I now I now, I want this and I want that bla bla bla, but I really want a scenario that can last a long time. The ancient world mod would be first, then continue to the middle ages, and so on. Also you wouldnt have to complain about it taking a 1000 years for a phalanx to cross Europe(Razvan_Rosus point). it would be more like 12, which it takes for the modern era. It would be a huge mod i know, but hey id play it.

Also why are barbarians not as strong as a user unit. My basic warrior can defeat 5 barbaric warriors before it dies, that does not make it much of a war, i hate winning all the time. We need to find a way to errupt more conflicts in this game, to much peace equals not very realistic. If you read my civil war post about 3 or 4 pages back, that would be something along the lines of my thinking.

Happy civing

Razvan_Rosu wrote the following (Jan 15, 2004):
-------------------------------------------------------------------
I think that there can be a lot of improvement about the
fact that, in the beginning, you must work more than 250 years
to build a phalanx or a warrior. Plus, to cross Europe,
you need, for a phalanx unit around 1000 years.
There must be a connection with the reality, because
even in modern age to cross the Atlantic, you need 12 years.
------------------------------------------------------------------

This timescale problem is probably the most unrealistic
feature of the game. I think it could be solved with
the following modifications:

- the game should have two modes, "war mode"
and "peace mode"

- in the peace mode, units can move with infinit speed
(like on railroad in Civ1,2,3) but they cannot go
farther from their cities than a certain maximum distance
(this distance should be "era dependent", for
example 10 tiles in the ancient age, 20 tiles in the
medieval ...)

- if a unit enters the territory of an other civ then
the game goes into "war mode"

- in the war mode, one turn = one month and the units
move with their normal speed (usually 1 tile per turn
for footsoldier units)

- in the war mode, the attacked civ can declare
"state of siege", in this state it is much easier
to get military units, for example city population points
can be converted into footsoldier units with zero cost,
buildings can be sold (any number of them in one turn)
at their real price (not the usual discounted price),
advanced units can be purchased at normal price
(no rushing penalty), it is possible to sell
unfinished buildings, cities never get into civil
disorder ..., and this "state of siege"
rules are applicable for any civ (not depending on
the "peace mode" government type)

- the normal building mode is stopped in the war mode,
but buildings which were already started in the
peace mode can be rushed (and can be converted into
something else, for example an already started Courthouse
can be converted into Barracks and can be rush-built
in one "war mode" turn if the civ has enough gold)

- wars can be finished with unilateral declarations, too
(if there are no enemy units in the territory of a
civ then it may decide to get into "peace mode" and
if all civ.s are in "peace mode" then the game can be
continued in this mode)

- at the end of the war (even if it happened between
two AI civ.s) the human player should get a summary
report of the war (cities attacked, cities taken,
units lost, ...)

In the real world history, it is very characteristic
that during wars big changes may occur in short time
while changes in peacetime usually come rather slowly.
But it is very probable that the above suggestions
cannot be incorporated into any "official" Civ game
because Sid Meier thinks (correctly) that such a
modification would actually break the game
into two very different parts: a war game and
a builder game and he thinks that most players
don't like such "two layer" games (see
http://www.civfanatics.com/sidlegacy/index2.shtml).

Originally posted by immortals84
Also why are barbarians not as strong as a user unit. My basic warrior can defeat 5 barbaric warriors before it dies, that does not make it much of a war, i hate winning all the time.This is because there is a bonuse against Barbarians dependant on what difficulty you are playing.

On chieftain you get 800% attack bonus against barbs and on emperor you get 50%. The only difficulties where it's even against barbs is Deity and Sid.

Originally posted by timberwolf4545
I think setting up a domestic trade network could solve the problem of one city starving while another was growing. Not anything unit based, but more like a gold slider allocated to domestic infrastructure, like is used for Science and Entertainment. This would pay for things like shipping. That way it would cost some gold to keep your citizens from starving, but it could also generate extra commerce.


I think a domestic trade route for food really makes sense. It would be a better reflection of real life were the trade and transport of food is one of the most important aspects of trade.
It would also better resemble the fact that not all crops are produced everywhere, so say a surplus of potatoes in one area will be traded to another "wheat" producing area.

By enabeling intra-civ food trading it should be possible to prevent some potential high shield but low food producers from starvation. And maybe even let them grow to make benefit of their shield producing capacity.
Ofcourse also inter-civ food trading should be possible. As well as trading of units as proposed by others. Imagine; selling your (surplus) food to another CIV to get more money to spend on units/science whatever. In addition to this a CIV without any food problems should get a happiness bonus.


How: in principle all food produced within the radius of a city still belongs to that city. To be used for support and if desirable growth. By using a "food surplus slider" you should determine what percentage of the surplus food production you will assign to your "CIV food stock" . A city can only contribute or benefit from this general food stock if it contains a granary, a market place and is connected by roads to the capitol.
The contents of the CIV-food stock can then be assigned to
a) specific cities (user managment) Can be usefull for a quick boost of growth of bordertowns
b) cities with no growth or shortage (governor style)
c) trade to other CIV's
d) combination of both.

How will these food trades affect the game. I think the main effects are only becoming prominent in later stages of the play since cities need a granary (to store the food), a marketplace ( to sell it ) and connection to the remainder of your empire (to transport the food) . So at a moment you in most cases already have a defined CIV and it will start to pay off to specialise certain cities for specific tasks. Now these floodplain towns can be used to let these tundra/desert settlements flourish.

Anyway, this were just some things popping up in my mind when the tundra towns i conquered from the Americans and did not raze (hoping for oil to pop up later on) remained size 1 or 2. Resulting in the presence of potential shield generating squares remaining potential for ever.

I think it would be great to be able to save production settings in the contact governor screen. I spend so much time setting up the production settings toggling the "never" "sometimes" and "often" dropdowns in almost always the same way during different parts of the game: I have certain things I always do that I would like to save the settings for, start of game, defensive military buildup, build up for assault, cash crunch emphasis and Happiness and Culture drives. Also - a toggle for all cities, ect. would be great. You know, Firaxes could just put this in a patch instead of making us wait for Civ4.

Here are some ideas I got:

- More government options: How about a custom government in wich you get more options as you make discovery instead of entirely new and different government.
- Economics that stick more to the real world: Trading with richer countrys can be detrimental to your population as it can be beneficial to your economy. How about Immigration movement (and the politicals pressure that comes with it) when you're a rich civ next to a "poor" one (think about what China-Taiwan was, Mexico-South American countrys vs. USA, Poland, Russia and co. vs the rest of Europa...). What about the concept of border permeability? Remenber the Iron Curtain?
- Adding the concept of culture was great but borders where sometimes created artificially and in unfair manners wich led to revolutions. I think the concept of Nationality added a lot more than Drafting and Riflemen. How about being able to trade pieces of territory (squares)?
- A 3D spherical world with more zooming options would sure be nice.
- It would be nice to be able to deal (use? fool?), hmmm, in a more civilised way with barbarians. To manipulate them to your ends (with some risks of course).
- Once you have sent colonist in space, how about continuing the game on 2-3 more worlds as well as on our good old planet? (I know it's sci-fi but I had to ask.)

Well, I think that's about that. Oh and by the way, excuse me for my lousy english.

I would like to see some variation of the following:

1. Starting wars against a weaker civ and razing cities will increase the liklihood that all civs will gang up on you, no matter how strong you are. Sort of a "crimes against humanity" aspect.
2. Appointment of generals to your forces. For example, you would no longer be forced to individually control every unit in combat. Instead, your generals would be responsible for carrying out your orders. Obviously, some generals would be better than others.

City improvements that effect your civilization as a whole.

BANKS: I had this idea when I had completed Wall Street in one game. You get 5% interest , and it requires 5 banks to build. Once Wall Steet is built, why not add a percentage point for every bank there after? Nudge the maximums up with each bank, too, so that the economics don't get unbalanced (5 banks = $50 max, 8 banks = $80 max, 40 banks = $400, etc.). I realize this is alot of interest to be earning if you've got a hundred cities and you're determined to build a bank in every one, but if you really want to build a bank in every far-flung, one shield producing outpost, I say more power to you.

TEMPLES & CATHEDRALS: I could envision a slider on your overall religiosity. Repressive religion would create less happiness, but fight corruption. Open & peaceful religion would be the other side of the equation. You could manage the slider for your entire civ, but it would only take effect where you have said improvements. This could also effect your populations attitudes about war.

COURTHOUSE & POLICE STATIONS: I could see a similar slider here. The more repressive your system of justice, the less corruption, but you then run the risk of actively upsetting your citizens. Very repressive sytems could be more prone to culture flips.

I don't know if this has been mentioned yet, but I'd like to see unique leaders.

For instance, for the Americans, if a battle produced a leader, there would be a roll for a set of unique leaders. If the roll came up for Patton, then, if an army was produced, that army would get +2 to it's attack rating and +1 movement. If Stonewall Jackson was produced, then the army would get a +1 attack and +1 defense. Etc.

Not sure how this would work for scientific leaders. Maybe certain ones boost production instead of science output?

Ho-ly crap! A whole page went by before I even got the first e-mail notice! There's no way I'm going to be able to read this entire thread.
At first, I wanted to post something that no one else had...but screw that! I have better things to do, like post my own shi...stuff! :D

Originally posted by Bamspeedy
Actually, many of your ideas do sound a lot better when trying to incorporate them into Civ4, than into Civ3. Starting over (Civ4) it is easier to incorporate many of your ideas than a project that has already been implemented, where it is so much harder to make major changes.
Yes, a new slate changes everything. (Just one thing: does anyone really know for certain that Civ4 is in the works?)


And yes, I will get around to posting something...it's just that so much of what I have coincides with what has already been posted (I feel like a bloody clone! :D).

what would be realy good are land mines, naval mines, balloons, snipers, cruise missles that can be launched from aircraft carriers, ICBM's and tactical nukes be able to be destroyed by other nukes, zepplins, and forts be able to train millitary foot soldiers.

Neutron bomb: population down to 1 (should be 0 but civ does not allow cities with 0 pop) but all improvements intact. No pollution (there is none is there?).

If I'm right, the bank system in a country often starts with a central bank. In Civ IV, this could be represented by having to build a small wonder - Central Bank - before being able to build banks. An additional benefits could be 5% increased happiness (since the central bank is a tool for even out the downs and highs of the economy). Another could be that the central bank makes it easier to borrow money from other civs.

