I like this notion a lot; am I right in thinking that Relics in CivRev work something like this, modulo everything in CivRev having a bigger effect than the equivalent in other versions of Civ ? I'd be very happy to see this in Civ 5.
The Civ V wish-list!!!
- Thread starter Logitech
- Start date
I like this notion a lot; am I right in thinking that Relics in CivRev work something like this, modulo everything in CivRev having a bigger effect than the equivalent in other versions of Civ ? I'd be very happy to see this in Civ 5.
I suspect that would be a good way of starting arguments among people to whom distinct ethnic identities within that grouping are significant, in the same way that making "Native Americans" one civilisation is problematic for some people.
And what are they supposed to do, and how are they supposed to work ? It would really help, in responding to your idea, to know what it actually was.
Onionsoilder
Reaver
- Joined
- Mar 19, 2007
- Messages
- 3,173
I duno, I think it would add in a lot of excessive micromanagement that many people won't want. For the people who do want it, just mod it into the game. The Rise of Mankind mod already does something similar to this.
Besides, doesn't having the raw resource kinda imply you already have access to all of the final goods?
Besides, doesn't having the raw resource kinda imply you already have access to all of the final goods?
gingermick
Chieftain
Hi guys new here but avid player, and here is my wish list, I will however split it into a few posts. (It was a bit long in hindsight!)
Firstly, what i have read and like (apologies not giving credit to who originally wrote them) to add my tuppence worth:
helicopters over coast
limited resources (points value) so that they can run out
creating land from marshland
trade along rivers
impassable terrain, such as gorges etc
exploitation of sea squares
trade routes (natural and enforced) therefore interdictable.
effective sea bombardment
ranged artillery (rocket troops? Rail(way) guns, super guns, V weapons)
air attacks that can destroy ships (Midway? Yamato?)
targetting of buildings by artillery/spies/aircraft/rocketry (reduced chance of success perhaps, but more effective)
Armies, a good compromise between superstacks and hundreds of individual units.
Firstly, what i have read and like (apologies not giving credit to who originally wrote them) to add my tuppence worth:
helicopters over coast
limited resources (points value) so that they can run out
creating land from marshland
trade along rivers
impassable terrain, such as gorges etc
exploitation of sea squares
trade routes (natural and enforced) therefore interdictable.
effective sea bombardment
ranged artillery (rocket troops? Rail(way) guns, super guns, V weapons)
air attacks that can destroy ships (Midway? Yamato?)
targetting of buildings by artillery/spies/aircraft/rocketry (reduced chance of success perhaps, but more effective)
Armies, a good compromise between superstacks and hundreds of individual units.
Öjevind Lång
Deity
- Joined
- Aug 22, 2005
- Messages
- 2,371
I wish one would at least get the *option* to update cavalry to tanks instead of helicopters. That's what happened everywhere except in the United States.
gingermick
Chieftain
more ideas on my wish list:
get rid of the unrealistic:
Ridiculus mismatches, 3 panzers vs 10 longbow, longbow win because I havent got enough attacks left!
Unrealistic trading costs, sheep for 253/turn because thats my "profit" this turn, next turn, sheep costs 1/turn, cos thats my profit! I would like to see a world exchange rate sytem, more later.
No knowledge of other countries. Just because my Civ hasnt expored a country, that shouldn't mean I have no knowledge of where it is, and what cities are in it and their size (without using worldbuilder!). The change I would like to see here is some sort of base knowledge of the world and other countries and thier civilisation statistics. In earlier times a certian civs idea of the world could be grossly distorted, including bits of the map where it saiys, "edge of the world", "here be dragons", "Shangra-la", "streets of gold" etc. But as time goes on, the civs knowledge of the world (both its mapping, resources and information) granularizes to be more and more accurate.
Added to this is also knowing what wonders are in what city!
I also think it is highly unrealistic that a nation would allow two other nations to engage in combat on their soil without them being directly involved in the combat.
combat units should naturally improve with time, degrade or be deleted or become ceremonial units and create culture.
Some concepts I would like to modify/introduce:
Religion!
