What your ideal civ game would look like? What mechanics it should have?
 Shopping Cart Returner Shirt $21.68 |
 UFOs Are A Psyop Shirt $21.68 |
Shopping Cart Returner Shirt $21.68 |
What your ideal civ game would look like? What mechanics it should have?
I just want to be able to create more than one thing at a time
luckily you can already do that, just build a settler and settle a second city
But I like playing Venice.
>I just want to be able to create more than one thing at a time
Maybe they should implement hammers per pop and let you run an actual parallel building queue
Same with science/etc .
It would be micro hell tho.
>inb4 06/24
I would like for building and unit training to be separated, the opportunity cost would be modeled by tiles worked/city specialization already
I'd like for culture/scence research to be revamped into something more complicated and less generalized
I'd want the buildings to be upgradable with tech and investment into their later versions like the units already are.
I'd get rid of tile buying completely, but would enable set tile order inside city.
I'd make tiles themselves smaller in scope, and have a city be a 3 tile placement instead of one tile. I'd keep the 1 unit per tile, but current units would be adapted to smaller tiles, in that all move further, and ranged attack from further, equivalent to previous ginormous tiles.
I'd like for wonder building to be more modular like current faiths are, with the wonders you are able to build depending on your unique resources, selected gov systems and geographical location, rather than being avavalible to everyone, always.
In the smaller tile scenario I thing a river should be a tile in itself instead of a tile border, making attacking from a river tile atrocious, while attacking into a river tile very beneficial.
I'd re-introduce having free selection from many Civ leaders, (even within that same game possibly) without them being connected to bonuses or any other mechanics, just candy.
I'd completely get rid of "global happines" and have happiness on a city level, with possible spread to neighboring cities, both yours and enemy.
I'd place limit on city founding on there existing a road/river/shallow water/mixed connection to your capital. If you want cities on another continent, you gotta wrest them from the locals, period.
This. It's omega moronic that you need to either neglect your entire army or basic infrastructure to effect win the game. Yeah, I get it's a better idea to focus down such and such unit or beeline such and such tech or building, but no fricking way a city would go without a granary or a church for 10,000 years.
the ideal strategy game spans all time periods like civ, has in depth grad strategy like paradox and battles like total war.
>grad strategy like paradox
isnt civ has it too?
Civ is babymode for autists that want to manage 1000 proviences
>1000 proviences
thats parawieners slop forte, game with strategic depth of tic tac toe where you pull 1000 levers hidden behind popup menus. Basic task of deciding where to build new town in civ requires more thought than anything in your troony visual novels.
>in depth grand strategy like paradox
LMAOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
man i remember being 12 too, enjoy it while it lasts
>battles like total war
I too enjoy spending half my play time in loading screens
>and battles like total war.
trash and way too time consuming
auto resolve
Before you chase an ideal you won't see fulfilled in the near future, maybe find titles that meet two of the three criteria you listed.
For a broad time span covered plus Total war battles, see if Empire earth does anything for you.
Broad time span and Paradox-type grand strategy might be fulfilled by just playing a mega campaign, converting your save games starting from Imperator Rome up until either HoI4 or Stellaris.
Sadly, I wouldn't know about any examples that combine Grand Strategy in the Paradox vein with Total War-like battles. I reckon that to facilitate this, you would have to reduce the complexity of the grand strategy aspect so as to avoid the game being polluted with dozens of minor battles per round and petty armies clogging up the landscape. At the same time, you would probably have to increase the complexits regarding empire management. These points may begin to clash at some point in the design.
So, the best I think you should look for in this regard is a more in-depth Total War game. Also, look out for other games that might interest you. When I got into Mount & Blade, for example, I liked that it felt somewhat like a Total War Battle that you participated in as a combatant.
how about paradox grand strategy combined with ultimate general tier battles?
Not exactly what you're looking for but for grand strategy + real-time battles check out Knights of Honor
>has in depth grad strategy like paradox
Lmao visual novels are not strategy.
Nah, kitchen sink shit like that is the reason strategy is so fricked right now. No focus.
Local governors to automate your cities (cut down on tedious micromanagement), but over time they become corrupt (diverting hammers away from the city) with the speed based on your government type and your play style.
Culture changes (like Humankind), but completely optional and done through quests or criteria fulfillment (not like Humankind).
District construction and maintenance, not just function-based districts (science, commerce, industry, etc) but also ethnic districts and historic districts (like turning your city's first science district into the "Old Babylonian Quarter" so your city can build a second science district).
Limited applications of multiple units per tile (good for moving many units at once, good for defending) with some minor drawbacks (bad for attacking so they aren't doomstacks).
Spherical globe (please be patient, I have autism).
>Local governors to automate your cities (cut down on tedious micromanagement),
You should be able to unite multiple cities into a province so instead of three cities you only manage one province with their combined yields.
>Limited applications of multiple units per tile
idea - what if number of units per tile would be depend from food that tile produce? if tile have 3f/t than it have ability to sustain 3 units, 4th and more would get health penalty 1/t.
>Local governors to automate your cities
Wow almost like everything before Civ V. And Alpha centauri even had 4 governers you could select from, Conquer, Discover, Explore and Build.
It's almost like Civ V onwards went... backwards...
You already posted it, no need to continue
Navigables rivers and interesting late game
>Navigables rivers
civ4 have such mod
Rivers should act like roads after a certain medieval era tech. And I don't just mean for unit movement, but also trade and religion spread.
