So Basically We Have Civ 3...but in 3D?

[General Ludd]

Take for instance Master of Magic, a game that many have wanted to see a sequel to for ages.

An acceptable sequel could be made quite easily simply be refining the original game and giving it modern graphics. To make a MoM3 after that, though, would require signfigant additions or modifications to the game to justify itself.

[inca911]

Like yin26 (dangerous way to start a sentence) I want Civ4 to do more than "fix problems".

We used to stockpile trade caravans and build every wonder immediately. Boring, and that got fixed.

They added culture to the mix. Interesting concept, but minor impact to game play. I can flip a city now and then, but more often it's used by me to stage settlers near AI war zones ready drop cities into culture gaps post-city capture.

I want faster wars. Maybe even an option to forego individual unit management as a way to speed play. (Imaging you start a war, and the game gradually reveals an outcome of events for you to react to each turn. You don't have a huge advantage against the AI and the military prep, staging, and continued building choices are your key contribution to the outcome.)

I want less micromanagement of individual happy citizens.

I want to invest $/"energy" against one unhappy city and fix it rather than up the luxury slider for my entire empire.

I want small civs to have a chance to win, perhaps via benefits for extended peaceful activities.

I want published probabilities for combat so I don't have to calculate a thing on my own.

I want greater than 20 turn deals between Civs, deals where you are agreeing that you are true allies. Maybe to the extent that civs can merge.

I want a rule book that truly tells me what I need to know.

I want options to try and beat the game in multiple ways. I want penalties for expansion and bonuses for stability. Coruption tried to get at that, but it didn't give a bonus for stability so it became an annoyance.

I want to optimize my civ attributes in comparison to the rest of the world's attributes and develop a winning niche.

I want something that *significantly* changes the fundamentals of the game when I hit "random civs" in the startup. When I see the Babs, I want to know that my gameplay will need to be different than when I see the Germans. Many-games-in-one.

The "how" of doing all this is feasible. Today's Civ is binary, it's all about expansion (i.e., grabbing resources and luxuries, working more tiles) or being smarter militarily than the AI. Tomorrow's Civ should be more.

[Maniac]

Just a quick comment as ICS was mentioned in this thread.

The solution to ICS is very simple: supposing the old system of ppulation growth is kept, just make it so that the food needed for a city to grow from size 1 to size 2 is the same as a the food needed for a city to grow from eg size 6 to 7 (or size 20 to 21, or whatever size). The same growth requirement for every city size.

[yin26]

The great "solution" in Civ 3 was to make settlers cost you two population points. All this did was to slow down the process, not eliminate it. I suspect the same would be true of upping the food requirements in cities.

In the end, I think one of the best routes to take is something like you see in other games: you can't found cities at all (well, read on). Instead, there are ruins set at measured areas around the map, and you have to own them to develop them. For my money, this would force some fierce battles over a limited (and now very important) population/production center. It would also, once and for all, kill ICS. An added benefit here, too, would be the computer could be programmed much better to deal with this much easier rule set.

[General Ludd]

Speaking of Master of Magic, it had an interesting concept with city building - when you founded a new city it would first start as an outpost incapable of building anything and would usually remain that way for quite a while before it started growing like a regular city. (and even then, it couldn't build anything at a reasonable rate untill it had a decent population size)

[Adagio]

That's probably one of the worst ideas ever... this is one of the main reasons I have for hating "settlers" V (besides the point that it has abselutely nothing to do with Settlers)


Edit: X-post

[hexagonian]

Originally posted by yin26
In the end, I think one of the best routes to take is something like you see in other games: you can't found cities at all (well, read on). Instead, there are ruins set at measured areas around the map, and you have to own them to develop them. For my money, this would force some fierce battles over a limited (and now very important) population/production center. It would also, once and for all, kill ICS. An added benefit here, too, would be the computer could be programmed much better to deal with this much easier rule set.

...Only problem being is that once you have a clear majority of the ruins/cities, you end up with the same 'bigger-is-better' endgame that is the end result of ICS. More cities under your control means you outproduce your opponent.

The game also falls into a warmongor strategy every time once all of the ruins are controlled.

[Maniac]

Originally posted by yin26
The great "solution" in Civ 3 was to make settlers cost you two population points. All this did was to slow down the process, not eliminate it. I suspect the same would be true of upping the food requirements in cities.

I'm not suggesting of upping the food requirement of cities. That would indeed only slow down ICS.

What I'm suggesting is that an equal amount of food is needed for the city to grow, no matter what's its city size. So instead of a size 1 city requiring 20 food to grow, a size 2 city requiring 30 food to grow, a size 3 city requiring 40 food to grow, etc... a city always requires a constant amount of food accumulated in the food box (or whatever it's called again in Civ - nutrient tanks in SMAC) for the city to grow to the next size.

As far as I can see, there were two main causes for ICS prior to Civ3:

1) When founding a city with a settler, you get two citizens: one in the city square and the other working the fields, while the settler only costed one population point/citizen. This was dealt with in Civ3 by increasing the population reduction of creating a settler.

2) The food requirements for small cities to grow are much smaller than for large cities to grow. Ten size 1 cities grow much faster than one size 19 city, despite having just as many workers. This can be fixed by the idea suggested above.