I know it exists in the game, but it treated like a commodity/tech. Where is the passion!? Anyone been at war with another civ purely on religious grounds? It is very rare. But look at history. There should be a natural affinity between nations of the same religion, and therefore a natural resentment/fear/distrust against nations of a dissimiliar religion, civic dependant. How about being forced to go to war against another nation because the holy leader says so? Punishment if non-compliant, like the others go to war against you for herasy? or every city you have must sacrifice 1 pop to show commitment!. Rewarded if successful, somehow, perhaps with a better chance of contolling the whole religion, like having "your" man become the pope/head figure. Added to having to do or achieve certain standards(explore x amount of jungle to convert natives for example)/requirements (commit x amounts of units/money to a far away war). Random religious effects, like pop reduction due to inquision, volcano eruption (god appeasment)etc.
Civil anger/outrage
I would like to have a system where there is accountability for actions. The concioussness(?) of the population. Attacking a nation for no reason, because it was weak? may not have the support of the ppl, but attacking a nation because of recent terrorist attacks may have popular support. This would also be a global thing, the world may not like a particular nation due to its civic and therefore will support actions against them, remember aparteid? Sort of Just and Unjust wars. see where Iam going here?
Personalities:
I think that when a city and an army is created there should be a choice of say 3 or 4 "leader" personalities that you put in charge of it. These should have their own minor traits and influences that can affect that city/army. They may be ruthless and hated but their cities effecient, they may be of a major ethnic/religion of that city, therefore have the support of the city, but my be tempted to join another sympathetic nation, leaders of Armies my abe tactically brilliant, hot headed or over cautious. These leaders can be replaced, but there would be a limited pool and contantly replaceing people in positions of power will loose you trust and confidence from the population as a whole.
Exchange Index.
I would like to have a world commodity system based on resource availability, so there would be a world price for sheep, but if you want to buy at over the price, more chance of success. Also a world "market" at latter ages, so it would be worth a city to just produce food and could then buy" labour in to finish buildings etc.
Which sort of brings me to the next point of caravans, why were they deleted? I think they represented migrant workers.
Tech Improvements:
Tech improvements should be easier to discover the more other nations have discovered them. Scientist talk, concepts and achievement knowledge migrate with the natural flow of people. This way the whole worlds nations are basically at the same tech level, there arnt many instances of great nations being massively technologically behind others, and when they were, when subjected to that techology easily caught up, once you see a railway work, you dont have to think up the basics, you have seen it work.
Technical/practical wonders that overcome natural obsticles. Such as massive tunnels under seas and mountains and bridges over gorges and seas.
a bit of common sense in the tech tree, for instance, you cant create railways if you havent got access to coal, even if you discover electricity.
Production costs:
This has sort of been said. A city can have the ability to specialise in production. I find it hard to accept that a city can create a succession of Modern Armour at a certain price and time, and then produce a stealth bomber at the "base" price and timescale. I think to make something for the first time, it should cost a lot of money and time for each city, becoming cheaper and easier as time goes on, afterall another 747 being built at Seattle is easy, but one built in Rome!!
Unit Improvements over time:
It has been mentioned that there should be all types of weapons, B17,B19,B29,B52 etc. I diagree this, but see the concept. A bomber built in 1992 is gonna be better than one built in 1942, so I would like to see a natural but small increase in firepower/capability with time.
This brings me onto another improvement in concepts.
Money!
The money system is too simplistc. There should be more money, and the economy of the nation should be more complex, GDP split on defence (gradual improvements? upkeep?) Culture (I like culture, it shows civil improvements which should be tied in with tourism, another concept i like), Employment, Police (lawfulness), Research, Trade, any other offers?
Explorers.
It was aid somewhere, what is the point of them? I agree, so scouts and explorers should have open borders, shouls also be able to travel across seas and oceans, (civil transport) and ice. To me they should represent real explorers and scientists. Therefore they should get "points" for where they are; Int the jungle, get more research points for medicine and cultural points for explorers creating city, representing the discovery/recording of plants and animals. On the sea, research for nautical techs, and perhaps the discovery of suitable sea squares that can be exploited and cultural points for discovery/recording of nature. On the ice for culture points, and perhaps the "inspiration" for more explorers. In the mountains for culture and... get my drift? I think the more they stay on one square the bigger the chance of discovering something. There sould always be a chance of death, exploring is a dangerous job!
