some geology changes

[Pyerun]

I don't know if this was posted before, but I think there should be weather in CIV IV. And the four seasons should be included too. It would complicate quite alot though, but many battles (for example) depended of the weather. Napoleon lost the Battle for Moscow in 1812 beacause a very cold winter that the French couldn't support. And each civ should survive great in some climates depending of its starting position. For example, if a civ has its starting position near a tundra climate, it will have + defense and + attack in those locations and less hunger etc.

And there should be another change in volcano activities:
1) Volcanic islands created by underwater volcanoes.
2) Mountain ranges created by volcanoes localized near other mountains.

 

[mitsho]

The only way for me to include seasons would be to crap realism: Meaning, each turn has a season. As an example 4000 BC would be Summer 3950 Fall 3900 Winter 3850 Spring etc. it would be a nice minor change. Why not?

and to your second points. 1) I agree, it's again a very minor changes. but 2) is unrealistic.

mitsho

 

[Jon Shafer]

If anyone posts "but the turns are 50 years!" I'm going to come and wring their necks. It's a game, the "3800 BC" label means NOTHING and has NO impact on gameplay. Judge the idea based on its merit, not some fake "reality."

 

[sealman]

Trip: Your right, the amount of time that passes per turn has no effect on game play. But still, the idea is not a great one. Sure it will look nice to have the scene fade from a colorful summer time to a gray and white winter scene but I do not hthink it would work well in a turn based game.

For the first part - each turn is 50 years (sorry, just had to say it, please don't string my neck, I kinda like it)
Secondly - with weather included, it shoul dhave some effect on the movement of the units and it would be a pain to have your cav. moving 3 squares one turn and 1 the next.

 

[mitsho]

@Sealman NO, not each turn is 50 years. Some are 40 years, some are two years, some five and some one. It differs, and that's the reason this is no reason against this idea. Namely, How is it possible that a knight can move 2 points in 10 years, and later one needs just five years. That's not realistic also, and any explanation you gonna give me for that will just be an excuse and certainly NOT something the designers thought of!

To your second - more valid - point. I agree with you, this would be a distraction from straight rule game to a more sophisticated, not straight game with unexpected things happening. And of course there are two (or more, but these are here important) types of gamers:
1. the winners. they want to be better, play at sid level and still beat the AI. For this type (and you probably belong to them), this idea would be bad because you can't calculate things (that you need to win) with a changing variable (the unexpected factor that this idea brings in).
2. the players. These ones like to play, they don't care or do less if they will win or not. They have fun building an empire and will sometimes also do things that are against themselves, like giving a newly conquered city back to the civ that it once belonged to (not necessarily the one it was taken of).
I belong to the second group and therefore I want this idea. It brings athmosphere to the game.

mfG mitsho

 

[Jon Shafer]

Agree with mitsho, though I usually play to win and I'd like to see it just because it would make the game more interesting. Things that throws a wrench in your plans is what makes games like this fun to play. If everything went according to plan then that's when boredom sets in and I find another game to play...

 

[sealman]

misho: I was being sarcastic with my point #1. However, a turn does represent a great amount of 'time' in which there would may many season changes. While the single turn based year, 50, 5, ect. has no real effect on game play it does have an effect on the scope of the game, at least it does to me. Weather just does not fit in.

With regards to point #2, You have to (should) be able to calculate a few turns ahead in this game. After all, it is a strategy game. I would still be able to do this with a weather system in place, provided there is some structure to it.
As I see it, there are 2 options for implementing weather:

1: The alternating between one turn being summer and the next being winter option.
I do not see this as being a viable option because of two reasons, the first being that fast moving units lose some of their effectiveness since once every two turns they lose their speed advantage and slow units are able to catch up. (I am assuming that in winter and spring, fast units are slowed down due to snow and mud). Plus, the game would lose momentum of invasions during wartime. Instead of punch (turn 1) punch and take (turn 2), it would drag down into punch (turn 1) wait and enemy heal (turn 2) and punch and maybe take in turn 3.

2: A series of turns being summer then a series of turns being winter option.
This is a little better and it gives you time to plan your attacks to correspond with the new seasons. I could live with this option, but then you would have the "50 year = 1 turn" crowd screaming about it not being realistic that one summer lasts 50plus years. (note: If this option is used, I would like to see some variable dictating the length of the summer and winter seasons, so it is not always predictable on when winter hits)

There are probably other ways to implement weather into the game that have both good and bad points. But I still think that the inclussion of this whole element will be too complicated for the new fans that Fixaris wants to bring to the franchise, at least in my opinion.

 

[mitsho]

@Sealman But please PLEASE use smilies when you are being sarcastic, ironic or something alike. Because it's (near to) impossible to get this humour in a written text. Like I fell into the trap now.
Other than that I don't know what to comment back.

mfG mitsho