I see many referring to this as the Vatican. Although I can see how the Vatican could fill this role in the Christian (Catholic) world, I do not see how it would apply to the other religions in the game.

I've been thinking the same. Since developers don't want to make differences between religions, maybe they'll develop something flexible. Something that works for instance only for the religion of the first civ who builds the AP.

So when are we going to create a new Forum like we did for Warlords? The general Discussion area is really going to get hit hard with this subject.

[party] :dance: :banana:
Wow!!! I CAN'T BELIEVE IT!!! I was about to uninstall the game. I was getting a bit bored. But now... I will give it more chances.

My civs list:

Babilonia
Netherlands
Portugal
Oceti Sakowin (Sioux)
Maya Land
Israel
Khmer
Hatti (Hitites)
Afrikaaners
Byzantium

(Mmm, I don't know, I would like: Brazil, Bolivar's Venezuela, Austria, Sumeria...)

My wish list:
Add new victory conditions. The Economic Victory would be cool, altough I don't imagine it. The religious victory would be great: control the shrine, and then spread your cult across the world (just like the Omens scenario, but more complex).

And please CHANGE the HORRIBLE INTERFACE. Looks like a DVD menu. I want to feel the history more DEEPLY. Shouldn't be difficult to do.

Anyway, I'm happy right now

Ben

We need the selucids!!

I trust that the Maya will be included. Or else!

Freedom of speech, just restricted. Nazi imagery is a crime, which has angered Hindus and such who used the Swastika long before Hitler. I'd imagine Charlie Chaplin fans are angry too, though I've yet to hear one complain.

Thats a real dumb law in my opinion because in the long run it will only make more people embrace Nazism (people tend to do what they are told not to). We should learn from people who made past mistakes like Hitler not mute them.

Thats a real dumb law in my opinion because in the long run it will only make more people embrace Nazism (people tend to do what they are told not to). We should learn from people who made past mistakes like Hitler not mute them.

Well, if there's one country in all the world that is most aware of the shadows in its past that's Germany.

Well, if there's one country in all the world that is most aware of the shadows in its past that's Germany.

Evidently not if they are outlawing symbols just becuase of the past. Why they are at it they should outlaw the Christain Cross because there is no way anyone (including Hitler) has caused more death then religion (crusades, inquisitions, etc). Like I said learn not mute.

Thats a real dumb law in my opinion because in the long run it will only make more people embrace Nazism

Well, I'm sure that the citizens of Germany are eagerly awaiting feedback from Civ Fanatics on how they should reform their laws. I'll rush this news on to them, right away.

Evidently not if they are outlawing symbols just becuase of the past. Why they are at it they should outlaw the Christain Cross because there is no way anyone (including Hitler) has caused more death then religion (crusades, inquisitions, etc). Like I said learn not mute.

Says he whose country hardly acknowledges the attrocities done to the natives, the enslavement of the black people and their crimes against many nations in South America and Asia.

EDIT : Okay, that was a little harsh. We don't totally ban the symbols, they are allowed in class, in history books and documentaries. We just don't allow people to stitch them on their jackets or something like that. We don't allow glorifying them, that's all.

Well, I'm sure that the citizens of Germany are eagerly awaiting feedback from Civ Fanatics on how they should reform their laws. I'll rush this news on to them, right away.

Thank you so much!!

Says he whose country hardly acknowledges the attrocities done to the natives, the enslavement of the black people and their crimes against many nations in South America and Asia.

I admit that my country was (and still is) founded and gets all of its power from the people it has taken advantage of (slaughtered, raped, used, etc) in the past (and present).

Evidently not if they are outlawing symbols just becuase of the past. Why they are at it they should outlaw the Christain Cross because there is no way anyone (including Hitler) has caused more death then religion (crusades, inquisitions, etc). Like I said learn not mute.

A popular misconception, and yet so very very false.

This thread went down-hill really fast... This morning it was great, now? Well, read the last 20 crap posts. I guess the kids got out of school.

I agree with Modern/Ren Italy but with the Pope it does make sense: you can think to the medieval Papal States to be somewhat a residual of the Roman State (think to the city list: in the first slots there are mostly Roman Colonies from Latium and central Italy).

You can take for instance an early times pope (e.g. Gregorius Magnus) who lived during a time where Roman Empire had not completely disappeared at all.

It is general consensus that western Roman Empire ended AD 476. Last emperor was Romulus Augustus (Became emperor 31 October AD 475. Abdicated 4 September AD 476. Date of death unknown)

Pope at the time was Pope Simplicius (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Simplicius).

Pope Gregory I (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Gregory_I) or Gregory the Great (ca. 540 – March 12, 604) was Pope from September 3, 590 until his death.

This is about the first time that someone i hear someone thinking Papal States as Roman empire. Personally i disagree.

Btw, where are moderators when you need them? Even if this post is off-topic too, this thread could use some cleaning before it gets completely off.

OMG, I stop playing Civ and wean myself off the game by posting in these forums for little while, then go off on vacation without checking the forums for a week, and look at this s#!$! Just when i thought I was out, they PUUULLL me back in!!!

LOL!

Well done Firaxis, nicely played!

Regarding some prior posts:
- Agg/Cre is Kublai. C'mon, dude, get a clue.
- Underwater cities? Alien life? Oh, I hope not! IMO, those were the game mechanic killer of SMAC-AC, as the Sea Pirates would claim way more territory than they deserved and the alien civs were just too disruptive to the competition between factions... well, I just hated them.

That said, it would absolutely rock if Firaxis allowed Civ to flow between 4000BC to the end of Alpha Centauri. But does that REALLY make sense for Firaxis? Probably not. They'd be better off making a new game of it, or at the very least, making a third expansion pack for it. Call to Power proved that this could be a bloated proposition anyway.

As to the MSRP and SKUs of this expansion, I would suspect that this expansion would be installed over both Civ IV and warlords. Also, perhaps, they would sell a separate package called "Civ IV 2007" or something and have it all in one package for about $70 (with extras that'll make us fans shell out the $$$ all over again, no doubt). This would be the same strategy as Civ III: conquests" and then "Civ III complete". I can't see how Civ IV + Civ IV:BtS would work online (or even off) without the Warlords material, and they need to keep a backdoor open for new players.

edit: Come to think of it, I think it'll be smart of them to sell "Civ IV 2007" without Warlords scenarios for around $60 ($30 for vanilla, $30 for BtS). It gives new players a way in, and still creates an incentive for the completists to go buy Warlords.

Anyway, I agree with Sid. Real world conflict detracts from the escapist attraction of a game, and I think Firaxis' tendency to shy away from controversial topics such as differences in religion, Hitler, and contemporary politics is a wise one. (I'm going to make the wild prediction that we won't see George W, Saddam, or Osama, make it as leaders either!)

My guess is that the "biodome" shown in the concept art is city art in the endgame, when global warming becomes a more fleshed out "event" instead of merely stripping tiles of resources. I wonder if we'll see the return of sea levels from SMAC? That'll screw over coastal cities like, say, New Orleans. Maybe "Biodome" is a late-game improvement, restricting city size but making it less vulnerable to the effects of climate change.

Again, Firaxis, you're my heroes, even if you cause me to lose huge chunks of my real life! :crazyeye: :( :mad: ;)

now, this sounds nice, especially the corporation idea and the additional techs / units / buidlings for late game.

also, the inclusion of a more customized start is an interesting multiplayer option as you can get to the more interesting portion of the game quicker. civ is hard enough in mp already (timewise speaking).

uh, almost forgot: earlier UN with more resolutions sound nice as well.

Forgive me if this has already been asked but I wonder if the new UN will allow me to rebel against world opinion at some kind of cost. (e.g., they UN votes to implement Free Religeon and I refuse...)

Forgive me if this has already been asked but I wonder if the new UN will allow me to rebel against world opinion at some kind of cost. (e.g., they UN votes to implement Free Religeon and I refuse...)

Most of the discussion about BtS is just speculation - there is no enough info out. Only those working on expansion know at the moment and they cannot tell us. :sad:

It is general consensus that western Roman Empire ended AD 476. Last emperor was Romulus Augustus (Became emperor 31 October AD 475. Abdicated 4 September AD 476. Date of death unknown)

Pope at the time was Pope Simplicius (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Simplicius).

Pope Gregory I (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Gregory_I) or Gregory the Great (ca. 540 – March 12, 604) was Pope from September 3, 590 until his death.

This is about the first time that someone i hear someone thinking Papal States as Roman empire. Personally i disagree.

Btw, where are moderators when you need them? Even if this post is off-topic too, this thread could use some cleaning before it gets completely off.

I know I know.

We need to be open-minded.

Remember that in the Dark Ages people did not think to live in different times than the pre-476AD Romans did. It's just a modern convention - dates, ages, all that stuff.

In the Middle Ages some believed the HRE to be a direct continuation of Rome, some others believed that Byzantium was. And the Papal States were (legally) under the rule of Byzantium, although they were de facto independent, until the times of Charlemagne.

Again, let's be open-minded, mine was just an idea.

What happened to this thread? When I left this morning it was such a nice neighborhood!

Hitler in Civ = :deadhorse::whipped: >T.A says: great smily!*

I know man(Gaius Octavius).
Yaaay! new expansion. What a great time for another Hiltler thread! ... :(

when the same guy posted 3 times in with "Hitler should be in the game" it was like he was fumbling with the lighter before it finally caught fire

Edit ontopic: Im happy the wrap date has been released for this chapter. Im hoping we get a new slate in late 2008

Does anyone know what the implications of this expansion will be on the modders currently working on Warlord scenarios?

- Can people with BtS simply plug in a warlord scenario and play it with no probs?
- Will existing DLL changes in mods need to be recompiled or will they work fine?
- Will maps in warlords or vanilla break if ported into BtS?

