RFC (vanilla, DoC, Europe, Asia, Classical World and SoI) is the next step.
However, civ5 has some very interesting features that should be added:
*city-states
*hexagonical grid
*1 tile expansion per cultural level which you choose
*can't occupy an occupied tile, but you can pass through it
*social evolution system that replaces the cultural victory
If all mods that refer to civ4, plus the above features, plus the civIII features (well except from the waste and the agreement abuse mechanics, a minor version of corruption should be added) were added in one major mod, with a really huge map and about 2500 turns, and a code that calculates everything in no time, plus all types of victories, it would be the best.
Oh, I forgot...
Spoiler:
a real workout of graphics, and a system of camera manipulation, I think it is a temporal problem of the civilization series.
A system of stages could be added. For example you start controlling a mesopotamian city as in SoI, and after some conquests the map and time escalation changes, so that you play a game like DoC. After you conquered the world, the escalation re-changes and you play a Final Frontier game. The escalation could also change during battles, so that you play the siege of Constantinople as in Defense mod.
Don't forget to add "backturn" button, which goes back to time and a parallel universe screen, where you see all your saves on a parallel universe tree (for example if you played turn 128 three times, you will see these three different parallel universe lines to pop up from the 127 save).
I'm thinking why not adding a city-building feature like in SimCity... In the final analysis that's the UP of civ4, it can absorb ALL strategy games in one mod (well, you will need a supercomputer to play this thing but it's still fascinating)
Oh Firaxis, please hear our praies and make this into existence, playable by 32-bit, 2GB, windows XP computers.
RFC (vanilla, DoC, Europe, Asia, Classical World and SoI) is the next step.
However, civ5 has some very interesting features that should be added:
*city-states
*hexagonical grid
*1 tile expansion per cultural level which you choose
*can't occupy an occupied tile, but you can pass through it
*social evolution system that replaces the cultural victory
If all mods that refer to civ4, plus the above features, plus the civIII features (well except from the waste and the agreement abuse mechanics, a minor version of corruption should be added) were added in one major mod, with a really huge map and about 2500 turns, and a code that calculates everything in no time, plus all types of victories, it would be the best.
Oh, I forgot...
Spoiler:
a real workout of graphics, and a system of camera manipulation, I think it is a temporal problem of the civilization series.
A system of stages could be added. For example you start controlling a mesopotamian city as in SoI, and after some conquests the map and time escalation changes, so that you play a game like DoC. After you conquered the world, the escalation re-changes and you play a Final Frontier game. The escalation could also change during battles, so that you play the siege of Constantinople as in Defense mod.
Don't forget to add "backturn" button, which goes back to time and a parallel universe screen, where you see all your saves on a parallel universe tree (for example if you played turn 128 three times, you will see these three different parallel universe lines to pop up from the 127 save).
I'm thinking why not adding a city-building feature like in SimCity... In the final analysis that's the UP of civ4, it can absorb ALL strategy games in one mod (well, you will need a supercomputer to play this thing but it's still fascinating)
Oh Firaxis, please hear our prayers and make this into existence, playable by 32-bit, 2GB, windows XP computers.
The core mechanics of civ 5 were mostly garbage. Hexagonal tiles and 1 unit per tile made the game way too tactical. The idea of city-states was a good one, but in the end, it just boiled down to " how much money can you bribe the city-state?". Buying tiles was interesting in a pinch, but the 1 tile expansion at a time was grindy and tedious. The social policy system was a terrible idea and much better represented by civics. And then there are all of the other crappy mechanics, like Archers being able to fire into other tiles, cities being able to fire at units and be attacked (both were too tactical), the inferior GP mechanics, the roads that cost maintenance, the overpriced, stupid DLCs, the inability to mod it for a while, and the inability to manage sliders. While I will say that Gods and Kings (and Brave New World, from what I've heard of it) added some good new mechanics, they did not fix any of the terrible core mechanics. Because of that, the only idea worse then (supposedly) adding Venice is taking Civ5 as a role model for what to do in DoC and saying that Civ5 was a progression of the series and better than Civ4.
Hexagonical grid leads to better representation of maps. Moreoever the hexagonical grid can build a satisfyingly accurate sphere with only 20 special (pentagonical) tiles.
I find that, overall, civ 5 has better diplomatic and economic options. The whole idea of "unlimited resources" in the previous civs is not true (although I think the resource system needs a revamp in 5). Also, the diplomatic model is WAY better and more realistic (except for the AI bugs in vanilla). Undoubtedly, civ 5 added a whole new layer of gameplay to the franchise, but it changed it (for better or worse). Plus, there's a handful of superb features.
- City-States
- Cost to Roads/Railroads (I mean really, what nation can afford to place roads every mile of their land)
- Science not being dependent on economic input
- Trade Routes
- and of course "choose-your-own" religion.