>Rivers should act like roads
>should
>implying they didn't in the previous titles
Hello, zoomer.
in civ3 they dont
But they do in Civ 1, Col, Civ 2 and SMAC, which only further paints you as a fricking zoom-zoom
Each tile/length of river should have two different binary attributes - deep/shallow and navigable/unnavigable. Military units cannot cross deep rivers without the tech to cross ocean tiles. Ships can sail up navigable rivers. Heavier ships are restricted to deep rivers, lighter ships can go up both deep and shallow rivers. This attribute should be applied on a per-unit basis, to help model the different uses of rivers over time. Ex. Ancient and Medieval ships can go up all navigable rivers, while the heaviest Renaissance ships are restricted to deep rivers, and most ships after Ironclads can't go up rivers at all
>while the heaviest Renaissance ships are restricted to deep rivers,
so players should save ancient galleys for Renaissance warfare? i think that bad idea.
They'd use lighter Renaissance ships for riverine combat. Galleys would just get smashed thanks to the increase in combat strength over time. The idea is that the how rivers are used changes over time - in the Ancient and Medieval eras, they might as well be extensions of the sea; in the Renaissance and Industrial era, the heaviest ships face some restrictions; and in the Modern era, most ships can't go up rivers at all. They'd change from being major geographic boundaries and vulnerable paths for invasion to major internal arteries, no more or less vulnerable to invasion than any other part of your empire, like they did historically.
I think it should just be navigable/unnavigable. To simplify things. If you have a navigable river, it cannot be easily crossed by military units who have to use a 'ford' action until a bridge is constructed by workers. But the benefits of a navigable river are access by naval units and cool wonder/district stuff (like bridge wonders can be constructed on them and only them).
Unnavigable rivers are less cool, and are basically the rivers we have now.
https://forums.civfanatics.com/threads/strategic-rivers-mod.468148/
>Ships now can sail on rivers. Uses your fleets to explore new terrain, to quickly move troops and units, and to block the trading of your opponents!
>Rivercrossing for units is now limited. Find and conquer the few river fords where your armies can cross rivers. Teach them to swim or build bridges to conquer those proud waters!
Pretty much Civ4 mechanics on a hex grid.
Use Civ 5 as a base and expand on the core mechanics from there. Balance the game around PvP, rather than AI.
The problem with Civ (I didnt play any of them before 4) is that science is the most important yield in the game because it unlocks buildings, wonders, units: being behind in science means you lose.
So to midigate that I wish they adopted a system like Vic2: you research bug techs to set a general course where you want to go, but there is sub technologies associated with it (e.g. sailing -> triremes -> quadriremes) which are unlocked indirectly by what you are doing. So if you have a naval empire and build a lot ships and trade over the sea you will get naval techs quicker, if you do a lot of warfare you will get better units, if you focus on culture you will get new forms of government or unlock nationalism first for a big boost and so on.
This way more playstyles would be viable and even necessary because if you want to win a domination victory you better give your civ a martial culture early on.
production is more important than science.
I think that should be taken even farther. Give the player no direct ability to control their research early on. The player only has indirect influence over their science by doing things related to the technology they want to progress. The ability to directly choose techs would be gated behind unlocking the scientific theory. I would make scientific theory a civic instead of a tech as well. In fact I'd make the culture and science trees very interlinked with having things have prerequisites from more than just their own tree. Maybe culture could even get the science treatment and either solely or mostly be able to be indirectly influenced by the player.
This but later you unlock the ability to feed units with food from your cities via logistics systems.
To further benefit this system I'd change units to be more comprised of smaller subunits almost like army stacks work in EU4. You put a certain number of swordsmen, archers, and spearmen into a unit and that determines its combat abilities. Your ability to feed your units naturally limits deathstacks. And in the late game when logistics enable much larger and thus more powerful armies it would also introduce vulnerabilities in the form of being able to cut units off from their supply.
And this. Just generally more ability to change the world around you.
>But what is the incentive to do this? Losing out on production
For levelling hills it would make sense if flat land was always better farmland and food was the primary limiter of population rather than artificially imposed housing or amenities limits. Would also work even better if military units required population.
I think rivers should always function as important routes of transport. Building bridges, dams, and canals should also be important decisions.
Yep.
Nice I like that idea, way better then tech tree.
the idea civ game for me is a game with a mix of civ 4 and alpha centauri mechanics with the combat calculations of civ 5
i dont care if you want 1 tile per unit or stacking, as long as the AI can work with it
just remove the dice roll combat from previous civ games
Terraforming. Forests spread by themselves, you can level hills or create them with nukes, you can flood areas, you can desertify areas or reclaim desert
>Forests spread by themselves
This is in modded Civ 4. It is a fricking nightmare. There's nothing worse than a forest growing over the only workable hill in your city before you can chop.
>you can level hills
>you can desertify areas
But what is the incentive to do this? Losing out on production and food respectively as well as defensive terrain? Unless you have something like petra that's largely a huge waste of resources.
>This is in modded Civ 4.
Forests and jungles spread by themselves in vanilla civ 4, no mod needed. It's just very slow. Without building forest preserves, it just isn't going to happen in any reliable way, and even then it's not great.