Whilst most people enjoy playing the new scenarios that may come with BtS, most of the excitement will fade away after the release and everyone will then turn back to waiting for modders to finish mods/scenarios that were started in vanilla, developed in warlords and now have to be completed in BtS :(

Does this expansion come with divorce papers?

regarding the biodome drawing:

On 2nd thought, I think what that sketch looks like is a whole city taking off out of the ground, ala acropolises from SimCity (2k, don't know about the latter versions).

Perhaps you have to select a city that will be making a trip out to alpha centuari, build the launching components elsewhere, and then: lift-off, ciao Rome, or wherever...

Maybe if two civs launch cities within a close enough timeframe, the better city wins, therefore multiple good cities are important because you need to do all the things you need to do with your civ post/pre launch, but launching your best city is also to your interests...

I am so getting this expansion set, screw oblivion, cause that game lag like hell all the time, and hell it crashed everytime I add in a new mod and crash when I got out of the tutorial.

http://www.2kgames.com/civ4/beyondthesword/images/art_5.jpg

Come to think of it, I think all of that artwork is intended to be part of the "expanded space victory". My guesses:

-Top left: Fusion plant/industrial complex
-top middle: SS casing (or something similar) plant
-Top right: Colony Pod (launching it subtracts from pop of city)
-Bottom left: Thruster Plant
-Bottom center: Surface to Space rockets
-Bottom right: Launching Pad

Speculated implications:

-All components need to be moved to a city with a launching pad. Maybe this will give your workers something to do in this era... ;)

-Certain components need special buildings to manufacture (TopLeft, TC, BL)

-RE: Inter-stellar travel, most scenarios require using the earth's orbit as a "shipyard". Maybe the Colony Pod needs to go up first, and then everything else added on in orbit. What I suspect this means is that between the time everyone can see you have a Pod in space, and the time it gets you to attach all the interstellar components on, they can try to shoot you down!

-Maybe the amount of pop you launched in your colony pod is the amount of damage that pod can sustain. (if you launch all of Huntington, AL they might shoot you down faster than part of New York City, but subtracting 6 from your financial city will hurt you in the short term, what to do...)

-Probably Pod production would work similar to settler and worker production, but much more costly.

-Perhaps launching components also has a production cost (san-space elevator, I guess), or maybe just one launch per turn... this would mean that you'd want multiple launching towers if you want to get everything up there at the same time.

All this together would mean that if you made everything first, then launched everything in a close window, you might be more successful than launching everything ASAP... but then you might get beat to the victory in the process... Likewise, if you're pursuing other victories, maybe building multiple surface to space launchers counters it, assuming you can afford to go to war...

Just my thoughts, what does every1 think?

I am almost certain that the future game art will be for a scenario and not an addition to the core game, at least i hope so. 2050 is far enough. Extended space race sounds good, not just the generic fallback victory option.

I am almost certain that the future game art will be for a scenario and not an addition to the core game, at least i hope so. 2050 is far enough. Extended space race sounds good, not just the generic fallback victory option.
I agree. Something like "underwater cities" as some people are suggesting would pretty much amount to a major feature which they would have had in the list. It's got to be something for one of the scenarios.

Look, I won't lie that-though I bought Warlords-I was slightly underwhelmed, at first, by what was offered in there (especially when you consider the modding tools at their disposal). It is still a good expansion though, & the fact that I have never gone back to Vanilla Civ is testament to that. Based on all the official news I am hearing so far, though, I reckon that Beyond the Sword is going to be the best iteration of Civ (alone or expanded) ever created!!! Guess I just have faith in the developers!!!

Aussie_Lurker.

Forgive me if this has already been asked but I wonder if the new UN will allow me to rebel against world opinion at some kind of cost. (e.g., they UN votes to implement Free Religeon and I refuse...)
JB- this was something Ive been wanting since vanilla. I would love to see this implemented... Only problem is that I can/t really think of a suitable penalty. If free religion is passed and you refuse? A negative on relations? Or should it be united effort aginst you. Loss of foriegn trade routes? Loss of trade? War? Maybe this new expanded UN stuff will add options, but Im finding it hard to see the potential. Im not a game designer ;)

Wow, I'm impressed. Beyond the Sword looks like what I would expect in a good expansion pack. Warlords, to me, was underwhelming in what it added, but I don't think this one will be. I like the late-game emphasis as well; I'd always found the late-game a little repetative after all the factory-containing cities built everything.

There's two main suggestions I have for the expansion:

1. Include Paratroopers, or better, a unit upgrade of Paratrooping. In my current game, I've already had two modern-era instances where paratrooping would have been very handy: one trying to conquer an island when my only transport was a continent away, and another attempting to conquer a city buried in the mountains and hills. Just don't make a very underpowered Paratrooper unit like in Civ III - an upgrade would be better.

2. The UN issue JBConquests mentioned. It is very annoying to have to give up Republic or Monarchy for Democracy, etc. It'd be nice to not be bound to UN orders - some countries don't follow them today, so why should my civ have to? I'd also like it if the binding civic resolutions could be on any civic - so if everyone wanted Pacifism, it could be the universal civic. This also could allow changing the universal civic - the UN could decide to have universal Serfdom at one time, and later change to universal Caste System.

Look, I won't lie that-though I bought Warlords-I was slightly underwhelmed, at first, by what was offered in there (especially when you consider the modding tools at their disposal). It is still a good expansion though, & the fact that I have never gone back to Vanilla Civ is testament to that. Based on all the official news I am hearing so far, though, I reckon that Beyond the Sword is going to be the best iteration of Civ (alone or expanded) ever created!!! Guess I just have faith in the developers!!!

Aussie_Lurker.

Yup. My thoughts exactly. OMG I hated civ4 when it first came out. I grew to love it. C4 War was only a small extra, but it added enough to get me inticed all over again...
NOW there is another one peeping around the corner. Will I buy it? Absolutely. This one sounds like the real expansion. People gripe and "force" them to put something out... but evidentally they have ideas brewing the whole time, just not ready yet.
You have to love civ. Seriously. What else are you going to play?
Dang Aussie. Where have you been hiding? I'll bet youve been modding (or else you have too many sheilas)

In my current game, I've already had two modern-era instances where paratrooping would have been very handy: one trying to conquer an island when my only transport was a continent away, and another attempting to conquer a city buried in the mountains and hills.

What is it that you expect the paratroopers to do? If you want to conquer cities just by dropping paratroop units on them, that's wildly unrealistic. Paratroops in real life can be used to seize lightly held strategic objectives, or to support a seaborne invasion or armored breakthrough by dropping behind enemy lines. But you can't attack a sizable force with just paratroops.

It is very annoying to have to give up Republic or Monarchy for Democracy, etc. It'd be nice to not be bound to UN orders - some countries don't follow them today, so why should my civ have to?

Perhaps it would be reasonable if you could ignore the UN vote but you would get a negative diplomatic modifier with all civs that do comply with the UN resolution.

In the latter case, the city was lightly defended and I had both air supremacy and a large number of bombers. Thus, I would have dropped paratroopers outside the city and the next turn bombed it and used the paratroopers to overcome the weakened defenders. Capturing a large city with them is unrealistic, but with smaller settlements it can be done.

Paratroops are the perfect unit to drop behind citys to cut roads and resources. Effectively isolating the city from reinforcements.

The corporation ideas sound great. I can't wait to rule the world's economy!

I hope this includes a new type of victory, similar to the SMAC economic victory, only with the use of the corporation feature.

I'd rather see Meiji as the second Japanese leader.

Who would be good choices for Aztecs, Spain, or Arabia? My thought is that those of the original 18 nations that didn't get a new leader in Warlords will likely do so this time around...

For Aztecs it's hard to say unless they take the route of Mexico being a "successor state" (a bit of a stretch).

For Spain, again a late history leader sounds right (maybe Franco? now before someone accuses me of fascism, I hate this bastard's guts, but since we have Mao and Stalin already in, it would be nice to hate and destroy some fascist too :p).

For Arabia, Abu Bakr sounds like a good choice.

is this guy charles de gaulle?

Are we sure this picture is legit? Firaxis made De Gaulle's leaderhead for Sid Meier's Railroads - it could be someone playing with a screenshot from that and Photoshop.

Are we sure this picture is legit? Firaxis made De Gaulle's leaderhead for Sid Meier's Railroads - it could be someone playing with a screenshot from that and Photoshop.

It's on the firaxis site: http://www.firaxis.com/games/game_detail.php?gameid=16#

Edit: on every page, not just on the page about BtS!

it is for railroads. i asked earlier and then edited when i went to the railroads website.

Looks like it will be a cool xp, but one thing I can't understand. Why make 12 poor scenarios instead of making 3-4 really good ones? If the scenarios will be of the Warlords standard, I think the could save their efforts for other tasks. Those scenarios are the worst, most uninteresting official scenarios ever made for any Civ game, and I have played em all!

Of course I cant know in advance the scenarios will be bad. But because of the large number, and the bad experienses from the Warlords xp, I guess I have a good reason to fear this.

Hopefully we finally get Austria as Civ :lol: !

Imhotep

oh, almost missed that. gosh, that would be awesome, playing austrian and ... kicking some german butt :D or germany becoming austria's vassal. but realistically speaking i rather doubt this possibility. to my knowledge the only game with a civ like time scope that included it was empire earth, but hey, we'll see in time.


I really hope that they dont have names of real corporations in the game - I dont want to be setting up a set of American corps (no doubt they'd nearly all be American) such as McDonalds, Ford, Citibank, Starbucks, Tommy Hilfiger, Enron, Monsanto etc etc - that would massively suck big time. I would prefer they keep it generic by just referring to markets e.g. freight & shipping, petrochemical, automotive, textiles, agriculture, pharmaceutical etc etc. I remember one of the civfans coming up with a corporation idea that played a bit like monopoly - it seemed kind of cool - I wonder if Firaxis based corps on his idea.
I also hope that corps become available before the corp tech e.g. teas & spices and textiles

hmm, you actually brought up an interesting point with enron. religions can't die, corporations can, so will that be an issue in BtS? also, for names I would just go for some combination of the material they are trading with and the city / nation they are created in, say "spanish motor production sa" or "new orleans petroleum inc." (granted this could bring up names of actual companies, but then they are also so generic that I doubt legal actions could effectively prevail).

