Civilization 4 - Making New Game - Page 2

Adagio · January 24, 2003, 06:02

Quote:

Originally posted by MoonWolf
Looks like I need to clearify 5)... I don't mean a trade unit like the old caravan, but an option to buy/sell/give a unit from/to an other civ.

Well, that changes it... I don't mind that option being in the game, though I wont use it myself...

MoonWolf · January 24, 2003, 07:33

It would be like in the cold war were USSR was supporting one side and USA the other side in conflict. I don't think the AI would be able to use it very well, but in an MP-game...

LionQ · January 24, 2003, 08:19

Quote:

Originally posted by MoonWolf
Nice to hear my suggestions are agreed on! Thanks!

Looks like I need to clearify 5)... I don't mean a trade unit like the old caravan, but an option to buy/sell/give a unit from/to an other civ.

Oh, is that what you mean. Well then: Agreed.

Quote:

Originally posted by MoonWolf
11) Trade of food and shields, at least within your empire. Maybe not available from the very beginning, but after discovery of railroads or something. A city that produces a lot of food or shields shoud be able to export this to an other city.

Agreed, MW.

Mark_Everson · January 24, 2003, 14:31

Quote:

Originally posted by MoonWolf
1) Movement. The system should depend on the size of the map. Play a 256x256 map, an a battleship (with not even twice the move rate as a galley) use 10-20 years to cross the Atlantic! Also, the Vikings actually reached Constantinople (now Istanbul). I'm not sure if it was by ships or across Europe, but I doubt they used some 100s of years for it. Also, ancient ships shouldn't be able to cross the ocean/sea simply because the seafarers are too afraid.

Hey MoonWolf, I generally support your ideas, but I think this one won't work. Civ works by playing very liberally with time scales, and it is very difficult to change that and still have the game work. FE if you want realistic movement rates then you either need monthly turns at most, or you'll have units screaming across the map in yearly turns. That would Completely screw up the tactical combat model by allowing strong units to attack others many many times in a turn. If you got your wish, I don't think you'd be happy with the results.

Quote:

Originally posted by LzPrst If CoC needs any more ideas I've got lots. And the ocean probably needs more water...

Reaaaaally like what I've seen so far on the CoC site. I'll buy it, if it is as good as you're planning it to be

Hi LzPrst. Please do come down and at least respond in the 'Suggestions' thread. There is still a fair amount of room for good ideas to influence Clash!

BTW, everyone posting here, there is a more appropriate place for these discussions on the Civilization Games General/Future forum. You'll find lots of like-minded people there.

CiverDan · January 24, 2003, 22:57

The trick is to make a game which is (mostly) realistic, doesnt become too complex (i.e. morale with troops, fanciet trade ideas, etc.) and is more playable. Here are my ideas.

1) Make larger cities desirable late in the game. Increase Sci/Tax specialist production late in the game, like DyP Mod and have a specialist which produces shields, but make is only available to cities 20+.

2) better modern area mechanics and end game mechanisms. First, Allow the UN to MAKE LAWS (i.e. allow outlawing off Nukes, etc.) if enough civs votes for them. See GalCiv information for info regarding this idea. Second, Make diplomatic victory tougher. Require multiple votes over many years. Third, Redo the end of the tech tree/space race. Right now the modern earn is skewed so that we can build parts for a space ship which is reality could never be built with current tech (someone please tell what tech we have now which will allow a space ship to travel to AC in 10 yrs.) If we did we would be building it now. Solution extend game by 2 eras. Coming up with realistic techs/units/improvements which take us 100-200 years in the future isnt that hard.

3) eliminate unlimited RR movement make it 1/6 move.

4) dont allow workers to block invasions. (Hitler would have put people he captured on the beaches of Normandy if this worked in RL.)

5) Additional Gov'ts. Specifically. Theocracy, Military, Totalitarian. But not too many..

6) Bring back actual trade routes (in addition to lux trading) but automate it (i.e. no caravans). have a base trade...increase if alliance/trading luxes/length of time route has existed) cancel it if you go to war with that nation. Increase tech costs of account for the trading. This would reduce warmongering.