And yeah, when that jungle grows over your city's only hill in the ancient era, long before you're going to tech to ironworking, that sucks
I think forests should have levels. At least 3. With the highest being completely dense. Tile improvements should too. Having the tile improvement all consuming could count against the tourism score if it's something like mines and windmills. Be neat if they brought back animals spawning.
It would be really cool to have to have build improvements dealing with hydrology. Build irrigation to drain or flood water on a tile adjacent. Hook irrigation up to faraway rivers or body of waters with hex edge water channels.
Damns can be build to create a in possible reservoir along a hex edge. Draining or flooding depends on connection. Channels above the reservoir flood connected irrigation tiles, and those bellow drain the tiles to the river.
Maybe aqueducts can be built on tiles to bring water from mountains or hills to cities and irrigation aswell.
Would also love to see total war style trade systems and riverine trade along rivers and channels.
I just want the best mechanics from 4 and 5 and also for each Civ leader to be wearing a different era-appropriate outfit for each era like in Civ 3
This and real time, I know it would probably break the game and turn it into something completely different and not Civ. But frick it, I love the tism of turns but sometimes micromanaging a invasion like a game of dame is ball busting.
I want something much closer to Old World essentially, because that game is much better than Civ in many ways. Please pirate it or try the demo because Old World is criminally underrated.
In Civ you can get nearly every building in every city, the only thing that you choose is the order in which you construct those buildings.
If you replace that with a larger variety of buildings of which you can only get a limited number per city, you get a much more interesting game. You can see a hint of that in Civ 6 where you have to choose between power plant types and where you have to give up one or two districts in most of your cities.
Micromanagement in Civ is tedious. Manually controlling workers is very unfun and so is spamming improvements with workers.
Civ 6 tried to fix that by giving workers limited charges and making specialists worthless but that is a bandaid fix at best.
And most importantly of course, the AI in most Civ games is very bad. Especially in Civ 6. If you're going to make a symmetrical single player game, you really need an AI which gives the player some kind of challenge.
Alternatively, instead of creating an AI which is good at following the same rules as the player, you can intentionally make the game asymmetric. I would almost prefer that because the Civ lategame is an absolute snorefest 99% of the time. If you admit that making a good AI is too difficult, you can come up with a different way to challenge the player throughout the game.
I'd love an old world that went past early medieval age. The tile improving, city system, wonders and military are all great. The character system would probably need to be streamlined/altered to work during later ages though.
Me too. Maybe increase the build time of everything by like 2x since Old World games are pretty short (in terms of turn numbers). And instead of the 3 building tiers for culture levels you can have different buildings that unlock over the course of the game, so it doesn't get too crowded. Replace the character system with something that would make sense for a game spanning multiple millenia and WA LA, you have the actual Civ killer.
Or maybe not, since the game is a bit too complex for the target audience of modern Civ games. But you would have a really really good game.
The best parts of Civ 3, 4, and 5 combined maybe with some Alpha Centauri elements as well
Alpha Centauri is my ideal civ
>Old World
too much random. your king fell off hourse and died, so your counry is screwed, and you have no power over it. where is strategy? also orders system is not fun, you have units but you cant move them. specially you will fill that type of fun in defensive war, were all your orders goes to troops, and workers as economy goes to halt. but not for your enemy, he can waste few orders for workers, so with every turn he become stronger and you weaker. o, you want peace on any condition, even become his b***h? too bad, tech that alowed this not open yet, and you dont have charecter with "diplomat" trait, so yeah. fun.
Defenders have a huge advantage in this game since there are so many combat bonuses for defending your land. +25% defense in urban for infantry, +10% strength for same family, units from hunter cities get +20% strength in own territory and there's the insanely strong warden promotion that gives +25% strength in urban. Garrison buildings and forts give a gigantic defense bonus too.
If you fortify an infantry unit with the warden promotion on a stronghold of its own family and give it a tactician general, it will be almost immortal. It will stand there and exert ZOC and it can hit someone for a single order every turn.
Aside from the numbers, you are obviously at a huge logistical advantage if you only have to move your units to your own cities and not to the enemy cities which are further away. You can also heal in your own territory instead of needing to move your high quality units back and forth.
So it's much more order efficient to be the defender.
The game really is not Civ and you will do extremely poorly if you play it as if it was Civ.
In Old World you can build an extremely strong economy while being completely unprepared for war, since military and civic production are two separate values. If you have a city with 2 ranges + 2 barracks and an elder officer in each one, that city will produce an absolutely insane amount of high quality units while being useless economically. You will also need to spam mines and lumbermills somewhere because units cost a lot of wood and iron, unlike infrastructure which is 95% stone.
Old World is a game about specialization, which is a rather foreign concept if you are used to Civ.
And I agree about the king dying part, that is very frustrating if you are playing on high difficulty and it happens multiple times in a row. Luckily there's a setting to reduce the character mortality so it doesn't happen.
A mechanic to expell the israelites from your realm
Keep an Art Deco UI/art direction no matter what at least, games need pretty aesthetics.