@shadowhal Austria btw. was the 32 C3C-civ that was only left out due to the 31 civ-cap. It was (nearly) ready made then. So, it is untrue that Austria has never been included into a civ-game.

mick

[QUOTE=Harbourboy;5258664]It's a free world. QUOTE]


totally agree

@shadowhal Austria btw. was the 32 C3C-civ that was only left out due to the 31 civ-cap. It was (nearly) ready made then. So, it is untrue that Austria has never been included into a civ-game.

mick

I stand corrected. in fact, I had a look at wikipedia afterwards and saw so. nice!

Hitler was directly responsible for the death of millions of Germans in the concentration camps, in the bombing raids and at the war fronts. His actions lead to the devastation of Germany, it's partitioning and a fifty year occupation. He finally took the coward's way out of it. I would have to struggle pretty hard to think of a greater ****-up then old Adolf.

If he had died before he attacked Poland, or if the brits/french hadn't attacked Germany to protect Poland, I'm sure he would have been remembered as one of the greatest german leaders ever. The one who made Germany strong again, after the humiliating Versailles treaty.

Just had to comment this, now back to the BtS discussion.... ;)

We need the selucids!!

I agree. It would be so nice to have em arround for people making "Rise of Rome" scenarios. This is also the time of history best suited for fun Civilization play......


And at last a comment on the Apostolic Palace. My guess is that it might be a kind of UN for the countries of a specific religion. A way to unite countries in a holy war, for instance......

I admit that my country was (and still is) founded and gets all of its power from the people it has taken advantage of (slaughtered, raped, used, etc) in the past (and present).

Yep, all strong nations are strong because they go for their own interests, and arent afraid to protect them. That's also a lesson you can learn from playing Civ.... ;)

It's nothing wrong about that. The opposite would be wrong. Use your powers to be as strong and dominant as possible. It's just common sense. Weak nations have just themselves to blame, I can't feel sorry for them.

If he had died before he attacked Poland, or if the brits/french hadn't attacked Germany to protect Poland, I'm sure he would have been remembered as one of the greatest german leaders ever.

By that logic, if I jump from the Eiffel Tower, I would be remembered for being able to fly. ;)

The one who made Germany strong again, after the humiliating Versailles treaty.
So how did he make Germany strong again, apart from profiting from economic policies set in motion by the social democrats before him and apart from implementing economic programs he had no way of paying for (without the war)?

Just had to comment this, now back to the BtS discussion.... ;)

Likewise. :)

JB- this was something Ive been wanting since vanilla. I would love to see this implemented... Only problem is that I can/t really think of a suitable penalty. If free religion is passed and you refuse? A negative on relations? Or should it be united effort aginst you. Loss of foriegn trade routes? Loss of trade? War? Maybe this new expanded UN stuff will add options, but Im finding it hard to see the potential. Im not a game designer ;)
I think the best solution would be a rep hit from all civs that follow U.N.'s regulation, and no change from others that dont'.

This would be simple and give you an interesting choise between following the regulations, or to worsen the relations with most other civs.

I think the best solution would be a rep hit from all civs that follow U.N.'s regulation, and no change from others that dont'.

This would be simple and give you an interesting choise between following the regulations, or to worsen the relations with most other civs.

Yeah, something like "-3 Disobeyed the will of the United Nations." (penalty would lessen with time, as always)

By that logic, if I jump from the Eiffel Tower, I would be remembered for being able to fly. ;)


So how did he make Germany strong again, apart from profiting from economic policies set in motion by the social democrats before him and apart from implementing economic programs he had no way of paying for (without the war)?



Likewise. :)

Just a last little comment to that. He created the only german government after WW1, with balls hard enough to take Germany out of the Vesailles treaty. That is why he was so loved by the germans, and respected by other world nations.

The extremely negative image we have of him today is first and formost because of things happening after the english and french declaration of war on him, september 39.

Now, once more back to topics.... ;)

Indeed. Besides, a good bit of the civ leaders are killers themselves.
Just hope I never see Cromwell as a leader.

Just to finally end this:
Think about it, who wouldn't buy a game where you got a chance to nuke Hitler? I have fun nuking Stalin, myself.

also. Really. Why isn't there a BtS subforum yet? *and a Hitler one as was suggested, continuous arguing. We'll even bring in the History Channel hosts. ...Gunny playing Civ4, that'd rock.*

OK, back to topics. How do you guys think they have implemented a more advanced spacerace, with more strategic choices? Any ideas?

Just a last little comment to that. He created the only german government after WW1, with balls hard enough to take Germany out of the Vesailles treaty. That is why he was so loved by the germans, and respected by other world nations.

The extremely negative image we have of him today is first and formost because of things happening after the english and french declaration of war on him, september 39.

Now, once more back to topics.... ;)

nazi antisemitism started well before ww2 AND hitler invaded austria and czechoslowakia also before that (don't forget that a referendum was to be held in austria which was forcefully prevented by the anschluss. that approval was high afterwards, was a different matter.)

it seems those discussions never end, sorry for that but I just couldn't let the "nazi crimes started with 1939" stand here for good.

nazi antisemitism started well before ww2 AND hitler invaded austria and czechoslowakia also before that (don't forget that a referendum was to be held in austria which was forcefully prevented by the anschluss. that approval was high afterwards, was a different matter.)

it seems those discussions never end, sorry for that but I just couldn't let the "nazi crimes started with 1939" stand here for good.

Yep, but that anti semittism didnt bother europeans so much before after Holocaust. So my point was, If Hitler had died before the invasion of Poland, he would have been remembered for the greater things he managed to do.

This is my last comment on the matter, It's of topic....

I am almost certain that the future game art will be for a scenario and not an addition to the core game, at least i hope so. 2050 is far enough. Extended space race sounds good, not just the generic fallback victory option.

It could just be one of the new buildings-Biosphere. Some sort of prerequisite to space colonization.

Yep, but that anti semittism didnt bother europeans so much before after Holocaust. So my point was, If Hitler had died before the invasion of Poland, he would have been remembered for the greater things he managed to do.


i disagree, but this has been discussed often enough, let's end it.

Apostolic Palace does mean Vatican indeed which makes me wonder a bit on the overall religion system though.

In any case I'm disapointed by the numbers of new leaders which is only 6. Let's enumerate the civs that desperately deserve a second leader:

Greece, Persia, Arabia, Japan, Spain. In addition to that, the Romans (and Chinese) deserve a third leader too. Which already makes 6 (7), but we do know Abe Lincoln gets in, so which one (two) of the above do we kick out? It's sad. And on the other hand they include Sitting Bull:rolleyes: . I won't say that they are not fun to play with, but I'd rather have three more leaders than one such civ like the Sioux or the Zulu... That's just my opinion, remember...

Now, the other civs:

Babylon, Netherlands, Dutch, Sioux (Americanindians) we do already know of . The last three suggests a "Colonization scenario", so they might've included additionally the Maya or/and the Iroquois. Otherwise it's quite unclear, but I do really hope for Poland, the Khmer and a Ancient civilization.

All the rest I do not want to comment on, we do not know enough for that... ;)

mick

The Netherlands and Dutch are quite the same, I guess you ment Portugal:p

Let´s hope the new expansion includes some new juicy naval units, proper naval promotions and some interesting future techs. Then I´m ready to clap my little hands and drool right into the box. :drool:

Good that Firaxis seems to have listened to us. They have included many things we have been asking for! Credits to Firaxis! :goodjob:

OK, back to topics. How do you guys think they have implemented a more advanced spacerace, with more strategic choices? Any ideas?

Did you read my last post on page 14?

I am almost certain that the future game art will be for a scenario and not an addition to the core game, at least i hope so. 2050 is far enough.

Possible, but the "expanded space race" and "new units, buildings, and technologies to the epic game with a tremendous amount of effort focused on the late game." sound like they're part of the "epic" (non-scenario) game.

I think my favorite idea from that post i did earlier was the prospect of "shooting down" someone else's space initiative. It would require a certain tech equity, but was pisses me off is that there's very little way slow down someone else's space vic without all out obliteration. Ditto with cultural, I guess. I've seen many games where the victory announcement just pops up at 1850 and everyone else is like "WTF?"

All vic conditions, imo, should be hard, since, well, IRL it's 2007 and no one's even close to it. My interpretation of a victory condition is that it requires a certain "Earth Hegemony". And don't say the USA has achieved that already, since we all know that's hardly true.

Does this expansion come with divorce papers?

Amen to that. When my wife saw me checking out the official release, her jaw dropped and said "Oh NO!!!! You have got to be joking!":lol:

I am also skeptical of the Advanced Starts feature... I would suspect that "buying components" is similar to the Barb scenario, but how does that work when all the land is usually taken by 1200AD? That certainly would decrease rewards for locking off land in earlier game and then saving it for later expansion.

Does this mean the incoming civ gets a say on WHERE they are going to be? One of the nice things about civ is that strategies are geographically specific, so, as an extreme example, if I wanted to join midgame with vikings and coastal buildings, I better not be landlocked in the jungle!

Also, in MP, would that mean that every1 would have to wait for a player to join AND buy, if they join midgame? Or does this only work in SP?

Perhaps they will add in the lobby, what year the game is on! That would be nice.

Yeah, something like "-3 Disobeyed the will of the United Nations." (penalty would lessen with time, as always)

Or, like emancipation, a negative modifier based on how many civs went along with the UN. In games with a weak UN, it isn't much of a penalty, but if you are the only one of 12 civs bucking the trend, then it's easy for all of them to get the hate on.

That would make the OCC much harder. :cry:

By that logic, if I jump from the Eiffel Tower, I would be remembered for being able to fly. ;)
And by that logic, Hannibal and Napoleon shouldn't be in the game considering they, you know, lost.

one more thing i want... better toggling back and forth between the diplomacy menu. If I want to change my econ or check out a city I might give, I wanna look at it mid-negotiations and figure out if that's best for my civ, rather than turn the AI's (or human's) demands without "consulting my advisers".

