ShadowWarrior
Aug 02, 2004, 08:25 PM
1. We should be allowed to build however many regional palaces we wish in whatever cities we desire to combat corruption and wastes. (We should be allowed to build a regional palace in every city if we want) Of course, building regional capitals should take significantly more time than building city improvements so that we are discouraged from building a regional palace in every city. If this feature is incorporated, Forbidden Palace can still have a meaningful place in the game as a wonder that reduces the overall level of corruption and waste throughout the entire civilization that builds it.
2. Please incorporate some kind of resource shield/food transfer features. Cities connected via road, or harbor should be ble to transfer resource shield/food to each other. If I want to build a city in a region that is generally mountaineous, which have little potential for food production, I can transfer food from my other cities as long as there are some kind of transportation connection.
3. I find that it is incredibly unrealistic that riflemen can possibly be killed by spearsmen. In general, I think a more technologically advanced weapon should very rarely be defeated by an inferior one. I do realize however that the game will become very unbalanced if this rule is followed rigidly.
As a compromise, I suggest that terrain/fortress/city wall will play a greater role than it is now. Let the terrain/fortress/city wall confer to the units occupying it a defense advantage so big that it can possibly fend off attack from a technologically superior unit. The advantage should only be limited to defense, not offense.
Second, I suggest a new feature for Civ IV, which is to hire foreign advisors to provide expertise on the latest technologies a civilization doesn't currently pocess.
For example, if I do not yet have construction technology to build adequate, but I want to build it right away, then I can hire foreign expertise to help me build the adequate. Obviously, the cost of hiring foreign expertise to help me build a certain improvement and units in a certain city should be significantly less than the cost of purchasing the technology needed to build those improvements and units by myself.
Similarly, if I need gunpowder based units, but I do not have the technology currently, and I do not have the money to purchase the technology, but do have enough money to hire foreign expertise, then that is an option I can use.
In sum, in absence of anything else, such as terrain advantage or whatsoever, a technologically advanced unit should ALWAYS be able to defeat an inferior one, although it is possible that the former may itself sustain some damages in the process. The level of damage inflicted is an increasing function of the technology gap between the fighting units. A medeval unit fighting an ancient unit will sustain greater damage than a modern era unit fighting an ancient era unit although, again, the more technologically advanced unit should ALWAYS win in the absence of fortress/terrain/wall advantage or foreign military expertise.
Technological superiority can be mitigate by two features that should be incorporated. First, terrain/fortress/city wall will give a bigger defense advantage than it currently does. Second, foreign expertise can be hired. This will provide a little more balance to the game.
4. Future technologies should have some impact on the game rather than simply adding few more score points. Future technologies for example might be capable of increasing the effectiveness with which your military units carry out attack or defend themselves, decreasing the level of corruption, increasing food productions in certain type of terrain, or reducing overall pollution level. The benefit of future technology should be random, not pre-determined. For example, in one game, future tech 1 will confer military advantage while the same future tech 1 will confer econ advantage in another different game.
5. Airports should have some commercial values, not just the ability to airlift.
6. In the accelerated mode, productions increased so that research and production time are reduced to speed up the game. This will make the game much less tedious. I suggest that in this mode, unit movements should be increased, too, to further quicken the pace of the game.
7. PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE replace Mao Ze Dong with some other emperors in Chinese history. Aside from the stereotype embodied in choosing Mao as Chinese leader, which I find annoying and offensive as a Chinese, it really is not a good representation of Chinese culture and history. China hasn't been a communist country until fourty years ago. Some choices of Chinese emperors that should replace Mao in the game are Emperor Kangxi, Qianglong of the Manchurian dynasty, Tang Tai Zong of the Tang dynasty, Sui Wen Di of the Sui dynasty, and Han Wu Di of the Han dynasty. Please don't let me see Mao again in Civ IV, or my heart will break....:(
8. Chinese unique unit should not be riders. I think riders belong to Mongolians or some other nomadic tribes who lived in the Norther part of China. In fact, any army based on cavalry has seldom been China's specialty.
Song dynasty China invented a powerful weapon in which their archers are capable of firing nine arrows (I am not sure about the exact number) at once. This weapon is Song dynasty China version of modern machine gun. THAT should be the Chinese unique units.
9. I thought Mongolians are most famous for their horse archers. Shouldn't that be their unique units? But again, I am no expert on Mongolian history.
