Radical Ideas

[Brent]

What should make Civ4 a bigger leap than any of the previous games? A Spherical world? A hexgrid? 3D? Irregular tiles?

On a spherical world, would it be problematic to do maps of smaller regions?

Irregular tiles, I'm just mentioning but don't really want. How would city radii work?

[Asmodean]

Please try to keep ideas in the single idea thread for now. It will make my job a lot easier when I start to distribute the ideas to the category managers.

In the coming weekend I start doing just that, and then next week, threads are opened by the category managers for each and every category.

If you wish to be category manager, then please sign up in the sign-up thread

Asmodean

[Jon Miller]

I have thought about the idea of romiving cities

it is really ratical, but It hink that Civ would survive it

I don't like the idea of a spherical world

that would really limit scenario builders

Jon Miller

[Fosse]

Spherical world epic game, and scenarios could simply be cut out piece of the section of the sphere, the size of which the designer would decide upon. Such a map would wind up feeling like a flat map with a little curve to it, depending on how big it is.

How is it going to limit scenario designers? By allowing them accurate maps?

As for radical... I'd love to see a sphere witout any sort of tile overlay. You would tell units to go to coordinates instead.

I'd like to see struggles within your Civ, instead of only without.

How about this for radical....
No tile improvments at all. Public works (or even just cash) could be used for things like military roads and canals and bridges... but not for building one mine, or one farm, etc.
People in cities are responsible for improving their own cities, and will do so according to the tech they have. When crop rotation is discovered, crop output goes up without the player having to move a unit to the city and pushing the "Fallow" command a bunch of times.
Cities can only build improvments if they have the available money, but the player could earmark parts of the economy to be used by those cities. he could set, say, 10% of the treasury to be used by cities to subsize perhaps 70% of the cost of building mines.

Reasons for this:
*Helps AI. Part of why GalCiv AI is so good compared to Civ 3 is that the AI doesn't have to hassel with tile improvments, that the player will always be better at.
*Avoids tedium and micromanagement. Eventually, laying down road-farm-rail or road-mine-rail gets to be a real timesink and not very fun.
*More realistic and aesthically pleasing map. If tile improvments don't cover every inch of the map, the map will look better. Especially with cities dotting the landscape and their graphics representing how much improving the citizens have been able to pay for.

[Solver]

For me, the less really radical ideas, the better, really...

[Kuciwalker]

For me, the less really radical ideas, the better, really...

[Fosse]

Solver:
I'm all for radical ideas that help the game. Radical for the sake of being radical, however, will only harm us.

But think about it... culture and resources were pretty radical. Borders in SMAC were radical, just as the Planetary Council was. At least three of those four things are now - I believe - well loved, even if their implementation wasn't.

But I have to say that despite the new ideas that have come into play over the past years in Civ games, they've been growing in baby steps. I'd like to see something a little more progressive... not a radical overhaul of the games we all know and love... but Big Kid steps.

[MattH]

Originally posted by Asmodean
Please try to keep ideas in the single idea thread for now. It will make my job a lot easier when I start to distribute the ideas to the category managers.

In the coming weekend I start doing just that, and then next week, threads are opened by the category managers for each and every category.

If you wish to be category manager, then please sign up in the sign-up thread

Asmodean

Are you a minimod now? Cool.

And I think the option to have irregular tiles should exist, but a 'classic' mode for both CIV III and II should be included.

[Trifna]

Spheric world!!
If it would be done well and nice, it could really bring some immersion, hype and a bit more sense (not including the graphics ).

[Sandman]

I've been advocating a spherical world for ages. Nice to see it getting accepted.

One thing which is important is to have a flattened mini-map, so you can see the whole world at once.

The sphere thread.

[DarkCloud]

Triangular Pixels!

Or octagonal to increase the accuracy of the modeling and to maximize strategic assault patterns

[Roman]

I want Civ to stay Civ. A few radical ideas are assimilable, but too many will remove it from its glorious and successful tradition. Civ IV should have perhaps 3-5 radical ideas along the lines of how borders, culture and resources were not found in Civ II but were introduced in Civ III. Beyond that, it should be merely minor or peripheral improvements.

[Leland]

Originally posted by DarkCloud
Triangular Pixels!

Or octagonal to increase the accuracy of the modeling and to maximize strategic assault patterns

Civ tiles are already octagonal, kind of: Each has eight neighbours.

[DarkCloud]

In that case, then 16th's
Sorry for my temporary lapse. I forgot about the numeric pad movement in civ II...

[Fosse]

How about this one:

Your people select their own city sites, where they make good sense: arable land, rivers, trading crossroads.

When people are there, you see a few buildings showing a population center. When enough gather, you get a message saying they have formed a city and wish to pledge allegiance to your rule.

I would see this as existing side by side with the current settler model, but since people will only move to cities that make sense to them, you might find that your cities that are placed in poor positions (or too near better cities, perhaps) won't grow nearly as quickly as the ones with good sites.

Comments?


edited for clarity.