Coracle · January 25, 2003, 00:27

Quote:

Originally posted by brianshapiro
"Like Brian Reynolds at BHG told me "Ideas are cheap, implementation is expensive. I've enough good ideas for a few dozen more great games. Bring me an implementation and I'll look at it".

Seriously, the guys at Firaxis are very approachable and listen to suggestions, but believe it or not they like the way Civ3's system worked out."

That is pretty sad, shocking - and arrogant - considering how many Civ 1 and 2 addicts have ripped the game for being incomplete, under-developed, and containing many flawed concepts. Besides that, Civ 3 took a giant step BACKWARDS in terms of any semblance of realism or history even compared to Civ 2. It's just another reason why many of us do not want Firaxis to have anything to do with any Civ 4, if there is one. Although we wish Civ 4 well.

Merc · January 25, 2003, 01:23

I think REALISM should be vastly improved. Just two things that should be put in:

Social Engineering. The way government is implemented in all the civs is extremly unrealistic. There is not some sort of rulebook that says all goverments with the same name need to work exactly the same way.

Stacked combat. It is not very realistic to make my units run at the defender 1 by 1. There would be dimishing results with more and more units in the stack, maybe improving with better technology.

LionQ · January 25, 2003, 12:57

Mark_Everson: Thanx for the link.

MoonWolf · January 27, 2003, 06:48

Quote:

Originally posted by Mark_Everson
Hey MoonWolf, I generally support your ideas, but I think this one won't work. Civ works by playing very liberally with time scales, and it is very difficult to change that and still have the game work. FE if you want realistic movement rates then you either need monthly turns at most, or you'll have units screaming across the map in yearly turns. That would Completely screw up the tactical combat model by allowing strong units to attack others many many times in a turn. If you got your wish, I don't think you'd be happy with the results.

I see the issues you mention, but I think it could be worked out if certain rules are activated as well:
*Crossing an other player's borders causes war
*Number of moves are not like number of possible attacks for blitz units. Engaging in combat, means you cannot move further. Blitz units may however attack units/ move within the range of only a few squares to prevent hit-and-run from the other side of world.
*Units too far away may be lost or turn in to barbarians (see #8) ). This will prevent Viking colonies in BC in China.
*Or to start with; increase range of ships a lot (but no ocean moves for galleys)

I think it's possible with some welldone thinking ahead (as you can see, I haven't found a well planned solution myself yet ...

)

Didn't know about the Clash of Civs project! I'm going to check that out...

Master Zen · January 28, 2003, 02:56

Here's a possible solution to the resource problem:

Every tile, besides having food, shields and trade, should have certain luxuries which would amount to a certain ammount. So, say the Arabian penninsula is like 100 squares big and 50 of them have oil, each oil "unit" would be enough to maintain say, 10 oil-using units, the rest would be traded for $ which more than one country would be willing to buy. Thus you could make sections of the map rich in oil, in coal, etc. like in real life but not by just having one square like in civ3.

I would also like to have all squares within your territory to be useful not just ones in the radius, hell, eliminate the radius. In its place, cities should grow based on being transport hubs, for example, a major city with a port, near a river, connected by roads and railroads will grow incredibley even if terrain is not so favorable for growth. Connecting a city with a road or RR should be very profitable. Commerce is, after all, what historically has made cities grow.

MoonWolf · January 28, 2003, 03:49

I like your idea, raguil_79! It should be some sort of maximum output on the resources depending on population and units. Like during WW2, German tanks suffered from lack of fuel

epics · January 28, 2003, 06:12

Yes the population should also require some oil and coal.

LionQ · January 28, 2003, 14:06

I totally agree with your ideas, raguil_79!

