You could give the command to a worker to build a small stretch of road, and when he's done, the game pauses so you can issue orders to both the worker and soldiers.

So basically, this system would let you play in giant bounds or small steps, depending on how detailed you wanted your strategy to be at any given time. You would have full control over the speed that time progresses for the entire game.

 

[Onionsoilder]

That sounds good.

Now here's some really crazy ideas.

1.) Replace the current turn-based system with an active-time system that pauses when one of your units or cities needs new orders, or when you want to revise orders. All units from all civs carry out orders simultaneously.

2.) Movement is no longer tile-based. Units can move in any direction, not just 8, and diagonal movement is no longer more cost-effective than lateral or vertical movement. Units do not crowd onto a single tile, but instead gather in one general location. Larger armies naturally require more space. And any unit that can be reached can be attacked, so strategic army formation is key.

Eh.... no. Real-Time, even with pre-planned moves, would be to much like a RTS, and being able to move in any direction would drastically raise the game requirements. A Hexagonal system would be better.

 

[Ramesses]

Well, no matter, I have one last idea: a new technology system.

Since the technology tree tends to be rather rigid by nature, I think it should be replaced with something more fluid. Instead of researching specific technologies, you distribute your research efforts among several fields ("Military" for soldiers, "Culture" for religions and wonders, "Industry" for land improvements, etc.) To gain a new technology, you must reach the required checkpoint(s) in the proper fields of research. For example, Hunting requires 40 points in "Military" research, and Archery requires 60 additional points in "Military" (for a total of 100). Meanwhile, Pottery requires 40 points in both "Industry" and "Culture".

This allows a lot more freedom to develop your civ how you want. And barbarian civs use the same system, but in a stupider way: They will have the same rate of research as a normal civ (e.g. you) but will divert all energy into "Military" research, which hurts them in the long run, since it's impossible to get Swordsmen or better without some "Industry" or "Science" research. By affecting AI tendancies rather than placing artificial limitations on barb civs, the game will feel more realistic, since you really are fighting an "uncultured, stupid race of barbarians."

Another plus to this system is that it facilitates methods of tech research through means other than commerce. Goodie huts will give you a boost in a single field, as will great people. You can boost "Military" technology by fighting and winning battles, and boost "Culture" by using scouts and explorers.

But the biggest benefit of having this replace the tech tree is that it's much easier to mod. Adding a technology is as simple as adding a new set of checkpoints. No need to change what leads to when and when and why for one new tech. It's also possible to create an obscene amount of techs and avoid a hopelessly convoluted mess of a game.

 

[ZeroZeroSix]

My oppinion about civ4 is that it is a good game with many improvement over civ3. BUT...
I found out that there is far less scenario development than there was for civ3. My personal opinion is that the scenario development tool for civ4 is not as friendly as the previous ones. That single fact only may have discouraged many developpers with good ideas. The overall concept of giving more control to the developpers is good but in that case I think they lost many peoples in the run. What made the previous version so interesting is that any ones was able to create something (even crapy thing sometime lead to good).

Nothings is obvious anymore and much research on web have to be done as to where and what pertaining to scenario development.

Anyway, I still play it. I am a fan of RTW and Fall from Heaven as I was from the Jules Verne civ2.

 

[Onionsoilder]

Well, no matter, I have one last idea: a new technology system.

Since the technology tree tends to be rather rigid by nature, I think it should be replaced with something more fluid. Instead of researching specific technologies, you distribute your research efforts among several fields ("Military" for soldiers, "Culture" for religions and wonders, "Industry" for land improvements, etc.) To gain a new technology, you must reach the required checkpoint(s) in the proper fields of research. For example, Hunting requires 40 points in "Military" research, and Archery requires 60 additional points in "Military" (for a total of 100). Meanwhile, Pottery requires 40 points in both "Industry" and "Culture".

This allows a lot more freedom to develop your civ how you want. And barbarian civs use the same system, but in a stupider way: They will have the same rate of research as a normal civ (e.g. you) but will divert all energy into "Military" research, which hurts them in the long run, since it's impossible to get Swordsmen or better without some "Industry" or "Science" research. By affecting AI tendancies rather than placing artificial limitations on barb civs, the game will feel more realistic, since you really are fighting an "uncultured, stupid race of barbarians."

Another plus to this system is that it facilitates methods of tech research through means other than commerce. Goodie huts will give you a boost in a single field, as will great people. You can boost "Military" technology by fighting and winning battles, and boost "Culture" by using scouts and explorers.

But the biggest benefit of having this replace the tech tree is that it's much easier to mod. Adding a technology is as simple as adding a new set of checkpoints. No need to change what leads to when and when and why for one new tech. It's also possible to create an obscene amount of techs and avoid a hopelessly convoluted mess of a game.

Have you ever played Rise of Nations? It's an RTS that spans from the Stone Age to the Modern Era, and utilized a technology system very similar to the one you just described. I'm not a fan, but nearly every suggestion you make seems to be what RoN already has.

 

[Ramesses]

Really? That's scary, considering I've never played it or even heard of it.

And here I thought I was being original...

 

[Civinator]

Same reason as I dislike the build-your-own units approach; I think the game was better balanced with a range of fixed governments, each with strengths and compensating weaknesses, than with cherrypicking combinations of civics. I'd certainly like more fixed governments, and enough improvement with later ones to make up for the loss of time and energy in having changes of government better than Civ 3 is balanced.

Yes, let the kings be kings again!

 

[Ramesses]

Okay, I did a little research on Rise of Nations, and while the research system is similar to what I described, mine is actually a bit more complex. There are no specifically defined Levels; rather, most technologies would require varied amounts of research in several fields.

If we took the Civ4 Tech Tree and adapted it to this system, this is something that might result. Keep in mind that research in all fields cumulates. (The values here are purely beta, of course.)

Research Fields: Culture, Economy, Industry, and Science.

1st Tier
Fishing: 20 Economy, 20 Industry
The Wheel: 60 Science
Agriculture: 40 Industry, 20 Science
Hunting: 30 Industry, 10 Science
Mysticism: 40 Culture, 10 Industry
Mining: 25 Industry, 25 Science

2nd Tier
Sailing: 80 Economy, 20 Industry, 40 Science
Pottery: 70 Economy, 50 Industry, 60 Science
Animal Husbandry: 10 Economy, 90 Industry, 20 Science
Archery: 20 Industry, 80 Science
Meditation: 120 Culture, 10 Industry
Polytheism: 100 Culture, 50 Industry
Masonry: 80 Industry, 50 Science

3rd Tier
Horseback Riding: 40 Culture, 40 Economy, 240 Industry, 50 Science
Priesthood: 160 Culture, 30 Industry
Monotheism: 220 Culture, 80 Industry, 50 Science
Bronze Working: 90 Industry, 80 Science

 

[Antilogic]

Same reason as I dislike the build-your-own units approach; I think the game was better balanced with a range of fixed governments, each with strengths and compensating weaknesses, than with cherrypicking combinations of civics. I'd certainly like more fixed governments, and enough improvement with later ones to make up for the loss of time and energy in having changes of government better than Civ 3 is balanced.

I do think the build-your-own units approach would be excessive for a Civilization game; it works for Master of Orion, not but is more of a nuisance for the tech structure and game that Civ is.

However, the concept of Civics stuck me as the most easy way to incorporate more governments into the game while keeping the game simple. Instead of having a complicated list of bonuses and penalties for each kind of government, where in the modern age you could have over a dozen (as in some player-created mods), you now pick between 4 bonuses in each category. There are not many drawbacks, except for Pacifism and the Corporation-affecting economic civics.

I really liked the clean implementation and the concept of an "opportunity cost" for selecting one choice over another rather than a ham-handed penalty. Just my two cents, though.

@Onionsoilder: Second! And second! Both good observations...I would like to see retention of the turn-based system; it's one of those classically Civ concepts. However, previous versions of Civ (such as Civ2) have experimented with different map orientations, so I think a hexagonal grid may be an interesting consideration for Civ5.

You could make all moves equal in distance, unlike the square system, and you could more easily create non-distorted globes (unlike the Mercator-esque rectangle maps of today's Civ). It can retain the "classic" Civ concept of having food, production, and commerce generated in each tile, but has a new flair to it.



@Ramesses: I think the tech tree of Civ4 is definitely more fluid than in previous versions. If anything, I would say they didn't go far enough with the concept of alternate prerequisites in the late game. Imagine adding a few techs and a few more alternate paths, so that the "research anything on this list" effect of the early game could be passed on to the late game. The Civ4 system has a little more potential than I think is perceived in this thread.

 

[phoinix]

My proposal is about resource sharing between cities. I think it would be a major gameplay improvement, both realistic and fun. I haven't seen it on the doc file, (sorry if it has been posted) so here it is:


Cities should have the ability to share certain types of resources to new cities (fairly simple). That would speed up their development (while on the other hand at expense of the "mother" city). For example, city A can share its food supply per turn (a certain amount of /turn) to a nearby city B (if a road between them exists). However in order for this to happen, food rich tiles must become more efficient (to support both city A and a number of other cities). I dont know maybe its possible even with the current efficiency of food tiles...

Gameplay Consequences
Sooner or later Big farm cities would emerge (much like GP Farm cities). Their purpose is to feed other cities that cannot feed themselves, yet have valuable resources on their FC and need population to work = Boosted production/commerce throughout the empire = Way of transforming to or .

Pretty simple and accurate to reality imho.

A list of my other suggestions is in my signature

 

[Frank327]

I really like the idea of a hexagonal grid too. It would make building defensive lines easier (right now if the line doesn't go straight down or up, you'll need lots more forts than necessary), it would make laying siege to a city more effective, and it would give the world a more realistic shape.

I'd also like technology to change slightly:

Basically, if we now "beeline" one path, sooner or later we'll have to get back on the other path, or buy all of it. Usually this means either researching everything in the end (only a small bonus to specializing your research), or you'll have to give others a big advantage. What I'd like to see is old techs (one or two eras back) spreading automatically through routes and open borders. This would work great with immigration. Basically if you're in the late classical or medieval age, have a chance to get priesthood or horseback riding from other countries through open borders. It would pop up like "immigrants thought us the technology of horseback riding". It shouldn't be a random event of course, but maybe just automatically get beakers in research that should have been done long ago. Of course, this should only happen with techs you'd research in one or two turns anyways, or that the other civs have passed long ago. It shouldn't be a game breaking thing.

 

[Ramesses]

^ I like it. Why should I have to waste 2 turns researching Monotheism when I'm already well into the classical era?

To apply a similar concept to my research fields suggestion, open borders would allow a research rate boost which could not be redistributed. This would be a small fraction of the current research rate distribution of your trading partner. So to get a boost in religious technology, sign open borders with a religious fanatic, etc.

 

[Onionsoilder]

I like the technology trickle effect. Say, if 50% of the civs in the world have Technology X, and one of your trade partners(A civ you have active trade routes with) also has the same technology, you get 2% of the required beakers for that tech per turn. If you have three trade partners, you get 6% per turn. Five gets you 10% per turn, were it caps out.

 

[rysmiel]

^ I like it. Why should I have to waste 2 turns researching Monotheism when I'm already well into the classical era?

Why should you have to do the research to get the tech at all ? I think I basically don't like ideas that are centred around giving the player something for nothing, and default tech trickle-through is one of those

I do think it's a mite silly to get to the end of the game and have something like Fusion, Space Flight, and Feudalism as your available research options, because you've never bothered to learn Feudalism because it isn't worth it. If the game is going to have Ages at all, I think the way to do this is to restrict age advancement more tightly - either get rid of optional techs entirely, or - my own preference - have more ages and apply a graded system. So that, for example, you need 75% of the ancient era techs to get into the classical era, but as well as 75% of the classical techs you need all the ancient techs to get into the medieval era, and so on.

 

[rysmiel]

I really like the idea of a hexagonal grid too. It would make building defensive lines easier (right now if the line doesn't go straight down or up, you'll need lots more forts than necessary),

This is not a bug. This is a feature of a particular strategic model.

Basically, if we now "beeline" one path, sooner or later we'll have to get back on the other path, or buy all of it. Usually this means either researching everything in the end (only a small bonus to specializing your research), or you'll have to give others a big advantage.

It depends on how it is balanced. If, for example, it were possible to beeline whatever line of tech development lets you get libraries and universities and science-enhancing buildings first (assuming no issues of Age advancement for the moment), then the amount of actual research you have to generate to catch up on the others paths is reduced significantly by being able to build those buildings before doing the research. Or if you beeline for marketplaces/banks/whatever, you can do the research faster because you are generating more trade overall.

I really, really do not like the notion that if one civilisation starts falling behind on tech it should get techs for free to keep it in play; that is actively penalising players who make the effort and play well enough to build a meaningful tech lead. If you get ahead you should have a meaningful and worthwhile benefit from it, and never being able to get more than two or three techs ahead is not enough. If what you want is to play against civilisations that can roughly keep up with you techwise, adjust your difficult level accordingly, but do not penalise players who enjoy the challenge of starting on a level playing field and getting meaningfully ahead and staying there.

 

[rysmiel]

However, the concept of Civics stuck me as the most easy way to incorporate more governments into the game while keeping the game simple. Instead of having a complicated list of bonuses and penalties for each kind of government, where in the modern age you could have over a dozen (as in some player-created mods), you now pick between 4 bonuses in each category. There are not many drawbacks, except for Pacifism and the Corporation-affecting economic civics.

The lack of drawbacks is part of what I see as a weakness in this implementation of that model, though.

I really liked the clean implementation and the concept of an "opportunity cost" for selecting one choice over another rather than a ham-handed penalty.

Fair enough; it just does not work for me that civics should vary independently, because systems of government and managing one's economy are complete things where tweaking one aspect inherently changes another.

@Ramesses: I think the tech tree of Civ4 is definitely more fluid than in previous versions. If anything, I would say they didn't go far enough with the concept of alternate prerequisites in the late game. Imagine adding a few techs and a few more alternate paths, so that the "research anything on this list" effect of the early game could be passed on to the late game.

I imagine that, and it feels like it would be even worse; the more fluid the tech tree is, the less strategic leverage there is to assessing one's neighbours' priorities and picking what to research and what to trade.