The small wonder Iron Works is excellent. You need coal and iron within city borders to build it. It can be build only once, but by all civs that meet the requirements. But why not add a lot more small wonders of this type that requires different combinations of resources within a city's borders?

Examples:
Strategic + strategic resource allows Iron works type of wonders
Strat rec. + city improvem. allows new type of small wonders
Bonus rec + strat.rec allows new type
and so on.
I'd like to see comments on this, more concrete examples!

A high level of trade or diplomacy should also allow a wonder,
like it does for military victory (Heroic epic and alike).

All wonders give the building city/civ benfits. And I though that there should be wonders that did harm as well (to other civs of course). After some though I partly rejcted that idea as I though it would be better to expand the spy mission capabilities to include the ideas I originally held for the "evil wonders". These were: Destroy strategic resources, bonus tiles, luxury at some given city. Destroy wonders, small wonders, spesific improvements, pollute land, steal units, control foreign unit (to make war!) And by the way, aren't spy missions too expensive?

Small wonders makes the cities unike and different from each other. And I think that is adding tremendously to the joy of the game. Therefore: Add more of them!

Building Great Wall should give you just that! A great wall of civ spesific bonus defence around your border!

The culture concept should be expanded in many different ways. For instance there should be possible to culturally influence a civ as a whole. Not just at its borders. Why not give us some tools to attack the other civs in its core? To make them bleed money (or even resources!) to other Civ for instance - through cultural imperalistic tactics!

Any suggestions? Wonders, spy missions? Or Special units?

I thought of the possibilities to actually build a colony in an other civ's territory. A colony that cannot be as easily fought off as the regular colony.

from my part, 3 things:

1-Editor: make it as good as possible, with as many options as possible
2-Big : please no citiy or unit limits, let us, the players, decide about it
3- Most important: test it on history, meaning, create a scenario, see how the game goes, compare to what really happened, that's a good way of seeing if the game is good....

otherwise, just improve the CIV3 model, it had great potential (choppers would be great again!!)

My suggestion would be adding medival age units to storm enemy islands (like the one square city). I know Viking have a way to do this, but the other counties are left in the dark until the modern era. Maybe have them appear on the same time as the viking. A suggestion on this part would be a sailor or pirate unit, who could storm beaches, but not very strong onland. Or something you could find that is better.

1. 30 +civs if older machines slowdown just say so but let us try.
2. 9+ civs in MP and have MP from outset
3. more than one UU in some civs like Medival japan, ww2, napoleonic, etc
4. group Units like all asian civs could get some units unique to them, mesoamerican, etc.
5. civil wars and unions. as civs disapppear new ones could emerge as result of civil war. also as one civ was down to last city, it could be harder but it to could culture flip. [last several cities in one turn]
6. deduct loading & unloading from railroad fro movement.
7. fix time problem [railroads in BC? c'mon]
8. more terrain options even if limited to edited scenarios[i was glad when marshes came back in c3c]
9. at least a graphics/ animation import/export in editor. and integrate a text file updater so when you want to add units/civs/etc it's easier and more seamless.
10. naming points on your map [within game being played] and others couldget that when given your map. great for MP.
11. more levels to barbarians multiple sea and few more land units levels perhaps let barbarian dinosaur herds players have to wipe out... and barbarian tribes can keep tribal name upon capture. and barbarian pirates when anyone has privateers
12 goody huts randomly assigned bnarbarian tribe names and retain imprint of tribe name rather than just 'barbarian'.
13. major and minor civs [weaker AI only civs], less than major civ but more than barbarians.
14. maybe in industrial age buildable canala that small naval unitscan traverse? or at least for trade use.
15. ROP made by one party granted to another the right. mutual rights must be expicitly stated so.
16. be able to rename your leader name/ title, civ name, adj/noun for subjects within gameas long not in use should be okay.
just a partial list..

I think, the Civil War is a great idea.... there should be only 2 ways it can happen first one is

In a Revolution

In a Revolution there is a chance that a few cities don't want to be part of your new country, and might seperate. You can either let them stay seperate, or invade them.

the other one is

If there is Civil unrest, a city might turn to its own.

Originally posted by hahntsak
1. 30 +civs if older machines slowdown just say so but let us try.
2. 9+ civs in MP and have MP from outset
3. more than one UU in some civs like Medival japan, ww2, napoleonic, etc
4. group Units like all asian civs could get some units unique to them, mesoamerican, etc.
5. civil wars and unions. as civs disapppear new ones could emerge as result of civil war. also as one civ was down to last city, it could be harder but it to could culture flip. [last several cities in one turn]
6. deduct loading & unloading from railroad fro movement.
7. fix time problem [railroads in BC? c'mon]
8. more terrain options even if limited to edited scenarios[i was glad when marshes came back in c3c]
9. at least a graphics/ animation import/export in editor. and integrate a text file updater so when you want to add units/civs/etc it's easier and more seamless.
10. naming points on your map [within game being played] and others couldget that when given your map. great for MP.
11. more levels to barbarians multiple sea and few more land units levels perhaps let barbarian dinosaur herds players have to wipe out... and barbarian tribes can keep tribal name upon capture. and barbarian pirates when anyone has privateers
12 goody huts randomly assigned bnarbarian tribe names and retain imprint of tribe name rather than just 'barbarian'.
13. major and minor civs [weaker AI only civs], less than major civ but more than barbarians.
14. maybe in industrial age buildable canala that small naval unitscan traverse? or at least for trade use.
15. ROP made by one party granted to another the right. mutual rights must be expicitly stated so.
16. be able to rename your leader name/ title, civ name, adj/noun for subjects within gameas long not in use should be okay.
just a partial list..

Yeah I like some of those ideas alot, ive been suggesting 30+ civs for a while, my computer could handle 31, but your right worn other about using 31 because it could take them 10 minutes between turns as the game advances. More barbarian levels would be great, have a guerilla as a modern day barbarian.

Originally posted by immortals84
I always here proposals about civil wars, what about this:

-If a certain percentage of your cities revolt, have the AI take control of them for a duration depending on the power of those cities, then have it send units to attack your content cities. And not just two parties, how about up to 5 opposing parties. This will result in a five sided civil war to determine your new government. And if you lose, then your capitol city would change to one of your cities on the side of the victorious party. Every civ should ahve at least one civil war.

What happened to Barbarians taking control of captured cities like so in Civ2. I lost a city one time and had to fight the units it produced, that was cool.

Again if this exact idea was posted before, please forgive I have not read them all.

To add on to one of my origional posts, even though this is kind of obvious, but this civil war idea could alow the game to implement more government types. For every form of government that you have discoverd, a party will uprise in support of that government. The wars will be more difficult on harder levels. And the type of units the revolts send will be based on the modern day barbaric units. Or later on fanatics and guerillas.

What I'd like is "Volunteers"....

like, ok lets say I invade Rome as Spain, I have destroyed the Roman empire, but in the Rome Cities, I can "Draft Volunteers" (I know thats an oxy moron but.. Firaxis can think of a better way) when I get Volunteers, I get Rome's UU's, so from the town I get a Conscript Legionnaire!

It happened alot, like look at WWII, there were many Waffen SS volunteers and in Czechoslavakia, they got Tanks.

I would love the ability to be Spain and get volunteer UU's

This thread is huge! I'm writing this before reading the full thread, so forgive me for any repeat ideas.

Negative Civilization Traits
A set of traits with negative effects that would help create even more distinction between the different civilizations. For instance, America might be +(industrious) +(expansionist) -(education), Scandinavia might be +(militaristic) +(seafaring) -(population growth). I understand this could make people a little touchy as it involves nationalistic negative impressions that are broadly applied, but it could go a long way to adding more flavor and uniqueness to each civilization.

One of the more monotonous aspects of Civ3 is that every other civilization seems to be militaristic and religious. This would help alleviate that dreary lack of variation.

Supply Lines
I would very much like something to represent supply lines for military units outside your cultural borders. Let's be honest, a lot of historical conflicts weren't as dramatic and noble as we imagine but mostly involved armies attacking each others' supply chains. Military units which are not supplied will lose HP and effectiveness until a supply/support unit can reach them. Lack of supplies can't kill a military unit unless the unit is in a tundra or desert tile, but it will make military units a lot more vulnerable to enemy attack.

There are very good reasons non-combat personnel outnumber combat personnel in the modern U.S. military and it would be nice to see some of those reasons reflected in the next Civilization game. Speaking of the U.S. military, I think certain units should require more support than others, particularly modern units.

You could create different kinds of supply units for each major era, with the more modern supply units being faster and more mobile (air-dropped supply units would be very cool). This would make it harder to invade remote cities, and harder still if you try invading remote cities during the ancient era.

Cultural Mass
This would be a refinement of the cultural borders idea. You know how some civilizations are entirely contained within a single cultural border, while others are divided into multiple non-contiguous cultural regions? Actually, it seems that in Civ III, the majority of civs (player and AI alike) get divided into non-contiguous regions, which is a very poor reflection of reality.

My solution to this would be to have bonuses and penalties applied based on something called "cultural mass." Each contiguous region bounded by a unique cultural border has a certain cultural mass associated with it. The cultural mass is simply calculated by adding up the cultural output of all cities within that cultural region. The cultural mass of that region is then compared to the total cultural output of the civilization to determine some kind of bonus and/or penalty (perhaps applied to production or commerce or corruption/waste).

Here's an example: you build a new city on the outskirts of your civilization. Until that city gets its first cultural border expansion, it is its own little cultural island with very low culture output (probably zero or one per turn). This city would suffer penalties until that first temple (or whatever) causes a border expansion that links up its borders with the rest of the civ's cities. Depending on which border it connects with (assuming the civ in question has more than one region), it could then acheive a bonus instead of a penalty.

Another example: you have two civs with equal numbers of totally equal cities. Civ A has all of its cities within a single "culture mass," while the Civ B is divided into two culture masses on two different continents. Civ A would receive higher bonuses than the divided Civ B.

