15-12-2003 04:46									#121
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by skywalker However, it is game-breaking if it is possible to cut off a city from all reinforcements in one or two turns, if there is a cap on the number of defenders.

The same principle is in place as my illustration - as Fosse pointed out - its just less margin. CTP2 is the same as civ3 in that cities are very close. You simply have to make sure that your hot fronts have sufficient units to help out.

I had pointed out somewhere that if you wanted to completely cut off a city, you still will need a lot of units to do so in a stacking situation.

In CTP2 you will need 96 to completely surround a city - and believe me, that is a lot of units to assemble in CTP2 - and if a player is good enough to forge together such a force, he deserves to win.

	15-12-2003 05:18									#122
	Put an end to popups!

Hey hexagonian,

Are you actually Czech or do you display the Czech flag as your avatar just for the hell of it? I am Slovak.

	15-12-2003 08:11									#123
	Remove this text

...American, but I am 1/2 Czech (though it is 4th generation) My great-grandparent came to America at the beginning of the 1900s.

	15-12-2003 08:46									#124
	Put an end to popups!

...and I do want to repeat this, as it is my basis for the discussion.

As much as I sound like a booster for CTP2, it is not the game, and the execution of stacked-combat in CTP2, per se, that I'm defending. It is the basic ideas behind it that I like. Personally, I think that the CTP2 AI needs to execute its conquest priorities much better than it does.

Between the two, the military AI in civ3 is better, and seems more coordinated. This may be because the rules are so simplistic for the AI regarding military deployment. When you add a lot of limits, it usually works in the player's favor.

But at the same time, I really believe that a gaming company can pull off stacked combat, and pull it off well.

I have played games where stacked combat has been done even better (Chariots of War is a step up - although that game also suffers because the programmers have too low of a priority on field tactics - basically the AI beelines to cities. So if there was more of a balance in priority settings between field armies and cities, it would be a very formidable game)

Since civ4 is only in the earliest planning stages, the opportunity is there for Firaxis to figure out if stacked combat is viable. I think there is often a complacency to keep the basics as they are. It's just one less issue to deal with. There is always the fear that if you change something that has fundamentally been part of the game since Day 1, you will ruin the game.

To this, I say 'Nonsense'...

Tradition should never be the final determiner. If an idea provides better alternatives, allows for deeper gameplay, is less tedious, and makes more sense, AND CAN BE PULLED OFF, go for it.

I'm not here to simply argue - I'm here to find out the reasoning for staying with the current system that is not merely based on blind preferences.

I don't want Firaxis to be complacent on this issue.

Last edited by hexagonian on 15-12-2003 at 19:06

	15-12-2003 09:01									#125
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

Strangely, I found stacked combat [in CtP2] to be much more MM-intensive than Civ3 combat.

	15-12-2003 10:41									#126
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

I've got another great idea! Let's put in weird modern civs such as Argentina and Canada and completely ignore important ancient civs like the Mali and Assyrians.

	10-01-2004 17:56									#127
	Support Apolyton

C2-style pathing system

I HATED that thing. Never used it, because it SUCKED. In C3, however, pathing is my friend.

	11-01-2004 23:46									#128
	Tired of ads?

I have another great idea! Let's require a txt file to tell the game which animation a unit needs to use instead of just putting it on the unit's page in the editor!

	12-01-2004 00:10									#129
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

quote: I've got another great idea! Let's put in weird modern civs such as Argentina and Canada and completely ignore important ancient civs like the Mali and Assyrians.

CtP1/2 has Assyria and why are the Canadians and Argentines 'weird'?

quote: Strangely, I found stacked combat [in CtP2] to be much more MM-intensive than Civ3 combat.

Thats almost sig-worthy but why "strangely"? I can only imagine you found it more MM intensive than civ3 because youre not used to it perhaps. Its easy to feel annoyed when youve got 5 armies, when youre used to 60 seperate units..... i guess.

	12-01-2004 00:51									#130
	Support Apolyton

quote: CtP1/2 has Assyria and why are the Canadians and Argentines 'weird'?

Any post-colonial nation (other than America) is "weird" because it just doesn't fit. We already have the Inca anyway (where Argentina is) and Canada just isn't all that distinct from American or England. America is the sole exception because it has made an ENORMOUS mark on world history, as large as possibly any other civilization, and because it was (IIRC) the first of the European colonies to gain independence.