Civ 5 with stack combat like the previous games
>Population management so a city doesnt creates units without losing its population
>Workers (Population) being units so they can do things like revolt and being killed
>Multi tile cities
>4 digit x 4 digit map size
>Creating units/building not only requiring time but also resources and manpower
>Basic logistics system where roads and stats affect where units can go
>Having to use units like diplomats until not necessary
>All civs being all the same in the beggining but becoming diferent later with culture, civics etc
>Stack combat but with size limit and commanders being necessary
>Realistic research so you cant research sea sailing when you dont even have acces to it
And more
>And more
please continue
It would involve FARRRRR less woke politics, Civ 7 going to have the first trans faction leader for the French/Germans AHHHHmazing how few fricks ill give about buying it.
?
>Woke Politics
>Civ
Fricking where? Not even Civ 6 has anything you could honestly construe as “woke”, unless you count something like female leaders or changing climates as “woke”, in which case that word simply becomes everything that annoys you or that you don’t like, which is hypocritical and moronic
Female/brown empowerment and climatism is part of ESG point scoring, so it is still woke.
If the climate change mechanic would be something more than EBIL "Burn the coal, pay the toll" CO2 fearmongering, the game would be harder to mock.
Civ 6 but with the combat of Field of Glory 2
The base games start out with ancient civilizations with a lot of period-appropriate scenarios. Medieval and Modern nations get added later on with expansions.
CIV V aesthetic basically down the line from visuals to quote choice
ES2 style politics
ES1 style diplomacy
Dual-production system where you can create a unit and a building simultaneously
I think the quotes and narration give a great atmosphere, but I have a feeling a lot of them are fake. I couldn’t find a source for the quote from Muhammad when you build the Kremlin anywhere, for example
Navigable rivers and elevation, after playing Endless Legend, civ feels "flat". picrel
Civ5 Art style where its less cartoony
add short-medium duration special events such as plagues or barbarian horde invasions.
have a late game event happen that will affect all players, maybe in future era have something similar to an AI uprising in Terminator
make pollution a lot more impactful, like late game polar ice caps melting and flooding low level areas. with the difference in elevation, entire lowlands would flood over, while mountainous areas will be safe for most of the game.
bring back the ideology system from 5 with culture swaying what ideology the civ will lean towards
>Navigable rivers and elevation
That would just be a long thin ocean tile
nah more like a snaky road
>have a late game event happen that will affect all players, maybe in future era have something similar to an AI uprising in Terminator
[[[reddit space]]]
>make pollution a lot more impactful, like late game polar ice caps melting and flooding low level areas. with the difference in elevation, entire lowlands would flood over, while mountainous areas will be safe for most of the game.
there should be various end game "apocalypse" events that trigger according to players/AI actions and just frick up whatever your game plan was
>Too many AI datacenters boosting production in a civ? Terminator uprising starting in that civ and spreading to other cities with AI datacenters
>Massive clone armies waging forever wars? Massive international clone army mutiny, even clone workers rebel. Hope your industrial centers are far from your cloning facilities
>A failure to stop pollution? Pretty obvious, good luck when most tiles start becoming literal poison. This should be a whole late game mechanic that gradually gets worse and might reach a tipping point, triggering the event
>Nuclear war, nuclear wasteland, pretty obvious
>Somebody got too greedy with the bioweapons? A deadly plague will make most civs close off to themselves if they don't outright collapse
>Whole world united under one religion? Turns out it was all true after all and the prophecies of the end times are upon us
>A player that completes some schizo tasks might even trigger a alien invasion
And of course, a game setting to disable or delay so normal gameplay lasts longer
>Turns out it was all true after all and the prophecies of the end times are upon us
you dont say
>indirect influence over their science
bad idea. noob player wouldn't get how to science, pro would knew exact formula. no reason to make this any harder
I read some about this Voxpopuli mod and it looks like its filled with annoying bloat, does the community patch alone have balance changes+ ai improvement or need to bloat my game to make it playable.
the only thing community patch does is ai change amd bugfixes yes, and vox populi adds too much weird shit to be worth the balance fixes (the eui is trash and the early game and happiness system was so shit it made me want to uninstall that trash).
that said there must be individual fixes and modifiers on the workshop, don't know about anything specifically but civ reworks at the very least are a given
>buff climate change
>add plastic pollution, soil degradation and ciitizens consuming resources and shit
>make a policy that if you take in early game you will have a good late game, like be a native american hippie and have less construction hammers but your pops will produce less pollution and require less resources in late game
>postapocalyptic era where we get technologies to survive post global warming or nuclear war world but still live like shit (go full fallout)
>resources run out (like water, oil, rare earths)
i would love that, but devs are so scared to add consequential mechanics it's absurd
i want to go back to the alpha centauri/civ 2 ice caps melting levels of enviromental destruction
let me make civilization the prequel to anno 2070
I like your ideas of finite resources, but imo the Fallout era should be optional
(me)
technologies are shared across world, but player which discovered them can build their associated buildings/units for cheaper
players advance eras by building stuff instead, like sewage, roads, factories and shit
each era the needs of your pop grow (today africans would be earlier era but have less needs than current day europeans, this is important for later)
eras are specific for player, stages are for whole world
about "fallout" stage, to avoid bloat it would mean earlier stages get cut
since we are moddeling off civ v, maybe cut classical and atomic stages ?
then we can add 3 "fallout" stages:
>near future
more exploitation of earth, to "force" you into mad max stage. if players ruined the earth too much disasters start destroying infrastructure. population demand still increases making satysfying them harder
>mad max
riots, collapse of the world, needs of pops reduce, if your civ was in earlier era than you will be able to adapt easier than top players, techs to survive in wasteland
>fallout new vegas (rebuilding)
players can salvage and fix old cities, end game (somehow)
so we have only 9 eras
We could add an "enclave" wonder which you build in near future era and then the city becomes immune to riots and you can reclaim your empire from it, but the wonder is most expensive in game
adding resources which get depleted also let's us have bronze age collapse
I am not sure it's balanced, this is just me writing things down to jerk myself off to my genious, and i would need more experience coding and even game design itself
Maybe i should just make a stellaris esque build your own custom empire with origins and civics and shit, as a way to have a "demo" of my ideas for postapocalyptic eras.