This idea would make small isolated outposts on remote islands or continents more likely to fail (or fail to be useful), which increases the realism of the game. Over time, the AI civs would "reorganize" into contiguous cultural regions as they worked harder to acquire cities bordering their main mass and gave up more easily on non-productive remote cities. This also makes it harder to expand to new continents whether you're doing it by conquest or by Rapid EXpansion (REX). For human vs. human games, this increases the complexity. Players have more things to consider when choosing the location of that next city, which should keep things interesting.

One last thing: cultural mass should also factor in to whether or not a city is likely to culture flip.

Bifurcation
I agree with the other posts that some form of national bifurcation should be possible. Perhaps you could call it a "rebellion" that causes some contiguous portion of your civilization to strike out on their own (e.g. Byzantium splitting from Rome or U.S.A. splitting from England). The triggering mechanism should of course be tied to population unhappiness and corruption. Also, bifurcation should be impossible (or at least less likely) while the civ in question is at war (people uniting in the face of a common enemy and all that).

Bifurcation should be less probable in situations where it's likely to result in the rebelling cities falling to a neighboring aggressor. Bifurcated (rebelled) new civs should start with the same tech and reputation as the parent civ.

PS—if my "culture mass" idea from above is implemented, then distant and separate cultural regions (masses) could have an increased likelihood of rebelling.

More Unique Units
Unique units are easily one of the coolest things about Civ III. More, more more, please! We could have two or three UUs per civ, and maybe an additional unique unit based on region (Asia, Europe, Mediterranean, etc.). More unique units per civ would make possible another idea: have some civs get more unique units and fewer traits, or vice versa. How would that be for variety? If you also added my negative traits idea from above, then you could really mix things up and have more variation amoung civs.

Tie Pollution to Resources
If you have more polluted tiles within your borders, then the likelihood of a resource within your borders disappearing should increase, particularly animal-related resources like cattle. As things stand now pollution is only a minor nuisance; this would make it more intersting.

Research by Category, not by Specific Advance
I would like to see something similar to other games where you get to choose the general category of research, but not the specific advancement. This way, you can't predict ahead of time what specific advancement you're going to get (unless you've reached a bottleneck in the tech tree). Better still, make it so you devote a different percentage of your research to each of the different categories.

More Traits Please
I like this trend started with Civ 3: Conquests. The more traits the better.

3D Graphics in Foreign Advisor Screen
This would be an easy way to represent the relationships between more than 8 civs without giving your 2D artists permanent migraines. If we can have 16 civs in a single game, then I want to see all 16 civs simultaneously in the foreign advisor screen. Down with the "more civs" button!

Emigration
If you generate enough unhappiness and/or corruption in your civilization, you should have a chance of losing a small amount of population and workers to other civs. More oppressive governments (e.g. communist or fascist) would be more likely to produce outgoing emigrants. Certain governments (e.g. democracy) would be more likely to receive immigrants (whether they want them or not). Immigrants in your population retain their nationality as if they were captured, and so they can get angry if you go to war with their parent nation.

(Edit: corrected spelling)

I don't know if anyone has mentioned this yet, since I didn't read pages 3-26, but I wonder if anyone else finds the chronology a little messed up in Civ. Especially in the modern age, I find it hard to swallow wars that last 50 odd years and something like the statue of liberty taking 30 years to build. I just personally think the basic unit of time should be at least as low as months. Micromanagers would love this, and the people who tend to automate everything can hit enter 11 extra times if they want.

One thing that bothers me is when your culture pushes across open sea squares onto a new continent ... I think you should only be allowed to have culture from one city pushing across only if you already have a city over there.

Also I thought it might be interesting if instead of 2 spaces out from your city as your growth area, your city could build in any of the area it's culture spread to. It could be done so that a tiny city could be in the middle of a metropolis with 10, 000 culture,. This way you could have super cities like new york or tokyo with smaller cities around/amalgamated into em.

Make cities grow more on the map to fill adition squares in the imidiate squares surrounding your city at huge sizes of 20+.

Clean up the railroads. Fix roads in hills and mountains so it's not the same road/RR overlay on hills/mountains as it is on grassland. It looks horrible and I always end up making my own map where no roads are allowed on mtns.

More corruption reduscing features like many people have in their mods for more modern day city improvements. Like I was saying to my friend the other day ... Is Hawaii affected with bad corruption just because it's in the middle of the pacific? No. Ships. Planes. Wireless. Phones. TV. Internet. Satelites. Everything brought together brings the gov't into nearly every house thus bringing the corruption levels the same. In the quickie mod I made for myself to use I stole the idea of five additional FP ... State Capitals. They became available individually throughout the industrial era only after a certain amount of a new city improvement was had (5, 10, 15, 20, 25 of the imp's). The new improvement is City Courts that requires that you already have a Courthouse. That plus also airports reduce corruption. I like to think already the comp uses these advances just as much as me. Makes the game more fun on Huge maps.

Yes, more corruption reducing imps would be good. Firaxis did a great job with the police officers in C3C. I don't think more Forbidden Palace type wonders is the answer, though. Underseer's immigration idea is fantastic though, I really like it.

Submarine/Anti-Submarine Combat


Purpose:

- Distinguishes between submarine and surface unit combat as well as between Industrial naval warfare and Modern naval warfare.

- Naval unit combat changes more significantly and makes for a changing combat environment for the player.

- Mimics the drastic effect this technology has had no modern inter-state warfare and the superior abilities of this revolutionary weapon.

Features:

- Only units with anti-sub ability can attack/see submarine units.

- Submarines only receive damage when engaging in combat with sea units that have anti-sub ability.

Possible Features:

- Submarine units can travel below ‘Ice’ terrain –non-submarine units cannot, thus giving unique strategic advantage particularly where use of nuclear missiles is concerned. This emphasizes need to use submarines to counter this threat as opposed to other anti-submarine units.

- Submarines can select which unit to attack in a stack of units.

- Submarines are not affected by nuclear attacks while at sea.

- Submarines can enter territory of other civs while at peace without being detected (i.e. not be expelled without being detected first).

Gameplay:

- Acquisition of prerequisite tech results in change in player combat tactics: Submarines replace Battleships as primary naval-superiority/assault unit.

- In order to prevent submarines from becoming an exploit, they only attack for one round of combat (i.e. defender is not necessarily destroyed following combat). Note: existence of anti-submarine units ensures that submarine threat is countered.

- Dependent on whether or not the AI can use special abilities appropriately and whether it can effectively use units with these abilities.

- Allows weak civ to counter complete dominance of heavy surface sea units of powerful enemy civs --keeps gameplay somewhat more balanced.

- Note that early ships would be unable to attack submarines, which at the very least somewhat more in line with technological reality.

- This would probably not affect gameplay in a negative manner except that it significantly diminishes the effect of Industrial naval forces thus promoting naval air and submarine combat over ship-to-ship combat.

Potential Exploits:

- Using submarine units to block choke points (e.g. only Ocean tile touching city), thus preventing enemy non-anti-sub units from entering those squares –would effectively stop all enemy naval traffic if that civ has not discovered prerequisite tech for anti-submarine units. AI would probably not use this strategy thus player would have unfair advantage. Solution: You probably wouldn’t want to send your ships out with submarines in the area anyway, therefore the only important factor would be to ensure that the AI knows how to use this exploit so as to maintain balance when playing in Singleplayer mode.

How about when you destory/ransack/disperse a barbarian encampment you get the option to turn it into one of your towns.

Terrorist units, chemnical bombs and stuff like that.

we could build cities in the sea.....better, build litle cities in the atmosfer.

Two planet game, we star in earth, and them, when we lunch the space chip, we could get to another planet and star over.

More natural disasters...like tornados, earthquake, meteors....floods...

More wonders....and buildings in city. Outher wepons, like a satelite, solar reflexion. we could destroy units 1 square per turn.

More diferent civs...the civ that ends with better weapons, has an adantage of that who, starts, with a diferent warrior.

upgrades to irrigations and mines.

thanks

The Canal Idea is great!!! :goodjob:

Maps:

Don’t forget to include World Map. In C3C was forgotten. And add an option of on/off: starting location – present location or random.

Trading Maps: Include Sea Map as a possibility of trading with others civ’s (MapMaking: to civ’s of the some continent; Navigation: to civ’s of other lands.)

Terrains:

By “saving forest and jungle” you create National Parks (or Internationals), and gain an extra food, shield, commerce and science and reduce 2 icons of pollution (for starters, going up to 5). This effect only start with Engineering (shield and commerce), Medicine (science), Ecology (food and none pollution). These also reduce global warming.

CANALS

Others ideas:

01. Tech: Abolishment (with a Great Wonder – The Human Rights)

02. Effect: Immigration (The Statue of Liberty – Great Wonder)

03. Modern Barbarians: Terrorist, Guerrillas...

04. With Ecology create the Environment citizens faces, reducing pollution.

05. New type of ‘conquers’: Union Civ. Have a possibility to joy forces with others civ’s, creating a larger empire or democracy without conquer them. And that way you increase yours points (without the conquer benefice of course)!

06. Tech Government: Imperialism (The Industrious Monarchy). And bring back Fundamentalism (civ 2).

07. Tech from others Civ’s: Refrigeration (civ2) or Terraforming (AlphaC)

08. Create the concept of Mega-metropolis: if larger than 30 (faces), your city limits increase by one, but with a restriction only 2 per 20 cities of your on civ, plus 1 for the next 10 cities. So if you have 19 cities only 1 can become Mega-metropolis, 21 -> 2 Mm, 30 -> 3, 40 -> 4, 100 -> 10. Problem: don't yet what improvement could originate this.

09. UN need a new life (just like me :lol: )

10. If you don’t have horses, and you import them you should have the possibility of ‘breeding them’ in your land.



Zenon_pt

Hi! Here goes some more of my ideas:


Theathres/Cinema:

Effect: increase culture value by 25% in the city where is built it (plus 25% when discover Cinema Arts (as an end tech after Radio), with the possibility to built a Small Wonder – Broadway, Sydney Opera House, Royal Academe??? (Don’t now yet), to turn one unhappy citizen to happy.

Problem: In with tech should 1st appear this improvement, Constructions, Free Artist, Education??? Or create a new tech for it? If so, maybe a result between Writing, Literature and Mysticism: Drama Art or Culture Artistics...

Prisons:

With Code of Laws, to control 15% of the corruption existent on the city. Or by building 8 Police Stations you can build Bastille or Alcatraz Prison, to decrease 20% of corruption.