	12-01-2004 01:17									#131
	Support Apolyton

quote: Any post-colonial nation (other than America) is "weird" because it just doesn't fit.

Okay.

	12-01-2004 03:45									#132
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

God Bless America.

	12-01-2004 06:17									#133
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

In case you didn't notice, I actually had a reason why America fit and the other's didn't

	12-01-2004 11:17									#134
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

For me, the most disappointing part of Civ3 was the way the tech tree was split up between ages. My one wish for Civ4 is that the tech tree allows some actual diversity, much like how id did in previous Civ games.

	25-01-2004 01:38									#135
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

CIV 4...

I would love to see the biggest map my processor and memory will allow, and the maximum number of other nations available.

I'd like to see borders, races and languages, including splitting and evolving of peoples so that you can start with Italics, then choose as they split into Latins and Oscans etc, and then watch them evolve into nations like the myriad of states that used to exist before Italian unification.

...alright, a bit unrealistic, but at least the basics of civs being able to split and merge, to have borders, language as well as religion and an "aesthetic style"

I'd like cities to not be completely wiped blank when you capture them, and for their names to evolve over time (dipping into fantasy again).
I don't think much of the types of Civs on offer - I mean, playing Americans or French against Romans and Chinese is bit daft, and unrealistic.
I think a nice balance of all the races would be desirable, and base them on ancient peoples.... I know the Yanks would probably enjoy building the Great Wall of Texas or the Pyramids of Las Vegas, but i think it's silly - they might enjoy playing as their ancestors more anyway!

all those add-ons like throne rooms and wonders are a nuisance... and what's the point of a city view if it's not a unique, accurate and reasonably detailed map?

I'd like battles to be nice overhead type views like in classics like North and South, SWIV and Ikari Warriors!

I'd like a bit more of a deeper political and diplomatic dimension, like BAlance of power 1990, where you can give aid and support insurgent movements etc...

I loved the imaginative approach which produced underwater cities and other futuristic stuff, I'd go further...
I think the most logical end to the game is for the civs to race to the moon or mars and build a moonbase or something... you then have the potential for a future addon to the game, a Lunar Civ and Solar System even... Just like Test of Time tried to do (so well).
a bit more detail and build up than the poxy spaceship to Alpha C (which isn't a bad idea in itself).

All that 3d in Civ3 was nice to begin with but became a pain in the arse after a while, but I ended up going back to Civ one, as it played so much quicker, it was just more fun!

I'd like the enemies to be a bit more sophisticated - to have emotional attachments to certain territories, to remember when you've been nice to them... or nasty

I'd like to be able to name seas, lakes, rivers, bays, mountains, moors and areas of land - to give a bit of atmos and emotional connection to my nation and world.
I'd like to have political subdivisions - states, counties provinces, dependcies whatever..
I'd like to have civs, including my own, to be able to lay claim to territory, and to agree borders beyond/despite the boundaries of cities... it's more natural.

I'd like visible weather, rather than just climate.

I'd like a more detailed and sophisitcated economic model. not just "goods" but actual markets, prices and fluctuations so that resources have real value as economic things.

I'd like to have lots of religions and political systems, and even design them (in a simplistc sort of way).

and i'd like to make my own flag! and name my own nation and race, currency etc...

and to edit units a bit like in Alpha centauri - in fact I think AS offers a good model for future Civ games - it had a lot of good features, including a hilly map, which was great (though i do kind of like the old overhead grid of Civ1)

I'd like cities to not be jsut a square, but to be more organic - like a sprinkling of dots, so you can see villages, and degrees of population density. I'd like cities to be able to merge and be a variety of shapes - linear coast or river huggers or a merging of a few blobby towns.... and a bit Sim City style city planning

in short a Humanity simulator!

...in fact i designed my own game like this before Civ came out - inspired by Sim City 1, Millennium 2.2, Imperium etc.. I think many of these ideas would be more realistic nowadays... I wonder how popular any of them are?

I'd keep an eye on "Clash of Civilisations" - it might just be better than Civ 4!

I know I'm supposed ot write what I DON't want, but I think i sort of am...

Last edited by yellowdaddy on 25-01-2004 at 01:59

	25-01-2004 01:42									#136
	Increase the size of your Attachments

skywalker: America is just genetically modified England

No post iron-age civilisation should exist in a pre-iron age game - save it for the scenario editor!

