1. We have added a Gift Upgrades feature that allows you to gift an account upgrade to another member, just in time for the holiday season. You can see the gift option when going to the Account Upgrades screen, or on any user profile screen.
    Dismiss Notice

Realism + balance improvements

Discussion in 'Civ - Ideas & Suggestions' started by Gehennas, Oct 5, 2011.

  1. Gehennas

    Gehennas Warlord

    Joined:
    Aug 8, 2011
    Messages:
    146
    Location:
    Novosibirsk, Russia
    Here I have some thoughts about game improvements, that will not only add more realism, but also will make game features more balanced and fair.

    Sorry for my bad English.

    1. Knowledge spread - :c5science: Scientific improvement.

    Technology already known by other civilizations should be reseached faster. For example, in a game with N civs, technology known by M civilizations will be researched (M*100)/N % faster.

    RL background: In real history, only isolated civilizations remained technologically backward. In fact, every technology is easier to discover, when it was already discovered by someone else.

    In-game reason: This will make technologically backward players less helpless. Possibly, this will make beelines less effective.

    2. More techs - :c5science: Scientific improvement.

    I know about Occam's razor, but currently there are too few techs and this makes research agreements and lighbulbing too effective. This improvement also has synergy with improvement #3 (see below). Later era should have more techs than the earlier one.

    RL background: There are lots of important techs, that were not mentioned in Civ 5 - diesel engine, continuum mehanics, lather, gas turbine etc.

    In-game reason: As already mentioned - too overpowered RAs and bulbs.

    3. Unit modernization - :c5war: Military improvement.

    While some techs make terrain improvements better, some techs should make units better by giving them upgrades. For example:

    Machineguns - Infantry gains +50% defense against gunpowder/melee/mounted units.
    Grenadiers - Riflemen gain +15% in combat against gunpowder/melee units.
    Bayonet - Gunpowder units gain +15% defense against cavalry
    Satellite guidance - Ranged and air units gain +15% against land units.
    Smokeless powder - Ranged attacks deal -25% damage to gunpowder units.
    etc.

    RL background: Actually, military technologies evolved more smoothly than they evolve in game. Also, this feature will allow to represent some events like WWI "trench war".

    In-game reason: This feature should make something like "slingshot to steel" less effective, due to upgraded classical-era units. This also will allow to give mech infantry, for example, 40:c5strength: initially (with modernization to 50:c5strength: with later techs), making tanks more valuable.

    4. War reason - :c5citystate: diplomacy improvement

    When DoWing other player, player should choose a reason for war or declare that there is "No reason". "No reason" gives relationship penalty with all city-states and/or "Permanent war" with one of city-states.

    Some of the reasons should have a "goal" - You should achieve the goal or end war without capturing enemy cities/returning them. Otherwise you will have a relationship penalty with all city-states and/or "Permanent war" with one of city-states

    Possible reasons:

    Liberate a city-state.
    Recover own lands - applicable, if someone captured your initial cities.
    Protect the city-state - city state should survive and sign the peace treaty with the enemy.
    Save the world from the warmonger - declare a war on someone, who is in a war for no reason.
    Sacred war - one of piety policies should allow to declare a war once with this reason.
    etc.

    RL background: I think it's obviuos. Almost every war in civilized world had it own excuse given to the society.

    In-game purpose: Giving penalties to warmongers, making diplomatic victory really diplomatic.
     
  2. That nerdy kid

    That nerdy kid Vampire Slayer Slayer

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2011
    Messages:
    428
    Location:
    Standing next to Waldo
    I like # 3 and some of # 4, but i think that religious war should not be included until we get religion.
     
  3. Chadwiick

    Chadwiick Chieftain

    Joined:
    Sep 29, 2011
    Messages:
    18
    I like these ideas quite a bit. It always frustrated me a little when technology was researched by others yet you still had to go through it the hard way. #1 is my favorite. :D
     
  4. eazyseeker

    eazyseeker Warlord

    Joined:
    May 1, 2011
    Messages:
    214
    1# already exists.. it's tech diffusion. Can't remember the exact formula, but a tech gets cheaper the more civilizations that you know know it. Play on any diff past Prince (where the AI gets at least Pottery as a starting tech) and you will see Pottery is cheaper than Archery, AH or Mining once you meet new civs.
     
  5. Gehennas

    Gehennas Warlord

    Joined:
    Aug 8, 2011
    Messages:
    146
    Location:
    Novosibirsk, Russia
    Unfortunately, haven't noticed (playing on Emperor now).
     
