What “killer feature” do you want to see in Civ 4? (Read, then pick up to 4 options)

[Trade-peror]

Although I did not vote for war as a priority, I am not implying that I would like Civ3's system of warfare to remain unchanged--in fact, that would be a calamity that may possibly even out any bonuses from focusing too much on other elements. In other words, I expect improvement in all areas, but I would like to see more improvement in certain aspects, particularly economics and trade, than in others.

And, interestingly, I might even be characterized as part of that "silent majority" since I would love if war were improved, but would not be able to point out exactly what improvements would be most desirable.

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

OK, I did NOT vote for combat as a priority but, just as T-P has said, that does NOT mean that there aren't things about combat which cannot be improved.
My key issues are as follows:

1) Units should have 'Morale', 'Firepower' and 'Armour' ratings.

2) Units should have an 'Operational Range' to limit how far they can penetrate into uknown and enemy territories! (No great surprise THERE I guess )

3) Tiles should have a stack limit and, if possible, units should have a 'stack no.'! So a tank might have a 3, whilst infantry might have a 1!

4) A bonus system for units WITH other units which encourages combined arms tactics. So, for instance, tanks might give a bonus to the move and/or Firepower of all other units in a stack, wheras Cavalry might give a bonus to morale and/or Attack Strength. Archers might give a bonus to attack strength and/or reduce the morale of units in the opposing stacks (to represent 'harrassing fire'. Infantry and other 'defensive' units might boost the hp and/or defense strength of other units! These are just very crude suggestions, but I am sure you can see what I am getting at!

5) Along with (4), more emphasis on an ability to attack as a STACK-either in a tactical 'mini-map' or just an abstract 'stack move and attack' system!

6) Seperation of turns into movement and combat phases (not as important as the other 5 points!)

What all of my 6 points are about is making war a much more TACTICAL/STRATEGIC exercise, instead of just an exercise of moving 'Stacks of Doom' into enemy territory, and destroying your opposition where they stand, without any great thought! So, for instance, wheras now you can just move 20 tanks to capture the enemy city in the heart of your enemies nation, you would now have to split it into 4 lots of 5 tanks (point 3) and, in fact, you would be better off having 5 stacks of 2 tanks, mixed in with about 3 infantry units, a Spec Ops unit and a couple of bombardment units (Point 4)! These 5 stacks could then surround a city, with each stack being moved to attack a city simultaneously-or being broken up to attack several different cities (Points 5 and 6)! Last of all, due to operational range constraints, your stacks would now be forced to capture and consolidate border cities before moving deeper into enemy territory!
Anyway, I'd be intrested in hearing thoughts (both negative and positive, about the ideas I have posted here!!)

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

Oh can I also just say though that I was VERY happy when they gave archers, musketmen etc the 'defensive bombardment' ability in C3C, as this went part of the way to encouraging a 'combined arms' strategy to stacks! I definitely feel, as I have stated above, that this concept CAN be extended further!

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

 

[dh_epic]

I think those are all really good ideas, Aussie. Even though you didn't vote for war, it seems you have a lot of good ideas on the matter. Shouldn't surprise me, however

1) Care to elaborate on the effects of these ratings?
2) I'm a fan of operational range, since I think limits actually induce strategy. What if you can't send those troops deep without having an intermediate stopover?
3) Stack limits too, they would induce a lot more strategy. Instead of "put 16 units on one square, and then attack"
4) I think this is a pretty good idea, and combined with stack limits could be quite interesting. It would force genuine choices about how to assemble your units onto one square to maximize bonuses without cutting down on your best strength.
5) I think this one's a nobrainer, for so many reasons. And it wouldn't add complexity, it would in fact reduce it, or worst case leave it the same.
6) Kind of contraversial. I'd actually like to see Civ even more streamlined like this -- build phase, maintainance phase, movement phase, combat phase ... but this is probably a whole other conversation, and a shade complex.

I'm concerned that 1 through 4 are complex enough to prohibit Civ 4 from building on Civ 3 in some other respect. Don't get me wrong, they're compelling, but if you told me that enhancing this military meant that the game didn't enhance any non military aspects, I'd be greatly disappointed. Do you think the developers would agree?

