Civ 4

[WarpStorm]

I think it should be 3d, but not gratuitous 3d.

There are a lot of good reasons for it to be in 3d. More realistic looking terrain for one thing (kinda ironic me saying that). Scalability for different size monitors for another. Nearly infinite levels of zoom for another. More realistic terrain (not just appearance).

Okay, a gratuitous 3d option that'd be cool - having your city with all it's buildings displayed on the world map.

-------------------------------

The problem I see with the scalable map is that it might limit you to single player mode (not that I mind, but some people would).

-------------------------------

I think it should stay turn based. Even a slow RTS like EU2, wouldn't feel like Civ.

[Kuciwalker]

I think 3D is bad - because of the terrain. It would make modding insanely difficult.

[BigFurryMonster]

Civ needs more Strategic depth.

By Strategic I mean the amount of long-term decisions you must make, combined with the fact that you can build up a certain position compared to your opponents.

In Civ3, relatively few decisions are strategic. One big one should be the placement of cities, but in the long run, it turns out to be not a very decisive factor. Putting all your resources into a certain wonder or tech should also be one, but due to the fact that a lot of wonders expire and tech is traded quite easily, this is not as important as it should be.

The existence of civ-specific UUs in Civ3 are pretty good though.

[WarpStorm]

Originally posted by skywalker
I think 3D is bad - because of the terrain. It would make modding insanely difficult.

Why do you think this? The method for texturing 3D tiles is no worse than the current way of making 2D tiles. With all the FPS games out there finding people who know how to do this will be very easy.

As far as sculpting worlds, I'd love to play with an editor for that (heck, I'd love to write that).

For units it would be a lot easier than current scheme as you usually have to make a 3d model for it first anyways. You'd be cutting out the middle man.

I will bet that Civ4 will be in 3D. Considering what they are looking for on Firaxis' Help Wanted page I can even venture a guess that they'll be using the GameBryo engine for doing it.

[Master Zen]

ok, here's my 2 cents (more like 2 dollars), I'll divide it by parts:

Things that should be brought back from Civ2

1) Elvis!!

2) Events for scenarios. Make it simple like in Civ2 but trust me, they make scenarios far more interesting and complex. I dare to say that events alone have caused Civ2 to have the staying power it has. It is likely that Civ3 will be long forgotten after Civ4, but Civ2 did manage to outlive its successor (and if Civ4 doesn't have events, Civ2 might outlive it also).

Things that should be brought back from SMAC

1) Social Engineering. Then we can have stuff like "social democracy" and "lassez-faire capitalism" or "fundamentalist monarchy" and stuff like that. Get creative. I loved Oncle Boris' suggestion that civs change according to what your style is.

2) Terrain Variety. SMAC was pretty cool that you had climatic diversity: some places were more wet, others more rocky, etc. Perhaps Civ could have wetness and fertility so that certain patches of land were particulary productive (think the great plains or the ukraine).

3) Natural Disasters. Volcanoes are one thing but earthquakes and other stuff would be pretty neat.

New Changes

A whole new combat engine

Let's be serious, Civ3's combat engine is not particularly fancy. I belive it is possible to add considerable depth to it without making it exceedingly complicated, and my basis of comparison is the wonderfully simple wargame Panzer General. I have said in more than one thread that the perfect civ game would be a mix between civ and PG, of course, not withstanding the "look-and-feel" copyright suit that they'd slap on Firaxis's ass, some changes can be incorporated while maintaining the "civness"

- More HP. 5 HP allows for a lot of twisted combat results, this was a step backwards from Civ2. IMO, the average should be 10 with, for example, experience generating up to 15 HPs. Experience should also be constant not based on luck. Every successful combat should increase a unit's experience.

- Retreat, not death . Instead of combats being "to the death", there should be a retreat factor involved, i.e. a unit that starts getting beat up will retreat automatically. Perhaps this might be acompanied by a "stamina" rating. Each attack either takes away HP or stamina, after stamina has run out the unit retreats. If a unit is pinned down, it surrenders. This allows for maneouver being of vital importance so you can surround units or simply advance while denying your opponent the ability to resupply.

- Supply rules . There have never been any supply rules for civ. Terrain and transportation should dictate how much a unit resupplies, units that are cut off should not be able to resuply at all. Resupply should occur when a unit does not move, but if, say, the unit is on a road or something, then some resupply should manage to reach it even if its in combat.

