Let's make Civ 5

The game needs to be made to fit reality - the closer it is to reality the better it will be :-)

Some of us firmly disagree. The game needs to be a playable and fun simulation of reality, and to simplify and adjust as best fits that aim. I don't see how realistic logistics management for a war the scale of the Second World War, for example, could ever fit into the scale of a computer game.
 
Okay, I believe I've pitched this idea before, but hopefully this time I'll be able to fully express why it's something Civ 5 should incorporate. The one thing that Civ needs is to play not in turns, but in years. 6050 of them.

No, I don't mean like a mega-ultra-Marathon speed. See, while there are 6050 years in a full game of Civilization, only about 10% of those will actually be played. So what's the point of it, you ask? Why to create a game with a more realistic and engaging flow of time, of course!

Here's how it works: You give all of your commands to units and cities, which will then be carried out as soon as you hit the End Turn button. (So this means all your units will carry out orders simultaneously when End Turn is pressed.) Once you end your turn, the years will pass and you will watch as your units carry out your orders. Eventually, the game stops auto-playing, and your next turn begins.

So you're saying it's just like the turn-based system Civ already uses, but between turns you watch your civilization carry out your orders? That doesn't sound necessary at all. Don't judge just yet, hypothetical critic of my imagination! :crazyeye: The whole point of this system is that it's much more fluid than playing in turns. Normally, the game will autorun for a predetermined number of years before starting your next turn. For example, in the early game, on Normal speed, after ending your turn, the game plays out 40 years and gives you your next turn. However, it will often be the case that your next turn comes early... say in 34 years instead of 40.

The reason your turn may come early is because an event occurs which requires your immediate attention. Events that warrant an early turn start include:

- Your unit has finished moving.
- Your unit has encountered a hostile unit.
- A hostile unit has been spotten near your territory.
- Your city has finished producing whatever it was making.
- You have researched a new technology.
- Your city is about to grow.
- A rival leader has changed the availability of diplomatic options (Open Borders, Tech Trading, etc.)
- A random event has occured.

An interface not unlike BUG will keep track of any events which require your attention, and when one pops up, autoplay will stop, and your turn will begin. So you may have your beginning turn, your next turn 40 years later, your next 40 years later, your next 3 years later, 39 years, 26 years, 40 years, 40 years, 40 years, 40 years, 24 years, 40 years, 12 years, 40 years, etc. The odd frequency of turns comes from important events.

Not only this, but the pacing of the game will change considerably when you are at war. Because each turn counts, turns will start coming once a year. This means wars can take just as many turns to resolve, but will occupy less of history. A 40-turn war will last 40 years, not 200. Once the war ends, the years begin to fly by again.

Some have also complained that the endgame is uneventful and boring. This system will resolve that issue: the years will not creep by when it is unnecessary. If your units are all fortified, relations with neighbors are peaceful, and your workers are all building railroads automatically, the game will give you your turn every 10 or 20 years by default, allowing you to plow through the uneventfulness. Meanwhile, the game will pick up on anything that needs attention (new orders, etc.), so the years will fly by only as long as there is really nothing to be done.

Basically, turns only come whenever there is something to do, and if there is nothing to do, then every few decades or so, as a precaution. The amount of turns which involve only pressing the red button are severely reduced.
 
Okay, I believe I've pitched this idea before, but hopefully this time I'll be able to fully express why it's something Civ 5 should incorporate. The one thing that Civ needs is to play not in turns, but in years. 6050 of them.

I think your idea is pretty much what I had been reading it as before, and I really don't like it. It's making the game reactive rather than proactive; what you describe as "events which require your attention" assumes the game will know better than I do what events actually do want my attention. Where in there is the ability, frex, based on keeping an eye on your neighbours, to change the production of your border cities from libraries to military units mid-build based on a sudden increase in risk of war ? Do you trust whatever passes for event-management AI here to assess something that abstract for you ?

Some have also complained that the endgame is uneventful and boring. This system will resolve that issue: the years will not creep by when it is unnecessary.
If your units are all fortified, relations with neighbors are peaceful, and your workers are all building railroads automatically, the game will give you your turn every 10 or 20 years by default, allowing you to plow through the uneventfulness

I think you and I have deeply differing notions of what makes Civ fun, because the gradual build-up to constant small achievements along the way is kind of right at the heart of it for me. The experience of anticipation of the wonder that will be finished in 10, 9, 8, 7... turns, and the tweaking of the squares worked by that city to delay it a turn if there's another small goal somewhere else it makes sense to finish first.

The amount of turns which involve only pressing the red button are severely reduced.

I think I have, in ten years or so of playing rather a lot of Civ, had about six turns in any game where that was appropriate. And most of those were very early on when a single city was doing one thing and a couple of units were doing things that had them busy that turn.
 
you guys have no idea how to program a game like Civ good luck it'll be fifty years if you guys do it
 
Patricitian III (well probably the whole patrician series actually, and Port Royale) does exactly this. Event that need your attention in that are simple, a ship arrives in port, a ship is built/repaired, pirates attack, or you can stop the timer yourself, a bell rings each time you get post, its just a fast forward button.

I DO know how to program a game like Civ, well, at least I have an understanding of it, and I certainly know this is possible.
 
Patricitian III (well probably the whole patrician series actually, and Port Royale) does exactly this. Event that need your attention in that are simple, a ship arrives in port, a ship is built/repaired, pirates attack, or you can stop the timer yourself, a bell rings each time you get post, its just a fast forward button.

