Contemplating the Design of Civilization...
Hey all,
There's a lot of debate over the 1 unit per tile in Civilization V, and I'm not going to beat that dead horse any further. What I would like to ask is what changes would you make to the Civilization series to improve upon the realism, the strategy, and of course the "fun" factor.
Here's my problem with the Civilization series as a whole, from my first experiences with Civ 2 this has been stuck in my craw....
Why the hell does it take 5 *years* to cross the oceans between continents on a standard map with a nuclear submarine? It only took Columbus 5 weeks to cross the Atlantic!
That's an odd question, but one I feel has never been answered, or discussed at any length. Civilization II used railways to give unlimited movement to land units, but then why weren't modern-era units able to use highways to accomplish the same?
"Why does it take 5 years to move a rocket artillery unit between cities?" is another similar question.
I think the franchise as a whole has had some great games, but I feel there is room for improvement. And by improvement, I'm not talking about making the graphics better, adding in additional Civ's, or units, buildings, w/e. I mean there's a ton of room for improvement in the form of core design changes, the kind that could add some realism to the game. You know, maybe a helicopter could fly over a coastal tile? Maybe simply re-basing an air unit shouldn't consume all of that unit's movement for an entire year?
And I realize that deep down the game is all about strategy, and I'd like to see that continue. But lets be honest, the game has always been fundamentally designed with game mechanics that simply don't jive with reality and can be heavily immersion-breaking at times.
Thoughts?
Ideas?
Dan O.
Last edited by Melboz99; June 26, 2012 at 22:42.
In any past year any unit/person/verhicle could reach any part of the world (expect perhaps of the poles) within 1 year.
We'd have to get rid of any movement point to make civilization 'realistic'. But civ isn't supposed to be realistic, it's supposed to be a good strategic game. And with strategic games it's important to make strategic moves.
Apart of that I totally agree with you, civ could use some changes in it's core game.
Formerly known as "CyberShy"
Carpe Diem tamen Memento Mori
The problem game-wise with making units have huge movement per turn is that it becomes impossible for one civilization to react to another when the one can move his entire military to anywhere within a wide region before the other player even gets the chance to move. Gameplay then becomes a matter of "whoever strikes first, wins", assuming that the one who strikes first has a sufficiently large attacking force.
If 5 years for crossing a continent sounds bad in the modern age, then how bad is 100 years to go between cities six hexes apart in the Ancient era? We could have more turns in the game, spaced closer together (e.g. 1 turn per month in modern times instead of 1 per year), but then building construction and research would have to be slowed down so that you don't hit the future tech era while it's still B.C., so in the end what you would have is a super-Marathon mode.
Those who live by the sword...get shot by those who live by the gun.
Gameplay fun >> realism. Removing limitations will make game less tactical. Imagine chess where the pieces could do whatever they want to do.
The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so
certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts.
-- Bertrand Russell
Here's a couple more oddities to think over...
How is it that you can suddenly realize in 1900AD that you're first warrior unit has been fortified in the Arctic for 6,000 years?
How is it that Calvary can upgrade to Tanks?
I really think Civ V added something great to the franchise which has been largely overlooked, the limited resource usage. In Civ IV, a Civilization with 1 tile of Iron could pump out 100 tanks without a problem, giving the other Civilization which had 10 tiles of Iron no advantage what-so-ever.
I feel that the 1UPT was an effort to resolve some of these things, but it did create other problems.
I'd like to see units stacking the way you typically have them grouped in reality, as-in, a stack or "group" of Archers, a stack of Swordsmen, a stack of Tanks, etc.
This would still enforce using terrain and tactics to strategically place ranged units, mele, and mounted and prevent creating the infamous "stack of doom", but it would also prevent the even worse carpet of doom, as well as the other complications created by trying to prevent the carpet of doom by placing restrictions on unit production.
You could potentially have a stack cap, say 10 archers in a stack at max. Perhaps certain units would have smaller caps, such as tanks, or battleships for instance.
Honestly, I don't see any reason why this sort of thing couldn't be implemented. You can already stack workers with ground units, and they were able to add stacking with embarked units and naval in Gods and Kings. Allowing stacking same-type units together shouldn't be impossible.
I agree too.Originally Posted by Robert Plomp
One thing that I contemplate sometimes is the fact that I choose policies like freedom and rationalism and at the same time I as absolute leader let my people do only what I want. Where is the freedom in what. If you choose for freedom and rationalism then I think your actions should be limited somehow and that way you could use broadcasting towers or some kind of secret police to persuade your people. Even the construction of certain buildings and units should be affected. Free people rather have a bank or stadium then another soldier or barack.
