|
Post by Stormbringer on Jan 28, 2007 1:39:22 GMT -5
I'm thinking that in Civ 5 we could all sit at the same table.That way,when some high-ranking,yet 92lbs-right-oughta-the-shower pencil-**** w/keyboard courage starts in about yer mom's canine heritage,you could just get up & feed him his mouse Seriously,though,as someone who's just returning to CIV after a brief hiatus ,I like what ogno suggested concerning limited or conditionally open borders.Even more to the point,what makes me mental(er) is the inability to trespass w/out a declaration of war.I realize Civ is fantasy,however,historically scouts,soldiers,platoons,& even whole armies marched thru their neighbors land to get to the Huns on the other side. Hopefully I can get some extracurricular experience & have a few more suggestions. Happy Civving Storm
|
|
|
Post by tamijo on Jan 28, 2007 3:02:34 GMT -5
Well, I'd like this added to CivIV about time: 1. Paratroopers. 2. Chinook (transport) helicopters. 3. Caravans Yup i aggree
|
|
|
Post by tamijo on Jan 28, 2007 3:13:19 GMT -5
Iron imo is pretty damn useless at the moment so perhaps some new units such as longswordsmen might be a good idea and perhaps give them a bonus V axes and scrap the chariots bonus v axe perhaps give charriots a extra movement instead and a bonus v catas well thats my suggestions more to follow well iron is important as yopu need is to make knights
|
|
|
Post by tamijo on Jan 28, 2007 3:35:07 GMT -5
make more out off the religion: 1 / religion should spread to other citys, regardless off war or not. 2/ every religion should give a unik bonus to the city where it was created, and the religius buildings should be unik to that specific religion. so you would be creating strats to get the "wanted" religion, not just the first possible. 3/ early religions should reflect needs from early ages, later needs from the later eras, to make it worth to spread a later religion to get a specific bonus. 4/ as more than 2-3 religions is and should still be hard to get in same city, you should be able to "forbit" a certian religion, that would make the religion dissapear in about 60% off all citys (randomly) with the price off a little anarky, and the loss off existing religius buildings from that religion.
|
|
|
Post by deyreepher on Jan 28, 2007 12:40:52 GMT -5
Thumbs up to both GT and Tony. I like both those ideas.
Any implementation that invests a user into a game will only boost the game's popularity and player base. We have seen this with the Xbox360 and its achievement system. It leaves the door open for the a la carte system of minor add ons that the game developers could sell. I'm not a fan of such a system, and it hasn't caught on, except in free MMORPGs, but meh.
|
|
|
Post by rupman on Jan 28, 2007 17:36:11 GMT -5
OK I've read through the first 2 pages of this and a lot of people are thinking the same way I am.
IMO Cats are way to overpowered. No collateral damage on them is just slowed. I like the way they operated in civ 3 much better.
I do think the parody in Civ 4 has gone a little overboard. Giving 100% bonuses to stuff if goofy. About the only unit that should have that is spears and pikes vs mounted. I know some people have said other wise in that case but IRL a horse will never charge head long into a row spears. Horses do actually have a brain and do not want to die. The only thing is all you have to do is circle around back of the spear formation and nail them. It 's what Alexander the Great did again and again. He had the melee units engage up front while his Cavalry exploited openings in the enemy formation and hit the spears from the rear where they are defenseless. There is no effective way to do this in Civ 4, even though it is a famous tactic in real life. Genghis Khan did similar things with his fainted retreat. I believe IC or Zhenon discussed how worthless Keshiks are. IRL they owned. Mongolian horseman used to be able to sleep on their horses and ride through the night. The only time the Mongols did not utilize them was in Siege warfare, otherwise they could outmaneuver almost anyone, including knights on horseback, even though knights own Keshiks in Civ 4.
Swordman are crap in this game and praetorians are not much better because they are more expensive than swords and can easilay be countered by the cheaper axe. You can produce 3 axes for every 2 praets. Gallics are worthless too. A double move for them like it was in Civ 3 would be a lot better. I think the only time I build swords or gallics is when I know the other guys doesn't have metal but has a lot of archers or LB's maybe. Otherwise they are pointless.
Cossacks need to be retooled. IRL they were known for their horsemanship and for guerilla tactics during Napoleans invasion. Maybe they should have no terrain movement costs and a higher withdrawel chance or a free flanking promotion and a smaller increase against other horse units, maybe 10-25%.
War Eles aren't that bad. Actually I think it would be really cool if there were Armored War Elephants in the game. The Mugal Empire in India used them extensively. They were awesome units. Of course they were rediculously exthingye IRL and should be in game if ever introduced. I think they should be like a strength 9-10 with their current bonus against mounted and also with a 25% increase to melee and gunpower units due to the armor. The Armored Eles should cost 50% more than regular ones do, since the armor for them took forever to produce. This could be a UU.
First Strike needs to be improved. It isn't a good upgrade till you get 3 or 4 first strikes with the bonus against collateral damage.
That's it for now.
|
|
|
Post by cankaban on Jan 28, 2007 19:43:09 GMT -5
we used cannons in the conquer of istanbul at year 1453,how can they be discovered too late,i think it would beter discovered by gunpowder and there should be another research for muskets after that.
and the gap between cavs and other units is so much,and many games turns into 'first to discover mil trad wins' games or 'no horse no win' games,either they need to be weakened our rifles should come right after discovering grens or grens change with rifles,imagine grens replacing rifle,well this time cavs got almost no advantage,hmm need to think about it more..
|
|
|
Post by Necrominousss on Jan 29, 2007 1:19:04 GMT -5
I really could care less if the game is exactly historically accurate. As long as the don't call a mounted unit a tank, thats good enough for me. The have stats for each unit so does it really matter if its exactly accurate in strength compared to another historic unit, and that is a subject comparison anyway. IRL units and armies didn't have there strength and experience level floating above their head either. Hmm, I guess this is a video game then.
After reading through rupman post I did find one jewel within. When he was talking about Alexander and mounted units flanking and coming from behind the lines. (that may cause me to watch the movie Alexander again tonight)
Have units face a certain direct would be a good idea, either 4 direction or maybe 8 direction. If four directions, then if gets attacked head on 100% strength. If gets attacked from side, then 75% of strength. If gets attacked from behind 50% of strength. Now, lets talk 8 direction. head on 100%(lets call that 3 o'clock attacking for the right) - 1:30 and 4:30 90% - 12:00 and 6:00 80% - 10:30 and 7:30 70% - 9:00 60% or something like that.
Hell I'm confusing even myself here lets try a digram --------------80%-----------
------70%----------90%-----
- 60%-------------------100%----->>>unit facing this direction
------70%----------90%-----
--------------80%----------
Of course this would make attacking units even more at disadvantage but still neat idea if balance right with other factors for civ5. Other factors being higher defense values and bonuses and less catas power.
|
|
|
Post by Lestat on Jan 29, 2007 11:37:06 GMT -5
I just wont that more woumans play civ5 MP and built in ranking system that i can kick mans and play only with woumans
|
|
|
Post by Lestat on Jan 29, 2007 12:39:22 GMT -5
I really could care less if the game is exactly historically accurate. As long as the don't call a mounted unit a tank, thats good enough for me. The have stats for each unit so does it really matter if its exactly accurate in strength compared to another historic unit, and that is a subject comparison anyway. IRL units and armies didn't have there strength and experience level floating above their head either. Hmm, I guess this is a video game then. After reading through rupman post I did find one jewel within. When he was talking about Alexander and mounted units flanking and coming from behind the lines. (that may cause me to watch the movie Alexander again tonight) Have units face a certain direct would be a good idea, either 4 direction or maybe 8 direction. If four directions, then if gets attacked head on 100% strength. If gets attacked from side, then 75% of strength. If gets attacked from behind 50% of strength. Now, lets talk 8 direction. head on 100%(lets call that 3 o'clock attacking for the right) - 1:30 and 4:30 90% - 12:00 and 6:00 80% - 10:30 and 7:30 70% - 9:00 60% or something like that. Hell I'm confusing even myself here lets try a digram --------------80%----------- ------70%----------90%----- - 60%-------------------100%----->>>unit facing this direction ------70%----------90%----- --------------80%---------- Of course this would make attacking units even more at disadvantage but still neat idea if balance right with other factors for civ5. Other factors being higher defense values and bonuses and less catas power. wot direction u prefer more gentle or streighten attack?
|
|
|
Post by tamijo on Jan 29, 2007 13:31:02 GMT -5
I like the idear of attack direction, but due to the fact that roads only benefit the defender it will not work the way civ4 is atm. Would request every unit to move 2 tiles, faster units 3, 4 ect. and then you would have to dobble the map size. Only way to change direction if not moving have to be use a movepoint. Would be a revolution. But might be the right choice in many aspects. Might also allow you to work another level off citytiles due to the much bigger maps. But is too big a change to check effect off without the possibility to test.
