BTS and the upcoming slavery nerf

[ZEE]

i might be one of the few who completely agree with everything EoN has said about Civ. I believe civ 4 to be broken from top to bottom.

and yes the reason i am part of a Demo Game is because I am now only a causal civ player thanks to civ 4.
piece™

[EyesOfNight]

To be honest, the more that I think about it, I'm not so sure I want to just openly blurt out all my ideas. I could actually make a pretty damn good game and I'm not so sure I want to just give all those ideas away for free. If Firaxis were to contact me I'd be willing to run some of them by them to see if they would be interested. The kind of coding that would be needed would mean it would probably have to go towards Civ5.

[Koyaanisqatsi]

[Jon Shafer]

Originally posted by EyesOfNight
I really can fix the combat system, in fact, you'd probably be surprised at what I would propose to fix it. The question is, who is listening, and what would i accomplish? At this point, it is clear no one is listening and equally clear I would accomplish nothing.

You might be surprised.

[snoopy369]

Perhaps you could make some actual specific modifications to reflect your opinions... like others have? You are noticed through actions, not words.

[snoopy369]

that was a great crosspost Hi Trip

[snoopy369]

Originally posted by EyesOfNight
To be honest, the more that I think about it, I'm not so sure I want to just openly blurt out all my ideas. I could actually make a pretty damn good game and I'm not so sure I want to just give all those ideas away for free. If Firaxis were to contact me I'd be willing to run some of them by them to see if they would be interested. The kind of coding that would be needed would mean it would probably have to go towards Civ5.

On a more specific point to yours here, I would suggest that the majority of the work - and nearly all of the 'paid' work that I imagine would in any theoretical sense be available to someone without a substantial game design resume - is the actual coding of the game itself. Talking about the ways Civ(4,5, or beyond) could be designed to better reflect how you would prefer it to play is the best thing that we as fans can do. After all, if your ideas can make a better Civ game, one you would enjoy playing, why would you not talk about them with others, who can discuss those ideas and help improve upon them?

After all, if you design a game that you and no-one else will enjoy, it's not going to go very far

Besides that, you would be shocked as to what can be done between the C++ and the python with Civ4. Some dramatically different games can be made from the basic Civ4 SDK... it's certainly possible to change some of the elements you've talked about, and probably more than I am aware are possible. Seeing what people like Blake, Dale, Rhye, and Kael have done with Civ4 reminds me of how incredibly versatile the SDK is.

[MJW]

I think EyesOfNight thinks that Civ4's combat flaws can not be fixed by modding. But I won't put words into his mouth...

I feel that the only point to go to war after the extreme early game is to take/ raze cities. And the best way to do that is to make some blobs of death and attack some random boarder cities. This can not be fixed by modding. This issuse is that the defender can bring in units much faster than the attacker and can easly repair all damage, save from dropping a city.

[EyesOfNight]

The basic problem with Civ4 is that it's too simple. In an attempt to combine RTS elements in Civ4, while also simplifying the interface, they took out everything that made the game challenging and added depth. The route they are going is not necessarily bad. I didn't particularly find managing 100 cities and not building any buildings or anything necessarily all that fun. However, if you are dealing with a smaller number of cities you need to add in aspects that add challenge and depth. I will give a few bits on what I would do to fix the game.

How to organize this? I guess I'll start with combat.

A. For one thing, stacks would be tiered (really, everything should be tiered in this game). What do I mean by this? In other words, you can't just build a stack of infinite size. You would start out with the ability to build a stack of 3 units. If you want to truly create a game of combined arms, you need to create a reason for this. A stack of 1 archer, 1 axeman, and 1 horseman might be called a "balanced stack" and gives a +10% attack vs all units in addition to the current bonuses each individual unit has. Lets say we create a stack of 3 axemen we would call an "anti-infantry" stack that would then give an additional 20% attack vs infantry in addition to the current 50% they already get. In other words, you can't just mindlessly create stacks and send them from point A to point B. You have to strategically create stacks. Since you can't create a stack of more than 3 units in the beginning, no more than 3 military units may occupy 1 square. This means you'll have to spread out your units more and actually use some tactics when approaching someone. In addition, certain advances and buildings allow you to build bigger stacks with better bonuses. Barracks add +1 to stack sizes. Great generals have the added ability to double the size of a stack when choosing the extra experience option. The military academy adds an additional +1 to stack sizes and opens up more bonuses. Lots of things you can do with that and it ADDS to the game.

