Things I have waited for since the first Civ

[frekk]

Try this out then folks. I've tried to work into it alot of ideas I've heard into a simple system which reflects most of them to some degree, not exactly as they were but it maintains some element of them of the philosophy behind them.

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=105598

For instance, Aussie, under that system your capacity is, in a way, constrained by the amount of rail you have connecting cities, because you'll need to generate the gpt bonus to pay for unit movement, especially as technology raises the number of units you can move. Look at it, tell me what you think.

 

[Spatula]

Just to bring this up again: bring in octagons. They enable movement in all 2D directions and would make ring city placements a lot easier than this orthagonal=1/diagonal=1.5 thing they have now.

 

[rhialto]

spatula, octogons mean youll have holes in teh ground. The only regular polygons that work are squares, hexagons, and triangles.

 

[Licentia]

as far as battle goes, I think civ4 should borrow heavily from panzer general. PG has a great turn based combat model, both on its zone of control, movement, unit supply, and attack type. it will be really great if civ4 can get some of the good stuff in PG

That would be sweet!

 

[Licentia]

As far as railroads, I don't support removing the infinite move. First off, it is not as unrealistic as ppl think. Rails allowed massive amounts of men to be moved very very quickly. Also, in terms of gameplay, I think you will all get frustrated NOT having unlimited movement towards the later part of the game, when you are moving many more units. Finally, planes DO NOT travel slower than rails. Nor helicopters. Rebase range (imho it should be unlimited) is usually much, much farther than you can travel on rails, unless you are on an all-land map and control almost all of it. Load a unit to a helicopter and it can rebase, effectively transporting that unit. If you create a transport plane it can do the same thing. The planes don't travel all that far on a single mission, but that's a factor of range, not speed. Carrying troops or bombs or missiles instead of fuel, the planes can't go that far, and then presumably they spend most of their time that turn reloading refuelling and repairing. I do not support removing infinite movement for rails, and I'll be very upset if I don't at least have the option of turning it back on in the editor.

I think I have to agree. I can't imagine Civ without it.

The spearman and the tank thing again. OK, first off, how often do spearmen kill tanks? I've *never* had it happen to me, except with a redlined tank. That would be a small group of tanks that is all shot up and probably has no ammunition, food or fuel and the troops are hallucinating from drinking motor oil and eating rubber. It's not inconceivable that a horde of spearmen could clean that up. But, in order to end this debate once and for all, Civ4 should have all obsolete units that aren't upgraded change graphics and name with each era to make you people happy. Spearmen become Peasant Militia in the middle ages, Town Militia in the industrial age, and Armed Mob in the modern age. That would be the most realistic solution, because let's face it, even the poorest and most backward parts of the world today would not field spearmen in any conflict. The bottom of the military scale in the modern age would be civilians with Molotovs, bombs, and outdated rifles, not spearmen.

Interesting idea. I like it, but how can it be done if a nation hasn't developed gunpowder? I guess though that nations today don't need to know crap about gunpowder to use guns cause they buy them not make them. And about the Phalanx killing a tank. Like the title of the thread says, he has played Civ1. In Civ1 you lose a lot of powerful units at silly times.

-For the Epic Game, stock rules, a longer Ancient and Medieval period, so that there can be real empires and bigger wars during this time.

I think all games should have a longer period between tech changes at the user's option. With Civ2 I could start a game and change the settings to increase the length of time between advances, then save it as a scenario and play it. Those were fun games, because you spent lots of time in each period of the world, and you'd have time to build all the city buildings, etc. Having that oh so important technological advance made a huge difference because it would take so long for your opponent to discover it, etc.[/QUOTE]

 

[frekk]

Well, in Civ1 it was quite excessive. I lost battleships to settlers a few times in that game. Now, THAT was absurd. But that was a much different system than Civ3 in many regards.