It would open up a new way of playing and force the player to actually choose civics in line with his actual behavior. A very limited example of this exists in Civ Rev where you cannot declare war when you are in a democracy and you have to agree to peace when it is without conditions. (Annoying at first when you are about to take its capital. But now I know and change to a republic before going after the capitals of the other civs)
Most features can work well or not work at all depending on the implementation. That includes interface, balance, AI, connection with other game features, etc.
The problem with civ5 is that the new features (most of the game) lack the necessary user interface, game balance or AI sofistication to work well.
Quendelie axan!
I haven't played V, but the idea of unit numbers restricted by resources doesn't appeal to me. In IV, you can only build three missionaries/executives, and it's a pain in the butt. You can't just queue up a bunch of them and forget it, nope, you have to build three, use them up, build three more, use them up...and if you change your mind and decide to build that missionary in a different city, you have to go to the first city to remove one from the queue so you can build it in the other city. Having similar restrictions for the majority of combat units as well just sounds like a nightmare, especially if the game's interface is as shoddy as everyone says.
1011 1100
It's not that form of a cap...
Iron for example comes in tiles with 2-6 Iron. If you have a tile with 2, another with 4, and a third tile with 6, you have 12 iron and can build 12 units that require Iron, such as swordsmen.
Where this adds to the game is that in Civ IV if you had 1 horse tile you could build an unlimited number of horsemen, there was no motive or reason to go acquiring more.
In Civ V, there are other was of acquiring additional resources to fuel a larger army, such as allying with a City State that has that resource, or trading for it with an AI.
In the end, I frequently have more iron than I need, usually have more horses than I need, but it still provides me with an advantage to AI's which have less, and pillaging resource tiles has an effect immediately rather than as soon as you pillage *every* resource tile of theirs.
In short, it does do a fairly good job of adding a strategic element to resources.
[QUOTE=Melboz99;6125956]
I'd like to see units stacking the way you typically have them grouped in reality, as-in, a stack or "group" of Archers, a stack of Swordsmen, a stack of Tanks, etc.
[QUOTE]
Agreed. One of the things that I liked in CTP, along with a good empire-wide management system so that you could tweak happiness and production across your whole empire.
The downside of stacking was that it also had a limit on units per tile. Anyone who's played CTP knows that limits on units per tile leads to a lot of micro-management of unit movement and that the AI has a large problem with it. Main reason that I haven't bought Civ V yet .
"An Outside Context Problem was the sort of thing most civilisations encountered just once, and which they tended to encounter rather in the same way a sentence encountered a full stop" - Excession
You could restrict unit numbers by civilization population and supply lines.
Here's something that I've always thought about the game Civilization: By the year 4000 BCE the entire Earth was inhabited. When your scouts move out at the beginning of the game they ought to run into "barbarians" in every hex. The challenge of the early game should be to bring those barbarians into your civilization. Barbarian cultures might be similar to your in terms of language, general economic culture (agrarian vs herder vs hunter) social culture (patriarchal vs matriarchal) and values ( peaceful vs aggressive). Some would assimilate voluntarily, especially those with similar culture and language, others would not - those which are dissimilar and militant. Assimilating barbarians might mean incorporating some featrues of their culutres. At some points you might have to make decisions on how to deal with a barbarian. Assimilating an aggressive tribe might mean taking on the aggressive traits, which would modify how you could deal with other tribes and civs, or you could simply wipe them out and take their land.
Regarding stacking I think it would be nice if you could customize your armies. Instead of armies of just legionnaires or archers or horsemen you could design a force like the Romans used to composed of a main body of Legionnaires with auxillary archers and horsemen. It would require a more sophisticated combat engine obviously.
"I say shoot'em all and let God sort it out in the end!
I'm coming around to the realization that the main fault of Civ V's "fun" factor and pacing is the micromanagement of units. Even *if* you only have 20 military units between scouts, ranged, mounted, melee, and naval, moving them every turn is a PITA.
Stacking would allow for a serious improvement in game pacing, as you could select 6 cats, put them in arty mode, and bombard a city with 3 clicks instead of 18.
One other idea I have in regards to stacking is that since we now have 100 HP units instead of 10, what if we were able to join/band like units together to simply add HP?
