Modding Preferences: Civ IV or Civ V

[davane]

I have just made the jump to Civilization 5 from Civilization IV, and it seems that the changes between the two versions are different enough to make the two completely different games.

Since what I desire is something between Civ IV and Civ V, I want to ask what would you consider easier to accomplish for a novice mod maker - Modding Civ V ideas into Civ IV, or modding Civ IV ideas into Civ V?

 

[davane]

My personal preference seems to hint towards using Civ IV as a basis, simply because a lot of the issues I have with Civ V seem to be intricately part of the engine for Civ V.

I have the following key gripes with Civ V so far (I will add to the list as I explore more of the game):

1UPT: This simply doesn't seem to work as was intended, and is the biggest issue that I can find so far. While it does increase the tactical aspects of combat, it messes up unit routing significantly, since units are either forced to wait or detour around units of the same type (military or non-military). Such detours can be disasterous, and can only be avoided by immense micromanagement of units at the tactical level.

The following incidents are all stemming from 1UPT and routing issues:

• Military units taking to embarking to detour around another unit, only to be defeated while unprotected in the water*.
• Military units detouring around units, leaving civilian units like settlers exposed*.
• Military units detouring through City State territory, angering City States needlessly*.
• Civilian units detouring around workers constructing improvements*.
• Workers having Route To orders interrupted by other civilians*.

All of these can be fixed by resolving other issues, but they are ultimately caused by the 1UPT mechanic interacting with other mechanics negatively in Civ V. Alternatively, removing the 1UPT restriction is a possible solution.

Embarking: I can understand the point between embarking, but the main issue with embarking is that it effectively turns water tiles into land tiles for routing purposes, with little or no regard to the fact that most units are defenseless when embarked. As such, all units are inclined to embark and sail around the coastline when given the option. This occurs even when the issues with 1UPT aren't included. Ultimately, the benefits of embarking are lost because of the increased micromanagement due to the routing issues involved in dealing with the coastline.

The easiest solution here is to simply allow embarked units to defend. This doesn't really deal with the routing issues, but it does mean that the units are less vulnerable when they embark, so that you don't lose units to what is essentially an AI error.

Escorting and Armies: With 1UPT, the ability to create armies by combining military units has gone. While this increases the tactical aspects of combat, it makes for a logistical nightmare, since weaker units cannot be as easily protected without taking up a lot of space. Moving an army is tedious, especially when moving through choke points.

An additional consequence of this is that the ability to escort civilian units has also been removed. As such, units like Settlers are particularly vulnerable when travelling, simply because their military escort might take a different route. Plus, should the military escort be interrupted, the Settler will often continue exposed through a warzone, typically leading to their capture.

I don't know of an easy solution to this, since it is a compounding factor of routing issues and 1UPT that simply makes this a logistical nightmare to handle. I think that allowing civilians to defend might be a start, making them less vulnerable. An alternative might be to allow military units to transport civilians (in a similar way to how missiles can be transported, perhaps) so that they stay with the military unit.

This idea could be expanded - perhaps certain military units can be transported by other military units to create armies. For example, ranged units might be able to be transported by melee units, and naval units can transport land units. Thus, the units that you want to defend can be visible, while the protected units are transported.

City-States: City States are great, and are basically like mini civs with their own lands and agendas. Unfortunately, City-States are not treated like civs when it comes to routing, and units will continually route through them without regard to whether or not this will damage any relationship with them.

A solution to this is to treat them as Civs. In fact, the simplest option doesn't actually need a mod at all - you simply remove all the City States and replace them as Civs. However, this does mean that a lot of the City-State based mechanics become largely redundant.

The ideal solution therefore is to have City State territory treated like Civ territory. Units won't route through it unless their borders are open. Being friends with the City State automatically opens their borders - you don't have to negotiate this. You can still spend gold to become friends with a City State and have them open their border.

 

[ThorHammerz]

Both options are viable, it really depends what you want out of your "hybrid", and how much you'd be willing to deal with, or change, the various existing design limitations (i.e. being unable to easily influence general map generation in Civ 5 without going through like 3-5 really long LUA scripts).

 

[davane]

How easy is it to change the above aspects of Civ V? I have experience modding Civ IV, but I have no experience with modding Civ V as of yet.

My vision for the "hybrid" mod is two-fold:

Reduce the micromanagement of the game as much as possible, so that the focus is on grand strategy, as befits a Civ game. Any micromanagement in the game should be "fun" - in that it is something that the player wants to do. At the moment, most of the micromanagement is "unfun" - it's a neccessary chore that is required, otherwise the "fun" of the game is significantly reduced.

An example of "fun" micromanagement in Civ V is the tactical combat created by the 1UPT system - positioning units to defeat enemies on the battlefield is great. There is fun to be had with bombarding enemies, flanking opponents, and destroying city defences.

An example of "unfun" micromanagement is given above multiple times dealing with the routing issues caused by 1UPT. This makes a lot of the game a chore, and since routing, infrastructure, and logistics are a significant part of Civ V, the game has become "unfun" overall with 1UPT.

My second aspect of the "hybrid" mod is to make a comprehensive mod that is worthy of the epic scale of the Civ games. That means that I want lots of choice and lots of options in my games. I love the social policies of Civ V - but I also loved the civic options in Civ IV.

I don't see these two as being mutually exclusive. In fact, they represent different aspects of cultural evolution. The policies of Civ V demonstrate growth and development of culture - starting from humble beginnings, and slowly adding more and more elements. A humble city can expand into a mighty war machine, or into a scientific superpower. This is something that goes well for the Civ games.

The civics from Civ IV represent choices and change, rather than growth. It represents revolution and adaptation, as the changing world forces new challenges, and creates new solutions. It is as much about discarding the old, as it is about gaining the new, and it brings about an entirely different consequence of choice - you have to think as much about the options that you are not taking as much as the options that you are.

Combining both of these aspects - the best of these aspects - into a single "hybrid" mod is just one part of the concept that represents the epicly comprehensive aspects of this mod.

For me, one of the biggest gripes with the Civ series in general is that you seem to tech too fast. I'd like to be able to research those new toys, and then have time to build them and use them before they become obsolete. I'd like to be able to have sizeable armies and empires during the Classical Era, so I can focus on management and warfare rather than expansion in the later eras of the game. I'd like buildings to be just as important as units - with the opportunity to build them in the majority of my cities before getting new buildings and units from tech. I can't imagine any city without a granary, for example, so as soon as you have the ability to build them, I'd love the opportunity to be able to build them without having to sacrifice any other aspects of the game.

Plus, I just love long and complicated tech trees. Every tech should feel like a breakthrough that changes the game in some way. Whether it is a new unit, a new building, a new improvement, or a new resource - it should be noticeable to make enough of a difference. I liked that Civics and Promotions were part of Civ IV's tech trees. I also liked that Religion came from tech, because each new religion added a lot to the diplomatic context of the game. It was a shame that religions in Civ IV wasn't really fully taken advantage of - in fact, if the Civ V religion system was added to Civ IV religions, they might have been a lot better.

In many ways, Civ IV and Civ V are two completely different games, and my ideal Civ game would be something in the middle of the two...