Civ 4 - The List of BAD Ideas.

[Fosse]

Seeing as The List will quickly fill up with what we want, I thought a dedicated place for what we don't was in order.

So... what are the ideas for Civ 4 that you DON'T want to see? The things that you fear Firaxis (or other Civers) might want, that would kill the game for you?

For me...

The Future
I'm okay with technology in Civ progressing into the immediatly forseeable future before "Future Tech" becomes a research goal. 2050 is a good time for a Civ game to end. I don't want to see a "Diamond Age" or underwater cities in any circumstances.

Civ Specific Animations
I'm talking about leaderheads here. Lots of time and effort, lots of megabytes, and NO added playability or immersion. Why stand in the way of mod makers with such a silly thing as three expressions for leader heads. I have no problem whatsoever with a simple state portrait.

Less is more.

And because someone else will say it if I don't first....

BUGS! ;)

[Alex]

i don't want them to streamline the game even more in order to make the AI competitive... :nono:

[Jon Miller]

I don't want to get rid of all tactical play by having CTP style stacked combat

Jon Miller

[Solver]

I don't want to have non-tactical combat by not implementing CTP style stacked combat.

[Nikolai]

I haven't played CTP, but as I understand the concept, I'm all for it.:) Thereby I'm aganst NOT having it.(to follow the thread topic.;))

[Solver]

For those who have never played CtP, here's a screen of the stacked combat.

http://apolyton.net/ctp2/images/preview/day5-battle1900.jpg

Note - the attacking Cannon and Artillery are in back row, and take no damage, but deal damage to pink first row. Likewise, pink Horse Archers take no damage, but deal damage to blue first row. The first rows engage each other. Once the pink first row is killed, units from second row will move in their place...

[Jon Miller]

but there is no tactics there

you just set up a stack

having a stack should be important, but not everything

civ3 has already gone too far this way I beleive (with having it so that a single stack dominates

Jon Miller

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by Solver
For those who have never played CtP, here's a screen of the stacked combat.

http://apolyton.net/ctp2/images/preview/day5-battle1900.jpg

Note - the attacking Cannon and Artillery are in back row, and take no damage, but deal damage to pink first row. Likewise, pink Horse Archers take no damage, but deal damage to blue first row. The first rows engage each other. Once the pink first row is killed, units from second row will move in their place...

my problem is that you don't control any of those units

all there is is a battle of armies that oyu watch (and yu can order a retreat)

civ has had the joys of different tactics to make sure that you win

Jon Miller

[Solver]

Hmm, you don't have control while the battle happens, but you don't have it in Civ 3 really, either. There are also similar tactics in CtP2, by forming stacks with different abilities and stuff.

The upside is, it will never take you 5 attackers to wipe a single defender.

[Jon Miller]

your troops ahve movement, attack and defense

so there is tactics

which is different than stacks fighting

Jon Mo;ler

[Maquiladora]

Originally posted by Jon Miller
I don't want to get rid of all tactical play by having CTP style stacked combat

Jon Miller


CtP1/2 troops have movement, attack, defence, range, flanking and grouped into armies, so there is more tactics. Thats better than roaming around with 100 of the same attackers and a few defensive units then throwing them one after another at cities, then it becomes about numbers and not tactics, different stacks have different abilities, thats tactics, IMO of course.

Im sure combat will be changed in civ4 but they wont use the CtP system (although they should and improve it) i expect itll be somethng totally new.

[MattH]

I see nothing wrong with underwater cities... in fact, I was just about to mention them in the wish list...

I don't want CIV IV to be a lonesome single player game- I'm tired of playing 1-v-all.

[Solver]

Maq, I'm not all so sure they will be changing the combat to something new in Civ 4. I fear that single units will remain as single as they are in Civ 3.

[Brent]

I agree against Civ specific animations.

[Theben]

Just out of curiosity, how do CtP2 scenarios deal with stacking?

FE, there are some civ2 scenarios that would not benefit from stacks.

I think armies/stack will be necessary (to reduce lag time) but an option to turn them off might be warranted.

[Solver]

Because of the excellent CtP2 bugs, there weren't really any scenarios :p.

[Jon Miller]

you haven't addressed my concern of tactics

all I see is that you make up an army, and send it at the enemy (I did play some of both CTPs)

both are strategic decisions

I liked how past civs have included some tactics, it makes the game more fun

Jon Miller

[Fosse]

I don't want to see caravans or supply crawler-type units for storing shields.

Maybe caravans are a good way to deal with trade, but there should be no "flash build" units.

[Maquiladora]

you haven't addressed my concern of tactics

all I see is that you make up an army, and send it at the enemy (I did play some of both CTPs)

both are strategic decisions

I liked how past civs have included some tactics, it makes the game more fun

Jon Miller


As i said, in CtP1/2 there are different stacks for different situations, but in civ the best attacking unit and best defensive is all there is and there is no other tactical choice on how to compose the force.


Just out of curiosity, how do CtP2 scenarios deal with stacking?


Not sure what you mean, but the scenarios that came with the game use stacks like they do in a normal game.

[Jon Miller]

no

civ has way more than 4 types of units

it has defender infantry
it has offender infantry
it has bombard
and it has calvary

there is also an additinoal infantry type (the archer - TOW)

besides specials (paratrooper/marine/whatever)

as well as air support

and that is ignoring modern times

Jon Miller

[Jon Miller]

composing forces is not tactics

that is strategy

tactics is how you use your forces

which civ has a lot of (but sometimes gets lost in the problems with having too many units)

Jon Miller

[Skanky Burns]

It would probably be better to move the debate out of this thread so that this one can concentrate on things most of us don't want in Civ 4. So I present to you the Stacked vs Single Unit Debate Thread (http://apolyton.net/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=103349) for your enjoyment. :cool:

I agree against Civ-Specific animations and shield-storage units. Below-sea cities would be beyond the scope of a standard civ game, although I wouldn't be too upset if it was allowed in scenarios.

[Maquiladora]

edit/

(To try and not kill this thread completely) i dont think civ4 should be in 3D.

[Fosse]

Maq - Agreed on no 3d.

I don't want ages. At all.

[Solver]

SMAC-Crawler style units are mainly bad because they favor human much more than the AI.

[Fosse]

Originally posted by Solver
SMAC-Crawler style units are mainly bad because they favor human much more than the AI.

Plus, they are tedious!!!!!

Seriously, even when the payoff was great, how much fun was it to blanket an entire empire, tile by tile, with little units. Especially knowing that if you didn't, the other guy would crush you (in MP, of course)?

[Father Beast]

OK, here's my take...

First, the things I didn't like about Civ3

1. 3D. took resources and tended to crash the game, without adding anything.

2. outrageous corruption and waste. building cities with 1 shield of production was constant and absurd. It was only to keep ICS down anyway, and that should be fixed otherwise.

3. the tech tree. The way it was divided into ages made it impossible to follow a close line of research, because of the neccessity of researching most of an age before moving on. I may be alone in this, but I prefer the old humoungous tech tree of Civ1 and Civ2, where you could research narrowly for centuries before you got stuck and found yourself having to go back in order to go forward.

I probably have more but my brain just went down. I need a nap.:zzz:

[Brent]

Simplify the end of game map replay. We don't need distinction of terrain. We don't need cities. We don't need wonders or golden ages. Just one color for land, one color for water, and show the border changes.

[Stuie]

I don't want any extraneous crap that does nothing for gameplay, including Wonder Movies, Throne Room and City Views.

[Solver]

I don't want any extraneous crap that does nothing for gameplay, including Wonder Movies, Throne Room and City Views.


It adds to the atmosphere. You can also that way argue that graphics add nothing to gameplay - though I, personally, prefer the neat Civ 3 graphics to those from Civ 1.

[Jon Miller]

teh atomoshpere is what I like about civ\

Jon Miller

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Fosse
I don't want to see caravans or supply crawler-type units for storing shields.

Maybe caravans are a good way to deal with trade, but there should be no "flash build" units.

but the camel, pwerful as it was, was not quite as overpowered as the SMAC crawlers - I mean the camels are of no production use till you deliver them - unlike the crawlers.

[Sandman]

Modability uber alles. I'll probably get flamed for this, but I couldn't care less about a complex scenario editor. I'd much rather have a fully furnished game out of the box than an editable, but half-finished game.

Humour. Get rid of it.

Bad graphics. Don't listen to those that aren't interested in graphics; make civ world beautiful.

[rah]

I would like to see civII be the starting point instead of civIII. Hopefully they would do it better this time.

[Brundlefly]

Originally posted by Sandman
Modability uber alles. I'll probably get flamed for this, but I couldn't care less about a complex scenario editor. I'd much rather have a fully furnished game out of the box than an editable, but half-finished game.



I agree I would make the same choice. Rather than give us a buffet-style "balance your own game" experience with a million tunable settings, give us a full meal of a game that we can sit down and enjoy without having to make the thing ourselves...

[Solver]

Come on Rah, I think that you will also agree that Civ 3 has some things that deserve to be carried over to Civ 4.

[Shogun Gunner]

Civ is a strategic game, the way we must utilize military units has the flavor of a tactical game.

Let's take a real world example. I'm the President of the United States and Canada just attacked.

start of silly story:

Rumsfeld: Mr. President, Canada just attacked Seattle, Helena, Pierre, ND and Minnesota. We have two tank units and five TOW units ready.

President Shogun Gunner: Send the tank unit to Seattle, because the are attacking with cavalry there. Send three TOW units to Minnesota, because that is where their tanks are....

end of stupid story...

Well, you get the idea. The real attack would be combined arms in each battle area - where you need a mix of troops.

[rah]

Originally posted by Solver
Come on Rah, I think that you will also agree that Civ 3 has some things that deserve to be carried over to Civ 4.

Stacked combat, and resources. THAT's IT. the rest sucked. (and I'd prefer a stack more like ctpII) And these two items couldn't outweigh all of it's shortcomings.

[Jon Miller]

I'm not a CTP person. I bought and played Civ 1, 2 and 3.

However, I did buy CTP 1 and played five or six games before putting it away for good. One thing that did make an impression was the improved combat handling over Civ 2.

I would like to see a carryover of this, like Trifna mentions, into the next version of Civ.

What about choosing actions for each of your units? A bombards G; D assaults G; E assaults G; F defends against H and I. B and C opportunity fire. Orders entered first, then actions carried out concurrently.

Your Troops......Enemy Troops
...B...D--------------G...J
A......E--------------H......L
...C...F--------------I...K

Actions could be:
Frontal assault (ala Kamakazi)
Assault (move, fire, move, fire)
Ranged attack (stay in position, fire)
Opportunity Fire (like cav/tanks when you pass by the position)
Defend
Fighting withdrawl (retreat, fire, retreat, fire)
Retreat
Flee (drop your sh*t and haul a55)

Different choices produce advantage and/or vulnerability. For example, choosing opportunity fire means nothing if the enemy doesn't advance on your position (out of range). Frontal assault is very costly when the enemy is in "opportunity fire mode"

Another example, counterbattery fire could be an option for artillery to artillery combat which we haven't seen at all in Civ. I love reading in the Civlopedia about Radar Artillery's ability to locate enemy artillery by tracing back the trajectory of the fire and destroying the enemy artillery. Can't really do that in Civ, can we? This new combat system may be able to incorporate those changes.

This would finally bring some "combined arms" concepts into the game, hopefully without too much micromanagement, because the additional work is the downside here.

Bottom line, adopting something like this would overcome one of my greatest objections to combat in Civ. Too much knowledge of the enemy reduces the combat into a decision tree analysis exercise of probability. What ever happend to "THE FOG OF WAR?" We all have seen the threads How come three of my Modern Armor units got destoyed attacking a Rifleman on a hill? People whine and complain a lot. Someone inevitably posts an application they compiled in C++ that will tell you when you should attack and when you should defend taking into account all bonuses of terrain, etc. Boring It's time for something new.

.

Jon Miller

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by rah
Stacked combat, and resources. THAT's IT. the rest sucked. (and I'd prefer a stack more like ctpII) And these two items couldn't outweigh all of it's shortcomings.

Don't be shy, tell us how you really feel. ;)

I prefer the way bombardment works, borders, workers in addition to settlers, lack of pulling down mountains into grasslands (eventually), not having the tedium of caravans, etc...

But, to each their own, I suppose.

[statusperfect]

Originally posted by Father Beast
1. 3D. took resources and tended to crash the game, without adding anything.


3D??????????? :confused:

[MattH]

Originally posted by bfg9000
I agree I would make the same choice. Rather than give us a buffet-style "balance your own game" experience with a million tunable settings, give us a full meal of a game that we can sit down and enjoy without having to make the thing ourselves...

You talk as if we can have only one and not both...