Problem: decrease 15% culture value in the city here is build and produce at less 1 police officer (civ faces), maxim 2 with Small Wonder, in metropolis cities with 14 faces minimum. (Could decrease to 25% depending the type of government you are.)

Wonders:
Small Wonder

SGL: Create a Small Wonder like the Epical Heroes to the Scientist Great Leaders. Name: Maybe the Epical Nobel Achievements (when appear your 1st SGL and after you use him to a SGA). Effect: Increase the probability of appearing new SGL (like the Epical Heroes).

Happy face - Ancient units
If you have an ancient Unit, e.g. you are in Modern time and you have 1 catapult or 1 Spearman or 1 Impi unit, something at lest 1 Scientific Era old (including Knights) but not terminal like Cavalry. The city were it’s will turn it on a “Small Wonder” or “Militarism Museum”. And produce one extra trade and culture. The only request will be: you need one ancient unit with at lest 1 Scientific Era old and not a terminal unit. Tech: Combustion, Radio or Nationalism.

Others ideas:

1. In Industrial Era, you can build a bank on friendly city civ. This start with the Tech of The Corporation and a new tech: Globalisation permitting you to build one bank per friendly civ.

Effect: The some effect as the bank, but for our own profit.
Note: only allow one extra bank per city. In other words, you have your bank in your city, e.g. Moscow, and the French build their there bank. Other civ can’t build there, but they can build it in Kiev or Riga… You build ‘your’ bank in London. Now only England may build their bank.
Problem: you will need one thing: your opponent must build the marketplace.

2. You can also create culture embassies (one per civ on one city only) or create a Small or a Great Wonder for doing this effect (maybe the Marco Pole’s in civ 2).

The 1st will increase wealth and gold per turn and the 2nd increase culture value, increase the probability of culture switching by 20%, and improves your reputation by 50% maximum (depending of how many AI civ left. E.g. in a game with 8 civ started, one already gone 25%, 2 – 20%, 3 – 15%, 4 – 10%, 5 or more – 5%, although if none gone yet, than 50%) like the Eiffel Tower on Civ 2.



Zenon_pt

Real time. Civilization as it is, just real time.......just to watch those battles unfold.

One of the things that makes civ so appealing over a long term is the flexiblity. I never play with the standard rules because there are some things that just don't work right for me and some units/civs/buildings, etc. that I just like having too much. There are areas though where there is not enough flexibility like the ai.


1) A more varied combat system.

Some have mentioned system of counters like AOK as an option. Something that gives us more reasons to have a variety of units as opposed to building all of one unit. This could be implemented by adding more abilities that units can have. Offensive or defensive bonuses against certain groups is the most obvious options.

2) Food as a resource able to trade between your cities and others.

Would require granaries and distribution networks at least with unlimited distribution after railroads connect your cities.

3) Ability to add worker jobs and customize the effects.

There should be worker jobs that let you benefit from areas under your influence that are not workable by a city like farms and mines, etc. They could benefit the nearest city or some central pool.

4) Tiered approach to agricultural improvement.

Ability to developed more advanced forms of agricultural improvements like crop rotation, plant propogation, etc. and have these impact your agriculture.

5) Naval leaders and "armadas".

Have naval leaders that appear like military leaders which can be used to create armadas which are naval armies.

6) Flexibility in the ages played in a game.

Have more ages, and have the ability to limit the ages included in a game. Can start later now, but how about ability to restrict to bronze and iron ages? This would include the option to progress into a future age which should represent a logically possible near future.

7) Ability to customize the ai.

In aok the ai can be programmed through a scripting language that a non-techie can learn in a day. With a community like the one here, it would not take long before we had a robust selection of opponent ai's that were smart enough to beat someone like me without cheats. It is frustrating that the only way I can get more challenge is have the ai get production bonuses and starting bonuses. Lets see it choose to mine once in a while on harder levels, or to recognize when they have lost twelve of twenty cities there is no deal to costly to end the war.

8) Larger gap in combat units abilities.

Make it less likely for a spearman to hold off a modern armor by spreading out the abilities.

9) Units should be able to swap in and out of armies or upgrade in armies.

This was available briefly as a bug when PTW came out, but went away. Should come back.

10) Units should be tradeable commodities.

If I really need a tech and have some swordsmen garrisoned that my neighbor really needs, they should be able to be sold. This makes more sense in modern times when weapons are bought and sold instead of it being more like mercenaries.

11) Last but not least, Poland as one of the standard civs. Also more African, Asian, and American civ options as well as Phoenicia.

The Husaria were the most dominant military unit of their time and greatly impacted history when they prevented the annexation of mainland Europe by the Ottomans.


Additional small or cosmetic type issues--

- ability to add culture groups
- generic named wonders consistent throughout -- Library of Alexandria changed to great library, why is Statue of Zeus called Statue of Zeus instead of something generic
- offshore resources available and can be worked with platform, etc.
- more levels of barbarians

Some of the buildings I have used in mods (mine and others) that I like the best are:
Wind Farm - gives bonus production after ecology
Iron Forge - small wonder, req. iron, bonus production in ancient
Fisherman's Wharf - Bonus food/production in water squares
Theater - culture and happiness
Museum - culture
Academy - ancient research boost with philosophy


Some of my favorite unit additions
Yeoman (Brit UU worker with longbow ability)
Elephant Archer
Javelineer/Skirmisher
Trireme (Phoenician UU upgraded galley)
Lancer (ancient pike requires formations)
Mounted Archer
Husaria (Polish UU upgraded knight)
Camel Riders
Special Forces (explorer move with bombard, radar)
Machine Gun (swordsman path)
Heavy Infantry (rocket launcher with bombard)

EDITOR/UNITS/UNIT ABILITIES

i like to give some modern destroyers the ability to carry one helo for ASW search and prosecution.

Helo: immobile, sees invisible, lethal sea, range 2-3
(modern helos can carry Penguins for ASuW, so lethal sea IS legit)

it has to be an air unit for the recon mission and just playability...
but i can only give the destroyer the "transport only aircraft"
ability. This lets the AI load a Bomber onboard -
....heck of a catapault..... and recovery?... ouch.

Upon reading many of the posts on unit creation and customization, it seems many good ideas/units can't be implemented due to not being able to give a unit its own set of unique abilities other than whats currently available.

We make do with cross flagging unit abilities and come up with some pretty weird combinations to make something work sometimes.

It also seems a good percentage of the problems have to do with transport. So confine the following idea just to that.

My suggestion: Include extra, generic, unit abilities in the box in the editor.

Call them: "Special 1", "Special 2" or somesuch and "Transport Only Special 1", "...Special 2". Make them compatible with any other ability (foot unit, immobile, nuke, tactical missile, cruise missle, transport only "*" etc.).

Then you could additionally flag my helo above "Special 1" -
& additionally flag the destroyer "Transport Only Special1" -

I figure 3 such Specials might be sufficient depending on how much you like to mod......

1.) River Tiles
River tiles should be able to be traveled on by naval units so you can recreate attack strategies like those of the Vikings and how they used rivers to attack Paris. River tiles should prevent units from crossing the terrain, but once bridge building is discovered you can reach that other land. (You could also just use a ship.) Just make sure that when you attack, that you don't burn your bridges so to speak.

2.) Spherical/Hextagonal Map
The spaces on the map should be hextagonal. This would allow many more ways to move, which would make combat and retreat strategies easier to mobilize and hard to thwart.
The sphererical map is because the world isn't flat. It could also allow better map development. In the scenerio editor it would be possible to make both 2D and 3D maps increasing the variety in scenario modding. "Holy crap! It's round!?"

3.) Nothing should be left only to a scenario. Everything should be avalible in the main game. EVERYTHING!

4.) Great Religious Leaders
They would be 'neutral' units and able to walk into enemy cities. When there you could use it to try to 'convert' the city's people to your religion. They could also be used to increase your citizens happiness for 20 turns.

5.) Great Naval Leaders & Armadas
Great Naval Leaders will appear in the form of a ship. They could be used to create armadas (Armies for the sea.) or rush improvements in coastal cities.

6.) New attribute: Barbaric
I REALLY want this as an attribute. Instead of razing the city and getting ruins to appear, you instead get a Barbarian Encampment that creates soldiers for you. I believe this would be a REALLY nasty attribute to add to the game. (Especially if you end up with it coupling with the current Militaristic attribute.) In ancient times these guys would be increadably powerful.

7.) Breaking Factions
When citizens of a city are unhappy for so long it'll bring an AI player into the game playing as that city/cities. If too many break off you may end up facing down a civil war. This would make players more motivated to not leave everything automated all of the time.

8.) Culture Specific Building
Each culture should be able to build some specific unit. Aside from that when wonders are built, they should change their qualities based upon cultures and even the city they're built in. Library of Alexandia becomes Library of Washington or whatever the city is named.

9.) Physical Spies
Physical Spies would be a great addition. It gets dressed in selected enemy colors as a worker and sent in so you can see troops possitions, corrupt ungarrisoned cities, destroy production/improvements, or assassinate Great Leader units. This would allow espionage missions on a more personal level. If your enemy recognizes a new worker that isn't working they could have one of their combat units kill it. (Would work the same way for you as well.)

10.) Assassins
Specialized Assassin units that have a 50% chance of automaticly killing non-mechanized units, but then would commit suicide after attacking. They can't take cities as a drawback and this would REALLY p/o the AI players.

11.) Guerilla Warfare
Guerilla units can be made to wage an annoyance type of warfare with an opponent without actually declairing war unless they get wise to your ways.

12.) Stacked Combat Attack
Stacked combat attacking would allow you to preform an all out attack by selecting a function like "Activate Stack" and having them attack. The assault would continue unit one stack is dead and buried. This would make it so those weaker units don't get away to ware on your nerves when the next turn it's a veteran that used to have one point left. With this idea, diversety of troops would also make the combat better because if your stack is based full of offensive units with no defensive ones then you could probably be wiped out by another all offence stack.

13.) New Age Armies
Since stack combat is avalible now, armies will seem like little more than an annoyance. To resolve this problem, I suggest allowing armies to combine all of their stats. This includes A, D, M, BA, BD, and abilities such as the Blitz attack. All of them would also add their weaknesses to the pile as well. If a unit in the army can't cross jungles then the entire army can't do it.