Diseases, been said before- brilliant idea.
And I think that there should be natural disaster, volcanoes, tsunamis, earthquakes etc, This could get more fantastical if the player wants with Invasion from Mars, "Cloverfield", Day of the Living Dead, Devils demons and other fantastical beings. If you want them.
With storage not being a problem on most computers nowadays, colonisation of near space and the moon, they are is just another country with a very expensive ferry system.
And I heartily support a better AI diplomatic engine. Spies being better, like being able to support insurgency, or an insurgent unit? Anbd the possibility of "brush fire wars" something that happens on the borders of natuions that just start where there are differences that the nations have to control, either with troops, money or other nations as peacekeepers, or just war!
Well there you go, comments?
get rid of the unrealistic:
Ridiculus mismatches, 3 panzers vs 10 longbow, longbow win because I havent got enough attacks left!
Unrealistic trading costs, sheep for 253/turn because thats my "profit" this turn, next turn, sheep costs 1/turn, cos thats my profit! I would like to see a world exchange rate sytem, more later.
No knowledge of other countries. Just because my Civ hasnt expored a country, that shouldn't mean I have no knowledge of where it is, and what cities are in it and their size (without using worldbuilder!). The change I would like to see here is some sort of base knowledge of the world and other countries and thier civilisation statistics. In earlier times a certian civs idea of the world could be grossly distorted, including bits of the map where it saiys, "edge of the world", "here be dragons", "Shangra-la", "streets of gold" etc. But as time goes on, the civs knowledge of the world (both its mapping, resources and information) granularizes to be more and more accurate.
Added to this is also knowing what wonders are in what city!
I also think it is highly unrealistic that a nation would allow two other nations to engage in combat on their soil without them being directly involved in the combat.
combat units should naturally improve with time, degrade or be deleted or become ceremonial units and create culture.
Some concepts I would like to modify/introduce:
Religion!
I know it exists in the game, but it treated like a commodity/tech. Where is the passion!? Anyone been at war with another civ purely on religious grounds? It is very rare. But look at history. There should be a natural affinity between nations of the same religion, and therefore a natural resentment/fear/distrust against nations of a dissimiliar religion, civic dependant. How about being forced to go to war against another nation because the holy leader says so? Punishment if non-compliant, like the others go to war against you for herasy? or every city you have must sacrifice 1 pop to show commitment!. Rewarded if successful, somehow, perhaps with a better chance of contolling the whole religion, like having "your" man become the pope/head figure. Added to having to do or achieve certain standards(explore x amount of jungle to convert natives for example)/requirements (commit x amounts of units/money to a far away war). Random religious effects, like pop reduction due to inquision, volcano eruption (god appeasment)etc.
Civil anger/outrage
I would like to have a system where there is accountability for actions. The concioussness(?) of the population. Attacking a nation for no reason, because it was weak? may not have the support of the ppl, but attacking a nation because of recent terrorist attacks may have popular support. This would also be a global thing, the world may not like a particular nation due to its civic and therefore will support actions against them, remember aparteid? Sort of Just and Unjust wars. see where Iam going here?
Personalities:
I think that when a city and an army is created there should be a choice of say 3 or 4 "leader" personalities that you put in charge of it. These should have their own minor traits and influences that can affect that city/army. They may be ruthless and hated but their cities effecient, they may be of a major ethnic/religion of that city, therefore have the support of the city, but my be tempted to join another sympathetic nation, leaders of Armies my abe tactically brilliant, hot headed or over cautious. These leaders can be replaced, but there would be a limited pool and contantly replaceing people in positions of power will loose you trust and confidence from the population as a whole.
Exchange Index.
