Swedishguy
Deity
Actually, some think (including me) that it was passed over by humans, explaining it's quick expand and rat-scarce areas.
Let's make Civ 5
- Thread starter Bevertje
- Start date
As far as civ5 goes, I have a couple of suggestions. Bear in mind, though, that I like Civ4 a lot. This is no reflection on that game. It doesn't "suck" as some people say.
Anyway here goes:
Buildings: Housing developments. Helps the overall health of the city. Also - populations cannot grow without enough houses.
Workers: Each improvement (other than housing) requires a certain number of people. That is, if you build a factory it requires, say, four people to work in it. Without the people it's kind of useless.
Colleges and universities: Take all of the technologies and divide them into categories. For example: basic, military, science, economic, agricultural, and engineering, . Basic advances don't need any specialization. A city may have no more than one college. The college may be dedicated to one category, such as the London College of Economics or the Babylonian School of Agriculture. (basically, whatever city you build it in gets the name). Later, a city may build a university that includes the original college, plus two more categories. Finally, there would be a Wonder that includes all college types.
The idea here is that if you've got a bunch of military colleges you'll jump ahead in military but you may fall behind in agriculture or some other category. The player must try to keep their college types balanced; maybe leaning towards a certain category depending on the age. Basic technologies require only a school.
Anyway here goes:
Buildings: Housing developments. Helps the overall health of the city. Also - populations cannot grow without enough houses.
Workers: Each improvement (other than housing) requires a certain number of people. That is, if you build a factory it requires, say, four people to work in it. Without the people it's kind of useless.
Colleges and universities: Take all of the technologies and divide them into categories. For example: basic, military, science, economic, agricultural, and engineering, . Basic advances don't need any specialization. A city may have no more than one college. The college may be dedicated to one category, such as the London College of Economics or the Babylonian School of Agriculture. (basically, whatever city you build it in gets the name). Later, a city may build a university that includes the original college, plus two more categories. Finally, there would be a Wonder that includes all college types.
The idea here is that if you've got a bunch of military colleges you'll jump ahead in military but you may fall behind in agriculture or some other category. The player must try to keep their college types balanced; maybe leaning towards a certain category depending on the age. Basic technologies require only a school.
Ambreville
Deity
Swedishguy said:
...hence the ability to switch it off if you don't like it. The option, however, would make the game more interesting for people who want this option. Better to have the option than not.
Ambreville
Deity
Swedishguy said:
Arlborn's point is that mountains being impassable make it impossible to come up with mountain-based Civ's. I guess that could be solved in a separate mod (Tibetans, Incas, Swiss civs with unique mountain abilities/benefits would be offer new approach).
Ambreville
Deity
Military alpine UU's, or specialized settler units (generals with mountain skills too?) should also be able to cross high mountains. Example -- Hannibal and Napoleon both managed to get their troops past the Alps with little or nothing in the way of roads.
Ambreville
Deity
The "Old Man of the Mountain" scenario would allow a barb civ to build a fortified city up in the mountains making it impossible for normal troops to reach them until they develop either alpine troops or a general with the ability to enter high mountains. Meanwhile, spies and assassins come from the mountain causing mischief until their "eagle's nest" is dispatched. Just a thought.
Swedishguy
Deity
Hmm... that might just work...
Ambreville
Deity
Swedishguy said:
Of course it'll work. CIVIII used to have alpine units (remember the guys in the yellow pyjamas, mounted on skis)
Swedishguy
Deity
They were cool! (giggles)
Nobody understands my humor...
Nobody understands my humor...
Spaced out
Chieftain
- Joined
- Sep 20, 2006
- Messages
- 51
How come all the people claiming that this game sucks an need to be rebuilt always complain about the lag but only play huge/marathon games? I sometime play the huge maps but they really don't offer anything beyond a normal game than just being longer. I just would get bored and never finish.
Why would you want to discover a new tech every other turn. Then you won't even have time to use what you learned on the last tech. Let alone get the newest(of hundreds of new buildings) build in that time frame. Usually by the time i get to build musketmen i have access to grenaiders and soon after rifleman. They rarely get used by me.