14.) Near future units/techs. Atleast 50 years would be REALLY great! This would make for tuffer combat situations and would be semi-realistic.

15.) MORE!
More stuff that makes sense to the game and more of everything done in Civ3 in general without moving two steps back gameplay-wise again. More civs, improvements, wonders, small wonders, combat units, non-combat units. Take a large example from the DyP mod and then add some. Maybe even making another era or two just to contain it all.

1) variability in game complexity to allow beginners to grasp the game more easily, while letting more advanced players have the complexity they want, the game might not reach full complexity until reagent

ie. in chieftain tanks might only require oil, cities might not 'flip' sides
culture might have less of an influence on a game and you need less food for your cities then as the player progresses you keep giving them new challenges.

2) also i thought that some form of game speed stetting at the start might be good so that on fast a turn might be 10 years but on slow a turn might be one year, however technologies would still take just as many years to developed if you gave them the same funding.

This would allow people who don't want to play for days the opportunity, but it would also allow wars in slow to take 10 years instead of 300



sorry if this has already been sujested

I just had an idea about more logical scientific research, mainly with the militaristic Techs.

I think that the techs should be separated into Types, and you can research a militaristic tech at the same time as a (hmm) other type of tech. You divide the funding between the tech types.

AND, here comes the important part of my idea, your Military tech research goes faster during war. i.e. you learn stuff by winning and loosing battles, new strategies, new weapons etc.

Also, we all know that the great wars of our history has been what has pushed the technology forward. For instance, would we have the jet engines or computers by now without WW2? (We probably would, but maybe not that hi-tech as they are.)

I think that one of the most importain new features needed is a improved military system. I feel that the fact that a huge empire (which has problems in itself) which only has like 500 units is a problem. I also think that a general system is need most of all. For example a well trained general with less troops could very easily destroy an army much larger with a well less trained general. I also think that moral and supply lines could be added in. But anyway back to the army size, if any of you guys have ever played Total War imagin the system with out ofcourse the battle scenes. I really dont think that this would take up alot of memory after all computers are getting faster and civilization III only need 128 mb right now so boosting it to a minimal for 256mb is not that far out of the way.

I also would like to see some better settings and enviorments are needed. I think that a game engine such as goul II would be great. Now i no that it is mainly only used with first person shooters e.g. Solider of Fortune II. But it works well with 3D graphics. Again I dont really feel that this would slow it down that much for the same reasons.

Now i think that the most importaint part is a new system for A.I. not that it is really that bad now but a little bit more skill for example i would really like to see the AI conduct Strikes with like planes and then the main force instead of just throwing anything at you as they have it. I think that if they plan a little better it would be really great for the game. And make it harder. Also please just fix the little problems for example i was playing the other day and it is like 1986 and we are really far in the tech tree and the spanish declared war on me and the first troop to come out of a city was a spearman., now come on that is just to crazy. They keeped attacking with like charriots and horseman and i am going to wipe them down. Now i no that alot of their troops are regular but gurrrr cant they just disband them or upgrade with i have never seen them do.

by the way Grey Fox great idea!

Oh, two more minor gripes to be corrected in Civ4:
Please bring back a proper windowed mode. This is the one thing I miss the most from Civ 2: the ability to play in a re-sizable window like any other normal windows app. Civ 3 has annoying and bizarre behavior when you try alt-tabbing to other windows and you can't see the time and tray icons while you're playing, etc.
Available resources do not scale down well with smaller numbers of civilizations. Like a fool, I bought and believed the official strategy guide when it suggested builders play games with very low numbers of opponents. This resulted in games with such inadequate resources that I had to go to war just to get to Alpha Centauri. I found out the hard way that whether you're a builder or a warmonger, you need to make games with large numbers of opponents.

The problem is that the relationship between the number of resources and the number of civilizations is linear. The relationship should be curved such that by the time you get down to two civilizations total, there should be about a 1:1 ratio of resources to civs. At higher numbers of civilizations, the resources to civs ratio can be much lower without affecting gameplay that much.

Hello, I'm new to this forum and this tread made me register. Here are some idaes, I'm sorry if those were already mentioned here but this is one big thread.

-Cosmetical:

Different look of some units according to civilization. This means that there will be more types of rifleman for example, just look at all those kinds of uniformes used in WWI/II. The same goes for most of other units but not all. The difference should be especially
noticable in ancient/middle ages times which depended mostly on civilization's religion (take a look at the different looks of muslim and christian units in middle ages for example). This should improve the atmosphere greatly.

-Gameplay:

I personally liked the way units couldn't move from one square adjecent to enemy's unit to the other. I know many people probably hated that in CivII, but it gave so much more meaning to building and strategically placing fortresses. Maybe only fast units should be allowed to move pass the fortress?

Legion units of ancient Rome were famous not only for their fighting skills but for their ability to quickly build rodes and forts in lands they conquered. I think they should have the same ability here, of course they should work a bit slower then regular worker units.

I like to see phalanax unit back, the spearmen just suck.

A riot unit - specially trained police officers in modern ages, who are always ready to fight rioters with greater success then other units, and they are much cheaper to keep. However they should only be produced if your way of ruling people demands such actions because keeping the anti-riot unit in city will prevent its population from reatching the maximum happiness possible (only about 80%). They are pictured with helmets, transparent shields and clubs.

Refugees - this unit can appear out of city that is suffering heavy damage caused by other civ's aggression. The chances are it will appear if damage is made to the populace - due to bombing for example. It will appear almost always if the city is captured and burned to the ground. The refugees are pictured as sad, pathetic civilians who are dragging their bags along. Their movement will be away from aggressor's army and towards the civ's safest city. If there is no escape route they'll run towards the terrain with best defence bonus. If they reach the city alive, the unit will add one face to the population. If the aggressor's army destroys them, other civilizations will think less of aggressor. Weaker civs will develop bigger fear from aggressor's army.

More governments - I hope no one will fill offended by this but there could be a choice of fascist or nazi government. The advantages and drawbacs are obvious. After revolution the citizens will become nacionalists, in love with their country and they will consider all others unworthy. There will be no war weariness for a long time, but nothing lasts forever and after some time the colaps will be horrible - people will eventually get sick of you, the megalomaniac. Like the worst case of war weariness times two. This government should allow scientific research at reduced cost (scince you can talk anyone into serving you, especially if you show them the gas chamber) but rising happiness factor should cost more.
-New worker ability under nazi government: concentration camps. Those should be built near the place where you are going to wage war. One camp can cover large area around it, and any battle that takes place in that area will add workers to the camp. The camp will have only one ability of cities: to produce mechanical units.
-New unit under nazi government: SS soldiers. They are more skilled at bringing workers to the camp after winning the battle.
The nazi government should be used only if you plan to attack at large, and plan it well, because after the time expires you should be ready for another revolution.

Well those are some of ideas, I do apologize for my bad english.

Seige Engines. (ie towers, ladders, ramps, grapping hooks, etc)

1 move per turn.

Destroyed when enemy occupies same tile (need to keep defenders with it).

Once adjacent to an enemy city 50% bonus for all units attacking city from same tile occupied by the seige engine.

Requires Engineering.

Made obsolete by Mech Infantry and/or Tanks?

Sorry if this was already suggested...I can't get the search function to work.

Don't know if this has been suggested already, but the ability to actually traverse the poles of the "world" would be great :goodjob:

Originally posted by MishaTheHorrid
Hello, I'm new to this forum and this tread made me register. Here are some idaes, I'm sorry if those were already mentioned here but this is one big thread.

-Cosmetical:

Different look of some units according to civilization. This means that there will be more types of rifleman for example, just look at all those kinds of uniformes used in WWI/II. The same goes for most of other units but not all. The difference should be especially
noticable in ancient/middle ages times which depended mostly on civilization's religion (take a look at the different looks of muslim and christian units in middle ages for example). This should improve the atmosphere greatly.

-Gameplay:

I personally liked the way units couldn't move from one square adjecent to enemy's unit to the other. I know many people probably hated that in CivII, but it gave so much more meaning to building and strategically placing fortresses. Maybe only fast units should be allowed to move pass the fortress?

Legion units of ancient Rome were famous not only for their fighting skills but for their ability to quickly build rodes and forts in lands they conquered. I think they should have the same ability here, of course they should work a bit slower then regular worker units.

I like to see phalanax unit back, the spearmen just suck.

A riot unit - specially trained police officers in modern ages, who are always ready to fight rioters with greater success then other units, and they are much cheaper to keep. However they should only be produced if your way of ruling people demands such actions because keeping the anti-riot unit in city will prevent its population from reatching the maximum happiness possible (only about 80%). They are pictured with helmets, transparent shields and clubs.

Refugees - this unit can appear out of city that is suffering heavy damage caused by other civ's aggression. The chances are it will appear if damage is made to the populace - due to bombing for example. It will appear almost always if the city is captured and burned to the ground. The refugees are pictured as sad, pathetic civilians who are dragging their bags along. Their movement will be away from aggressor's army and towards the civ's safest city. If there is no escape route they'll run towards the terrain with best defence bonus. If they reach the city alive, the unit will add one face to the population. If the aggressor's army destroys them, other civilizations will think less of aggressor. Weaker civs will develop bigger fear from aggressor's army.

More governments - I hope no one will fill offended by this but there could be a choice of fascist or nazi government. The advantages and drawbacs are obvious. After revolution the citizens will become nacionalists, in love with their country and they will consider all others unworthy. There will be no war weariness for a long time, but nothing lasts forever and after some time the colaps will be horrible - people will eventually get sick of you, the megalomaniac. Like the worst case of war weariness times two. This government should allow scientific research at reduced cost (scince you can talk anyone into serving you, especially if you show them the gas chamber) but rising happiness factor should cost more.
-New worker ability under nazi government: concentration camps. Those should be built near the place where you are going to wage war. One camp can cover large area around it, and any battle that takes place in that area will add workers to the camp. The camp will have only one ability of cities: to produce mechanical units.
-New unit under nazi government: SS soldiers. They are more skilled at bringing workers to the camp after winning the battle.
The nazi government should be used only if you plan to attack at large, and plan it well, because after the time expires you should be ready for another revolution.

Well those are some of ideas, I do apologize for my bad english.

I love the Cosmetic Units idea.. instead of giving EACH unit its own traits, how about its own "look"...

