Before numbering my Civ4 suggestions let me tell first that when I say "bring back" I don't mean of course to reapply the respective features in their original form, but that they should be reapplied in a more advanced and sophisticated way.
I also make some additional suggestions, parallel to the "bring back" statements.

Also note that all criticism is well-meant; I'm really very demanding from this game. I have been playing it vanilla from 1 to 3 and I want from it the best.

So,

1) Bring back FUNDAMENTALISM and FANATICS (goverment type and unit type respectively). They were really great. And, by the way, how about changing Communism for Stalinism and Leninism, separately?

2) Bring back the republican/democratic COUNCIL that has the power to obstruct you from unleashing a war. I liked that, although, like everyone I assume, I found it annoying.

3) Bring back the FALL of GOVERMENT feature. It's just more realistic and forces players to be more diplomatic.

4) Bring back the CIVIL WAR feature. I suggest that civil war, besides the conquest of a nation's capital, could also be triggered in areas where goverment lacks political support or where citizens are unhappy (e.g. by the lack of luxuries).

5) Bring back GUERRILLAS unit feature and spawn them when a city falls to the enemy.

6) Bring back OFFENSIVE HELICOPTER unit (probably Apache). The Civ3 chinook thing is OK, but lesser enjoyable to Civ's2 choper.

7) Bring back HIGHWAYS city improuvement. It was a quite coll way to raise trade revenues.

8) Bring back CRUISER naval unit, which may then be upgraded to cruise-missile-carrying AEGIS Cruiser.

9) Bring back CRUISE MISSILE unit of 10-tile range. The current 2-tile range is rubbish.

10) Bring back PARATROOPERS that can perform drops of 10-tile range and from any friendly city (not just these that have an airport).

11) Bring back CRUSADERS and DRAGOONS. Jumping from knight to cavalry isn't just nice and doesn't correspond to reality.

12) Bring back ALPINE TROOPS. They were really useful, especially in military campaigns, for the defense of fallen cities.

13) Bring back the THRONE ROOM, keep the palace. Why not have two bonus features?

14) Bring back MODERN BARBARIANS. It's ridiculous to have warrior barbarians in medieval, industrial and modern era. Instead, like Civ2, there should be worth-fighting barbarians in every era. And I suggest that barbarian villages were not destroyed, neither gave gold to the capturer; I would prefer to see in that role barbarian leaders (like in the Civ2). Additionally, allow barbarians to capture cities and build their own civ.

15) Bring back OASIS terrain type. Civ3 dessert, besides the superfluent in food production marshes, is really awful.

16) Bring back a more FUTURISTIC SPACESHIP. Realism is a good thing, but when talking about an interstellar voyage...I prefer the extravagant Civ2 ship to Civ's3 Apollo-like one. Additionally, Civ's2 spaceship was customizable to personal taste, while Civ's3 not.

17) Bring back NAMING of pacts (e.g. "The London Pact to contain French aggression"). This was really cool.

18) Bring back the CURE FOR CANCER wonder building. The Civ3 statue is pathetic in comparison to Civ's2 research facilities.

19) Bring back the OLD COLOSSUS wonder. The old one was a dipiction of the true statue that once stood in the harbor of Rhodes, while the Civ3 is a graphical rubbish.

20) Bring back the EIFFEL TOWER and STATUE of LIBERTY wonders. I cannot see the reason of their removal.

21) Bring back the feature "WONDER DESTROYED AT...". Currently, when a city with a wonder is razed, its wonder suddenly disappears from the Wonders of the World menu.

22) Bring back the feature in DEMOGRAPHICS that allows you to see who is first (should you have an established embassy with that player) and with what score or demographics is he the first.

23) Bring back the feature that allows you TO SEE the enemy's spaceship, not just which parts he has completed.

24) Bring back feature that COUNTS yours and your enemies' lifetime unit losses. It was a really cool feature; after long wars I would compare for hours my casualties with my enemies'.

25) Bring back that allows your units to MOVE NORMALLY in enemy territory. What happens in Civ3 is ridiculous. When a foreign army invades your country suddenly forgets how to walk or use the trains, and gets more easily tired???

26) Bring back the feature of being given the OPTION to select which terrain improvements to pillage. I hate when I have to destroy both irrigations and roads, as I will need the roads to move my armies as soon as I raze enemy cities.

27) Bring back the feature that makes the barracks OBSOLETE as soon as military needs change, in which case barracks are sold and need to be re-built.

-----------------------------------------
for 28-32 see replies
-----------------------------------------

33) Bring back the CARAVAN/FREIGHT feature, keep the centralized way of commerce Civ3 has. Why? Besides being able to make inter-state deals, a player shall be able to make deals with the private sector, as well. So, if someone has something like a "right of passage for commercial products", he may build a freight and lead it to another city. Why do I miss the freight? Because of its whole philosophy. Leading the freight to other nations was like making tourism (plus: you actually stole enemy maps), while I really liked the part of writing down which freights I have to deliver and where (I found the locations from the trade advisor menu). Additionally, what was really cool was the fact that by the time you reached a city and established a route, you got a hell of a gold revenue...


