 |
| |
|
|
cassembler
|
 |
Loud Cow Productions
Oct 2001
time: 23:17
|
|
shi...
I could find many, many, many, many... areas that could use a lot more detail... Maintenance/ unit type (warriors a bit cheaper than say, stealth bombers), more statistics (including casualties/ conflict, type of populations, etc), land types, unit types, subdividing your empire into "states" or "territories," blah blah blah.
But all the developers have a good point... where do you draw the line between simplicity and detail???
Very difficult line to draw.
Very realated to budgeting.
Very limited by fan base.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
TechWins
|
 |
Arizona
Apr 2001
time: 22:17
|
|
quote:
What I mean is that it would be fun to fight different units all around, to have 4 kinds of tanks on the battlefield. Then you'd never know what to expect. And someone with the medium plane will sell his "flight tech" a lot cheaper than the one with the best plane. |
An idea for Civs before release was to have options after you discovered a tech. The basic outline of the idea was sort of like yours, but a lot less complicated. You would have a choice between two units, and each unit would be different from one another. One unit might be 3/3/1 and the other might be 3/1/2, and you would have to choose which unit you wanted out of the two. Whatever unit you chose you would be stuck with the whole game, and there would be no way of getting the other unit. So if you wanted to be to be a slightly offensive but primarily defensive military then you would choose the 3/3/1 unit, but if you wanted to be an offensive minded military you might choose the 3/1/2, or it could vary on the previous unit choices you made. Basically this would add a lot of strategy, in that each Civ would have to make a crucial decision on most techs, while more diversity would be added between Civs. However, there would probably be a similar unit selection by each AI Civ that would become monotanous, and the human would ultimately find the best unit selections to make. There are downfalls for this idea, but I actually like the idea. But as Cassembler brought up, where is that fine line? Yes, this wouldn't require that much more programming, but more art work indefinitely, however, the key is will the work be worth the extra fun, or will it even creat more fun?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
JayKay
|
 |
Lisboa, Portugal
Oct 2001
time: 05:17
|
|
The differences between similar unit types could be achived by a similar effect that exists in Alpha Centauri. In this game you could design your own units based on your tech. For example: In the beggining, you could only build units with 1 movement, 1 attack or 1 defense, but if you had discovered Horseback Riding, you could build units with 2 movement, and after discovering bronze working, you could build units with 2 defense. The thing is you could build the combination you'd like. Of course the cost of the unit would go up, as more advanced tech was included in the unit.
This way you'd get infinite combinations for your units, and you could build the units that best suited you in that time. If you wanted a unit for defense, with the tech example from above, you could make a unit with 0 att, 2 def, 1 mov. Instead of giving attack values to units you could even have the choice of giving colony modules (for building new cities), or spy training (for spy and counter-spy missions) just like Alpha Centauri.
_________________________________________________
Portugal
Nation of: Magellan's (from Magellan's Expedition);
Vasco da Gama (Discoverer of the Maritime path to India);
and Pedro Álvares Cabral (Discoverer of Brazil in 1500)
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Grey Knight
|
|
Fort Worth, TX
Mar 2002
time: 23:17
|
|
You can already do this with the existing engine!
If you really want extra units, make new techs (i.e. "Advanced Military Tradition") that branch off the main tech ("Military Tradition") with "relatively" low research costs. Copy the unit, and give it a tad better stats. If you really want to, you can make AMT1, AMT2, AMT3... and have a new unit each.
Hmm... how about:
MT - Cavalry with 6/3/2
AMT1 - Cavalry with 7/3/2
AMT2 - Cavalry with 7/4/3
AMT3 - Cavalry with 7/4/1 (all terrain as roads)
Cheers,
Shawn
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Willem
|
 |
Canada
Dec 2001
time: 00:17
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Spectator
What I mean is that it would be fun to fight different units all around, to have 4 kinds of tanks on the battlefield. Then you'd never know what to expect. And someone with the medium plane will sell his "flight tech" a lot cheaper than the one with the best plane.
Spec. |
Well all you'd need is to have more than one UU for each civ. There's a few people over at Civ Fanatics that have created some new Tank graphics, so all you'd have to do is give each civ it's own version, with slightly different stats from each other. Or you could have several different types become available with different techs, rather than just having the one. For instance, I've added a Horse Archer unit to my game, available with Monarchy, after picking up some good graphics for one. It's faster than a Knight, but doesn't do as much damage. I like having it in the game, it comes in very handy in certain situations, where a Knight might be useless.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
The_Aussie_Lurker
|
|
Adelaide, South Australia, Australia
May 2001
time: 05:17
|
|
I haven't read the "Mystery advances" thread, so if I've repeated what was stated there, then please forgive me!
How about, if you have reduced the amount of time taken to reach an advance, but you continue to put more money into science, then this gives you a % chance of gaining a random advance, each turn you do research. Example: let's say that you have lowered your advance time, through funding, to 10 turns. By putting extra cash into science, you might get a 5% chance of receiving an advance, at random, each of the 10 turns that you are researching your main advance. Of course, this would be an even better idea if the concept of "Minor Techs", which was suggested in the original wish-list, had been adopted!!
So, as was mentioned below. You might get a " minor" tech advance that gives you WWI Bi-planes and tri-planes, or WWI tanks. To get from this minor tech to a major tech would cost much less, 'cause you're already more than 1/2 way there. So, in summary, if all the features were there, this is how I would envisage a science model working:
Excess funding for science grants 5%/x gold/turn to get random "Major" advance, and 10%/x gold/turn to get "minor" advance (minor advances are only achievable at random, or by trading for them). Extra citizens converted to scientists grants 1%/scientist to this chance. "Major techs" are those on the main tech tree. Minor advances can be of 2 types. They are either "1/2 way" points along the main branch of a tech tree, as described above, or they are minor, dead-end, sub-branches. They probably don't grant units or improvements etc. But they might grant bonuses for the civ that gets them-such as bonus trade, reduced corruption, extra gold/turn, extra movement for land units, bonus culture for every city etc.
Within this model, certain minor and major wonders could increase the chance of random techs being granted (for example-Edisons Laboratory!).
Obviously, if this were ever going to be a patch, then the "minor" advances part would almost certainly not be a part of it but, considering that Civ3 introduced the concept of Small Wonders, it wouldn't be suprising if Civ4 introduced the idea of "Small Advances"!!
Yours,
The_Aussie_Lurker.
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:17.
Apolyton Time is 00:17. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
22-02-2002 05:40
There are simpy just too many possibiliies that the programmers would have to code, so the amount of work that would have to be done to get the idea to work makes the idea bad.
|