Civ 4

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by WarpStorm
Not necessarily. A height field doesn't have to be a tile system (unless you really stretch the definition of a tile system). I've seen terrain using an irregular triangular network in the past.

I'm not sure what RTS's you've played, but Ao* (dunno about Mythology, never played it) and C&C:* all use a "hidden" tile-based system. Even in RA2 and C&C:Generals, the "height" system has virtually zero game effect (it's mostly graphical). The RA2 tile height is in fact incremental, not a floating-point number.

(note about Generals: it does use a somewhat refined tile system, but it is not a floating-point coordinate system AFAIK)

EDIT: typos

[WarpStorm]

TINs are very common in the mapping community.

[Kuciwalker]

What's a TIN? (from context I assume you're talking about a non-tile-based map, but I'm not sure)

What do you mean by "mapping community"?

[gopher]

A community that is involved in map making, duh!
There is a great site linked here at Poly that deals with historical maps for every continent, for map making and scenario making usage.

[WarpStorm]

I was thinking of the professional cartographers. Most professional mapping software support Triangular Irregular Networks (TINs) to represent 3D maps. A First Person Shooter modder would consider this as a mesh. Most 3d action and simulation games use some variant of this as opposed to tiles.

RTS games that may have used this technique are Sacrifice, Ground Control, and Populous (whatever the prequel was that had a cool spherical world (and medicore gameplay)).

[vee4473]

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...

Sounds interesting, but unless I misunderstood your idea, I can see this being a little restrictive if not done well.

for instance, are you saying that only a small part of the continent will be traversable unless later ages?

In that case, I think some might be frustrated to have their land unit not be able to move to the next square on the map until they discover the next age...A warrior should be allowed to go anywhere on the continent regardless of age, as long as he is just going by foot.

That seems to restrict expansion unnecessarily.

Or do you mean restrict travel to the CONTINENT you are on until later ages? Which is kinda the way it is until you discover ships that allow you to traverse seas without sinking.

interesting idea, but seems only good on paper without more details.

[asleepathewheel]

I was wondering that too.

Would be annoying to be on the edge of one map, then make it to the next age and have someone adjacent to you!

One way you could do this is to only allow your units to travel so many tiles from the nearest friendly city. When you gain certain advances or perhaps the new age, the range could be extended or eliminated.

[Styria]

How about some realistic barbarians? Up to now they've been nothing more than antagonists, but in real life, they have had a significant effect almost everywhere. Their presence would also help slow down expansion.

Another thing would be to include tribes (not the way it's used now in the game, as synonymous with the civilization - Athens had 10 tribes), clans, and families with in a nation, at least towards the beginning. This could be spread across several civs and even into the barbarians, for advantages and for viscious sibling rivalries.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by WarpStorm
I was thinking of the professional cartographers. Most professional mapping software support Triangular Irregular Networks (TINs) to represent 3D maps. A First Person Shooter modder would consider this as a mesh. Most 3d action and simulation games use some variant of this as opposed to tiles.

RTS games that may have used this technique are Sacrifice, Ground Control, and Populous (whatever the prequel was that had a cool spherical world (and medicore gameplay)).

I've played Populous, and I think you're right there. I'm pretty sure that it didn't have discrete tiles (though the buildings did have a tile base).

[sabrewolf]

if that's the populous (versions 1 and 2) i remember (you play god, level the land, collect mana, send firestorms, etc.) then it was tile based!

the tiles were some diamond form (like civ, just rotated 45°), the castles were built in a certain distance. only the people were more flexible. you could pack a lot of them in one tile (alltough: they never really stood still )

skywalker, what populous are you thinking of?

[Plotinus]

[sabrewolf] They are thinking of the much later sequel to Populous, Populous: The Beginnings, which was set before the original game. You played the shaman of a tribe, hoping to become a god. The game was set on a true 3D world that was actually spherical, and played a bit like Command and Conquer on an asteroid. You rightly point out that the original (and still unsurpassed - well, maybe) Populous and the first sequel took place on an isometric grid similar to Civilization III, but with height as well.

[WarpStorm]

The third Populous (which wasn't really like the other two). It had a cool 3D sherical world you played on. It didn't really play like the other populous games at all (more like a regular RTS).

http://www.gamerankings.com/htmlpages2/198322.asp

[sabrewolf]

ah thanks

now that i see the box art i remember seeing the game in a store... but i never played it. is it worth it?

