Let's make Civ 5

[Frank327]

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

I know this is a feature, but I don't like the square grid. If in a next civ game you want some actual defense, it'll probably take a hexagonal grid, or it'll be far too ineffective. Diagonal movement as it is now should not be possible.

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.

Well, of course this trickle down occurs in the most extreme conditions. One condition would be that a tech only starts trickling down a big number of turns after your trading partner researched it. Also you could take distance into account. In the end, you'll probably be getting horseback riding in the medieval age if your trading partner went for it early, and techs like meditation and polytheism if you didn't go religious. It's not like your tech lead will be hampered, because the trickle down will be in so few techs (if the AI is at least not horrible), and they'll be so meaningless once they get them that it won't be a problem most of the time. Also, it needs open borders, so only your friends will probably get it.

 

[rysmiel]

Well, of course this trickle down occurs in the most extreme conditions. One condition would be that a tech only starts trickling down a big number of turns after your trading partner researched it. Also you could take distance into account. In the end, you'll probably be getting horseback riding in the medieval age if your trading partner went for it early, and techs like meditation and polytheism if you didn't go religious. It's not like your tech lead will be hampered, because the trickle down will be in so few techs (if the AI is at least not horrible), and they'll be so meaningless once they get them that it won't be a problem most of the time.

Hm.

I think my argument boils down to, if it makes a significant difference it would be a bad idea; if, as you suggest, it makes a trivial difference, then I have to wonder why it's worth the programming time that would go into implementing it. There are more important fixes and improvements to put in than than ones whose best justification is that are so meaningless that it won't be a problem most of the time.

 

[Ramesses]

I know this is a feature, but I don't like the square grid. If in a next civ game you want some actual defense, it'll probably take a hexagonal grid, or it'll be far too ineffective. Diagonal movement as it is now should not be possible.

How about no grid whatsoever, just free movement in all directions?

 

[Ramesses]

I am very strongly opposed to [research of individual advances].

Well, at the very least, I want lots and lots of narrow, diverse technologies, rather than a smaller amount of broad, homogenous techs.

You want to be rid of the tech tree entirely ? Ick. What is that going to do to strategic tech trading ?

You can trade beakers in each field with other players. For example, if you're leading one player by 1000 beakers in Military research but trailing in Science and Culture by 300 beakers each, a trade would go something like this:

Player: "What will you give me for 1000 Military Research?"
AI: "Here's my offer: 300 Culture Research and 300 Science Research."
Player: "Sorry, we cannot accept such a deal. What will you give me for 500 Military Research?"
AI: "What do you think of this deal: 250 Culture Research and 250 Science Research?"
Player: "Sounds like a deal."
AI: "I'm glad we could come to an agreement."

You and the AI each receive boosts in your research and gain 1 technology in the process.

So you have no means of representing acquiring qualitatively new sectors to your economy as the game progresses.

Well it sounds bad when you put it that way. But I do want to try to maintain a consistent atmosphere throughout the game. As it is now, immediate goals for keeping your empire afloat are always changing, diplomatic relations are rarely as stable as they appear, and entire game concepts develop and become obsolete. Wouldn't it be nice if there was one thing which never changed?

 

[rysmiel]

How about no grid whatsoever, just free movement in all directions?

Somewhere under the hood, unit positions still have to be measured, and that's easiest to do in X and Y cartesian co-ordinates given that what you are representing is basically a flat surface with some degree of wraparound; so whatever the movement system looks like, at some level it will be translated into a grid.

 

[rysmiel]

Well, at the very least, I want lots and lots of narrow, diverse technologies, rather than a smaller amount of broad, homogenous techs.

Oh, agreed entirely. Civ needs a good couple of hundred techs to really be fun.

You can trade beakers in each field with other players. For example, if you're leading one player by 1000 beakers in Military research but trailing in Science and Culture by 300 beakers each, a trade would go something like this:

I see what you mean, but that's not what I mean.

What I mean is the equivalent of "I am nearly finished wonder X, and several AIs are nearly finished wonder Y. If one of them finishes wonder Y, the others will change over to wonder X, and one of them might get it before I do. Therefore I will trade them tech A which allows wonder Z, so that when they finish competing for wonder Y they will go for wonder Z instead of wonder X, so they won't get wonder X before I do."