Well, France is quite able to place roads every tile. Just look at the country in Google maps. Put the magnification just so you can see the orange lines all over the country. If we consider Corsica 1 tile, and divide France into Corsica sized chunks, it's pretty difficult to have a chunk without any orange. And on top of that, there are hundreds of decent sized but smaller roads as well. So while nations are unable to place roads every square mile, it is reasonable to have some level of transport infrastructure on the tile scale.
Or not. Because roads and railroads in Civilization 4 have a completely different purpose than in Civilization 5.
If they were to have cost, connecting a resource would need to have a somewhat significant commerce advantage as well as the other ones, since it would cost to connect it.
Now you are probably thinking that without the bonus still makes sense since one must pay for transportation of resources. This doesn't make much sense because then you are not accounting for government gains of taxing or tolling routes. With the Civilization 5 road system, roads having cost makes sense as you can net gain off of them. In civilization 4, there is a road system that does not allow gain from them, and so a cost does not make sense.
The way it was implemented in Civ 5 continues to suck, though. Either ride the simplicity train to its logical conclusion like Civ Revolutions and make roads something that just appears between cities when conditions are right, or find some more graceful way to represent the cost / benefit trade offs of infrastructure.
Civ finally has actual trade routes, and now we have them maybe routeways in general could be rethought - if only looking ahead to Civ 6. Let the player build roads, certainly, and pay for them, but do something too to cause routes to emerge naturally due to economic forces.
I find that, overall, civ 5 has better diplomatic and economic options. The whole idea of "unlimited resources" in the previous civs is not true (although I think the resource system needs a revamp in 5). Also, the diplomatic model is WAY better and more realistic (except for the AI bugs in vanilla). Undoubtedly, civ 5 added a whole new layer of gameplay to the franchise, but it changed it (for better or worse). Plus, there's a handful of superb features.
- City-States
- Cost to Roads/Railroads (I mean really, what nation can afford to place roads every mile of their land)
- Science not being dependent on economic input
- Trade Routes
- and of course "choose-your-own" religion.
I strongly disagree. City-states is a neat idea, but it was executed poorly. Roads usually generate enough income to pay for the maintenance they generate. Trade routes were fine in civ 4. I agree that religion was pretty well done in G and K, but I'm talking about Civ5 without those cursed DLCs or expansions.
Also, where do scientific funds usually come from in real life? The government. Ever heard of NASA? Government funded. I never knew how science even worked in Civ5.
From my personal experience, Civ 5 has the benefit of:
1) a superior multiplayer
2) a healthy MP community
There is actually much more merit to a hex over a square in tactical application,
and it also equalizes movement; on a square tile, diagonal movement is inherently superior to horizontal/vertical movement.
Problem is, Civ isn't supposed to be a wargame, or a tabletop, so the only application that the hex works really well in, is no surprise, multiplayer.
Civ 4 has a much more enjoyable singleplayer, as well as a much more filling spread of mods available.
The civ experience has showd that there are many escalation in playing a strategy game. In the lowest level (lower than polity level, like in Defence) you have to be tactical in battles, 1UTP is the rule, and you have a lot of turn to decide the fate of the war. Research is too slow if there is any.
In the higher level (global level like in DoC) the battle mechanic is more or less something random, 1UTP makes no sense and you have to constantly upgrade your army to survive.
Firaxis tries to merge these two esclations in one gameplay making it unrealistic.
IMO all characteristics should be added in a strategy game. However, the game should have many subgames of different escalations. Not all subgames should have all characteristics.
For the general game? Global granularity, clearly. But I don't think that's the real concern with Civ5. Even polity-level granularity is both more and less granular than Civ5 attempts to be. (More granular in terms of the builder game, but less granular in terms of the war game.)
Civ5's problem is that it's basically Rise of Nations in turn-based format. It's a very good game for what it is, but it departs radically from the traditions of Civilization games to the point of barely being recognizable from a mechanical standpoint. Some people always liked the tactical/war game aspects of Civilization more than the diplomacy/builder/simulation aspects. They mostly like Civ5. Others found the tactical/war game aspects of Civilization the least interesting parts, and they mostly dislike Civ5.* It's worth pointing out that part of the disinterest a lot of Civ4 fanatics have for Civ5 is that it dramatically reverses the trend of the series, which had previously been progressively away from a war-game focus and towards a simulationist focus from Civ1 through Civ4. Civ5 is probably not dramatically more war-game focused than Civ2 (and at least with expansion packs has a lot of non-war game material that really should have been in the original release but doesn't change the underlying fundamentals of the game), but expectations have shifted.
*There's also a group who are tactical/war game people but who think Civ5 is too easy. It is true that the highest difficulty levels have gotten progressively easier with each Civilization game (due to fewer AI bonuses, mostly), but I don't think this is as fundamental an objection.
I know what I'm suggesting is ahistorical and against the ethos of the mod but couldn't the Native Americans be implemented as Tecumseh's planned state east of the mississippi? It'd spawn after the USA there would be no problem with the eastern US being occupied.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
(well, you will need a supercomputer to play this thing but it's still fascinating)