I wanna look at it mid-negotiations and figure out if that's best for my civ, rather than turn the AI's (or human's) demands without "consulting my advisers".
You can do that already in civ4.. you can open all the advisor screens without closing the trade window... if you are playing with low screen resolution so you cant see the buttons to open advisors, then you can still access them with the function keys

hmm, you actually brought up an interesting point with enron. religions can't die, corporations can, so will that be an issue in BtS? also, for names I would just go for some combination of the material they are trading with and the city / nation they are created in, say "spanish motor production sa" or "new orleans petroleum inc." (granted this could bring up names of actual companies, but then they are also so generic that I doubt legal actions could effectively prevail).
I would definitely prefer if they have just markets and not corporations - as you wrote; corps can die and also markets normally have several corps so it makes sense to keep it as markets and civs compete for market share IMO. If it is just one corp per market and civs buy shares in that corp then they should definitely leave them generic or give players the option to rename them when they're founded.

Regarding extra techs that Firaxis is introducing I'm guessing its prob future techs by the looks of those screenshots and the press release and partcularly
the space race.
If they are planning to introduce techs for earlier eras then I'd like to see some food boosting techs such as refridgeration and other earlier preservative techniques and also things to represent the many many innovations that happened in farming in the 18th 19th and 20th centuries - this aspect of human history gets totally overlooked in Civ but it is a MAJOR reason why the Western world enjoys its current prosperity and high living standards. Also maybe if they boosted food possibilities this would create larger cities and make environmentalism a more attractive civic for players.

The 3 main things I've been wanting to see improved above all else is trade, espionage, and the role of naval units - it looks like Firaxis are addressing 2 out of 3 with this XP and I can only hope they are also doing things to expand the role of navies but even if they don't; I will still buy this XP and get alot of satisfaction from it

You can do that already in civ4.. you can open all the advisor screens without closing the trade window... if you are playing with low screen resolution so you cant see the buttons to open advisors, then you can still access them with the function keys

actually i can't use the function keys at all during demands, and only found out that clicking the on-screeen buttons to see the advisor screens works during demands a week or so ago. i was so thrilled i made a post about it, and several people who play keyboard-commands mostly like i do replied that they didn't know either!

definitely worth spreading around the word that it's something you are supposed to able to do, so that people can find out what works on their system. i know several had assumed like i did that it was a game design decision - "you're being demanded something, you have no time to put the other leader on hold and go hold an advisor summit" *giggle*.

game mechanic change i'd like to see: war weariness calculated differently for "Always War" games. i'm too chicken to play them myself mind you. but i know some players like them and might like them more with that change, and it seems logical to me. i'm not in charge tho.

actually i can't use the function keys at all during demands, and only found out that clicking the on-screeen buttons to see the advisor screens works during demands a week or so ago.

Your keyboard doesn't have a stupid 'F-Lock' key like mine does it? After a reboot it defaults to locked and I have to press it before any F keys will work.

Your keyboard doesn't have a stupid 'F-Lock' key like mine does it? After a reboot it defaults to locked and I have to press it before any F keys will work.

it's only during demands that it comes up. so i figured it was on purpose, that the game was designed to not let me consult during the demands. boy was i happy to find out it's not :) here's how happy (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=211809&highlight=demands) *giggle*, and a sign that at least some others have the same issue. i'd shared it on HoF first after someone said it was one of his peeves, that if X demands you "stop trading with the vile English" and you've chosen two English civs in the game, you can't tell which ones he thinks are vile, but he was sure that was by design.

anyway, here's hoping the new apos-thingie gives us even more diplo things to complicate life! oh wait...:crazyeye:

actually i can't use the function keys at all during demands, and only found out that clicking the on-screeen buttons to see the advisor screens works during demands a week or so ago. i was so thrilled i made a post about it, and several people who play keyboard-commands mostly like i do replied that they didn't know either!

Hmm.. I just tested and they work for me...

Edit: I just tested during normal trade sessions.. not demands.. doubt i have any save lieing around that I can test a demand on..

can amoderator please clean the hitler stuff up.
i like the way after 3 days of it being annouced we have already comeup with a jargon CIV4 BTS

i like the way after 3 days of it being annouced we have already comeup with a jargon CIV4 BTS

next expansion should be civ IV: For the Win!

I was really hoping they would have two levels of open borders: open borders, and military access. That way you could open your borders to religion and commerce, but military access would mean if your ally attacked someone else, they would hate you for letting them sit their stealth fighters in. It also solves the problem of units teleporting out of cultural boundaries: as in, if you let someone in with military access, you run the risk of backstab. Of course, this could easily be balanced with no AI's EVER letting you have military access again should you ever pull off this backstab move, unless you're a vassal.

Of course, this could easily be balanced with no AI's EVER letting you have military access again should you ever pull off this backstab move, unless you're a vassal.

Are you serious? You must never have played Civ3. In Civ3, you could enter your military units into an opponent's territory, then declare war. If you did this, no other AI would ever trust you again. That definitely did not "balance" this tactic out. It was overwhelmingly powerful and one of the major flaws in the game.

Are you serious? You must never have played Civ3. In Civ3, you could enter your military units into an opponent's territory, then declare war. If you did this, no other AI would ever trust you again. That definitely did not "balance" this tactic out. It was overwhelmingly powerful and one of the major flaws in the game.

Civ3 was more real. Im playing a map middle ages with a powerful country to the south. They want to take out my neighbour to the north and im in the way. In real life these guys would walk through me to get there and in civ3 thats what there allowed to do. OK a human can expliot the RP but they can also reload evey time they lose a battle. Point is its not fun, realism is.

I give my northern neighbour a fighten chance by drastically slowing the southern powerhouse's advance. However in the end they will not be stopped by a magic wall.

In Civ4 its a joke! I can say to him You gettin to powerful and thats my tradin patner so, "no you will not pass!" I don't care if you got 200 units pointed at me and can wipe us both of the map!, the sign says no RP with me your stuck there buddy.

A confident army this size would march through a country towards his intended campaign pull up to his city walls and if the country he was tresspassing against wasn't intrested in joining then they had no choice but sit and cower while they marched on through, otherwise stand up and fight the invaders. Civ3 gives you this choice but stops at the point of locking all people out with a imaginary wall you can use when you want to stop another civ from growing to large or protect a interest in trading revenue that exists with his intended target

Its realy annoying, more so then the tempation to rape the AI on a Civ3 RP anyway

Civ3 was more real.

I don't want to argue about whether it's more real. I only claim that it dramatically unbalanced the game, i.e., setting up your primary target for the inevitable open borders stab/betrayal was the dominant conquest strategy in Civ3.

In Civ4 its a joke! I can say to him "no you will not pass!. I don't care if you got 200 units and can wipe us both of the map!, the sign says no RP your stuck there buddy

Huh? What's "RP"? You can't stop him from going through your territory. He can just declare war on you.

Huh? What's "RP"? You can't stop him from going through your territory. He can just declare war on you.

He wants to take out my neighbour residing above me, but can't get past me to do so, so I guess your right he has to attack both of us. ...IN civ4 that is.

In CIv3 he uses his power to push me out the way( I cant touch tackle him) and take what he wants (resource probably) without biting off more then he has to.

What you suggest is not the way it plays out realisticly" there ain't no magic wall to keep them at bay. (so I explained the realism example part to support )

ANyway heres the example Im talkin about
I dont want those pink guys at the bottom to get any bigger but got no choice cuz its not Civ4 with the magic force feild to put up. Power talks in Civ3 I like that.
In CIv4 they woudn't attack me if I said some of the right things, or had the same religeon. Even if they had a major itch to out those guys that only I stand in the way of, They will not attack me. They will go without that resource when they have the army to take it if they please.

In CIv4 I will get to kill that Civ and takes its resource instead of having to take on a giant monster coming from both sides.

What you suggest is not the way it plays out realisticly" there ain't no magic wall to keep them at bay.

There's no magic wall in Civ4 either. In Civ4, anyone can enter your territory at any time. If you deny them Open Borders, then the action of entering your territory is a declaration of war. This is perfectly reasonable.

There's no magic wall in Civ4 either. In Civ4, anyone can enter your territory at any time. If you deny them Open Borders, then the action of entering your territory is a declaration of war. This is perfectly reasonable.

No its not really that reasonable man. in Civ4 they have to war with you to war with them. Tell me how this is reasonable? You ain't got any beef with him. In fact you may have profitable ventures together that they have to now sacrifice. You may be even be almost as strong as them while their intended target may be quite weak, an attractive target in otherwords.
Why should they have to lose all their troops fighting someone who has nothing to do with their objective? more so, will make their objective not even possible!

. Its the other guy whos got something he needs. Why should you be dragged into a war? In CIv3 he will march on in. go ahead, turf them all out but guess what? there a chance he says "well were all here, mind as well wipe clean your clocks while where in the neighbourhood".

THis kind of stuff is tense man. You can sign the RP and side on with him, giving them easy access and you fast dibs easy land or you can stall em to your neighbours benifit and fight on their side. You watch and you wait and sometimes you sit and sometimes you strike, sometimes they stike first. In civ4 you put up the magic force feild and thats that. Competions objective has been thwarted with no repercussions.

CIv3 rewards non cheasy with greater strategy. Its the fact you have the choice to be cheasy that Civ4 players are quick to jump on.

Thats rubbish Jonesy. If there is someone to your North that someone to your South wants to make war with, then you CAN sign an Open Border agreement with the Southern nation in Civ4. Then they can just tramp through your nation to attack your northern neighbours without you getting involved. I should know because I have done it several times myself. What civ 4 prevents, however, is the rules-raping situation of signing an RoP, moving a huge stack right up to someone's cities, then declaring war on them & catching that city in pretty much the same turn. Now THAT is cheesy. It is also, might I add, completely off the topic of this thread.
If you want to discuss the expansion, then please do so, if you simply want to b***h about how much better you liked Civ3, then may I suggest you start a seperate thread?