[Kuciwalker]

Stacked combat. There are enormous problems with this, but I'd like to detail a few:

1. Limit to the number of units on a square

This is bad. Really really really bad. It is a HARDCODED limit, even, and can be incredibly annoying. If I want the best defense in a city, no units can enter it. Moreover, it limits the size of my ATTACK forces. It places huge limits on the game and even really hinders scenarios. I like the "stacked" combat in Civ3 a la armies, in fact I think that that implementation is a great idea, but CtP-style stacked combat would ENSURE that I not buy Civ4.

2. Air units + bombardment

Civ3's current air unit system (which IMO is a huge improvement over Civ2) would function poorly here. Ditto for bombardment. Plus, scenario issues - Civ3's system offers infinitely more possibilities.

3. Ugliness

Combat in CtP2 (the only version I bought) was just plain UGLY. I hated it, it was tedious in a way that Civ3 combat isn't (not that Civ3 combat can't get tedious, but it does so in its own way).

[Fosse]

skywalker... I don't think that having stacked combat in automatically means a limited number of units on a tile... but as there is a discussion about this in progress I won't dwell on that.


I'd like to see a religion model left out. I know a lot of people talk about it, and it had a big list for the Civ 3 List... but I see this as something that really can't add a lot without just complicating things. This one is best left to the player's imagination, in my opinion.

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by skywalker
Stacked combat. There are enormous problems with this, but I'd like to detail a few:

1. Limit to the number of units on a square

This is bad. Really really really bad. It is a HARDCODED limit, even, and can be incredibly annoying. If I want the best defense in a city, no units can enter it. Moreover, it limits the size of my ATTACK forces. It places huge limits on the game and even really hinders scenarios. I like the "stacked" combat in Civ3 a la armies, in fact I think that that implementation is a great idea, but CtP-style stacked combat would ENSURE that I not buy Civ4.

2. Air units + bombardment

Civ3's current air unit system (which IMO is a huge improvement over Civ2) would function poorly here. Ditto for bombardment. Plus, scenario issues - Civ3's system offers infinitely more possibilities.

3. Ugliness

Combat in CtP2 (the only version I bought) was just plain UGLY. I hated it, it was tedious in a way that Civ3 combat isn't (not that Civ3 combat can't get tedious, but it does so in its own way).

great points

Jon Miller

[Jon Miller]

I definitely don't want to watch any long drawn out battle

Jon Miller

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by rah
I would like to see civII be the starting point instead of civIII. Hopefully they would do it better this time.

Screw that...make SMAC the starting point.

New Graphics (with 3D terrain, thank you) + Civ 3 AI + SMAC mechanics + Imperialism combat + EU diplomatic options + GalCiv trade route system = great civ game. But the core of SMAC is what to build on.

[Fosse]

Originally posted by Comrade Tassadar


:eek:

Realistically, rulers (whom participated) often had to wait DAYS to see the outcome of a battle.
Let's have battles that span for days :D


Okay! Of course, "days" in the ancient era when turns span for hundreds of years.... :D

Seriously, I wouldn't mind having battles that last several turns, giving the potential to reinforce a losing battle, or let suspense for a major fight carry over from turn to turn.

[Brundlefly]

Originally posted by MattH


You talk as if we can have only one and not both...

I think we can only have the "buffet-style" Civ3, Matt, because it is a better business decision for Firaxis to develop along that path. They could throw endless manhours into programming and play testing the best AI the world has ever seen and spend countless extra hours beyond that perfecting game balance -or- they could spend minimal time on AI and game balance and leave all of the settings which balance the game open and tuneable and sell it to the public as a "create your own experience" game. Some don't mind the latter type of game. I wouldn't mind paying a little more and waiting a little longer for the former type of game. But I won't get that.

[Carolus Rex]

What rah said; look at Civ 2 and not the squeeze-every-buck-out-of-the-Civ-franchise-by-pumping-out-crappy-sequels games that followed it...

And, please, no pictures of Sid (or anyone else from Firaxis) in the game!

Carolus

[hexagonian]

Originally posted by Jon Miller
I definitely don't want to watch any long drawn out battle
Jon Miller
But you are willing to spend 10 minutes sending 70 units into battle one by one... ;)

[Torkkeli]

Infinite movement with railroads.

Infinite movement on land (units) is bad.

[FinnishGuy]

AI has to move every unit around pointlessly every time... :mad:

[Zamphyr]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov


Screw that...make SMAC the starting point.


As long as the cruddy unit workshop model isn't brought in.

[DrGerry]

We just start a thread in the Spanish forum to do this. We plan to recopilate it, translate into english and post here. :b:

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by hexagonian

But you are willing to spend 10 minutes sending 70 units into battle one by one... ;)

I said that I didn't like that

remember, I am all for having less units

and if I do have multiple units in a square, I am all for using one command to have them attack

Jon Miller

[Fosse]

Originally posted by Torkkeli
Infinite movement with railroads.

Infinite movement on land (units) is bad.

How on EARTH did we not mention this so far?!?


I'd like to add... no railroad production boosts. I'm done with systems that force me to build absurd things in every tile.

[hexagonian]

Originally posted by Jon Miller
I said that I didn't like that
remember, I am all for having less units
Jon Miller
...then edit the cost of units - make them more expensive.

Less units!!

[Jon Miller]

thety are not ballance that way

they shuold be set up from the get go

I don';t just want less units, I don't like the idea of power stacking

where you just have 1 stack go arround taking cities and the like

less units would just mean a smaller stacj

Jon Miller

[hexagonian]

Increased cost of units will not affect balance if it is done in a consistent manner across the board. In fact, it makes decision-making a lot more challenging because your margin of error is smaller.

Unfortunately, with the civ3 setup that does not place any limit on the size of stacks, you cannot prevent the use of huge stacks as the most viable strategy, irregardless of pricing.

Adding bonuses based on unit composition in your stack isn't a bad idea. But in one sense, CTP2 already is using bonuses based on army composition with the use of range/flanker units. Their bonuses kick in when they are used in those capacities. Stick an archer on the front line and he is a dead man. Have him as compliment to a frontliner, and his bonus ability kicks in.

The sticking point with me regarding civ3 is still the idea of one-on-one battles. As long as combat is run as a one-on-one system of battle resolution, you are stuck with the tedium.

[hexagonian]

Responding to the following...

Originally posted by skywalker
Stacked combat. There are enormous problems with this, but I'd like to detail a few:
1. Limit to the number of units on a square
This is bad. Really really really bad. It is a HARDCODED limit, even, and can be incredibly annoying. If I want the best defense in a city, no units can enter it.
Not true, because you can rearrange your stacks easily, based on unit strength. Simply move out the units you want elsewhere and replace them with the units you want to defend.

The (potential) problem lies in the fact that since you are limited to a certain amount of units in a city, the attacker can bring in multiple attacks to wear down that stack. But that is what you already have to do with the civ3 model. (Generally, you have to bring in a lot more units than are in the city to take it). The key though is to allow the defender to build buildings that will greatly increase defensive bonuses and thus greatly increase the resistance strength of those units - something that CTP2 does have in place.

(And look at history and the difficulty of fighting within a city, and the use of buildings as defensive modifiers within a city is very plausible.)

Plus completely surrounding a city in CTP2 is very unit-intensive (as it should be), so you would have to really place an iron grip on the city to prevent reinforcements from punching through to relieve the defenders.

To be honest, CTP2 does not do this second factor half as well as it could, but my point is that I really believe that coding can be created to do so.



Originally posted by skywalker
Moreover, it limits the size of my ATTACK forces. It places huge limits on the game and even really hinders scenarios.
Again, not true because you still can bring in a vast amount of units to a target. A city is surrounded by 8 tiles - 12 units per tile - that makes for a potential force of 96 units. This is certainly not a huge limit, at least in my mind...

And if you want to take it a step further, add in the next ring of tiles around the city as possible tiles that can hold additional units.



Originally posted by skywalker
2. Air units + bombardment
Civ3's current air unit system (which IMO is a huge improvement over Civ2) would function poorly here.
Again not true because it would be easy to give those types of air units a coding designation that places them outside the normal unit restiction. Since they automatically fly out and return to their base on their turn, they would never be part of the stack.
CTP2 uses air units with a set number of turns in the air before they have to refuel. They have the capability to bombard a target, the same way that a land bombard can. I would agree that the civ3 model is better because it is more streamlined, but again, my proposal would work within the framework of stacked combat.



Originally posted by skywalker
Ditto for bombardment.
Again not a problem since your bombards are part of your land units. With the 96 unit limit around a target, some of those slots can be filled by land bombards. CTP2 already uses bombards effectively, since there is a counter-bombard flag that automatically allows a bombard unit to fire back automatically when it is bombarded.



Originally posted by skywalker
Plus, scenario issues - Civ3's system offers infinitely more possibilities.
Not without a scripting language - already in place in CTP2.



Originally posted by skywalker
3. Ugliness
Combat in CtP2 (the only version I bought) was just plain UGLY. I hated it, it was tedious in a way that Civ3 combat isn't (not that Civ3 combat can't get tedious, but it does so in its own way).
A matter of opinion based on a preference...so it is not worth the time to argue...(although I have yet to hear it explained to me just why CTP2 combat is tedious. I've certainly been trying to explain why the civ3 model is.)

My point all along is that despite its problems, the CTP2 setup is superior in just about every way over the current civ3 setup.

And I believe that it can be improved upon - I do not believe that retaining the current civ3 setup allows for much improvement, but that is just an opinion. It's just that I have yet to hear any compelling arguments to the contrary.

And based on the poll, there is a lot of others who feel the same way.

[Jon Miller]

still doesn't change the fact that I

and most others

did not find CTP combat fun

I am sorry that I have not been able to exaplin that to you

Jon Miller

[Asmodean]

Originally posted by Jon Miller

and most others



The thread we've got going on the subject says another thing. ;)

Asmodean

[Jon Miller]

youcan look at sales and other such means

just because most the people here like CTP does not mean that here is not an outlier

also, maybe most people like Civ3 style limited stacked combat (I like this)

Jon Miller

[Asmodean]

But Jon...sales doesn't say what people think about one particular feature. It says what franchise is well known and can back up their title with the name "Civilization".

I don't know what people you refer to, when you say most people. Most people here at Apolyton like stacked combat a la CtP2. And we are, after all, makinf an Apolyton list, aren't we??

Asmodean

[Maquiladora]

Theyre voting on the combat system, nothing else, and the voting is leaning heavily towards stacked combat.

Im sure if the voting had gone the other way youd have a different opinion on the value of the poll, Jon.

[Jon Miller]

I really enjoy your thoughts on my character

now, how well do you know me again?

Jon Miller

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Comrade Tassadar
I'm not quite sure what would require it to be a hard-coded limit? :hmmm:

Display, and it'd probably be a lot easier to code. Both CtP and CtP2 had hardcoded limits IIRC (which could sort of be gotten around with scripting).

I do agree that stacked combat wouldn't quite work for bombardment of a city, however one could have such units operate as a supporting unit in ArmyvArmy combat and as a Civ3 bombard elsewhere.
Care to explain the scenario issues?

The "support unit" role in stacked combat makes artillery a lot like many other units. The ranged bombard in Civ3 gives a LOT of interesting scenario options for units while still allowing you to simulate normal-attacking artillery with high attack units like Civ2 did.

That's a problem with presentation and not the concept.

Yes, but the flaws in presentation are derived from the structure of the combat ;)

Though I see your point.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by hexagonian
Unfortunately, with the civ3 setup that does not place any limit on the size of stacks, you cannot prevent the use of huge stacks as the most viable strategy, irregardless of pricing.

irregardless? :cute:

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by FinnishGuy
AI has to move every unit around pointlessly every time... :mad:

This is easy to fix - it's in an ini file.

[Kuciwalker]

My point all along is that despite its problems, the CTP2 setup is superior in just about every way over the current civ3 setup.

Wrong. The limit on the number of units on a tile is an ENORMOUS problem, especially for scenarios (CtP's scriping language is not a part of this argument), and does severely limit the forces you can bring to bear (and with which you can defend). You can't shuffle things around in the enemy's turn.

[Kuciwalker]

Another bad idea: SMAC unit workshop. It was OK for SMAC (though I found it incredibly annoying after a while), but NOT for a Civ game.

Also: the SMAC Government model. Again, great for a sci-fi game, bad for a civ game.

And more: the SMAC terrain model (including the 3D-ness) - see above reasons :cute:

Finally: nukes behaving the way Planet Busters did in SMAC.

[Fosse]

Agreed on exclusion of SMAC unit workshop and terrain model. I'd like to see nukes as a compromise of PBs and current nukes.

I'm all about a "social engineering" sort of thing, as I go on about ad naseum in other threads.


Regarding the scripted solutions not being part of the argument... Well... we're looking for an ideal solution. If someone else found a good one then I don't care if it was commercial, user made, or open source. A good system is a good system, and we should be holding out for one.

