"Re-inventing" CivIV

Ermelinho

Child with the Mirror
Joined
May 8, 2007
Messages
88
Location
Among the Daughters of the Desert
Hi!

I´m currently thinking of some simple (?) things to change in Civ (+BTS) to make it become a little bit more "realistic".
For i´m at the very beginning of this process i´ll just mention a few things and would like to read your opinion and additional ideas as well as help in concernes of realizing them.

1. right now, if you wanna build mounted units, you have to have horses either as strategic res or by trade.

my idea is: you have to have horses to build stables, that then generates horses for the city in which you built it.


2. you can build farms without having any crop. i wonder what they´re growing there if it´s neither corn nor rice nor wheat. it might be rye?

idea: having crop enables workers to build cropfarms (wheat, corn or rice). these generate bonus res (also for trade) but can be pillaged or changed to another improvement. no other ("cropless") farms allowed.


3. with imported ivory you can build war-elephants... pardon? ah, thanks!

no real idea yet, but elephants should be untradable.

4. some units can be build with either iron or copper, but have same strength.

idea: units with iron weapons should be stronger than those build with copper.
copper-units should be replaced by their iron derivates but reappear if you loose your access to iron.


that´s just some of my major ideas and probably the most practicable among them. I´m pretty much aware that these changes might be difficult to balance, but it´s worth a try. just think of cereals mills or sid´s soushi... e.g.

another point is that i haven´t got a clue about how the AI´s gonna deal with this, well knowing that automated workers already act rather stupid.


get cracking!
 
Hi!

I´m currently thinking of some simple (?) things to change in Civ (+BTW) to make it become a little bit more "realistic".
For i´m at the very beginning of this process i´ll just mention a few things and would like to read your opinion and additional ideas as well as help in concernes of realizing them.

1. right now, if you wanna build mounted units, you have to have horses either as strategic res or by trade.

my idea is: you have to have horses to build stables, that then generates horses for the city in which you built it.

Plausible.


2. you can build farms without having any crop. i wonder what they´re growing there if it´s neither corn nor rice nor wheat. it might be rye?

idea: having crop enables workers to build cropfarms (wheat, corn or rice). these generate bonus res (also for trade) but can be pillaged or changed to another improvement. no other ("cropless") farms allowed.

Rye is a good possibillity. Oats is another option.

They were probably growing barley, a common Eurasian crop, to bake all of that bread you see on the map. It's also used to make beer, and is good feed for cattle and pigs. They probably grow carrots, turnips and chickpeas too. Storable food that humans can eat. They probably grew some forage to feed their draft animals and livestock, too.

I think of the common farm as a catch-all, like the common mine. What would
they possibly be digging out of the ground in ancient times if it isn't iron, copper, silver, gold, or coal ? Probably flint to make tools and weapons, clay to make pottery, tin - which you need for bronze, lead which you need for bullets, maybe amber and jade as trade items- and some other elements that make great alloys.

You might be interested in the work Gaius is doing in quantifiable resources.
 
I wouldn't exactly say that these changes would "re-invent" CIV IV. But, I do think that iron units should get maybe a 10% or more bonus against bronze units. So, an iron-equipped axeman would get a slight bonus against his bronze-equipped counterpart. Sounds realistic enough.
 
I think as far as realism is concerned Firaxis has bigger problems to worry about, say for instance OPEN BORDERS. Can you imagine this in real life?? Oh sure, you can march your stack'o doom of mech inf and tanks through my country, in fact you can park them there in my cities if you'd like. BUT if you declare war on me you need to kindly move all your units outside of my cultural bounderies pretty please..

I don't think any civ should be able to march through any OTHER civ unless they are Allies as in real life, or they are renting space from another civ as in RL but still not be able to trapes through the country, they would be bound to that one tile (panama canal, Gitmo, etc). I think it should be a little bit harder for the human AND the AI to attack a civ other than by doing an end run through another civ to get to it.
 
Plausible. .

I dissagree. It sounds more unrealistic than how things are now. A city builds a building, and suddenly they get horses? Why didn't those silly native americans do this?!?! The way it is now is much better. If you have cities in a land where horses are roaming about, then you can use them. If there are no horses in your land... then you can't have horses.


Rye is a good possibillity. Oats is another option.

They were probably growing barley, a common Eurasian crop, to bake all of that bread you see on the map. It's also used to make beer, and is good feed for cattle and pigs. They probably grow carrots, turnips and chickpeas too. Storable food that humans can eat. They probably grew some forage to feed their draft animals and livestock, too.

I think of the common farm as a catch-all, like the common mine. What would
they possibly be digging out of the ground in ancient times if it isn't iron, copper, silver, gold, or coal ? Probably flint to make tools and weapons, clay to make pottery, tin - which you need for bronze, lead which you need for bullets, maybe amber and jade as trade items- and some other elements that make great alloys.

You might be interested in the work Gaius is doing in quantifiable resources.

I see them at catch-all's as well. When you see a corn resource on the map.... I don't think of it as being the only place where corn exists.... just that region happens to have corn in bigger quantities, or of better quality than other places.

For example.... in europe..... pigs and sheep are farmed pretty much everywhere...... if you were making a map of europe, you'd literally have to have pig and sheep resources on every single tile, as they're farmed everywhere in europe. Obviously this wouldn't work...... the resources would have to go in the places that are famous for certain things...... like sheep in wales..... pigs in Denmark.... etc... etc.
 
I think some of the active spying should have far higher consequences if he/she gets caught, perhaps triggering a war (i.e. destroying a major cultural building, poisoning its citizens, causing a revolt), since these are essentially acts of terrorism. In real life, I don't think countries would take these acts as lightly as they do in Civ (where they treat it like minor mischief).

edit: also, I agree with everything jimbob27 posted above, regarding how to view the resources.
 
I wouldn't exactly say that these changes would "re-invent" CIV IV.
:lol:

It´s kind of blasphemous, but i guess more will read this thread.
I have difficulties with the search function and so I don´t know what others already changed or tried or whats in progress.

So it´s not THESE changes that "re-invent" CIV. just wanted to collect ideas here. if you know concise threads on topic, feel free to link it.
 
Yeah, the penalties for spying needs sorting out.

IIRC, the system they used in civ2 was better. Some missions had a probability attached, and if you failed, you'd go to war with the civ instantly. If you failed the suitcase nuke mission, the whole world would attack you.
 
A city builds a building, and suddenly they get horses? Why didn't those silly native americans do this?!?! The way it is now is much better. If you have cities in a land where horses are roaming about, then you can use them. If there are no horses in your land... then you can't have horses.

well, you must have horses to build a stable and raise them there. precolumbian indians didn´t have horses, but europeans brought to america. and besides domesticating mustangs they probably got some by trading.

I see them at catch-all's as well. When you see a corn resource on the map.... I don't think of it as being the only place where corn exists.... just that region happens to have corn in bigger quantities, or of better quality than other places.

european didn´t know corn before they got it from america, but today there´s lots of corn growing in europe.
 
Yeah, the penalties for spying needs sorting out.

IIRC, the system they used in civ2 was better. Some missions had a probability attached, and if you failed, you'd go to war with the civ instantly. If you failed the suitcase nuke mission, the whole world would attack you.

but it was all excusable if you had a fundamentalist gov't, wasn't it?

ahh, good old fundamentalism...
 
well, you must have horses to build a stable and raise them there. precolumbian indians didn´t have horses, but europeans brought to america. and besides domesticating mustangs they probably got some by trading.

european didn´t know corn before they got it from america, but today there´s lots of corn growing in europe.

Their treatment of horses seems fine to me.

You need a pasture to even have access to horses. Stables give mounted units a free promotion, which is enough to encourage players to build a stable as well.
 
I dissagree. It sounds more unrealistic than how things are now. A city builds a building, and suddenly they get horses? Why didn't those silly native americans do this?!?! The way it is now is much better. If you have cities in a land where horses are roaming about, then you can use them. If there are no horses in your land... then you can't have horses.

I like the current system in regard to horses. Horses are bred and raised on horse farms were they have pasture to nourish and exercise. They are trained in stables, hence the experience points.

As I understood the OP, horses should be required to build a stable. As a renewable resource horses are more like a tech than coal and iron are. Once you have a stable you can breed enough horses for that city and don't need to continue to buy them. Not enough to supply an empire or trade to another, Not enough for a neighboring city , but enough for that city's needs.

So I said plausible.

As for the Native Americans and horses- I guess the game mechanic that most closely resembles the IRL event is the way a religion spreads down a river:D
 
I wouldn't exactly say that these changes would "re-invent" CIV IV. But, I do think that iron units should get maybe a 10% or more bonus against bronze units. So, an iron-equipped axeman would get a slight bonus against his bronze-equipped counterpart. Sounds realistic enough.
bronze is harder than iron, but the elements to make are more scarce than iron,thus meaning that bronze weapons are more expensive to build, so me thinks that you should just have same strength units but the iron ones should be cheaper, and steel should be a classical era tech, prerequisite for knight & mace (armor),
 
bronze is harder than iron

Is it? :mischief:

As I understood the OP, horses should be required to build a stable. As a renewable resource horses are more like a tech than coal and iron are. Once you have a stable you can breed enough horses for that city and don't need to continue to buy them. Not enough to supply an empire or trade to another, Not enough for a neighboring city , but enough for that city's needs.


thanks for translation :goodjob:

speaking of tribal nation reminds me of another more complex thing i´d like to add to my mod. I want nomads in my mod to move around an follow resources. ressources (cattle, sheep etc.) should appear and disapear unless you put a pasture on them.

something like that should be possible.

remember the genghis-khan schenario?

too bad i only have little knowledge of python.
 
wiki said:
Bronze is stronger (harder) than wrought iron, but the Bronze Age gave way to the Iron Age. That may have been because the shipping of tin around the Mediterranean (or from Great Britain) became more limited during the major population migrations around 1200 – 1100 BC, which dramatically limited supplies and raised prices.
:p
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bronze
 
;) nitpicking?

you say bronze? i say steel!

copper to bronze, iron to steel.

i´not talking about metallurgy, but weapon-technology-
 
If you have horses, you should be able to breed them. So you can add them to various tiles throughout the game (very sparingly though). no Civ chould be without horses the entire game, its just not realistic
 
You should take a look at the weapons system in FfH 2 (maybe it is similar to the one use in the ancient mediterainian mod, I'm not sure). Units passing through a city with a forge and access to copper get a str. increasing bronze weapon promotion, ditto iron. The units won't lose these promos, and can be built without the resource for lower str. If you lose the resource, then future units will simply not get the bonus.
 
there was no steel in the iron age :rolleyes:

lack of tin made people find alternatives: iron! but they added carbon to the iron. (->"steel"?) that´s what makes it viable for weapons and certainly stronger than bronze.

Nikis said:
You should take a look at the weapons system in FfH 2 (maybe it is similar to the one use in the ancient mediterainian mod, I'm not sure). Units passing through a city with a forge and access to copper get a str. increasing bronze weapon promotion, ditto iron. The units won't lose these promos, and can be built without the resource for lower str. If you lose the resource, then future units will simply not get the bonus.

interesting, i´ll check that out
 
Top Bottom