29-03-2002 21:41									#1
	We need LESS modern units Remove this text

Although many will disagree with this opinion, I think the best thing that could happen to civ would be to lessen or eliminate the modern period in civ. For me, civ is an incredible game up until about the industrialization period. The way civ is designed, a civilization acts more like a collection of city states than anything else. In the early years, it is a constant battle for survival, struggling to find a workable balance between development, expansion, and maintaining an army. Just when all is going well, you are either attacked or feel it necessary to start a war, resulting in an incredible strain on your resources.

By industrialization, however, in my personal opinion, the game starts to fall apart. Many of the qualities that make the early part of the game so fun and dynamic start to disappear. The aspects of civ that make it a great game in the early periods don't seem to translate well in the modern era.

If I had my way, I'd like to see development slowed and stretched out, with more advancements added in, and additional military units and upgrades included. The musketman, or perhaps the rifleman, should be the end of the military tree, and the knight and/or calvary unit would increase in prominence and remain a viable unit for a long period of time. As the game plays now, by the time the knight comes into existence, it is soon made obsolete by infrantryman, tanks, bombers, etc. -- especially since version 1.17, which only serves to greatly speed up technological advancement.

	29-03-2002 21:55									#2
	Re: We need LESS modern units Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

quote: Originally posted by Autolicus Although many will disagree with this opinion...

You're right.

I'm the total opposite, I feel better once I'm in industrial and modern ages. Mostly because of the rail roads, making it easier to move around.

What you could do slow down advancements, is increase the minimum research time (like say, 4 to 10) and maximum time (like say, 40 to 45). That will slow research time down. If you're lucky, you'll be in middle ages by 2050.

	29-03-2002 21:59									#3
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

I agree with some of this. I think the industrial/modern ages go way too fast. This is due to several reasons. First, techs take longer to get in the first two ages because (1) your cities are less developed and (2) you don't have contact with many of the other civs. By the industrial age, you have the beginnings of mega-cities and you are in touch with everyone. This means you get tech advances MUCH faster than normal. In addition, the industial age has VERY few buildings in comparison with the other ages... this means your cities are often just sitting around spitting out units or producing wealth rather than constantly building improvements like in the first two ages. If there was more to build in the industrial age and techs took MUCH more research to discover, this problem would be solved.

Also, there really is essentially NO modern age if you are playing with Space Race Victory on. Spaceship parts become available so quickly that there is no point in trying to continue a conquest unless you are so far in advance on research that the conquest doesn't really matter. Once you get to the modern age, it's just a race to build the spaceship before anyone else, with ICBM production taking up those cities that don't have parts being built. The modern age would be MUCH better if you started getting spaceship parts AFTER all the rest of the technologies. I have played about 20-25 games through to the modern age... I have gotten Robotics ONCE.

	29-03-2002 22:13									#4
	Full PM-box? Change here!

I have what I think would be a great way of bringing this about, if there was ever a Civ IV -- alter the way technological advances work. For example, there should be twenty or so (could be more or less) fundamental advances that all players need to establish -- pottery, the wheel, monotheism, etc. Then, within each fundamental advancement, there should be the option of developing quite a number of "lesser" technologies made available by the fundamental advancement. That way, it would truly require the player to make decisions, since the more effort one placed into developing lesser technologies, the slower advancement would be on the fundamental ones.

Also, rather than only being able to research one technology at a time, a player should be able to allocate percentages to a few at a time.

Along this line, there could be a number of military options available. For example, take archery -- which was a major military technology for many, many years. Instead of just having the archer (and longbowmen as the UU for the English), the "lesser" advancements could allow for short bows, long bows, composite bows, etc. The same could be applied in many areas. That way, one would have much more control over the type of military force created. One player, for example, could decide to develop a much more effective archery unit, while another focused resources into developing hand-to-hand units, etc.

The effect would

	29-03-2002 22:14									#5
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

the modern part of the game is fun, but i believe naval / air combat should be revamped a bit to make it for interesting. i never feel like i'm "racing for naval superiority" or air superiority for that matter.

by that point it's just "build 40 bombers by next turn".

the beginning of the game, the early wars over colonization rights, where some civs are behind, and some ahead, is probably the best part of any given civ game, and there's no way to change / elongate that period, and no reason to

	29-03-2002 22:18									#6
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

quote: Then, within each fundamental advancement, there should be the option of developing quite a number of "lesser" technologies made available by the fundamental advancement. That way, it would truly require the player to make decisions, since the more effort one placed into developing lesser technologies, the slower advancement would be on the fundamental ones.

do you mean, for example, you research Mapmaking, which has the sub-divisions Hullmaking, Oar Design, Masts, etc? each with their own benefit? (+1 move or something?) so you could essentially have crappy boats but still move on, or you could be a little behind but have kickass boats?

sounds complicated but extremely fun and involving. civ IV material.

	29-03-2002 22:24									#7
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

Exactly. And it would not only be limited to military units, but would give you the opportunity to really make a unique civilization. For example, the fundamental advancement of monotheism would allow for a number of subset religious advancements. Depending upon the religion you research, it would affect the quality of your civilization. A war-like religion might increase you military ability, but allow for less stability. Another religion might increase happiness at some expense to productivity.

	29-03-2002 22:41									#9
	Increase Your PM Length

quote: Originally posted by UberKruX

Put a space in there Uber, or else ming might think your

	29-03-2002 22:46									#10
	Remove this text

quote: Originally posted by TinCow the industial age has VERY few buildings in comparison with the other ages... this means your cities are often just sitting around spitting out units or producing wealth rather than constantly building improvements like in the first two ages. If there was more to build in the industrial age and techs took MUCH more research to discover, this problem would be solved.

korn's Blitz Mod

	29-03-2002 23:02									#11
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

quote: Originally posted by Autolicus Instead of just having the archer (and longbowmen as the UU for the English), the "lesser" advancements could allow for short bows, long bows, composite bows, etc.