[UnityScoutChopper]

Sabrewolf: IMO no. I'm glad I bought it in a bargain bin, especially considering how exciting it sounded when it first came out. (I was lucky I was too poor to buy it at the time -- I L O V E D the original Populous... Atari ST nostalgia!)

[vee4473]

Originally posted by WarpStorm
The third Populous (which wasn't really like the other two). It had a cool 3D sherical world you played on. It didn't really play like the other populous games at all (more like a regular RTS).

http://www.gamerankings.com/htmlpages2/198322.asp

Populous 3 is a perfect example of what hopefully never happens to civ...either in civ 4 or beyond.

Populous 3 was hardly populous at all, it radically changed the game into something that was a sequel in name only.

May civX never succumb to this fate.

[vee4473]

populous 3...

for those who want radical changes to civ, be careful what you ask for..

[UnityScoutChopper]

Originally posted by asleepathewheel
One way you could do this is to only allow your units to travel so many tiles from the nearest friendly city. When you gain certain advances or perhaps the new age, the range could be extended or eliminated.

[offtopic]
You know, in general I HATE "Civ 4" threads (or better yet "I want this really original (read: proposed many times before) important cool fundamental change to the game paradigm and I want it in the next patch, otherwise Firaxis ignores its customers!" threads), and don't tend to post in them or even read them, but this thread seems OK.
[/offtopic]

That seems like a GREAT way to kill two birds with one stone!

[offtopic]
And for some reason I've always really hated detailed proposals on feature implementation too, but I'm about to sort of do one.
[/offtopoc]

1. Make an across-the-board increase in hit points: say 20 HP for Regular units (fairly SIMPLY solving the tank vs. spearman "problem" in the process, thus clearing up the boards in 2006-2008 for discussion on topics that are actually INTERESTING)

2. "Charge" units 1 hp/round in allied territory, 2/round in unoccupied territory, 3/round in non-allied peaceful territory, and 5 hp/round in enemy territory, subject to reductions for proximity of supply units/sources and for special unit types. E.g. Exploring-role units could lose 1 HP less/round in unoccupied territory, thus doubling their range. This would also mean that Expansionists would get not just extra speed in exploring, but also extra range.

No more complications. I HATE complicated mechanics in Civ. I love them in wargames -- but Civ is not and should not be a wargame.

The only problem is finding a way to mesh this with the barbarian "mechanic". Getting to a faraway barb camp could take a large chunk of a unit's HPs! One solution would be to wait until a certain distance from the border before visiting unoccupied territory costs HP's.

USC

[WarpStorm]

That is true. The gameplay of Pop3 lost whatever made Populous, Populous.

While I want to see changes in Civ for the next installment, I want it to still fell like Civ.

[SirOsis]

I'd like to expand on this map expansion idea where the more of the map will become available when entering a new age.

It would be great to have something like this implemented in Civ4.

Since I primarily play SP and PBEM games I think this map expansion could be used to allow for a variety of new play types. Imagine that the world consists of large continents seperated by ocean. The players would have basically no chance of encountering each other until Astronomy. What if the game was started and each player plays a SP game on their continent until Astronomy is discovered. Once this tech is discovered and the players have the potential of meeting the program takes each of these continents and combines them into a larger map for MP play.

This map expansion would allow for a player to make it through the ancient age and then begin play in near the end of the medieval age.

You can imagine numerous other scenarios where this would be a cool feature. Start multiple 4 player games on individual continents only to have them merge into a huge game later on.

The ability to play out a game in SP and merge later for MP would be cool. Everyone would bring their continent to play. Tech trees and wonders could be specific for individual civs as well lending to a greater variety of play styles.

[Plotinus]

UnityScoutChopper's idea is very interesting. Presumably, as the game goes on, units can be allowed to range further from home. And you might have the possibility of setting up waystations or supply caravans or something to extend their range further, all in good Napoleonic fashion.

I like this idea of having the map actually increase as the ages succeed each other, and it seems to me this would be the best way of doing it, as it would seem quite natural and not too artificial.