34) Bring back the CITY AERIAL VIEW of CIV2; it looked more natural while the right-to-left scrolling feature created a refreshing feeling. Additionally, buildings were put in a variety of places, while in Civ3 everything has a standard place. Moreover, cities built in forests had...forests; I cannot see why there should be no forests; Berlin, Paris and London are full of them...

35) Bring back WONDER MOVIES. Splash images are rubbish. Besides... movies had an educational purpose...

36) Bring back COMMUNISM; I know that Civ3 has a communist goverment system but it's not quite competitive. In Civ2 communism was probably better than republic, and equally competitive to democracy in matters of science (like it happened in reality with the two superpowers equally competing in such fields). OK, I agree that communism should suffer in trade revenues.

37) Bring back LANDING MOVEMENT COST 1; it's unrealistic and silly to have modern armors or cavalry miss their turn. After all, most landings in reality constitute a SURPRISE ATTACK, to which the enemy shall be ready and capable to repel.

38) Bring back the POLES! I agree that it shouldn't be easy to cross them, as in Civ2. Probably they should have a penalty, like triremes have when found in ocean squares. Nontheless, they should exist.

39) Bring back the feature that allows you to choose your cities' building style; the player is supposed to build from the beginning his own, personal civilization, not to immitate the actual mankind history.

40) Bring back RANDOM CIVILIZATION SPAWNING. I cannot see why Greeks and Romans shall always be neigbours.

41) Bring back the feature that allows SUBS TO CARRY CRUISE MISSILES. Both sub types (diesel and nuclear) shall be able of carrying at least 6 cruise missiles (this also happens in reality). Additionally, nuclear subs should be able of carrying at least two nukes (modern subs can carry up to 16!).

42) Bring back BIGGER AIR-CARRIERS. I agree that there should be a limit, but not 4! At least 10 - probably it should specify: 2 places for fighters and 8 for bombers, sth like that.

43) Bring back CHANGE OF PRODUCTION PENALTY. What happens in Civ3 is ridiculous: all players start to build a palace just to have a stack of shields, and when they develop a wonder-allowing tech they build the wonder within one turn. That's unacceptable!!! Probably, there should not even be a penalty, but a total production loss...or even better, "PRODUCTION QUEUEING", where the temple, for example, will stop being built, then the production will focus on new player requests, and when the player wants to complete the temple, production will continue from where it was halted. Similarly, this should also happen with advances.

That's all I could think of.

I'm not stuck to the past. To the contrary, I recognise that Civ3 is far better than 2, but I just missed some elements the 2 had and I would be happy to have them back.

Hopefully, Civ4 will produce a supreme result.

I don't post... well ever, but this seems like a good time and thread to add one to that list -
28)Please please please bring back that lovely little cosmetic addition that allowed your title to change as your government style changed. If government is indeed one of the 5 civics catagories, it could be based off that. But when I'm a communist state playing England, the title Queen no longer applies, and it seemed like a nice touch of cosmetics and realism to change that title.

Many good points, some already easily modable in Civ3, some removed for good reason (Eiffel Tower - your reputation should stay trashed).
And

29) Bring back the feature to 'sell ALL barracks' etc, saving you from scrolling though hundreds of cities.
30) List maintenance costs properly - 30gpt for Temples, 40gpt for Barracks etc.

Edit: After reading the edited points in the list (32+), I have to say I do not agree with anything here; on the contrary, I strongly oppose many of them. That's a list of either Civ2 eyecandy I always turned off, or unbalanced human only exploits I always hated.
Just don't want to get quoted with supporting those ;).

I agree with pretty much everything you've layed out, except for the fundamentalism. For a 'modern' government type, it was simply too strong for what it was supposed to represent (a theo-autocracy)

Hmmm...

Yes, yes, please God yes: 9,10,11,17,21,22,24

Good idea: 4,7,14,15,18,20,25,26,28,29(but not just for barracks)

Um, sure: 1,2,3,5,6,8,12,16,19,23,27,30

I didn't really like it the first time: 13

Absolutely not: NA

The throne room was definitely not a favorite feature of mine. Maybe, if the improvements were better.

I miss the Dragoons.

The naming of pacts was definitely a cool feature and made those agreements so much more personal "Contain MY aggression will you?!"

But, I can't believe you guys missed the most obvious:

31) The advisor movies. Granted, I like Civ 3's system of being able to scroll through different relevant bits of information and advice. I definitely would not get rid of that. But in addition, let's have an all-advisor page (maybe in the throne room?), where you could ask them for general overarching advice, to be dispensed with videos. The upgrades from age to age were a nice touch and the bickering between the different advisors was pricelss

Also:

32) Farmland improvement over irrigation. I find it hard to believe that in the thousands of years since irrigation was discovered, my civilization would not have yet found a way to make it better/more productive. This could be unlocked by a builder tech most military folks would ignore.

Hmmm... I need to play Civ 2 again to remember all the stuff I love... oh the sacrifices I make...

) Bring back the republican/democratic COUNCIL that has the power to obstruct you from unleashing a war. I liked that, although, like everyone I assume, I found it annoying.

This one, some people have been suggesting by representing domestic factions/politics in a civ, somewhat like Galactic Civilizations I, but more elaborate.