I'm not willing to say that stacks (IMO the better way) shoud be left out because of imperfect implementation before, any more than resources should because they've had imperfect implemenation before.
But I appreciate you bringing sound reasons to the table.. even though I disagree with you on this issue. :)


"Irregardless" is a word. Means exactly what "regardless" Think means.
Think flammable/inflammable. :cute:

[Kuciwalker]

Irregardless" is a word. Means exactly what "regardless" Think means.
Think flammable/inflammable.

from dictionary.com:

Usage Note: Irregardless is a word that many mistakenly believe to be correct usage in formal style, when in fact it is used chiefly in nonstandard speech or casual writing. Coined in the United States in the early 20th century, it has met with a blizzard of condemnation for being an improper yoking of irrespective and regardless and for the logical absurdity of combining the negative ir- prefix and -less suffix in a single term. Although one might reasonably argue that it is no different from words with redundant affixes like debone and unravel, it has been considered a blunder for decades and will probably continue to be so.

;)

[Kuciwalker]

some more ideas that shouldn't be in:

Civ3 style ZOC - bring back what we had in Civ2!
Civ2 style unstacked combat - destroying a stack by destroying the top unit is ridiculous and aggravating
The AI phobia of trading cities, such that it will only trade them for peace in Civ3
The automatic declaration of war when you have an MPP - make it like civ2, where you could choose not to honor an alliance (in Civ3, the only way to cancel an MPP less than 20 turns after is to declare war).
Palace/City View/Wonder Movies - I never watch them and they take up development time

[Fosse]

My last OT post on this!

A word being nonstandard ain't the same as it not being a word. Hexagonion isn't wrong for using it, nor is anybody else in any setting outside of acadamia. And a message board full is hardly a bastion of good grammar, anyhow! You can find it in all but the most abridged dictionaries (and probably there, too), and it is recognized for its meaning across the English speaking world, irregardless of its dubious origins. :D

Oh, an extremely fun book to read if you're not a lexicographer but do enjoy our language is Bill Bryson's Mother Tongue

Anyhow, skywalker, I normally wouldn't be caught dead using it myself. Just had to argue, I guess.

On Topic: I don't want a cylindrical map! Look! I'm contributing to the conversation! I'm not helping threadjack! Weeeeee!!!!

[orange]

CTP combat was a novelty. I enjoyed it for about 5 days. And then I packed up the game and never played it again. Civ 3 combat is much more simple, and that is good.

[hexagonian]

Skywalker,

Nice...
when you cannot refute the arguments, simply attack the grammar useage. ;)

[hexagonian]

Originally posted by skywalker
Wrong. The limit on the number of units on a tile is an ENORMOUS problem, especially for scenarios (CtP's scriping language is not a part of this argument), and does severely limit the forces you can bring to bear (and with which you can defend). You can't shuffle things around in the enemy's turn.
OK, I'm game...

I explained how this doesn't have to be a problem, based on the fact that surrounding tiles allow for more than 12 units in the area that can be brought in for an attack. Some other solutions involve the use of buildings that can greatly add to the bonus of defending units - making a defending stack incredibly strong.

You can also create special unique garrison units within a scenario that have a lot of hitpoints - effectively doubling or tripling (or even more, based on how many hitpoints) the number of units in a tile if you use the parameter 'hp=manpower strength'. (all you have to do is title that unit a division, for example) In fact, if you want these units purchasable, you can assign a price to it in relation to the weaker unit. In a scenario, modders generally create their own unit types as part of the process, so this is not a stretch.

All of these solutions are viable and easy-to-impliment workarounds to the limitation of number of units that can occupy a tile - in fact I've already used these in my CTP2 'War of the Ring' scenario.

What stacking, stack unit limits, and stacked combat do is streamline gameplay, plus it simulates a more realistic format of battle. No general sends his units into battle one at a time.

Now please clarify your statements. You spend a lot of time explaining the 'what', but not a lot of time explaining the 'how' and 'why'.

A question...
What do you mean by shuffling things around in the enemy's turns? If you mean that the AI cannot bring in reinforcements, I've already explained how with a stack limit this is accomplished.

[FinnishGuy]

Originally posted by skywalker


This is easy to fix - it's in an ini file.


What? Civ4 has an .ini file already?

[Sikander]

What I don't want to see in Civ 4:

1) Tactical movement on the strategic map. This means stacked combat among many other things. Armies should be what are placed on the map, units should only exist as things that can be carried by armies or held by cities and fortresses. I hope I never see another catapult limp along for a few centuries in order to eventually launch an unsupported attack on an enemy city.

Movement should be simultaneous, with orders given to commanders of armies who try to carry them out and who are affected by the enemy's armies and their orders. This obviates the need for any player intervention in the tactical phase and keeps the focus on strategy, where any game that spans hundreds of lifetimes should have its focus.

Assuming that each turn will comprise a year or more of "real" time, there should be no limitation (or very little limitation) on how far a unit can move across the map. Instead distance from supply points will determine whether a unit can keep moving or must stop. This limit will increase over time due to improvements in transportation tech (like heavy horses with proper harnesses), infrastructure like roads and rails and of course the actual supply points themselves, cities and fortresses and perhaps supply depots.

Map functions would make this system a breeze to use. Hitting the <shift> key would show immediately the areas which are in supply for your armies. Exploration units would have increased range of course, and it would be possible to build a network of bases in order to give yourself global reach. In fact it would be necessary, though as ranges increase fewer bases would be necessary.

2) I don't need 3d, don't want 3d and would hate to see any effort wasted on making the game 3d. It simply wastes resources in what is essentially a 2 dimensional universe.

3) I like pretty graphics as much as the next guy, which is why the graphics in Civ 3 were such a disappointment. I don't want to have animated cabbage patch dolls as opponents. Nor do I wish to imagine my forces as composed of cartoon cavemen. Even SMAC's horrible caviars were better than Civ 3's units.

4) I'd like to see a rich and complex strategic game unlike Civ 3 which gutted the strategic aspects of the game in favor of an immense amount of tactical dancing about. I want the opposite. Clean up the map by removing those thousands of units and replacing them with armies, and then clean up the game by giving those armies over to your generals to use. Not only is this an immense improvement in realism, but I think it will be a lot more fun to concentrate on the bigger issues. Once the huge and dull tactical game is cleaned up it is time to breathe some life into the essentially linear strategic game that Civ 3 is. This means a complex tech tree and social engineering. It doesn't have to be SMAC style SE necessarily, I think EU2 did a fantastic job with their SE settings of paired opposites.

[Maquiladora]

Originally posted by Jon Miller
I really enjoy your thoughts on my character

now, how well do you know me again?

Jon Miller

For a start you didnt expect the voting to go that way, by asking "where do all you people come from?" meaning the ones voting for stacked combat, so i think that shows you were interested in the result, and participating in the "stacked - single unit combat" poll itself and being first to reply shows you give some credibility to the result, i dont need to know you personally, Jon.

[Jon Miller]

hmm

I asked where did all you people come from because I did not think so many people liked CTP (and I was hearing a lot of references to it), this does not mean that I viewed the results as pertinant

I am interested in stacked versus single combat, if you will check other posts made by me arround that time you will see that I was making a number of posts on that subject before the poll was created

so posting in a thread about stacked versus single combat somehow makes me think that the poll in the thread is credible?

or does it just mean that I am being involved in the discussion?

while I admit that I don't know you personally, you do seem to be trying real hard to be an ass

Jon Miller

[Maquiladora]

Originally posted by Jon Miller
I asked where did all you people come from because I did not think so many people liked CTP

From the CtP sections?

so posting in a thread about stacked versus single combat somehow makes me think that the poll in the thread is credible?


So vote banana next time.

while I admit that I don't know you personally, you do seem to be trying real hard to be an ass

It comes naturally.

If you want to continue then PM me.

[Fosse]

Originally posted by Sikander
What I don't want to see in Civ 4:

1) Tactical movement on the strategic map. This means stacked combat among many other things. Armies should be what are placed on the map, units should only exist as things that can be carried by armies or held by cities and fortresses. I hope I never see another catapult limp along for a few centuries in order to eventually launch an unsupported attack on an enemy city.

Movement should be simultaneous, with orders given to commanders of armies who try to carry them out and who are affected by the enemy's armies and their orders. This obviates the need for any player intervention in the tactical phase and keeps the focus on strategy, where any game that spans hundreds of lifetimes should have its focus.



:b: :b: :b: :b:


Assuming that each turn will comprise a year or more of "real" time, there should be no limitation (or very little limitation) on how far a unit can move across the map. Instead distance from supply points will determine whether a unit can keep moving or must stop. This limit will increase over time due to improvements in transportation tech (like heavy horses with proper harnesses), infrastructure like roads and rails and of course the actual supply points themselves, cities and fortresses and perhaps supply depots.


Sounds pretty unwieldy to me. Why not simply assume that turns represent a year of real time, while turns represent only a month or a week of Military and Diplomacy time? I know the old argument about a tank not being able to drive 500 miles in a year... but it would basically be infinite movement withing a supply zone in what you explained... also known as railroads, which are well despised.



2) I don't need 3d, don't want 3d and would hate to see any effort wasted on making the game 3d. It simply wastes resources in what is essentially a 2 dimensional universe.


What about just enough 3d to make the map sphereical? :D If it is no longer a "2 dimensional universe" then the game is more accurate, realistic, and IMO fun.


And agreed to strategy in place of tactics!! :)

[hexagonian]

Originally posted by Jon Miller
hmm
I asked where did all you people come from because I did not think so many people liked CTP (and I was hearing a lot of references to it), this does not mean that I viewed the results as pertinant
You make the assumption that since there is a vocal CTP2 element on this thread and since the polling is going strongly in favor of stacked combat, we CTPers have hijacked the results.

That assumption is wrong because it is based on the idea that civ3 is perfect and cannot be improved upon. Therefore, any concept that deviates from the basic concepts of Sid's series is considered heresy.

I actually think that civ3 has a lot of good features - in the same breath, I think that there are problems in CTP2. I would guess that for most fans, they feel the same way, but in different degrees for each game. Players play one or the other because of the way the developers present the whole game - but at the same time, there are always features within any game that a player wishes were better executed. After all, combat is just one element of the entire civ experience.

The fact that more people play civ3 does not necessarily mean that they would not want some things changed or improved. So when you mention combat, many players may feel that stacked combat is a step of progression.

[filix]

Originally posted by Solver
Hmm, you don't have control while the battle happens, but you don't have it in Civ 3 really, either. There are also similar tactics in CtP2, by forming stacks with different abilities and stuff.

The upside is, it will never take you 5 attackers to wipe a single defender.

Hello
im a ctp1 player and i hope that there will be the option to form stacks with different abilities and stuff.
I dont like to move every single unite without groups.

IMPORTANT
Futhermore i hope that the corruption problem of civ3 will be sloved, its no fun to play civ3 with a lot of citys which produce almost nothing because of distance to the kapital.
IMPORTANT
And i like the ctp1 city manager very much its very important for me that i have the option to let my worker work on plains,wood or montains, without that a big part of the civ gameplay is gone.
IMPORTANT
+ I like the idea of building caravans for trade. The ctp trade system is a little bit unlogic (with the monopolies) but i like it much more than the trade at civ3 with the simple road system.

greetings to all "ctp1like game" players

[hexagonian]

Originally posted by skywalker
The "support unit" role in stacked combat makes artillery a lot like many other units. The ranged bombard in Civ3 gives a LOT of interesting scenario options for units while still allowing you to simulate normal-attacking artillery with high attack units like Civ2 did.
Continuing to clarify wrong assumptions about CTP2...

The nature of artillery useage in CTP is not merly limited to a ranged support role in a stacked combat situation. It can actually be used in two ways

1. Either as part of a grouped stack, acting as a support ranged unit...
2. ...or as a separate bombard unit, as it is in civ3. Basically, you can siege a city over several turns with bombards to soften up the units inside before launching your combined stack assault.

A nice dilemma for the player to think about - either rush in with your stack to quickly take a city, and take a chance losing your units, or take a more patient approach and bombard it before the main assault - a dilemma lacking in the current civ setup.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by hexagonian
A nice dilemma for the player to think about - either rush in with your stack to quickly take a city, and take a chance losing your units, or take a more patient approach and bombard it before the main assault - a dilemma lacking in the current civ setup.

Incorrect. The player of C3 has exactly that same choice. The difference is that he or she has total control over which units to use in which order and exactly when to call off the attack if things are not shaping up well.

Perhaps the C3 player has too much control. For some that may seem tedious because you have to go through unit by unit until the enemy is dead or you stop. From reading this thread and others, it also seems there are some who think that such control by the player is inappropriate for a game of Civ's scope.