|
|
|
Post by ironclad on Jan 29, 2007 21:07:43 GMT -5
if you have ever played commander and conquer generals, the inbuilt ranking system is usless because people cheat it.
|
|
|
Post by Canucksoldier on Jan 30, 2007 14:35:32 GMT -5
A good built-in ladder/ranking system is certainly a good idea but very difficult to implement without alot of human oversight. Firaxis did consider this idea when in Civ4 development but because of the complexity of a good system and the near uselessness of a easy system they decided to leave this function to the fan sights.....us. I do hope that if we get an overhaul of the core MP system in civ5 that we can go back and look at this issue again.
CS
|
|
|
Post by Tony on Jan 31, 2007 8:34:58 GMT -5
yeah but this still means victories to get some kind of bonus is possible. This would definalty draw people to MP and more importantly keep them hooked.
|
|
|
Post by matt12345 on Feb 20, 2007 12:23:42 GMT -5
i think they should edit the celts a bit more and change england to britain i HATE it when my country gets left out and more leaders. also do u know on civ 3 leaders clothes changed to suit the age they're in that on civ 5 too
|
|
|
Post by lporiginalg on Feb 23, 2007 1:20:28 GMT -5
Okay this is actualy the wish I came up with about 4 years ago when I was a civ3 SP player dreaming of a pheasible way to bring civ into a MP environment and it's something I would love to see the developers pick up on. I think it fixes alot of issues like the whole quick move thing as well as making the game more strategic and psychological and keeps it true to what drew us all to civ in the first place, turn based strategy vs RTS. Now it's a little complicated and I havn't exactly thought it out 100% but try to stay with me.
Turns would still be played simeoultaneously but they would be broken up into phases. In the first phase you would cue all your builds and unit movements/actions. Then there would be a movement phase where all movements were calculated simoltaneously. This is where it gets interesting. Imagine if all units had a specific speed value, ex warrior speed 5, worker speed 10, axe speed:3 etc... Now also the terrain would affect the movement speed like obvioulsy hill slower than grassland slower than road etc So combat would be calculated based on what unit arrived on the tile first (getting the defense bonus) and ALSO based on the angle or direction that the unit is facing. So if the unit flanks from the side it might get a +20% and if it comes from behind +50% and certain units may have special bonuses for that. Theres alot more to this but I hope you get the basic idea, in the third phase you would simple do leftover actions for units that had movement left after combat or whatever.
I think this would be a lot more strategic for warfare because rather than simply trying to move first or react fast enough you would actualy have to anticipate what tiles hes going to move to and react accordingly. Imagine how much easier it would be to bypass front cities with this type of setup.
What do you guys think?
|
|
|
Post by balmung on Feb 23, 2007 4:20:24 GMT -5
and it would be nice if gunships could cross water . A real new challenge for old inland sea ;D
|
|
|
Post by Bantams on Feb 23, 2007 6:05:48 GMT -5
and it would be nice if gunships could cross water . A real new challenge for old inland sea ;D Wont they already via a aircraft carrier dunno never tried it
|
|
|
Post by balmung on Feb 23, 2007 6:07:24 GMT -5
no Banti, and if you would also need coastel city
|
|
|
Post by Tony on Feb 23, 2007 21:21:50 GMT -5
Even for something like the XP, where the units are pretty much the same, i think ancient should have the following str values.
Scout 0 (plus 1 agianst barbs) Warrior 1 Archer 2 (melee and formation premotion avalible without the need for str - so barracks only) Charriot 3 (no bonus agiasnt any unit) Axman 4 (75% agiasnt melee) Horsearcher 5 (25% agiasnt axe - slightly reduced in price) Swordmen 6 (No change) Spearman 3 (100% agiasnt mounted units)
Other small tweeks.
Also melee can get formation after str-I rather then after str-II
Culture needed for a single expansion is fine at 5(maybe a little more, like 10) Culture needed for a double expansion should be 100 Tripple on-wards is fine already.
Seems like small changes but i think it would make the game alot more exciting and less mind-less unit flooding which i think SP hate most about MP. What i think firaxis did not think about is the percentage diffrance amoung units that are likely to fight each other.
A similar thing can be done throughout the game to other era's.
|
|