Like, France and Britain wouldnt be using American Civil War Riflemen... and Russians wouldnt use British WWI uniforms for Infantry.

Originally posted by MishaTheHorrid
I like to see phalanax unit back, the spearmen just suck.


A phalanx is the same thing as a spearmen, just different names;)

Originally posted by homeyg


A phalanx is the same thing as a spearmen, just different names;)

My understanding is that simple spearmen are armed with spears, but a phalanx unit goes beyond that... trained spearmen that maneuver together in tight formations in order to provide better protection to the unit as a whole…

Yes, you're right. But in a game like civ, you cannot distinguish between them. Because it covers the whole history of humanity. There's also no difference between a napoleonic musketmen and one of the renaissance in the game. And they're very different... :)

mfG mitsho

Okay, here's my two cents...

a) I would like units in the game to actually represent large numbers of troops, e.g. if I build a Roman Legion I want to get the impression that its 5000, that after a battle I'll have to move it back to a city to "strengthen" which could possibly reduce the city's population. Okay maybe not 5000 men per unit, but you get the idea, sort of like that old game Centurion fro Electronic Arts...I guess armies work mostly the same as I am suggesting...

b) I really want the Navy to play a more important part than just transporting troops. I like the idea of trade ships like Age of Empires which would eventually upgrade to freighters so that commerce raiding and submarine warfare would be more important. I know you can blockade harbors, but the ai never seems to the build them, and it’s too easy being master of the sea because the ai never seems to build ships either.

c) I like the idea of labeling areas of the map, it would also be neat if you could group cities into states/provinces this way if you have the governors manage production you can have each state set with different priorities.

d) someone made a comment about research and that civ advances were a product of the civs environment...perhaps some techs require the player to have access to a particular resource (instead of visa versa) or both, making trade of resources more important. I'd like the ability to tie certain advances to a year or specific turn (in the editor), it bothers me when I'm making caravels and medieval infantry in 500 bc...I know that’s the fun of the game, but I'd still like a way of altering that. Oh and an option for only allowing wonders to be built by the civs that actually built them.

e) finally, I'd like Revolutions to occur and for new civs to appear on the map at different times For example, if Playing Rome, the possibility exsists that the city of Byzantium should become its own civ over time, likewise with the Ottomans/Persians, Etruscans/Romans, Phoenicians/Carthage, England/America...this is the feature I want the most, but it's probably a long shot...


oh, and adding Canadians would be cool too...MacDonald as our leader, I guess the Mounties as our UU but it's pretty boring, our helicopters are old, I'm told we have great frigates, hey what about WWII Corvettes?...

I think the idea posted by Csaba (having 2 seperate phases; a war phase and a peace phase) would make the game more realistic and more fun - it gets 2 thumbs up from me :) . They could also distinguish between the two phases by having different music and different pop up icons, depending upon which phase of the game is currently active

Non-military units like workers and settlers should be able to utilize air transports. It makes no sense that I can put an unit of modern armors on an airplane, but I can't fly my road building crew or settlers. Also, if units can get off a train with their movement intact they should also be able to get off a plane with their movement intact as well. It's not like we're talking about international flights and spending the rest of the turn (1year) in customs, you can only fly to airports within your country.

Not sure if this has been suggested.

One thing I didn't notice until Conquests is that each Civilization has a 'Preferred Government' What I would like to see it that when your civ is in their perferred government workers, cities, tech's get a civilization specific advantage over those civ's for whose government is something other then that one.

(Example: The Americans 'Preferred Government' is Democracy. It would therefore take the americans less turns to change over to Democracy. Other benifits could include a small bonus to workers (the time it takes them to complete tasks), commerce, food production, and stuff like war warriness would be lessened for the Americans (or other Civ's that prefer Demo.)

Also Civ's have a 'Shunned Government.' I would like to see some penalties if you were to switch to a shunned government.

(Example: Workers complete tasks slower then they normally would under that government, higher corruption rates, and the general stuff that would normally benifit any civ would work against you slightly. Citizens would tend to be content or unhappy while under that government (this would work harder against wonders and city improvements that would normally make them content or happy.)

Not sure what any of you think, but it's a suggestion.

Oh, another idea... don't add civilizations into the game that didn't exist before at least year 1000 AD. But if you want, for example, to lead Americans then there should be easy-to-use editor that lets you build any kind of civilization that you want to rule.

My ideas for Civ 4=

1.Make realtime aviable for singleplayer! Turn based takes to damn long!

2. Make civil wars how 2 ways

1 If a city has high corruption or has bin in civil disorder for more then 3 turns it rebels forming a new civ and some citys near by will join it.

2 If you lose your capital theres a 50/50 chance taht a civil war might occur

and if theres a civil war you can either crush em or let em go.

3. Vassal States!

4.A purpose to the Un outside of diplomaic victory.

5. Trenches and mines and biological weapons and zepplins.

6.Future Age!

7. More diplomacy options.

8.Abality to zoom in!

9. Realstic battles.

10. A spherical map.

I think that one of the most importaint things that needs to be added besides all that i have already posted. I think that a strong emphisis on religion is needed. For example most of the confilct in the middle ages wouldnt have ever happened if the papcy didnt want it to happen. If any of you guys had ever taken history in your life then you would see that religon has played a major part in almost every conflict ever. The holocaust wouldnt have happened if the jews werent jews, i no that sounds bad but it is true. And any way I think that a new aspect of the game in terms of religion is needed.

Make civs more customizable.

Unconditional Surrender.

Let's say you invade America because they invaded China, they took a big chunk of China out and made a piece treaty. You make war with them and you go to them for an Unconditional Surrender. This means, ANY demand you ask for, you will get (short of surrendering ALL cities) So, you can demand to give those cities back to Yourself.

Now, here is an Hearts of Iron idea...in Hearts of Iron, a WWII game... You can have "Demand Territory/City" option. Now, this is different because of when you demand a city, they will NEVER give it up, NEVER. But, let's say the city has a high Population of the same Race* as you. Then, you have a much better chance of Demanding it. Also, you can select. "Give me Odessa, or WAR" and they'll decide.

*Read my Race ideas that is later on in the thread.

Originally posted by masterpug
Not sure if this has been suggested.

One thing I didn't notice until Conquests is that each Civilization has a 'Preferred Government' What I would like to see it that when your civ is in their perferred government workers, cities, tech's get a civilization specific advantage over those civ's for whose government is something other then that one.

(Example: The Americans 'Preferred Government' is Democracy. It would therefore take the americans less turns to change over to Democracy. Other benifits could include a small bonus to workers (the time it takes them to complete tasks), commerce, food production, and stuff like war warriness would be lessened for the Americans (or other Civ's that prefer Demo.)

Also Civ's have a 'Shunned Government.' I would like to see some penalties if you were to switch to a shunned government.

(Example: Workers complete tasks slower then they normally would under that government, higher corruption rates, and the general stuff that would normally benifit any civ would work against you slightly. Citizens would tend to be content or unhappy while under that government (this would work harder against wonders and city improvements that would normally make them content or happy.)

Not sure what any of you think, but it's a suggestion.


No, No, No!

We are not here to relive each and every Civ! How do we know that America didnt just get its own King? how do we know it doesnt want to be Communist?

The idea of Preffered Government and Shunned Government is ok, but not when its entangled with each Civ! America became Democratic for a reason. They could of became Communist for all we know.

This is how Shunned/Prefered Governemnts SHOULD work...

If you are Communist, and you change to Fascist, there is a big penalty. Also, if another country is Fascist and your Communist (or vise versa) Then you two will usually hate eachother. Same with Democratic and Communist, you wont HATE eachother, but you wont really "like" eachother. Too become Fascist is VERY isolating. You will literally be isolated from the outside world, other then OTHER Fascist governments. Also, I would like to see the Civ be Communist and Fascist also, they usually NEVER go go to those Governments.

One more thing. People now adays are using the trick that"Oh at peace, stay Democratic, when going to War go Fascist/Communist"

FIX IT!

Make it like, instead of 5 turns, like 20 turns! and if you add Civil Wars, make them a higher chance!

Same with AI, they do that too! its not realistic people! USA today did NOT turn Fascist when it wen't to war with Iraq, did it? No.

One of the best things with CIVIII is the culture borders. I would like to add a formal border aggreement meaning a line is drawn between two civs. This should be possible to change in negotiations between two civs.

These official borders should only come into play later in the game requiring tech and/or size, density (civ pop/area).

The official border need to relate to the cultural someway, but I'm not sure how.

There shouldn't be any constraints on the times taken between Governments based on whether they are 'friendly' or not becuase revolution and the circumstances of history dictates what the next government is.
@ Teknalee: although i agree that religion has started a lot of wars, Judaism itself was not the single cause of the holocaust: Nazism was concerned with 'racial' Jews rather than simply religious ones. I think the Israelites should be a new civilization in Civ4. Im sure there are many students/readers of history playing Civ :)
I think that you should be able to appeal to civs to stop war with another NPC. At best the war should stop, at worst they declare on you. You should also be able to say 'give America New York back' if you are France, negociating with the British, or whoever. I also agree the UN should have another role other than the diplomatic victory, like the ability to force nations to give cities back, or to set 'reparations' from wars, although this may be problematic to programme.

AdHHH's idea concerning the UN is good--it should play a much more integral role in international relations than it currently is (which is almost none :rolleyes: )! For example, the UN should be able to

1. Broker peace (or declare war) through a Security Council
2. Impose "sanctions" on rogue nations
3. Send "Peacekeeping" forces where necessary
4. Issue loans through a World Bank
5. Issue "resolutions" that are guidelines to be followed by all nations (such as a resolution to reduce pollution), and which confer some diplomatic or political penalty for those who choose to ignore or contradict such resolutions.

Finally, I still do not understand the logic behind the "Diplomatic Victory" of becoming the Secretary-General of the UN. Perhaps that should be changed.

yeah, lol.. in our World Today that means that the Zulu had won by Diplomatic Victory...

The holocaust wouldnt have happened if the jews werent jews, i no that sounds bad but it is true.
Not only does that sound bad (it could be misconstrued to say you're blaming the holocaust on the Jews, but I know what you mean), but it's false. Germany needed a scapegoat for all its problems and Jews were simply unlucky enough to be the largest, most influential minority. Had all the Jews spontaneously died at the dawn of the 20th century, the Nazis would simply have found some other minority to stuff into their death factories.