However, for many C3's combat is a wonderful part of the game. Tactics and strategy share the same map in a sort of disconnected yet coherent reality.

Whether someone prefers the stacks of CTP or the individual units of C3 is entirely one of personal taste. Neither is 'best' in any sort of metaphysical way.

I enjoyed CTP and CTP2 combat. I enjoy C3 combat. What I really hope is that the designers get it right, whichever they choose.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by hexagonian
Skywalker,

Nice...
when you cannot refute the arguments, simply attack the grammar useage. ;)

No, I was just kidding around :)

[Kuciwalker]

A question...
What do you mean by shuffling things around in the enemy's turns? If you mean that the AI cannot bring in reinforcements, I've already explained how with a stack limit this is accomplished.

IIRC, you never explained how an AI could have a defensive force in a city of greater than 12 (or whatever the max is) units, WITHOUT moving units into the city as some die, which happens to be impossible when it isn't your turn ;)

[Fosse]

Originally posted by skywalker
A question...
What do you mean by shuffling things around in the enemy's turns? If you mean that the AI cannot bring in reinforcements, I've already explained how with a stack limit this is accomplished.

IIRC, you never explained how an AI could have a defensive force in a city of greater than 12 (or whatever the max is) units, WITHOUT moving units into the city as some die, which happens to be impossible when it isn't your turn ;)

I'll try to answer this with two approaches.

1) 12 units maximum, no matter what.
What to do: Plan ahead! If you see four stacks of 12 units coming toward your city, then get some troops out there to meet them in the field. I think that armies, done properly, can encourage more "in the field" fighting for this reason... and I think that's a good thing.

2) Remove unit limit per tile. Let two or more armies occupy one tile, and let more than 12 units into an army. Now instead of the player building lots of 12 (or 24, or any number) unit armies, the players can choose many small armies, several medium size, one large, or a mix of the above. Perhaps some natural "beuracratic" penalties could make a "soft" limit. One that you can surpass, but at your peril.

How do those answers work out for you?

[Kuciwalker]

Only one army would defend at a time, though, right? Then your goal of smaller armies wouldn't happen, because they would be annihilated by larger stacks.

I like how Civ3 handles armies, and hope it doesn't change.

[hexagonian]

Originally posted by skywalker IIRC, you never explained how an AI could have a defensive force in a city of greater than 12 (or whatever the max is) units, WITHOUT moving units into the city as some die, which happens to be impossible when it isn't your turn ;)
Well you, or the AIs for that matter, currently cannot move units outside their turn...

Are you refering to turnless mode - since I don't have PTW. Is the AI allowed to move units while you are attacking? I'm not quite sure what you are getting at, but I'll give it a shot.

You cannot ever have more than 12 units (or whatever your base number is) on a tile.

For instance, what you can do is have a building type (Call it Garrison or City Guard) that only adds HP to units that are within a city. So if you build it, and you have a unit with 10 normal HP, it will be bumped up to 15 if in that city. Since HP is the way to boost the size of the unit without increasing the number of units on a tile (a single unit has 10HP - A 20HP unit will act as 2 units with 10HP) you have bypassed the limited manpower dilemma - and then you can also add in the normal terrain modifiers and defensive bonus buildings such as wall that add combat defensive modifiers, and a city potentially can be very hard to take - as it should be.

Same idea with a tile improvement - You can have one called Training Grounds that will add HP to units. Make it hard to build though.

Related to this is what happens if a city is building units, but there is already the max. number of units already in the city.

Actually its a very easy and elegant solution, although its not currently in place in CTP1 or CTP2...

When the max. number of units is met, the unit can be generated on an unoccupied tile directly outside the city - but only in that type of situation does that occur. Those tiles are considered as part of the city anyhow. Then you can either use that unit to attack/run away to regroup during your turn if in a siege situation.

And if every tile surrounding the city is occupied by an enemy, then the city is stuck and it cannot complete the unit - which can be attributed as some kind of a demoralizing factor which normally happens in tight sieges. In fact, with enemy units on all surrounding tiles, the city production is hampered anyhow with the current civ3 setup (and I do prefer the city worker setup regarding city tiles in civ2/civ3/ctp1 over the current CTP2 setup).

There is actually one nice thing about current civ3 combat - units do not have to move into the tile they attacked, but I don't see this as something that is required for stacked combat either. It is something that is in CTP2 by design though.

[Kuciwalker]

hexagonian - my problem was that you can't have more defenders, so unless a) the assault on the city lasts multiple turns AND b) the enemy fails to cut off the city from other cities, 12 is the maximum you will EVER be able to defend with. If I see them moving a force to attack my city, I should be able to put more than 12 defenders there.

[Fosse]

Originally posted by skywalker
hexagonian - my problem was that you can't have more defenders, so unless a) the assault on the city lasts multiple turns AND b) the enemy fails to cut off the city from other cities, 12 is the maximum you will EVER be able to defend with. If I see them moving a force to attack my city, I should be able to put more than 12 defenders there.

I would argue that if you see them moving a force to your city, you should meet them halfway with more than 12 units.

It could be argued that if you allow several stacks of enemy units to get in range of one of your cities, that the enemy deserves that city. :cute:

[Kuciwalker]

What if it is a border city, for example? They would quite probably be able to move in massed forces quickly enough to lay seige.

[Fosse]

Probably.

[hexagonian]

Originally posted by Fosse
I would argue that if you see them moving a force to your city, you should meet them halfway with more than 12 units.
It could be argued that if you allow several stacks of enemy units to get in range of one of your cities, that the enemy deserves that city. :cute:
Wholeheartedly agree!!!

Which also makes scouting and perimeter defenses all the more important too. End result - more pre-planning and more tactics.

As for border cities the same principle is in place - If you plan on taking a border city, you have to prepare to also set up perimeter defenses.

[Jon Miller]

show me examples

please, someone reasonable show me examples

Jon Miller

[hexagonian]

Because I think I am more than reasonable, here's a pic...

A. Setup without a perimeter defense. As pointed out by Fosse, the defender deserves exactly what he gets because of carelessness. His troops are out of position, and his city, even with a full 12-unit garrison should fall. The general in charge of the defense should have his head on a pike.

B. With a perimeter defense and a well-placed scout unit in place to track incoming stacks, the defender has time to mobilize his forces and move to (and here is the key point) intercept the invaders BEFORE they can hit the city.

C. With troops in place, the defender can bring the battle to the invader to either defeat or seriously weaken the heathen attackers. The city is safe for another day! Huzzah!!!

Bottom line - with no limit on number of units in your army, defense is simply a matter of size as the main determinating factor (strength of unit type is secondary - after all you will need some high-level defenders), but more importantly, no FIELD tactics are necessary. Keep your (infinite-sized) armies safely in cities.

You could argue that you need to protect workers/tile improvements, but that is the only reason to have units outside of a city, but I'm assuming that as soon as a war heats up, workers are brought back to the cities if they are vunerable - anyhow, that is the same issue you have to deal with in CTP2 (at least the tile improvements).

Oh I forgot...you have to maintain a large front of units to stop the 'VERY irritating to gameplay' AI trespassing element. In fact, that is the only reason to maintain a frontline, because all the AI needs to do is punch a hole into a front and slip on through because of the weakened ZOC setup in place.

Clear enough for ya...????

[Jon Miller]

I like a large front

I do not like Civ3's infinite stacks

I will peruse this more, and provide my owne examples later

one other thing I would request

because it is not apparent on casual perusal, could you post the contents of the armies?

JOn miller

[Jon Miller]

actually I will repeat it again

I do not like the way Civ3 does combat

Jon Miller

[hexagonian]

Originally posted by Jon Miller
one other thing I would request
because it is not apparent on casual perusal, could you post the contents of the armies?
JOn miller
The illustration is a simulation of what occurs in a stacked combat situation. I have cut and pasted in units into a screen capture to show the positioning of units - so army composition is not pertinant to the point I'm making.

Assume that each stack is the same strength if it came to battle, and the two attacking stacks in 'A' would be strong enough to take the city with a full 12-unit garrison.

[asleepathewheel]

My list of bad ideas in no particular order (Ignoring the entire rest of this thread)

1. Caravans, supply crawlers. hello tedium. hello instawonders.
2. Death of top defender, death of entire stack
3. Civ2 Zoc-a lazy man's tool. Tell me how a warrior unit in 4000bc can prevent another unit over a hundred miles away from moving? We can't even do that today in RL with fancy radar and GPS crap.
4. absence of scripting. Surely there can be some form of this, right?
5. overpowered spies bribing entire cities to join them for cheap.
6. underpowered spies which are only useful for 3 operations which cost a king's ransom
7. public works. I prefer workers, its a staple of the Civ series and should stay in.
8. hardcoding of 4 eras. Why?
9. Sea cities, space cities. Mod them in if you want, but this is a civ game, not some nancy boy sci fi game.
10. the old howitzer/engineer army
11. To irrigate or to mine. Surely there can be something else to do with the land that would be feasible for the ai?

[Fosse]

Originally posted by Jon Miller
I like a large front

I do not like Civ3's infinite stacks

I will peruse this more, and provide my owne examples later

one other thing I would request

because it is not apparent on casual perusal, could you post the contents of the armies?

JOn miller

In light of hexogonian's explanation of the only current *need* of long fronts (which I knew, but never bothered to even THINK about, thans, hex!), I am going to have to say that your insistence on large fronts "because you like them" is tantamount to me demanding purple units, because I like purple.

You aren't backing up long fronts with arguments of how they make gameplay better on the whole. I'm not saying that your opinion doesn't matter - I wouldn't say that at all - but I feel like the conversation has stagnated completely because you are instantly dismissing concepts that mean having a hundred units abreast might not be an ideal way to handle a war.

And Jon, I apologize, but I still am not sure what you want in combat. I know you don't like Civ 3, you don't like CtP, and you don't like my idea. I think my failure to understand what you do want is why we're simply arguing in cirlces, which isn't helping either of us make the points we need to make to win others (or more importantly, Firaxis) over to our respective sides.

:)

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by hexagonian
Bottom line - with no limit on number of units in your army, defense is simply a matter of size as the main determinating factor (strength of unit type is secondary - after all you will need some high-level defenders), but more importantly, no FIELD tactics are necessary. Keep your (infinite-sized) armies safely in cities.

You could argue that you need to protect workers/tile improvements, but that is the only reason to have units outside of a city, but I'm assuming that as soon as a war heats up, workers are brought back to the cities if they are vunerable - anyhow, that is the same issue you have to deal with in CTP2 (at least the tile improvements).

Oh I forgot...you have to maintain a large front of units to stop the 'VERY irritating to gameplay' AI trespassing element. In fact, that is the only reason to maintain a frontline, because all the AI needs to do is punch a hole into a front and slip on through because of the weakened ZOC setup in place.

Are you trying to describe Civ3?

[Jaguar]

We need lots of animated cartoony-looking leaderheads in a style that few people can replicate, thus making it hard for us to add civs with consistent-looking art! To circumvent that problem, we should hardcode the maximum civ number really low so people can't add new civs! :cute:

[hexagonian]

Originally posted by notyoueither
Are you trying to describe Civ3?
...based on my playing it for a couple of months, I would say yes.

I'm not going to deny that it is a tough game, and there are elements within cvi3 that are actually done rather well (diplomacy, AI/AI alliances, and strategic goods), but combat and tactical implimentation is not one of them.

[notyoueither]

Ahh, well. Play MP and sit in your cities. You'll have a nice, short game that way.

Actually, sit in your cites vs the AI. That wouldn't last very long either.

[Roman]

I like infinite stacks like in Civ III! I really hated how in CTP you could not move a unit through a square with 12 units... I also think we should be able to have infinite stack movement - a huge time saver in games with large numbers of units.

Now, as to army combat versus single unit combat I am undecided and would not really mind either way, but if army combat is implemented and there is a limit on the number of units in an army, please allow other units to pass through the square or stay in the square even if the army is at maximum strength!

[hexagonian]

Originally posted by notyoueither
Ahh, well. Play MP and sit in your cities. You'll have a nice, short game that way.

Actually, sit in your cites vs the AI. That wouldn't last very long either.
Hey I know MP is a different animal, (and that is the case for all games)

...and by the time I have large stacks in SP, they are usually marching on enemy cities.

The situation I described is if you are in a defensive fight already. It stands to reason that you will run to your cities in almost all situations because...
1. they are the main target, since they are the most valuable target. Plus, as I have pointed out already numerous times, since they have no limit on what they can hold, and they offer quicker healing for units, they can stand up against a long seige.
2. unless you have a choke point that offers a terrain bonus/fortress that is over and above what a city offers, and it can cut off access to that city, then the city is still the best choice. ZOC is is greatly nullified in civ3 - simply walk around the obstacle to get to your main target.

My example shows that you have to do 2 things instead. Play the field game AS WELL AS make sure you have sufficient city defense in place. A field game that requires pre-planning and some field manuvering.

