Terrance888
Discord Reigns
For nations at war, you can only draft people to use pre fabricated weapons and all turns have 5 war turns for nations at war. Realistic war!
The Civ V wish-list!!!
- Thread starter Logitech
- Start date
D0NIMATRIX
Full of drivel
Difficult to put into multiplayer, though.
Pariah
Outside Influence
Apostolic Palace is a bloody nuisance already. It seems to disrupt my diplomatic efforts more than aid them - dragging me into wars I don't want, or cancelling valuable trades against my vote.
Let's leave it out next time!gingermick
Chieftain
okay guys, I know this is a side issue, but where and what is the apostolic palace, I cant find any reference to it in my bog standard level Civ 4. !!!!
Pariah
Outside Influence
It's a new Wonder in BTS - like an early United Nations, affecting all civs which play host to the religion of the civ which builds it (even if that isn't their state religion).
I don't think of a more continuous flow rather than a more stepwise increase in potentials as a plus.
Thinking about this, you are right. Infinite movement on railroads is going in the same direction as teleporting "airlifts" and air units not being real units any more. So forget I said that.
I am not sure I favour x10 movement, though, rather than something that scales with map size. Or possibly there being more than two stages of transport upgrade, road, rail, and mag-lev for example. (I know you don't like future techs, but there are enough maglev rails running in reality that I think it's a reasonable suggestion for a game that presevres strict "realism" in terms of what's actually happened.)
I am very much not happy with that model of airlifting; I want air-transport units that one loads up and flies from one place to anyother, same way ships work.
Why is historical determinism so appealing ? I do not get how making a civilisation behave the way it did in our history when it has developed in a different physical environment, with different political neighbours and different history, makes any sense at all, or is appealing.
I am strongly opposed to all of these, too. Everybody should be able to build everything, and to use every possible unit design, too.
Yeah, let's be opposed to improvement in the graphics variety now. Oh, and 2 unique units out of 20, oh my, God forbid anything interesting happening to this game. Now seriously, what the hell.
No unique units, but four hundred units everybody can, by tech choices, pick a couple of hundred of as options. That's more interesting than "I'm the Aztecs so I'm stuck with these 2 UUs and can't use any of the other forty" any day.
The graphics exist to serve the gameplay. They are there to tell you what the unit is, whose it is and how healthy it is. Other than that, they can look like Civ 1 for all I care, because prettying them up past that is just wasting CPU.
D0NIMATRIX
Full of drivel
Care to elaborate?
I can sort of agree with you on the first point, if there are many many units, and accessing them all in one game is nearly impossible.
However, your second argument about being against better GRAPHIC DIVERSITY is moot. Seriously, even amateur modders who make graphic packs that make every civilization look unique manage to make it exceptionally clear that you are looking at a longbowman, no matter what ethnicity it has. And today's computers can easily take it. Sure, you can pride yourself in not caring about graphics (and yeah, gameplay is infinitely more important), but there's no point in NOT having improvement. It's being conservative for no reason and an insult to people who study in designing art styles for computer games and pushing its boundaries to create beautiful things. If we'd only listen to these sorts of arguments, who knows, maybe computer wouldn't have advanced as fast as they did.
Steady improvement always made more sense to me. To each his own.
I figured the easiest way to handle this was to add a benefit to a technology (or a new one) in the modern era that increases railroad movement, much like Engineering increases road movement. You could start railroads at a relatively more slow 1/6 movement, and then ramp it up to 1/10, 1/12 or so in the modern era. After all, modern freight moves how much faster than the early trains in the mid 19th moved? But that might seem a little too "continuous"...
Air-transport units sounds tedious. I like the "build-it-and-they-will-come" approach of trade and airlifting used in the recent Civs. What I would like to see is an implementation of some of Dale's air missions, like air superiority for fighters to attack other fighters over enemy's territory, into the main game. Or some form of an escort mission for fighters so they will attack enemy interceptors while your bombers are running missions.