Most of your suggestions are already in the CIV3C Rise and Rule mod (like most peoples). I hope that one will be ported to CIV4 and made more playable.

32) Farmland improvement over irrigation. I find it hard to believe that in the thousands of years since irrigation was discovered, my civilization would not have yet found a way to make it better/more productive. This could be unlocked by a builder tech most military folks would ignore.

That's been suggested alot to, including some way of sharing various production types at will between cities (pooling shields, food, and luxury).

I STRONGLY AGREE TO EVERY SUGGESTION MADE, except the Throne Room - Palace building is much cooler and dates back to Civ 1.

Civ 4 TEAM please take all these points into consideration. A lot of them add realism and better and more historial gameplay. I think Civ3 is a far less interesting game due to a lot of things omitted from Civ2. Please revive them!!!

These are a great load of suggestions, fall oif goverment and civil war, more destruction is possiable for civ4's engines!

Umm, not to be a downer or anything, but the suggestions in that first post basically ask that Civ4 be a remake of Civ2. :) I expect that Civ4 will give us something that is not Civ2 nor Civ3, but something entirely new and different. Maybe some of these things will be included, but my guess is that we'll see more new stuff than the return of Civ2 stuff.

^A lof of those things add historical realism and a sence of ruling a country. IMO Civ3 became a lot about building (units, wonders, cities), but not about ruling anything.... the concepts are there, but they do not make for an interesting gameplay...

#43 is a must. Instantaneously switching production in civ3 is ridiclulous and leads to weird, unrealistic situations. This feature was for me one of the most serious letdowns between civ2 and 3.

2) Bring back the republican/democratic COUNCIL that has the power to obstruct you from unleashing a war. I liked that, although, like everyone I assume, I found it annoying.

That's a terrible idea. I want to play the game how I want to play it, not as an AI.

That's a terrible idea. I want to play the game how I want to play it, not as an AI.
This could be optional...

This could be optional...

It just seems useless and unfun to me (plus a waste of coding time delaying the game). If you want someone to stop you from going to war, talk to a family member, or flip a coin (or is there a way to convince it? Still doesn't sound that great though).

It just seems useless and unfun to me (plus a waste of coding time delaying the game). If you want someone to stop you from going to war, talk to a family member, or flip a coin (or is there a way to convince it? Still doesn't sound that great though).

Clearly you've never played Civ2. It adds realism to the game.... and I said if you don't like it you can turn it off....

Dont we already have a Pre-Modern Cruiser in C3C?

I'd love 24) to be in civ4. And REAL effects on gameplay, to reduce stack of doom. Unhappiness due to unit loss.

Ahhh sweet memories -teasing Parlement to support my thinley vailed war of agression...

Was a fantastic counter-balance to the otherwise uber nature of democracy. You could always go to war but you had to engenier a situation... A moment of role play that really gave the flavor of smoke-filled rooms.

Also I miss the headlines. The wirdist thing was when they were the same as the real world headlines "sire, our scientists have detected a nuclear test near Delhi" or what ever.

If you want to remeber civ2 in your games, just play it!

I belevie there are some errors in Voli's list:

6) Bring back OFFENSIVE HELICOPTER unit (probably Apache). The Civ3 chinook thing is OK, but lesser enjoyable to Civ's2 choper.
There never was an offensive helicopter in Civ2, only a Chinook.


8) Bring back CRUISER naval unit, which may then be upgraded to cruise-missile-carrying AEGIS Cruiser.
You can already do this in Civ3.


15) Bring back OASIS terrain type. Civ3 dessert, besides the superfluent in food production marshes, is really awful.
Civ3 does have oasis tiles but there probably not to your liking


40) Bring back RANDOM CIVILIZATION SPAWNING. I cannot see why Greeks and Romans shall always be neigbours.
Why don't you try Civ3 without the Culturally Linked option?

I belevie there are some errors in Voli's list:

There never was an offensive helicopter in Civ2, only a Chinook.


Why don't you try Civ3 without the Culturally Linked option?




::The CIV2 chinook has always been an offensive helicopter. it was not used for carrying troops or other.

::Do you know how to do this in Civ3 v1.02?? I didn't buy C3C yet, because I had to look after my studies. I will, though , by next month.
Do you say it has so many differences to v1.02?

I definitely agree that the Council should be brought back. It made republics/democracies not quite the ultimate powerhouses they became in Civ3...

I also want my advisors to be animated; I want to see them argue and make fun of each other... plus, it would be really cool to see my Military Advisor jump across the table to throttle the Foreign Advisor!

Hyronymus@ There never was an offensive helicopter in Civ2, only a Chinook."
voliThe CIV2 chinook has always been an offensive helicopter. it was not used for carrying troops or other.

Actually, you are both wrong. Voli is correct that Civ 2 had no offensive helicopter. I remember because I was excited about seeing the helicopter and disapponted to see it had no cargo capacity. This helicopter was not a chinook. A chinook is a cargo helo only. No guns, no nothing. The helicopter is more like a Cobra or an Aphache.

I disagree with 36. Communism was too powerful in Civ II. There wasn't even any thought put into which government I would choose. I laughed at the puny AI who tried Democracy in the face of my bourgeous crushing war machine.