If the sole reason to play is to build lots of buildings then of course your going to hate this game since there is more to being a sucessful civilization than building a bunch of wonders.
I find it better that you can't found every religion. At least then I don't have to focus every GP into a prophet.
I love the fact that this game is more than just having the most land/most population = automatic win.
If you don't like playing through the ancient era, then don't start in it.
You don't like monty starting next to you? Start a custom game and hand pick the civs. Leave him out of it.
At settler you don't really need any kind of strategy to win. You can be slopy with city management, linger in wars, and ignore diplomacy, and never have a problem.
Why would you want to discover a new tech every other turn. Then you won't even have time to use what you learned on the last tech. Let alone get the newest(of hundreds of new buildings) build in that time frame. Usually by the time i get to build musketmen i have access to grenaiders and soon after rifleman. They rarely get used by me.
If the sole reason to play is to build lots of buildings then of course your going to hate this game since there is more to being a sucessful civilization than building a bunch of wonders.
I find it better that you can't found every religion. At least then I don't have to focus every GP into a prophet.
I love the fact that this game is more than just having the most land/most population = automatic win.
If you don't like playing through the ancient era, then don't start in it.
You don't like monty starting next to you? Start a custom game and hand pick the civs. Leave him out of it.
At settler you don't really need any kind of strategy to win. You can be slopy with city management, linger in wars, and ignore diplomacy, and never have a problem.
blitzkrieg1980
Octobrist
I like the mountains being impassable. It makes for good strategizing. In my current game, one of my cities is very close to hostile borders, but because of a small string of mountains, they would have to move all the way around inside my borders! Even if they went around in their borders, they would be a good 4 turns from my city's fat cross. HAHA! I had defenders in the area ready to catch invaders when I declared war. Also, mountains can force a bottleneck in certain places where a land based force would have to pass through a space of 1 or 2 tiles. That's an amazing strategic advantage and I like it!
Ambreville
Deity
blitzkrieg1980 said:
In general I agree with you, however, in real world history, mountains have NEVER been totally impassable. That's why modern armies developed Alpine Troops. That's why mountain dwellers (barbs or a hypothetical mountain-dwelling Civ's) ought to be able to get through, perhaps with some damage due to adverse conditions. This would make sense especially if a general with mountain skills helped an entire stack of units getting through a mountain. No doubt they should take some damage each turn they remain in mountain spaces as a result of bad local conditions (lack of supplies, dangerous terrain, bad weather, etc). They could lose entire units, especially those without a toughness skill, let alone no mountaineering. You kill that general, and these units cannot go back. That's still good strategy.
Ambreville
Deity
I would also add that a Civ that had no mountains within its borders CANNOT build specialized mountain troops -- besides, these sorts of troops would only be available starting with WWI era. Other than that, only Civ's with mountaineering culture (none as of yet), and generals learning mountaineering through gaining XP's could attempt crossing through mountains.
asabahi
Warlord
And not only should you be able to build 2 or 3 different things at the sametime in each city, you should be able to research 2 or 3 techs at the sametime (in 1 turn each), and build wonders much faster than the AI so I can win the bestest vicotry ever and have a unit that is able to go to the moon and never be killed but kill all AI units. This unit should be named the Chuck Norris unit and only avaliable to the human player. That would be perfect. I hope it is ready by the holidays so i can get it as a gift.
KabukiJo
Chieftain
asabahi said:
Hilarious
Also, if you don't win by more than double the score of the AI's combined, then the game is dumb (too hard).
flamingzaroc121
Emperor
you cant start thinking about Civ 5 when the second Civ 4 expansion hasnt even come out
Ambreville
Deity
flamingzaroc121 said:
Civ5!? Oh dear... I must be in the wrong folder. I was shooting for Civ6.
Swedishguy
Deity
Hmm... are you being sarcastic?asabahi said:
asabahi
Warlord
Swedishguy said:
Maybe
Similar threads