You could build a single archer at 10HP, then add another for 20HP. You could have a cap, or perhaps let resource and maintenance costs keep it somewhat in control.
The net effect would be almost identical to stacking, but with the extra upshot of not having to manage stacks. In Civ IV, simply selecting groups of units was a bit of a pain, the UI just didn't jive with my PC-based Ctrl+Click to individually select/deselect, Shift+Click to range select mentality.
You'd simply have a single unit to move, upgrade, heal. The biggest downside would be that of promotions and not being able to micro them.
Dan O.
My brain keeps on churning, and I'm now thinking about Risk....
In Risk, grouping 5 infantry creates a mounted unit. What if grouping units of certain quantities provided benefits? For example, 5 mounted units combined would be given an extra 1 movement point. 10 mounted units together receives an +1 range of sight. 10 Archers together could shoot over hills, 5 swordsmen together gives an extra 10HP
The current 1upt can be made a lot better if there is a better interface that allows to select the whole formation and move it as a whole instead of moving individiual units. (this would also require a sophisticated pathfinding AI) Also there should be abilty to assign shortkeys to formations.
Currently the units we see on the map represent both strategic placement of armies and an abstraction of the tactical formation. Micromanaging the tactical part is OK but there should be some way to move multiple units at a tme otherwise it is getting tedious very fast.
Last edited by Sir Og; June 29, 2012 at 09:55.
Quendelie axan!
Re: the unit cap, I was familiar with the basic mechanic. The difference does not affect my basic concern that caps in general are a hassle. Say, for example, that you want to mount an offensive in new territory--time to build tanks! Your Germans have got a nice, industrialized cluster of cities near the border of Aztec Mexico, just itching to pop out panzers--but uh-oh, you reached your current tank cap on the previous offensive, in which you conquered a rival on a whole different continent! All those tanks are occupying the cities of what was once Russia. So, you can either arrange to haul all those tanks (one per tile) across a continent and an ocean to fight with them, or go and disband one for each tank you want to build in the city around the world. It was even more annoying than that in IV because missionaries were designed to be used up so you had to constantly go back to refresh your queues--but then, you didn't need all that many missionaries. If you add in expected losses, I'd expect to constantly struggle to keep track of whether I was presently at or near the cap for all umpteen unit types, especially if multiple unit types compete for one or more resources.
1011 1100
@Elok,
The distribution and allocation of scarce resources is the foundation of economies in the real world, and it creates a need to develop strategies and tactics to overcome these scarcities.
I don't feel the game would be as fun if you could simply build an unlimited amount of units regardless of how many resources you have. If that's the way you like it, why have resource tiles at all?
To be fair though, in the real world while wars have occasionally fought over resources, in other situations substitutions have been developed. The entire German airforce, army, and navy, was powered on synthetic diesel created by modifying coal.
I just think you loose a significant strategic element if you tap into one tile with oil and can therefore build an unlimited number of tanks, ships, bombers, etc.
I haven't played Civ5 (and have no intention of doing so, judging by my own impressions and everything I've heard about it from longtime Civ players who have played it), but there's definitely a point to resources in 4; they give a unique strategic value to regions of the map to make them worth controlling, in addition to adding flavor. That you can build an infinite number of swordsmen from one iron mine is unrealistic, but the alternative doesn't sound terribly fun to me. Of course, even the strategic resource restrictions can be not-fun in the first place--if you start on a continent without horses, you're in the same boat as the Aztecs and Inca were historically, i.e. just about hosed. Which is why they included the balanced resource map type. And they left out a number of not-fun real-world problems, like massive epidemics spreading along trade networks, periodic rebellions and civil wars, crop failures from unforeseeable climate cycles, broken lines of communication, insubordinate generals deciding to use their armies however they damn well please...oh, and directed research is wildly unrealistic. Civ isn't a realistic simulation of leadership; they try to leave out or abstract all the annoying and frustrating parts. That's why you don't have to budget your limited coal for the trains to carry soldiers around on railroads.
1011 1100
Also, it's not like hard unit limits are the only way to make multiple resources valuable. Consider a scheme where having multiple horses incrementally decreases the build time or maintenance cost of horsemen, or multiple luxuries will mean more happiness (with diminishing returns, e.g. one spice gives one smiley, but you need three to give two, then six to give three, ten to give four, etc.). Or something like that. My feeling is, if there's accounting or record-keeping to be done, as much as possible should be seamlessly done by the computer to streamline the experience for the player. If the player wants to look under the hood, he should be able to, but if he doesn't he can just think "more horses means better cavalry forces" and leave it at that.