Although, I do think Republic and Democracy should be powered down by introducing a council and, y'know, making them somewhat democratic.

You do know that you can mod in many of the things you want? You can mod paratrooper range and cruise missile range. You can add dragoons.

I disagree on helicopters. The Civ II helicopters sucked because they could cross oceans and then attack and occupy your cities. So the AI helicopters woudl cross the atlantic ocean and then occupy your coastal cities. Totally ridiculous. This was so aggravating I had to mod the Civ II helicopters to prevent it.

It is fine if they want to add attack helicopters. In fact, I am trying to mod the, into CivIII. I just hope that they don't make helicopters like the Civ II helicopters!

I also dosagree on movement in enemy territory. It is good that you can move more slowly in enemy territory. This was a good change from Civ II. In Civ II you could use the enemy's railroads and attack his most distant cities. In a WWII scenario as Germany you could conceivably conquer Vladivostok on the first turn. Again, ridiculous!

I disagree with 36. Communism was too powerful in Civ II. There wasn't even any thought put into which government I would choose. I laughed at the puny AI who tried Democracy in the face of my bourgeous crushing war machine.
I think the opposite : DEMOCRACY was way to powerful. NO CORRUPTION!!! How awesome is that? Your cities on the other side of the world are as productive as your capital! Your only restriction is that war is not an option, just stay on peace. But communsim was more powerful in civ2 than in civ3, so I part agree with you. In civ3, communism is only for the AI's stupidity.

You do know that you can mod in many of the things you want? You can mod paratrooper range and cruise missile range. You can add dragoons.

I disagree on helicopters. The Civ II helicopters sucked because they could cross oceans and then attack and occupy your cities. So the AI helicopters woudl cross the atlantic ocean and then occupy your coastal cities. Totally ridiculous. This was so aggravating I had to mod the Civ II helicopters to prevent it.

It is fine if they want to add attack helicopters. In fact, I am trying to mod the, into CivIII. I just hope that they don't make helicopters like the Civ II helicopters!

Yeah, you're right on that. But remember, the first thing I said is that I do not mean to bring them back on their original form but in a more advanced and sophisticated one...

I also dosagree on movement in enemy territory. It is good that you can move more slowly in enemy territory. This was a good change from Civ II. In Civ II you could use the enemy's railroads and attack his most distant cities. In a WWII scenario as Germany you could conceivably conquer Vladivostok on the first turn. Again, ridiculous!

You're right on that. Probably there should be a limit on how far inside enemy territory a unit may intrude. This should be customizable by programming stuff such as: (new) the distance your unit has from friendly supply lines, (new) a unit's health<=>willingness to fight, etc. This way, I believe, this ridiculous element would be prevented.

I Agree!

And Please, Unit Trading Too!!!!

4) Bring back the CIVIL WAR feature. I suggest that civil war, besides the conquest of a nation's capital, could also be triggered in areas where goverment lacks political support or where citizens are unhappy (e.g. by the lack of luxuries).

I agree with this though it shouldn't happen with EVERY civilization. It should be based upon the culture rating or happiness rating of that particular civilization.

24) Bring back feature that COUNTS yours and your enemies' lifetime unit losses. It was a really cool feature; after long wars I would compare for hours my casualties with my enemies'

I second this. I too would spend time looking on this page to see how my forces have been doing over the ages.

31) The advisor movies. Granted, I like Civ 3's system of being able to scroll through different relevant bits of information and advice. I definitely would not get rid of that. But in addition, let's have an all-advisor page (maybe in the throne room?), where you could ask them for general overarching advice, to be dispensed with videos. The upgrades from age to age were a nice touch and the bickering between the different advisors was priceless.

I agree. I know some thought were not impressed with the advisers but I always loved the personality that it gave the advisers. Heck, I'd be happy with the simple ability to pull the videos from Civ 2 and just use them in the game. Even just the option of including them would make me happy. I too enjoyed the bickering between the advisors...plus I loved how they'd totally chew you out if you lost. Very amusing.

33) Bring back the CARAVAN/FREIGHT feature, keep the centralized way of commerce Civ3 has. Why? Besides being able to make inter-state deals, a player shall be able to make deals with the private sector, as well. So, if someone has something like a "right of passage for commercial products", he may build a freight and lead it to another city. Why do I miss the freight? Because of its whole philosophy. Leading the freight to other nations was like making tourism (plus: you actually stole enemy maps), while I really liked the part of writing down which freights I have to deliver and where (I found the locations from the trade advisor menu). Additionally, what was really cool was the fact that by the time you reached a city and established a route, you got a hell of a gold revenue...

Good point. I enjoyed this way of trading as it made early exploration more important and there was, to me anyway, a nice sense of satisfaction in delivering the goods to a foreign city.

35) Bring back WONDER MOVIES. Splash images are rubbish. Besides... movies had an educational purpose...

Yup, I prefer the wonder movies as well. I felt short changed when Civ 3 gave us the splash images. It gave me the distinct impression that they didn't care much for the wonders, just plug'em in and move on. The movies dragged me into the game even more and often, I would build a wonder just to see the movie file associated with it.