 

[Elgalad]

I like the concept of armies that were introduced in Civ 3. I use them whenever I can, but the frustrating thing about them is that there does not seem to be any way to modify them once they have been created and loaded. I'd like to be able to remove units from an army and upgrade them or rotate out inferior ones for superior tech ones. In reference to the units gaining bonuses from other units in a 'stack', maybe the bonuses should only come when the units are in an army together. Your mobile infantry/tanks would give movement increases to the army, maybe add a new noncombat support unit in various ages - war wagons, supply trains, etc.

-E

 

[sir_schwick]

This is more of a movement idea then a unit, but it has special implications for units.

1) All your units are now organized into 'battle-groups', which are generated when you group units as a 'battle-group'. Armies are thus eliminated in their current form.
2) Battle-groups are limited in size, and their composition determines how they perform. Different composition favours different venues and styles of combat. Limit of one battle-group per square.
3) Battle-groups have a Zone of Engagement of x number of squares around them.
4) Instead of moving all your square by square, you designate a destination square in the movement planning stage. Range and location are limited by logistics(makes geurilla and scouts more important), maps(you will go farther if you know the way), and what path you have to take(going around Poland may add a few miles to the trip). All moves are executed at the same time.
5) What square your unit is 'stationed' from is the one you chose unless there are units from other nations around. Then the battle-group with the most initiative gets to choose first. Initiative is based on who would get their first on speed mostly. This goes from highest ot lowest initiative.

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

Hi DH_Epic, I'd be more than happy to elaborate on those values.

Firepower merely represents the maximum amount of damage you can dish out in a single 'round' of combat. Your firepower number would be multiplied by your success of your 'hit' to determine actual damage! This will help to smooth out combat results between wildly unequal opponents (like the old 'spearman vs tank' thing!)

Armour represents the amount of damage a unit can sustain per 'round' of combat. It would be deducted from Total damage inflicted by the opponent! Again, this might greatly assist in smoothing out combat results.

Morale would be a % number which is a factor of both unit training and # of victories achieved by the unit. Morale would modify the units Attack/Defense Strengths, as well as increasing 'armour' values. Lastly, Morale would effect the chance of a unit undergoing a forced retreat when put up against a far superior opponent, and the chance of that unit 'surrendering' or being 'routed' after a particularly savage 'mauling'!!
Hope this clarifies things!

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

 

[sir_schwick]

So basically this is a combination of the Civ 2 and SMAC systems which were abandoned. Obviously there was a good reason...... or not. I go with the second one. Although, your morale concept is more rounded and definitley reflects how morale effects combat in reality.

 

[ants]

I voted for terrain, science, resources and economics.

These are partly because I think they would add substantially to mods. Allowing greater civ-specificness with terrain, resources and science would allow far more detailed scenarios. That goes from having different tech trees for the Americas vs Europe, to having Orcs and Elves have different bonuses from forest vs waste. I'd also love to see more terrain types.
With economics, I think this can be far better used. I don't like the way you can't trade for multiples of an item. If I've only got diamonds, of course I'd like to trade for two ivory, so my next trade can be diamonds AND ivory. I'd like to see an improved CIV2 method of trade. Get rid of the "wealth", bring back trade caravans - espescially if both nations get the trade bonus. That would also make the "trade sanctions" much harsher. And it would allow you to tie in more civs to your success, having an impact on declaring war and diplomacy. I'd also like a "market", where luxuries and resources could be far more "auction" like.

One other concept I'd be interested in is Religion. This has had such a huge impact on this world's development. In addition to cultural groups, having religious groups would be cool. Espescially if you could then "promote" your religion, and try to convert other nations religions. Think or religious Wonders that could be created, and "converted" if captured. Holy lands, etc. I think this is a concept that would be cool.
I also lent towards negotiation, but with that it would really just be tweaking, and would be impacted more by improving the AI.

 

[sir_schwick]

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=2121387&postcount=4

It was an idea I posted about how to improve the Civ 2 system.

 

[dh_epic]

Aussie:

I have no real opinion on the spearman VS tank thing, but I think it would be a pretty simple thing to resolve without adding new variables / attributes. Increase the number of hitpoints and thus number of rounds, or tweak an equation. Less new numbers for the user to follow in combat means more new numbers they could follow in other aspects -- that's just the angle I'm using.

I do like morale, though, and it's a pretty valuable thing to leverage, and adds a new strategic dimension. Like to see that idea fleshed out more.

