Things that still irk me

I like the idea of traders building roads. It makes sense in the olden times, trade routes are the main reason to have routes between cities, and if there is a lot of trade the route well be better-marked and more prominent. The cowpath gets deeper the more trade there is, so to speak.

The problem is that is the only way of building roads. In reality, roads don't just form where there's a lot of commerce, though that helps, but for convenience or geostrategic reasons. And this has been the case at least since the Roman Republic was building roads to connect all of its cities, for communication and military reasons. The commerce that was enabled was the bonus. Today we build roads just because it's a more direct route between places.

I think the ideal would be to get some base level of roads automatically from trade, but to be able to upgrade them at a significant upfront cost to improved roads that aid both military movement and commerce, over the long term paying for themselves. This would be more true to the models of both ancient Roman roads and to the Interstate Highway System or the Autobahn.

----

Infantry requiring oil doesn't make sense. Mechanized infantry requiring oil does, but not plain-old Infantry. The modern person tends to overestimate how motorized armies were in WWII, but the most important means of supplying them was not the truck but the train and the humble horse. Armies often marched on foot.

But the "3 oil per deposit, certain units require an oil" also points to a weakness of Civ, in all generations - logistics aren't really modeled. This is arguably a feature, as logistics can add a lot of complexity that's hard to manage. But "3 oil per deposit, units require oil" is a logistics rule, just a very basic one, and it's arguably worse than not having it at all due to its bluntness. A more realistic model could be "300 oil per deposit, Fighter requires 5, Bomber requires 10, Tank requires 10, Battleship requires 30." This at least distinguishes between the gas guzzlers (ships especially) and the ones that just need a little bit of oil. If you then add in a buffer that can be stored up (up to 10x what you have from deposits?) and a trading system, then you can wind up with something flexible enough to add some strategic depth while still allowing some decision making.
 
A thing that still irks me is that Finland has not made an apparence in Civ yet. Yes I know, it's not a country with a lot of history but maybe Civ 7 will make Civs a bit more interesting and implement something similar to what Humankind did where you develop Civs over time but maybe something more themed towards the Civ you picked. So that Finland starts with an appropriate historic group and then develops into Finland and ends there. Because I think their country motto "Sisu" would be such a fun Civ bonus.
 
One thing I hate is a message saying you have broken your promise to X about moving troops away from the border, when you don't even have any troops on the border.
 
One thing I hate is a message saying you have broken your promise to X about moving troops away from the border, when you don't even have any troops on the border.
Do you have any scouts near the border? Because they count if someone has asked you to move your troops.
 
I don't know if this fits the thread since it has never been a feature in a Civ game but I would really like a sim X amount of turns feature or sim to end of game. The late game just really drags in some culture and science games where victory is almost all but assured but you know you still have 50+ turns to slog through making decisions on so many items that hardly matter. It's not something I would use all of the time but it sure would be nice to save on time and still get my game into the Hall of Fame.

Sitting through building all of the space projects is driving me nuts when I'd rather start a new game
 
Do you have any scouts near the border? Because they count if someone has asked you to move your troops.
That reminds me of another thing that irks me - scouts shouldn't be counted as combat troops. That was how it worked in Civ IV and was much better IMO, they can defend themselves but not initiate an attack.
 
That reminds me of another thing that irks me - scouts shouldn't be counted as combat troops.
From what I can tell, just having scouts on a civ's borders won't get them to ask you to move your troops, they only count after you've been asked, which is kind of weird.
 
I’m alright with most Great People being indestructible, but Great Generals should be able to be killed. I’m so sick and tired of the AI starting a war with me, I defeat their entire army, they refuse to make peace, and then they continue to send their GG’s into my territory ad nauseum. All I can do is ship them back to the nearest city just for them to send back in on the next turn.
 
I like the idea of traders building roads. It makes sense in the olden times, trade routes are the main reason to have routes between cities, and if there is a lot of trade the route well be better-marked and more prominent. The cowpath gets deeper the more trade there is, so to speak.

The problem is that is the only way of building roads.

Military engineers?
 
Because this is the only option
I liked this but then had a thought - there is the potential to liberate a Civ so sometimes that's an option, but the dialogue should only pop up when there *is* a choice to be made.
 
I’m alright with most Great People being indestructible, but Great Generals should be able to be killed. I’m so sick and tired of the AI starting a war with me, I defeat their entire army, they refuse to make peace, and then they continue to send their GG’s into my territory ad nauseum. All I can do is ship them back to the nearest city just for them to send back in on the next turn.
I'm sick and tired of the AI having Great Generals milling about - with no actual troops around them!
 
I don't see so many wandering Great Generals, but plenty Great Writers/Artists when Russia is in the game. Great people can make excellent spotters for artillery bombarding at ranges greater than two hexes. A Great Admiral to accompany battleships is very useful.
 
You can't cheat in a single player game. Old World, an excellent historical 4x game, has an undo. It can be turned off in settings.
Of course you can cheat in a single player game, the difference between cheating in a single or a multiplayer game is that you are only hurting yourself and not any other people. And depending on personal preferences and philosophy you might not even be hurting yourself by cheating.

But the concept definitely exists.

Reloading a save game when you don’t like an outcome in a game that has been designed with this feature, is technically not cheating, but it is a quite similar concept to cheating nonetheless, since you are bypassing some or all game mechanics at your own leisure.

Computer games have a long tradition of giving players the option to choose to reload negative outcomes or not, and I think this has been a good solution since it both allows the people that want to use the save feature this way to do it, but also makes it clear for the players that they are bypassing all the intended game mechanics, so they may not necessarily be playing the game the way it was intended by the designers this way.

I strongly dislike the idea of an undo option to a strategy game. Of course it is their game and their design and not mine, but I hope that this kind of “muddying the waters” between reloading and playing the game normally, doesn’t become prolific in the genre. I think that ultimately would be bad for peoples enjoyment of these games.

On a similar tangent I dislike the addition of an “undo battle” option in the HOTA mod for Heroes of Might and Magic 3 even more, because that one will confuse new players of the game into thinking that the great designers of the original game intended that people do that, which was not the case at all. In fact I would think that a “perfectionist“ approach to getting battles exactly right would be very poisonous to the enjoyment of Heroes of Might and Magic.

A very different development, which I’m not opposed to at all, is what I’ve heard about the tactical battles in Age of Wonders 4, where you are supposed to be able to let the AI play trivial battles for you, but if you don’t like the outcome, then get one option to do it yourself. This doesn’t sound like something you could exploit much, just a great time saver in a game like that, so I’m all for that.
 
Last edited:
I strongly dislike the idea of an undo option to a strategy game.
Already the option?!! (which allows you to have it ALWAYS turned off for your games. But no, you also insist in refusing the option to all the other players altogether ...?!)

I see the problem for the Game of the Month staff members and have no solution for this special case :(

For me it is a great feature in learning / trying out
or analyzing situations -- just take back and compare ... (or even for the developers while debugging, sic!)
As a student I played regularly in a chess club in competitive mode and it was absolutely clear, that I might not even touch any piece without consequences. Nevertheless in training we mutually often agreed just to take back dump moves in order to continue a more exciting game or take back several moves and go fully in joined analyzing mode of the position.

Why deny other players the option to use a feature they find (sometimes) useful for their games?


 
Back
Top Bottom