What I want to see!

[Tigernose]

There are two things, closely linked, that I want to see taking place in Civilization V.

1) More realism
2) More interactivity

Let me expand on this.

When I play Civilization 4, I don't really feel like I'm actually controlling an empire in the world. It feels like... a board game. The look and feel doesn't convince me. This has nothing to do with gameplay, but whenever I play I never consider I'm on Earth, it looks to cartoonish and unrealistic.

Now there may be many factors that influence this. Looking at Civ 5 screenshots, I see great realism with the graphics. When I look at it, it looks like Earth. There are detailed lakes, every hex has different graphics. Essentially, everything isn't a clone. The mountains are different.

As I'm writing this, I realise it's organic that is the missing factor in IV. It just isn't organic enough. Maybe the camera angle is a factor of this. The way you look at the map is like sitting down and playing a board game. It feels flat and has too little depth.

Maybe a fullerene as a map would aid this problem. If you could view the map at any angle (a little like Google Earth) and go over the poles, it may feel more organic.

I've read you need pentagons to make a fullerene (sphere) with hexagons, so maybe place these 12 pentagons as insignificant areas. I'm thinking the poles, mountains or just in the middle of the ocean.

-----
My next issue is Interactivity and this closely links to the realism and lack of an organic feel issue. I'm focusing less on maps this time, less on visuals, more on gameplay and how you play the game.

When I'm playing, I don't especially feel like I'm controlling an empire. I never consider that. It's never in the top of my thoughts that is this the German Empire taking over the world. Games like Warcraft III and Starcraft make me feel this way.

When I'm researching Internet, it doesn't feel like there's internet in my empire.

There is one little thing they could add that could make this game so much more fun to look at and play.

V should let you grasp your civilization by your hand so you can experience it. So if you've researched Alphabet, maybe pick from a pre-set alphabet collection (maybe make your own, although this is something I'd like to see that will not happen fr many obvious reasons) and then when playing you can see your alphabet in texts and messages scattered around the screen. Like the interface may include words in an alphabet you've researched just in the background.

Make it feel like it's your own.

When you research computers... maybe show people using computers, maybe show your leader with a computer, eh? I'm tossing loose ideas, but I'm giving a concept out.

Or there could be some kind of 'Civ View' where you could see animations of your people in their homes. This could be with the Domestic Advisor, or just a button. When you click on it, it shows animations of people using computers, or writing something in your alphabet, or maybe showing them cheering when the city has a happy majority.

Like the 'We love the Prime Minister Day' is followed by an animation of people in the city releasing fireworks and celebrating. Little touches that remind you that you are controlling a civilization.

Who wouldn't like that? My ideas may be going too OTT and too much for some people to handle, but there could just be some scatterings of things that remind you that this is your empire.

When you're playing, the game feels robotic (just making my point again). I never get the sense my civilization has moved on when I research a new technology or build something new. All I see is some text, a picture, and a few factors that influence the game.

All I want to see from the interactivity part is that it immerses you into the game to a point when you convince yourself that this is your civilization and you can do whatever you want with it.

And those cutscenes after building a wonder are great, but I never get the sense it's mine. I just see Egypt when I see Pyramids while I'm playing as the Russians.

----
Another thing I want to dwell on is borders. Culture determining borders is unrealistic. In fact, borders are loose, unrealistic, and don't go well with the "civilization" way of game.

Maybe in the first two eras, culture should predominantly determine borders while military and power are smaller aspects. Then going up the eras, military, wealth and power take a greater role. This would make it more realistic.

What else isn't realistic is the blank spaces you see on the map between empires and cities that you see that haven't been claimed yet. By 1970 in the real world, every inch of land was claimed by a nation one way or other. I'm in 2030 in CiV 4, and yet the New World has land that isn't conquered, and I have got huge spaces inbetween my cities that anyone could build a city in.

So this is my solution. How about when you make your second city, each city have their strong borders, but they are connected by secondary borders. This means the land between your two cities is part of your empire, but only loosely. That means that any civilization can walk through it without Open Borders and you can only build basic improvements on it. This land cannot be manipulated as much as your primary land, but at least it makes it so people can't isolate your cities. Cities are all over the place in IV, and if you look at any historical map, there is never a unclaimed piece of land between two cities of the same nation.

And then, after time, the secondary land becomes stronger and eventually becomes primary land.

----
How about that?

If it is tl;dr, then should I split it up into posts? Just tell me and I will. Also, I have more to talk about on land. So what do you think about my ideas???

 

[Tigernose]

Reserved

 

[Tigernose]

Looking back at my post, I realise that I want to see an in-depth simulator style approach than the board-game setup look and feel of Civilization IV. What do you think?

 

[Ahriman]

I think that the Civ is designed to be a simplified, stylized accessible game, and most definitely *not* an in-depth simulator.

Too much realism kills the game; the game has to work first and foremost as a game that is fun.

This means for example that mechanics have to be meaningful; if culture isn't going to spread your borders, then what is it going to do? It has to have some kind of tangible meaning, or its not worth trynig to get more culture.

Blank spaces between borders makes perfect sense; it is area that is outside the control of any nation. Historically, the world was full of this; there were many areas where local thugs were the only power, beyond the rule of any nation. Even today, there are some places like this (arguably, Somalia). But I have never seen Civ4 in 2030 with large unsettled uncultured areas, unless a lot of cities have been razed, or temporarily during city disorder..

 

[Tigernose]

This means for example that mechanics have to be meaningful; if culture isn't going to spread your borders, then what is it going to do? It has to have some kind of tangible meaning, or its not worth trynig to get more culture.

Wealth? At least culture should not be major factor in determining borders in the Modern era. I think culture should have a different medium although this thread is asking people about their ideas because I don't have many

Also, I mean blank spaces between cities especially. There really weren't many times that an empire had blank spaces in between their cities. Blank borders between nations is understandable, cities meanwhile is not.

I also want to establish that I want more realism aspects in V but I don't want it to be a simulator itself. I just want to feel like I'm controlling a civilization.

 

[timtofly]

Also, I mean blank spaces between cities especially. There really weren't many times that an empire had blank spaces in between their cities. Blank borders between nations is understandable, cities meanwhile is not.

You have to have a large population to "fill" in blank spaces. While you do have Pioneers and Settlers, humanity on the whole tends to congregate in one spot until they are forced to expand outward. Have you tried an RTS game? CIV has always been a turn based game where the immersion comes from what is going to happen from the decisions you have made during the turn. An RTS game will keep you on your toes while your "civ" is either being wiped out or dying out.

 

[Ahriman]

Blank borders between nations is understandable, cities meanwhile is not.

Sure it is. Think of a medieval kingdom. The monarch might have has power emanating from the cities and castles, but might have relatively little control over what happens in between.

Or take, say, 19th century Russia. How much control did you think the Czar had over the vast empty spaces in Siberia, outside the cultural influence of the Russian cities?

 

[Tigernose]

Sure it is. Think of a medieval kingdom. The monarch might have has power emanating from the cities and castles, but might have relatively little control over what happens in between.

Or take, say, 19th century Russia. How much control did you think the Czar had over the vast empty spaces in Siberia, outside the cultural influence of the Russian cities?

Since when was Siberia "in between" any cities. If you count any of the eastern towns, they were exclaves.

Also, can't the secondary land system I proposed fix that? Use weaker land in between your cities that you can't control as much as your primary land, yet it counts as your own.

 

[GigaNerd]

The "Civ View" idea is pure genius!

Yo, Jon Shafer! Give us Civ View!!!



@Tigernose:
Although Civ View is totally awesome, the other ideas are sort of iffy IMO. Sorry.

 

[Disgustipated]

sounds like you want a game more like the Sims or Simcity. no offense or anything.

I actually do want a little more immersion. I think the main issue here is cost. Do they spend resources on animating people doing stuff in your cities (like browsing the internet when you build it) or focus on the main game graphics and gameplay?

But I would love to see wonders built in your cities, not a generic flat space. I feel this is something they can do.

 

[Ahriman]

Since when was Siberia "in between" any cities. If you count any of the eastern towns, they were exclaves.

This is a strange argument; Siberia isn't between cities, because the various cities that there are (Omsk=1.1 million, Novosibirsk=1.4 million, etc.) don't count as cities, they're just "enclaves"??

Siberia fits the example perfectly, there were cities around, but vast empty spaces in between them that an in game terms took a while before they actually became covered with Russian "culture".

 

[helpless_writer]

From what it sounds like from the first post you want micromanagement which in mods is possible but in Vanilla will probably never happen.

Because the way you are putting it you want the city view feature from civ3, noticeable changes like maybe phone lines on the civ map, maybe see the rivers turn brown or green when toxins or a factory goes abrupt...

 

[Tigernose]

This is a strange argument; Siberia isn't between cities, because the various cities that there are (Omsk=1.1 million, Novosibirsk=1.4 million, etc.) don't count as cities, they're just "enclaves"??

Siberia fits the example perfectly, there were cities around, but vast empty spaces in between them that an in game terms took a while before they actually became covered with Russian "culture".

We're sidetracking. And anyway, it was still Russian land and weren't exclaves. It may be out of culture influence but the Russians still owned it. It's like saying the Russians weren't allowed to make any farms or villages in that space because you couldn't in the blank spaces in Civilization 4.

Surely a "secondary space" that wasn't influenced by culture but was still yours would be more realistic and opens up more gameplay oppurtunities.

From what it sounds like from the first post you want micromanagement which in mods is possible but in Vanilla will probably never happen.

Because the way you are putting it you want the city view feature from civ3, noticeable changes like maybe phone lines on the civ map, maybe see the rivers turn brown or green when toxins or a factory goes abrupt...

Kind of. I like City view, but I want something more than an image. However, it has to at least give you the feel that it's your Civilization and your playing a game that controls it.

Phones lines on the map is an awesome idea, yet it doesn't give me enough of a sense. The wonder animations for me are too redudant seeing as they are the same always.

I would like something more detailed, yet I would not like Civ to be a simulator. Simply a game where you're controlling a civilization that is your own, not controlling a board game.

sounds like you want a game more like the Sims or Simcity. no offense or anything.

I actually do want a little more immersion. I think the main issue here is cost. Do they spend resources on animating people doing stuff in your cities (like browsing the internet when you build it) or focus on the main game graphics and gameplay?

But I would love to see wonders built in your cities, not a generic flat space. I feel this is something they can do.

This is the thing. Sid Meier in his keynote talked about gamer's imagination. He explained in the GDC 2010 that you don't have to fill in the spaces that the players can't see, because they can imagine it, and it will save a lot of money. I agree in certain contexts, but when it completely ignores the nature of game (controlling a civilization) I don't agree.

The way the game is played out makes conquest victory the only real victory that gives you the sense you've won. You've destroyed every city and empire, like dominating a board game.

Diplomatic and Space Race victories are just meaningless for me. When I finish I don't get the sense I've flown to another star, or I've restored peace in the world. There's these little things that make Civilization a board game.

Too much will make it a slow simulator. Too little makes it a board game. If they could add in a little more immersion, like animations here and there, it will give you the sense you've played this game like controlling a real empire.

And to dwell on the board game argument again, the way the game is laid out in tiles, makes it like chess or a board game. That's not bad, but the way you move around the map with your military units make Conquest Victory the only victory that makes you feel like you've won.

A sensless 10 second animation of some guy jumping out of a pod and looking a star means NOTHING.

The main thing for me is that the game doesn't feel like a civilization game. Looking at the tech tree for means looking at some lights on a screen and some texts.

I've read on the manual it says something like this:

The thing about Civilization is that you can make history your own. You don't need to make Infantry inspired from Musketmen, you can make it so you're inspired by Artillery.

HEYL NO! I never get the inspiration sense. You can just click on a techology in the tree and it automatically researches every technology required. Not saying this is bad, but it's not like it makes any real difference. Maybe if it actually made some difference like in real life, I could maybe be inspired by one thing and it would help. The tech tree is just a straightforward dull list and you can't make history your own because you end up researching everything in the same order anyway.

 

[Xzylvador]

The thing about Civilization is that you can make history your own. You don't need to make Infantry inspired from Musketmen, you can make it so you're inspired by Artillery.

HEYL NO! I never get the inspiration sense. You can just click on a techology in the tree and it automatically researches every technology required. Not saying this is bad, but it's not like it makes any real difference. Maybe if it actually made some difference like in real life, I could maybe be inspired by one thing and it would help. The tech tree is just a straightforward dull list and you can't make history your own because you end up researching everything in the same order anyway.

Not sure if that's really on-topic for this thread, but this is one of the few things that really bothers me when playing civ.
"Make your own history!"
But still everything follows the same order that's our own historical evolution. A civ game could be so much more diverse! What if gunpowder never even got invented? If not because the idea wasn't there, maybe because there's just no saltpeter on the world. Things would have went so different, who knows what techs we'd have now? Maybe we actually would have lightsabers or monofilament single-molecule-sharp swords being the most powerful weapon at the moment.

 

[Zaimejs]

I love this post. It goes along with my love for the Throne Room of Civ II. That was a little touch that made it feel like an empire. You are right... I can go through like 2000 years and never really get a sense that I've got people in my empire and that we're doing anything. I love the idea of certain advances changing the feel and look of the game.

 

[GigaNerd]

Not sure if that's really on-topic for this thread, but this is one of the few things that really bothers me when playing civ.
"Make your own history!"
But still everything follows the same order that's our own historical evolution. A civ game could be so much more diverse! What if gunpowder never even got invented? If not because the idea wasn't there, maybe because there's just no saltpeter on the world. Things would have went so different, who knows what techs we'd have now? Maybe we actually would have lightsabers or monofilament single-molecule-sharp swords being the most powerful weapon at the moment.

Although I am a huge supporter of alternate history techs, I truthfully believe that it would be quite difficult. You'd have to have several different tech trees (let's face it: motorized warfare vs. bicycle warfare?), which takes quite a bit of programming.

For instance, you'd have to have a separate tech tree if you want:

• Gunpowderless Warfare
• Steampunk Technologies
• Advanced Derigibles
• Nonmortorized Transportation (i.e. Bicycle Warfare)
• Psychokinetic Warfare

Maybe they'll consider it for an expansion.

 

[Panzeh]

Although I am a huge supporter of alternate history techs, I truthfully believe that it would be quite difficult. You'd have to have several different tech trees (let's face it: motorized warfare vs. bicycle warfare?), which takes quite a bit of programming.

For instance, you'd have to have a separate tech tree if you want:

• Gunpowderless Warfare
• Steampunk Technologies
• Advanced Derigibles
• Nonmortorized Transportation (i.e. Bicycle Warfare)
• Psychokinetic Warfare

Maybe they'll consider it for an expansion.

It's an interesting thought, to include alternate technology paths, though certainly a lot of what you speak of is more grounded in fiction than anything else(Steampunk?). It could be interesting, by going down the volley gun path you get an initial advantage, but you will be delayed or excluded from main-line machine gun units, or something like that, but, it seems finicky and weird, probably best left for a mod.

 

[Tigernose]

It's an interesting thought, to include alternate technology paths, though certainly a lot of what you speak of is more grounded in fiction than anything else(Steampunk?). It could be interesting, by going down the volley gun path you get an initial advantage, but you will be delayed or excluded from main-line machine gun units, or something like that, but, it seems finicky and weird, probably best left for a mod.

I think he was having a laugh.

 

[MAHRana]

I would really like a smooth type of playing style where there will be no tiles and units will instead have a radius to limit where they can travel each turn

...and of course, an Armenian civilization!

 

[Tigernose]

I would really like a smooth type of playing style where there will be no tiles and units will instead have a radius to limit where they can travel each turn

...and of course, an Armenian civilization!

That's a coincidence. Were you reading my other thread or not?