|
Post by ironclad on Nov 11, 2006 12:49:28 GMT -5
Strategic resources also should not bring in extra hammers and food, makes them too powerful then
|
|
|
Post by Tony on Nov 11, 2006 17:27:55 GMT -5
There are a lot of ideas I’ve had about improving CIV over the past year but I cant remember all of them right now, but these are the ones I could come up with:
Firstly, I would like to see attack and defence values reintroduced, this tic-tac-toe stuff just makes it impossible to “out manoeuvre” your enemy without a sizable mfg or science lead, which makes the warring element very dull. Then a lack of resources is still playable, although it would still be hard which it should be.
Secondly, the way culture is done is extremely silly IMO, border expanding 3 or even 4 times is totally stupid. Expanding once should be semi easy about 20 culture points, then the second expansion should be only achievable by those cites that have been there for a awfully long time, or with lots of stuff in then and 3rd and 4th should only be achievable by “great” cites in epics. Which goes without saying artists should just be removed, they take sooo much fun outta the game, makes every game play out the same.
Catapults, this is something that is also pretty broken, im not 100% sure what the solution is but currently they are the biggest contributor to the “dullness” of CIV warring. You can almost get a computer program to fight for you, hit units with counter if a stack comes hit with catapults. There is a way round this for the attacker, which brings me on to my next point, by far the biggest exploit in CIV is covering your units once they have been catapulted, when you are getting attacked and under pressure this is by far the most frustrating thing in this game.
Small thing, timers should be able to be adjusted in reloads also host should be able to force a vote screen, often someone has dropped and is in the lobby but until a vote screen comes up he can’t rejoin.
In teamers, seeing what your ally is doing is fine, but not what they are building. Units should be able to be gifted in neutral areas, like on boats etc.
Everyone in the game should not get a warning what civic your in, what is the point of this? This just informs every one of your plans.
Greater choice of civics, really make you have to think on your feet, no more do this then do that. Every game you should be asking yourself new questions.
Game needs more “little tricks”, call it micro management if you will, I understand it is meant to be simple for newer players to pick up, but the more experienced players should be able to micro more strongly, while still allowing newer players to do ok, which is possible IMO. One good player should be able to kill a few crap ones if left to develop, this means the game can be taken up a level.
When starting in different era’s, there should be a single settler worker start, I know this is possible with a mod, but not feasible with the game mechanics being as they are. Development should be very speedy due to civics, not just start with half an empire and see what happens. (stuff like drafting for example is very rarely used, which is a real shame) later eras should be very war based, not almost solely development which I think they are currently. Also setler and workers SHOULD definatly cost population while growing, as iron says this would slow down expansion in future and spped it up in ancient (2 big complaints about both eras)
People criticize Inlandsea time and time again, and infact I probably do it more then most, but the nature of the game is such, that its hard to make the game easily balanced and fun on too many other maps.
Future is by far the most broken era, and potentially the best and most diverse era too. No helicopters, MAs so easy to get (tanks too, a 3rd resource is a must), MFG soooooo easy to make (I disagree with ironclad here, he says units are too cheap I say making mfg should take more skill), no cruise missiles, borders expanding 4 times makes sneak attacks impossible, and future games should never be elim, this makes them ancient games in disguise, but as its development based setting it to elim is possible.
The makes of CIV made this game well in terms of development, but the war element is not the best.
If they did release it on the consoles, Xbox360, PS3 or Wii, the potential market would be alot bigger, and CIV MP(and SP) would definaly grow alot bigger.
|
|
|
Post by ironclad on Nov 11, 2006 18:03:49 GMT -5
"MFG soooooo easy to make (I disagree with ironclad here, he says units are too cheap I say making mfg should take more skill)" I believe the way to fix this is first of all make it so bombers can bomb roads like in civ3, to put him in a mess, having no roads is much harder to remake land -- dont c why roads cant be bombed and if you really wanna make it so there is no hiding play pangea or continents and have all the players put in random places not as a team, that way you have total war and many work sneaky options that we are missing fom future. maybe introduce regicide as well in this scenario as well, but you cant do that if team is grouped Also of course need 2 settlers max and one worker
|
|
|
Post by jr30inky on Nov 14, 2006 11:46:26 GMT -5
Hi, I'm new on here but couldn't resist chiming in on this topic. I love civ4 single-player (yet to really try multiplayer), but of course, like everyone else, there are things I wish were different in the game.