10. To make life easier on us, is it possible to increase the unit movement of each unit accordingly to the size of the map? If a typical land unit can move one grid each turn on a small size map, then let that same unit move two grid each turn on a map size one level bigger. This will make the game less tedious, and getting rid of tediousness is the one big thing on which Civ IV should concentrate its attention. (This isn't to say that Civ III is tedious. I applaud designers of Civ III for making the game so much more easier to play given its much more easier interface)
2. Please incorporate some kind of resource shield/food transfer features. Cities connected via road, or harbor should be ble to transfer resource shield/food to each other. If I want to build a city in a region that is generally mountaineous, which have little potential for food production, I can transfer food from my other cities as long as there are some kind of transportation connection.
3. I find that it is incredibly unrealistic that riflemen can possibly be killed by spearsmen. In general, I think a more technologically advanced weapon should very rarely be defeated by an inferior one. I do realize however that the game will become very unbalanced if this rule is followed rigidly.
As a compromise, I suggest that terrain/fortress/city wall will play a greater role than it is now. Let the terrain/fortress/city wall confer to the units occupying it a defense advantage so big that it can possibly fend off attack from a technologically superior unit. The advantage should only be limited to defense, not offense.
Second, I suggest a new feature for Civ IV, which is to hire foreign advisors to provide expertise on the latest technologies a civilization doesn't currently pocess.
For example, if I do not yet have construction technology to build adequate, but I want to build it right away, then I can hire foreign expertise to help me build the adequate. Obviously, the cost of hiring foreign expertise to help me build a certain improvement and units in a certain city should be significantly less than the cost of purchasing the technology needed to build those improvements and units by myself.
Similarly, if I need gunpowder based units, but I do not have the technology currently, and I do not have the money to purchase the technology, but do have enough money to hire foreign expertise, then that is an option I can use.
In sum, in absence of anything else, such as terrain advantage or whatsoever, a technologically advanced unit should ALWAYS be able to defeat an inferior one, although it is possible that the former may itself sustain some damages in the process. The level of damage inflicted is an increasing function of the technology gap between the fighting units. A medeval unit fighting an ancient unit will sustain greater damage than a modern era unit fighting an ancient era unit although, again, the more technologically advanced unit should ALWAYS win in the absence of fortress/terrain/wall advantage or foreign military expertise.
Technological superiority can be mitigate by two features that should be incorporated. First, terrain/fortress/city wall will give a bigger defense advantage than it currently does. Second, foreign expertise can be hired. This will provide a little more balance to the game.
4. Future technologies should have some impact on the game rather than simply adding few more score points. Future technologies for example might be capable of increasing the effectiveness with which your military units carry out attack or defend themselves, decreasing the level of corruption, increasing food productions in certain type of terrain, or reducing overall pollution level. The benefit of future technology should be random, not pre-determined. For example, in one game, future tech 1 will confer military advantage while the same future tech 1 will confer econ advantage in another different game.
5. Airports should have some commercial values, not just the ability to airlift.
6. In the accelerated mode, productions increased so that research and production time are reduced to speed up the game. This will make the game much less tedious. I suggest that in this mode, unit movements should be increased, too, to further quicken the pace of the game.
7. PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE replace Mao Ze Dong with some other emperors in Chinese history. Aside from the stereotype embodied in choosing Mao as Chinese leader, which I find annoying and offensive as a Chinese, it really is not a good representation of Chinese culture and history. China hasn't been a communist country until fourty years ago. Some choices of Chinese emperors that should replace Mao in the game are Emperor Kangxi, Qianglong of the Manchurian dynasty, Tang Tai Zong of the Tang dynasty, Sui Wen Di of the Sui dynasty, and Han Wu Di of the Han dynasty. Please don't let me see Mao again in Civ IV, or my heart will break....:(
8. Chinese unique unit should not be riders. I think riders belong to Mongolians or some other nomadic tribes who lived in the Norther part of China. In fact, any army based on cavalry has seldom been China's specialty.
Song dynasty China invented a powerful weapon in which their archers are capable of firing nine arrows (I am not sure about the exact number) at once. This weapon is Song dynasty China version of modern machine gun. THAT should be the Chinese unique units.
9. I thought Mongolians are most famous for their horse archers. Shouldn't that be their unique units? But again, I am no expert on Mongolian history.
10. To make life easier on us, is it possible to increase the unit movement of each unit accordingly to the size of the map? If a typical land unit can move one grid each turn on a small size map, then let that same unit move two grid each turn on a map size one level bigger. This will make the game less tedious, and getting rid of tediousness is the one big thing on which Civ IV should concentrate its attention. (This isn't to say that Civ III is tedious. I applaud designers of Civ III for making the game so much more easier to play given its much more easier interface)