1011 1100
At least play it once unbiased instead of only hearing what other people are saying. It would give more weight to your comments...
See, that would involve paying a good deal of money to upgrade my computer and buy a game that doesn't terribly interest me (and which I have good cause to believe isn't worth the investment), all to give my opinion weight. And not that much weight, because this is a general civ-design thread. If it doesn't work the way it sounds like it works to me, please tell me. Or simply ignore me.
1011 1100
The difference here is that all those "not-fun" elements you mention are not fun because they are out of the players control, creating problems without obvious solutions that the player has no control over.
Resource consumption, allocation, and procurement is very much an element under the player's control. It has obvious solutions, and creates a need to make decisions, plan, coordinate, and develop a strategy to be successful.
For all the talk against Civ V and how easy it was at release, it seems odd for a Civ IV fanboi to be suggesting we remove strategy, make things simpler, etc.
Dan O.
Did you hear me say anything about simplification? I don't like the sound of Civ5 because the best of its new ideas sound irrelevant/nonsensical--oh boy we discovered the grand canyon so now we riot less WTF?--while the worst sound simply ridiculous or, in the case of 1UPT, game-breakingly terrible. They just threw a bunch of random gimmicks together and called it a game, from the sounds of it. Anyway, simplicity and complexity are not valuable of themselves; there's simple-fun (chess, checkers) and simple-boring (paper, scissors, rock) and complex-fun (most civ-type games) and complex-tedious (calculus homework). The complexity of hard unit limits does not sound fun, it sounds like a hassle to keep track of. I am at least familiar with their equivalent in Civ4, where it was simply a dratted nuisance that was only bearable due to missionaries not being required in bulk. Whether or not resources are intrinsically valuable in multiples, they will remain useful for the purposes of backup/redundancy and trade, so the "problem" solved is no huge deal in the first place. If you wish them to have intrinsic value in multiples anyway, I already outlined one way of doing it, off the top of my head, that would not involve turning the player into an accountant. Micromanagement is rarely fun, and when it is it's fun because it's optional and doing so effectively/with skill gives you a devastating advantage.
Also, most of the things I mentioned could easily be controlled, prevented, or influenced by the player to some extent. For example, rebellions did exist, to a limited extent, in Civ2. Good ol' civil disorder made a city utterly dysfunctional the moment its unhappy people outnumbered its happy people. If you were a democracy, leaving them that way for more than a single turn would make your whole government collapse. This is not too different from the way it actually was for rulers throughout history, it could be controlled, and it was a massive PITA because controlling it was not fun. It was a constant chore hovering over your cities making sure they weren't all about to grow another citizen past the point of equilibrium. You were an imperial babysitter tending to spoiled children, and Civ4's simplification was a welcome reprieve.
1011 1100
I was trying to point out that adding a limited amount of resources adds a strategic element to the game. I'm not implying that *all* of the features added the same strategic element.
You can throw around all the broad over-generalizations about Civ V you want, but without playing it, you really can't say that resource limits don't add a strategic element, or that resource limits make the game less fun.
"Fun" by definition is a personal viewpoint, and therefore it's impossible to claim that something is not fun unless you have personal experience with it.
Way to over exaggerate and blow things out of proportion...
I have 4 tiles with a total of 18 Iron, I can build 18 units that require iron, if I want to build 6 more I need to acquire 6 more Iron.
Calculus???
@Elok, if you really have a hard time dealing with "complex" concepts such as limited recources, try playing virtually other strategy game out there.
More Vespene Gas!?? Oh No! My head will explode with the complexity!
Need more gold to purchase this unit? My God! The Micromanagement!
Need more rounds for my 9mm pistol!??? I can't handle the calculus!!!
I listed calculus as an example of a complex thing that isn't fun. At no point did I say any Civ game was equivalent to calc in difficulty. Please stop acting like a snarky numbnuts. We have other posters for that, and they do it better.
1011 1100
Not sure if this was mentioned, but Civ5 limited strategic resources are a disaster, and terribly implemented. Really limits number of advanced air/naval units you can build as well, even though they are already really expensive and only of limited utility
Last edited by Wiglaf; June 30, 2012 at 02:33. Reason: also very imbalancing
I've been around since Alpha Centauri, Civ II and Call to Power 1, so I'd like to think I know the genre.