The two biggest problems I have still with the game are the resource model and diplomacy. It really bugs me how resource requirements are all-or-nothing. If you have iron, you can build swordsmen; if you don't, you can't build them at all. And if you do have iron, you can build as many swordsmen as you want. That just seems so unrealistic and impractical. It would make more sense to me if each resource on the map had a capacity limit. So, for example, there may be three iron resources on a continent, but one allows for a capacity of 10 units that require iron, another caps at 15, and another maybe at 12. So, if you own the 12 cap iron, you have the potential to build 12 units (swordsmen, axemen, or whatever) that require iron. Once you reach your limit, you can't build any more units requiring iron, unless you acquire another iron resource.
You should be able to trade these resources individually to your friends (or rivals). So say you own the 12 cap iron. In the diplomacy screen, you should be able to trade up to 12 irons to your opponent in exchange for something, maybe say 9 horses, or a technology, or some cash. This of course would lower your cap. So if you trade 5 irons for 5 horses, your cap is now 7 irons for building units, but you now gain 5 horses. So if knights require iron and horses, you can build 5 of them and two swordsmen.
I think this would add alot of dynamics to the trading model and the military model. It would make certain iron resouces more valuable than others, forcing certain strategic decisions when warring. Also, it would reward you for taking a resource from your opponent, even if he might have 2 or 3 of them, as it will limit his military potential. If your opponent has the 12 and 15 cap iron, and you take the 12 cap resource, you limit your opponent from rebuilding his military until he either takes it back or works out a trade with another civ. Of course, if said civ has 27 iron consuming units, he won't loose any units because of the loss of the resource, but as long as he is over his current capacity of 15, he won't be able to build new ones until that capacity is raised or he looses enough units during battle to drop below the 15 capacity.
I think this would add a little more realism to the game. It's like the U.S. right now, where we have oil drilling capacity on our lands, but not enought to support our economy and our military, so we have to trade with other nations for more oil. It's more simplistic than real life, but I think it would be a fun way to make the game more strategic and realistic.
|
|
|
Post by MMV on Nov 14, 2006 12:50:04 GMT -5
swordsmen are so single-player'ish
cats cats cats!!!!!
(no iron needed)
|
|
|
Post by Tony on Nov 14, 2006 14:54:47 GMT -5
hmmm i dont know if this is a good idea or not but its a interesting though, a gold mine for example will run out after a while.
Every resource would have a value associated with it, for example you could have 2 iron sources in your borders, one could have a value of 60 and one could have a value of 200. Units woould require a "amount of resource needed value" for example a swords man could have a value of 10, thus those 2 sources could make 26 swordsmen. New sources of a particular resource can be found during the game but as time goes on, the amount of resource being used will generally be greater then that being found. So if you have a border resource you can use it first(as you can select what resource is being used as primary resource). This would also allow you to take only X amount of oil, if saudis sold somsone some oil they would not be left with zero as it is currently, they can sell dirrent amount to diffrent nations. Maybe allow reserves(of X which increases with techs/time)? or is this going too far?
Im not sure how this would work in practice but its a interesting idea.
Oh yeah and other improvment suggestion is introduce regicide and some smart units for killing the king, helis/bombers/cruses, maybe even spies? How about a unit that can carry "human units", like marines, a truck for exaple?
And how could i forget, bombers should create craters and destroy city improvments, those that dont prepare for a bombing onslaught should be bombed to the stone-age! Bombers was not a problem in C3C, only the noobs used to complain they over powered. 5 jets could handle like 20 bombers! Only unit that had no counter was a stleath bomber, but this was the same price as a factroy if someone is left along for so long he can build mass SB's he deserves the rewards as building mfg should be a real skill, not choping a few workers and building workshops on every spot and hurring a few factories because you have so much gold
|
|
|
Post by zzZhenon on Nov 14, 2006 17:46:59 GMT -5
I don't like the idea of counter-units (ex spear vs horsemen). Sure I don't mind specific units having a small bonus versus other units, but 50-100% is absurd. Since you're doing this, make tiles give less of a defensive bonus to make the game more even.
Make UUs more powerful.
|
|
|
Post by traoth on Nov 14, 2006 18:00:25 GMT -5
Re-introduce colonies from civ3- it would make the game much more interesting.
Add many more civics. I think 2 or 3 more per category would be awesome. Some of the ones from the scenarios, such as 'barter economy' from the China one could probably fit in nicely. And, along those lines, a happiness or health bonus for being in a civ-favored civic.
