I'd love to see a cold war style weapons build up or wars sparked by this civic difference, like in the real world.

When the U.N is built, civs that have free market, and civs that have state property should get the :mad: negative bonuses towards one another, and have it increase by one every 25 years or so, leading to all sorts of warring fun. Aside from the normal U.N. elections, each "side" should vote in it's own leader (In the U.S. vs. U.S.S.R. style) who can propose vote on certain resolutions for his/her side, the power of the vote depending on the number of people within their respective countries, every few years, or when important events occur, like a communist country attacking a capitalist one, or a capitalist country attacking a capitalist country, "emergency votes" could be cast to decide whether to vote in a treaty for warring "allies" or for a full scale war against their economic enemies, between all countries with either civic.

Just thought this could make the game more interesting later on.

Civics could definitely have a bigger impact on diplomacy in the late game, and create some real world war type situations.

But forcing people into two sides seems artificial, and wouldn't work in most games. It would only work where there are relatively equal numbers/powers on both sides, and that's not something that happens often.

I think it could be cool to just have multilateral alliances in general, though. Way better than the useless UN.

I was thinking that the computers would naturally try to have an equal amount of power on both sides.

But forcing people into two sides seems artificial, and wouldn't work in most games. It would only work where there are relatively equal numbers/powers on both sides, and that's not something that happens often.
True. Even in the Cold War, China was a distinct entity, communist yet anti-Warsaw Pact. If anything, it was more closely aligned with the US. Not only does this show how unrealistic it is to try and split the world in two, it shows that Free Market/State Property is not a good way to do it.
I would like to see this sort of ideological situation to happen, but I would A) like to see it evolve smoothly as part of the game, not just go "bing" when the right wonders appear, and B) be less black-and-white, just as in history. Essentially, I'd prefer a more refined diplomatic system.

In Civ 3, Government type affected the AI's attitude to you. Did this change in Civ 4?

I agree, Traitorfish. You can't force it every game. When you go "bing" with the right wonder, players learn to exploit the situation so that they are in just the right position when the "bing" happens.

Maybe the answer is allowing alliances to be created and joined by multiple people? Rather than something you negotiate between two people.

Maybe the answer is allowing alliances to be created and joined by multiple people? Rather than something you negotiate between two people.
Good idea- that is, after all, what NATO and the Warsaw Pact actually were, rather than just the syste, of individual alliances we have now.