What civ 4 needs is more stress.

[Albow]

Think back to when you were enjoying your game of Civ the most. Think back to those situations that really stand out. What do they all have in common?

Think about the time those damn Babylonians had amassed a stack of doom right next to your diamond mining town, or perhaps it was your big Army of Knights, down to their last 2 health, fighting for a foreign capital, Whatever it was, I bet you cared about the outcome, bet you had some stress …

Now think of when Civ is (gasp) boring (ie modern age), is it because there is no more stress? You know the outcome? Your empire is safe?

So, with this in mind, I think Civ 4 needs to add new stress, more stress, and different types of stress to the game to make it a Greater Leap Forward than even Civ 3 was.

So here are my humble suggestions:
1. Why is technology always a ‘good’? lets face it, we keep inventing because we need to overcome problems from the last technology. I think more technology bads need to be introduced. Increase the effect of pollution, internal upheavals (ie Communism tech anyone?) etc

2. I love the concept of ages, but really, how different are they? The first two (even Industrial9 works as is, but modern just really seems to suffer under the same game play as the previous ages. I think, once your civ gets to Modern, there should be a radical change in game play.

2a. Cycles of growth and decay are too slow I think. What do I mean:
Ancient age takes so long to build anything, modern age, most people are still working the ‘land’ not working inside the city. A possible solution, have a tech in Middle ages which is crop rotation, all irrigated tiles make X2 food, in Industrial have mechanized farming with irrigated tiles making X5 food, and in modern age, have agrichemicals to make tiles with irr X10. Seems a lot? Well, think about what will happen to cities. Think about population, think about the new pressure in the modern age of unemployment, of how many work the tiles and how many become specialists or some other character etc …

3.spying, need I say more?

4. Internal problems and power struggles: this is a totally new type of stress. It could be implemented in many ways, but one idea could be linked to the buildings we have in all our cities. The more temples you have, the more problem with the priesthood you have and the more internal power thy have etc … same with military, gotta keep em happy so they don’t go and coup your state …

I know this is fairly vague, but I just wanted to raise the topic on what makes for a good game and build our concepts for Civ 4 on what we find fun, not just complex vs less complex or more for the sake of it … what you think?

 

[sir_schwick]

5. Introduce a MAD model that will make nuclear weapons more than neat tools for warfare. When two empires have 100+ ICBMs each, when one fires they should both be in trouble.

4. I agree totally. In MTW whenever you start controlling more than about 1/4 of Europe, you start to have tons of vices and disloyal provinces.

1. Unfortunately that would entice players to stop researching once they have the units they need for world conquest. I agree in principle, but it would only work if the goal of the game was to affect history, rather than score points for conquest.

2. Get rid of ages. One big tech tree allows for a lot more interesting way to research and develop.

3. Bring back SMAC model, but not spy units because those were overpowered. I had an idea a while back that espionage should be based on programs you develop and then those programs allow you to execute missions. AN example would be to develop ties to the major media in a competator nation so you could engage in negative propaganda within that nation. Missions would include assassinating pro-government media outlets and ad-campaigns in a region/city or targetting an ethnicity.

 

[Albow]

sir schwick:

hehehe, in response to No.5, maybe have a little cowboy riding the nuke down to the impact point ...

with regard to your answe to 1: I think people will still research techs, there will be big advantages to tech research, also, tech 'bads' can happen early on ... example, when you research 'currency' it increases poverty for some, therefore some unhappiness. Or perhaps writing could add disent (smarter people want a bit more of the power pie) etc etc

as for 2, well, either way, but at least tech should really change what happens to a civ. Why is a modern civ city growing just as quickly as a medieval city???

i like your idea for 3, almost like roleplaying ...

 

[dh_epic]

I'd agree with 3 and 4. Speeding up growth won't make things more interesting, if you ask me, although I guess it does open up possibilities if you have more pop heads and thus more diversity.

I've been a huge advocate of intelligence overhauls and domestic issues. That's the focus of the modern age, and it's been pretty interesting if you ask me. Entire wars have been waged with intelligence, without it ever happening. World War 3 happened, in my view, (in Latin America and Asia) and yet all of the superpowers were at peace -- we just happen to call it the Cold War.