Aussie_Lurker.

Thats rubbish Jonesy. If there is someone to your North that someone to your South wants to make war with, then you CAN sign an Open Border agreement with the Southern nation in Civ4.


Wow slow down man. I said (and the other guy got this) I want to protect the northen guys to slow the Southern Civ's advancement,NOT AID THEM!!! Also, I had to stop em from obtaing key resources, extra culture output, the point is I can't do this without a price unless Im playing Civ4.

CIv4 soloution? pull up the invisable sheild simple. In civ3, power talks and they march right past you to call your bluff or really, cuz they have no beef with you!

Im disapointed Aussie why so quick to anger?. I though your way above such tactics of OT trash talk that relates to nothing I even said. I named a true defect in Civ4. Does it really matter what game I enjoy? The facts still remain.

btw I wasn't the one OT'ing I was replying to a Civ3 comment.

You ain't got any beef with him.

If you didn't have "any beef with him", why are you denying him permission to move through your territory to engage with his enemy?

It's hard for me to imagine any diplomatic system in which moving your troops into a neighboring country, when permission to do that has been expressly denied, is not a hostile act.

This is my point. There is actually no difference between RofP & Open Borders except the removal of the exploit I mentioned. Trust me, if the guy in the South is soooo powerful, then you are gonna give in to his DEMAND for Open Borders-no matter how much you personally might want to slow him down. You could refuse an RofP agreement in Civ3 too-didn't make it a smart thing to do.

Actually, in Civ4 you are BETTER OFF signing an open border agreement to save your own @$$. With the diplo bonus & penalty system, an offer of Open Borders to your Southern neighbour will improve relations with him, which makes him easier to deal with later in the game. In Civ3, diplomatic relations were largely random.
Now, can we PLEASE get back to discussing the expansion.

Aussie_Lurker.

If you didn't have "any beef with him", why are you denying him permission to move through your territory to engage with his enemy?

It's hard for me to imagine any diplomatic system in which moving your troops into a neighboring country, when permission to do that has been expressly denied, is not a hostile act.

OK, so your saying because we havn't sighned a RP we 'do' have beef :confused:

Nothing has been denied my friend. If it were, that meant I asked them to leave in such case Id probably be at war cuz I got in their way. They don't want to take loses taking me out if It I can be avoided.

I can't touch him and if you read what I said you'd no why.(have you checked the sceenie?)

In CIv4 I put up the imaginary wall, there done. Still, that dosn't mean he's my enemy does it? How many points is that deducted again?.
Even though this nation is size enough to tear through me it can't according to CIv4. Civ4 says It will be denied its land expansion cuz Imy invisable sheild says so.
In Civ3 his stacks speak volumes over what I preffer and I have no choice but to relent to his wishs or choose another path of witch none includes hiding them behind a wall thats unreal

Cross: Bello hey Im responding I can't leave em hangin. Besides, not sure how Aussies right bout anything other then my prefernces and this being gross OT. He wasn't even addressing the point Ive been making. The strange thing these uneeded responses and smoke when the thing I mentioned was small but simple fact. (not really debatable)

ah, guys... come on!
I think Aussie_Lurker is completely right and furthermore I am absolutely convinced that you are kidnapping this thread.

I agree with Aussie_Lurker. In either game, you can either allow him through or not. Southern Neighbor will probably insist on Right of Passage for faster movement in Civ3, and in Civ4 he can show his strength by putting them all on the border.

Back on topic, I'd like to suggest adding the Abandon City right-click option to Civ4 that C3C has.

Back on topic, I'd like to suggest adding the Abandon City right-click option to Civ4 that C3C has.

I'd like that option too but I can think of one way it could be exploited, lets say your City is Definitely gonna be culture flipped to your opponent, instead of allowing him a size 8 Pop City with Infrastructure already build in. You instead Abandon the City, force him to build a settler to settle there and he has to build his Infrastructure and Grow his Pop the slow way.

So your beef with CivIV is that you can't exploit and backstab at your own will? Huh...

Back on topic, I'd like to suggest adding the Abandon City right-click option to Civ4 that C3C has.

How would you feel if the AI were programmed to make good use of this by abandoning its cities just before you can capture them?

How would you feel if the AI were programmed to make good use of this by abandoning its cities just before you can capture them?Hehehe, that would be tedious. Might make the Imperialistic trait worth more though ;)

T.A, I don't want to propell this topic any further, but the solution in civ4 was meant to force the player to declare their intentions before being able to act on it. There are obviously some strange effects resulting from the civ4 solution (like the invisible barrier), but they are gameplay minded.

I really hope they can add a abandon city system close up to the one in the mod; Total realism. I suggest that when you press the abandon city button, the city will lose one population each turn, until its gone. You should also have to have at least 3 units in the city to do this.

I really hope they can add a abandon city system close up to the one in the mod; Total realism. I suggest that when you press the abandon city button, the city will lose one population each turn, until its gone. You should also have to have at least 3 units in the city to do this.

Also, a unhappy face should be sprinkled into every city in your empire. Maybe 2 per city. This makes it so that the mentioned exploit of preventing a culture flip still comes at a cost to you. Which is more important? Not allowing a rival to gain a city via culture flip and taking a large unhappy penalty with your whiney citizens, or letting them have the city and maintaining your empire?
I would love to see an abandon city option come in tho.

This expansion really has me watching it. I am very interested in many of the ideas announced. I haven't even had a slight yearning to purchase Warlords and still don't really. When this expansion is released though or I get more info on it, it may incline me to go ahead and grab warlords for 10-15 bucks. (although I prefer 10 :D)
I also would like an option brought in for military passage and Open Borders reserved for trade routes and missionaries.

EDIT: Oh yeah, and let me pillage my own roads! :p

I really hope they can add a abandon city system close up to the one in the mod; Total realism. I suggest that when you press the abandon city button, the city will lose one population each turn, until its gone. You should also have to have at least 3 units in the city to do this.

I'm fine with this, but your idea is even better (IMO) for razing. Razing a size 9 city should take 9 turns, not happen instantaneously.

I can't wait!
Natural disasters sounds interesting, what kind of disasters there might be..
earthquakes..

I really hope that Firaxis will add some kind of inquisition system here. It is realistic, for example the Spanish Inquisition(waiting for someone to make a Monty Python joke). And I hope that Suleyman the Great will be added as another Ottoman leader.

This makes me wanting to play Warlords. Haven't played it for couple of months. Maybe I should.

"Hetkinen" sanoi Putkinen ja pieraisi puhelimeen.:crazyeye:

I wonder what foreigners think this is...

How would you feel if the AI were programmed to make good use of this by abandoning its cities just before you can capture them?

Bright day
As others said, unhappy faces for entire empire.

i think if you abandon your city that barbs should be able to take it over and then the barbs become a civ

^^

That would be ridiculous to make a new civ, just so others could steal the city. However, if you could release the city as your vassal or a dominion, it would be fabulous.

Skipping all the petty arguing- youpeople really need to go to the Total War Medieval forums where legitimate patch/expansion complaining happens... you're all SPOILED! This game ROCKS, the AI is fabulous (relative to ANY GAME OUT THERE- maybe barring GalCiV)... the game is rich, deep, broad, graphically nice, with GAMEPLAY that is endless... I LOVE IT!

And the expansion has made me wet my pants.

if paratroopers show up in the expansion and the AI uses them- I will have an orgasm from just reading that!

happy happy happy.... LOVE this game! It has blossomed into something to treasure since it's v1.0 release.

How would you feel if the AI were programmed to make good use of this by abandoning its cities just before you can capture them?

Then the city's culture would be lost, making it harder to regain its lost lands.

Back on topic:

I apologise if anyone already mentioned it, which I didn't notice, but maybe the futuristic equipment gains sense in the light of the name the woman in the suit had until yesterday (it seems they changed it now to art_2): Afterworld_Concept.

I'd say that's the work title for a scenario. Post-atomic maybe? Or my prayers may come true, and we'll get a "pocket SMAC"...

Edit: pic is still yclept Afterworld_Concept... only the smaller version is not.

I have reaaly been loooking forward to this news. Everything so far sounds good and i will keep up to date here. I don't know much about Cooperations but i am sure more info will be released

Then the city's culture would be lost, making it harder to regain its lost lands.

I can't remember the AI ever regaining any lands it lost to me.

Bright day
As others said, unhappy faces for entire empire.

But should you get unhappy faces throughout your entire empire for abandoning a city that you just captured from another civ say, 2 turns before?

But should you get unhappy faces throughout your entire empire for abandoning a city that you just captured from another civ say, 2 turns before?

Sure, you should have razed it. Once you installed a new governor you took them in as citizens.

Also, a unhappy face should be sprinkled into every city in your empire. Maybe 2 per city. This makes it so that the mentioned exploit of preventing a culture flip still comes at a cost to you. Which is more important? Not allowing a rival to gain a city via culture flip and taking a large unhappy penalty with your whiney citizens, or letting them have the city and maintaining your empire?
I would love to see an abandon city option come in tho.

This expansion really has me watching it. I am very interested in many of the ideas announced. I haven't even had a slight yearning to purchase Warlords and still don't really. When this expansion is released though or I get more info on it, it may incline me to go ahead and grab warlords for 10-15 bucks. (although I prefer 10 :D)
I also would like an option brought in for military passage and Open Borders reserved for trade routes and missionaries.

EDIT: Oh yeah, and let me pillage my own roads! :p

Well if you get -2 Unhappiness from Abandoning a City to your entire empire, it should only last for 10 turns, similar to Slavery's whipping and Nationhood's Drafting Unhappiness, I'd be so Annoyed if it lasted for ever.