I would like to have a world commodity system based on resource availability, so there would be a world price for sheep, but if you want to buy at over the price, more chance of success. Also a world "market" at latter ages, so it would be worth a city to just produce food and could then buy" labour in to finish buildings etc.
Which sort of brings me to the next point of caravans, why were they deleted? I think they represented migrant workers.
Tech Improvements:
Tech improvements should be easier to discover the more other nations have discovered them. Scientist talk, concepts and achievement knowledge migrate with the natural flow of people. This way the whole worlds nations are basically at the same tech level, there arnt many instances of great nations being massively technologically behind others, and when they were, when subjected to that techology easily caught up, once you see a railway work, you dont have to think up the basics, you have seen it work.
Technical/practical wonders that overcome natural obsticles. Such as massive tunnels under seas and mountains and bridges over gorges and seas.
a bit of common sense in the tech tree, for instance, you cant create railways if you havent got access to coal, even if you discover electricity.
Production costs:
This has sort of been said. A city can have the ability to specialise in production. I find it hard to accept that a city can create a succession of Modern Armour at a certain price and time, and then produce a stealth bomber at the "base" price and timescale. I think to make something for the first time, it should cost a lot of money and time for each city, becoming cheaper and easier as time goes on, afterall another 747 being built at Seattle is easy, but one built in Rome!!
Unit Improvements over time:
It has been mentioned that there should be all types of weapons, B17,B19,B29,B52 etc. I diagree this, but see the concept. A bomber built in 1992 is gonna be better than one built in 1942, so I would like to see a natural but small increase in firepower/capability with time.
This brings me onto another improvement in concepts.
Money!
The money system is too simplistc. There should be more money, and the economy of the nation should be more complex, GDP split on defence (gradual improvements? upkeep?) Culture (I like culture, it shows civil improvements which should be tied in with tourism, another concept i like), Employment, Police (lawfulness), Research, Trade, any other offers?
Explorers.
It was aid somewhere, what is the point of them? I agree, so scouts and explorers should have open borders, shouls also be able to travel across seas and oceans, (civil transport) and ice. To me they should represent real explorers and scientists. Therefore they should get "points" for where they are; Int the jungle, get more research points for medicine and cultural points for explorers creating city, representing the discovery/recording of plants and animals. On the sea, research for nautical techs, and perhaps the discovery of suitable sea squares that can be exploited and cultural points for discovery/recording of nature. On the ice for culture points, and perhaps the "inspiration" for more explorers. In the mountains for culture and... get my drift? I think the more they stay on one square the bigger the chance of discovering something. There sould always be a chance of death, exploring is a dangerous job!
Diseases, been said before- brilliant idea.
And I think that there should be natural disaster, volcanoes, tsunamis, earthquakes etc, This could get more fantastical if the player wants with Invasion from Mars, "Cloverfield", Day of the Living Dead, Devils demons and other fantastical beings. If you want them.
With storage not being a problem on most computers nowadays, colonisation of near space and the moon, they are is just another country with a very expensive ferry system.
And I heartily support a better AI diplomatic engine. Spies being better, like being able to support insurgency, or an insurgent unit? Anbd the possibility of "brush fire wars" something that happens on the borders of natuions that just start where there are differences that the nations have to control, either with troops, money or other nations as peacekeepers, or just war!
Well there you go, comments?
gingermick
Chieftain
The most important upgrade I would want is the following, and plse forgive my lack of computer/tech speak
I want to play Civ on my desktop! i want to be able to open multiple windows showing different bits of the map at different scales, the game, the tech tree, a window showing just one unit exporing unknown bits of the map not the map but the explorer unit, a better diplomatic screen etc,
I want to play Civ on my desktop! i want to be able to open multiple windows showing different bits of the map at different scales, the game, the tech tree, a window showing just one unit exporing unknown bits of the map not the map but the explorer unit, a better diplomatic screen etc,
Hey Gingermick welcome to the forums! 
