> Now that I've got HoMM3, I don't bother to play Civ IV anymore.
>
> --Patrick
If you don't mind, I have some ideas for my civilization game. Here is
a great book I read that is the source of many of my ideas:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0313276455/sr=8-1/qid=1154883850/ref=...1_1/002
I realy like the premise of Civilization but I agree with you that the
latest game plays us and discourages war.
I am not one make criticizms with no suggestions. To start, I don't
like the idea of ancient "uits'. Until modern times countries raised a
single army each country or countries would pool their resources and it
would result in a single combat or series of sieges until the weaker
country could defeat the larger one. There is a also the question of
logistics that this realy goes into. Saying that an Ox yoke was more
of a combat factor than some weapons. That is because armies could
carry their supplys more efficiently. In Civilization you can station
an army in the desert or the arctic. for centuries and they surviuve.
Logistics is how far can you move an army and how long can you leave
them in the field. Many armies lived off the territory they went
through causing far more devistation that the actual fighting. See the
30 years war and Gustavus Adolfus who moved his army more of the goal
to survive.
I would have natural disaters that have been critical turning points in
civilizations the Eruption of Thera in 1200 BC. Civil wars where bad
governace leads to fighting your own units. One thing I liked about an
older version of Civilization is that under certian government if you
lost a war they would make you end the war.
One fustration I have with the game is that it exclued the resource tin
because it was very expenisve and was traded and explored for
extensivly in the ancient world. From 1200 to 800BC was the
introduction of iron. It is somwhat better of a metal but it is
cheeper to work and more pleantiful. In that there was enough weapons
to go around so you can have much larger well equiped armies and you
can have a single greek city be able to field an efective army.
The basis of my game is that you have a general population. As your
civilization progresses, you get surplus population. That population
can allocated to various activities. They could be profetional
military class, researchers scribes, merchants crafts man and so on.
In a defensive war or shor campaigns you can allocate more of your
population to war but they will be lesser trained and equiped
auxiliries. You can also have the posibility of nomadic civiliztions
with their certian streinghts and weaknesses. I would also take the
type of governmet out of direct control of the player but allow them to
have indirect control over it. For example you a dictatorship if you
allocate too many people to the military and to gain points you have to
go to war which if you loose can result in civil war for example.
Another thing is that conquered cities reatin their identity after
being captured and are more apt to rebel in civil war.
I would change the way each advancement was researced. I would also
take that out of the control of the player. Your advancements would be
generated by the computer but if you allocate your people to research
or priests of the army would make it more likely that you will accuire
those skills and also you will be more likely to accuire the skills of
your neighabors.
This is a rough outline for a vision I have for a game. I have taken
from civilization that book Sumer to Rome and the civilization board
game with is a great deal of fun. The goal realy is to make it more
faithful to history as I have studdied it. I also think it would be
fun. There is a proscess for devloping games and designing the system,
graphics and interfaces but as long as the player or players understand
what is going on the graphics and interfaces are doing their jobs.
>> Stay informed about: Does anyone still play wargames? 
FAQ
Profile
Private Messages
Log in