	25-01-2004 01:45									#137
	Increase the size of your Attachments

"American, but I am 1/2 Czech (though it is 4th generation) My great-grandparent came to America at the beginning of the 1900s."

hexagonian - wouldn't that make you an eighth Czech?

	25-01-2004 06:00									#138
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by yellowdaddy "American, but I am 1/2 Czech (though it is 4th generation) My great-grandparent came to America at the beginning of the 1900s." hexagonian - wouldn't that make you an eighth Czech?

Technically, since my grandparent/great-grandparents became residents of the US, they could start tracing part of their ancestry in the US. Ethnically, my grandparents and great-grandparents on my father's side married pure Czech though even while living in the US.

I guess I could be called 100% American...

	25-01-2004 07:56									#139
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

quote: Originally posted by yellowdaddy skywalker: America is just genetically modified England No post iron-age civilisation should exist in a pre-iron age game - save it for the scenario editor!

Hmm... at least half of the civs in Civ fit that definition...

	25-01-2004 09:43									#140
	Increase the size of your Attachments

That's one way of narrowing down the list of civs, I guess.

jon

	25-01-2004 17:28									#141
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

aye, sykwalker

but the France and England date back to the dark ages (the end of the Iron Age), so are borderline cases - you could call them Saxons and Franks, and then let them evolve.
The Japs too. Even the Ruskies (Kievan Rus and Varangians).
The Spaniards are bit of a grey area, i think you could give them the beneft of the doubt.
The Germans/Scandinavians and Indians are complicated, because they're divided into lots of tribes
Aztecs are one of a long chain of civs, and should probably be called Toltecs or Olmecs.

China, Egypt, the Latins (Romans: a merger of Greek, Etruscan and Italic civilisation), Greeks, Persians, Assyro-Babylonians are all Iron Age or earlier.

the Sioux, should probably be given a different name - Athapaskans for example.

perhaps the solution would be to start the game at one of 6 different periods:

c.4000BC
c.2000BC
c.1000BC
c.1AD
c.1000AD
c.2000AD

with different standard sets of civilisations (editable of course).
And the years/turns either going a little slower or use a Deuteros-style "time advance wheel" (perhaps a little seasonal and weather animation?!)

(hex - i mean ethnically - the only ethnic americans are the one's who run gambling outfits in the western reservations)

	26-01-2004 02:12									#142
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

Supply Lines: Nice idea, but overcomplicates the game. I don't what to worry about "where is the supply caravan" at the same time I am thinking about where my Legions are going" If you really want this, weaken the units slightly when there are enemy units between your units and your cities. Certain units, such as paratroopers should not have this penalty.

Wonders for things that are controversial, not achievements: King Richard's Crusade is a classic example. It was a series of WARS. Why is a war a "wonder"??? The Contraception CtP wonder is another example of this.

Future techs in the core game: I want these in an "extended Civ" scenario, not in the historical game. In the current game, the only wonder that doesn't actually exist is the Cure for Cancer. lets not add anything else. This and the way the space race is handled is bad enough.

	26-01-2004 02:42									#143
	Put an end to popups!

quote: Originally posted by yellowdaddy aye, sykwalker but the France and England date back to the dark ages (the end of the Iron Age), so are borderline cases - you could call them Saxons and Franks, and then let them evolve. The Japs too. Even the Ruskies (Kievan Rus and Varangians). The Spaniards are bit of a grey area, i think you could give them the beneft of the doubt. The Germans/Scandinavians and Indians are complicated, because they're divided into lots of tribes Aztecs are one of a long chain of civs, and should probably be called Toltecs or Olmecs. China, Egypt, the Latins (Romans: a merger of Greek, Etruscan and Italic civilisation), Greeks, Persians, Assyro-Babylonians are all Iron Age or earlier. the Sioux, should probably be given a different name - Athapaskans for example. perhaps the solution would be to start the game at one of 6 different periods: c.4000BC c.2000BC c.1000BC c.1AD c.1000AD c.2000AD with different standard sets of civilisations (editable of course). And the years/turns either going a little slower or use a Deuteros-style "time advance wheel" (perhaps a little seasonal and weather animation?!) (hex - i mean ethnically - the only ethnic americans are the one's who run gambling outfits in the western reservations)

I think America qualifies because, of all of the civilizations in history, it has perhaps had the greatest impact on the world.