Well if you get -2 Unhappiness from Abandoning a City to your entire empire, it should only last for 10 turns, similar to Slavery's whipping and Nationhood's Drafting Unhappiness, I'd be so Annoyed if it lasted for ever.

Yeah definatley it should go away over time. Although, I would say it should be equal to slavery x 3 or 4 as far as length-wise. Or at least double. That is 60/90/120 turns on marathon. :eek:

This makes it so that not many cities could really be moved in one game. For instance, after you dispose of one of your cities fighting off invading enemy culture, you won't be able to do another one fighting the same thing 10 turns later.

I can't remember the AI ever regaining any lands it lost to me.Wow. That's a rather big point! Me too, come to think of it.

Yeah definatley it should go away over time. Although, I would say it should be equal to slavery x 3 or 4 as far as length-wise. Or at least double. That is 60/90/120 turns on marathon. :eek:

This makes it so that not many cities could really be moved in one game. For instance, after you dispose of one of your cities fighting off invading enemy culture, you won't be able to do another one fighting the same thing 10 turns later.

well 20 turns is OK I guess, 30 turns seems a bit too much, I's Probably never use it at all, If the cost is too high there's point in adding an Abandon City button, I guess the makers have to somehow balance it correctly.

Abandoning a city should be simple: you pull your troops out, then select "abandon city". The city then becomes a barbarian city.

You may choose to attack the barbarian city with your own troops. When you do so, the city shrinks in size by 1.

Abandoning a city should generate unhappiness.

Take the cities size times each of it's culture's. This is your cultural abandonment index for each culture.

For each existing city, multiply it's percent of each culture by the appropriate index. Add up the result. Take the square root. That is your total abandonment index for each of your other cities.

City Abandonment Index, rounded up, is the number of unhappy citizens.
City Abandomment Index, times 20 turns, rounded up, is the number of turns you gain these unhappy citizens.

...

So if you abandon a 100% your culture size 5 city:
In a city that is 100% your culture you get 3 unhappy faces for 45 turns.

In a city that is only 50% your culture, you get 2 unhappy faces for 32 turns.

Similar rules could be used for razing a captured city to the ground.

If you wanted to be really cruel, you could even have the duration be measured in years: so razing a city in the modern day can result in very long-term pain, but doing it in 3000 BC is relatively painless.

Abandoning a city should be simple: you pull your troops out, then select "abandon city". The city then becomes a barbarian city.

This is an interesting idea. Much more realistic than having the entire city blown up, I suppose. So my guess is that if you really wanted it gone, you could just attack and then raze it?

Sounds good but after warlords (kinda sucked and didnt really add anything useful)and the well debacle is probably to harsh a word after the release of civ4 and half the vid cards not being able to play it I am skeptical that it will be all that it says it will be.
Hope im wrong of course.

Sorry I missed this one! Was this for me??:mischief:
So your beef with CivIV is that you can't exploit and backstab at your own will? Huh...

I'll answer you question. Let me try n explain....

When talking intruders in CIv3 Well, if the AI Civ's gots a strong army and they have to pass through you in order to reach that objective, they will do it. Its up to you to say "Halt! put up your dukes!" or cower in the corner and let them pass cuz you know they will stomp your ass if confronted

If there intention is to stomp someone else, as long as you don't get in there way (try to turf) they will leave you alone.Thats the brakes in real life man. If their small, kick their puny ass out. If they declare war its cuz their tough enough not to be pushed around so you better recognize who your dealing with first. Also ,You should be following them to see what the fuss is about! Its a great time to join sides and join their march to advance your borders or, mybe to prevent these guys from growing any bigger you join his intended target to fight them off. Ether way, a solder dosn't march around aimless so you take a hint man. If its a worker, by all means let him build roads for you! thats real to. Americans are in my country taking my construction jobs all the time but when I see them flossing their tanks up and down the great white North I get worried, you dig?

In CIv4 you could cage a powerful civ by not signing open borders with him (no unit may enter without declaring war automatic)IN other words, If your in the middle and he wants to take out a civ for a resource it needs on the other side of you, you can block him from it!! Yes and later when you've built up enough forces, take whatever you seperated from him for yourself!. -MEGA EXPLIOT!For some reason even though he may be big enough to plow you down, as long as your the same religeon and have some trade going, hes content to be held at bay on your demand. Believe me CIv4 is far from perfect as well. The fact a civ has to declare war with you, his friend and place to ditch his extras resources on, just to reach another country to crush for a resource he's in desprate need of for is way worse then the facts of life you complain is a expliot. Think about it, by the time he fights you off he can't even complete his original objective

So I guess its the brown nosing in insignifigant areas that can snub out the drive for war against you in justified areas (resource blocking)are what need to be adressed come new X pak- Cool! ended on topic!

I don't see the difference. In Civ3, enemy civs walk through your land and you have to declare war to get them out, i.e. you make the decision to go to war.
In CIV, they will ask for open borders, if you decline, they will go to war to get through. Effectively, you're still making the decision to go to war for them wanting to go through your lands.

I don't see the difference. In Civ3, enemy civs walk through your land and you have to declare war to get them out, i.e. you make the decision to go to war.
In CIV, they will ask for open borders, if you decline, they will go to war to get through. Effectively, you're still making the decision to go to war for them wanting to go through your lands.
yep, and they get the demerit for the war, not you

In CIV, they will ask for open borders, if you decline, they will go to war to get through.


Really? Cuz thats the whole point Im making. It see the expliot in that they will not go to war and will stay put if you have made some attempt to get along (I said brown nose). You can get many bonuses in your relations that seem to quell their desire to go to war with you to get to what they desperatly need. Having open borders is only one small factor in the dipomacy practice.
Have the same religeon? it makes you best of buddies but now imagine having another +1 from any department on top of this and you see its most likly they won't strike you though theoretically, they could wipe the smirk right of your face if they wanted to get where they needed to go. This is what IMO, strengtens the invisable wall. Its the + relations in all the other departments.

Besides, just cuz you don't want a guys army ripping through your land to take out a area of your future or current interest dosn't mean you can't still be friends! lol (Imagine USA giving open borders to Mexico for a invasion of Canada!. OK imagine if USA said NO instead and Mexico declared war on both of em. Mexico may be able to wipe out Canada (joke) but not so with America. AMerica has profitable ventures with their enemy that said. If mexico brings a strong army to USA without consent then In CIv3, its Americas choice to decide if the friendship with CAnada is worth risking its own empire by confronting and turfing out these intruders. Or is it better to expand their empire by taking a peice of canada with Mexicos help

Yes In CIv3 Mexico will bow down to AMerica in a real world setup and leave. but in CIv land, if MExico was a stronger nation they may decide to fight this new obstical in ther path to much needed resource. They didn't want to but have been given no other choice


These examples may be invitng more knowledged world event speakers to blow smoke and cloud the issue in game but heres another one. Saudi's have givien the right of passage to AMerican for use of its water. America didn't have to declare war openly to get that access. Americas power told The Saudi's it was in their best interest to comply(this supports CIv3 setup)I mean would Amercia have declared war on any country that said no to the land access to Iraq?(if so this would support CIv4 setup)


Fixes: How bout if you can't trade with a civ unless you open your borders to their weopons of war. I know it makes little sence in terms of real world but, that would make me at least see the benifit to dropping the wall for extra revenues from trade and mybe a resource I need from them thats not available elsewhere. As is I can still trade with a Civ while denying them the abilty to expand by driving their tanks around my country correct? (not 100% sure but is this already in use ini Warlords? its been some months since Ive played CIV last)

I have some examples to think about (I won't say whats right or wrong) but Saudi's giving the right of passage to AMerican for use of its water. America didn't have to declare war openly to get that access. Americas power told The Saudi's it was in their best interest to let them in (this supports CIv3 setup).I mean would Amercia have declared war on any country that said no to the land access to Iraq?(if so this would support CIv4 setup)

Huh? So the US needed access to Saudi territory. The US asked the Saudis for it and the Saudis decided it would be best to grant it. Sounds to me more like CIV's model, actually. :)
Under Civ3's rules, the US would have moved in without asking the Saudis first. While one could say that the final result is the same under both models, CIV's IMO better replicates real-world diplomacy in this area.

Abandoning a city should be simple: you pull your troops out, then select "abandon city". The city then becomes a barbarian city.

It should go to the civ with the largest population in the city. Only go to the Barbarians if there were no other cultural influences on the city (i.e., 100% yours prior to abandonment).

Huh? So the US needed access to Saudi territory. The US asked the Saudis for it and the Saudis decided it would be best to grant it. Sounds to me more like CIV's model, actually. :)
Under Civ3's rules, the US would have moved in without asking the Saudis first. While one could say that the final result is the same under both models, CIV's IMO better replicates real-world diplomacy in this area.

What Im saying is America' prented the Saudis from doing anything even if they wanted to. In CIv4 they could have put up a imaginary wall by keeping diplo high in all areas but open borders. America would not have been able to get in Iraq in CIv4 but in CIv3 they would have waded in with show of military might suggestion what might be coming to those who oppose them and were reluctently let in

Seeing most would avoid the issue for what comes easier or stands out more, I predicted right before you quoted me, it would be better not to include any real life examples.
They are to easy to manulipulate to anyones persective. You did not do this but pointed politly to where I may have got caught up in a conflicting statment.

Someone said specificly, "no access given to a Civ means he will declare war on you to get it" I think I did a decent job by showing how this never held true for a powerful Civ like American but I left lots of room for other examples to rip this apart. Ill erase those refrences as they don't add much to the point Ive already strenghtened over three posts using in game refrences and pictures (check back a page)

Again without the Mexico, Canada, US , Saudi crap, the focus is the building of a wall with brown nosing in insignificant areas of diplomacy to elimate the drive for war against you thats justified and is an obvious expliot that lets you pertake resource blocking an no cost.

I know saying sorry or admitting your wrong is a sign of weakness but thats no concern, I'll risk it anyway for confusing you when you took the time to read my opinion.