 

[Albow]

dh epic, I can't agree more, need way more internal politics and spying, but not just in modern era ... there has been intrigue for a very long time, just modern times means more tools to do it with ...

I think growth rates will have a huge impact on the game mechanics ... think about what it means having a city growing at X10 the rate to others ... you would be the Russia of the world if you are in modern age and outstrip the industrial age powers ... it will also have all sorts of spin off effects ...

anyway, until Civ4 we will just have to keep on dreaming

 

[Volstag]

Isn't growth sufficienty sped-up via railroading? I would say there are certain gameplay differences in the IA/MA -- notably with regards to how quickly you can shuffle units around the map. In the MA it's possible to completely overrun enemies in a very short amount of time. However, I will freely admit that by the time the MA does come around, most people already know if they're going to win or lose, and it can be fairly tedious.

I will also fully agree that Civ is at its best when the player doesn't know how things are going to turn out and/or when they're in a desperate situation. I've found that each game of Civ has a "hump" for the player to get over. Once they're over that hump, winning the game is almost a foregone conclusion. For some players/games, you can already know you're going to win in the medieval era (if not earlier).

-V

 

[Midnight Piper]

2. ...once your civ gets to Modern, there should be a radical change in game play.

5. Introduce a MAD model that will make nuclear weapons more than neat tools for warfare. When two empires have 100+ ICBMs each, when one fires they should both be in trouble.

I like it - the modern age shoudl be characterized by a complete change in play style. The nuclear nations should be able to completely shut down the warmongers - once the button is hit, everyone loses. Make the pre-nuke era (WWII) the last chance for warmongers to get the military win. In order for this to work there would need to be other options, of course - a better black ops system would fill in nicely.

- Just had a vision of the game using a 'survivors' model - where everyone starts over with a settler in a nuclear wasteland after a nuclear exchange - welcome to round 2, Civ: Fallout!

 

[Colonel Kraken]

I've been a huge advocate of intelligence overhauls and domestic issues. That's the focus of the modern age, and it's been pretty interesting if you ask me. Entire wars have been waged with intelligence, without it ever happening. World War 3 happened, in my view, (in Latin America and Asia) and yet all of the superpowers were at peace -- we just happen to call it the Cold War.

You know, DH, you bring up a really intriguing possibility. What if by a certain time or tech there are world alignments (would this be tied to civics?). Through bribing, sponsoring, espionage, planning coups, weapons deals and other kinds of nefarrious activities you attempt to win weaker (or not so weaker) nations over to your side --your alignment. If you can get the majority of the world on your side, you win! That could definitely be very cool!

 

[dh_epic]

I'd love to see that, Colonel Kraken. At the very least, it would be a really neat scenario.

I also agree with Albow -- intelligence and spying needs to start SOONER. Sure you're not transmitting maps and coordinates within the same day, and you're not unleashing propaganda upon another nation or forming a puppet regime... But you're still assassinating leaders, promoting unrest, learning more about their way of life. Intelligence needs to be a gradual evolving thing, instead of a set of flood gates that open in the late industrial era.

I can also see how a modified growth system could be neat. Of course, population grows exponentially (unchecked), but in Civ it grows more linearly. Modifying the food system could reflect this. That way you could have a phenomenon like killing 5000 in a city by terrorism or disease or civil unrest -- the population means more. Or a true population surge -- those are interesting and huge parts of history.

 

[timberwolf4545]

Albow - I totally agree with you. I've been posting a lot about making things more interesting in the later game:

Here are a few suggestions I had

Rail/Road Maintenance
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=96852

Resource requirements for Exploring tech tree and building certain non-unit improvement
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=96851

Much greater role for Electricity, oil and power plants
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=96853

I think the common string in all of my suggestions has been the momentous investment that societies make when they do thinks like build a rail system or become dependent on oil or coal - and the consequences when things fall apart.

One of my suggestions was to make the loss of a resource like coal or oil truly catastrophic for a modern nation. Without coal you would loose the bonuses of rail roads. Without Oil - your tanks would stop moving and your people would become massively unhappy because they wouldn't be able to drive. This could turn a idyllic civ marching towards alpha century to a fascist war mongering regime in no time flat.

