Radical Ideas - Page 2

Kuciwalker · December 14, 2003, 15:16

Quote:

i think they could redo the combat system totally to make it much more strategic. Whenever i play civ these days, its always the empire with the best combination of largest industrial capaicty and advanced techs amd stuff that win wars, very rarely does a strategy have much to do with it, or rather, it could have much much more to do with it.

/me thinks this is rather accurate historically

Fosse · December 14, 2003, 17:48

Quote:

Originally posted by skywalker

Quote:

i think they could redo the combat system totally to make it much more strategic. Whenever i play civ these days, its always the empire with the best combination of largest industrial capaicty and advanced techs amd stuff that win wars, very rarely does a strategy have much to do with it, or rather, it could have much much more to do with it.

* skywalker thinks this is rather accurate historically

But overwhelminly not fun.

The big kid always wins. Wee.

Game balance should be such that you can never count somebody out until they've been wiped right off of the face of the Earth.

Kuciwalker · December 14, 2003, 18:58

That's a bit extreme. However, I think you are underestimating the value of strategy in C3. It is the strategy in becoming big - and remember, it is easy to lose your bigness if you overcommit.

MxM · December 14, 2003, 22:50

Quote:

Originally posted by Fosse

But overwhelminly not fun.

The big kid always wins. Wee.

Game balance should be such that you can never count somebody out until they've been wiped right off of the face of the Earth.

I completely agree with the statement, but I think the solution is different. In EU, even the smallest nation has chance not because of the tactical battles, but because of DIPLOMACY! If you are small, you form alliance with others to make a force against the big guys.

I also like the idea that it is not enough to capture the city, you need to have the opposite alliance to sign the peace treaty that accepts that you are getting this city.

IMO the EU diplomacy is the only thing that makes EU game good, the rest is done much better in CIV.

Kramerman · December 14, 2003, 23:03

Quote:

Originally posted by skywalker

Quote:

i think they could redo the combat system totally to make it much more strategic. Whenever i play civ these days, its always the empire with the best combination of largest industrial capaicty and advanced techs amd stuff that win wars, very rarely does a strategy have much to do with it, or rather, it could have much much more to do with it.

* skywalker thinks this is rather accurate historically

Quote:

Sure, tech and industry play a huge roll, but strategy must play a bigger role.

Look at germany, for example, it had a nice tech edge and a good industrial capacity, yet it still took on all of Europe during WWII. Why was it almost successful were it was so outmanned? It had great leaders and a superior strategy among other things.

Just like in reality, i think a successful yet moderately sized civ should be able to have a chance against a number of eaqual civs or against a much larger civ of the same tech. This can be done by redoing the combat system whish is all i advocate. i just threw out some ideas

Kuciwalker · December 14, 2003, 23:29

However, most of the strategy in the real world is in AMASSING large military forces, not so much using them. A lot of Germany's successes came from the fact that they were able to achieve superiority in the field.

Kramerman · December 14, 2003, 23:38

strategy is involved in ammassing a large army, yes. but even more strategy is used in the actual war fighting

. With an advanced combat system, an inferior force shouold have a chance for some sort of decisive victory that could turn the war in their favor, and stuff. that is vaguely possible in the old civ 3 system (and was represented in the old civ1 and 2 systems by being able to destroy entire stacks, but better representations of deciveness must be found), but not nearly realisticlly possible. a revamped combat system should allow this

Kuciwalker · December 15, 2003, 00:05

It is in fact quite possible in C3. With the retreat of fast-movers, you can turn a war of attrition to your favor, especially with the advent of three-move units (Cavalry). Mobility is actually quite powerful in C3.

Kramerman · December 15, 2003, 01:02

young skywalker, mobility is but a single facet of strategy, which is immensely complex. Civ 3, like ive said, incorporates strategy to some degree, but it is no where near what is possible. Im not asking for total realism or strategic immersion, but i am asking for a more sophisticated and realistic system

MxM · December 16, 2003, 01:24

Quote:

Originally posted by Kramerman

Look at germany, for example, it had a nice tech edge and a good industrial capacity, yet it still took on all of Europe during WWII. Why was it almost successful were it was so outmanned? It had great leaders and a superior strategy among other things.

