Civ 4 - The List of BAD Ideas.

[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.

[Kuciwalker]

C2-style pathing system

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!

[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...