Another concept was "Initial Happiness" which represents the wonder that society feels when it gets something new like electricity or motor cars. There would be a happiness bonus for the first generation, then that would go away. But god forbid if the lights go off or the cars stop rolling, there would be massive unhappiness. (see NYC blackout or 70's oil crisis)

Another option - I also think that when you trade a resource, it should float depending on how much you need. Every tank/or driving citizen would take so many barrels of oil. So you would trade resources by the barrel instead of at a set price. That coudl start a new concept of trade wars where you lock in cheap oil.

A lot of people said these ideas were too harsh, but I think they rule. I can't tell you how many times I have shut the game off come the modern age. It simply become an exercise in watching stuff happen.

 

[Albow]

timberwolf:

couldn't agree more ... if the modern age (or even industrial) doesn't have its own new 'stresses' than what you get is a very long, drawn out, preconcluded set of statistics ...

I guess my worry is not to make things more complicated in MA but simply a different set of things to worry about ... in which case, older problems need to fade out. Humm, not sure if I am explaining this well.

for example, I think that MA civs with nukes shouldn't have to worry about troop movements, you should just have some sort of military power by area criteria rather than individual units, if they fight a preMA nuke civ in a standard war, you choose how much military power resources to 'send' and that spawns units to move around there (come on, lets face it, in one game turn the US army could have moved all its troops 5 times around the world, and not to mention all that holiday time too lke Thanksgiving ...

PS I love the fact that all your suggestions were told off for being too harsh

 

[sir_schwick]

I kinda like the idea of 'deployment' versus moving troops in the MA. AS for addding something to do, I am now writing up the new Space Race, which will make reaching AC a much longer road. I'll post the link once I finish.

 

[dh_epic]

I really do think the game would be improved by having gameplay revolutions for technological revolutions. You understand what I'm saying?

Let me give a few examples (even if you don't agree with them. heck, even if I don't agree with them.)

- After Labour Unions are invented, worker units disappear and become a worker pool
- In the Modern Age, democratic nations can't break treaties
- In the medieval, industrial, modern eras, roads improve from 1/3 to 1/4 to 1/5 movement points
- After the invention of printing press, civilizations can no longer be assimilated

Along the same idea as "deploying" troops instead of moving them in the modern era. I think movement points should actually become moot by that point. They already are, except that you have to deal with the painful process of moving stuff around.

 

[sir_schwick]

I really do think the game would be improved by having gameplay revolutions for technological revolutions. You understand what I'm saying?

Let me give a few examples (even if you don't agree with them. heck, even if I don't agree with them.)

- After Labour Unions are invented, worker units disappear and become a worker pool
- In the Modern Age, democratic nations can't break treaties
- In the medieval, industrial, modern eras, roads improve from 1/3 to 1/4 to 1/5 movement points
- After the invention of printing press, civilizations can no longer be assimilated

Along the same idea as "deploying" troops instead of moving them in the modern era. I think movement points should actually become moot by that point. They already are, except that you have to deal with the painful process of moving stuff around.

Very interesting idea: How you can interact with the game changes as technology progresses. This is already done somewhat with Railroads eliminating the need for large local garrisons. However, implimented on a full scale as a game paradigm it would really be awesome. Many players, not myself, would probably not like this though for whatever reasons they usually do not like fluid mechanics in a game.

 

[dh_epic]

Yeah, even from my HCI perspective, an interface that constantly changes is not usable. But games are not purely an issue of usability, and a lot of challenge and fun can come from mastering the evolving interface if it's for entertainment purposes.

It's kind of neat when you have a game where the rules are constantly changing. Like the drinking game, where you make up a rule, and anyone who breaks that rule has to drink, and you keep on adding, changing, and removing rules, until everyone's totally --

... damn, I hate this whole day job thing.

 

[sir_schwick]

Like I said, proper implementation would change the genre forever. But since you do this for a living, I would support your position that designing such a fluid interface would be very difficult.

