Once again something I agree with, at least somewhat. Most games are finished or decided before modern era, maybe they should focus on making late warfare more feasible. Unconditional more units isn't good. Any unit to be added needs to be carefully planned, so they aren't useless. As I've explained before, all units in Civ IV have a function. Grunt units, like infantry, are massed, coupled with siege weapons, and reinforced with units that can defend against anything that could harm the real invaders. I don't think adding another stack defender unit would add any fun - instead of adding more units, it would be better if the whole unit system was redone so there would be more strategical elements. Just stacking riflemen with cannons isn't strategy.
What We Must Need In Civ 5
- Thread starter Ahovking
- Start date
Once again something I agree with, at least somewhat. Most games are finished or decided before modern era, maybe they should focus on making late warfare more feasible. Unconditional more units isn't good. Any unit to be added needs to be carefully planned, so they aren't useless. As I've explained before, all units in Civ IV have a function. Grunt units, like infantry, are massed, coupled with siege weapons, and reinforced with units that can defend against anything that could harm the real invaders. I don't think adding another stack defender unit would add any fun - instead of adding more units, it would be better if the whole unit system was redone so there would be more strategical elements. Just stacking riflemen with cannons isn't strategy.
One of my favorite things about Alpha Centuri was when you got to the end and could build Gravships. All the way through the game you had to worry about combined arms - infantry, vehicles, land obstacles, air and seacraft, transporting units, etc. And then at the end, you got this "reward," and you could just spam one unit that could do everything. It sounds weird, but I kept replaying it over and over again just for the fun of finally getting to that version of stragegic Nirvana.
Once you get to the point where you know you're going to win, why should you have to keep fussing with all those niggling details? I just want to sweep all the rest of my enemies off the map.
You mean the "strategic vacuum"
But hey, it's not much different from Civ IV's system - you spam out that all-around unit and your currently available siege weapon - and roll over your enemies.
As I mentioned earlier, maybe it should be set up that you can only whip if a city is experiencing unhappiness. That would certainly go a long way to reducing any micromanagement. I just don't like the idea that it should be eliminated just because some players get obsessive about it.
The fact that some people get obsessed about it makes other people (who aren't obsessed) disadvantaged. Simply making it only possible when a city is experiencing unhappyness would have its own problems - trying to get unhappy to be able to whip springs to mind although I have no idea whether that would be in any case feasible or not. At least the Globe Theatre+Heroic Epic machine wouldn't work
VladDrakken
Chieftain
I got a idea. Return us to our regular government selections, BUT with a twist.
Hear me out. How about you can choose your government, but depending on what policies you choose(Like say you take yourself as the head of the religion in that nation), you can make yourself something like a theocracy, or mix up communism and democractic traits and make a Socialist Democracy?
Or how about this, a custom civilzation maker? Choose the color, the flag, the leader, and the special unit and building?
Hear me out. How about you can choose your government, but depending on what policies you choose(Like say you take yourself as the head of the religion in that nation), you can make yourself something like a theocracy, or mix up communism and democractic traits and make a Socialist Democracy?
Or how about this, a custom civilzation maker? Choose the color, the flag, the leader, and the special unit and building?
OscarWildebeest
Prince
Sorry to hear you're angry that some people have different tastes.
That aside, sure it has subtlety and variety, but pieces can be subtle and varied and still be pleasant. Which is where most modern classical misses the mark in my opinion.
I wouldn't go so far as "angry" (perhaps "fed up" is a stronger term in the States than it is over here). I just get tired of people - not just here, but in all walks of life - criticising some classical music for daring to use dissonance. There's a spectrum of harmonic adventurousness in 20th (and 21st) century classical music, ranging from the likes of Mahler and Sibelius through to the extremes of, say, Schnittke, Penderecki or Birtwistle. Some people (I don't mean you, I don't know your views yet) seem to think classical music should have been frozen with Brahms and not explored any farther.
At the risk of going off-topic, how are you defining "modern" classical music?
Ahovking
Cyber Nations
that is a great idea if thay put that idea in Civ5 I would buy six if you go communist you can add stars or the Hammer an sickle is would be a step closer to Realism
I've been wondering whether Civ should include a "cabinet" that the player can fill up with politicians/aristocrats/bootlickers of their choice to help them run the civilization. These people would replace the governmental systems and grant bonuses based on their personality and political agenda. Mismatches (like a "rich businessman" and a "fanatical cardinal") could create friction in the government of course. Of course, rival countries may not like your government that much either...