- Transport . The one thing that bugs me about roads/railroads is that they give a huge advantage when in theory they should potentially serve both attacker and defender. For example, roads instead of giving a 3x movement rate universally, should be only about 1.5x for foot units and about 2x for wheeled/tracked units. Finally, railroads should be "hub-based", that is, instead of sliding through the rail system, a unit would have to load/unload at a hub in a city. Bomb a railroad, and ya can't reach the hub. Get caught in a city while still loaded, and suffer terribly. Thus, units would have to unload at the nearest city (or not-so-nearest if the enemy has air superiorty)and deploy normally to the front.

- Stack damage . Units bombed or attacked in a same stack should suffer some damage, whether it be HP or stamina. Perhaps bombardment would cause damage to some units besides the target, while direct attacks would reduce a stack's stamina enough that the inertia of a strong attack would cause the stack as a whole to retreat even if some of the units are still intact.

- Tactical/Strategic air power. Fighters suck at bombing in Civ3. There should be a big separation between tactical bombers and strategic ones, the latter should be able to cause major damage to cities and infrastructure, while doing less damage to units themselves, while the former should be used mostly as airborne artillery.

Finally, units and attack/defense should be separated into classes. For units we could have foot, mounted, tracked (tank). This would affect transport and defensive characteristics. Naval units could be wood, armored or submarine. Air units could be prop or jet.

For attack/defense, you would have attacks against other types of units, say, a pikeman is obviously much more formidable against a mounted unit than a foot soldier. So, a pike would have a higher attack/defense rating against a mounted unit than against any other. Same with infantry having a higher attack against infantry than against tanks, so you would be a fool to attack a city with tanks, you'd soften it up with arty then send in the assault troops (similarly you would not defend a city with tanks)


That's all I can think of ATM, I have more suggestions for the economic and expansion elements but I'll post 'em later.

-MZ


Finally, one biggie: FOR ALL THAT IS SACRED AND HOLY PLEASE MAKE IT A HEX-BASED MAP, REGARDLESS OF IT BEING 2-D or 3-D... HEX HEX HEX!!!!

[BigFurryMonster]

Hex? And make special hex numpads on keyboards, too?

[Master Zen]

Originally posted by BigFurryMonster
Hex? And make special hex numpads on keyboards, too?

ask the entire wargamer community if they find hexes an obstacle at all.

plus, since due to the mini-map you already know your position in the world, why not add a keyboard shortcut to show you the map coordinates of any hex?

Thus instead of "move Warrior 3-4-1-7" like us demo gamers are used to, "move Warrior to 45,51"

[WarpStorm]

I disagree, MZ, on a few of things you like

Why limit yourself to hexes if you have 3D? I've played many hex-based games over the years and they aren't that much better than square tiles. If you give 1.5 multiplier on the diagonal moves it is nearly fair on movement.

Stack combat - Why should something happening far away affect you? A tile is huge amount of real estate. Stack damage probably should be reserved for an operational scale game, not a strategic one like civ.

Transport - Enemy roads go real slow till you've had enough time to make them yours. "The easy way is always mined" is a military axiom.

[Asmodean]

Originally posted by JesseSmith
The idea of having the map scale to the Era could be a lot of fun. IE: During the Ancient Era the entire map is actually just a small piece of the eventual game world. When entering the Middle Ages/Industrial/Modern the map expands to encompass a larger portion of the world. By the late Industrial Age (Flight to Satellites) with the growth of technology the entire world (game map) is available. To use the Conquest maps as examples, it would be like going from Mesopotamia to Middle Ages to Epic Game.

By expanding the map for each Era the game world is suddenly dynamic and mysterious. As with RL, as technology advances Distances quickly becomes smaller and smaller. I'd love to see the expression on a time warped Ancient Era humans face as they flew across a continent on a 747. More so I'd love to be on a ship traveling faster than the speed of light across our galaxy!!

Not to mention the possibilities this would allow for modders. IE: After battling for dominance of the post-apocalyptic caverns you emerge with the desire to rebuild humanity with your vision! Multiple scenarios/ mission based Conquests all on the same Map File! The possibilities are truly endless...

LOL...be careful what you post, Jesse. Now everybody will be dissapointed if scalable maps are NOT in Civ 4, for whatever reason

Asmodean

[Dis]

I disagree about supply

this isn't supposed to be a wargame after all.