You ask for improvement, well lets start with combining the best elements of all those games together :
*In Alpha Centauri you designed your own units, and techs only unlocked new parts to design with, I loved that and want that to return.
*Never where the advisors as fun as in Civ II even nowdays people ask for them to return, please do so.
*In Alpha Centauri city's could build unlimted amounts of satelites (producting 1 food, 1 production or 1 gold per satalite for that city) while quite expensive this did able you to specialise certain city's I'd like them to retun.
*In Civ II and III you had sliders to direct a percentage of your gold to science, treasury and happyness, I'd like to see that slider to retun.
*In Call to power I and II you had no workers , instead you directed a percentage of your production (just a slider like that for gold) towards communal works, improving lands needed to be paid for from that communal works pool. I found that concept brilliant and want it to be added to civ too.
*in Call to power I and II you had sea engineers, alowing you to build city's at the bottom of the sea, I'd like those to be added to civ too.
*in Call to power I you had space engineers, that could build space city's (space was an opaque 2d map on top of the original one, so in facts they were more like "space stations" grown large enough to be city's. this space level also allowed for unique form of combat, I want this space part added to civ as well.
*The best thing in Civ IV were the religions and multinaionals, glad to see it is added in some form to civ V too (though not perfect yet)
*The best concepts in Civ V are city-states, unit promotions, tiles that can be BOUGHT and the Social Politics tree, they should defenitly stay.
*In Alpha Centauri you could customise your goverment setting in detail, and it affected also your relation with other players, I'd like to see a setting like this to be added on top of the social setting.
*In Civ II and III you could still trade technology's, I want that to return.
*In previous games we had the stacks of doom, lets face it we liked that a lot better, the one unit per tile is a big fail, please restore the stacks of doom.
*I do like the need for tactacal resources in Civ V, it may stay.
*The cultural take over from borders in previous civ games was nice, it need to return.
Now we have listed what made previous games great, but what would I like to be improved on those matters :
*religion, based on how it was in Civ IV, can be greatly iproved, for starters, the auto-founding faith is not to my liking, instead I'd like to see a religion tab in the state politics menu. Like in alpha centauri new faiths being unlocked for all players as soon as the required tech is unlocked.
As a state you MUST pick a state religion, and an attitude considering that religion and others.
This are the avaible faiths for example :
Monotheism
-Judaism
--Levites
--Orthodox
--Liberal
-Christianity
--Catholic
--Orthodox
--Reformed
-Islam
--Soenite
--Sjiite
Poletheism
-Hindoeism
---???
-?
Nature Faits
-Druidism
-Animalism
Rationalism
-Confusionalism
-Deism
-Atheism
You can pick either a maingroup, a subgroup or a speciffic faith, picking a maingroup is more liberal and will cause less unrest and better relations with others, picking a fixed religion will cause better bonusses. you can alway change your state religion.
You must also pick an attitude :
**Defender of the faith (only possible if piked a speciffic faith) all effects doubled, so even more unhappyness and aggresion of others but better boost.
**Pious, (only possible if picked a speccific faith or subgroup) effects slightly increased
**Conservative (always possible) effects of faith stay standard.
**Oecoemenic (only possible if picked a subgroup or maingroup) effects of faith slightly lowered.
**Tolerant (only possible if picked a maingroup) effects of faith almost gone, can even have good relation with tolerant rulers of other maingroups)
The special faith buildings and the religious specialist from Civ IV will return, but somewhat different :
when you change your national faith, depending on the size of the change all your faith buildings will be ineffective for a couple of turns.
unlike in Civ iV you can build them forever even in modern age.
================================================== ==========================================
Keep in mind this will be part of you STATE POLTICS tab, independant from your cultural progress tab.
A likewise system will be added for economics (based on those multinationals)
The other 2 state politics you will get are less eleborate tabs one will be for authority, alowing you to pick between diffent forms of goverment (dicatorship, monargy, oliachy, technocracy, republic, democracy, digital democracy, communism, facism, corporatism) each with certain bonusses and drawbacks.
and one will be named Attitude, and it ill determine your nations attitude to others you can pick from (Xenofobic, Nationalistic, Patriottic, Explorer, Imperialist, Unionist, Globalist) each with bonusses and downsides.
Ok, faith and politics have been improved, next topic border expantion : allow for a tax slider on your cultural income, that tax will not go to your cultural progress, but will go to your propaganda pool, you can buy tiles owned by others with this pool.