Again, I'm not arguing the difficulty of the game. Soren did a very great job with the AI. I'm more interested in the mechanics, and the reasoning behind it.

Infinite stack movement (not tied into unit type) is a step in the right direction, as it streamlines one of the most tedious aspects of the current system.

Another point...
Stacked combat is really a series of one-on-one mini combats. The strongest attacker lines up against the strongest defender, right down the line. In civ3, when attacking a tile and you throw a unit into the battle, the strongest defender is the one who takes the hits.

So in both games, you do not have control in what unit you are attacking. Both games DO require balanced forces, although I feel that the stakes are higher to have balance in a stacked-combat situation, because you do not have the fallback of sheer numbers.

As Notyoueither earlier pointed out, you do have more control over the battle because you can cut and run at any point. But as I debate about this topic, I realize that one of the nice features of stacked combat is the factor that once you commit to battle, you have to pay the consequenses. CTP2 has a retreat button, which allows you to pull out if you realize the odds are against you - CTP1 did not have this, so I got used to the idea that it was all-or-nothing. So I rarely use retreat in CTP2. (For one thing, the AI doesn't use it, so I see it as an improperly implimented feature that ends up being an exploit.)

And historically, (especially up to the Modern Age), once the battle started, there actually was not a great deal of control - not anywhere near what is capable today. Look at some of the recorded enemy losses when Alexander the Great took the field. They were staggering. It simply wasn't '...throw another unit into the field - oops, that's not working - retreat and save everyone for another day'

[notyoueither]

In any game when you run into your cities, you face the same problem in that you have already lost the war. That is because you forfeit the initiative to the attacker, and he will be able concentrate superior forces against first one city and then the next, and so on.

Be that as it may, thinking about this... I think an army combat model could be better for my tastes if they do it right. Having armies block movement when they are full is a bit absurd. Perhaps armies could stack as well, but if the first is defeated the others face a combat penalty. If bombardment could affect random and perhaps multiple targets within the stack, that would be good too.

At any rate, having played both extensively, both systems have their strong points. I'll be happy with either if it is well done.

btw,
Infinite stack movement (not tied into unit type) is a step in the right direction, as it streamlines one of the most tedious aspects of the current system.
I must have missed something. What is meant by Infinite Stack Movement?

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by hexagonian

Wholeheartedly agree!!!

Which also makes scouting and perimeter defenses all the more important too. End result - more pre-planning and more tactics.

As for border cities the same principle is in place - If you plan on taking a border city, you have to prepare to also set up perimeter defenses.

What if it is a border city, for example? They would quite probably be able to move in massed forces quickly enough to lay seige.

[Kuciwalker]

hexagonian - in your example, there is a HUGE amount of space between the borders and the city. In C3 and C2 the distance is not nearly so large. Thus, "intercepting stacks" aren't really feasible, as an enemy can get the the city in one, two turns max.

[Fosse]

So if you have border cities that you feel are in jeapordy, plan ahead. You might not get ten turns of warning, but having a few extra troops along such borders that could respond in a sneak attack isn't a bad idea.

Border cities should be at more risk than those that are further within your territory. There is never any reason that you should be immune from attack, or protected from losing cities.

[Maquiladora]

In CtP2 its better to get to the attackers first anyway, because when they attack your city, even if they lose its possible they will kill a pop point in the attack.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Fosse
So if you have border cities that you feel are in jeapordy, plan ahead. You might not get ten turns of warning, but having a few extra troops along such borders that could respond in a sneak attack isn't a bad idea.

Border cities should be at more risk than those that are further within your territory. There is never any reason that you should be immune from attack, or protected from losing cities.

However, it is game-breaking if it is possible to cut off a city from all reinforcements in one or two turns, if there is a cap on the number of defenders.

[Fosse]

If your game is broken because you lose a few border cities, the it isn't the game that's broken.

Is risking a border city or two being swept up in a blitz that much more game breaking than the player being able to build an impenitrable fortress at every single city?

[hexagonian]

Originally posted by notyoueither
In any game when you run into your cities, you face the same problem in that you have already lost the war. That is because you forfeit the initiative to the attacker, and he will be able concentrate superior forces against first one city and then the next, and so on.
Historically cities were areas of fallback. You tried to keep the enemy away from you by meeting them out in the field - failing that you fell back to the city. If you won on the field, you were thankful to spare the civilian base.

On your statement I agree, but ultimately, it is a lot easier when you are in this situation to be able to dump all of your units in a key city or two.

In civ3, it is the cities that are the places to set up primary defenses (your fronts) and not out in the field. There are times to set up in the field (choke points and such) but most of the time, you are better off protecting your cities by simply keeping units in them.


Originally posted by notyoueither
I must have missed something. What is meant by Infinite Stack Movement?
The ability to assemble your infinite stack of units into any configuration of sub-stacks for movement purposes.
...Say 20 Tanks, 12 MIs, 6 Infantry in Group A - 10 Tanks, 4 MIs, 18 Infantry in Group B - and you can keep them grouped together until you change their makeup.

At least in my last version of civ3 (1.29) that was not possible. I don't know if it is in 'Conquests'. If so, I would probably consider getting it sometime.

[hexagonian]

Originally posted by skywalker
However, it is game-breaking if it is possible to cut off a city from all reinforcements in one or two turns, if there is a cap on the number of defenders.
The same principle is in place as my illustration - as Fosse pointed out - its just less margin. CTP2 is the same as civ3 in that cities are very close. You simply have to make sure that your hot fronts have sufficient units to help out.

I had pointed out somewhere that if you wanted to completely cut off a city, you still will need a lot of units to do so in a stacking situation.

In CTP2 you will need 96 to completely surround a city - and believe me, that is a lot of units to assemble in CTP2 - and if a player is good enough to forge together such a force, he deserves to win.

[Roman]

Hey hexagonian,

Are you actually Czech or do you display the Czech flag as your avatar just for the hell of it? I am Slovak. :)

[hexagonian]

...American, but I am 1/2 Czech (though it is 4th generation) My great-grandparent came to America at the beginning of the 1900s.

[hexagonian]

...and I do want to repeat this, as it is my basis for the discussion.

As much as I sound like a booster for CTP2, it is not the game, and the execution of stacked-combat in CTP2, per se, that I'm defending. It is the basic ideas behind it that I like. Personally, I think that the CTP2 AI needs to execute its conquest priorities much better than it does.

Between the two, the military AI in civ3 is better, and seems more coordinated. This may be because the rules are so simplistic for the AI regarding military deployment. When you add a lot of limits, it usually works in the player's favor.

But at the same time, I really believe that a gaming company can pull off stacked combat, and pull it off well.

I have played games where stacked combat has been done even better (Chariots of War is a step up - although that game also suffers because the programmers have too low of a priority on field tactics - basically the AI beelines to cities. So if there was more of a balance in priority settings between field armies and cities, it would be a very formidable game)

Since civ4 is only in the earliest planning stages, the opportunity is there for Firaxis to figure out if stacked combat is viable. I think there is often a complacency to keep the basics as they are. It's just one less issue to deal with. There is always the fear that if you change something that has fundamentally been part of the game since Day 1, you will ruin the game.

To this, I say 'Nonsense'...

Tradition should never be the final determiner. If an idea provides better alternatives, allows for deeper gameplay, is less tedious, and makes more sense, AND CAN BE PULLED OFF, go for it.

I'm not here to simply argue - I'm here to find out the reasoning for staying with the current system that is not merely based on blind preferences.

I don't want Firaxis to be complacent on this issue.

[Kuciwalker]

Strangely, I found stacked combat [in CtP2] to be much more MM-intensive than Civ3 combat.

[Jaguar]

I've got another great idea! Let's put in weird modern civs such as Argentina and Canada and completely ignore important ancient civs like the Mali and Assyrians. :cute:

[Kuciwalker]

C2-style pathing system :rant:

I HATED that thing. Never used it, because it SUCKED. In C3, however, pathing is my friend.

[Jaguar]

I have another great idea! Let's require a txt file to tell the game which animation a unit needs to use instead of just putting it on the unit's page in the editor! :cute:

[Maquiladora]

I've got another great idea! Let's put in weird modern civs such as Argentina and Canada and completely ignore important ancient civs like the Mali and Assyrians.


CtP1/2 has Assyria and why are the Canadians and Argentines 'weird'?


Strangely, I found stacked combat [in CtP2] to be much more MM-intensive than Civ3 combat.


Thats almost sig-worthy but why "strangely"? I can only imagine you found it more MM intensive than civ3 because youre not used to it perhaps. Its easy to feel annoyed when youve got 5 armies, when youre used to 60 seperate units..... i guess.

[Kuciwalker]

CtP1/2 has Assyria and why are the Canadians and Argentines 'weird'?

Any post-colonial nation (other than America) is "weird" because it just doesn't fit. We already have the Inca anyway (where Argentina is) and Canada just isn't all that distinct from American or England. America is the sole exception because it has made an ENORMOUS mark on world history, as large as possibly any other civilization, and because it was (IIRC) the first of the European colonies to gain independence.

[Maquiladora]

Any post-colonial nation (other than America) is "weird" because it just doesn't fit.


Okay.

[joncha]

God Bless America.

[Kuciwalker]

In case you didn't notice, I actually had a reason why America fit and the other's didn't ;)

[TimeTraveler]

For me, the most disappointing part of Civ3 was the way the tech tree was split up between ages. My one wish for Civ4 is that the tech tree allows some actual diversity, much like how id did in previous Civ games.

[yellowdaddy]

CIV 4...

I would love to see the biggest map my processor and memory will allow, and the maximum number of other nations available.

I'd like to see borders, races and languages, including splitting and evolving of peoples so that you can start with Italics, then choose as they split into Latins and Oscans etc, and then watch them evolve into nations like the myriad of states that used to exist before Italian unification.

...alright, a bit unrealistic, but at least the basics of civs being able to split and merge, to have borders, language as well as religion and an "aesthetic style"

I'd like cities to not be completely wiped blank when you capture them, and for their names to evolve over time (dipping into fantasy again).
I don't think much of the types of Civs on offer - I mean, playing Americans or French against Romans and Chinese is bit daft, and unrealistic.
I think a nice balance of all the races would be desirable, and base them on ancient peoples.... I know the Yanks would probably enjoy building the Great Wall of Texas or the Pyramids of Las Vegas, but i think it's silly - they might enjoy playing as their ancestors more anyway!

all those add-ons like throne rooms and wonders are a nuisance... and what's the point of a city view if it's not a unique, accurate and reasonably detailed map?

I'd like battles to be nice overhead type views like in classics like North and South, SWIV and Ikari Warriors!

I'd like a bit more of a deeper political and diplomatic dimension, like BAlance of power 1990, where you can give aid and support insurgent movements etc...

I loved the imaginative approach which produced underwater cities and other futuristic stuff, I'd go further...
I think the most logical end to the game is for the civs to race to the moon or mars and build a moonbase or something... you then have the potential for a future addon to the game, a Lunar Civ and Solar System even... Just like Test of Time tried to do (so well).
a bit more detail and build up than the poxy spaceship to Alpha C (which isn't a bad idea in itself).

All that 3d in Civ3 was nice to begin with but became a pain in the arse after a while, but I ended up going back to Civ one, as it played so much quicker, it was just more fun!

I'd like the enemies to be a bit more sophisticated - to have emotional attachments to certain territories, to remember when you've been nice to them... or nasty

I'd like to be able to name seas, lakes, rivers, bays, mountains, moors and areas of land - to give a bit of atmos and emotional connection to my nation and world.
I'd like to have political subdivisions - states, counties provinces, dependcies whatever..
I'd like to have civs, including my own, to be able to lay claim to territory, and to agree borders beyond/despite the boundaries of cities... it's more natural.

I'd like visible weather, rather than just climate.

I'd like a more detailed and sophisitcated economic model. not just "goods" but actual markets, prices and fluctuations so that resources have real value as economic things.

I'd like to have lots of religions and political systems, and even design them (in a simplistc sort of way).

and i'd like to make my own flag! and name my own nation and race, currency etc...

and to edit units a bit like in Alpha centauri - in fact I think AS offers a good model for future Civ games - it had a lot of good features, including a hilly map, which was great (though i do kind of like the old overhead grid of Civ1)

I'd like cities to not be jsut a square, but to be more organic - like a sprinkling of dots, so you can see villages, and degrees of population density. I'd like cities to be able to merge and be a variety of shapes - linear coast or river huggers or a merging of a few blobby towns.... and a bit Sim City style city planning

in short a Humanity simulator!

...in fact i designed my own game like this before Civ came out - inspired by Sim City 1, Millennium 2.2, Imperium etc.. I think many of these ideas would be more realistic nowadays... I wonder how popular any of them are?