You're a little off in your analysis of religion's role in history. Throughout history, religion was simply a control mechanism used to keep the masses in line. Religion rarely caused wars, it was used as a means of convincing the population to go along with your war once you've already decided to wage it for far more cynical reasons.

Oh yeah, and capital cities (and sub-capitals like the FP) under democracy should experience an increase in corruption, rather than a decrease. Non-capital cities can still experience the usual range modifiers with cities closer to the capital experiencing less corruption, but the capital city itself should be more corrupt and wasteful.

It seems to me this would be a more accurate reflection of democracies, and probably republics as well.

I want the ability to place "Province Capitals"..

lets say I colonize an island, but it has so much corruption its nearly impossible. But, I can set one of the cities there to be a Province Capital. Better yet, if I am too busy or too lazy, I can let them become an Independant Country and they'll be a Puppet Regime. in Puppet Regime's I control all the Military, and I can ask them for any resource. They also give me a Monetary Tribute every turn. I can also name them :D

I like your idea Ukraineboy

You could also make it so that if the demands are too outrageous, your puppet country will start a revolution and stop sending you supplies. At which point you can either declare war or let them be.

Pretty much what happened with the United States and Britain

Anyway, do any Civ programmers actually read this thread?

Originally posted by MishaTheHorrid
Oh, another idea... don't add civilizations into the game that didn't exist before at least year 1000 AD. But if you want, for example, to lead Americans then there should be easy-to-use editor that lets you build any kind of civilization that you want to rule.

Great Idea... Dont include the nation where probably 80% of the civ games are sold!

:rolleyes:

i think it would be great if civ 4 had a history graph like they do in text books that mark major evens in teh history we create. It could use screen shots, and words, heck we could even create it. I think it would show a great testiment to our imagination when playing the game. WHen u end a game and it does the map where it shows what city was captured what city was craeted, and so on, its boring, instead it should say, Rome sacked by the Visigoth in 400 ad, or when ever it was, and this many people were slaughtered, and now the roman civ is in decline.. u get it? a histogrpah that marks every civs acheivements and progression along with decay and defeat.


yeah im crazy

artemisarrow, I totally support that. It should say stuff like:
3 million americans slaughtered in New york by Mr Will, Rome declares war on Mr Will for ethnic cleasing. 24AD.

and stuff like:
10% decrease in taxation due to corruption, rome is now in decline.

Also, i'd like to see pupet nations and civil wars. So, there's a certain chance of civil war when you change government types. And you can have pupet nations who give you tributes in gpt, and could go to war with you if you demand too much. Also, you should be able to play as a pupet nation, then, the country you pay tribute to is your protector, and has the duty to protect you against invasions.

I think that civ 4 should include more ways to win (or lose) the game. One idea could be to introduce the idea of a scoring mechanism based on which civs possess the most developed cities. My thinking is that in addition to 'victory points'; the game could also have 'great city points' and if you get enough great city points you win the game but in any case they would add to your civ's score throughout the game, the aim would be to allow players an oppurtunity to get good scores in the game without necessarily having to expand and conquer half the world (the civ 3 scoring system is pretty much based on your population size and the amount of territory your empire owns).

I think great city points could be earnt each turn by the top 3 cities in culture, science, trade, population, number of wonders and production in a similar way to VP locations but throughout the game these would change as some cities rise and others stagnate. So that means each turn 18 bonuses are up for grabs to the most developed cities and any single city could earn up to 6 bonuses for its civ (by being in the top 3 for culture, science, commerce, industry, wonders and population). Therefore if a player keeps his/her cities in the top rankings throughout the game then they will either win outright or be rewarded with a bonus to their score at the end of the game.

now, this has probably already been said, since a lot of people in the forum already asked for it, but here again:

Please make an option that requires city Improvements to build units available, sinde the actual system is just not realistic, it would be a lot better needind a shipyard to build battleships,... This would make bombing and sabotage great options and open totaly new aspects to warfare in CIV!!!

Trade-peror: But how can the UN be implemented financially? Would each Civ have to 'pay in' to the UN every turn, or would it's money just come from 'outside' the game players, CPU or human? I think trade sanctions are a great idea, as it reflects the current tendency for nations to act in groups, military or economic. I think MPPs should be able to hold more than 2 Civs within them, as this would stop a problem in Civ at the moment. Example, Babylon helps Rome against the Zulu, but when the Babylon are attacked, the Dutch then declare war on the Zulu because they are bound by an MPP. IRL the Dutch would probably be reluctant because they are basically helping Rome, a Civ that may possibly even be hostile to them.
How would Peacekeepers be used? Ok, they might be some kind of defence unit, but what use would they have in the game? IRL they are used to maintain law and order, which would equate to civil unrest in Civ. If the country involved is Democracy/Republic, their present would have no effect because martial law cannot be used with these Governments. If a small peaceful Civ was being attacked by a warmongering Civ, could the 'UN' then use units to defend their cities, and how could the CPU decide what was fair and what wasn't? I suppose a vote could be used from each player (a la SMAC), but would the warmongering Civ be thrown out the UN, or would they be forced to support units that are fighting against them? If it is optional to join the UN, what would the benefits be? There could be a rep hit if you don't join, but what would this be worth? I suppose if you were in you were guaranteed these peackeeper units as proxy-units, but that would put an end to modern war if everyone was in the UN, and would make modern war more difficult still. What do people think, I would like to see the UN do more than open up a win but how can it be implemented? Sorry, just thinking as I type :crazyeye:

i am sure this has been stated b4, but i would like to see that all units be multi figured units, i was looking at the WOW senario, and it appeared that most of the units in it were multi figured, like 5 soilders in one, and to me that seems more realistic, or better, hehe
i mean, shouldnt each legion have more than one legionare in it?
(i cant spell, im doing hw) lol
it just adds to graffics in my opinion, no real additve, and if they all do the same action it shouldn't slow game play

also, id like to see royal families, or presidential families added, it would be nice to play some sort of assaination game. just one king unit, eh it gets blah, jsut imagine playing russia in ww1, hello romanovs and the bolshevicks... it could also input another unit called assassin that speciffically goes after teh royal families or presidental families units, and u need another assassin or secret service unit to protect them.. if the families are killed, the civ can go into a state of anarchy until A, another is created in the capital, or B, the other civ takes over

and lastly, can we fix the thing where if u kill a king unit,all their cityies get destroyed?!?! that sux!!! i think that the cities should defect to the civ that killed their leader, or at least to civs surroudning them...i just didnt kill alexander in troy to see athens, sparta and corinth to go up in smoke! and in my opinion its a real pain in my but to go about capturing the cities i want and then doing away with the leader in another, which imight want also, but end up having to rebuild:king:

two more things:;
First about corruption, there should be key technologies as a factor, meaning that the improvement of communication technologies should decrease corruption, making it possible to have productive cities further away from the capital....
That way Empires / nation could only really grow with technology... Countries like the states, China, India in their actual size were not possible without the developpement of technologies like electricity (telegraphs,...) or at least were very corrupt on the borders

second: there should be a way of oncresing the borders without building a city, maybe forts and outpost should increase the borders to the tiles surrounding them, that way one could fill that one square on the cost the AI sees fit to put a city on,...

aedirk, i totally acgree on the corruption thing, techs shoudl lessen it as communications grow, maybe we could have units called peace keepers from some of those techs?

@ artemisarrow: they already are the new police officers, I think more units would slow the game down and increase the number of units a lot.... Maybe though the first couple of units should, as they make people happy, also reduce corruption!!


I totaly agree on the cities being given to the CIV killing the king, this is an option that should at least be available....

Originally posted by artemisarrow
i am sure this has been stated b4, but i would like to see that all units be multi figured units, i was looking at the WOW senario, and it appeared that most of the units in it were multi figured, like 5 soilders in one, and to me that seems more realistic, or better, hehe
i mean, shouldnt each legion have more than one legionare in it?
(i cant spell, im doing hw) lol
it just adds to graffics in my opinion, no real additve, and if they all do the same action it shouldn't slow game play There is a forum thread called MULTI FIGURE UNITS. There you will find many units with four or five figures in them. :) I tried adding some of these early on; but found the squares so crowded that I took them out again. I didn't like the look.


also, id like to see royal families, or presidential families added, it would be nice to play some sort of assaination game. just one king unit, eh it gets blah, jsut imagine playing russia in ww1, hello romanovs and the bolshevicks... it could also input another unit called assassin that speciffically goes after teh royal families or presidental families units, and u need another assassin or secret service unit to protect them.. if the families are killed, the civ can go into a state of anarchy until A, another is created in the capital, or B, the other civ takes overI tried C3C mass regiside last game. In this you get seven kings. I renamed six of the seven as princes. This was sort of like a royal family. I couldn't do anything about assassins or secret service. That is a nice idea.


and lastly, can we fix the thing where if u kill a king unit,all their cityies get destroyed?!?! that sux!!! i think that the cities should defect to the civ that killed their leader, or at least to civs surroudning them...i just didnt kill alexander in troy to see athens, sparta and corinth to go up in smoke! and in my opinion its a real pain in my but to go about capturing the cities i want and then doing away with the leader in another, which imight want also, but end up having to rebuild:king: I agree with you that destroying the king destroys the Civ is bad. :mad:
I destroyed the Dutch; then had to scramble to build settlers to reoccupy the destroyed city sites. Maybe instead of destroying the cities they could become up for grabs. The first military unit (Yours or AI) to occupy them gets the city. :D

Instead of a disembodied head (the advisors and the other leaders) and a block of text, I would like to see more interesting popups throughout the game; e.g. if a city is captured there should be pictures illustrating troops marching into the city or if a city goes into unrest there should be a popup with pictures of rioters and likewise they could have pictures for any other developments. I know its only a cosmetic thing but it would add to the atmosphere of the game.
Similarly if a civ builds a wonder or produces a great leader there should be short video clips to inform you (like in civ 2) - it would make the game more appealing.
Likewise, it would be nice to have video clips at the end of the game to represent each kind of ending - not just a video for the space race ending.
When you consulted your advisors in civ 2, it had video animations - that was cool; why didn't they do it in civ 3? I think they should reintroduce animated advisors in civ 4.
They could also have multilateral negotiations with rival leaders (you could have like 8 leaders all sat around a negotiating table with their entourages of generals and advisors - that would be so cool - it would be even cooler if they used real speach instead of text).
All of the above would make civ so much better because the game would become far more atmospheric and entertaining.