Take care n' happy civving
T.A

This is an interesting idea. Much more realistic than having the entire city blown up, I suppose. So my guess is that if you really wanted it gone, you could just attack and then raze it?

Actually, I figure you should be able to take a city (reduces population by 1), then pull out again and abandon it, then take it again, etc -- a slow razing of the city.

Or even have a method so that your units can stay in a barbarian city: every turn, each empire unit in a barbarian city reduces the cities population by 1, gives you the option to occupy it, and gives you gold from pillaging it.

BetterAI with aggressive on will go to war with you if it thinks it is important, even if they are pleased.

Only "friendly" relations can save you from war: and to get a nation to friendly, you have to be really good friends. Long peace, open borders, lots of trade, lots of high-value tech/gold bribery, lots of helping them during war-time, etc.

Of course, this can vary based off of the AI personality.

BetterAI with aggressive on will go to war with you if it thinks it is important, even if they are pleased.

Only "friendly" relations can save you from war: and to get a nation to friendly, you have to be really good friends. Long peace, open borders, lots of trade, lots of high-value tech/gold bribery, lots of helping them during war-time, etc.

Ya I agree exept when playin on the majority of aggresive levels with all civs who lack the aggresive trait.
Lacking an open borders agreement is only one small penelty in an sea of options to make friendly relations hold him to your will.
example(can be made bigger by clicking botton right -also check the cool maginify trick! Neat eh! my mouse does that function:goodjob:

ANyway, Im saying the expolit was easy to pull of. The abilty in Civ3 for a Civ to proceed to a war that dosn't invlove you and without your consent is better gameplay IMO.
I know RoP rape is crap, so where do you draw the line but at realism? to sperate those from the GOTM or just highscore and Muli-players. Both are ok but one group encourages expliots and are the ones who complain about CIv3 weakness

I just wish CIv4 fixed up this hole. It would have made for a more invloved game. Its no coincidence Civ3 is still enjoyed by many while the Xpak is on its way. Looking in the archives you see that CIv2 fell silent before Conquest was anounced

Its a simple point of lil importance in the grand scheme but when its called rubish to me, thats the farthest thing you can say from the truth(not referring to your comments)

THanks for bring up a few good points (aggression levels and agressive CIvs to counter this expliot) I may lik;y try these when the Xpak comes out/ Atleast is something other then accusations of me making up the problem as if it never existed at all

I don't see the difference. In Civ3, enemy civs walk through your land and you have to declare war to get them out, i.e. you make the decision to go to war.
In CIV, they will ask for open borders, if you decline, they will go to war to get through. Effectively, you're still making the decision to go to war for them wanting to go through your lands.

The difference is that it's a huge disadvantage to be at war with everyone, all the time, just to keep them from going through your territory. Denying open borders is only a mild disadvantage.

The other difference is that, if you do grant Open Borders, it can't be used for a surprise grab of all of your cities. In Civ3, it could.

The difference is that it's a huge disadvantage to be at war with everyone, all the time, just to keep them from going through your territory. Denying open borders is only a mild disadvantage.

The other difference is that, if you do grant Open Borders, it can't be used for a surprise grab of all of your cities. In Civ3, it could.

Sorry not nickpicking here, just wanted to mention In civ3 only the civs stronger or are equal to you would be ballz enough to declare war in a situation like that so the whole world does not call you out. More importantly.....

Once you find out how big these guys are, you realize none of them realisticaly should be told to cancel their objective to satisfy your puny ass, ) They woulda galloped up and said " join or not but this is the only way to where were headed" Some event has triggered their war with your neighbour it happened suddenly and now its your choice what to do.
If caught off gaurd its most likly you will let them go, sorta like a temp treaty for a limited campaign, when its over their things go back to normal, your all friends.
With Civ4 I beg to ask, Why should they have to clobber you just cuz they can't drive their tanks on your lawn? Why should you be able to lock them out completly?

I say you can go no open borders to keep him out of a north or south land that you seperate him from and plunder it all for yourself on your own good time.
Best of all you deprive him from a resource he needed. I say this wall is built because of an exploit that lets many irrevelevent things please the AI to a point no open borders is by no means a war starter and they will be deined their goal by these expliotive +1's or religion +4's that shouted peace over serios reasons to go to war like resource deprivation commited by nation most cases smaller in comparison. ) )


If a smaller Civ was on its way to help another ally and passed into your land It would scram as told. done :)

AT least thats what I notice when Im playing. Anyway I'll let this go. This seems like a hard issue to explain here. For some all I ask is next time try it yourself and see if you can lock them out from expanding across your border by keeping all other relations good except open borders. Im not doing a great job of explaing in few words so I'll give it a rest but Thanks to anyone who has been hearing me out or who offers suggestions for this ominous glitch :)

Sorry not nickpicking here, just wanted to mention In civ3 only the civs stronger or are equal to you would be ballz enough to declare war in a situation like that so the whole world does not call you out.

In Civ3, it's not really an issue for the AIs because they aren't programmed to take advantage of right of passage to attack you. The effect is the same, whether they don't attack you from inside your borders because they aren't programmed to do so, or not allowed to do so. Therefore it's only a problem when it comes to human players.

With Civ4 I beg to ask, Why should they have to clobber you just cuz they can't drive their tanks on your lawn? Why should you be able to lock them out completly?


its my land. if they want to try and go through theyll have to declare war on me first or get open borders or declare war on me. im a sovereign nation and i dont think they have the balls to attack me simply over that.

actually i can't use the function keys at all during demands, and only found out that clicking the on-screeen buttons to see the advisor screens works during demands a week or so ago. i was so thrilled i made a post about it, and several people who play keyboard-commands mostly like i do replied that they didn't know either!

definitely worth spreading around the word that it's something you are supposed to able to do, so that people can find out what works on their system. i know several had assumed like i did that it was a game design decision - "you're being demanded something, you have no time to put the other leader on hold and go hold an adviser summit" *giggle*.Thank you for sharing that. you don't know how frustrated and annoyed I have been about the limitations of not consulting your advisers during a demand!

For the record, as I've found a few times now by "accident," you can use the function keys while you have a demand on screen. the only hitch is that once you exit the advisor screen, you automatically are registered as refusing the demand, even if you wanted to accept it :(

In Civ3, it's not really an issue for the AIs because they aren't programmed to take advantage of right of passage to attack you. The effect is the same, whether they don't attack you from inside your borders because they aren't programmed to do so, or not allowed to do so. Therefore it's only a problem when it comes to human players.

Ya I should have quoted the member who said every time you kick a Civ out they declare war. My response was for him. Your talkin bout rolling the stack o doom and pulling the cheezy trigger on a Rn P agreement.;) I admit that is crap and CIv4 did fix this but at a cost that Im discribing.

Im guesin you did this alot? No ill judgement. The best players did Im guessing. ANy expliot found in CIv3 including RnP rape was a GOTM tactic needed to win and proabaly a MP killer aswell. The whole thing just seemed wrong to me I never used it besides, pulling that sh#t once and your rep was screwed you may have another 20 civs on the map so un;ess there was another expliot to get around this, It was fixed it a way
Its that dam invisable sheild Im still tryin to have disproven thats is buggin me. I think making the game ultra agressive is the best way to stop it.

Thanks for the response
later man

Thank you TA Jones for officially hijacking this thread-a thread which was SUPPOSED to be for speculation of upcoming features of the CIV4 EXPANSION! Given that this thread no longer lives up to its name, I humbly suggest the moderators change its title to something more appropriate-one in a long line of dull, monotonous "Why I like Civ3 better than Civ4" threads-so that people won't be fooled into thinking this is a rational thread.
As for me, I plan to unsubscribe to this thread as it clearly no longer has anything interesting to say about Beyond the Sword.

Aussie_Lurker.

Thank you TA Jones for officially hijacking this thread-a thread which was SUPPOSED to be for speculation of upcoming features of the CIV4 EXPANSION! Given that this thread no longer lives up to its name, I humbly suggest the moderators change its title to something more appropriate-one in a long line of dull, monotonous "Why I like Civ3 better than Civ4" threads-so that people won't be fooled into thinking this is a rational thread.
As for me, I plan to unsubscribe to this thread as it clearly no longer has anything interesting to say about Beyond the Sword.

Aussie_Lurker.

T.A. Jones is known for this. He should be banned from the Civ IV forum completely because he has rarely ever contributed to a thread in the forum without threadjacking it in this way. But we should all know this by now.

Thank you TA Jones for officially hijacking this thread-a thread which was SUPPOSED to be for speculation of upcoming features of the CIV4 EXPANSION! Given that this thread no longer lives up to its name, I humbly suggest the moderators change its title to something more appropriate-one in a long line of dull, monotonous "Why I like Civ3 better than Civ4" threads-so that people won't be fooled into thinking this is a rational thread.
As for me, I plan to unsubscribe to this thread as it clearly no longer has anything interesting to say about Beyond the Sword.

Aussie_Lurker.

Yeah it's not the first time TA Jones has done this. If he doesn't like Civ4 so much, then stay the hell out.

BetterAI with aggressive on will go to war with you if it thinks it is important, even if they are pleased.

Only "friendly" relations can save you from war: and to get a nation to friendly, you have to be really good friends. Long peace, open borders, lots of trade, lots of high-value tech/gold bribery, lots of helping them during war-time, etc.

Of course, this can vary based off of the AI personality.

I know it's another can of worms, but am I the only one who really detests this kind of "diplomacy" still? I know Civ III diplomacy had a lot to be desired, but is Civ IV really much better? The relationship between the player (and ai) if they wish to get on, has to be one of the player as a parent, and an ai as a best a sulky teenager (more like a terrible two yr old in many cases).

Give me this and I'll like you, give it to me now! I want that cake you're eating that piece you're about to put in your mouth now! Ok,ok, but since we were nice to you, can we have a piece of your chocolate? No it's mine, all mine!