I'd keep an eye on "Clash of Civilisations" - it might just be better than Civ 4!

I know I'm supposed ot write what I DON't want, but I think i sort of am...

[yellowdaddy]

skywalker: America is just genetically modified England ;)

No post iron-age civilisation should exist in a pre-iron age game - save it for the scenario editor!

[yellowdaddy]

"American, but I am 1/2 Czech (though it is 4th generation) My great-grandparent came to America at the beginning of the 1900s."

hexagonian - wouldn't that make you an eighth Czech?

[hexagonian]

Originally posted by yellowdaddy
"American, but I am 1/2 Czech (though it is 4th generation) My great-grandparent came to America at the beginning of the 1900s."

hexagonian - wouldn't that make you an eighth Czech?
Technically, since my grandparent/great-grandparents became residents of the US, they could start tracing part of their ancestry in the US. Ethnically, my grandparents and great-grandparents on my father's side married pure Czech though even while living in the US.

I guess I could be called 100% American...

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by yellowdaddy
skywalker: America is just genetically modified England ;)

No post iron-age civilisation should exist in a pre-iron age game - save it for the scenario editor!

Hmm... at least half of the civs in Civ fit that definition... ;)

[joncha]

That's one way of narrowing down the list of civs, I guess.

jon

[yellowdaddy]

aye, sykwalker

but the France and England date back to the dark ages (the end of the Iron Age), so are borderline cases - you could call them Saxons and Franks, and then let them evolve.
The Japs too. Even the Ruskies (Kievan Rus and Varangians).
The Spaniards are bit of a grey area, i think you could give them the beneft of the doubt.
The Germans/Scandinavians and Indians are complicated, because they're divided into lots of tribes
Aztecs are one of a long chain of civs, and should probably be called Toltecs or Olmecs.

China, Egypt, the Latins (Romans: a merger of Greek, Etruscan and Italic civilisation), Greeks, Persians, Assyro-Babylonians are all Iron Age or earlier.

the Sioux, should probably be given a different name - Athapaskans for example.

perhaps the solution would be to start the game at one of 6 different periods:

c.4000BC
c.2000BC
c.1000BC
c.1AD
c.1000AD
c.2000AD

with different standard sets of civilisations (editable of course).
And the years/turns either going a little slower or use a Deuteros-style "time advance wheel" (perhaps a little seasonal and weather animation?!)

(hex - i mean ethnically - the only ethnic americans are the one's who run gambling outfits in the western reservations)

[CiverDan]

Supply Lines: Nice idea, but overcomplicates the game. I don't what to worry about "where is the supply caravan" at the same time I am thinking about where my Legions are going" If you really want this, weaken the units slightly when there are enemy units between your units and your cities. Certain units, such as paratroopers should not have this penalty.

Wonders for things that are controversial, not achievements: King Richard's Crusade is a classic example. It was a series of WARS. Why is a war a "wonder"??? The Contraception CtP wonder is another example of this.

Future techs in the core game: I want these in an "extended Civ" scenario, not in the historical game. In the current game, the only wonder that doesn't actually exist is the Cure for Cancer. lets not add anything else. This and the way the space race is handled is bad enough.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by yellowdaddy
aye, sykwalker

but the France and England date back to the dark ages (the end of the Iron Age), so are borderline cases - you could call them Saxons and Franks, and then let them evolve.
The Japs too. Even the Ruskies (Kievan Rus and Varangians).
The Spaniards are bit of a grey area, i think you could give them the beneft of the doubt.
The Germans/Scandinavians and Indians are complicated, because they're divided into lots of tribes
Aztecs are one of a long chain of civs, and should probably be called Toltecs or Olmecs.

China, Egypt, the Latins (Romans: a merger of Greek, Etruscan and Italic civilisation), Greeks, Persians, Assyro-Babylonians are all Iron Age or earlier.

the Sioux, should probably be given a different name - Athapaskans for example.

perhaps the solution would be to start the game at one of 6 different periods:

c.4000BC
c.2000BC
c.1000BC
c.1AD
c.1000AD
c.2000AD

with different standard sets of civilisations (editable of course).
And the years/turns either going a little slower or use a Deuteros-style "time advance wheel" (perhaps a little seasonal and weather animation?!)

(hex - i mean ethnically - the only ethnic americans are the one's who run gambling outfits in the western reservations)

I think America qualifies because, of all of the civilizations in history, it has perhaps had the greatest impact on the world.

[yellowdaddy]

skywalker.

of all the civilisations in the world today, the one which has had the most impact is Britain, not America.

the list of things which make up the world we know (including America itself) are due to Britain.

for a start, what language are we speaking? English. Where's it from? England. Even Americans are more likely to pick up the standard British dictionary - the OED, as the ultimate reference, than any of their local hybrids like Funk and Wagnall etc...

and simply losing the Empire - the largest in history both in terms of population, area, and cultural reach - has not diminished Britain's role as much as even many British people think.

55 per cent of all the new patents in the world since the second world war are British. Even upto most recently British scientists have led in genetics - Cloning and Sulston's Human Genome. And the legacy before the war is even more impressive, and that's not including the patents which were stolen - such as Edison's lightbulb, which was actually patented a year earlier by Charles Swan, a British inventor.

Not only that, there are very few inventions, cultural innovaions and achievements in music, and the other arts where British people are not only present but leading.

In war, despite an army probably between a tenth and a fifth the size of Americas, Britain's military achievements are unmatched (though we have lost a couple of fights in the 20th century), and even today British forces are essential to America's success, because of their high skill levels and professionalism, and unique amounts of experience. British skills in urban warfare from Ulster are essential to the American military in Iraq today, Britain's SAS, the leading special forces unit in the world helping save American forces from slaughter in places like Afghanistan.
America's own CIA was set up and trained by British intelligence - SIS (MI5 and MI6) after the war.

For such an apparently small and ill-equipped country, Britain has achieved more than any other in the world, not only relative to it's size, but more full stop (=period). And the impact of British culture and values across the world - paid testament in most free and Commonwealth countries British style parliamentary democracy, free speech, law, and liberal multiparty politics is clear.

there are no ifs, buts, or ands, Britain is quiet simply the most important civilisation this planet has ever produced. America, is just one of it's lucky children.

[Kuciwalker]

do I detect a hint of patriotism there? ;)

[Fosse]

At least it's well placed patriotism. ;)

God save the Queen, and all that.

[joncha]

Originally posted by skywalker
do I detect a hint of patriotism there? ;)

Pot, I'd like to introduce you to Mr. Kettle. Kettle, this is Mr. Pot.

jon.

[Kuciwalker]

:p

[yellowdaddy]

I'm not really especially patriotic - I am Scottish after all!
('s Albannach a tha ann!)

but I do despair of (or rather, am amused by) Americans who go on about ithe USA being the "greatest country in the world" etc..., it isn't, and neither is the UK, but they're both in most people's top 10. (I think Canada and Australia are probably both better.)

most Brits (or more specifically, English) denegrate themselves so much, that they think dear old blighty is rubbish, but I think it needs to be said occasionally, that in fact, we're not. we've just been let down by crap governments since the war.

I'm just pointing out facts purely to correct the specific point about which country has had the most influence on the world.
I would obviously have to concede that since WW1, the USA has risen to dominate the world in a way that China and India used to centuries ago, but whether that hegemony will blossom into a British Empire style thing remains to be seen - personally, I doubt it, because it's not in the American psyche.

but back to the game - would asnyone like to comment on the things i said about the game?!

[Gnool]

I would NOT like to see a mundane system of governments like Civ 3 has. Social Engineering is the best thing a civ game has produced. If not SE then at least more government choices, and those choices should mean more than whether you have to pay for all your military or whether you get a few units for free.

I would NOT like to see a mundane system of economics. Accumulation of wealth (gold in civ) as a measure of the strength of the economy could be the system of economics you get at the start of the game, but should be replaced (or you should be able to choose more, via SE or something similar) with new economic models as time goes by.

I would not like to see an isometric map with lots of straight lines everywhere (eg the map being divided into squares, with square oceans, square deserts, square mountains, square borders etc.) I would like to see curves, jagged lines, the occasional straight line etc.

I would not like to see the current lack of trading of resources. In all the games of civ 3 I play resources are never really traded much until late game, with technology being the big thing in trading. Trade was very important in the ancient world, but I'm usually to busy to link up with my neighbours until the middle ages. This could be fixed by adding alot more techs (making the game much longer but it means you could link up with your neighbours in the ancient age), by being able to trade without roads (a dumb idea if you ask me) or do something like have roads automatically appear around cities after time. The original problem highlights an inconsistency with the trading system - you need roads to be able to trade goods but you don't need roads to be able to trade ideas. If merchants aren't going to cross the wild frontiers to sell their goods, why would soothsayers?

[Brent]

Do not make Civ4 inappropriate for children.

[joncha]

:hmmm: Is Civ3 inappropriate now?

[Brent]

I'd say Civ3 is acceptable the way it is, but I'd want Civ4 to take out the unit animations, or at least allow time to see what's happening when they're turned off, and maybe some of the Civ3 movies are too much. And I don't like human sacrifice.

[MattH]

:dance: :confused:

What Civ3 movies? The Intro screens? Those aren't violent, especially not compared to modern games.

(funniest post in weeks)

[edited for clarity]

[MrBaggins]

Originally posted by Brent
*snip* And I don't like human sacrifice.

How nice for you... :rolleyes:

So... lets just ignore the ancient historical practice, in this edutainment game, because it offends your sensibilities.

You do know there is fighting and killing... in Civ, don't you? In fact, its almost a necessity... along with a whole host of other morally ambiguous concepts.

[yellowdaddy]

self-censored, because I think arguing on the internet is gay. :D

[Kuciwalker]

yellowdaddy, keep the political stuff out of this forum please. If you need to troll, do it in the OTF.

[Spiffor]

The worst idea that ever was in Civ3:

Avoid to make encompassing information screens (such as a detailed intelligence screen), for fear it would confuse the player. Rather, make all this info available across many advisor screens without anyone to sum them up :q:

(yes, the lack of a summing-up information screen in Civ3 is not an unwished shortcoming; it is a design decision :q: )

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Brent
Do not make Civ4 inappropriate for children.
This is indeed a BAD idea :p
Make Civ4 as violent, as horrible, as monstrous as accurate. Just avoid graphical depictions of the horrors you're responsible for :)

[yellowdaddy]

what's trolling? :hmmm:

[Spiffor]

skywalker.

of all the civilisations in the world today, the one which has had the most impact is France, not America.



:p

Let's face it, most Civs available in this game are or have been highly influencial in their area of the world at some point. Either that, or they had an original culture that is worth mentioning in the game.

I think Civs should be more varied: more African Civs ([b]Mali! :doitnow!: ), more SE Asian Civs, and maybe less European Civs.

Civilization would probably be more interesting if it stopped being euro-centered. Unfortunately, it may also be much more confusing for the western audience, the huge majority.

[Kuciwalker]

Spiffor, my point is that because America has had such a significant impact one history (regardless of whether or not it has had the MOST significant; note that I said "perhaps"), it deserves to be in.

[Spiffor]

And I agree with your statement.

[Rasputin]

nice to see agreement.

[yellowdaddy]

spiffor - remember that Napoleon got his enlightened arse plugged by pansy Brits like Nelson and Wellington, and then spread his French enlightenment to a tiny British island in the South Atlantic. :p :lol: ;)

There is simply no way that France can claim to have had anywhere near as much influence on the world as Britain - it's something the Froggies have a hard time dealing with. (I snipped my rant, but I can back it up all the way mon petit chou!)
:bash:
Trying to be as subjective as possible I'd probably compare the French to the Arabs in terms of their impact on human civilisation.
:wall:
(I'm guessing this is what Skywalker means by trolling?) ;)
--------------------

But yeah - the Khmers have never been in Civ (and they had a significant empire), some more African ones - Ethiopia, Zimbabwe, Hausa (Kanem-Bornu and Songhay) would be nice for the brothers.
Native American ones have finally got a mention beyond the Aztecs and Sioux, with the intro of Maya and Inca civs.
:cute:
I think America should be in, but only in scenarios...
...for me, I'm dissatisfied with the whole Romans v Americans thing in the game, and I would like to see a bit more ethnolinguistic authenticity, perhaps having key points in history (ages or eras) where you can enter the game with a choice of appropriate Civs (I suppose this is like scenarios). I'd like the Romans to start off as the Italics, then become the Latins, with one branch becoming the Italians - so there's no "Roman Space Force", same with the Americans so there'd be no American Phalanxes.
Hence I've submitted my detailed tribal evolution tree to the "Clash of the Civilisations" game, as it's shaping up to be a lot more interesting that Civ 4 is ever likely to be. :cool:

of course, player choice is important, and I think Skywalker should have every opportunity to start with his Yankie civ in the neolithic era if he really wants to. But not as a standard option.. please! :nono:

[Spiffor]

This si what Skywalker meant by "Trolling" (http://www.apolyton.net/forums/forumdisplay.php?s=&forumid=147&daysprune=)
Enter at your own risk. It's work-safe, but sanity-risky ;)

[Kuciwalker]

:lol::b:

[Kuciwalker]

I think America should be in, but only in scenarios...