But to be honest, this is just mental masturbation as i have too many plans for this summer and I Already cut gaming and barely visit Ganker
i know people here hate Civ VI but i liked the natrual disasters one of the DLCs added. they made the world feel more alive
The extreme modifiers and modes were the best thing they added to VI(after districts). Hopefully they become a standard feature in future civs.
I play it more on the casual side and as far as I can tell, minimizing micromanagement should help the game. No one praises the amount of clicks you have to do in ANY strategy game. Also you should be able to get techs without being a super science focused civ. For example, if you go religion, your monks should be able to generate research on techs related to religion (astronomy, trade, agriculture, etc), and that can vary depending on how peaceful/warmongering your religion is (diplomacy oriented techs vs war techs). The same for warmongering civs, you could get tech bonuses from pillaging (stealing techs) and get better tech army units by fighting with certain units. (Spamming artillery leads to precision artillery and strikes, for example), or spamming simple planes lead to better dogfighting units/bombers depending on the strats used.
I have some concept of a 4x game that basically has mechanics that scale with the stage of the game you're in. A weird comparison since the mechanics dont actually change, but kind of like how the scale of the level in Katamari expands as you grow. Instead of automating like workers and citizens, which feels like a weird admission that the mechanics of those things become uninteresting, it'd be interesting if that stuff could be further abstracted once you reach a certain scale so that you're still left making smaller amounts of interesting decisions, rather than a growing amount of marginal ones. I dunno what exactly that would look like. Maybe like my Katamari comparison the map literally does grow at certain stages and your city tiles shrink, so you can build many more cities but you aren't actually micromanaging them anymore. You just build a city near tiles with multiple resources listed on them (so each tile basically contains several smaller tiles at the smaller scale) and the city develops them instantly. And at that scale instead of building and selecting individual workers and telling them to build roads, you just have some kind of construction capacity that you spend to draw roads that get built, or you use to select a tile for a new city to appear. And eventually cities can be consolidated into a "province".
I figure some people would criticize that move as "casualizing" the game, and there'd definitely be a right way and a wrong way to do it. But a lot of strategy gamers fetishize "complexity", and devs who end up trying to make that some kind of goal usually just create tedious busy work. I think what most people really want is for a sense of progression, ie payoff for prior choices, as well as a continuous series of interesting choices. Right now you get progression, but interesting choices fall off precipitously in mid-late game. And you get swamped with tedium.
Also, mechanical changes to scale with the progress of the game can be a solution to single player steamrolling without a late game cataclysm or whatever. You can come to dominate the game at a certain progression point, buy once your civ scales up the map may literally expand, from like a local map at the start to a regional to a continental/world map, and when you grow into the new level the game will just have new enemies. At smaller levels maybe you interact with them in an indirect way, like if you were an analogue for the historical Rome you'd have some minor trade or interactions with China off map, but once the scale expands you can directly war with China as a new power on the new map scale. So you reach the steamroll phase for AI at one progression point and then the game basically scales you up to another point where there are still enemies you can make interesting choices against.
can you draw that?
I don't have any in depth wish but that instead of having hard set civ characteristics or the racing for the characteristics in humankind, you can essentially design your civ from first principles and have it progress in different ways as you wander through the ages, ie, if your civ is on an island with no immediate neighbors you can then decide to adapt your civ to have a comparative advantage on the sea instead of a sea based civ being landlocked and never changing their ways anyway, etc.
Humankind's system would be neat if you weren't locked out of civs by others, but I think more flexibility as above would be nice.
C7 Carthage:
https://c7-game.github.io
>civ5 players
I've only ever played civ 5 so I can't make the most accurate judgement but automation seems moronic, don't you actually want to play the game? Don't you actually want to manage your cities and produce what you need? Why they hell would you need to automate that shit in a turn based game?
It seems like a lot of this thread is just people hoping for more realistic mechanics when the appeal of Civ for me has always been the more gamified abstractions. I frequently play other strategy games with more "realistic" simulations of things like population growth and battles such as Victoria II and Rome Total War but Civ for me is supposed to be closer to a board game with less simulation and larping elements and more chess-like and competitive elements. I like min-maxing every turn so I can utterly crush other players when I get my victory condition 20 turns before expected.
>this literally who streamer playing a modded version of the game is an accurate representation of the entire civ 5 playerbase
i shiggy diggy
ability to discuss tactic with ai. not just "declare war with x and i give 50 gpt" but actual tactic, like i move with doomstack on left and you on right. oh, you dont move at all? then i terminate our agriment, without any penalty.
>the more gamified abstractions. I frequently play other strategy games with more "realistic" simulations of things like population growth and battles such as Victoria II and Rome Total War but Civ for me is supposed to be closer to a board game with less simulation and larping elements and more chess-like and competitive elements.
yes
The issue is that progression in civ is almost strictly linear. Having a bunch of cities late game is nothing but a chore because they contribute almost nothing but demand equal amounts of attention.
