Since I took the time to listen to all 4 video clips you posted and read thru all 143 pages of this post, I feel I should comment. (Mostly good)
"
Turns should be Bloody interesting" - Bibor from Why Civ will be a bad game part 2
Agreed.
It sounds like you would like one aspect of Civ Revolutions. They don't have workers to move.
I like the part about scouting the river, finding another city and maybe I'll build a road to it and trade with them.
I'd modify it to: Maybe discovering a goody hut will create a dirt path to the nearest city on the most direct and flattest land route possible.
I like the river flooding possibility from not doing something. Civ4 Realism Invictus Mod added epidemic chance which is higher for Flood Plains, Jungle and Swamp tiles near the city.
I agree that things should happen more quickly.
Ramesses II at the Battle of Kadesh in 1274 fielded some 5000-6000 chariots. He wasn't building them from 3000 BC or whenever he finished the Wheel tech onward. I could see the construction of the chariots taking a few turns, but the training and manning of them had to take place during the person's lifetime. So those should be faster.
They had thousands of horses for these chariots. So why not build several stables around one city and specializing in horse breeding? Say for every stables that a city builds, they breed enough horses for 1 chariot which appears the next turn. Which is like 100 years. Or would queue up in the Stables tile acreage to unload and make available. This would permit a quick buildup of armies. It would force attacking players to destroy the stables and it's horses in the city tiles surrounding the city to prevent a counter attack of mounted units. This has been done throughout history. Here are two examples:
"On September 8, 1858, U.S. Army Colonel George Wright (1803-1865) orders his troops to slaughter 800 Native American horses (the herd of a Palouse chief) at Liberty Lake to deny their use by enemy tribes. Soldiers also destroy Native American lodges and storehouses of grain."
Even Colonel Custer's Battle of the Wahorsehockya River on November 27, 1868 were burning everything and slaughtering 800 Indian ponies.
So the horse have to be a resource that can be pillaged and eliminated.
It almost sounds like you want a Civilization manager game. Where things happed to your Civilization and you must deal with each one and hope for the best outcome. Making each decision meaningful. Maybe your river floods or forest fires and other natural disasters that you as Mayor of one city, or Governor of a State of cities have to deal with to keep your people safe and city striving.
Originally Posted by Bibor, "
Aren't you frustrated by how long the turns take? How little you can do in 5 minutes of game time? How lazy your brain becomes, conditioned to think less and "experience" more? How you are not allowed to be clever and devise new, brilliant diplomatic, economic, military plans? How playing on larger maps or higher difficulty level is not about intellectual conditioning but sheer stamina to spend so many hours in front of the screen?"
Yes I am. Diplomacy has always been poor from at least Civ 2 on. Civ1 is the first, so I can forgive it, but there should have been faster progress in the AI and Diplomacy options department.
Why can I not negotiate a tile border with a nearby opponent city and come an agreement that it is fixed here, regardless of our culture? So we don't have to worry about border pops.
Why can I not purchase a tile from them, like the U.S. purchased Alaska from Russia or the Gadsden Purchase from Mexico?
Why can I not negotiate a trade deal, like Britain did during WW2 for American fighters and other military equipment?
How about a napalm resource unlocked some time after Chemistry and requiring the use of Great Scientist to invent it. It's owner could trade such a resource to other nations in the trade screen for gold per turn. It's could be used to burn away jungle tiles or cause extra damage to targets. If used on a city, the same 'destroy building' list that spies see could pop up and 1 building could be chosen to be destroyed.
I would add all of these and more.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bibor showthread.php?p=14399091showthread.php?p=14399091
They "unstacked" cities, moved out buildings to the map. Are they aware that this will create "carpeting" strategies where you build a few frontline units and have a sizeable number of cheapest units possible just to carpet-raze enemy lands? And what about paratroopers in later game? Just land and pillage? So end-game will be bombers, fighters and paratroopers? There was a gameplay reason why cities held most of the infrastructure.
Originally Posted by Ryika
"No, the devs have never thought about this very obvious potential problem. The real question is: Have they got sufficient limitations to prevent this."
I think they would have known this. I have used this strategy in Civ4 Always War games for years. It was just against Workshops, Towns, Farms and Lumbermills.
If one start begins with on a River, so It can irrigate, and another doesn't. The first has an advantage. If because one doesn't have a Freshwater source, the game permits that civilization to invent the Well to irrigate lands to compensate. This would help maintain some game balance do to a poor start. I wrote this down and you said something similar.
Originally Posted by Bibor,
"
Peoples living in poor lands were better soldiers, because starvation is a powerful motivator. They had to hunt, plunder, travel longer distances to find sustenance. Nomadic cultures always conquered stationary cultures. The result was a fusion of new and old, conqueror and conquered. Other peoples with limited resources turned to trade (norse, greeks etc.), motivated people turned to risk of shipping, either via land (silk road) or sea (greeks etc.).
It could work the same way in civ as well. Land itself could determine what type of civilization you're building. If you're a coastal civ with scarce lands, you should be able focus on trade and naval supremacy. If your civ is in a tundra or great desolate plains, your civ could feature mighty mounted warriors even with limited infrastructure.
In time, this could transform, expand into new eras with different conflicts. Colonizing or conquering nations would be strong because of their trade and exploitation, while other nations might be focusing on diplomacy and crafts."
and this:
"
here are some examples of mechanics that would make this game so much more fun and challenging:
This building provides X science for each sea tile owned by the city.
Owning X sea tiles increases the combat ability of naval units by Y.
Policy: owning more sea tiles than land tiles provides these benefits.
Policy: Having more than X mountains or jungles per city makes units ignore terrain movement penalties within Y hexes of that city.
Each tile with this new improvement gives a X% bonus to units attacking enemy cities.
This building costs hammers, but provides fresh water resource around it."
and this:
"Like SC2 has humans, zerg and protoss, Civ could have nomadic, seafaring and stationary themes. The same gains (production, faith, culture etc.) should be possible to be generated from various sources. Most civs would obviously be a mix of these three, but by the midgame, you'd have truly unique civs, defined by the map, but shaped by the player. From the midgame onwards, you'd have the clash of these unique civs, each with their strenghts and weaknesses, where diplomacy and new mechanics dominate, and finally the endgame, the final resolution."
These ideas, I like!!!!!
Originally Posted by GamerKG, "
You cannot KNOW that your suggestions arent even in the game."
We know that we will not start out as Nomadic, Seafaring or Sedentary Lifestyle Civilizations Only and build up from there. We have our Nation's names attached, which really should come much later. The Civ4 Caveman 2 Cosmos Mod does something like this. One can choose to start off as Spain, but really only have "European Culture". If one drops another city and it has a certain resource, That city might become the Mexican Civilization, granting you it's UU and UB from that city. It is a very interesting twist on the game.
Overall, you have some great creative ideas. I doubt they will all be in Civ6. Some could be moddable. Others, you might have to write your own game for and please do, because it does sound more challenging.