B. Units shouldn't be supported by gold. Instead, you should take a page out of Age of Empires and support them by population. For example, each city size is capable of supporting 2 units. In other words, slavery has been effectively nerfed in one fell swoop. Buildings like houses would increase total unit support out of 1 city by +2. Again, tier this so you can get advances and build more buildings that will increase the amount of units supported.

C. Buildings should fuel units. One example that would boost the spiritual trait, and buildings in general, is to add the Religious Fervor tech. This tech gives units built out of cities with temples the Medic upgrade. This idea can be applied to all buildings thus making buildings more important.

The main idea is to create a balance between military and economy. Economy should fuel military. You shouldn't be able to field an enormous military with 2 size 4 cities and no improvements. This will create the added layer of depth the game so desperately needs.

I probably am not doing justice to these ideas by explaining them so shortly, and what I see is so massive I can't explain everything in a post. Everything is interconnected and I would need to create a large outline that encompasses all aspects of the game right down to every single detail. Which I'm simply not going to do since none of this will be taken seriously or implemented anyway.

[snoopy369]

Originally posted by EyesOfNight
The basic problem with Civ4 is that it's too simple. In an attempt to combine RTS elements in Civ4, while also simplifying the interface, they took out everything that made the game challenging and added depth. The route they are going is not necessarily bad. I didn't particularly find managing 100 cities and not building any buildings or anything necessarily all that fun. However, if you are dealing with a smaller number of cities you need to add in aspects that add challenge and depth. I will give a few bits on what I would do to fix the game.

At no point did Soren or any Civ4 designer that i'm aware of claim to be trying to add RTS elements. They were simplifying the game intentionally - because it was too complex, and unapproachable for new players (as you seem to be aware from the rest of your post, which makes sense.)

How to organize this? I guess I'll start with combat.

A. For one thing, stacks would be tiered (really, everything should be tiered in this game). What do I mean by this? In other words, you can't just build a stack of infinite size. You would start out with the ability to build a stack of 3 units. If you want to truly create a game of combined arms, you need to create a reason for this. A stack of 1 archer, 1 axeman, and 1 horseman might be called a "balanced stack" and gives a +10% attack vs all units in addition to the current bonuses each individual unit has. Lets say we create a stack of 3 axemen we would call an "anti-infantry" stack that would then give an additional 20% attack vs infantry in addition to the current 50% they already get. In other words, you can't just mindlessly create stacks and send them from point A to point B. You have to strategically create stacks. Since you can't create a stack of more than 3 units in the beginning, no more than 3 military units may occupy 1 square. This means you'll have to spread out your units more and actually use some tactics when approaching someone. In addition, certain advances and buildings allow you to build bigger stacks with better bonuses. Barracks add +1 to stack sizes. Great generals have the added ability to double the size of a stack when choosing the extra experience option. The military academy adds an additional +1 to stack sizes and opens up more bonuses. Lots of things you can do with that and it ADDS to the game.

Now, this does sound like a RTS (or a tactical simulator, even more so). It also is probably at least marginally moddable. I'm not sure you can mod it so only one unit can occupy a square; but you certainly could mod in "land transports", at a minimum (simple, using XML), and using Python I suspect you could give them a variable attack strength based on their contents. It's quite possible you could use Python to prevent a unit from occupying a tile that has N number of units on it [you'd use the trigger of moving the unit, and test if the target tile is a legal target, and refuse if too many units are on that tile; you could also create a promotion or promotion sequence allowing more units on same tile].

Moreso, though, if you think about ways you could accomplish the key goal without quite so drastic of a change, it's quite possible IMO.