With that We are done improving on what excists... now new idea's to be added :
-For starters I'd say add most of my ocean improvements as listed in my IS THERE ANY OCEAN MOD post.
-next I'd to say go away from fixed history by this way :
**the number of special goods gets extended to be around 1000 different items, though one can set volume per map between 50 and 200 of them none has all of them, each map unique.
**the tech tree goes out of the window instead we have about 5000 techs, each having different prerequisits (both in other techs (sometimes one of those listed is ok, sometimes multiple are needed) as in specialgoods. yes thas rights you need acces to goods to be able to research.
Also your future is BLIND, so you ONLY can see your current available research projects.. you can NOT see what you will unlock by reasearching one. as a result every game is unique and you really build YOUR history of time instead of coping the way our real world has gone.
**rebalancing is needed, research need to take a LOT longer, it goes way to fast now. Also the price of buildings need to go down a lot.
and that of units even more (making units cheap) the number of turns in the game is increased by a lot too.
-> giving you finally ample of time to build all available buildings everywhere, build a sizable army and fight epic battles before any new era dawns.
(in current game buildings go so slow, and tech so fast, and movement so slow relatively that by the time I have 5 units at my enemy's doorstep they are 2 era's behind)
**while double map is nice, why stop at world domination, new level will be added, after you won victory on either path you enter space stage, 2-20 double layerd (surface ad orbital) maps or "planets" are visible for you to travel too.
Every one of those planets will have one or more civs on them, some primitive some as advanced as you, in a way the game gets a new level.
Can you get galatic dominations too after you have it on your planet? Or become president of the intergalatic counsil, or become the first to acend your people to pure energy, etc!
**To add more fun those other planets will each have random nd therefore very different resources than youhave and thus the civs on them be will have other techs and hence other units than you, also when you gain controll of those new resources you too can research new techs and unlock new buildings and unit parts.
**because of all this randmisation standard unit names and your civ name is removed, you chooce one yourself. and specialise by picking your politics.
** to replace civ attributes Genes are added to the blend, there are 100 possible genes in the game each with a certain effect ( many different ones, butsome may have the same effect and able to boost eachother). Your planet gets at random 10 genes of those 100, you may select 5 of those 10 for your people,that will be you race, by genetic experiments, intermingling or sortalike on your rival civs on your planet you may get acces to the other 5 (given one of them selected them), in space stage you may also extract dna of the races on the othe planents to further improve your race.. get 50 or more genes and you win the homo superior victory.
Well that were my 5 cents, lemmy hear what you think of all my idea's.
I have a few ideas also on how to fix some of the problems I have with Civ:
Problem: It's too easy to explore the world in all Civ games. In most games I have explored the full continent before 1AD, I know exactly where the borders of all civs are (this is worse in Civ V, where I can see new cities being built, even though my units saw that area 1000 years before the city was built)
Solution: Have some kind of soft limit on how far away from your own borders you can go. As soon as you reach that limit your unit starts to lose health. Each time you reach a new age, this soft border limit will expand. Ships will not have this limit, but units on another continent will have will have this border limit based on how far away from the ocean they are. This way you wont know how the world looks before 1AD
Problem: The world is too empty throughout most of the game on a standard game. In my last game on a large map, one continent, there was only cities on 50% of the continent at 1700AD
Solution: Add more civs as standard on each map. Every time I play a game I always add at least 2 more civs (and often more)
Problem: Your government is written in stone in Civ V. When you have made a type of government, you'll stick with that type of government until the end of the game
Solution: Something like the government in Civ IV or SMAC would be better. There are 1000 ways to make it better and I'm not going to list them all
Problem: The advisers are useless in Civ V. The science adviser has always only said I was producing a lot of science compared to population, no matter how behind I was in sceince. The other advisers keeps on repeating the same message over and over. Sometimes there is an interesting message between them, but I'm not interested in clicking through "I'm not sure COUNTRYNAME has an army at all" 100 times to find that one interesting message. But even the most interesting message is still useless
Solution: Make the advisers repeat less by making all the repeating messages all be in the same message and add some more advises that is useful. And make the advisers more like they were in Civ II. I really miss those advisers
This space is empty... or is it?
Don't think of it as turning horses into tanks. Think of if as the Cavalry unit being a designated military unit (comprised of men, horses, supplies, etc) in which obsolete elements are phased out when new technology becomes available.
For instance, the US 1st Cavalry Division doesn't use horses anymore. It's a combination of mechanized units, artillery, armor, and transport helicopters (aircav).
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks