Suggestions for future civ games

[BaconLad]

I thought it might be interesting and possibly helpful if we had a thread where fans could offer suggestions for future versions of civ.

I have only briefly played civ3/4 so if any of the suggestions I offer have already been implemented I apologise in advance.

So, lets fire away then...

 

[BaconLad]

Something that has always bothered me is the fact that we "build" military units. I feel it may be better to "train" members of the population to form armys, and the size of the population should determine how many men there is available to form an army.
It should be military equipment that is built.
Look at the Egyptian Composite Bow for example, (18 months to produce a single bow) by far the most powerful bow of the era which was one of the main reasons Egypt prospered for so long.
In civ2 to produce an archer you simply must discover "warrior code" and then "build" the archer. I propose that it should be the bow that is built and the number of archers you have should be based on the number of availabe trained men and number of bows you have managed to produce.
Im not 100% certain how the composite bow was made, but it was roughly something like this...
the shape of the bow was formed from pieces wood and some sort of rubbery bark (which only the egyptians knew about) which was wrapped around it and took months to set properly, when set it was as volatile as the fibre glass bows of today. So in order to make a bow in civ you would have to 1st collect the necessary materials and learn an appropriate tech to actually be able to build one bow.
In Ancient Egypt the knowlege of how produce the bow was classified and only a handful of people were alowed to know the process.

Weapons should also be able to be salvaged from the battle field, so the salvager would have the weapon but not necessarily the weapon technology.

 

[Justy]

Up in the Civ IV Ideas and Suggestions subforum there is a thread with suggestions for Civ 5. So I would suggest perusing that thread to see if ideas which you are thinking about are still being suggested.

There have been many gameplay changes from Civ 2 to Civ 4: BTS.

 

[mpescatori]

I have been playing CIV2 for 14 years now, but started CIV4 only last week, so I won't comment CIV4. Never played CIV3, either.

I have a number of issues with military units, and discussed them with Microprose's developers in 1996...
- archers and catapults attack from a stand-off point, so they should be allowed a "reverse-move" mode. i.e., "shoot from 2 squares away". Same applies for all artillery and tanks.

Ships are at sea, right? So how can it be that a ship will fire upon a land target, not kill the target AND SINK ??? This is ridiculous; if naval units are cat.2 (sea superiority) they should not be "sunk" from land (cat.1) units/targets.

I have edited my "rules.txt" file to better suit the historical characteristics of military units, and now the game is much more amusing.

MY QUESTION: in "rules.txt" I find names for barbarian cities, yet never come across a barbarian city once in so many years gaming... how come?
ALSO
Wouldn't it be nice if, when "finding"/corrupting enemy military units (or mercenary units early in the game), they "gave" us the required technology to build more?

Regards

 

[civiijkw]

I have been playing CIV2 for 14 years now, but started CIV4 only last week, so I won't comment CIV4. Never played CIV3, either.

I have a number of issues with military units, and discussed them with Microprose's developers in 1996...
- archers and catapults attack from a stand-off point, so they should be allowed a "reverse-move" mode. i.e., "shoot from 2 squares away". Same applies for all artillery and tanks.

Ships are at sea, right? So how can it be that a ship will fire upon a land target, not kill the target AND SINK ??? This is ridiculous; if naval units are cat.2 (sea superiority) they should not be "sunk" from land (cat.1) units/targets.

I have edited my "rules.txt" file to better suit the historical characteristics of military units, and now the game is much more amusing.

MY QUESTION: in "rules.txt" I find names for barbarian cities, yet never come across a barbarian city once in so many years gaming... how come?
ALSO
Wouldn't it be nice if, when "finding"/corrupting enemy military units (or mercenary units early in the game), they "gave" us the required technology to build more?

Regards

Having distance weapon units fire from multiple squares away makes sense on a tactical map. On a strategic level map you may find that the width of a square is scores of miles and thus firing from even two squares away is way outside of the units range. It's a matter of which method of simplification you want, and I'm fine with the one that was chosen. If memory serves, archers in real battles were subject to being overrun by other units, so having them fire from two squares away would result in either A) a single shot and the battle not being decisive; B) the defending unit being unable to fire back and thus being an automatic victory for the attacking unit; or C) the defending unit without distance weapons firing back at a distance of two squares.

Ships at sea attacking land targets have similar issues. In addition, the ships before cannons attacked land units by landing and disembarking an attacking on foot, with the damage to the attacking individuals have the game effect of damaging the ship.

Mercenaries might not be willing to simply give away the technology that makes them valuable, so the change you're requesting might simply be for a percentage chance of getting that technology.

 

[mpescatori]

civiijkw, I do not agree.

A cavalry unit can move two squares in one turn, this means it stays 2 squares away (out of range) and attacks "at full gallop".

If you do know history as you claim, them you will know that a roman catapult or balista would shoot projectiles hundreds of meters away; similarly, archers would shoot their arrows in volleys hundreds of yards away.

As I said, have edited "rules.txt" to make the characteristics of military units closer to "the real thing". This applies not only to land units, but to the navy as well.

For example, I understand having a "trireme" and a "caravel", although there were much larger ships than caravels in those days. The all-powerful Genoese, Venetian and Pisan navies would battle saracens in "galleys" or quinquiremes. Go to Venice and see the museum.

In the Renaissance, the Spanish had "freight galleons" and "war galleons", the latter being called "man'o'war" by the British.

At sea, the Civil War was fought by "war galleons", frigates and a handful of ironclads, but by the turn of the century all european navies had steam battleships far more powerful than CIV2's "destroyer".

A trireme or caravel attacking a land unit will see the disembarked land units destroyed, OK, but the ships is in harbor... but how can you justify a frigate or ironclad attacking musketeers and be sunk? That is the paradox I am trying to fix.

As for technologies, there is one "factory fix" that says you cannot discover... iron working... until you have a city with an iron mine in its area of influence; in CIV2, you discover things just by research, which is like having a land-locked empire having the technology of submarines... doesn't make sense... if you can't even build a trireme, you can't research sea-focused or naval technologies...

 

[Prof. Garfield]

If you do know history as you claim, them you will know that a roman catapult or balista would shoot projectiles hundreds of meters away; similarly, archers would shoot their arrows in volleys hundreds of yards away.

And that distance is a very small fraction of a square on any civ 2 map, except possibly some small number of scenarios.

A trireme or caravel attacking a land unit will see the disembarked land units destroyed, OK, but the ships is in harbor... but how can you justify a frigate or ironclad attacking musketeers and be sunk? That is the paradox I am trying to fix.

Throughout most of history, a ship's artillery range was very small. In naval battles before explosive shells ships had to get very close to their enemies in order to do more than just punch a few holes in the hull. As I recall, the maximum distance of a piece of artillery in the "colonial" era was something like 3 miles (and that was consequently the distance offshore that belonged to a nation bordering the sea). If you are trying to attack a land target from the sea with solid shot, in order to do more than trivial damage you will have to get exceptionally close, well within the range of potential retaliatory measures not to mention dangers such as running aground. In fact, many scenarios don't let ships attack the coast at all, giving them the submarine flag.

It is important to remember that these units are general representations of period fighters, and that "musketeers" are not necessarily completely devoid of artillery or other methods of defence against ships, especially if they are fortified on a potentially hostile coast.

...but by the turn of the century all european navies had steam battleships far more powerful than CIV2's "destroyer".

These can be represented by the cruiser and the battleship.

 

[Ace]

One should also remember that this is a game. You have to draw a balance between "playability" and realisum. You can ruin a good game by going too far toward realisum and losing playability.

That said, shore bombardment has always been a hazardous venture. In sailing ship times, most forts were more than a match for ship's guns. Especially if the fort was on a cliff, hill, or other raised position. The fort's guns could fire down, but ship cannon could only be elevated a little bit.

In the modern day, era of the battleship, Mines and coastal defense guns made shore bombardment a risky business. For example, Gallipoli (sp?) in 1915.
The British Navy lost a number of old battleships (pre-dreadnouths) to mines and submarines and never did get past the coastal forts. And don't forget that the German Navy lost a heavy cruiser to shore guns and torpedoes in the invasion of Norway in 1940.

 

[mpescatori]

ACE, you are absolutely right.

That is the very reason why I used the available "extra units" to create minefields, naval mines and the blimp... although I am really looking at replacing the blimp with "Guns of Navarone" i.e. a coastal fortress that can attack, not just improve the defensive posture of units within the defending city.

Minefields have a move factor of 1, attack 1, defense 9, fp1, hp2, cost 40

Naval mines are ships with move 1, attack 1, defense 10, fp2, hp4, cost 40; you build a few and leave them one square out of the city, and only friendly ships will be immune.

Guns of Navarone has move =0, attack 10, defense 20, fp2, hp4, cost 50% more than coastal fortress; since it is really a ship with move=0, you create one and fortify it in the city's port, and that's it. Impenetrable !

I am happy to send you my modified rules.txt for you to skim through...

 

[JAC1]

MY QUESTION: in "rules.txt" I find names for barbarian cities, yet never come across a barbarian city once in so many years gaming... how come?

The list is of barbarian tribes, not cities, and one entry is selected from it when a barabrian leader makes contact to demand ransom for a city. He will introduce himself as leader of the Alans, Visigoths etc. If I recall correctly this also appears in the intel. screen when you establish an embassy with a barbarian city (eg. Emperor Atilla of the Hun.) Barb's don't build cities, but do occaisonally capture them, though they often seem to do everything but in situations where they are able to.

 

[mpescatori]

The list is of barbarian tribes, not cities, and one entry is selected from it when a barabrian leader makes contact to demand ransom for a city. He will introduce himself as leader of the Alans, Visigoths etc. If I recall correctly this also appears in the intel. screen when you establish an embassy with a barbarian city (eg. Emperor Atilla of the Hun.) Barb's don't build cities, but do occaisonally capture them, though they often seem to do everything but in situations where they are able to.

Hi JAC1, I also discovered that barbarians will often avoid attacking a city until there are military units in it (including settlers or even a caravan... anything with a defence parameter).

So, I build a city (i.e. on a wheat sheaf or near whales/fishes in the sea), and may well start building settlers upon settlers and the barbarians may well just sit there and occuopy my grass spaces, but never attack.

 

[The Big Cheese]

Hi just started playing CIV 2 again on PC after I used to have it for the PS

A couple of suggestions for future development

Shouldn't choose tech research, but are dependent on attitude, production, resources, geography

Ability to set a rulers personality, political leanings, and create some basic founding principles of your civilization eg. pragmatic, agressive, democratic or tyrany

Civil wars and independance movements in large empires, those colonies on different continents becomes harder to manage as time goes by, civil wars break out and sometimes they will form a new civilzation.