Make resources have a finite value, and add more strategic resources. Along these lines, possibly make wood a strategic resource needed for catapults? This would certainly make the decision difficult between chopping forests or saving.
Make siege units take collateral damage- they are less mobile than other units, so they should probably take more collateral than other units instead of none. I also think catapults should be able to bombard 1-move units for a small amount of damage on any tile. Finally, catapults should be able to bombard roads, like in civ3.
When pillaging, one should have the option between pillaging a road or an improvement.
Work boats should be cheaper or sea resources made a bit better-a coastal capital should not be as much of a handicap.
Organized trait seems a bit weak in comparison to other traits in most multiplayer settings. Maybe give Org civs a small boost for early-mid eras?
Make explorers weaker--a non-military unit should not be more powerful than a military one.
Elephants could be -25% to spearmen, to really demonstrate the weakness.
Make culture expansion more difficult. After the first expansion, which IMO should be at around 20, it should be VERY difficult to expand. This would lead to many more blank spots in a map, and much more realistic. In this train of thought, have artists give something else besides culture, possibly happiness for a set number of turns?
Give great merchants a unique building like the scientist's academy to boost their usefulness.
If possible, add more units. Adding fireboats that are +200% to any wooden boats, cause serious collateral damage, and die after attacking would be awesome. Small boats that could counter these would be nice too. Also, there should be a counter to a spy just removing units from borders- seems to powerful.
I can't really think of much more at this point, but that seems like a decent start. More to come.
|
|
|
Post by ironclad on Nov 14, 2006 19:40:50 GMT -5
Iron sources i believe would take a long time to run out but i have seen them get exhausted before
On diplomacy of trade i always had the idea of caravans this more of single players/ ffa for multiplayer
Caravans carry merchandise for trade to ur friend lets say maps, techs, or resource For example a civ can bring maps to trade for iron to take back home. He will get a certain number of merchadise, wheter for 20 turns( where a civ will give one of his iron sources for that long) or a lump sum of iron depending on game mechanics, that can only be finished when depleted and cant be taken away in times of war.
So caravans can travel through ocean or land which makes good for new weak pirate units that can steal the merchandise that is going on a trade route
|
|
|
Post by ironclad on Nov 14, 2006 19:44:46 GMT -5
I don't like the idea of counter-units (ex spear vs horsemen). Sure I don't mind specific units having a small bonus versus other units, but 50-100% is absurd. Since you're doing this, make tiles give less of a defensive bonus to make the game more even. Make UUs more powerful. Agree UU's should be more powerful
|
|
|
Post by mrgametheory on Nov 14, 2006 21:21:47 GMT -5
To Even think there shouldn't be counter units is retarted.
OK, thank gooooooooooood spears don't get a bonus vs my chariots because instead of building only 96 this game im going to build 304, especially considering that noone on the other team is using George Bush and I don't have to fear His UU spear with 100% vs mounted units.
Pretty much people, its time to face the facts on this game. The game is very balanced. You Wanna change something?
Make it so in order to build a catapault or something you need to have a road going through a forest in the direct 20 Unit City Radius of the city that wants to build it.
Make it so Chariots are 20 Hammers
Make it so Universal Sufferage Gives 1 Hammer to towns and 1 Gold Towards Farms
Raise the Cost of Elephants
Have a Menu that you can go to purchase resources you don't have, so if you don't have horse, you can go to the menu and pay 25 Gold a turn to have the horse but it takes 3 turns before you actually recieve it. (Obviously have a Tec required to Do this, Corperation or something). There is no such thing in real life as some country cutting of a resource and a country not being able to go buy it from some other place.
Create some good maps instead of this f**king garbage. Create a 20 by 20 map that has all resouces in cap and has ocean and create a chess board style layout infront of the cities and it would be fun to do 1 city challenege or 4 way cinese checkers style.
Make Creative Civs only have to get 10-25k Culture in 3 cities to win.
Make Representation give 5 Beaker specialists and 1 Happy Face in All cities
Make Cossacks Only give 25% towards Mounted units
Give Seals 25% bonus towards all gunpowder units.