Why not just play Civ 2

"Why not just play Civ 2"


Because you shouldn't have to revert back a decade in order to have features that should be standard in subsiquent versions of civ. New elements should be included yes, but not at the expense of popular features that made the older versions enjoyable.

A comprehensive list. Some of the most important are already confirmed (i.e., wonder movies). But I must say my biggest ovation goes to farmland. It was such a great feeling, upgrading all my irrigation, moving into the new, modern age of agriculture, complete with refrigeration and supermarkets. Wow.

2) Bring back the republican/democratic COUNCIL that has the power to obstruct you from unleashing a war. I liked that, although, like everyone I assume, I found it annoying.
NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO! :eek:

In real life, when did this happen? For isntance, USA: I believe (not sure) they have to approve war in council. Did the council ever rejected one?

And I believe GAMEPLAY to be more important, so I think war weariness is great. Annoying in terms of play but real and simulates that effect.




12) Bring back ALPINE TROOPS. They were really useful, especially in military campaigns, for the defense of fallen cities.
14) Bring back MODERN BARBARIANS. It's ridiculous to have warrior barbarians in medieval, industrial and modern era.(...)
Additionally, allow barbarians to capture cities and build their own civ.

12) YES! I miss those guys!
14) I agree with MODERN Barbarians, but I disagree on Barbarian capturing cities... it brings complexity without much added value (IMHO).
But the penalty for losing cities to barbarians should be stronger!


24) Bring back feature that COUNTS yours and your enemies' lifetime unit losses. It was a really cool feature; after long wars I would compare for hours my casualties with my enemies'.
24) YES! YES! I want to see that!

I loved the advisors. I laughed so hard the first time “Elvis” did his thing. It would be nice to have them in CIVIV. When you talk about different game menus, the management should be done through the advisors. When I want to see a list of my troops and perhaps upgrade (or promote) them, I should be able to click the military advisor. “Firaxis is also hiring voice talent for various game parts.”- that gives me hope.

I was very disappointed by farming in CIV to CIVIII. When you looked at the city, city people were “working” certain squares, but they wouldn’t develop them. You had to irrigate the squares… and irrigate them again and again. In CIVIV, I want to see little people plowing the fields themselves. They populate the city. They are supposed to be utilizing the surrounding city squares. I want them out there in the fields building roads and irrigating the farmland so I can use workers for a more strategic purpose.

Welcome to CFC :dance: :dance: :band: [party] [party]
but, in civ2, they weren't irrigating tiles too...

I would like to see features 4 and 14, would be great.

bring back it all baby!

Great: 1, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 28, 31, 34, 35, 36, 37, 39, 41, 42.

Average: 13, 30, 32, 38, 40.

Bad: 2, 3, 4, 27, 29, 33, 43.

One thing I would like to see in civ4 is maybe a screen that pops up that looks like a newspaper, with a headline of a major event that just happened in the game. Like maybe when another civ is wiped out, who did it, etc.. I wouldn't want to see this after every turn of course, just after major events. Was this a feature in Civ2? :king:

They even had it in Civ1. There are a lot of nice little touches which disappeared from II to III.

I never played Civ1, I played Civ2 for a little while & thought maybe I saw headlines in that version. A "highlights" screen would be great too, maybe showing just the year & what event happened. (This may have been in a previous version too?) :king:

Civ 2's advisors on the high council are a must for Civ IV

I agree the arguements on the high council could be quite entertaining. Elvis presley as luxury advisor and the entertainer in cities was a quirky part of Civ 2 and an essential part of the character of the game!

I read that Elvis Presley has been suggested as a great artist so obviously someone on the production team is fighting for the king! :king:

I found Civ 3 to be technically strong and advanced however certain omissions from Civ 2 left Civ 3 with less character and charm. I am delighted to hear of the return of wonder movies as they were rewarding and educational too! :)

I think for game modification sake they should bring back the cheat menu. I also like the animated advisors, and how they sometimes argued and/or disagreed with another advisor.

1) Bring back FUNDAMENTALISM and FANATICS (goverment type and unit type respectively). They were really great. And, by the way, how about changing Communism for Stalinism and Leninism, separately?

It's in here. You can now set your religious views anywhere from "Freedom of Religion" to "Theocracy" (which essentially is fundamentalism). Also, "Communism" is now merely an economic system thanks to the power of Civic Engineering.

2) Bring back the republican/democratic COUNCIL that has the power to obstruct you from unleashing a war. I liked that, although, like everyone I assume, I found it annoying.

War Weariness works fine right now. Having someone prevent you from even waging a short war would be more realistic, but you've sometimes got to sacrifice realism for fun.

3) Bring back the FALL of GOVERMENT feature. It's just more realistic and forces players to be more diplomatic.

Now, to be quite honest, I never really played much of the earlier civs; can you explain what this was?

4) Bring back the CIVIL WAR feature. I suggest that civil war, besides the conquest of a nation's capital, could also be triggered in areas where goverment lacks political support or where citizens are unhappy (e.g. by the lack of luxuries).

This is probably the second most discussed topic on this forum (the most being religion, but it's total postcount is declining now that the details are confirmed and the discussion is official in Civ4 discussion forum). And I must say I totally approve of this. Except not when a capital falls; that's just plain mean.