I really agree with you on the point of civil unrest. Right now, civilians will just follow their leader anywhere, as long as wars are short enough. The civilians of your nation should also have an opinion on other civilisations, and try to force it on you. For example, if you're being attacked without reason, your civilians will do everything to fight back. If you're attacking a country that has the same religion, they should protest, and refuse to build an army. It would also make diplomacy doable in multiplayer. I'd also like civics to have an impact on this. For example free speech would strengthen the protests of civilians, whereas nationhood and theocracy would lessen the effect.
One note on religions, the things you described are mostly in the game already. Religions have a really big effect on diplomacy in single player, and once the apostelic palace is built, the resident can call for votes to attack other players, and pretty much do everything the UN can.
I really agree with you on the point of civil unrest. Right now, civilians will just follow their leader anywhere, as long as wars are short enough. The civilians of your nation should also have an opinion on other civilisations, and try to force it on you. For example, if you're being attacked without reason, your civilians will do everything to fight back. If you're attacking a country that has the same religion, they should protest, and refuse to build an army. It would also make diplomacy doable in multiplayer. I'd also like civics to have an impact on this. For example free speech would strengthen the protests of civilians, whereas nationhood and theocracy would lessen the effect.
One note on religions, the things you described are mostly in the game already. Religions have a really big effect on diplomacy in single player, and once the apostelic palace is built, the resident can call for votes to attack other players, and pretty much do everything the UN can.
I disagree strongly here; it's yet another something-for-nothing notion. If you want to know what's put there, explore it or trade for maps with someone who has, or build satellites.
I also strongly disagree here.
Making unhappy citizens have much more of an effect is one of the things Civ 4 fdropped that I'd very much like to see back
I'd far prefer it if there were a combination of global reputation and one-on-one trust factors, because if you make an alliance with A to invade B by surprise, and you work together with A well, it's ridiculous that A would trust you less afterwards.
I very much don;t want anything like this; way too tactically-scaled.
Oh hell no. How are you supposed to take advantage of the silly AIs if they get to standardise things ?
Agreed entirely. (This was right in Civ 2 and shoudl not have been changed.)
I am entirely opposed to this.
This one too; either build a new unit or pay to upgrade the existing one, or it's something for nothing again.
Does not appeal to me much.
I'd like to see different scales of "open borders", with scouts and explorers allowed by default, but it possible to lock them out without going to war with the person they come from.
Yep, and I don't like that one either.
Not unless I can turn them off and never have to worry about them again; random things happening can go away.
While I like that as a notion, if it's not playable on old and cheap computers it's no good to me.
gingermick
Chieftain
hold on,
In a recent game I was fighting in Europe, off and on for about 1000yrs, discovered flight (not the first) and still couldn't locate Japan on the world map! 1000yrs of civilian travel and I knew nothing of a major power! This is ridiculous, maps and geographical knowlede is exchanged as a matter of course, even as I said it may be distorted. Its not "something for nothing" its life and its history, how can that be unrealistic?
units not improving or "dying out" with time.
So you are the type of bloke who packs a city with longbowmen despite being technologically redundant to stop my panzers eh? lol I dont mind ppl disagreeing with me, but whats your reasoning behind your statement, I think I have history on mine. Polish Cavalry charges on the german tanks at the start of WWII were massacred, and thats not many "generations" of warfare different.
my reasoning for the assigning of governors and leaders is again historically based, in ancient times an emporer would give governorship of another important city to his brother, or brother in law, not rule it himself. In modern times, London may be governed by the govenment of the time, but has a Mayor that can put his twist on things. It could be one of the 1000 check boxes to say "automatic governor assignment?"
Taking advantage of silly AI's. If there is one resounding comment from ppl who have commented here is improve the AI's becasue they are to simplistic, yet you are arguing for "silly" AI's. Do you like playing Civ or just winning Civ?
Production, so you think when a city builds something it has never built before it should be the same cost, take the same time and be just as good as a object that another city has built 100 of inthe past? Talk to Henry T Ford about that one!