Like Age of Empires? My storage pit can research scale armor now. Where would unique units play into this? Would you have to research a minor tech to get them or just one of the major ones? It would provide an interesting dynamic to the game.

Another interesting spin on this could be that you can only trade or steal these minor techs, not the major ones like writing, government types, nationalism, military traditon, warrior code.

How can you teach a civilization to write? But you can teach them how to make maps or explain how an embassy works. How can you trade for a sense of nationalism? I'll give you 500 gold and spices for 20 turns to instill my people with the feeling that they are part of a unique nation.

Sidebar... I've often wondered how someone can have an alphabet but not be able to write.

	29-03-2002 23:15									#12
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

quote: Originally posted by dunk999 Another interesting spin on this could be that you can only trade or steal these minor techs, not the major ones like writing, government types, nationalism, military traditon, warrior code. :

I like that. One of the things that would prevent is the tech race spiraling out of control like it does now -- as well as allow for some nations to slowly lose out in the tech race.

	29-03-2002 23:41									#13
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

Making big advances untradable is a bit radical... and it would take forever to go to the next era. But there should be an incentive to develop its own techs rather than trading them like hell. Someone once suggested techs you developed autonomously give culture ; I think it's a good idea. Maybe civs who recieve your techs should be more prone to flock to you also.

	30-03-2002 01:00									#14
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

i think it's an AWESOME idea! not only would it make the game even MORE in depth, and add a whole new dynamic to the game, but it wouldradically change the entire concept behind your personal civilization. as a general sort of overview, you could have iron working (defensive or offensive) and get +1 on offense / defence with your swordsmen, or something.

another reason i like this idea: it enongates the game in a healthy and FUN way. people whine about not using units for a long time and moving too quickly through ages.

imagine a middle age with 30 techs, and 120 sub techs. your naval units slowly improve until you get a radical new deisgn (caravels gets upgrades until you get galleons).

i canno express how much i love this idea.

	30-03-2002 01:02									#15
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

also, if you did that a good way to balance it would be to make the units of the era match a little. for example, a horsemen in the ancient times with full upgrades (every subtech) should be just a bit weaker than a non-upgraded knight. that way focusing on the ancient weapons wouldnt really hinder your war efforts in the long run.

	30-03-2002 01:02									#16
	Remove this text

I can't think of any idea more stupid that this one. The game needs more modern units.

	30-03-2002 02:32									#17
	Re: We need LESS modern units Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

quote: Originally posted by Autolicus By industrialization, however, in my personal opinion, the game starts to fall apart. Many of the qualities that make the early part of the game so fun and dynamic start to disappear. The aspects of civ that make it a great game in the early periods don't seem to translate well in the modern era.

I think getting Firaxis to eliminate the Modern era is doomed. I pretty sure there are too many players who want the modern units to play with. (And, for them, it'd be nice if the Modern Age had more meat to it... but that's another topic.)

OTOH, adding an Age might just be possible for an expansion. And I believe the editor allows you to add an age, so players should be able to do it themselves, no matter what Firaxis does. I think there's room for 4 pre-modern ages.

I, btw, think of the Modern Age as the "endgame" period, not simply another age like the others. The best part is over - the MA is there just to wrap things up when someone hasn't already won in an earlier age.

	30-03-2002 05:02									#18
	Get a bigger avatar today!

Oh, I'm not delusional enough to think that such changes would ever be implemented, but it would be the right way to go. I think most people who really appreciate Civ realize that the modern age is the weakest. Of course, I realize that others really like the modern area. But it seems to me that if you really like the modern warfare, then there are a lot of games out there that are better to play.

	30-03-2002 05:24									#19
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

Wait for the XP. I'll bet a buck there is a 5th age between Medieval and Industrial. What the h*ll would they call it though?

Agricultural? No.
Renaissance? No, that implies a decline.
Early Modern? Prolly not.

What the heck do you call that span of 500 or so years prior to 1790 without being too region specific?

How about this: Ancient, Medeival, Discovery, Industrial, Modern.

Discovery starts with Navigation. Industrial starts with Rail. Modern starts with Replaceable Parts. That leaves a lot of space for additional tech and units during the Medieval, Discovery and Industrial. Much of the Industrial is moved into Modern so it just needs rearranging for better late game progression (you really should be driving T80s and M1s for a bit before building an interstellar vehicle).

As for the Minor Techs (or Sub Techs) great idea. For Civ4.

	30-03-2002 06:03									#20
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

quote: Originally posted by notyoueither What the heck do you call that span of 500 or so years prior to 1790 without being too region specific? How about this: Ancient, Medeival, Discovery, Industrial, Modern.

Colonial

	30-03-2002 06:20									#21
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

Yeah I can't wait until they allow us to add Eras...if they do that is. I would really like to expand the whole thing out a bit, change the years per turn ration and the endgame year s as well.

	30-03-2002 06:31									#22
	Put an end to popups!

quote: Originally posted by Elucidus Yeah I can't wait until they allow us to add Eras...

It's an option in the editor. I don't know if it works 100% or not, though.

	30-03-2002 07:09									#23
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

quote: Originally posted by dunk999 Sidebar... I've often wondered how someone can have an alphabet but not be able to write.

Alphabets aparently started as simple marks for goods. A method of marking what was in a jar or keeping tax records. Using the symbols for general communication came later.

Clay stamps for symbols that later became the alphabet in the Middle East have been found.