5) Bring back GUERRILLAS unit feature and spawn them when a city falls to the enemy.

Good idea.

6) Bring back OFFENSIVE HELICOPTER unit (probably Apache). The Civ3 chinook thing is OK, but lesser enjoyable to Civ's2 choper.

The units are really more abstractions in Civ, so you can assume that your Mech. Infantry division has some attack choppers without building each one individually.

7) Bring back HIGHWAYS city improuvement. It was a quite coll way to raise trade revenues.

Again, I don't recall what this is.

8) Bring back CRUISER naval unit, which may then be upgraded to cruise-missile-carrying AEGIS Cruiser.

See answer to 7.

9) Bring back CRUISE MISSILE unit of 10-tile range. The current 2-tile range is rubbish.

I've never really like the CivIII Cruise Missiles. They'd be so much fun if they had a few nice overhauls.

10) Bring back PARATROOPERS that can perform drops of 10-tile range and from any friendly city (not just these that have an airport).

That may end up a tad overpowering. You shouldn't be able to paradrop from a freshly captured enemy city. Airbases should be fixed, too: They're too easy to build.

11) Bring back CRUSADERS and DRAGOONS. Jumping from knight to cavalry isn't just nice and doesn't correspond to reality.

If we were to include every upgrade, we'd have to research clubmen, then upgrade to maces, then go to heavy iron maces, then...
Still, it does seem like there's a gap there.

12) Bring back ALPINE TROOPS. They were really useful, especially in military campaigns, for the defense of fallen cities.

Again, I don't remember what they did.

13) Bring back the THRONE ROOM, keep the palace. Why not have two bonus features?

Now this, I do recall. And I prefer the Palace. It's a whole lot more majestic when you can see it from miles away, rather than not seeing it until you're meters away. I know, it doesn't really matter, but a cool building is still infinitely superior to a cool room.

14) Bring back MODERN BARBARIANS. It's ridiculous to have warrior barbarians in medieval, industrial and modern era. Instead, like Civ2, there should be worth-fighting barbarians in every era. And I suggest that barbarian villages were not destroyed, neither gave gold to the capturer; I would prefer to see in that role barbarian leaders (like in the Civ2). Additionally, allow barbarians to capture cities and build their own civ.

I've always wanted upgrading barbarians (though they're usually extinct halfway through Medieval). Also, Civ4 barbs can capture and hold cities. Unfortunately, Barbarian Leaders don't work as well with the new stack combat rules (previously, you'd have to manipulate them into leaving him undefended; now you can just attack head on).

15) Bring back OASIS terrain type. Civ3 dessert, besides the superfluent in food production marshes, is really awful.

Oasis is now a bonus resource. And deserts are awful places to live.

16) Bring back a more FUTURISTIC SPACESHIP. Realism is a good thing, but when talking about an interstellar voyage...I prefer the extravagant Civ2 ship to Civ's3 Apollo-like one. Additionally, Civ's2 spaceship was customizable to personal taste, while Civ's3 not.

Meaningless cosmetic features are always cool, and never harmful (unless they give us a Hot Civ Coffee. Then they're kinda suicidal).

17) Bring back NAMING of pacts (e.g. "The London Pact to contain French aggression"). This was really cool.

See above.

18) Bring back the CURE FOR CANCER wonder building. The Civ3 statue is pathetic in comparison to Civ's2 research facilities.

See above.

19) Bring back the OLD COLOSSUS wonder. The old one was a dipiction of the true statue that once stood in the harbor of Rhodes, while the Civ3 is a graphical rubbish.

Cosmetic (read: See above).

20) Bring back the EIFFEL TOWER and STATUE of LIBERTY wonders. I cannot see the reason of their removal.

Eiffel Tower was bad because it manipulated the AI. If you've got a crummy reputation, it's your own fault, and nobody should ever forgive you for it. Also, Statue of Liberty is replaced by Religious civ trait (and in Civ4, Philosophical Leadertrait).

21) Bring back the feature "WONDER DESTROYED AT...". Currently, when a city with a wonder is razed, its wonder suddenly disappears from the Wonders of the World menu.

I did miss this.

22) Bring back the feature in DEMOGRAPHICS that allows you to see who is first (should you have an established embassy with that player) and with what score or demographics is he the first.

I agree.

23) Bring back the feature that allows you TO SEE the enemy's spaceship, not just which parts he has completed.

Aside from being cosmetically cool, it's more convenient too.

24) Bring back feature that COUNTS yours and your enemies' lifetime unit losses. It was a really cool feature; after long wars I would compare for hours my casualties with my enemies'.[/qutoe]

All statistics are welcome in my book.

[quote]25) Bring back that allows your units to MOVE NORMALLY in enemy territory. What happens in Civ3 is ridiculous. When a foreign army invades your country suddenly forgets how to walk or use the trains, and gets more easily tired???

Being able to hop the next train to their capital is way too strong for the attacker. In Civ4, you'll be able to give select units a "Commando" bonus (chosen from among several other bonuses) if they win enough battles, and this allows them to use enemy infastructure (for some reason, I can't help but imagine a "Fourth Hobo Battallion"). Granting this to only a few units, and at the cost of the other options, is more balancing.