That's basically the same as saying America shouldn't be in. I think Rohan should be in, too, but only in scenarios (specifically, Middle Earth ones :p). Get my point?

[Plotinus]

Hey, I don't know if it's true that France has had less influence in the world than Britain (Charlemagne, anyone?) but I think we all must admit it's an infinitely cooler country. Come on, who's more interesting - Napoleon or Wellington? Louis XIV or Charles II? Descartes or Hobbes? Pascal or Newton? Joan of Arc or Wat Tyler? And I speak as a man of Kent myself, you know.

Bear in mind, when arguing about this kind of thing, that we have a natural tendency to think that a country that is important *now* is more important, period. Assyria were a mighty superpower for far longer than America have been to date, and they're not in the game at all.

[yellowdaddy]

Re: Trolling - It's scary what the internet can do to people :lol:
what's it got to do with sitting under bridges?!
(we're ALL spods (=nerds) here though really! ;) )
---
Plotinus - I don't believe you're from Kent if you use americanisms like "period"! :hmmm:

who's more interesting? How is France "cooler"? isn't that a bit subjective?
I'm trying to be objective and consider not just important figures and inventions etc... - and I think you'll find if you flap through the pages of an encyclopaedia that Britain outnumbers France at every point in history.
You've cherry=picked a few names, but there are loads more.

But if the question is "which is the most influential Civ", then we've got to look at real impact on the way the world is.
France is a major Civ, but Britain is more major.

I think calling Charlemagne French is a bit like the English claiming King Arthur isn't it?
Is William the Conquerer and Doomsday book English or French, both or neither? Is Adam Smith American or Scottish?
And anyway, what did Charlemagne actually do that's any more significant than a host of other imperial rulers?

I know that other Civs at other times were great, Egypt, China... but their impact is limited both in time (most never made it beyond the dark ages), reach (most only affected their immediate region) and number of things they have created that the rest of the world depends on. OK, Britain's influence is mainly only the last 400 years, but it's impact is so much greater than any others - we live in a world largely (ie. the biggest percentage) defined by British ideas.

You could say that someone else would have done what Britain has eventually, but the fact that such a small place with the odds so stacked against it did it, is enough in itself.

I think Assyria are sort of covered by having Babylonia - as they spoke the same language and were culturally pretty much the same.

...stop me if I'm trolling :D
------------------

SkyW - I'm not sure I agree

I said I think the USA should be in, in post-revolutionary scenarios, didn't I?
and only if you are playing a custom non-historical game where most of standard features are thrown to the wind.

What I mean is the standard game from the dawn of time should haver reasonably relevant Civs (no European or post-colonial civs), but if you want them ou go to the bank of Civs and add them in.

The only differnce with Rohan is that it's fictional. I s'pose it makes almost as much sense having it in as having the Americans battle with the Sumerians on the plains of Mesopotamia? At least their all supposedly human!

[SMIFFGIG]

A bad idea for civ 4 i would say, is to buy it.

As i can only go with my experience of wasted money and time with civ3 and its tacky unproffesional addons, I would say why waste your money on some shallow civ game, with such a bad foundation since its predosessor.

They have the source code for Call to Power2 (incase anyone didnt realise)
Now this is where i advise to find your next civ game, not the crap spewed out rubbish from firaxis.

P.S.
I think America should be in, but only in scenarios...
I agree, but this is sales where talking about here, theres no chance that America wont be in Civ4.
Can you imagine, a game WITHOUT america!!
Lol i certainly can, but the majority of americans cant and that would lose Firaxis alot of money :|

[yellowdaddy]

aye, it's the great unspoken,

i'm more interested in seeing the Clash of the Civilisations game finished (though I think the names crap, i think the game's much more exciting than Civ4). :b: (are any of you familiar with it? http://clash.apolyton.net/frame/index.shtml )

and as i've never had the time even to finish a game of Civ 3 or SMAC, I'll not be in a hurry to rush out and get my £1 oriental pirate edition just yet either. ;)

btw I think Test of Time is still the best version of Civ! :o

[Fosse]

yellowdaddy, can't agree with you more about Clash being a great looking game. A bad idea for Firaxis (that's what this threads topic is?!? ;) ) would be to ignore those guys.

They should all be hired on the spot, in my opinion, and given free reign and unlimited budget.

[yellowdaddy]

I disagree...

...I think they should by hired by one of Firaxis main competitors, and pound Civ 4 into dust!
like this -> :bash:

the Civ series shows how good ideas get hijacked by lazy minded marketeers and instead of great sequels building on top of great ideas. If Civ got taken on by a credible alternative it might force them to innovate.

I think Clash could be to Civ what Linux is to Windows... :good:

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by yellowdaddy
I think Clash could be to Civ what Linux is to Windows... :good:
An inconvenient complex system designed with the sole satisfaction fo geeks in mind? :cute:

[SMIFFGIG]

An inconvenient complex system designed with the sole satisfaction fo geeks in mind?
quote of the year
the sheer ignorance is hilarious:lol:

[Kuciwalker]

:lol: @ SMIFFGIG

Spiffor happens to use linux (at least on one computer) so I wouldn't call him all that ignorant...

and Clash, so far, is utter crap.

[SMIFFGIG]

Spiffor happens to use linux (at least on one computer) so I wouldn't call him all that ignorant...
Ahh good, got the impression there he was ppl who hated linux just because they had (heard) it was crap :P

back on topic
why is there such a hype about civ4, civ3 was a total peice of crap. It was like the Civilization from "3 months to 4 years" age category, with nice little animations, advisors with cartoonish looks and childish humour and with the same depth as Pops Idol the computer game!

bah, well..... maybe Firaxis know what there doing and aiming at a large market :cool: (of which im not included and quite happy not to be)

[BlueTrin]

Maybe to avoid stacking, it should be possible to attack from multiple sides at once. If you got flanked, it should lower your units defense.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by SMIFFGIG

Ahh good, got the impression there he was ppl who hated linux just because they had (heard) it was crap :P

back on topic
why is there such a hype about civ4, civ3 was a total peice of crap. It was like the Civilization from "3 months to 4 years" age category, with nice little animations, advisors with cartoonish looks and childish humour and with the same depth as Pops Idol the computer game!

bah, well..... maybe Firaxis know what there doing and aiming at a large market :cool: (of which im not included and quite happy not to be)

:rolleyes:

Who's being ignorant now? C3 was an incredible improvement on C2.

[SMIFFGIG]

ignorant
its a matter of opinion, and i was expressing mine.
Have you not learned what democracy is ?

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by SMIFFGIG
Ahh good, got the impression there he was ppl who hated linux just because they had (heard) it was crap :P
More precisely, I tested Linux in VERY good faith on my computer (a whole week where I coped with various problems, read tons of doc etc. in order to finally find the "Linux gem").
I still have a Linux boot on my computer, but there's a reason I never use it. And that's because it's an inconvenient complex system with the sole satidfaction of geeks in mind ;)

[SMIFFGIG]

u really think a whole Operating system would be designed for one sole purpose being
to satisfy geeks ?:rolleyes:

Linux may not be user friendly but the majority of internet servers use the operating system, so i think its design concept stretches beyond the sole purpose of satisfying geeks.
Anyway this is getting way off topic

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by SMIFFGIG
ignorant
its a matter of opinion, and i was expressing mine.
Have you not learned what democracy is ?

:lol:

[Kuciwalker]

Spiffor, should I PM Asher and ask him to say a few choice words to SMIFFGIG here?

[Maquiladora]

SMIFFGIG is correct, its nothing to do with being ignorant, its called having an opinion. Id say calling Clash of civs "utter crap" is opinion (a wrong one IMO), but we're all anxiously awaiting your effort at programming a game from scratch, young skywalker... oh wait, no we're not.

[Plotinus]

Originally posted by yellowdaddy I think calling Charlemagne French is a bit like the English claiming King Arthur isn't it?...
And anyway, what did Charlemagne actually do that's any more significant than a host of other imperial rulers?

*chokes for a bit* Arthur is a mythical figure who, if he existed at all, was a Romano-Celt who fought *against* the Anglo-Saxons. Charlemagne, by contrast, was a very real person who was Frankish - in other words, what would one day become the French. His court followed him around but was generally based at Aachen. The French equivalent of Arthur would be Roland, an amazingly hard knight who is supposed to have been in the service of - oh! Charlemagne.

As for what he did... he created an empire that, when it was split up, formed the basis for modern-day Europe (this is why the Medieval scenario begins in 843, the date when it was split into what we would recognise as France and Germany, plus Burgandy or Lotharingia, which got divided up by the others). Equally importantly, he imposed religious uniformity throughout his massive domains, collaborating with people like Boniface to ensure that Christianity was well established everywhere. His close relationship with the Papacy was a major factor in the rise of that institution as a political power in Europe, and in the end of what lingering power Byzantium had there. He encouraged and imported scholars, thereby creating the "Carolingian renaissance", which contrary to popular belief was not a shallow and brief flickering in an age of barbarism but a sustained and broad period of learning. Charlemagne legislated for schools to be opened throughout his empire, which were open to all children, and charged no fees beyond what parents could pay. This laid the groundwork for the universities and explosion of education of the high Middle Ages. In other words, Charlemagne was, more than anyone else, the architect of the Middle Ages, and therefore of modernity. A very important person! Plus cool, given that he was supposedly eight feet tall and in the habit of crushing horse shoes with his bare hands. In terms of emperors who influenced future European history, I would rank him with, say, Julius Caesar, Constantine the Great, Justinian I and Heraclius (and the latter two weren't exactly European).

[SMIFFGIG] FYI: Democracy means rule by the people. It is a political system and has nothing to do with freedom of speech, which is a completely different thing. They often, but not always, and not necessarily, accompany each other: for example, Japan has freedom of speech but is not particularly democratic; classical Athens had democracy but not freedom of speech (hence the execution of Socrates).

Stop me if I get off topic in any way, won't you? The last thing I want is to turn into a troll...

[yellowdaddy]

I think you just did! :lol:

but, yeah, I know all that (i was being an agent provocoteur!) - I've got a copy of Longman's "Chronicle of the world" too!!!

but he wasn't French was he, he was effectively German - as the Franks were a German tribe as i'm sure you well know. France does not really exist until a while after his death.
i think you're exaggerating his role a little, I agree he was hardly irrelevant, but he certainly wasn't
the architect of the Middle Ages, and therefore of modernity
(Britain would have probably gone to Celtic Christianity and done no worse...)
These three kingdoms would be the foundations of later France and the Holy Roman Empire.

After Charlemagne's death, continental coinage degraded and most of Europe resorted to using the continued high quality English coin until about AD 1100.


http://www.ezresult.com/article/Charlemagne (wikipedia)
(it seems like his dad did most of the work!)

there are plenty of other figures who did at least as much as he did to contirbute to "modernity", but to go into it would be seriously off-topic, and definitely trolling ;)

ps - and i don't see what's particularly cool about being 8 foot tall and crushing horse bones.

[SMIFFGIG]

Plotinus
correct me if im wrong, but i thought Freedom of speach was a basic fundimental of democracy
or is it simply they more often or not fall hand in hand ?

[yellowdaddy]

Trolling section:
i don't know if freedom of speech in japan is quite the same as in dear old Blighty either, peer pressure is so strong there that they hardly need it... you can't really grumble too much about what your company is doing if you don't agree with it or you could suddenly find yourself jobless, homeless and friendless. speaking as someone who went to university in japan for a time, (but by no means an expert on the place), i'd call it a pretend democracy! a "benign oligarchy", perhaps.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Spiffor - I think you know what I mean about my Linux comment... not that the game is like Linux specifically, but is in the same spirit of consumers wresting control from companies to produce something they want, instead of being spoonfed the sort of colourful samey gameplay that satisfiess the "simple needs" of some people. At the very least if it gets finished it might end up making the Civ series respond with something better,

..in response to SkyW, I think you know full well it's an unfinished project and has a long way to go, so it's an easy snipe to say it's crap at the moment - it's just a basic demo for peat's sake! It does need some more user-friendly interfaces and nicer gfx, but i think they'll come - they have a new map system on the way which sounds interesting. The depth and breadth of the whole game concept is becoming greater than Civ, and when all the boring coding is mostly done and the pretty gfx and sound is slapped on it I think it could be better than Civ .Civ. .

[Mr. President]

They had better not use the Civilization III trade system again.