	26-01-2004 19:49									#144
	Great Britain Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

skywalker.

of all the civilisations in the world today, the one which has had the most impact is Britain, not America.

the list of things which make up the world we know (including America itself) are due to Britain.

for a start, what language are we speaking? English. Where's it from? England. Even Americans are more likely to pick up the standard British dictionary - the OED, as the ultimate reference, than any of their local hybrids like Funk and Wagnall etc...

and simply losing the Empire - the largest in history both in terms of population, area, and cultural reach - has not diminished Britain's role as much as even many British people think.

55 per cent of all the new patents in the world since the second world war are British. Even upto most recently British scientists have led in genetics - Cloning and Sulston's Human Genome. And the legacy before the war is even more impressive, and that's not including the patents which were stolen - such as Edison's lightbulb, which was actually patented a year earlier by Charles Swan, a British inventor.

Not only that, there are very few inventions, cultural innovaions and achievements in music, and the other arts where British people are not only present but leading.

In war, despite an army probably between a tenth and a fifth the size of Americas, Britain's military achievements are unmatched (though we have lost a couple of fights in the 20th century), and even today British forces are essential to America's success, because of their high skill levels and professionalism, and unique amounts of experience. British skills in urban warfare from Ulster are essential to the American military in Iraq today, Britain's SAS, the leading special forces unit in the world helping save American forces from slaughter in places like Afghanistan.
America's own CIA was set up and trained by British intelligence - SIS (MI5 and MI6) after the war.

For such an apparently small and ill-equipped country, Britain has achieved more than any other in the world, not only relative to it's size, but more full stop (=period). And the impact of British culture and values across the world - paid testament in most free and Commonwealth countries British style parliamentary democracy, free speech, law, and liberal multiparty politics is clear.

there are no ifs, buts, or ands, Britain is quiet simply the most important civilisation this planet has ever produced. America, is just one of it's lucky children.

	26-01-2004 20:59									#145
	Inflate your Upload Space

do I detect a hint of patriotism there?

	26-01-2004 23:18									#146
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

At least it's well placed patriotism.

God save the Queen, and all that.

	27-01-2004 02:02									#147
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

quote: Originally posted by skywalker do I detect a hint of patriotism there?

Pot, I'd like to introduce you to Mr. Kettle. Kettle, this is Mr. Pot.

jon.

	27-01-2004 19:40									#149
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

I'm not really especially patriotic - I am Scottish after all!
('s Albannach a tha ann!)

but I do despair of (or rather, am amused by) Americans who go on about ithe USA being the "greatest country in the world" etc..., it isn't, and neither is the UK, but they're both in most people's top 10. (I think Canada and Australia are probably both better.)

most Brits (or more specifically, English) denegrate themselves so much, that they think dear old blighty is rubbish, but I think it needs to be said occasionally, that in fact, we're not. we've just been let down by crap governments since the war.

I'm just pointing out facts purely to correct the specific point about which country has had the most influence on the world.
I would obviously have to concede that since WW1, the USA has risen to dominate the world in a way that China and India used to centuries ago, but whether that hegemony will blossom into a British Empire style thing remains to be seen - personally, I doubt it, because it's not in the American psyche.

but back to the game - would asnyone like to comment on the things i said about the game?!

	27-01-2004 21:40									#150
	Remove this text

I would NOT like to see a mundane system of governments like Civ 3 has. Social Engineering is the best thing a civ game has produced. If not SE then at least more government choices, and those choices should mean more than whether you have to pay for all your military or whether you get a few units for free.

I would NOT like to see a mundane system of economics. Accumulation of wealth (gold in civ) as a measure of the strength of the economy could be the system of economics you get at the start of the game, but should be replaced (or you should be able to choose more, via SE or something similar) with new economic models as time goes by.

I would not like to see an isometric map with lots of straight lines everywhere (eg the map being divided into squares, with square oceans, square deserts, square mountains, square borders etc.) I would like to see curves, jagged lines, the occasional straight line etc.

I would not like to see the current lack of trading of resources. In all the games of civ 3 I play resources are never really traded much until late game, with technology being the big thing in trading. Trade was very important in the ancient world, but I'm usually to busy to link up with my neighbours until the middle ages. This could be fixed by adding alot more techs (making the game much longer but it means you could link up with your neighbours in the ancient age), by being able to trade without roads (a dumb idea if you ask me) or do something like have roads automatically appear around cities after time. The original problem highlights an inconsistency with the trading system - you need roads to be able to trade goods but you don't need roads to be able to trade ideas. If merchants aren't going to cross the wild frontiers to sell their goods, why would soothsayers?