Maybe it would not have to be extreme, but introduce new ways of doing things when the appropriate change occurs. The biggest place would be the introduction of 'Strategic Warfare', or nuclear faceoffs. LIke in Superpower, you could set the targets for all your warheads whenever you want. If any nuclear incident could occur(think bomber intrusion, submarines, satellite recon) then the game would go to almost real-time, assuming seconds become hours. You would have to make decisions, not always with the best intel. It could even lead to a full nuclear exchange(which is good for no one). Would add some real stress to the nuclear age, instead of the first strike wins(completely contrary to strategic warfare).

 

[Albow]

Fantastic ... think of all that stress as you wait to see if those Romans are getting closer with their fleet, should you launch now or see if it was just an honest mistake?

As for game interface, I don't think there has to be huge changes. Eg with the unit deployment thingy, it might just mean changing some of the movement rules ...

I don't know programming, but heck, the things that games can do these days ...

 

[bob rulz]

Am I the only one that thinks the Industrial Age is 500 times more tedious than the Modern Age? Here's a few things they should have (i didn't read the whole topic so forgive me if some of these have been said already).

Global Warming is too extreme. I've had times where entire plains were changed to deserts. Also, pollution is also slightly too extreme as well. Building the giant railroad system is often extremely tedious, and the Industrial Age is purely defensive up until tanks, which bothers me. It becomes nearly impossible to wage war (even with huge stacks of artillery) up until you do get tanks. The only thing tedious about the Modern Age is the fact that so much good stuff comes too spread out across the tech tree. I think they should still have ages, but they should have broader and less-defined transitions. Espionage needs to be more effective and cheaper. Also, the United Nations should be a more interactive and effective wonder than just victory if you get voted to secretary-general.

Other than these things and a few other, minor bothersome problems, I enjoy the flow of the game and don't think that the style of play should be any different.

 

[sir_schwick]

Am I the only one that thinks the Industrial Age is 500 times more tedious than the Modern Age? Here's a few things they should have (i didn't read the whole topic so forgive me if some of these have been said already).

Global Warming is too extreme. I've had times where entire plains were changed to deserts. Also, pollution is also slightly too extreme as well. Building the giant railroad system is often extremely tedious, and the Industrial Age is purely defensive up until tanks, which bothers me. It becomes nearly impossible to wage war (even with huge stacks of artillery) up until you do get tanks. The only thing tedious about the Modern Age is the fact that so much good stuff comes too spread out across the tech tree. I think they should still have ages, but they should have broader and less-defined transitions. Espionage needs to be more effective and cheaper. Also, the United Nations should be a more interactive and effective wonder than just victory if you get voted to secretary-general.

Other than these things and a few other, minor bothersome problems, I enjoy the flow of the game and don't think that the style of play should be any different.

One of the few transitions of military conflicts that Civ depicts accurately was the Industrial age and early Modern warfare. WWI was exactly that, tedious artillery duels. You had to use cavalry wisely, and it was really only effective whenever the enemy was almost broken. The sophistication of Tank warfare in WWII changed warfare to a more mobile form. Air power is way underpowered in civ, considering that aircraft are the bane of tanks.
One military conflict that is poorly modeled is medieval warfare. Knights were powerful, but not invincible by any means. Armies that were Knight heavy often lost too those of the more endurance based infantry. It is partially how Scotland kept the English out so long.

As for the UN, the SMAC Planetary Council was what I thought the Civ 3 UN woudl be like.

 

[Albow]

i must admit that I like the fact that war becomes very fifficult later on ... it becomes less about total conquest and more about getting only what you need.

Anyway, re the middle ages, I'm not an historian but I think that knights did dominate the battlefield totally until the advent of pikes and long bows, even then, heavy cav was still a force to be reckoned with. What is misrepresented is the use of city walls and the need for seige warfare, and also the effects of starvation on cities under attack. This was one of the real killer weapons of the middle ages... but try sitting around a Civ city ... thats going to be one loooong siege

i really think city walls need to be repowered, perhaps, 100% to defence plus no attack by mounted or wheeled units (think about it, how do horses climb those ladders), but let catapults destroy city walls or negate the no cav rule. Whtcha think?