[keybounce]

Odd -- I actually liked the plain square, easy to see/understand Civ1 graphics.

I agree that the tech tree is a great place to make improvements/changes. But this is a "Don't want". So,

Having 4 ages doesn't hurt a modder. You can put everything into one huge single age -- see rise of rome.

What I don't like:
Arbitrary limits on a civ. A civ can only research one tech. A civ can only build one space ship. (No secondary construction on a backup ship in case the first is destroyed?). A civ has only one universal "flat tax". No ability to spend money on a city. [Currently: Happyness in a city comes only from that cities's specialists, or from bumping up the national tax rate for happyness. You have no true national currency -- you can't tax from one city, and spend it on happyness in another city, even after making currency.]

An idea for the tech tree: Even though you have ages, techs in ages 2, 3, etc, have normal prereqs. A game rule is "forced ages", and can be turned on or off.

Oh, sorry, I'm getting off the "don't want" topic again.

[asleepathewheel]

How long has Clash of Civilizations been worked on? From their website, it predates Nov. 1999, not sure how much earlier they started. I also see that the last demo was from Jan 8, 2003. When is the expected final release due?

[Kuciwalker]

..in response to SkyW, I think you know full well it's an unfinished project and has a long way to go, so it's an easy snipe to say it's crap at the moment - it's just a basic demo for peat's sake! It does need some more user-friendly interfaces and nicer gfx, but i think they'll come - they have a new map system on the way which sounds interesting. The depth and breadth of the whole game concept is becoming greater than Civ, and when all the boring coding is mostly done and the pretty gfx and sound is slapped on it I think it could be better than Civ .Civ. .

It's a spreadsheet game. Therefore, it sucks.

[keybounce]

(Ok, I know this topic is really long, and this is only page two).

Infinite movement along railroads is NOT a problem. I repeat, NOT a problem.

One turn is supposed to be a long time, right?

How long does it take to travel from Los Angeles to New York by rail? 5 days? 10 days?

How long is a turn? 2 years?

The idea of "We have a well developed transportation system that allows units to move very long distances in relatively short time" is a very realistic one.

Now, how about a scenario-specific option/alternative? Right now you only have plain, road, railroad. Nothing like Road, Highway, Railroad. Nothing like "Road is hardcoded at 1/3; Railroad is scenario coded at 1/N", where N could be anything from 5 to 100.

I haven't played with short turns in Civ3's editors, but didnt Civ2's editor allow you to specify turns at the month or week level for WW2 battle scenarios? At that level, railroads might be large but not infinite.

[hexagonian]

Originally posted by keybounce
(Ok, I know this topic is really long, and this is only page two).
Infinite movement along railroads is NOT a problem. I repeat, NOT a problem.
One turn is supposed to be a long time, right?
How long does it take to travel from Los Angeles to New York by rail? 5 days? 10 days?
How long is a turn? 2 years?

Oh yes, its a problem...
From a realism standpoint, infinite railroads is believable. But taking your logic to its conclusion, a mechanicalized unit traveling on a road can span the globe in much less than a year too. Airplanes should have the ability to fly anywhere and hit any target within a turn (especially with the realistic ability to refuel while flying). Ships certainly can sail around the world in less than a year...

You have to take gameplay issues into account - and this is where having infinite rails fails miserably. It's basically a crutch to make the AI look better than it really is. And I could live with that crutch except for the following - For a game that is supposed to promote strategic thinking, infinite movement actually dumbs down the strategic thinking considerations of the player. Infinite movement means instant defense. Your forces will never be out of position. And with the commerce bonus for rails, they end up blighting the map, making it virtually impossible to cut the lines.

So I agree with your statement that rail movement should be set up as 1/N, so at least players can have the freedom to modify it.

[yellowdaddy]

It's a spreadsheet game. Therefore, it sucks.

i think most strategy games are to an extent - even Civ.

but I think that'll change in Clash - more visuals (like graphs and icons) less text.
but once that's been fixed, then it'll have just as much of the non-spreadsheet aspects that Civ has.

in fact the battles may be more action-based - not poxy unit lands on unit with a bit of anmation, but an actual zoomed in battlemap (albeit like a radar) where you can do tactics...

I believe the next demo is due in 3 months. (meaning August!)
--------------------------

[asleepathewheel]

Originally posted by yellowdaddy
in fact the battles may be more action-based - not poxy unit lands on unit with a bit of anmation, but an actual zoomed in battlemap (albeit like a radar) where you can do tactics...

interesting. I'm not a fan of this in a civ-like game, but it might work.

Originally posted by yellowdaddy
I believe the next demo is due in 3 months. (meaning August!)


you mean april?

[MrBaggins]

Thats in "alt civ" months... not those pesky real months ;)

[Plotinus]

Originally posted by SMIFFGIG
Plotinus
correct me if im wrong, but i thought Freedom of speach was a basic fundimental of democracy
or is it simply they more often or not fall hand in hand ?

It's just that they tend to go together these days. After all, why should freedom of speech be a basic fundamental of democracy? Democracy means the rule of the people, and there's no a priori reason why the people shouldn't decide that they don't want freedom of speech. There might be some things that, by popular consent, are wrong or unacceptable to say. That's the situation, to some extent, with us in Britain: you're not allowed to stand up in public and deliver a racist speech, for example. We don't have absolute freedom of speech, and it's easy to imagine a situation where you have a democracy but even further restrictions on what people are allowed to say.

Like I said, classical Athens was, arguably, more democratic than modern "democracies" like the United States - literally everyone turned up at the Forum and voted. It was like everyone was their own MP (apart from women, foreigners, slaves, etc...). But they certainly didn't have freedom of speech, which is why Socrates got executed for saying things that people didn't like - for, supposedly, rejecting the traditional gods and "corrupting the youth". That's why Plato later argued that democracy wasn't a very good idea, because it essentially led to mob rule, where the loudest voice wins, not necessarily the correct voice. And, of course, he was quite right.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by yellowdaddy


i think most strategy games are to an extent - even Civ.

C3 has FOUR things you can modify on the empire-level - sci and lux sliders, government, and mobilization ;)

[yellowdaddy]

i think there are a significant number of people who would like a bit more depth than Civ and even less strategy-esque games have. myself, i'd like a nation simulator. not excessive depth, but more than Civ offers.

[keybounce]

Quote:
Oh yes, its a problem...
From a realism standpoint, infinite railroads is believable. But taking your logic to its conclusion, a mechanicalized unit traveling on a road can span the globe in much less than a year too. Airplanes should have the ability to fly anywhere and hit any target within a turn (especially with the realistic ability to refuel while flying). Ships certainly can sail around the world in less than a year...
End:

What you are complaining about here is the lack of ability to respond to enemy moves -- the turn length is too long.

But to make the turn length shorter, you have tons and tons of turns, and the game lasts too long; you also must slow down new development of new techs, so you'll have these units longer, and you'll wind up with much more units (how many tank units are in an army?)

Oh, refueling in the air is a pretty recent addition to modern tech.

Civ's scale system is totally out of whack. At the scales of time that Civ represents, you really *MUST* have abstracted combat to have realistic combat. See board games Civilization and Advanced Civilization (avalon hill). The time scale per turn is actually larger in that game than in this; the focus is from (roughly) 4000 BC to 500 BC; the focus area is strictly the mesopotamia (africa to egypt; babylon to thrace; itally and crete. If I had the board around, I could give you more specifics.)

Civ's strength is that it --- ALMOST --- can be redone for anything. You can make a WW2 battle quite well. You'd have a hard time making a WW1 battle; from what I understand, those were primarily attrition wars where the real question was how well supplies and reinforcements could be resupplied to the front line. (Civ has no concept of supplies, no concept of a city's production going to resupply existing units other than just making replacement units.)

EXCEPT SIGHT RANGE

Civ hardcodes sight range at one space. Nothing lets you modify that. That requires you to have movement speed around 1 or at most 2; THAT causes roads and railroads to be out of whack.

That's why 100% sight inside your borders is a good thing.
That is what makes outposts a must on the battlelines, but outposts are too expensive -- a full unit of population just to man some binoculars?

Quote:
You have to take gameplay issues into account - and this is where having infinite rails fails miserably. It's basically a crutch to make the AI look better than it really is. And I could live with that crutch except for the following - For a game that is supposed to promote strategic thinking, infinite movement actually dumbs down the strategic thinking considerations of the player. Infinite movement means instant defense. Your forces will never be out of position. And with the commerce bonus for rails, they end up blighting the map, making it virtually impossible to cut the lines.

End quote:

First: Neither roads NOR railroads should give a commerce bonus. If you are trying to specify that internal roads for a city make it more productive, maybe; I still think that that's a broken correlation.

(Other than Los Angeles type areas, where do you get full highways in the US? The rest of the world is even less. Saying "We expect roads EVERYWHERE around a city" is silly -- it doesn't happen normally.)

Second: The problem of "Instant defense": No ZOCs. If you have gastly long turn times, it makes sense that you'd be able to keep patrols on nearby areas.

Again: What is Civ supposed to represent? What is a unit, a battle, a turn? That's off topic for a bad idea list -- that really needs to be a seperate thread.

[hexagonian]

Originally posted by keybounce
What you are complaining about here is the lack of ability to respond to enemy moves...the turn length is too long
I am not complaining about a lack of ability to respond - if anything, I want to have limits on movement so I have to THINK about deployment. If your troops are out of position, that's too bad, but its a problem that happens all the time in warfare - and it's reasonable and challenging to have it part of civ.

I actually enjoy the early/medieval portion of civ3 because I do have to pay attention to troop deployment. Once rails come into play, the game boils down to whoever has the biggest stack, because (defensive) movement is not an issue anymore.

Issues such as turn length and sight lines do not justify the need to have infinite rails, either from a gameplay or programming standpoint. If you are talking about turn length in terms of the number of units you need to manage during a specific turn, then the use of stacked combat would be a great deal more effective than retaining infinite movement in reducing turn length in a game. Allowing single units to be grouped as a larger unit (armies) as the norm cuts down on the actual number of units - and combat that resolves the fate of multiple units with a single push of a button will also reduce the number of units.



Originally posted by keybounce
First: Neither roads NOR railroads should give a commerce bonus. If you are trying to specify that internal roads for a city make it more productive, maybe; I still think that that's a broken correlation.
...Agreed that commerce bonuses are flawed concepts (I'm in favor of removing the commerce bonus for roads and rails and limiting them to movement only (and as has been suggested, even having an upkeep cost for them), and adding multiple levels of mines, farms and even commerce increasing TI like Trading Posts/Shopping Centers), but the simple fact is since a player gains that bonus, it is economic suicide for him not to take advantage of it. The end result is that every tile is coated with roads and rails, and strategic movement considerations end up, by default, downplayed with roads and are no longer needed once rails are built.

[lajzar]

Definitely, avoid anything that moves civ into the real time spectrum. Theres certainly room in the market for a moddable real time wargame warcraft style, but that is not Civ, nor should it be.

[Enigma_Nova]

It's amazing to see how many of these ideas acutally made it into the game. :(

[Russian_King]

Originally posted by Jon Miller
I don't want to get rid of all tactical play by having CTP style stacked combat

Jon Miller
actually CTP stacks are what made combat a lot more interesting to watch and build, and also a LOT quicker and less tedious

[Russian_King]

Originally posted by Jon Miller


my problem is that you don't control any of those units

all there is is a battle of armies that oyu watch (and yu can order a retreat)

civ has had the joys of different tactics to make sure that you win

Jon Miller

you don't have to control them, they do exactly what u want them to. and if u wana read up on my other post about tactics, its on the last page (6 or 7) of the "Stacked vs Single unit combat" poll

[Russian_King]

Originally posted by MattH
I see nothing wrong with underwater cities... in fact, I was just about to mention them in the wish list...

I don't want CIV IV to be a lonesome single player game- I'm tired of playing 1-v-all.


i go for underwater cities as well! and i want water combat and resources to be almost as detailed as land overall!! CTP1 ruled it mare REALLY good use of water!

as for lonesome games, ure in for some luck buddy. in civ4 i found that AI treats u as an equal and if u make one or 2 good allies at the start (have the same religion is a good start) you will have pretty permanent nonback stabbing buddies!

[Russian_King]

Originally posted by Jon Miller
no

civ has way more than 4 types of units

it has defender infantry
it has offender infantry
it has bombard
and it has calvary

there is also an additinoal infantry type (the archer - TOW)

besides specials (paratrooper/marine/whatever)

as well as air support

and that is ignoring modern times

Jon Miller

lol yeh but offender, cavalry and artillery are all the same (except for civ3)
i found civ 3 to be more tactical than civ 4

[Son of David]

Originally posted by Enigma_Nova
It's amazing to see how many of these ideas acutally made it into the game. :(


What, except for stacked combat (the refrain of this thread)? :D