Would this be implemented, personally I can't actually see many reasons anymore to found new cities, except for wanting access to special resources & strategic locations, or because the city improvements to maintain and grow a large city (temple, aquaduct, etc) are too expensive. Unlike the two gamey reasons outlined in the previous paragraphs, the reasons mentioned here are actually sensible and realistic reasons for people to move elsewhere, settle new areas and found new towns.

[yin26]

EDIT: Cross-post.

Yes, but you have to actually fight over them in the first place, and the computer, by virtue of knowing where these places are to begin with, can have a much better chance at going after them. In the end, of course, there should be a winner, right? The problem as it stands now is that I'm the winner in my games *early* on by virtue of ICS. At least this way I'd have a chance of losing.

As for warmongering, that comes back to the core of how Firaxis make the game, doesn't it? Certainly if I have fewer cities with which to crank out units, the computer might have optimized his econ better, etc., and could stalemate my attacks via superior technology. You see, once you slow down the economies of scale problem, you allow for a lot more interesting gameplay.

[yin26]

Maniac:

Hey, I'd be happy to see it tried in a game, for sure! As it stands now, my games are usually won before I even make contact with somebody (or shortly thereafter).

[hexagonian]

Originally posted by yin26
Yes, but you have to actually fight over them in the first place, and the computer, by virtue of knowing where these places are to begin with, can have a much better chance at going after them. In the end, of course, there should be a winner, right?

The winner still ends up being the largest civ on the map, which means that becomes the optimal strategy every time (Get Big- which ends up making a predictable game - something that I was under the impression you wanted to eliminate...)

Originally posted by yin26
Certainly if I have fewer cities with which to crank out units, the computer might have optimized his econ better, etc., and could stalemate my attacks via superior technology. You see, once you slow down the economies of scale problem, you allow for a lot more interesting gameplay.

To some degree, that was the intent of corruption - get an optimal core of productive cities in your empire that is hamstrung by the remainder of your cities that were almost worthless because of the corruption problem - Thus, ICS is limited for the player (and is maximized for the AI by giving them substantial bonuses and cheats).

I do agree that the player usually is forced into an early build program to counter the AI hyper-settling routines. Which ends up giving the impression of ICS tactics as the best and only means to win, but I do understand why Firaxis did this - and I feel that at least, the AI is better at keeping up with the player over what was the case in civ2.

Put in Manic's suggestion, in conjunction with the two-for-one worker requirement for a new settler that is already in place, and you probably will give more weight to a smaller civ being able to keep up with the big boys.

[yin26]

The winner still ends up being the largest civ on the map, which means that becomes the optimal strategy every time (Get Big- which ends up making a predictable game - something that I was under the impression you wanted to eliminate...)

First, I don't mind the biggest Civ winning as long as it actually requires some skill to get there! Beyond that, I suppose we've always had some win options that feature tech or whatever, but the game mechanics just seemed to favor amassing a ton of cities early and letting inertia take over from there.

If somebody can make a mod with a set number of cities (no settlers), I'd like to play it.

[sophist]

I think the ruins idea for killing ICS is an interesting start. I would modify it to be a little different. Instead of there being only certain places where you can found cities, have there be much more variation in terrain so that there are only certain places where it's a good idea to found a city. I think terrain in civ games is too simplified. There's relatively little difference between this location and that one over there. If there were natural harbors, navigable rivers (with fords), elevation, etc. that created more varied environments, the difference between a good city location and a bad one would be greater and more obvious.

Another way to combat ICS is to have bigger cities have more advantages. One way is by improving the trade model, so that it is based on network effects and local economies rather than resulting from the mere existence of a road. It would be balanced so that two cities of size 5 would produce less trade than a single city of size 10 (or maybe size 9?).

The suggestion of eliminating the free square isn't a bad one. It might weaken things too much, though. Maybe settlers should found cities at size 2 to start. Or maybe the base city square should produce no food. We should rid of the ridiculous idea that mines produce things. Mines should only exist to extract resources; production is a function of labor. Two size 5 cities would produce less food than a single size 10 city occupying the same space because the free square produces no food, and so could support fewer people and thus have less labor available for non-farming tasks.

There should also be greater benefits to a city being old. There's a culture benefit from old improvements that should be extended to all improvements. Older universities should produce more beakers than new ones. Older marketplaces should produce more gold, etc.

It should be impractical to work every single tile on a continent. Even today, even in places like Japan, most land is uninhabited and unworked. Once you get into the industrial age in civilization, though, it is unlikely that any of your land is unworked. That's neither realistic nor attractive nor enjoyable. Maybe there should be more inaccessible land. In civ4, food doesn't lead to growth, so that's a step in the right direction. Your growth should slow long before you are farming all of your land. The early game should be heavily dependent on population, but the later game should depend far more on culture, control of strategic resources and locations, the quality of your citizens, and the strength of your economy.

[MarkG]

Originally posted by yin26
Markos: Of course, somebody will have to send a copy of the game for me to review ...and, possibly, eat. Right?

if you promise an honest review and a good apetite, you've got yourself a copy

[Solver]

I could also send you several cardboard boxes, without any games though .