  6. Naokaukodem

    Naokaukodem Millenary King

    Joined:
    Aug 8, 2003
    Messages:
    3,145
    It's because it's so shy that it doesn't even deserve to exist.

    As for idea number 4, I like it, I wanted myself to be able to do that in one of my games. But it was more for making the other AIs remember than anything else.

    Like if the reason for a successful war is "you insulted me" and you destroy completely this civ, other civs will think twice before insulting you. They could still do it if they think they are more powerfull than you, but that's all.

    Same as this, last time I declared war in a Settler difficulty game whereas i didn't want to at the start of the game. That's because one damn silly civ didn't want to give me Right of Passage. I was ally with a militaristic city state past their territory and wanted to reapatriate my troops. But t his AI always said 'never' for a RoP. So I declared war to them, and vanished them out.

    It would be cool that other AIs could remember what you did to the others and for what reasons. So they would be more enclined to please you next time.

    Particularly when in this case where i was so overpowered, refusing me a damn RoP is just suicide.
     
  7. smallfish

    smallfish Immortal

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2011
    Messages:
    2,968
    I dunno... I mean, I just had a Prince game where I stomped both Russia and Denmark - who are runaway neighbors in their own right - without them declaring war on me, and then Spain who owns a continent and a half (with more points than my Angrezi Raj) pops by in TWICE with afraid comments, followed by a declaration of friendship.

    "Oh great one, spare a thought for us who are weak blah blah blah"

    Man that was awesome, awesome enough to prove to be her downfall.

    e: they can insult you all they want, but when the chopping block comes knocking, it's extremely debatable to who will have the last laugh eh.
     
  8. black213

    black213 Emperor

    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2010
    Messages:
    1,472
    I like number 4, but it could be easily exploited. You could just choose the option with the least diplomatic conflicts. Choosing no reason would be just dumb.
     
  9. Camikaze

    Camikaze Administrator Administrator

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2008
    Messages:
    27,214
    Location:
    Sydney
    The 'reason for war' one is interesting, but I think it could be too easily abused. You would goad an AI into war rather than risking the diplomatic hit. It would also make diplomacy even more negatively geared; it's a game so you're meant to be playing to win without much concern for backstabbing, but if you implement such a penalty for pursuing that naked interest, it's essentially 'penalty for playing the game to win'.
     
  10. wobuffet

    wobuffet Barbarian

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2011
    Messages:
    1,223
    A casus belli system (to use the pretentious Latin term) has been proposed many times before, Google suggests: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=site:civfanatics.com+"casus+belli"+civ5

    Apparently it's been implemented in at least one other strategy game, Europa Universalis 3: see www.paradoxian.org/eu3wiki/Casus_belli. It seems a bit complicated though, and I'm inclined to think that it therefore wouldn't fit awfully well into the Civ world.

    Nonetheless, just because it's interesting, I might sketch out an idea for implementing a simple casus belli system that I'll make my own topic for in a bit. :p
     
  11. headcase

    headcase Limit 1 Facepalm Per Turn

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2011
    Messages:
    1,213
    Location:
    Ontario, Canada
    For #1 I think it should slowly give you beakers, even if not being studied, based on how many civs have it and for how long they've had it, up to 75%.

    #4 is great, though "sacred war" should be rolled in with "no reason", not because religion is bad, but because anyone can pretend to go to war for that reason and the other civs (who would likely be another religion or secular) have little reason to care.

    I had an idea where every civ starts with their own religion, can convert, and get bonuses for trading with civs of the same religion, and also bonuses for converting civs to their religion (so who converts will be a matter of disagreement). Only if that kind of thing was implemented would I be for religious war.
     
  12. ViterboKnight

    ViterboKnight King

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2006
    Messages:
    786
    Not just this.
    I can declare, stating that "you have attacked my friend", thus having only a minor diplomatic hit, for my good reason for declaring.
     
  13. sukritact

    sukritact Artist and Modder

    Joined:
    Sep 21, 2010
    Messages:
    2,831
    Location:
    Bangkok
    Actually, if implemented properly, it could be brilliant. I suggest a fourth option in addition to puppeting, razing and occupying. Peacekeeping, so the city still belongs to the enemy, but is effectively useless as long as a military unit is in the city.

    So in situations like, "protecting a CS/Ally" if you do anything other than peacekeeping, you get a large diplomatic hit.

    And for stuff like, reclaiming territory, you could get a massive hit if you take territory that had never belonged to you.
     
  14. wobuffet

    wobuffet Barbarian

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2011
    Messages:
    1,223
    Interesting. Instead of no culture/science/etc at all from the city for anyone, I'd suggest something like 25% of all yields for the peacekeeping civ and 25% for the original owner civ. (Un)happiness could be tricky though.
     
  15. sukritact

    sukritact Artist and Modder

    Joined:
    Sep 21, 2010
    Messages:
    2,831
    Location:
    Bangkok
    For unhappiness I'd prefer the owner of the city receive the bulk of it. The idea of peacekeeping is to squeeze the opponent into a situation where they have no choice but to accept a fair peace treaty.

    I'm not sure about the 25% for all yields for the person peacekeeping in the city. There has to be a reasonable disincentive for the player to not just perpetually occupy the city and refuse peace treaties. For one, gold shouldn't be received by the one peacekeeping, that way they'd still have to pay for the unit occupying the city.
     
  16. wobuffet

    wobuffet Barbarian

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2011
    Messages:
    1,223
    I'm not sure I know exactly what you have in mind, skuritact. Under what conditions is a peacekeeping mission possible, and what is the end result?
     
  17. sukritact

    sukritact Artist and Modder

    Joined:
    Sep 21, 2010
    Messages:
    2,831
    Location:
    Bangkok
    Well, this has to be integrated with number 4 in the original post. It would only be allowed for defensive or protective wars, so stuff like helping an ally or defending yourself from attack, or even going against a warmonger.

    In number 4, to prevent a player from wiping out a nation for defensive reasons, the diplomatic hit should be increased for annexing or puppeting cities, so you have peacekeeping as another option to choose.

    The city would be considered more or less captured and would be considered a loss and an incentive for the AI to sue for peace, without the peackeeper getting the huge diplomatic hit that would come from annexing or puppeting.
     
  18. JaGarLo

    JaGarLo Settler

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2011
    Messages:
    261
    Location:
    There (points with his finger)
    I agree with ideas 1 and 2. Tech spreading should be more effective. I don't like when most nations use swords and bows in the 1900's, and that happens even on Prince. I believe that a game is better when everyone is close to each other in the technological race, and when a backwards civ can get back on its feet on science.

    There should be more technologies. I would include Superconductors in the Future Era; you could build the SDI, that gives you some defense against nuclear weapons.

    Another one could be Automatic Weapons in the Industrial Era, a prerequisite for most modern units. Also gives the Machine Gun unit, which is good vs any mounted unit. Then I'd put Assembly Line, that gives you Infantry. I'd put Replaceable Parts in the Renaissance Era, before Rifling.

    I'm not sure why did they put Physics in the Medieval Era. If we're to keep so, I'd add Modern Physics at the late Renaissance.

    They should make the Classical Era last longer. I'd place Currency and Metal Casting in Classical. Also, I think we should be able to hit Classical by 1500 BC or later, considering that we get science at a normal rate.

    I think there should be an Era between Renaissance and Industrial, that covers from 1700 to 1850, since Industrial seems to have only technologies from late 19th Century and early 20th. In this new era I'd put Steam Power as one of the latest, that gives the Ironclad and faster movement on seas, and Industrialization in Industrial, that gives Factories.

    Idea 3 seems good. Maybe when reseaching one tech, you could give one of those upgrades, with money or experience. Also, I'd give those units new combat animations. I would exclude ''Machinegun'' because I prefer having that one as an independent unit.

    I'm not sure about 4. I think that would make the game very tedious, waiting until you get a good excuse to declare war. I think I prefer not having to select between a casus belli or no reason to start a war.

    Just my opinion, of course. Sorry for bad English! ;)
     
  19. sukritact

    sukritact Artist and Modder

    Joined:
    Sep 21, 2010
    Messages:
    2,831
    Location:
    Bangkok
    You could make the "No Reason" more aptly named "Conquest", but the idea, i think is a good one, allowing you to get different amounts warmonger hate depending on the reasons. If you're going to war to protect someone else, wouldn't it be logical that you should get less hate? It's like hating Britain for declaring war against Germany to prevent Hitler from taking over Europe. In the game, if you did that, most civilizations would start being cautious of you, this system prevents that hate, assuming you have the right reason.

    An additional thing i'd like to add is a major civilization like diplomacy system for city states, so there are positive and negative modifiers, not a just gifting system. Make the diplomatic victory truly diplomatic!

    And has everyone seen this thread? It's an interesting alternative to number 3.
     

Share This Page