I think Governors would be an interesting idea if everyone had a “cabinet” made up of leaders that aren’t in the game currently. If cities become sufficiently unhappy, they might revolt and enter the game as a new faction under one of these leaders. Assigning a governor would made cities produce more efficiently at the cost of delegating control of the city for say 20 turns.
it would have stacks and a square grid like God intended
selecting multiple units at once and give them the order to gather in an area on the map you click on.
It is always a pain to individually move every little guy towards a war and back home, honestly great way to discourage war if that was the intention.
>what mechanics it should have
24-bit color
windowed mode
>Civ V remastered
>Different civs' theme songs play when you hover over their lands
>Leonard Nimoy's voicing
>Include Georgia
As long as it has genocide as an option, its a 10/10 strategy game
Stellarischads, we can't stop winning
>game pigeonholes you into 4city wankfest
no thx
I want every Civ to be led by a man-woman duo
>Egypt: Cleopatra and Mark Anthony
>Russia: Catherine and Potemkin
>Byzantine: Justinian and Theodora
>England: Roger Mortimer and She-wolf of France
imagine the mental gymnastics they'd go through to add mixed race and gay couples and then defend themselves with freedom of interpretation of history and with "it's just a game".. Frick, I have zero expectations from these homosexuals.
... are those people at least paying rent for living inside your head?
Remake of SMAC with shiny new graphics, UI improvments, and incorporating some of the ideas that people have introduced to the genre since the game came out.
rise of nations 2
It's Civ 4, but it's in 2D
don't put in any mainstream civs
only ones never featured
put weird civs
palestine, las vegas (one city civ), yugoslavia, turan empire, even inuits that are only ones that can get yields from snow tiles
don't put in too many civs
A round globe. With air patrols so I can have a proper cold war. aerodromes start as an entertainment tile, but they can make hot air balloons for spying. Zepplins as the first bombers. An extra era between Renaissance and Industrial so the colonial era is no longer none existent. 2 Industrial eras so we can have steam powered paddle sail boat battle ships. A second half with old timey battleships and enough time to have WWI era stuff. It's usually too short. Then a mod for War of the Worlds.
>population tied to hexes rather being abstractly lumped into the city center
>city center can expand to be multiple tiles
>population is initially rural and spread out
>armies moving through your territory will damage the tile, causing part of the existing population to migrate including potentially to a neighboring civ's lands where they may cause unrest and tensions
>around the industrial era, populations start migrating towards the urban centers of the city
>food and production can be spread between cities at a cost
>hex grid but no 1UPT
The Vox Populi mod is the best civ game experience out there yet. Adding to it though, I would say more complex core mechanics (policies, techs), a proper way to manage and group up units and move them in sync, and far larger maps as a basis would be great.
Civ 5 is a real treat when you play tectonic on the largest size with 43 civs, but it's a pain in the ass to get into wars lategame because of all the tedious micro. As for adding more complexity, I only care about that given that I've gotten bored of the fantastic yield sandbox that vox populi produces. My only wish would just be for more of everything, and more deliberate synergies between everything. More beliefs, policies, techs, buildings, improvements, etc. just to allow more varied play instead of having a dozen or less crystal clear strategies for each era/civ. and a interconnected flat-earth or spherical boardmap so cross-continent invasiosn aren't always forced to be done from the x axis
>Civ 5 is a real treat when you play tectonic on the largest size with 43 civs, but it's a pain in the ass to get into wars lategame because of all the tedious micro. As for adding more complexity, I only care about that given that I've gotten bored of the fantastic yield sandbox that vox populi produces. My only wish would just be for more of everything
How a game like this resolves those problems with civ? i never played it, always wanted to, and seems like you can decide your focus to be super autistic micro management or just play on the macro overview, people say its cool and you can automatize everything you wants to develop alone.
>Vox Populi
nah
empires ascendant or gaia's mod are lightyears ahead
several words about tall vs wide. its always preferable to go wide simply because of square/cube law: your borders as your needs to protecting them grow linear but inner space grow quadratic. penalty for new cities is only temporal that decelerate your expansion or, if it big enough it simply pushing player to expand at the expense of others ie conquest. game need problem that grow with empire. and that problem is civil war. that is how i see it(civ3/4): as soon your first unhappy citizen pops up clock for opposition start ticking, like something +1 for every unhappy citizen and +7 for every city, clock=50. when it fills specian oposition-ai, pops up in existase with first oposition citizen. now it has right to replace one content citizen with revolt-citezen everywhere in empire, where at least one unhappy citezen or diferent nationality. it works as usual content citizen, exept tile that revolt-citezen working on dont produce gold, all gold goes to oposition-ai treasary, also revolt-citezen automaticaly choose to work on most gold producing tile. but when in one city revolt-citezens become more than half of population then revolt breaks and that city now under full ai control, now your state in civil war and has ligimacy crysis and main ai oponents now have choice to whom they will have diplomatic relations, also clock ticks twise as fast only=25. also oposition-ai can simply buy revolt-citezen with gold, say 100, so do you. q:what if in one turn clock fills twise, a:ai can put 2 revolt-citezens. q:what if clock fills but every city dont have unhappy or diferent nationality citezen, a: opportunity for puting revolt-citezen burnup, clock start ticking again. i know there are mod for civ4 that did somethig similar with stability system, but its not transparent and easy to understand.