Incidentally, I really liked Populous 3, my main gripe being that there weren't enough levels. It certainly wasn't anything like the original, but I don't think it was meant to be. It came out something like a decade later, after all!

[vee4473]

Originally posted by Plotinus
UnityScoutChopper's idea is very interesting. Presumably, as the game goes on, units can be allowed to range further from home. And you might have the possibility of setting up waystations or supply caravans or something to extend their range further, all in good Napoleonic fashion.

I like this idea of having the map actually increase as the ages succeed each other, and it seems to me this would be the best way of doing it, as it would seem quite natural and not too artificial.

Incidentally, I really liked Populous 3, my main gripe being that there weren't enough levels. It certainly wasn't anything like the original, but I don't think it was meant to be. It came out something like a decade later, after all!

I think expanding range and map size as the game advances MAY be ok if done very cleverly, but once again, I think that civ already simulates that somewhat by not letting you traverse to other continents until you advance far enough to get the better ship technology.

Also, regarding populous beginnings, I'm not saying it's a bad game per se, just not populous...Those waiting for the next populous (like me) got a game, but not populous.

The same could easily happen with civ if overzealous designers get the idea that we all want some radical new game to emerge.

[mrmitchell]

Did anyone notice this?

Soren Johnson, Designer/Programmer
Soren spent his formative years playing games like Adventure Construction Set, Seven Cities of Gold, and Lords of Conquest on his family's state-of-the-art Commodore 64. Many years later, he graduated from Stanford with a BA in History and a MS in Computer Science, focusing on adaptive algorithms and human-computer interaction. Before coming to Firaxis, Soren wet his feet at Electronic Arts, working on the PSX versions of Knockout Kings 2000 and 2001. His claim to fame is being the only programmer to have ever moved away from Silicon Valley. When taking a break from his Civilization IV duties, Soren can be found improving his ping-pong record by beating Pat.

http://www.firaxis.com/company_team.cfm

(sorry if it's already been posted. looks like Soren's already jumping in to making the Civ4 AI as good as possible )

[star mouse]

I think it's about time Civ moved to a hex map - that is, a map composed of hexagons. A hex map is better than the isometric map we use now for these reasons:

• Gameplay is more consistent. At present, we have a city radius that approximates a circle, but the range of bombers and ships is a square. Diagonal movement uses the same number of movement points as orthogonal movement, and this is incorrect. With a hex map, the maximum distance a unit can move is a hexagon, which is a better approximation of a circle than a square is.
• Less graphics will be needed per unit. On the isometric map, five or eight "attack" graphics may be needed per unit: up, up-left, left, down-left and down, with the missing 3 being mirror images. On a hex map, only three or six are needed: up-left, left, down-left (plus mirror images).

The "fat X" city radius on the isometric map is 21 tiles. On a hex map, the city radius would be a hexagon of 19 tiles.

[star mouse]

I would like to see more variety in barbarians. Here's some ideas:

• Privateers were a good idea that didn't seem to be incorporated into barbarians. Pirate ships would have been an excellent gameplay feature during the era of sail. These would spawn at sea in the fog of war.
• Goody huts that spawn barbarians should turn into barbarian camps if the unit encountering the hut dies.
• Goody huts that spawn barbarians shold spawn different numbers and kinds of barbarians. Sometimes, they may only spawn one, sometimes a horde comes out of the hut.
• Bring back barbarian sea raids!
• Barbarians should be able to destroy towns. If the population of the town is 1 and there's no buildings left, the next barbarian to hit the undefended town would raze it. Such razed towns would become barbarian camps.
• Instead of always spawning one barbarian camp in a given location, sometimes the game should spawn additional camps, so that extra barbarians would be spawned.
• The price of dispersing a Barbarian camp would depend on the amount of gold the barbarians from that camp have captured. The more gold the barbarians have captured, the more gold would be obtained from that camp. Half of the captured gold would be recoverable in this way (the barbarians having spent the rest on wine, women and song).
• Barbarians should also have the ability to enslave captured workers, instead of just destroying them. Enslaved workers become additional barbarian units of Warrior strength.

[star mouse]

The abstracted espionage in civ3 is no fun. Please bring back diplomats and spies for civ4. Sure, it might be slow and tedious to move them across the map to the city to deal their special brand of damage, but it is more satisfying when they finally get there.