On the matter of in-game events; I basically like the game to behave in ways that are reactive to what I am doing, to go well for me if I am playing well and poorly for me if I am playing poorly. An asteroid strike that reduces me from top civilisation to scrabbling in the wreckage would not be fun. Some event with the reverse effect - say, if I'm a little civilisation on an island that's way behind everyone else and I suddenly stumble across some Von Daniken-esque ancient artifacts, get a bunch of techs and lethal advanced weapons, and am, without earning it, in a position to conquer the world - would be every bit as much no fun, because it would be every bit as much beyond my control.
It depends on what you consider improvement.
What I want from the design of units in the game is clear concise communication of some basic things about them, as I specified above. Any additonal detail beyond that is obscuring the information content by adding other things one might notice and be distracted by. I have nothing against people being visually creative and I enjoy pretty pictures as much as many people, I just don't think it's appropriate when it gets in the ways of clean information content, any more than I want animated ninjas crawling over my email account even if they are very aesthetically pleasing ninjas.
The thing is, I think one way of addressing the thing some people have pointed out about games being won or lost a quarter of the way in would be to make technology more stepwise, so that someone being dominant in one sphere early on was not guaranteed to be dominant subsequently - and might in fact be less so if they had overspecialised too early.
One of the things I most liked way back in Civ 1, for example, is that there's a sort of ratcheting effect to technology in terms of unit potential. Unless one takes deliberately esoteric paths through the tech tree, IMO, is that you go through a phase where defense is dominant with phalanxes, and then a phase with catapults where attack is dominant, and then a phase with musketeers where defense is dominant again that lasts basically up to the point of getting battleships and armour. I am very much in favour of the improvement in tech over the course of the game leading to eras where there are different feels and balances, and steady improvement in all spheres more or less at the same time blands that out. IMO.
I'm not talking about units, but about city growth. I won't deny there are a handful of advances in organization that have made major differences in terms of settlement sizes (such as, agriculture), but the vast majority of human progress is in incremental improvements.
Note in Civ4, there are still opportunities for developing distinct army styles. I've seen some Civs get Military Science far before Rifling and have more grenadiers. Then, some take a more direct route to Rifling and pick up Military Science later on, leading to a rifle-heavy army.
Or, the horse archer and elephant, which are interesting units inbetween the ancient units and medieval units. You could have the option of taking crossbows and maces, or alternately getting war elephants and focusing on a different part of the tech tree. Eventually, you need to research the same technologies, but this provides variety.
The eras have plenty of flavor, just not the rigidity associated with a specific, deliberate developmental path. Now, attack and defense is not only subject to technology but also to terrain conditions (mounted units don't receive defense bonuses, for example) and to your choice of promotions.
Note in Civ4, there are still opportunities for developing distinct army styles. I've seen some Civs get Military Science far before Rifling and have more grenadiers. Then, some take a more direct route to Rifling and pick up Military Science later on, leading to a rifle-heavy army.
Or, the horse archer and elephant, which are interesting units inbetween the ancient units and medieval units. You could have the option of taking crossbows and maces, or alternately getting war elephants and focusing on a different part of the tech tree. Eventually, you need to research the same technologies, but this provides variety.
The eras have plenty of flavor, just not the rigidity associated with a specific, deliberate developmental path. Now, attack and defense is not only subject to technology but also to terrain conditions (mounted units don't receive defense bonuses, for example) and to your choice of promotions.
Hopeless.
Then I guess you should just start writing Firaxis about how you'd rather Civ V be just black and white dots and bleeps and ASCI symbols that "deliver the information as quickly as possible". It's a game, not work. When I work I want stuff to be plain and simple, when I play games, I'm glad we've evolved.
Comrade Alex
Warlord
Yeah. I like pretty pictures of my little soldiers. It's escapism, watching my hordes of tiny mechanised infantry lay waste to all around them. I don't want to play Dwarf Fortress, I want a game that can distract me from the horsehockey trivialities of my life :/
D0NIMATRIX
Full of drivel
The events probably wouldn't be as decisive as that, though. They would probably just be like learning a tech randomly through trade or something like that.
Hey, I've never denied the utility of colour in telling things apart. Though then again, with the sixe of the Civ player base, it would to my mind be a bit off not to make allowances for just how prevalent red-green colour-blindness is.
Oh, I want a game to use as much of my brain as possible; I just want to use it on gameplay, not struggling to tell one unit from another.
Similar threads