>get rid of enemy AIs in the early game
>difficulty hampers the player instead of boosting enemies
>make exploration and expansion much more difficult/slow early on
>add a "crisis" to solve in each era, random from a pool of options. High difficulties can have harder ones or a mix of many
>things like barbarian invasions, famine, civil war
>game procedurally creates enemy empires and kills them as time goes on (if the player doesn't)
>lategame has real AI players as fully formed nations
>the lack of need for AI to get there makes it easier to code AI that does well from that point
basically challenge the player in much more personal and interesting ways than "I have to grab this before the AI" or "I have to fight a forever war against this moron because early diety" or "unseen empire on the other side of the map is ruining my game"
make it so early snowballing doesn't make the game a bore lategame
make it so a rough early game is worth playing through anyways
>AI not being straight moronic
>harder difficulties not giving AI bonuses that overpower me to the point that i turn into America and Columbus is about to buttfrick me without lube
that's pretty much it
wait calculation for space race
all three mechanics from 3/4: happiness, health, pollution. also happiness should be local and global.
I started the series with 5 and liked 6 after the second expansion (the natural disasters really add to the athmosphere)
Now i wanted to look into Caveman to Cosmos for Civ 4.
mostly becasue i thought civ 4 was a bit boring in the early game
what am i in for? and are there some guides? or tips?
>Caveman to Cosmos
now that's bloat! you gonna give up in the stone age lmao
Id just like a civ game with diplomacy deeper than
We share a border -25
You're in the lead -50
We're trading +10
Total: -65 we hate you and will never negotiatiate with you and will frick you on any trades you offer
>Friendly meeting, +2 opinion
>-5 opinion 'Unknown reason'
>Has personality trait: Money grubber
>-5 opinion, hates poor civs
>Low opinion so AI denounces you, -10 opinion
>Thinks having units on a shared border is intimidating, -10 opinion
>One of their cities ambiently flipped to your religion, -10 opinion
>You were denounced by a civ they are allied with!, -10 opinion
just like real life
Civ is for kids, paradox or nothing
Has Paradox ever made a good tutorial? Even one tutorial, made by Paradox, that's actually good and teaches the game? Serious question, asking for a friend who doesn't care about Company A x Company B slapfights.
Don't think so.
Just use the wiki to look up specifics.
On the rare occasion a video for a very niche mechanic if you really want to understand it, but you get by not knowing it.
Paradox games are easy if you just play them and watch others play
>Civ is for kids, paradox or nothing
Plays very differently, and grand strategy games are easier at the higher levels, so if you want a more challenging singleplayer experience civ is the way to go, and if you're a baby you stick to casualkids2, goy4, v2 and eu4.
I want to be able to farm resources rather than just having them grow/appear only a specific tile. It's bizarre that most games treat horses the same way they do iron: crops and wildlife should be tied to specific terrain types and maybe with hidden techs that you either need to have made an early investment on or have stolen from the originator to utilise (see silk cultivation, the various myths around how to harvest cinnamon etc).
Yeah I think organic resources should only be like sources of domestication and cultivation really.
Which you later can spread through pastures and plantations, by just having trade agreements with people who have those.
Maybe a limited amount per turn can be made, for fringe cases where like horses only exist in small area of the world, so the world can't just start producing horses in one turn.
Like for every 1 horse resource(really a horse pasture tile), 2 new ones can be produced each turn.
So if people focus on expanding horse pastures, the numbers will grow fast, potentially tripling each turn.
Then further limits on what type of climate and terrain can handle pastures for horses, cows and whatever.
And same goes for plantations.
Cultivation trade could be locked by a renaissance era tech unless you have a land border maybe.
>What your ideal civ game would look like? What mechanics it should have?
It would be a mix of Civilization IV's grand strategy aspects, Fallen Enchantress's tactical combat and the many HOI4 mods' focus trees.
For tactical combat, I wish to see mechanics for garrisoning (like entering buildings in urban warfare), terrain modifiers, flanking, suppressive fire, opportunity fire, and so on.
For the last one, specifically, I wish to see campaigns and skirmishes with different outcomes or endings, even within nations.
You know, like how horse mod allows big horse country to have sunbutt or moonbutt as a ruler.
Rape
of the Sabine Women?
More in-depth pollution mechanic and weather like in Civ6. Global warming effecting food yields for everyone, different areas of the map having its own climate, limited resources so you have to expand to secure more deposits. Why stop there? Why not add weather modification like cloud seeding or even weather based weapons?
Scenario map of nuking Israel
Keep everything from 6 but make it extensively moddable. That's the easy answer since it eventually fixes everything, but the highest priority changes would be, aside from the huge balance concerns:
-Being able to fricking remove horses and iron from the map when you don't need them anymore
-Generally fix the loophole of how it generally is better to place a district on a tile BEFORE discovering Strategics that could be there ; rather than upgrade that strategic
-Make fast and wide expansion punishing again (both 4 and Vox Populi are decent examples of it, though VP has had a lot of trouble balancing Happiness in the last years)
-A bit more features on the map and have them be more flexible with the game system, e.g National Parks' autistic requirements (diamond vertical shape AND the tile at the bottom must be crossable) ; more stuff on water tiles and in desert
-Specialists should be more relevant than just "woops I have too much food and not enough tiles to work", but honestly that's part of the balance concerns
I'd like them to make government its own little thing. It's ridiculous that you can switch from communism to fascism to capitalism, or have tenets of any ideology within each other. You can literally have communism with the 'liberalism' and 'laisse faire' economic cards.