 

[sir_schwick]

I agree with Aussie about bringing back HP and FP. While you have a point dh that adding those means taking away elsewhere, the system worked really well in Civ2.

 

[dh_epic]

So to summarize so far, the only differences people really want to see in war is:

- renting units and military aid
- firepower / armor / anything to reduce the spearman-over-tank phenomenon
- volume / stack limits on a square (no more stacks of doom)
- operational ranges
- unit bonuses, bonuses to groups/stacks
- stack and group behavior (less micromanagement)

I don't think these are actually terribly complex. These are small modifications to the existing system that would be pretty easy to comprehend at first glace, especially with appropriate visual cues and error messages (e.g.: fog of range wouldn't be that different from fog of war, hitting the stack limit would display a "no can do" message with a "do not show this message again" checkbox).

Agree? Disagree? Is there something missing?

 

[dh_epic]

Alright, let's change the subject.

For all those who voted for Negotiations: Why NEGOTIATIONS?
For all those who didn't: why not? Did you just like everything else more?

Negotations involved any or most or none of the following:

- UN that does something cool instead of instant-victory
- 3 or more civ trade agreements
- 3 or more Civ defence agreements
- surrender
- annexing rival nations
- encourage peace between two nations
- encourage war between two nations
- trade embargos that mean something
- tariffs and bans
- improved intimidation and coercive action
- liberate allies
- rewards for liberating allies
- change diplomatic victory
- remove diplomatic victory
- (anything else)

Do these appeal to people? Do any of these scare people?

 

[sir_schwick]

Exactly, multi-lateralism would make epic wars more then MPP webs(although WWI did start like that).

Also, I would like to be able to move through allied units and station in allied cities.
I would also like to see multi-lateral aggreements mediated by a 3rd party. The 3rd party would make sure the deal was fair and provide(theorhetically) enforcement to the treaty.

 

[Paradigne]

- UN that does something cool instead of instant-victory

How about giving you the ability to stack your units with ally units and go into ally cities to heal. This could last until the current war is over (by either side) and then kicked out of the city/stack.

EDIT: I guess I need to not keep my edit screen open so long good ideas Sir

 

[dh_epic]

I didn't personally vote for negotiations, but I do like the idea of multilateral agreements. The UN is really just the ultimate multilateral agreement. You could really have a natural evolution towards a UN, instead of this sudden wonder that appears out of nowhere.

Coordinated attacks is also very key. Why shouldn't I be able to ally with England and drop my American paratroopers in France from London?

Third party enforcement is cool, never even considered it.

I'd personally like to see a reward for liberating allies. That one's pretty important to me. That way there's an incentive, particularly in the modern age, to pull what the Allies did with France. It shouldn't be money, it should be a kind of victory and scoring system -- points given for altruism. (I've sometimes called it "Historical Victory".)

 

[Darksoul_CG]

well...i chose but 4 options are few... everything should be improved

 

[sir_schwick]

I didn't personally vote for negotiations, but I do like the idea of multilateral agreements. The UN is really just the ultimate multilateral agreement. You could really have a natural evolution towards a UN, instead of this sudden wonder that appears out of nowhere.

Coordinated attacks is also very key. Why shouldn't I be able to ally with England and drop my American paratroopers in France from London?

Third party enforcement is cool, never even considered it.

I'd personally like to see a reward for liberating allies. That one's pretty important to me. That way there's an incentive, particularly in the modern age, to pull what the Allies did with France. It shouldn't be money, it should be a kind of victory and scoring system -- points given for altruism. (I've sometimes called it "Historical Victory".)

Actually this is one area where Civ 3 devolved from SMAC. The planetary council in SMAC allowed you to elect a planetary governor(more trade and intel) do some wierd stuff with the sea level and even repeal atrocities(tons of nerve gas and planetbusters). You could request that other players cease hostilities agianst one of your allies. I even got them to stop a couple times when I was one of the big guys. Your units could also use allied squares, bases, and facilities(healing). The only real addition would be non-UN multilateral agreements, and sitting in as a mediator. This would allow you to truly simulate being a superpower.

 

[dh_epic]

You know, the more I hear about it, the more I feel as though I should play SMAC... for "research purposes".

I would like to see negotiations grow in scale until the point of the united nations. That would be key.