Your something for nothing comments and implications mean that you havent read the whole post before you comment, I do say later in the money section that there should be more diversity of the GDP etc, that can be spent on defence... this is where the money would be spent, on keeping your armed forces current. Its how economies work. And if you tie that in with other suggestions of buying units, from other nations, this is how you can buy, the latest equipment. Some nations dontr spend money on weapon development or updrade programs, they just buy the latest from countries that do. And because those nations are building 100's (say) for themselves and the global market, they are cheaper per unit. Basic economics mate.
So how would you use explorers? get rid of them? How do you think some medicines are discovered? How do you think we know what parts of shorelines are exploitable? Why do ppl risk their lives to walk inside volcanoes? To do scientific research, or generate money. The BBC generates a huge income from wildlife programs, How do you think this is done without sending ppl to the area that wildlife is? Sorry, real world fact mate.
Random events. I do say if the player wants, implying that it is swithable. "random things happening can go away"! Look at the paper! random events have shaped our world!
No good for you becasue of your old and cheap computer, then dont buy Civ V. Stick with what you like.
In a recent game I was fighting in Europe, off and on for about 1000yrs, discovered flight (not the first) and still couldn't locate Japan on the world map! 1000yrs of civilian travel and I knew nothing of a major power! This is ridiculous, maps and geographical knowlede is exchanged as a matter of course, even as I said it may be distorted. Its not "something for nothing" its life and its history, how can that be unrealistic?
units not improving or "dying out" with time.
So you are the type of bloke who packs a city with longbowmen despite being technologically redundant to stop my panzers eh? lol I dont mind ppl disagreeing with me, but whats your reasoning behind your statement, I think I have history on mine. Polish Cavalry charges on the german tanks at the start of WWII were massacred, and thats not many "generations" of warfare different.
my reasoning for the assigning of governors and leaders is again historically based, in ancient times an emporer would give governorship of another important city to his brother, or brother in law, not rule it himself. In modern times, London may be governed by the govenment of the time, but has a Mayor that can put his twist on things. It could be one of the 1000 check boxes to say "automatic governor assignment?"
Taking advantage of silly AI's. If there is one resounding comment from ppl who have commented here is improve the AI's becasue they are to simplistic, yet you are arguing for "silly" AI's. Do you like playing Civ or just winning Civ?
Production, so you think when a city builds something it has never built before it should be the same cost, take the same time and be just as good as a object that another city has built 100 of inthe past? Talk to Henry T Ford about that one!
Your something for nothing comments and implications mean that you havent read the whole post before you comment, I do say later in the money section that there should be more diversity of the GDP etc, that can be spent on defence... this is where the money would be spent, on keeping your armed forces current. Its how economies work. And if you tie that in with other suggestions of buying units, from other nations, this is how you can buy, the latest equipment. Some nations dontr spend money on weapon development or updrade programs, they just buy the latest from countries that do. And because those nations are building 100's (say) for themselves and the global market, they are cheaper per unit. Basic economics mate.
So how would you use explorers? get rid of them? How do you think some medicines are discovered? How do you think we know what parts of shorelines are exploitable? Why do ppl risk their lives to walk inside volcanoes? To do scientific research, or generate money. The BBC generates a huge income from wildlife programs, How do you think this is done without sending ppl to the area that wildlife is? Sorry, real world fact mate.
Random events. I do say if the player wants, implying that it is swithable. "random things happening can go away"! Look at the paper! random events have shaped our world!
No good for you becasue of your old and cheap computer, then dont buy Civ V. Stick with what you like.
I don't give two hoots about realistic or not, the question is whether it is good gameplay. And if you've not explored or traded with people who've explored far enough to find everyone over a thousand years, then either the AI's not exploring enough or you aren't.
Nope. I pay to upgrade the blasted things. I'm arguing against getting upgrades for free, is all.
So long as I can switch it off and play the whole game myself and never under any circumstances have the stupid computer run any of my stuff, fine.
That was ironic, dude. Standardising prices in a world market is a way to level the playing field for dumb AIs rather than bothering to make them better; I prefer a more complex mechanism that the AI is up to using to its benefit. If nothing else, if the Greeks have met the Germans and the Russians but the Germans and the Russians have not met each other, there's no reason at all for the Russians and the Germans to set the same basic prices for things, and the Greeks should be able to benefit thereby, whichever civilisation in the example is played by a human.