Examples of politicians/aristocrats/bootlickers
Religious figures like cardinals, druids, bishops (boni to religious cities, wealth, increases friction with heathen civs but improves relations with bros of faith)
Military leaders like warlords, knights, generals (decreases military support costs and gives free promotions with possible happiness and culture penalties due to rule with an iron fist, possibly could include something like drafting if the military party has a majority in the government)
Businesspeople like merchants, land owners, bankers (more money, obviously, and perhaps additional boni like happiness to cities with busy markets and penalties for poorer cities)
Civil rights activists, communists and egalitarians (more food, higher health and happiness but costs more money to keep up and incurs the wrath of the business party)
Cultural people like philosophers, writers and artists (more culture and possibly research, happiness, but they hate the military party and vice versa)
Technological incluencers like engineers and inventors (more research and production but may penalize cities without universities for example and cause a lot of friction if coupled with religious party)
So if I wanted to raise an army quickly, I would give the military party a high representation so their policies can help me create an upkeep the army, and once the war is over, I sack the warlords and hire a couple of left-wing politicians and inventors to run the state with me.
It is fundamental in this idea that each representative is an individual. They can be replaced, and possibly be assassinated by the enemy nations, and they may offer [dis]advantages other than what their "class" normally does - a bishop could be interested in starting a crusade and thus share many traits of a militaristic representative, while a general could have a firm interest in researching new guns for his boys. A businessman could be an art merchant and therefore offer culture boni, and so on.
Masters of Orion used a system something like that, I think it was a great idea. You can draw from a pool of people and assign them to different areas of the government, gaining certain bonuses, and possible penalties. by doing so. You could even use it for your cities, having characters as your Governors, rather than just some invisible entity. And every so often they could die off or retire so you'd have to shuffle your government around.
Sounds likely. I should have checked your location tag first.
Just in the interest of staying on-topic, I'm going to leave it at that. However I will say that I certainly enjoy some modern classical, which just for simplicity's sake I will loosely define as roughly post-Rachmaninoff (and some pre-). Perhaps "modern minimalism" would be more appropriate.
OscarWildebeest
Prince
OK, I could take (polite) issue with your points but it's better left for another thread.
I would think it safe to say that any 'classical' music post-impressionist rubs people up the wrong way.
I would think that's the wrong way to go about allaying any complaints. Some people want to reduce micromanagement, some want to increase it. What is certainly safe is to allow for massive micromanagement, without requiring much at all. Of course, micromanaging would have to be able to obtain a better result than automation, in order to not be redundant, but perhaps the micromanagement of slavery goes too far in providing that advantage over the automatable (?) alternative; not whipping. So the best solution to that probably isn't to restrict the options you have in using that micromanagement (i.e. making it so that you can only whip if you have unhappiness), but to reduce the effectiveness of whipping as a whole. Make it more expensive (in terms of pop.), or something.
I would think that's the wrong way to go about allaying any complaints. Some people want to reduce micromanagement, some want to increase it. What is certainly safe is to allow for massive micromanagement, without requiring much at all. Of course, micromanaging would have to be able to obtain a better result than automation, in order to not be redundant, but perhaps the micromanagement of slavery goes too far in providing that advantage over the automatable (?) alternative; not whipping. So the best solution to that probably isn't to restrict the options you have in using that micromanagement (i.e. making it so that you can only whip if you have unhappiness), but to reduce the effectiveness of whipping as a whole. Make it more expensive (in terms of pop.), or something.
Being one of the people who whined about slavery rewarding micromanagement, I'd like to clarify - I don't think whipping itself is that much of micromanagement. The flaw is that the mechanics reward doing it very carefully - one can get significantly more out of whipping if they are timed precisely. If whipping was renovated so abusing overflow, for example, would be impossible, the system would be a lot better. Also I feel that the importance of timing whips right before pop growth should be reduced.
Despite micromanagement rewarding, I feel that whipping is a nice system. I love whipping my people and I probably would if it didn't pay off in hammers
But is that abuse? Is micromanaging very effectively really an abuse, or is it just playing the game very well? I mean, there needs to be some incentive to micromanage more in order for micromanagement to be viable in the game at all. So if people are taking advantage of what may be seen as abuse in carefully timed chops or whips or whatever (I've never got the hang of that myself), then their effort probably deserves a reward. The extra effort should be rewarded.
Civ is a stragegy game, and whip timing is just about mathemathics. That means that anyone who knows the mechanics can figure the optimal times to whip. There are no strategical decisions, just numbers - how many hammers/food do you get if you whip now, how many hammers/food would you get 10 turns later. It's possible to use whipping without paying heed to the optimal times to whip, sure, but the rewards from carefully planned whipping aren't trivial.
Of course, planning is nice, it's a part of a strategy game. But going through your cities, trying to figure whether one should whip now or next turn is a distraction from the very essence of the game. As Sid himself has said, packing too many things into a game can cause them to distract each other (The Covert Action Rule) and I feel that whipping is such a distraction in its current form.
As for micromanagement, my opinion differs greatly from yours. In strategy games, optimally the winner is the one with the best strategy - the rest had worse strategies, so they lost. Civ adds some insymmetry to this by randomized maps and different civs and leaders, increasing the viability of certain strategies. In my opinion, it is only strategy that should be rewarded with victory and high scores - not empty clicks, no empty math. If micromanagement is given a big role and it is rewarded, a player may win simply because
And as for abuse, yes, some uses of whipping micromanagement are abusing the game mechanics. Many of the overflow tricks have been fixed, but it's still possible to, for example, channel production from whips into wonders without having the usual 50% penalty by choosing the right things to build and, once again, doing one's math well. This is definitely abuse.
Wodan
Deity
Honestly in CiV I'd like to see less of the "mathematics" micro and more of the player freedom / choice micro. Present the player with tactical choices (tactical as in small scale, compared to strategic / large scale).
But don't have the kind of choices of "spend more time doing minutiae and get some kind of benefit" which is a big part of optimizing whipping currently.
Somebody suggested changing whipping so that maxing overflow isn't abusable (make all overflow work the same) and I agree with that.
The ONLY time I think the minutiae model is good for the game is if it's tied to game settings. Kind of like game speed... something you can turn on or off before you start the game.
But don't have the kind of choices of "spend more time doing minutiae and get some kind of benefit" which is a big part of optimizing whipping currently.
Somebody suggested changing whipping so that maxing overflow isn't abusable (make all overflow work the same) and I agree with that.
The ONLY time I think the minutiae model is good for the game is if it's tied to game settings. Kind of like game speed... something you can turn on or off before you start the game.
I very much agree with this one - empty math is as bad as empty clicking. I however have my doubts about tactical combat (once again I cite Master Meier's Covert Action Rule), but I do agree with the player receiving more choices.
Civ is a strategy game, and in many strategy games there have been very few viable strategies (if you're familiar with C&C you know what a "tank rush" means) but Civ has made a positive exception - in Civ IV there are so many ways to build and maintain an empire, each being good under certain circumstances. I think this is the strongest point of Civ IV, and I think that they should make it even stronger in Civ V. More ways to rule the globe (that's right, I'm not satisfied with the cylinder anymore) and influence foreign lands... actually, LoR's revolution system, although fiendishly annoying at first, is a great step towards a more strategically interesting game. Want to ruin Genghis Khan, who has taken the better half of the huge continent you two are sitting on? Not hard. Just offer your helping hand to the Korean Rebels who are fighting Khan for their independence! Just like in real life, and even more fun
Wodan
Deity
I'm mixed on tactical combat. To a great extent, CIV already has taken combat to a certain level of abstraction. Each unit is conceptually a regiment or company or whatever.
Something that would be interesting is the idea I've seen before where the player is sitting in the capitol, and sending out "orders" via diplomatic pouches to remote city governors/units. From that point, the governor or unit would attempt to execute the orders to the best of their ability. So, it wouldn't be the player clicking on city or the unit to do stuff, he would just tell the unit more general orders which it would then do.
With the advent of telephone and radio more close contact would be possible, but it would still be on the nature of civilian rulers giving orders to the generals.
Something that would be interesting is the idea I've seen before where the player is sitting in the capitol, and sending out "orders" via diplomatic pouches to remote city governors/units. From that point, the governor or unit would attempt to execute the orders to the best of their ability. So, it wouldn't be the player clicking on city or the unit to do stuff, he would just tell the unit more general orders which it would then do.
With the advent of telephone and radio more close contact would be possible, but it would still be on the nature of civilian rulers giving orders to the generals.
bestrfcplayer
Steppin' up!
There's not going to be a civ 5 for about another 20 years or so. Why? Because of the civ on facebook.