The key goal of #1 is "increase the importance of tactics in combat". You could accomplish that by increasing collateral damage (or giving it to EVERY unit); by increasing the bonuses to 'counter' units like the spearman to mounted units; or by playing around with how 'defender' and 'attacker' are chosen. See Dale's combat mod for some of the possibilities here.

B. Units shouldn't be supported by gold. Instead, you should take a page out of Age of Empires and support them by population. For example, each city size is capable of supporting 2 units. In other words, slavery has been effectively nerfed in one fell swoop. Buildings like houses would increase total unit support out of 1 city by +2. Again, tier this so you can get advances and build more buildings that will increase the amount of units supported.

Why such hatred for slavery? Do you hate it for what it is, or simply for the fact that it's an 'only choice' for players? If you hate it for what it is, I can't help you, as it's probably going to be in Civ forever. However, if you hate it for the fact that it's an only choice (ie, too powerful such that if you don't use it you lose out), then that can be addressed.

Population supporting military units is not unreasonable, and in fact a more effective way to do this is to take advantage of the "free support" Civ has built in. Unit and Military Unit support gives you "free support" for a certain amount of units, mostly based on your population (0.24*pop + difficulty level bonus; or 0.12*pop + vassalage bonus for mil units). Simply drastically increase the military unit cost so that it's very hard to play with any non-free military units - and there you go. 20gp per military unit. Let's see if you have any military units beyond your free ones now...

Of course the big drain here is on 'losing' civs. If you lose a city, say 10 pop, you just lost some military units also... realistic, but not necessarily good for game play.

C. Buildings should fuel units. One example that would boost the spiritual trait, and buildings in general, is to add the Religious Fervor tech. This tech gives units built out of cities with temples the Medic upgrade. This idea can be applied to all buildings thus making buildings more important.

The main idea is to create a balance between military and economy. Economy should fuel military. You shouldn't be able to field an enormous military with 2 size 4 cities and no improvements. This will create the added layer of depth the game so desperately needs.

This is simple to mod in [the specific example you give, and the general idea].

I probably am not doing justice to these ideas by explaining them so shortly, and what I see is so massive I can't explain everything in a post. Everything is interconnected and I would need to create a large outline that encompasses all aspects of the game right down to every single detail. Which I'm simply not going to do since none of this will be taken seriously or implemented anyway.

Again ... this is not hard for YOU to do, if you know some c++ and some python (or can learn it) plus XML (which is simple). Or for someone else to do who fits those qualifications, if you can find that someone else and not make them mad.

The one thing I'll comment on, is that your suggestions all really tend towards RTS games in their focus. One of the thing that the Civ4 designers must balance is Builders vs Warlords vs Diplomats. Civ4 is not and never has been a combat-oriented game; it has combat, and certainly it is expected that you not only be ready for combat but at some point in nearly every game you will engage in combat; but at its heart it is not supposed to be primarily about the combat.
Your suggestions above all make combat more tactical, and more portions of the game (i.e. buildings) relevant to combat, but I would not say that they significantly improve the game for Builders or Diplomats; and in a sense they make the game very much more about combat.
Although this certainly would make an interesting game to play, they are definitely more the domain of mods rather than the core game. Simply put, most Civ players are not going to enjoy a game as you describe above as much as they would enjoy the current game; and although you don't like it, thousands certainly do.

So take heart, and try to make YOUR mod, just as many others have out there. What you describe as a game is quite possible to make with Civ4 and the tools available. Find a few others (or do it yourself!) and make Civ4 over into the game YOU want to play.

Then see how the Ladderites like it [quite possibly a lot, since ladder games feel like RTS games to me half the time anyway]

[Dis]

Originally posted by EyesOfNight
The basic problem with Civ4 is that it's too simple. In an attempt to combine RTS elements in Civ4, while also simplifying the interface, they took out everything that made the game challenging and added depth. The route they are going is not necessarily bad. I didn't particularly find managing 100 cities and not building any buildings or anything necessarily all that fun. However, if you are dealing with a smaller number of cities you need to add in aspects that add challenge and depth. I will give a few bits on what I would do to fix the game.

How to organize this? I guess I'll start with combat.