Or "I'm not interested in Scientific Method, but if I give these two AIs with similar strategies Medicine, it will give both of them a boost in the direction of Scientific Method, and they will focus in that direction, and that way neither of them will get Ironclads before I do."

Or, in Civ 3, trading Republic or Democracy to an economically struggling opponent so that they have a revolution to change into the new form of government, and then taking advantage of them having the military disadvantages that go with that government.

I'd like being able to make diplomatic agreements to get the AI to research something for you, come to think of it.

Well it sounds bad when you put it that way. But I do want to try to maintain a consistent atmosphere throughout the game. As it is now, immediate goals for keeping your empire afloat are always changing, diplomatic relations are rarely as stable as they appear, and entire game concepts develop and become obsolete. Wouldn't it be nice if there was one thing which never changed?

Not in my opinion. The constant flux is what makes the game interesting; if anything, I'd like more of it. (Not more severe change, but a longer game with more changes in it.)

 

[exhile]

How about no grid whatsoever, just free movement in all directions?

Nah, the grid has been in place since Civ 1. If there was no grid, it wouldn't be Civ at all.

 

[lotsahooey]

I'm really liking the idea of a Civ 5 and having really enjoyed Civ 4 for a while now, I have some observations:

- Natural disasters: Volcanoes, Earthquakes, Hurricanes, Tsunamis and plague. These would all require techs to rebuff the subsequent effects and add a randomness to the game that I think is now missing.

- A better diplomacy interaction: Maybe I'm just not doing it right, but it seems that AI will not make a beneficial trade in their own favor as a matter of principle (they don't like you). You could offer Modern Warfare in exchange for The Wheel and if they don't like you, they won't do it. Stupid.
(bad example, I know lol).

- While the issue of towns and villages are addressed somewhat, the map still feels constricted even in Huge mode. The scale is all wrong somehow, imho.

- I would love to see an extension of the game where future techs would lead (Alpha Centauri style) to planetary settlements and a solar-system to even possibly a galactic scale.

I'll keep dreaming and playing in the meantime

 

[apenpaap]

I'm really liking the idea of a Civ 5 and having really enjoyed Civ 4 for a while now, I have some observations:

- Natural disasters: Volcanoes, Earthquakes, Hurricanes, Tsunamis and plague. These would all require techs to rebuff the subsequent effects and add a randomness to the game that I think is now missing.

- A better diplomacy interaction: Maybe I'm just not doing it right, but it seems that AI will not make a beneficial trade in their own favor as a matter of principle (they don't like you). You could offer Modern Warfare in exchange for The Wheel and if they don't like you, they won't do it. Stupid.
(bad example, I know lol).

- While the issue of towns and villages are addressed somewhat, the map still feels constricted even in Huge mode. The scale is all wrong somehow, imho.

- I would love to see an extension of the game where future techs would lead (Alpha Centauri style) to planetary settlements and a solar-system to even possibly a galactic scale.

I'll keep dreaming and playing in the meantime

Do you have BTS? In the random events there are volcanoes, tsunamis and that sort of stuff.
For your tech trading concern: Do you think America and the Soviet-Union would have shared even quite primitive technology to each other during the cold war?
I agree the scale is sometimes really weird and wrong, but I don't really see how things can be made realistic while still keeping it fun enough.
The Future Techs idea is more something for a mod. Civ is about history, and not about sci-fi (personally, I wouldn't really mind the tech three going on after the modern era, but I know some people would lynch Sid Meier for it)

P.S.: WTH, you've been a member for 2 years but have posted only two things???

 

[Shackel]

I think that there should be more "Game Overs", or basically, more global-scale destruction. I have seen only one epic end, and that is from Next War Mod. "You cracked the Earth. EVERYBODY LOSES(Except Barbarians)!!! "

The comet fragment(possibly from the mod as well), could also end up a good idea, except on a larger scale. Maybe if they put random events that could greatly change the world to the point of nearly destroying entire civilizations could create a better challenge to the game.

You could be winning and owning one second, and all of the sudden "BOOM" a meteor blasts half of your continent and creates fallout in a bunch of random places.

 

[Ramesses]

You could be winning and owning one second, and all of the sudden "BOOM" a meteor blasts half of your continent and creates fallout in a bunch of random places.

That would be awful.

Even Nukes, which are capable of a good level of destruction, are preventable, and defending against them is one of the challenges which civilizations face, and entirely steeped in strategy (e.g. diplomatic relations boosting, resource distribution to create the SDI).

Having a meteor come out of nowhere with no warning would be a terrible thing to have, as it would not be preventable. If you can't prevent a meteor from hitting, then it all comes down to luck on whether it hits you or not. And that means, no matter what you do, the result of your efforts will always be the same.

You might as well just tell the player "Oh by the way, you're going to lose this game, no matter what you do," and save the player the frustration.

 

[Shackel]

I'm sorry, you WOULD get a warning, but the meteor or something could be stopped, but it would NOT end the game.

It would just cause catastrophic mayhem for the entire planet and probably force civilizations to work together to stop it or something. It would add a bit of a twist.

A type of SDI-type unit that could be built could stop it(each tech helps it in some way, for instance, mathematics allows deeper caves to be built so your population may survive).

Another, more interesting concept is possibly World Destruction as a "victory". Kind of like an "Apocalypse" project that you could create. You win, but lose, at the same time. Fun for if you just want to be mean. xD

 

[apenpaap]

I think a meteor/alien invasion/starting ice age random event would be fun, but ONLY if it would standard be turned off and you would be able to turn it on in the custom game menu.

 

[Shackel]

But of course. I think another era AND mode should be added. The "Galactic" Era, which allows you to take on an entirely different planet with aliens(and different tech) like CIV2: ToT.

A galactic MODE can be where you actually take on another save file from another world. :^D

 

[rysmiel]

I'm really liking the idea of a Civ 5 and having really enjoyed Civ 4 for a while now, I have some observations:

- Natural disasters: Volcanoes, Earthquakes, Hurricanes, Tsunamis and plague. These would all require techs to rebuff the subsequent effects and add a randomness to the game that I think is now missing.

Some of us really like having the random events removed - they were something I really hated in Civ 1.

 

[Ramesses]

Some of us really like having the random events removed - they were something I really hated in Civ 1.

In reality, when governing a civilization, things rarely go exactly according to plan.

 

[rysmiel]

In reality, when governing a civilization, things rarely go exactly according to plan.

Of indeed, in lots of other parts of reality. This is why some of us prefer to play games, for our relaxation and enjoyment, in which plans stand or fall on their own merits without random extraneous events interfering.

 

[Antilogic]

Some of us really like having the random events removed - they were something I really hated in Civ 1.

Just as there is a game option to turn off random events now in Civ4, they will add a similar feature to Civ5. I, for one, would like to see the stuff like hurricanes or tornados destroying improvements retained for the "realism" aspect, but stuff like alien invasions removed.

I really don't think this is a major concern--it's something they already have implemented, and it's not like they are going to remove this kind of feature.

 

[Onionsoilder]

Just as there is a game option to turn off random events now in Civ4, they will add a similar feature to Civ5. I, for one, would like to see the stuff like hurricanes or tornados destroying improvements retained for the "realism" aspect, but stuff like alien invasions removed.

I really don't think this is a major concern--it's something they already have implemented, and it's not like they are going to remove this kind of feature.

I agree with you about the alien invasion, but some UFO sightings would be interesting. Something like:

Citizens report that a UFO has been sighted near [city].

• It is nothing of importance. [Nothing Happens]
• They are heretics, and must be prosecuted! [+1 in all cities for 20 turns, -1 population in [city]]
• The UFO must be a foreign experimental vehicle! Increase espionage![-100 +250 ]
• Launch an investigation to find out the truth behind this oddity. [-100, 50% chance of +500]

 

[Antilogic]

Wow, you could program that now. I like that event because it is all reactionary and whether or not there is actually a UFO is irrelevant. Bouts of hysteria about strange events have happened, so I'm cool with it.

I just want to know why somebody wants a meteor event to wipe out most of the world. Randomly. Seriously, do you remember when they were playtesting the event that instantly destroyed a city, and the playtesters demanded they take that out because they hated it? Now you want to do that to most of the planet?