26) Bring back the feature of being given the OPTION to select which terrain improvements to pillage. I hate when I have to destroy both irrigations and roads, as I will need the roads to move my armies as soon as I raze enemy cities.

Makes sense.

27) Bring back the feature that makes the barracks OBSOLETE as soon as military needs change, in which case barracks are sold and need to be re-built.

Rebuilt your barracks every time a military tech is discovered? Ouch, that's painful.

I'll probably look at the other half sometime tomorrow; it's a long list. You may want to look at the pre-release info, though; a lot of this stuff is already incorporated somehow.

Oh, and don't be put off by my unholy passion for the semicolon; it's just a bit of a habit of mine.

Clearly you've never played Civ2. It adds realism to the game.... and I said if you don't like it you can turn it off....

Realism? Have you been paying attention to recent American history? And I'm not just talking about the second war in Iraq.

1) President goes to war
2) President has the backing of the senate because the senate is full of political ass kissers who don't want to lose their seat.
3) War ensues, lots of explosions and bullets and whatnot.
4) If war is decisive and few to no lives are lost, the populace is happy with the war
5) If the war is not decisive, lots of lives are lost, and victory is not swift, the populace gets very upset, protests ensue and all that stuff.

In Vietnam, we went to war for quite possibly the wrong reason, stayed in their way too long despite the will of the people, and had massive protests of many upset people.
In Somalia, we went in, got our asses handed to us by some surprise attacks by terrorists, and the people wanted us out, that time we got out and the population was happy.
In Yugoslavia, we didn't dedicate much, if any, in the way of ground forces, but we got involved, helped stop the fighting, and the people were happy, even if they didn't know much about it, and nor did much of the american people even care. :sad:
In desert storm, we went in, laid the smack down on the republican guard, and got out, we were happy. Most people didn't care until someone realized that it would irrevocably change the nature of oil production in the middle east and no one would stand for higher oil prices (i.e. read we needed strategic resources, hint hint). :rolleyes:
In Iraq, the revenge, we got in, defeated the army but the insurgency is kicking our ass and the people want the troops to come home. Are they? No, so weariness is on the rise and we protest. :mad:

Let's not even get into the situation were in 1898 we went to war with Spain thanks to a media mogul who made us believe Spain sank one of our ships. Congress and the president at the time bought into it and started what was effectively an agressive war.

What's not realistic is not having the flexibility to wage war whatever the reason. Democracies aren't suddenly pacifistic peaceniks. They are just selfish humans. "You can fight this war as long as you are winning. Otherwise don't get my father/mother/brother/sister/son/daughter killed and bring them home the moment you start losing." That's realistic to me.

Civ3's model for Democracy and Republic is more realistic than Civ2s. The senate blocking an aggressive war is not all that common. And what's to say it's not realistic to believe that you are the "government" for your civ and not just a single leader? Hell you are a 6000 year old leader of your nation, where's the realism?

The problem is that war is started for lots of different reasons. Under Civ2 and civ1, war is impossible to wage unless you are attacked first. Under civ3, you can wage war, but unless your war is short or you have an overwhelming advantage, it's going to be hard to do (I do it myself. Takes a lot of planning and building but it can be done, even under democracy).

This is one concept I do not welcome back. Neither model is perfect, but the newer model allows flexibility and has a far higher penalty if you don't manage your war correctly. Also, given things like strategic resources, democracies would be unfairly hampered because they could not go to war to snatch a few key resources to keep going in the game. All I would need would be to get late into a game with democracy and realize that the only aluminum resource on my entire continent is in a border city and I can't build a spaceship or build MA to strengthen my army and discourage being attacked because the senate said "war is wrong you big bully!" Besides, it is a game, and the senate is what we like to call an "unfun" feature, like corruption.

What about bringing back 'capture a city, get an advance'? It is realistic.

What about bringing back 'capture a city, get an advance'? It is realistic.Totally agree. That's the way it has always been historicly.


Civ3's model for Democracy and Republic is more realistic than Civ2s. The senate blocking an aggressive war is not all that common. And what's to say it's not realistic to believe that you are the "government" for your civ and not just a single leader? Hell you are a 6000 year old leader of your nation, where's the realism?

The problem is that war is started for lots of different reasons. Under Civ2 and civ1, war is impossible to wage unless you are attacked first. Under civ3, you can wage war, but unless your war is short or you have an overwhelming advantage, it's going to be hard to do (I do it myself. Takes a lot of planning and building but it can be done, even under democracy).

This is one concept I do not welcome back. Neither model is perfect, but the newer model allows flexibility and has a far higher penalty if you don't manage your war correctly. Also, given things like strategic resources, democracies would be unfairly hampered because they could not go to war to snatch a few key resources to keep going in the game. All I would need would be to get late into a game with democracy and realize that the only aluminum resource on my entire continent is in a border city and I can't build a spaceship or build MA to strengthen my army and discourage being attacked because the senate said "war is wrong you big bully!" Besides, it is a game, and the senate is what we like to call an "unfun" feature, like corruption.Again, Totally agree, Allways made me mad in Civ I when I was a democracy and they wouldn't let me go to war unless the AI declared war and I was unable to get rid of those crazed Zulus expanding everywhere. ;)

c'mon...war in Civ2 Democracies was no big deal.The senate could be bypassed by revolt.The max you were gonna get was 4 turns of anarchy.Using "oedo" years or the Statue of Liberty you could make it "instant".

