Some more thoughts in regards to rebuilding civ:
Gameplay:
Part I, Combat/Movement
1. Hexes vs Squares vs Others
The typical reasoning for hexes is that they preserve distances the way grids do not. However, this is easily mitigated by using slightly more diverse tile movement values, 3 for diagonals, 2 for edges. This also invites us to kill the bird of combat mechanics with the same stone. In regards to other methods, they are needlessly complex and most likely not trivially codable or provided with game libraries. I’ve never had a case in playing civ III or IV of thinking “I needed the benefits (?) of hex tiles”. Hexagonal tiles have the negatives of fewer options with no creative ways of overcoming that issue.
2. 1 Unit Per tile
NO. One of the worst choices of the later civ games was the movement to a strategically restrictive (see, hexes -_-) combat system. However, there are issues with the stack of doom that ought to be mitigated. Large army concentrations always have outriders and over time, these armies spread out. (See, Napoleons march into Russia)
The solution could be through maintenance. Stacks larger than some size (not fixed, would modulate with the govt type, number of barracks, granaries, roads connecting to the army, a nation has) would suffer maintenance, which could be counteracted by spreading the stack out on some large area (the equivalent of pillaging and living off the land). Again, in historical terms, compare Sherman’s March to the sea and the Army of the Potomac, visualizing them in civ. Army of the Potomac would be one tile, eating quite a bit of maintenance, while sherman’s Army would be a 2-3 tiles spread out stack, eating less maintenance.
Maintenance considerations such as these would be extremely tricky to work out with the AI, but in pure gameplay terms it is a viable solution.
3. Unit movement
With the possibility of adding larger map sizes than previously, redesigning combat movement would be very important. I imagine this type of set up: two game settings, classical grid (1 movement for edges and verticies) and new grid (2 for edges, 3 for vertices). In the latter mode, later era units would have slowly increasing numbers of movement points, giving them advantages over predecessors. Lower damage skirmisher units would have high movement rates early on.
For example:
Spearman 2 movement, chariot 3, swordsman 3 (with some lower defense value than spearmen), horse archers 6 movement, regular cavalry 5.
I would suggest similar but more gradual movement increments in the regular version.
4. Combat itself
There are three factors to consider when discussing combat: the type of odds mechanic (ADM or strength), the type of damage mechanic (full or partial like in ciV) and the impact of modifiers.
ADM is perhaps too limiting and prevents units from fulfilling multiple roles (or makes it too easy for them to fulfill every role as in the case of medieval infantry). Strength is a better mechanic to build combat on. In terms of the amount of damage a unit suffers, I believe that units SHOULD be destroyed much more often than not, but withdraw chances should exist, including all fortified defending units.
Finally, modifiers should be very prevalent as they were in civ iv, including both the concepts of promotions and various terrain values, however they would benefit from a redesign. Instead of having units tend extremely heavily towards a specific role, promotions should allow for greater versatility. Alexander the Great's pikemen and medieval copies had the same underlying principle, yet different combat roles (front of an attacking army moving in a phalanx vs. defensive crux of an army around which more dominant troop types could organize). In game terms, a pikeman would come with an earlier tech and a moderate bonus against cavalry.
These considerations yield an approximate promotion flowchart:
View attachment 493212
In their most basic form, units would all have some slight inbuilt promotions or leanings towards one of the categories, but other paths could be chosen by situation.
ADM would be reflected in the basic defensive/offensive promotions which would provide greater benefits than something like combat in civ 4. The one type of promotion unaddressed is that of siege units. I propose that siege units are capturable 0 strength units with a collateral damage capability, albeit reduced from the one in civ iv, mixing the best of both worlds.
However, the ADM system might just be easier to implement, and as long as unit choices are diverse and balanced, the system will hold, so take everything I just said with a tablespoon of salt.
I might expand on other parts of my thoughts on designing a new civ game later, but here's an outline of my considerations.
Part 2, Terrain and resources, Workers, Improvements, Settlers
1. Terrain should be diverse and pretty but not cartoonish.
2. Resources should be numerous in type, connect by roading them. Consider not increasing # of improvements as heavily as civ 4 did after 3 - no need for mines AND quarries, no need for separate wineries, no need for work boats, but keep cottages, windmills, watermills, lumbermills (improvements that introduce actual choice rather than being flavour). Yields from certain resources should change with different techs, the yield change should be randomly distributed in every game? Makes tech tree more exciting. Make forts more interesting than in previous versions.
View attachment 493213
Basically, there should be more choice than this picture.
3. More customizable settlers? Settler differences as tech tree progresses?
4. Keep the -1 pop worker, -2 pop settler.
Part 3, Economics
1. Limiting factor (what prevents empire bloat) - city maintenance in gold + stack cost + outlying unit cost. Only some few buildings should cost maintenance
2. Overflow should exist, that kind of micromanagement is NOT fun.
3. Roads should give +1 commerce
4. Things from later versions: specialists should be considered, but no corporations, or anything from the later versions of the game.
5. Automatic trade routes between connected cities are an interesting economic alternative that could be considered.
One of the flaws in civ 3 is the lack of economic variety and blind focus on REx, so adding civ 4 mechanics of specialist economy, trade route economy, and other ways empires can function besides building massive amounts of roads would be critical.
Part 4, Diplomacy
1. Religion should be a factor in the game, but not a simple +/-. Instead, having different religions should make contact with different civilizations more difficult to simulate cultural divide. (Number of turns would be a function of the number of cities with shared religions).
2. Keep diplomacy relatively open as in civ 3
Part 5, Espionage - Literally keep it the way it was in civ 3 in terms of capabilities and interface.
Palace - There HAS to be a palace view, it was why civ 3 was superior. Also the little warrior with the hammer and the rankings and whatnot was cool.