Others things I would like to see in civ 4 are:

1) The option of liberating cities on behalf of other nations e.g. If a city built by Civ A is captured and occupied by Civ B; you can intervene and capture the city and return it to Civ A. Rewards for doing this could include lots of victory points and a rep bonus with Civ A and all civs at peace with civ A.

2) The ability to move units to occupy the same tile as an allied city/unit without attacking them.

3) I would like to see a far better espionage system as the Civ 3 espionage system doesn't add to the game because espionage missions always cost too much gold to be worthwhile and the missions tend to be ineffective anyway. Establishing an embassy should also allow you to look at a glance at a rival civs techs without having to contact them. I think the civ 3 espionage system seems to have been given far less attention than the other aspects of the game, which is a shame becuase it was one of my favourite elements in civ 2.

4) As mentioned by others already, I would like to be able to kill king units without destroying the entire civ, instead i think that the cities should become barbarian cities or the civ should enter anarchy for a few turns until the civ spawns a new king unit.

5) I think disasters and other events should occur randomly throughout the game to add more challenge and unpredictability (and realism) to the game.

6) Civ 4 should also include loads more units (including lots of unique units), loads more government types, loads more civ techs, loads more civ ages (I personally would like to see an Early Modern age (16th and 17th C) and a clearly defined Industrial Age that starts in the early 18th C and finishes in the late 19th C

7) Barbarians need improving - barbarians should modernise though the ages so that they start as warriors and horsemen and eventually become guerrillas - and they should be able to capture and destroy cities

8) When a civ captures a city it should retain the culture value and city improvements that exist in that city - I hate it when you capture a metropolis and the cities radius of influence shrinks to the surrounding 8 squares and it only has 4 or 5 city improvements. In addition, the civ that captures the city should recieve a science bonus (like in civ 2).

Winston:
to 1) you can do it, take the city and give it back!!
to 8) that option is available in the editor...

technology:
i would like to see most techs to have a millitaristic or civil choice
a good example could be gunpowder, so you have the choice of either researching the gunpowder tech for firearms or fireworks and once you have picked one the only way to get the other is through trading. this way every civilization will be unique in some way regardless if the two tribes are equals technologically


Grafix:
just wondering if there was any way to make the cities look larger on the map and the units look way smaller perhaps looking more like an army formation rather than a single unit, and as u increase the stack size the army not only looks larger but also covers more than one square so for example a stack of 20 units covers 2 squares and a stack of 40 covers 4 squares etc etc but this is just a superficial suggestion personally i like how the combat system as it is just wish that the millitary units looked more like an army than a single unit that is the same size as a city:D

@ AdHHH:

Since individual ideas should not be discussed extensively here, I have opened up a new thread concerning the UN here (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=76615) , so please redirect your questions there. Thanks!

Anyone else who wants to discuss improving the UN's role in Civ is of course also welcome!

This may have been mentionned before, but there's no way I'm going to read all these posts and find out....

So, my idea is that shields should be distributed between different build projects. For example, say your city takes in 60 Shields per turn. You could alot 40 of them to building a great wonder, 5 to building a knight, 5 to a cannon, and 10 to a cathedral. The more you give to each feature, the faster it will be done. So, you could give all of them to a wonder, or if you are at war, devote most of them to the wonder, but leave some available for unit construction.

It always seemed unrealistic to me that cities in Civ must be totally devoted to only one thing - its not as if Babylon was incapable of building a military while the Hanging Gardens were going up!

wolfwood, i agree with u on the city adn units things, i think that cities should encompass more than one square in general though, and u should be able to pic which square, like u can expand a city alogn the coast and get a coastal bonus, or expand a city towards a forest and get a forest bonus, and which will allso expand the cities tile resources.


also, i think that colonies or forts should mature into cities if one chooses, but there should be a cost like gold and shields or something, since they cost a worker anways. u know, like how most american cities started... i mean if i play as england and settle the new world with colonies, well eventually after accumulating resources i could turn them into cities, and well that could lead to the rev war if i decide to tax them more... ok im going off here

yeah and civ should go into civil war and break off like they did in call to power, if i remember correctly they became barbarian civs, well why not have them form a new civ, u have teh chance to obliterate them if u recapture everything...

also i think there should be way more land and citiy secession with each civ, through out history civs constantly taded lands and cities

Add tech: Geo-energy
and build Geo-plants in the citys near a volcano!!!

Space Age

Able to build cities in space and sea

rivers should be seperated into small and large ones, and some ships should be able to move up them.

rivers should be seperated into small and large ones, and some ships should be able to move up them.

Originally posted by Sparrow3
There is a forum thread called MULTI FIGURE UNITS. There you will find many units with four or five figures in them. :) I tried adding some of these early on; but found the squares so crowded that I took them out again. I didn't like the look.


I tried C3C mass regiside last game. In this you get seven kings. I renamed six of the seven as princes. This was sort of like a royal family. I couldn't do anything about assassins or secret service. That is a nice idea.


I agree with you that destroying the king destroys the Civ is bad. :mad:
I destroyed the Dutch; then had to scramble to build settlers to reoccupy the destroyed city sites. Maybe instead of destroying the cities they could become up for grabs. The first military unit (Yours or AI) to occupy them gets the city. :D


i agree that killing a king nor capturing a flag should not destroy all civ cities. i have an idea: 1. barbarian [ or unaligned] cities. barbarians sould not build their own cities [unless ya count goody huts or bandit camps] but when then raid cities with no military they could take money, pop or they could sieze the city. [pop 1].
\
if you get enemy flag to your capitol and the civ 'dies' their cities unlign not destroy. same if their last king [or any king in regicide/mass regicide game]. unligned cities should be easier to culture flip towards your civ. on the rare instance that a city with a wonder becomes unaligned it be dormant or given to barbarian held cities until siezed by an existing civ.


this is just a suggestion.

okay, i'm not willing to reread this entire thread, so forgive me if this has been said...i'd like to see customizable economies, like in alpha centauri.

My two cents... very likely something repeated, but hopefully it will give Atari an idea and good suggestions, thank for listening.

UNITS:
-More units (it makes the game more fun, longer!)
-At least 2 or more UU per civ, perhaps different UU in different ages (and some creativity for ancient civs, ex roman modern can use current italian advances, ex the tornado warplane)
-Use the units created by the members of this website!

LEADERS & ARMIES
-Armies can be upgraded and improved?
-Naval armadas, it has been widely suggested
-Religious leaders has been also suggested, a great idea

RANDOM EVENTS:
-Random natural events will make the game more fun and unpredictable, it probably was tested with the volcanoes. For example earthquakes, storms, typhoons that do not completely destroy cities, but for example destroy crops and mines... these events will also happen depending on the location of the city (a snow storm more likely in cities close to tundra than to deserts)
-These random events can also happen in other matters such as plitical events, religious, etc...

RELIGION
-Religions are a factor that affect civs whether we want it or not. An idea that I thought was that perhaps at certain point in the game, we have to choose a religion that has a dominant position over others (ex when the Romans adopted Christianism)
-Once a particular religion is chosen (using various religions with the chance of perhaps editing one), it gives you certain small wonders, units and traits that further differentiate you from other civs.
-For example, if Christianism is chosen, a small wonder called the Vatican City could be built, giving you particular edges (for ex reducing the cost of the Sixtine Chapel). Units like preachers could be produced and have certain charactertistics that you could use against other civs. And can also have certain effects on the way you manage your civ (for example, the increasing influence of the Church can diminish your power, like the Cardinals had in France)
-At certain point you can allow further religious freedom, perhaps building another small wonder or issuing a new law.
-I understand this point is very touchy, yet please view this in terms of giving realism to the game and not in terms of personal beliefs.
LAWS AND CONSTITUTIONS
-Perhaps edicting laws and a costitution can be an idea that could further add realism to the game.
-The effects can be that other civs want to be like yours, social unrest, etc
-This can also allow you to build new city improvements and units
SPORTS
-Sports have been an important part of the World history, yet is neglected uin this game
-City improvements can be combined with for example the development of national football leagues (soccer), baseball, etc... that can increase your popular apppeal
-I have insisted on the Olympic games being a random event. The idea that might make this an interesting addition is the following:
OG can be held only in one city of one civ every certain time (4 years in modern count). To be able to hold the games, at certain point a race between the civs starts to which civ builds first the Olympic villa (only in 1 city, like a small wonder). The city that builds it first will host the games and get points and culture. When the games are held, a Golden Age is triggered for that particular city for certain period of time. Now a civ that holds the games cannot hold them for at least the next 2 games, and a city cannot repeat the games.

CIVS:
-The more the merrier, yet I think more realism could be added if games have more that 8 civs playing on the same time (although I know this is an option, it lags too much)
-Please more research in terms of the cities names, it is weird to have cities calles NEW or XXXX 2....
-Random civs could develop, starting in later stages of the game
-There should be certain areas where cities cannot be build, but perhaps posts or military bbases... ex you have a great map, with a big chunk of tundra that never develops cities, yet other civ comes and build 3 cities right in the middle of your empire...
-Name geographic areas!!!

POLITICS
-Improve the UN to make it more useful and resourceful
-One idea is the blue helmets: you can use the flag of the blue helmets to take action against a civ without have its allies attack you
-Smaller organizations (like the Organization of American States, EU, etc) that develop into stronger alliances
-Puppet states, treaties, many wonderful ideas that have been given through this thread

ECONOMICS & BUSINESS
-More resources to trade
-Perhaps economic warfare such as more trade wars, tariffs, etc
-The development of franchises that can open in other civ's cities
-A Central Bank and perhaps a World BANK and IMF that can give loans, influence in the world development, etc
-Currency for the civs, it will make it further realistic
-The ability to make policy beyond just buying commodities

MILITARY BASES & POSTS
-The ability to build military bases and develop units within them
-Tradings posts that establish ownership of the lands without having to build cities
-Military bases can have three categories: army, air force and navy... depend on the location and purpose

MEDIA
-The influence of media is undeniable. Certain improvements and wonders that can reflect their effect, plus some sort of capacity to use it to