I want diplomacy, diplomacy, and more diplomacy. Although much of that diplomacy should be relegated to the late game of course.

But what I really want for christmas is a more intelligent ai. Not just with regards to wars- but with regards to diplomacy and basic winning strategies.

[Dis]

the other thread reminded me.

Pollution should not kick your city workers off of a square. The square should still be able to be worked but at reduced capacity.

To tell the truth, I never caredf for pollution and global warming all that much, but I realize there must be a balance to high production.

[Master Zen]

Originally posted by Dissident
But what I really want for christmas is a more intelligent ai. Not just with regards to wars- but with regards to diplomacy and basic winning strategies.

I think that's a #1 priority on most of our wish-lists too.

@Warpstorm

Yes, perhaps if a 1.5 was applied to the diagonals it would work out good (by this I mean in practice, not only in corruption calculations).

[vmxa1]

Originally posted by Master Zen


Thus instead of "move Warrior 3-4-1-7" like us demo gamers are used to, "move Warrior to 45,51"

This I could go for.

[vmxa1]

I don't 3D, because I can't think of any that I ever liked. Not to mention that many give me motion sickness.

[Kuciwalker]

wrt AI, they should take a GalCiv-like approach.

[WarpStorm]

vmxa1, do most of the RTS games in the past 2 years give you motion sickness?

[Wittlich]

Originally posted by vmxa1
Wittlich you left out Elvis.

No I didn't - Elvis is one of the Advisors.

[Kuciwalker]

2) Events for scenarios. Make it simple like in Civ2 but trust me, they make scenarios far more interesting and complex. I dare to say that events alone have caused Civ2 to have the staying power it has. It is likely that Civ3 will be long forgotten after Civ4, but Civ2 did manage to outlive its successor (and if Civ4 doesn't have events, Civ2 might outlive it also).

mostly, but I disagree that Civ2 has outlived Civ3. Unless you were talking about SMAC.

[vmxa1]

Originally posted by WarpStorm
vmxa1, do most of the RTS games in the past 2 years give you motion sickness?

Very mildly (WC3/Generals), it is mostly RPG's and for sure FP.

[vmxa1]

BTW I don't see that Civ2 outlived Civ3, it is pretty much dead to me. I may some day play a game for nostalgia, not much else.

[ravagon]

Originally posted by JesseSmith
Not to mention the possibilities this would allow for modders. IE: After battling for dominance of the post-apocalyptic caverns you emerge with the desire to rebuild humanity with your vision! Multiple scenarios/ mission based Conquests all on the same Map File! The possibilities are truly endless...

Just as long as one can script events along with it.

[Master Zen]

Originally posted by vmxa1
BTW I don't see that Civ2 outlived Civ3, it is pretty much dead to me. I may some day play a game for nostalgia, not much else.

are you kidding? There's a HUGE amount of people who still play Civ2 because of the scenarios. There's even been two major scenario-based Civ2 demo games here at poly in the last 6 months.

[vmxa1]

Like I said it is dead to me, I can see no reason to play it. I do play several games that are older than Civ2, though.
I play some other games where I like the previous version fine, but Civ2 (a game I loved) just won't work after CivIII.

[Rasputin]

dam n civ4 and me not got c3c yet !!!

[CerberusIV]

Nice to see everyone thinking so hard.

My wish list.

Combined units - Combat units should work together. Even if they can't attack/defend as stacks (the CTP system is too strong) it would be nice if units like aircraft and artillery could be ordered to provide combat support to an attacking or defending unit, thus boosting its stats. If you have two infantry units one could attack and the other support rather than both attack. Only one unit could actually attack but it would do so more strongly.

Resources - You should be able to choose how resources are allocated. For example if you have 1 ivory it is now build SoZ and keep citizens happy. You should have to choose unless you have more than 1 ivory. A bigger empire would need more sources of resources to get the effects. Also it should be more difficult, if not impossible, to complete a build if you lose a required resource (perhaps it can't be completed unless you are at least halfway there). As has been suggested, maybe one iron source to support building 2 factories or 6 units and if you want to build more then you need more sources. The possibility of piracy or corruption disrupting supply and having to allocate resources to suppress the problem would add a challenge.