Military unhappiness was also easily handled.There is a multitude of ways of managing that..

War in Civ3 is TOO easy and too attractive.In fact you get a happiness boost....slaves,elite units and MLs.Even the odd bombard unit...or some units spawn others when victorious.Almost no reason to ever avoid warfare.

War in Civ3 is TOO easy and too attractive.In fact you get a happiness boost....slaves,elite units and MLs.Even the odd bombard unit...or some units spawn others when victorious.Almost no reason to ever avoid warfare.

You only get the happiness bonus if the AI attacks you, and it quickly degenerates into War Weariness. Slaves are no reason to go to war: Regardless of the fact that they have no upkeep cost, it's much easier to build a Worker than to capture one. Elites are only useful if you intended to be at war in the first place, and MGLs are rare enough (and in Conquests weakened enough) that nobody would go to war solely for their sake. Beyond that, you have the same reasons to go to war that anyone has: Capturing cities and eliminating opponents. The reasons against warfare include the potential to lose cities and strength, the neglect of your infrastructure as your cities shift to produce units, loss of money to unit upkeep, and the risk that your target will drag his buddies (or any opportunist that's closer to you than him) into the battle against you.

oaisis is availabel in conquests

THREE WORDS

Extended

Fantasy

SciFi

definitely agree with 5, 14, 21, 25, 26, 37, 39, 42, 43. as opposed to 32, how about two levels of upgrade (irrigation, rotation for farming side and mining, boring for mining side)

I loved Civ II and i do miss all of the features listed in this thread. As we recently learned, Civ IV will be very moddable after a special release in January and good folks here in CfC are very eager to help us go back to our roots. :)

THREE WORDS

Extended

Fantasy

SciFi

That is a task for the modders, allthough I really liked the idea of multiple worlds, for instance Earth and Alpha Centauri, so you can colonize the last one too. Well look at that, I just combined CivIV with SMACII :cool:

besides all the great things they took out of civ3 from civ2 the worst thing they did was make the wars so ridiculous. Since when can a knight with a sword take out a ww2 era infantry that was my biggest complaint about civ3 and what they should have done was just added a few things to civ3 like thoses suggestions and fix the problems with pikeman being able to fend off a infantry unit then you would have a great civ game that Im sure would do much better than that 3d garbage they put out with no goverments and less units. Im not real sure where they came up with that Idea last time I checked wars had a major effect on civilizations and the world so why down play that. Not real sure what the makers where thinking but they definitely didnt have the real civ fans in mind when they made it.

I think they were trying to push other forms of peaceful victory options like cultural (which is NEARLY IMPOSSIBLE to achieve w/o taking some cities), diplomatic, and domination (doesn't have to be by taking land from others, just grabbing it all in the beginning).

besides all the great things they took out of civ3 from civ2 the worst thing they did was make the wars so ridiculous. Since when can a knight with a sword take out a ww2 era infantry that was my biggest complaint about civ3 and what they should have done was just added a few things to civ3 like thoses suggestions and fix the problems with pikeman being able to fend off a infantry unit then you would have a great civ game

:eek: Runon sentences confuse and disturb me. Still, you'll be happy to know that pikeman vs. infantry will now be heavily in favor of the Infantry, and spearmen beating tanks will be so rare that the chance is essentially zero (with random numbers, there's always a slight chance, but spearmen now have to get real lucky about ten times to win, while tanks need only hit once or twice).

that Im sure would do much better than that 3d garbage they put out with no goverments and less units.

Actually, CivIV contains 3,125 possibilities of customly created governments. Though, I must concede that it could use some more units, but that's what the modding community is for! (Heh, heh, heh, Double Your Pleasure age-free optional tech style...)

Im not real sure where they came up with that Idea last time I checked wars had a major effect on civilizations and the world so why down play that. Not real sure what the makers where thinking but they definitely didnt have the real civ fans in mind when they made it.

They did not so much downplay wars as upplay religion, culture, and diplomacy, which, last I checked, were just as important as wars, if not more so (indeed, you'd be hard pressed to find a war not caused by a combination of all three).

In Iraq, the revenge, we got in, defeated the army but the insurgency is kicking our ass and the people want the troops to come home. Are they? No, so weariness is on the rise and we protest. :mad:




Militarily the insurgency is not kicking our asses. It is a war of wills at this point though and that is reflected more accurately with war weariness than with a counsil denying your ability to go to war. It also brings up another aspect I'd like to see added to the game though....propoganda. A national news service of sorts(think BBC or AL Jazeera) that can be instructed to propogandize against a particular nation in order to lessen war weariness in any campaigns against that particular civ. Or you can use it to aim propoganda at civs that are uninvolved to get them sympathetic to your side. You can win a war on the ground but lose it in the media which gives rise to potentially crippling war wearniness.