At around the medieval era you should be able to form a court influenced by your chosen ideology. Theocracy can have a sort of papal leader, merchant republic can have a council and finally an autocracy can have a standard royal court. There can be five or so 'cabinet' positions to appoint in here where each person (generic aside from some that can be recruited via the great people system) has with them certain policies. You could also have it in reverse, where each era you are required to assemble a cabinet and the ideology with the majority of members will be 'your' civ's ideology with its own benifit.
Events like losing a city, making peace, being in debt or dark age force you to adjust your cabinet, whilst being declared war on, unlocking a new government type or being in a normal age give you the option to. Golden and heroic ages prevent you from changing government in ALL circumstances until the era is over.
Remove governors entirely but have a similar idea as a trait of autocracy. Maybe this ideology will be able to appoint governors but only on cities not founded on your home continent and they would basically follow the asian governor's promotion tree.
I think this would create more dynamism and a better feeling of writing your civilization's history that is missing at the moment.
People who actually like 6, sell me on it.
I like districts because they make a city take up more tiles. That's it.
there's generally a lot more to do in VI
>districts make city planning more complex
>can swap policies in and out to optimize production/income
>eurekas and inspirations add more to do
but it does get really fricking tedious late game.
>all female civ leaders
>when you conquer a civ your civ leader gets new clothes based on the recently conquered civ
>e.g. if Russia conquer Ottomans, Catherine the Great begins wearing harem pants and turban
This would sound treasonous, but honestly get rid of AI personalities and specific goals and unique units/buildings. Civs should develop through the ages based on their geography, not the other way around.
SMAC is the ideal
Let me have skirmishes with other empires without it being a big war. That way I can use my military units and we can have smaller more tactical fights.
For example, 2-4 units fighting over a single tile of land.
gay sex with bear.
write that down, write that down!
Man I'd just love an updated Civ 5 but
with a less punishing happiness system, more resources (perhaps several layers of resources. You find obvious iron mounds after researching iron working, but you can find and exploit deeper iron deposits with some reneissance/industrial/modern era tech) all around, options to renegade from the World congress, weaker city strength, and multiple world wonders. (So you get a weaker wonder if you construct it 2nd or 3rd, and no more can be constructed after the 4th. to give some examples, first person to construct borobodur gets the +5 faith and 3 missionaries. 2nd person, +3 faith and 2 missionaries. 3rd, +2 faith, 1 missionaries. Colossus? First person gets the +5 gold and extra trade route + cargo ship. second person to build it gets +5 gold and an extra trade route, but no free cargo ship. 3rd person gets the extra trade route but thats it.
try out empires ascended or whatever the mod is called
it even removes 1UPT
attrition, diseases and migration of peoples should be in the game somehow
>mask up policy: +100% population growth
>open borders policy: +1000% growth, +500% income, +100% culture
wow I can't wait. do you think George Floyd will be a Great Engineer or Great Artist?
I got tired of Civ games.... might as well play with Microsoft Excell macros or something.
hey anyone play online? what has been your experience? is there like matchmaking or should i make a game and wait for soneone to join? just got civ 6 and gnna try multiplayer tomorrow. is the mp scene very active for these games at all?
Only 2D
Extremely simplified/remove bloat
Perfect AI
>Divide into 4 eras Bronze, Antiquity, Middle, Modern
>World gets covered in a few turns no wide open spaces except for deserts, jungles and cold areas. Way more barbars and city states to fill it up.
>Each Civ starts when it's supposed to and is given a horde of warriors and settlers to even things out.
>Wars are more interesting. Ai, barbarian tribes, and city states in proximity all can join and provide unique units that make you more likely to win.
>Combat is completely different, units can merge into armies can go as far as they'd like based on your supply range. Wars could potentially take only one turn with way more peace options and conditions.
Where it gets crazy
>Each era kicks off with a civil war where you choose between 2 leaders with different abilities and play styles. Other civs can support leaders they like.
Some examples
>Italics in antiquity get Caesar (conquest and building focus) and Pompey (public order and commerce focus)
>Italics in Modern era get Pope Julius II (religion and warfare focus) and Doge Lorenzo Loredan (trade and diplomacy focus). Who fought in the league of Cambria.
>Anglos in middle ages get William the Conquerer (warfare and building) and Harold Godwinson (warfare and culture)
>Anglos in modern get Oliver Cromwell (warfare and religion) and Charles I (Culture)
Total Conversion support
Civ5 lekmod
I'd love to see basically the same game as Civ V BNW but with a way more in-depth, objective-based war system that involves fighting for and holding territory instead of just blasting a city with artillery and sending a group of infantry or whatever to capture it.
One of my favorite BNW mods gives fortresses borders as long as a unit is occupied in one, would be cool if that was expanded into being able to build forts in enemy territory to expand your control over it, as well as capturing resource tiles to cripple your enemy. Something to do other than rushing cities would be really cool and would actually incentivize placing units with some level of thought in peace times.