I think that Civ, so far, simulates learning new techs at a whole civilisation level rather than a city-by-city level, and that redoing that at a city-by-city level is tactical-scale thought that does not belong in Civ.
You could be a bit more polite here, you know.
I'm not talking about something for nothing in terms of money. I'm talking about something for nothing in terms of player effort, You want to know what a continent looks like, go explore it.
Realism on its own is not an argument for a game element.
Which is why a nice relaxing game that people play for fun might possibly want to have less of them so that one can get the satisfaction of rewards and achievements that depend entirely on how well you play.
You reckon Civ V should only be for people with disposable income to burn, then ?
Pariah
Outside Influence
I agree with this. It's far easier to develop something once other nations already have it, even if they don't voluntarily pass on the information. This would at least mitigate the ridiculous technological gaps which can develop in Civ 4. Of course, you would need contact - and, preferably, trade - with a more advanced nation, before their techs begin filtering over. Oh, and bring back tech gains from conquered cities!
Yes. Tunnelling under mountains, certainly - though fairly advanced engineering techs would be required.
rysmiel said:
The AIs seem to get mass free upgrades, especially in late game. I recently blew my entire treasury to upgrade 6 machine guns to mech infantries - after Saladin sent a force of 15 mech infantries, 12 modern armours and 10 mobile artilleries against me within 6 turns of him acquiring robotics!
I don't think upgrades should be free, for either human or AI players. Yet they shouldn't be so damn expensive, either.
And Gingermick's suggestion of existing units gradually growing stronger over time has some merit; perhaps only during a state of war? gingermick said:
New units should start out slightly stronger than older ones of the same type, yes - but the old units could more than compensate for this through their accumulated experience points.
There should definitely be a military budget option, similar to the science/culture/espionage sliders: the more of your GDP you invest in the military, the more automatic upgrades you get. I mean, in the real world, soldiers can be supplied with better weapons and equipment whilst on assignment - they don't have to come home first, or be replaced with better-equipped new troops.
Naokaukodem
Millenary King
- Joined
- Aug 8, 2003
- Messages
- 4,303
Good ideas gingermick. I particularly like the one that says to improve every new unit with time. Not put as it, but i'm sure we can do something good with it. Like adjuging upgrades to new units with new techs. We could benefit from those upgrades even without the techs, just by making war. Or our soldiers would have discovered a new technic, or our soldiers would have discovered a new technic on the enemy troops. This way, the new produced units would benefit from upgrade on the root, like the event in BtS that gives one city attack on new Swordmen.
Rysmiel, I wouldn't be so categoric about realism. Why would one prefer the new generation combat or racing games over the old ones? Because of realism. Realism is what fits most on human perception. We are shaped for realism. The human being takes all his better dimensions with realism, reality. This is why realism is a good thing at the roots. With it, a game will always take new dimensions.
This is not as if Civ was making us to play as spores, and build things in them. No, we rule cities, as realist as it can be. The tech tree is realist, as much as it can be. Thus, you can change its shape according to game mechanics, or depending on the point of view we adopt. Civ3 tech tree is different from Civ4 one. Still, they are both realistic.
Civ is a realist game. Now, it depends on what view we put on it. We can rule the core cities, or, why not, rule it from a national point of view (food, hammers and commerce managed nationaly, as ressources are in Civ4 and Civ3)
So realism is always a good point of view, as its mechanisms can fit in a good gameplay view, which is always the case when it comes to "what about to add this is Civ5".
Additionnally, gameplay is not state of the art, especially in the civ series. Never a Civ have had a perfect gameplay. More, the gameplay of Civ games have always been approximate. So it wouldn't hurt if we change it a little by adding some realism in it, on the contrary, in order to make the game feel more consistant, more in adequation with what is a civilization, civilizations and their links, in reality.
Rysmiel, I wouldn't be so categoric about realism. Why would one prefer the new generation combat or racing games over the old ones? Because of realism. Realism is what fits most on human perception. We are shaped for realism. The human being takes all his better dimensions with realism, reality. This is why realism is a good thing at the roots. With it, a game will always take new dimensions.