Decrease the Cost of Future Tec dramatically in Future Starts
Get started with these, as soon as you finish these ill give you the next list.
|
|
|
Post by zzZhenon on Nov 14, 2006 22:19:42 GMT -5
To Even think there shouldn't be counter units is retarted. OK, thank gooooooooooood spears don't get a bonus vs my chariots because instead of building only 96 this game im going to build 304, especially considering that noone on the other team is using George Bush and I don't have to fear His UU spear with 100% vs mounted units. If you're referring to my post you might want to read it again. I said 50-100% is ridiculous. +25% should be the cap... possibly an exception for spearmen vs melee horses. A spear/pike should get practically no bonus for cavalry. All the cavs have to do is out run the spear and shoot at him from a distance... they never even have to get close (if you want to think of this logically). And as for axmen getting +50 vs swords? wtf, makes no sense, same with chariot vs axemen. Bring elements of civ3 back to the Civilization games -- I miss my stacks of DOOOOOOOOOOOM!
|
|
|
Post by DrShot on Nov 14, 2006 22:38:17 GMT -5
Some guy said: "Bring elements of civ3 back to the Civilization games -- I miss my stacks of DOOOOOOOOOOOM!" Ever heard of catapulys?
|
|
|
Post by notagoodname on Nov 14, 2006 22:38:45 GMT -5
One thing the counter system has done is made the emphasis on moving first even stronger. In industrial era vs redcoats if you can't move your grenadiers to attack the redcoats first then you are pretty much dead.
|
|
|
Post by Necrominousss on Nov 15, 2006 3:39:40 GMT -5
The golden ages seem like they could use a boost to me. I think that would add more excitement and thought process to the game.
I would like to see Taj Mahal demoted to a national wonder. And other national wonders created for each era that trigger a golden age. There should be no resourse for these, for that woud make stone or marble extremely valuable.
I think the traits of the civ should do something to trigger their golden age as well. Heres a few ideas to look at: 1. Creative, when first city culture expand 3rd time 2. Aggressive, when build 3rd barracks 3. Expansive, when build 3 granery or lighthous 4. Orginazation, when build 3rd courthouse 5. Imperialistic, when build 3rd settler 6. Protective, when build 3 city walls 7. Charistmatic, when build 3 monuments 8. Spititual, when build 3 temples 9. Industrial, when build 3 wonders or 3 forges or any combo of 10.Philo, when create first great person You would have to accomplish 2 of the requirements to trigger a golden age. Say you civ is Philo/Spirit, then you would have to create one GP and build 3 temples to trigger GA. If civ is Create/Protect, then you would have to have a city expand to the 3rd level of culture and build 3 wall to trigger a GA. And just in case you still don't see how it works I'll give you one more. If Org/Imper, then you would have to train 3 settlers and build 3 courthouses to trigger a GA.
It would not have to be 3 of whatever, just a number I threw out the but it sounds about right, and wouldn't have to be specific thing I stated should be build but you get the idea. GA are lacking something and this might spice up the game some.
|
|
|
Post by churchill1 on Nov 15, 2006 5:19:22 GMT -5
"I am MrGameTheory, King of kings, look on my works ye mighty and despair!"
|
|
|
Post by Tony on Nov 15, 2006 5:54:43 GMT -5
Im not 100% sure about this, but when zhenon write he dont like counter units i think we means, reintroducing c3c style attack and defense. Of course no one is implying dont give bonuses agiasnt other units and still have single str. values, otherwise charriots are unbeatable.
|
|
|
Post by yilar on Nov 15, 2006 8:23:02 GMT -5
Said it yesterday in lobby... Having units in stack attack in certain orders is dumb, make is random for both parties... And Collateral is MASSIVELY overpowered. Not having 20 catapults/other siege units for defence is suicide these days.
|
|
|
Post by whiplash on Nov 15, 2006 10:22:29 GMT -5
Why don't you guys just play C3C? ;D
Just an observation, many suggestions here are a throwback to the earlier game.
|
|
|
Post by Tony on Nov 15, 2006 11:06:13 GMT -5
Said it yesterday in lobby... Having units in stack attack in certain orders is dumb, make is random for both parties... And Collateral is MASSIVELY overpowered. Not having 20 catapults/other siege units for defence is suicide these days. The major problem of not not being able to stack attack is the huge abuse of covering units after they have been collateralled. If you city is on a hill you keep 5-6 long bows outside the cit once the cats have attacked you move them in, as you already have them slected you will always beat the attacker. You are right tho collateral is stupid, i would like to see 1 cat bombard 1 unit, takes 5-50% off depending on how much str it has. Calture should not equal city defense also, whats the logic in this? there are huge improvments in certian areas over any previous version of civ, namely development options, ie relgion, gp's, buildings, traits, civics, etc. These are HUGE HUGE improvments but this is a "what we want improved in the next version of civ", not whats good about the current version. There are loads of things i like about CIV but whats mentioned in this post is things i think they can improve on!
|
|