Well I want to remove the real-time strategy element entirely, so stopping the clock manually is out of the question.

And whoever thinks watching the years tick by between turns as a wonder nears completion can't create the same level of suspense as ending a series of turns is mistaken.
 
The RTS idea sounds FAR too different for Civilization. Maybe they could try doing that on another branch, but not the main one. Too risky.

"The game needs to be a playable and fun simulation of reality"

- Is such a thing even possible? D:
 
Oh. Well, it DOES sound a bit risky. Maybe that could be another speed option?
 
ok, turns make it good because you don't have to pause the game.
too few techs, need more but not too many
off shore cities FOR MODERN ERA AND UPWARDS ONLY
future era
archers and other ranged units get plus one first strike chance on hills and minus one in forests
barbarians can advance scientifically(very slowly though)
cultural captures lower relationship by one (max)
space race is harder
4 cities for cultural
can spread religions to other people's cities by roads or railways(people go to other city and convert others but a lot slower than a missionary)
you have to research the wheel every time instead of starting with it
you can build offshore trade posts (basically the same as an offshore cottage
oil gives you money as well
units walking on uranium (unless being mined) lose health
you can get lots of troops (archers, warriors, catapults, things like that) and fuse them into an army so they all attack at once instead of it being one at a time.
spiritual trait is better than only no anarchy
and sharks (like bears exept in the sea) or something similar

if there is something wrong with any of these, post, i won't care
 
What I see in civ 4 isn't really the vanilla, plain mod. I think the way in which we could expand a new installment in the civilization series is in the mods. More mods to enhance the gameplay of both single player and multiplayer. ya we need to fix multiplayer. I want to be able to play Rhyes and Fall of Civilization (for example) online w/ other people.
 
What I see in civ 4 isn't really the vanilla, plain mod. I think the way in which we could expand a new installment in the civilization series is in the mods. More mods to enhance the gameplay of both single player and multiplayer. ya we need to fix multiplayer. I want to be able to play Rhyes and Fall of Civilization (for example) online w/ other people.

How about fixing multiplayer by putting it in a separate package which those of us who are totally uninterested in it don't have to buy ?
 
How about fixing multiplayer by putting it in a separate package which those of us who are totally uninterested in it don't have to buy ?
how about making the mechanics of single player and multiplayer identical?
 
How about fixing multiplayer by putting it in a separate package which those of us who are totally uninterested in it don't have to buy ?

No. Bad idea. That would not improve the game one iota, and would only lead to a higher cost for those people that do want to play multiplayer. And even those like me who hardly ever play multiplayer, but might've done so once or twice would be prevented from doing so by this. What positive purpose would it serve?
 
No. Bad idea. That would not improve the game one iota, and would only lead to a higher cost for those people that do want to play multiplayer. And even those like me who hardly ever play multiplayer, but might've done so once or twice would be prevented from doing so by this. What positive purpose would it serve?

So if I understand your point.... I should pay more for something I do not use, so you can pay less for something you do use.
 
how about making the mechanics of single player and multiplayer identical?

At what level ?

If the single player game is forced to be as military-centric as the vocal multiplayer players around here seem to take for granted, it would completey destroy what makes Civ fun for me.
 
No. Bad idea. That would not improve the game one iota, and would only lead to a higher cost for those people that do want to play multiplayer.

How, higher cost ?

If you want to play single-player Civ you buy single-player Civ. If you want to play multiplayer Civ you buy multiplayer Civ.

Would it be overly cynical of me to suggest that multiplayer Civ might be easy to make cheaper and simpler because by all available evidence people who play multiplayer use only a limited subset of the game functionality ? (Has anyone ever seen a multiplayer game won by culture or diplomacy ?)

And even those like me who hardly ever play multiplayer, but might've done so once or twice would be prevented from doing so by this.

That seems like saying that if Civ came with SMAC you might play SMAC occasionally, so SMAC should therefore be included with Civ.
 
So if I understand your point.... I should pay more for something I do not use, so you can pay less for something you do use.

But if the games were separated, it wouldn't be any cheaper. It would just mean a higher cost for those that do want both.
How, higher cost ?

If you want to play single-player Civ you buy single-player Civ. If you want to play multiplayer Civ you buy multiplayer Civ.

And if you want both (which most probably would), you would have to buy two games, which would invariably cost more than buying one game with noth elements.

Would it be overly cynical of me to suggest that multiplayer Civ might be easy to make cheaper and simpler because by all available evidence people who play multiplayer use only a limited subset of the game functionality ? (Has anyone ever seen a multiplayer game won by culture or diplomacy ?)

Perhaps, but what possible benefit could be derived from having the two games on separate discs rather than on the one disc. It isn't like it will lead to an improvement in quality of one, or both.

That seems like saying that if Civ came with SMAC you might play SMAC occasionally, so SMAC should therefore be included with Civ.
Well, no, multiplayer and single player are already elements of the game. It's more like a vegetarian cutting the udder off a cow because they don't need the beef.
 
But if the games were separated, it wouldn't be any cheaper.
This is your assumption not a fact. Unless you are privy to marketing and cost analysis by Firaxis or Take Two. If you are please share the information.

It would just mean a higher cost for those that do want both.
Again you keep assuming facts not in evidence. Unless... see above. Therefore my point still stands that you feel everyone else should pay a higher cost for an item that some people may or might use.
 
Back
Top Bottom