Adagio · January 28, 2003, 15:24

I also agree..!

brianshapiro · January 28, 2003, 19:36

one of my ideas was to base technological research based on resource queues . so as an easy example (not really for the game), 30000 cotton gathered = cotton gin . this way the direction of the culture is based on the starting location more integrally, cultures with many spices might tend towards mysticism ; etc. and at one point this is effected by printing press, internet , etc. a marxist model where culture is based on production . also it gets rid of the 'choose next tech' nonsense . this is one of my ideas that would make the game more realistic.

my second idea is to have a small radius around a city which resembles a sim city map with residential industrial and commercial buildings, they cater to the environs and might be specific but which the player doesnt have to really worry about, as he doesnt in sim city. however, growth depends on other factors, so if growth is slow the player has to build industries manually, which then sparks private development ; but at one point the idea is that everything gets done privately automatically getting out of player control. but , anyway, the player chooses build industry on a wheat area and a farm is built, or it appears automatically, depending. these are harvested and held by the city, and of course traded along the network. sort of like the game deadlock , except working much better. this would also take care of the desire to have multisquare cities quite nicely. the borders of city-state areas (what they would be) should end at natural borders like rivers and mountains.

the third idea is then to have a clock for each city with then a meter on each worker for finishing tasks (that looks like the meter in the sims, etc) and then a meter on armies that works like the clock cycles in turnless with the game running semi-real time except divided so efficiently that it acts almost like a turn based game. (so for instance, an absolute turn for each city)

units should naturally form into armies which join columns, and then move around the map in a non square-by-square basis.

i have many more ideas on how to turn the civ3 engine upside down, including on revolutions, govt control, etc

brianshapiro · January 28, 2003, 19:39

oh an example of the second idea is say nothing will develop if you dont have a certain set of improvements built, but then once theyre built the economy is already set in place where resources are available to the city-state in general and things happen themselves

Optimizer · January 28, 2003, 19:54

Maybe this thread should be moved to the Civ games General/Future forum.

LionQ · January 31, 2003, 15:11

Maybe not.

brianshapiro: you're making good points, but I'm not quite sure if I will agree totally.

HAND · February 2, 2003, 14:27

Its too early to give up on Civ3! Let it flourish!

LionQ · February 2, 2003, 15:07

HAND, you're right. A game can't be perfect. Let's be happy with how good Civ III actually is (or don't play it if you don't think so).

Centauri18 · February 2, 2003, 20:07

I like having better graphics. I mean, I hardly even think about Civ2 anymore because the graphics seem so lame now. I don't think they emphasize the graphics all that much.
And I agree with the no more telescoping time idea. The only problem is that this would mean that a game could take days to complete.
I guess the telescoping time idea comes from the thought that things moved slower back in ancient times and speeded up as time passed. Now, new discoveries can be made monthly and implimented soon after. What's up-to-date one minute can be out-of-date the next.
Things move faster as time passes. We live in a fast-moving culture.

Master Zen · February 2, 2003, 20:31

I'm sure Firaxis snoops around these threads and picks up ideas, of course Civ4 is still a long way off...

We must also admit that we are quite demanding. Back in the days of Civ1, we didn't care that city walls protected you up into the nuclear age, that fighters could attack like 8 bombers in its single turn, etc. etc. We weren't even as demanding with Civ2 which shared the same problems. But then we slam on Civ3 for making things different.

Frankly I think the customer is always right and we DESERVE a good realistic product. Personally I am happy with PTW 1.14 since I can mod out 99% of the problems I had with the game and make it the way I want. So like HAND said, let's play it, enjoy it, and keep on positing ideas, who knows, Firaxis may be listening...

Master Zen · February 2, 2003, 20:33

Quote:

Originally posted by epics
Yes the population should also require some oil and coal.

I always wondered why the population polluted yet all they did was eat wheat...

Adagio · February 3, 2003, 08:22

Quote:

Originally posted by raguil_79
So like HAND said, let's play it, enjoy it, and keep on positing ideas, who knows, Firaxis may be listening...

Exactly

LionQ · February 4, 2003, 14:03

Quote:

Originally posted by Master Zen
We must also admit that we are quite demanding. Back in the days of Civ1, we didn't care that city walls protected you up into the nuclear age, that fighters could attack like 8 bombers in its single turn, etc. etc. We weren't even as demanding with Civ2 which shared the same problems. But then we slam on Civ3 for making things different.

Hehehe/euhm...