Diplomacy - could do better. Being able to intervene diplomatically in wars between AI's and broker peace deals would be nice. A variable form of government rather than abrupt changes would be good. So if you have a lot of military you get more free military support and less WW but less commerce and more unhappy citizens. Less military and more trading links gives less unit support but more commerce and fewer unhappy citizens. As the profile of your civ changes, the government effect changes.

[dannubis]

perhaps one could include a resuply unit into an attacking stack. Otherwise the unit in enemy territory should suffer attrition damage (1HP per turn). Much like it is done in RON

[Andydog]

I would like to see the economy developed into an important strategic game element. I hate the current system of gold being generated by roads and railroads sprawled all over the map. Roads/Railroads should only be used to link cities, resources, other civs, and to transport troops. (Imagine how much better your map would look!)

Gold is now generated via taxes. Taxes come from Tourism, Citizens, and from Resources traded with other Civs.[list=1][*]Tourism taxes are generated by connecting your civ to other civs. They are calculated for each city and depend on the city's culture, tourism improvements, natural terrain features (eg highest mountains, waterfalls, lakes, wild animals etc), wonders, and the pollution generated by the city.

Cities receive a bonus to tourism if it has a harbour - the bonus increases as sea travel becomes more widely used throughout history. Further bonuses are applied when cities are connected eventually with railroads and later have airports in them.

Tourism taxes are then adjusted in line with other civs attitudes towards you (good tourism from a civ that likes you, zero tourism from a civ that you're at war with). In addition you can set your attitude toward a civ knowing its effects on the tourism they will recieve from your civ (if you decide to hate a civ though they will probably hate you back!).
[*]Citizen taxes are generated from your citizen population. The tax rate can be adjusted and will have an effect on happiness.
[*]Taxes from Resources are generated by trading luxuries and strategic resources - a bonus is received if you have a monopoly of resources. (Luxs and Stratetgic resources are still required for happiness and military units).

You must design a trade route between civs (perhaps the player draws a CTP style line on their map running from their city containing the recourse to any connected city of the civ you're trading with). You should protect that route against piracy from other civs. If you declare war against a civ who you're trading with, the trade route is cancelled. (Imagine the diplomacy involved with protecting trade routes! Two trading civs threatening war against anyone who pirates their trade goods!)[/list=1]

How about that then! As you can see this model would promote much more diplomacy between civs.

I would also like to see Pollution become much more damaging. More production and population = more pollution, and pollution affects city happiness, tourism, can damage city tiles, and will cause global warming which will eventually raise sea levels with catastrophic effects. (Imagine the diplomacy required to control world pollution!)

I would also like the CTP style combat model; it is vastly superior to the current Civ3 system imho.

[Tattila the Hun]

I've been rolling an idea of population based army. You could build the equipment for the troops, but your population (and the persentage of able 16-45 year olds. This could be varied, based on the quality of life in your nation. Better quality, more kids per couple, more manpower) would determine, how many actual units you could muster in times of conflict to defend your nation. Also, the adjustable amount of spent gold to their training would define the ultimate stats of the units, along with the tech level. Perhaps even the persentage of certain troops trained could be adjusted. For the equipment itself, it could be nice to, instead of "research armoured warfare, get tanks", the generic 16/10/2 unit, you could further use up your gold/research to ad points to the features of the unit.

Now, this force pool of, say, 500000 men, would then decrease as battles would rage on, and increase as further generations would reach that certain age. Units would only "heal", if would have enough reserves of the same type of trained men. If a unit is defeated, some of those troops could still make their way back. An example: A city has three defending units, 1000 men per unit. One is attacked, sustains casualties of 500 men, dead, wounded, routed, but fights the attacker back. Next, the fresh 1000 unit gets into the fray. Results may be roughly the same. And again. Now we have 3x 500 men units. When the next attack, on the same turn, hits the city, the two 500 man units merge, perhaps with some penalties, depending on the command structure. It's reduced to 250 men. Next time, the last 750 men get blown away, and the city is taken.
Other factors could include fatique, the "will" to fight, and availability of supplies.

Clear as a crystal, and so easy to implement, eh?

If this wouldn't work, then something like in the panzer general games.

[Vince278]

Originally posted by vmxa1
Slax in addition to staying TBS, I would want it to not be 3D.

Ditto.

[Dis]

3D is okay- as long as it is done well. Civ3 is 3D isn't it?