This is not as if Civ was making us to play as spores, and build things in them. No, we rule cities, as realist as it can be. The tech tree is realist, as much as it can be. Thus, you can change its shape according to game mechanics, or depending on the point of view we adopt. Civ3 tech tree is different from Civ4 one. Still, they are both realistic.
Civ is a realist game. Now, it depends on what view we put on it. We can rule the core cities, or, why not, rule it from a national point of view (food, hammers and commerce managed nationaly, as ressources are in Civ4 and Civ3)
So realism is always a good point of view, as its mechanisms can fit in a good gameplay view, which is always the case when it comes to "what about to add this is Civ5".
Additionnally, gameplay is not state of the art, especially in the civ series. Never a Civ have had a perfect gameplay. More, the gameplay of Civ games have always been approximate. So it wouldn't hurt if we change it a little by adding some realism in it, on the contrary, in order to make the game feel more consistant, more in adequation with what is a civilization, civilizations and their links, in reality.
We're shaped for what we evolved with, which is the life of a plains ape. We are not, at this point, living like plains apes. We enjoy things beyond what plains apes are equipped to enjoy.
Civ is a simulation making a certain set of approximations of reality, which are optimised towards making an interesting game. Different sets of approximations could make different games. I think the appropriate standard to judge the approximations, is first how well they fit making the game enjoyable, and second if at all how close they are as approximations of reality. If realism were all that mattered in making games enjoyable, people would never have fallen for Space Invaders, Pac-man, Tetris or Minesweeper in their times.
I disagree. It could very well hurt, if "realism" is added just for the sake of how well it represents the world, with no consideration for how it helps or harms the experience of playing the game, it could very easily do serious harm.
I like the idea to have technology get cheaper as more civs discover it. That makes a ton of sense in terms of both realism and gameplay.
I also like the idea of having consecutively produced units in a city becoming cheaper as you go. It would be a fun gameplay touch that would present some interesting decisions to make and incentives to consider. The cost should decrease by a small increment, and there should be a hard floor on how cheap it can get.
The Big Addition I would like to see is a more powerful and game-changing event system, a'la Galactic Civilizations and Galactic Civilizations II. The main problem with Civ4, in my book, is the predictability that the course of history takes. Go back and read the ALC series, which I think illustrates the problem. In too many of those games the drama and uncertainty exists only for a short time, after which the game was either "in the bag" or lost. The joy of the Gal Civ system of mega-events is that you can never rest easy at the top, and you should never give up hope so long as you continue to exist. With this system the game becomes more of a journey and an adventure, whereas now the game is more of a long, straight trajectory. Obviously, this should be an option that can be turned off if the player so desires.
I also like the idea of having consecutively produced units in a city becoming cheaper as you go. It would be a fun gameplay touch that would present some interesting decisions to make and incentives to consider. The cost should decrease by a small increment, and there should be a hard floor on how cheap it can get.
The Big Addition I would like to see is a more powerful and game-changing event system, a'la Galactic Civilizations and Galactic Civilizations II. The main problem with Civ4, in my book, is the predictability that the course of history takes. Go back and read the ALC series, which I think illustrates the problem. In too many of those games the drama and uncertainty exists only for a short time, after which the game was either "in the bag" or lost. The joy of the Gal Civ system of mega-events is that you can never rest easy at the top, and you should never give up hope so long as you continue to exist. With this system the game becomes more of a journey and an adventure, whereas now the game is more of a long, straight trajectory. Obviously, this should be an option that can be turned off if the player so desires.
I'd like to second rysmiel's suggestion that "realism" is not a very persuasive argument in favor of any gameplay change. As exhibit "A" I would offer MOO3, which sounded great on paper because of all the "realistic" elements, but actually offered a gameplay disaster.
The thought of an event that suddenly pushes me back up to the top when I'm losing badly is every bit as hateful to me as the thought of an event that knocks me down when I'm winning, fwiw.
Similar threads