(Sorry about that I feel better now) :)

Anyways, surely diplomacy should be about give and take (which it isn't in Civ IV at the moment...what's wrong with, for example, "here you go Cyrus, you're our friend so take Civil Service as a gift", and then some time later "here you go Drew, here's Engineering, no strings attached, to repay your gift", or even "we wish to improve relations, so take these fish as a gift"...or more realistically "Drew we really need your help to defend against the Aztecs unprovoked attack, but realise we ourselves are not on the best terms, therefore we wouldn't possibly expect you to join in for nothing, so here's blah and blurg to compensate you" (as if...)

As I said I hate the one way traffic that's classed as diplomacy...

And if anyone says anything about exploits, I'll scweam and scweam till my face turns blue....

Btw I'm looking forward to the expansion, but since we are all just still guessing, we'll just have to wait and see ;)

I just love how ppl post on a game they apparently don't play... I'm looking at you Civ IIIers!

FFS. unsubscribing as well.

I dunno, i like civ4 and civ3, and T.A. Jones makes some good points.

The diplomacy system in civ4 needs work IMO.

About Diplomacy, I Don't mind about the demands much, if their power score is higher then mine, "Give us this or we'll attack you in the future" but when it comes to ask for War help and Trade Embragoes, they ask for it from us but give us zero compensation like gold or techs etc.. but when we ask for help they, they won't accept it for nothing unless their Friendly with us.

I'd personally would like Causious and Pleased AIs, whenever they ask us to join a war or trade embrago to compensate us, I personally don't mind 90% of the time if a Friendly AI asks me to join a war or stop trading with an enemy for nothing, it's the Pleased or less AIs that annoy me.

And you should make it if a AI demands or We Demand something from an Opponent eg - tech or resources, and they deliver but we attack them within 10 turns, all the other AIs will give you -2 Diplomatic point for being unhonourable or something alot the lines.

About Diplomacy, I Don't mind about the demands much, if their power score is higher then mine, "Give us this or we'll attack you in the future" but when it comes to ask for War help and Trade Embragoes, they ask for it from us but give us zero compensation like gold or techs etc.. but when we ask for help they, they won't accept it for nothing unless their Friendly with us.

I'd personally would like Causious and Pleased AIs, whenever they ask us to join a war or trade embrago to compensate us, I personally don't mind 90% of the time if a Friendly AI asks me to join a war or stop trading with an enemy for nothing, it's the Pleased or less AIs that annoy me.

And you should make it if a AI demands or We Demand something from an Opponent eg - tech or resources, and they deliver but we attack them within 10 turns, all the other AIs will give you -2 Diplomatic point for being unhonourable or something alot the lines.

Have to agree with most of that. I also have no probs with demands (as in threat based)...just well, I'd like more complexity in the diplomacy.

(A slightly extreme example):- lets say its a huge watery map, and most civs are crying out for more land, and you've beelined to Astronomy and have boat loads of settlers ready to go. Now almost immediately you'll get begging requests, but since your whole strategy for god knows how many turns has been based on getting this tech v early, there's absolutely no way you're giving it away, nor any possible way you're even trading it.
Not as CIV works atm. So you will immediately take diplo hits with all and sundry.
Now the ai knows when a tech is a monopoly tech, so lets say you could agree to share it with a friendly ai (for other techs plus ++, as it should have a heavy weighting being a monopoly tech ) plus a proviso of not trading that tech for say 30 turns and a hefty positive modifier with the sharing civ....(N.B. I'm not expecting the ai to ever be intelligent enough to realise how important that tech is on this type of map)
In this way, you could still possibly keep sensible diplomatic relations, as things stand, you're in a no win situation, as give Astronomy to even one civ in that situation, and the tech will filter through to all and sundry, (and with resultant trades) put you now miles behind in tech as well as seing all the new lands you scouted out quickly gobbled up by ai settlers. Definitly no win.

The same goes for when you get asked to "gift"a tech to a cautious or annoyed civ, who often has 4 or 5 redlined techs that you don't. Again damned if you do, damned if you don't......It's just too simplistic a model as things stands (well for my tastes anyways).

For any doubters, I do love playing Civ Iv, never play Civ III anymore, but thats not to say there aren't things I'd like to see change in CIV Iv, as in the diplomacy.

With another exp pack coming out just wanted to get those views of my chest (isn't this thread vaguely sposed to be about things we might hope to see in the exp?)....

Enough from me ;)

Have to agree with most of that. I also have no probs with demands (as in threat based)...just well, I'd like more complexity in the diplomacy.

(A slightly extreme example):- lets say its a huge watery map, and most civs are crying out for more land, and you've beelined to Astronomy and have boat loads of settlers ready to go. Now almost immediately you'll get begging requests, but since your whole strategy for god knows how many turns has been based on getting this tech v early, there's absolutely no way you're giving it away, nor any possible way you're even trading it.
Not as CIV works atm. So you will immediately take diplo hits with all and sundry.
Now the ai knows when a tech is a monopoly tech, so lets say you could agree to share it with a friendly ai (for other techs plus ++, as it should have a heavy weighting being a monopoly tech ) plus a proviso of not trading that tech for say 30 turns and a hefty positive modifier with the sharing civ....(N.B. I'm not expecting the ai to ever be intelligent enough to realise how important that tech is on this type of map)
In this way, you could still possibly keep sensible diplomatic relations, as things stand, you're in a no win situation, as give Astronomy to even one civ in that situation, and the tech will filter through to all and sundry, (and with resultant trades) put you now miles behind in tech as well as seing all the new lands you scouted out quickly gobbled up by ai settlers. Definitly no win.

The same goes for when you get asked to "gift"a tech to a cautious or annoyed civ, who often has 4 or 5 redlined techs that you don't. Again damned if you do, damned if you don't......It's just too simplistic a model as things stands (well for my tastes anyways).

For any doubters, I do love playing Civ Iv, never play Civ III anymore, but thats not to say there aren't things I'd like to see change in CIV Iv, as in the diplomacy.

With another exp pack coming out just wanted to get those views of my chest (isn't this thread vaguely sposed to be about things we might hope to see in the exp?)....

Enough from me ;)

Good point, a "no trading monpoly tech option"... meaning the AI cannot trade this tech for 30 turns (minus the number of turns given in gold or cost of extra tech in trade) or third PArty AI researches it on their own.

so my idea is, lets say for example the AI has a 1000Gold in the treasury their willing to trade away, from their point of veiw, they'd want profit from that monoploy tech ASAP, so they'll pay you extra to Gold/Techs to allow them to trade that tech away. Lets make it 1 turn is equal to 100 gold/breakers, so now it'll only take 20 turns before the tech is no longer a monopoly tech.

When should the monopoly tech function be avaliable with which tech? Economics? That Might be too late with your Astronomy Example... Well maybe Banking allows the Monoploy Trading option.

they should also change/increase the Diplomatic modifier of "you shared a technological discovery with us." maybe increase it to +4, 4 monoploy techs is equal to +4 Dipolmacy points

Good point, a "no trading monpoly tech option"... meaning the AI cannot trade this tech for 30 turns (minus the number of turns given in gold or cost of extra tech in trade) or third PArty AI researches it on their own.

so my idea is, lets say for example the AI has a 1000Gold in the treasury their willing to trade away, from their point of veiw, they'd want profit from that monoploy tech ASAP, so they'll pay you extra to Gold/Techs to allow them to trade that tech away. Lets make it 1 turn is equal to 100 gold/breakers, so now it'll only take 20 turns before the tech is no longer a monopoly tech.

When should the monopoly tech function be avaliable with which tech? Economics? That Might be too late with your Astronomy Example... Well maybe Banking allows the Monoploy Trading option.

they should also change/increase the Diplomatic modifier of "you shared a technological discovery with us." maybe increase it to +4, 4 monoploy techs is equal to +4 Dipolmacy points

Maybe paper? (or even Civil Service granting Bureacracy -just thinking of a kind of "official" document ;) ), and it seems about right in game terms....

I like your gold / beakers idea too...........hey we just made diplomacy more interesting :)

I'm sure there are lots of others with ideas out there, and yes I'm sure they could have an exploit attached (Agh!, he said the word. What the? No not "the". "Exploit". Aggggh! he said it again) but those could be worked upon.

Maybe paper? (or even Civil Service granting Bureacracy -just thinking of a kind of "official" document ;) ), and it seems about right in game terms....

I like your gold / beakers idea too...........hey we just made diplomacy more interesting :)

I'm sure there are lots of others with ideas out there, and yes I'm sure they could have an exploit attached (Agh!, he said the word. What the? No not "the". "Exploit". Aggggh! he said it again) but those could be worked upon.

Well if you want it to be available as soon as possible, you could do it with Codes of Law for "Contracts".

Can you think of an exploit for this? there's bound to be an exploit, thats why the makers create patches to fix them.

Well I guess the exploit is you can trade away the tech before the AI opponent has a chance to profit from like let say 1 turn before the tech monopoly agreement expires.

My fix would be neither partner of the monopoly agreement can trade the tech in question until the agreement expires BUT...

...The Entity that originally discovers the technology can enter into another tech monopoly agreement only if the agreement expires at the same time as the first agreement.

Assume Civ A is Partner of first Agreement and Civ B is the Partner of the 2nd agreement.

If the 2nd Agreement made to Civ B also includes extra payments (Eg - gold/techs) then the Expiration date of the Agreement of both the first agreement by Civ A and and 2nd agreement by Civ B will Both expire at a sooner date (Depending how much was paid to you)

No more then 50% of all KNOWN Civs can acquire a monopoly tech, it's no longer consider a monopoly tech once more then 50% of all Civs know the Tech.

It's so you can't go tech whoring like Mansa Mansa using the Monopoly Tech agreement denying the tech to the rest of the world before they can profit from it.

The Monopoly trade agreement also expires for EVERYONE in the agreement if a partner declares War on the Civ that Discovered the tech. (to make sure the Civ your trading to is friendly/Pleased and not a backstabber)

OK, this is a LONG thread so its probably already been answered...but will the Warlords features be included in this pack? E.g. the warlord unit, new