Bring back all the fun missions - the bombs, the bribery of enemy units. Add some new fun missions. Spies and diplomats were a lot of fun, and for me the most disappointing aspect of civ3 was their removal.

Diplomats should be the only unit that can establish an embassy. But they should do other interesting things as well.

===

Diplomats and spies should be invisible, and only other diplomat and spy units should see them.

To enhance these units further, there should be 3 or more levels of offensive and defensive invisibility. Level 0 is for normal units, level 1 is for diplomats, level 2 is for spies. Most units have the same level of offensive and defensive invisibility. Units can see all units whose offensive invisibility level is lower or equal to their defensive invisibility level, but cannot see units of a higher offensive invisibility level. For example, 1/1 diplomats can see 0/0 normal units and 1/1 diplomats, but not 2/1 and 2/2 spies.

The ablility to see invisible units is also a 3-level scale. Thus, a "spy hunter" 0/2 anti-espionage unit that can see and kill spies could be a level 2 unit but would not itself be invisible. A pure spy unit that is not trained in anti-espionage techniques might be 2/1.

Counter-espionage would be a tech that gives access to level-2 defensive invisibility spy units for the first time.

An invisible unit can be attacked by any unit if it can be seen. Also, invisible espionage units that can be seen approaching a target city have a lower chance of success in their missions and a lower chance of surviving even if they succeed.

Invisible units also interact with the land / naval property of units. An invisible land unit cannot be seen by a sea unit that can see submarines, for example.

Guerrilla units could be 1/0 invisibility: they can hide easily but cannot themselves see invisible units.

Some modern-era infantry units could all have level 1 defensive invisibility. For example, they could be infantry equipped with infra-red goggles.

[star mouse]

The spy units I discussed previously should not be upgradable in the normal manner (any town with Barracks). However, it should be possible to upgrade them at the city with the Intelligence Centre. This makes the Intelligence Centre actually mean something in the game.

To make diplomats and spies a bit more interesting and less tedious to work with, it should be possible to give them more abstract orders that they then follow on their own. For example, they might be given the order "Blow up a building in Paris" and then they go to Paris on their own and blow up the building. They could also be instructed to proceed "safely" (look after themselves) or "recklessly" (suicide mission). The abstraction of civ3 is therefore used in a more concrete manner.

The city needs to be on the same continent as the spy or diplomat before the order can be given.

Spies and diplomats can also be moved around the map in the usual way.

[sabrewolf]

i disagree with the idea of spy units. they may be fun, but moving them in the same speed as military and labour units isn't very realistic.

as they are 1 person-units, they can move a lot faster. infiltration doesn't have to come over the land passage. they could easily "amphibiate" a city or come through the airport.

i would however like to see better espionage. there could be a very expensive tech which also gives unhappiness, which reduces the chance of successful spying (intelligence agency, mccarthyism, etc.).
also, i quite like the MoO3 idea of the oppression-level. in a free country, everyone is happier, but spies can get in. i a total control country spies won't have much success, but people will be more unhappy

[UnityScoutChopper]

I think the real reason why spy units were eliminated from Civ 3 is that the AI wasn't able to properly use them nor to properly defend against them. If the state of the art in Civ AI improves, perhaps we will see them return.

--

One related and very interesting paradigm in the Civ genre that I was slightly disappointed to not see used in Civ III was the one sole thing that impressed me about Call to Power: the public works system. In that system, civilizations set aside a portion of their production (which was numerically much higher, and there more "dvisible," than in any of the Civ games, though more was needed for each build) for a "tile improvements fund," and could spend this on tile improvements. This REALLY decreased the micromanagement involved in tile improvement. It was a bit annoyingly implemented in that tile improvements were outrageously expensive, but I found the basic idea just fine.

USC

[Kuciwalker]

Spy units are awful. It makes no sense at all for them to be unabstracted, and it was absolutely ridiculous when I marched my spy unit halfway across an enemy empire in order to nuke an enemy capital in C2.

[vmxa1]

Spies were over powered in Civ2. I think the the CTP2 public works was disliked by lots of people, so why use it. You will alienate too many buyers before you got started. Yeah lots of players did like it, but still. Do you want to dismiss so many buyers?