Just like in reality, i think a successful yet moderately sized civ should be able to have a chance against a number of eaqual civs or against a much larger civ of the same tech. This can be done by redoing the combat system whish is all i advocate. i just threw out some ideas

Superior strategy is not necessarily superior tactics.

The Germany success in the WW2 is related in huge part to, in civ terms, again DIPLOMACY. (In real life terms, diplomacy is part of overall strategy). The opposition to Germans was not exactly united until near the end of war. And guess what? Germany lost quite quickly after allies opened the “second front” at D-day.

gopher · December 16, 2003, 02:50

Immigration!
If your Civ does not fufil some basic requirements, based on the age, they will move on to greener pastures! Conversly, if you have a stable, good civilization, you will get more people.
Also with this idea, people have certain needs. Without those needs, they might get rebellious (ie civil unrest). Make it less abstract than the "happy/sad/WLTKD" idea in place.

Spiffor · January 29, 2004, 20:05

Strong implementation of revolts, revolutions, independance wars etc!
Civ challenges you as making a "Civilization that will stand the test of time". Well, the challenge isn't very difficult, as 6000-year-long survival is a much easier goal to reach than victory in 2000 AD.

Revolts are a must if we want to make Civ a game more interesting and more difficult, as the millenia-long survival becomes actually a challenge rather than an easy trick. And it will make for a much more interesting expansion / shrinking dynamics as well

Multilateral diplomacy, where you can be a mediator, and help solve multilateral crises, or decide multilateral alliances.

Nomadism. Make the early Civ experience difference from the late one.

GhengisFarb™ · January 29, 2004, 20:09

Revolts, splinter civs, etc would be a great twist for Civ4. But then we've been saying that since Civ2.

Spiffor · January 29, 2004, 20:35

Quote:

Originally posted by GhengisFarb
Revolts, splinter civs, etc would be a great twist for Civ4. But then we've been saying that since Civ2.

Maye this time they won't lose half their staff in mid development? :hoping:

Brent · January 29, 2004, 21:41

Special Cities

Have special prenamed cities that you can choose to build, and whenever you build a Special City you are asked if you want it to be your new capital. Special cities automatically generate culture. There should be incentives for not building all special cities all at once in one place. You can designate a city as Special even if you don't use a Special name. Special cities have some unique features, but maybe only if you use a special name. When you say you want to build a new Special City or upgrade to one, you are given a list of names to choose from. Special Cities are a way to put cities that are close to each other or related in the real world close to each other in the game.

Have an option for the game to end when all Special Cities have been conquered. Let a Special City build more than one thing at the same time. Require the capital to be a Special City. A city could spontaneously achieve Special status. Special Cities could have bonuses to some build projects. Wonders might only be buildable in Special Cities. Special Cities can become Metropolitan Areas, each of which includes cities in adjacent tiles and suburbs in other adjacent tiles. On a small map, possibly all cities would have Special status. It could require two settlers to build a Special City.

Wierd Editor Options

Have a mode for only military units, no settlers, no cities, no building. Have options for not allowing more than one unit in the same square, and only moving one unit per turn.

Hotkeys

Have a hotkey to center the map on your capital, and be able to set hotkeys for other parts of the map.

Fosse · January 29, 2004, 21:42

Quote:

Have a hotkey to center the map on your capital, and be able to set hotkeys for other parts of the map.

Press H.

Plotinus · February 1, 2004, 01:34

Quote:

Originally posted by gopher
Immigration!
If your Civ does not fufil some basic requirements, based on the age, they will move on to greener pastures! Conversly, if you have a stable, good civilization, you will get more people.
Also with this idea, people have certain needs. Without those needs, they might get rebellious (ie civil unrest). Make it less abstract than the "happy/sad/WLTKD" idea in place.

Fabulous idea! Like SimCity - people move in and out depending on how well you're governing them. Could be interesting.