A. For one thing, stacks would be tiered (really, everything should be tiered in this game). What do I mean by this? In other words, you can't just build a stack of infinite size. You would start out with the ability to build a stack of 3 units. If you want to truly create a game of combined arms, you need to create a reason for this. A stack of 1 archer, 1 axeman, and 1 horseman might be called a "balanced stack" and gives a +10% attack vs all units in addition to the current bonuses each individual unit has. Lets say we create a stack of 3 axemen we would call an "anti-infantry" stack that would then give an additional 20% attack vs infantry in addition to the current 50% they already get. In other words, you can't just mindlessly create stacks and send them from point A to point B. You have to strategically create stacks. Since you can't create a stack of more than 3 units in the beginning, no more than 3 military units may occupy 1 square. This means you'll have to spread out your units more and actually use some tactics when approaching someone. In addition, certain advances and buildings allow you to build bigger stacks with better bonuses. Barracks add +1 to stack sizes. Great generals have the added ability to double the size of a stack when choosing the extra experience option. The military academy adds an additional +1 to stack sizes and opens up more bonuses. Lots of things you can do with that and it ADDS to the game.

B. Units shouldn't be supported by gold. Instead, you should take a page out of Age of Empires and support them by population. For example, each city size is capable of supporting 2 units. In other words, slavery has been effectively nerfed in one fell swoop. Buildings like houses would increase total unit support out of 1 city by +2. Again, tier this so you can get advances and build more buildings that will increase the amount of units supported.

C. Buildings should fuel units. One example that would boost the spiritual trait, and buildings in general, is to add the Religious Fervor tech. This tech gives units built out of cities with temples the Medic upgrade. This idea can be applied to all buildings thus making buildings more important.

The main idea is to create a balance between military and economy. Economy should fuel military. You shouldn't be able to field an enormous military with 2 size 4 cities and no improvements. This will create the added layer of depth the game so desperately needs.

I probably am not doing justice to these ideas by explaining them so shortly, and what I see is so massive I can't explain everything in a post. Everything is interconnected and I would need to create a large outline that encompasses all aspects of the game right down to every single detail. Which I'm simply not going to do since none of this will be taken seriously or implemented anyway.

good ideas. I have been in favour of limiting stack size all along.

I want actualy front lines. Not just large stacks moving as you say from point a to point b. Maybe we could make that one improvement (i can't even remember the name because I never use it) important. The one that only adds like 50% defense. When you could get more defense by leaving the tile alone, and you can't combine it with mines and such.

Actual front lines would be phenominal. Do you attempt to creat the maginot line? All kinds of interesting situations could come of this.

Yes it's a shame they simplified the game. It was done to make ai better. But reduced the multiplayer aspect of it.

[Kuciwalker]

The "simplified" combat is more elegant and actually has more high-level complexity than the old A/D/M.

[rah]

Originally posted by EyesOfNight
First of all, a proper FFA game is played where everyone is at war with each other from the start. Second, who the **** plays on normal speed? I mean seriously, I've never seen it done before. WHy would I want to wait 15 turns to build a god damn warrior? Slowing the game speed down makes it that much harder to take all 3 of you on. The real kicker was that you put on barbarians...again, no one plays with barbarians on and I found out the hard way you had it on when I suddenly lost 2 workers. Then you have huts turned on which=LOL. Are you crazy? I got bronze working out of a hut, that's like a 10 turn tech. Then you play on pangea (nobody plays that) and you make everyone go random civs. People with civs that start with scouts on a setting like that are just ****ed from the beginning vs anyone decent.

All your talk of proper and nobody plays that is all B*llS**t.
There are obviously people that do since we have over 30 players that have played on these settings.

It's your opinion and it makes you look like a newb since if they're not your PROPER settings it can't be a good.
So spend your time whinning about the game and posting here. I'll spend my time playing.

And anyone that tries to take on everyone in a 5 person game at the same time, is an idiot and must not know anything about the game. And you prove it with every post.

[Japher]

EoN was called a newb!

[MJW]

Originally posted by Japher
EoN was called a newb!

wtf?