NOTE: Assume that the developers are absolutely brilliant and implement a feature in the coolest way you can envision. Which killer feature do you want in Civ 4 the most? (You can choose up to 4 options, plus any, all or none of the “free” options.)

You’ll see brainstorms about an idea below, for those who may not know what I’m talking about. The concepts will overlap and may even internally conflict (e.g.: more ages, eliminate ages), but don’t worry. The idea is imagining what YOU want it to look like, instead of what people have wrote about it (including me). Pick the coolest sounding aspects and ignore the stupid stuff. The idea is to assume that the developers are brilliant enough to pull the "killer feature" off, if you ask for it.

CHOOSE UP TO FOUR
(plus as many of the "free" options you want)


TERRAIN++:
Cultural Affinity for Terrain (desert-loving, mountain-loving), Culture Generating Landmarks (highest peak, great lakes, old forest), Tiny Islands in a Single Square (like the Caribbean), More variety in a random map (like Earth), greater significance to rivers, new worker-actions, canals, improved road system

SCIENCE++:
Dynamic Tech Trees, Different Tech Trees for Different Culture Groups, Different Tech Trees for Different Civs, Separate Tech Trees for Social/Military/Scientific, Blind or Limited-Choice Research, Different Ages, Eliminate Ages, New Pre-Requisites for a tech (resources, buildings, population, events)

RESOURCES++:
Stockpiles and reserves, Quantity and Abundance, Trading for one-time quantities instead of 20 turn deals, Luxuries tied to Cultural Fame (e.g.: Indian Silks, Roman Wines produce culture), Refine and Prospect Resources, Resource Surplus and Deficit, move food between cities

NEGOTIATIONS++:
UN that does something cool instead of instant-victory, 3 or more civ trade agreements, 3 or more Civ defence agreements, surrender, annexing rival nations, encourage peace between two nations, encourage war between two nations, trade embargos that mean something, tariffs and bans, improved intimidation and coercive action, liberate allies, rewards for liberating allies, change diplomatic victory, remove diplomatic victory

INTELLIGENCE++
New kinds of propaganda (increase war weariness, increase demand for international product, inprove citizens attitude towards a rival, increase demand for new government), weapons trading, illegal activities (in modern age), ability to discover illegal activities (with penalties), illegal weapons trading, pay for and take control of revolutionary units (secretly), puppet regimes (secretly), monitoring enemy for tech or production progress, ability to wage cold war

GOVERNMENT++
New kinds of government, adjusted government attributes, SMAC-style social engineering, flexibility within a government (Bush, Clinton, Scandinavian, Latin-American Style Democracies), sliders to change nation’s political controls, bring back the senate, absolutely no senate, pick your advisors

WAR++
More unique units, unit types with bonuses against other unit types, terrain penalties and bonuses for unit types, new special abilities and tactics, social engineering during wartime, occupation, military aid, liberate allies, rewards for liberating allies, take prisoners, take no prisoners, hostile territory, cut supply lines, traps, troop stacks

ECONOMICS:
Economic Warfare, “Economic Victory” for being rich, socio-economic class, improved trade routes, world marketplace, large-scale trade agreements, stockpiles, quantity, abundance, surplus, deficit, shields and food as a tradable commodity, multiple kinds of food, detailed tax levels, regulated and free economies, employment, recession, economic booms

PROVINCES
Regional small-wonder improvements (like forbidden palace), automatically determined provincial regions, user-determined provincial regions, annexing a new province from an enemy, seceding a province to an enemy, slave provinces and colonies, hidden provinces (puppet regimes), provincial attitudes, provincial independence or civil war

DISASTERS
Preventable disasters, random unpreventable disasters, game-play balancing disasters, improved global warming model, flooding, earthquakes, blizzards, seasons, forest fires, droughts, dark ages

DOMESTIC AFFAIRS
Demands for luxuries, demands for war, demands for peace, differences between class, differences between ethnicity, immigration and emigration, exploiting differences and strife in your enemy’s population, ethnic cleansing, NO ethnic cleansing, leveraging your country’s unity when fighting an enemy, unifying your country using a common enemy, “Domestic Victory” for being prosperous at home

MORE OF THE SAME IN CIV 3
New units, more unique units, new wonders, new buildings, new leaders, new techs, new civs

Something Else -- anything big or small not mentioned here, from a nomadic age or future age, to just tweaking some of the realism of the battleships

Great Multiplayer Game (FREE) – because you want to see multiplayer improved, without affecting the main game-play

Quality Mod-Tools (FREE) – because you want to see cool user created content, without affecting the main game-play

Improved AI (FREE) – because you want better governors and a more strategy by the AI instead of cheating, without affecting the main game-play

More Civ-Specific Art (FREE) – because you’d like it to feel like you’re playing as a totally different civ, who builds their own unique version of the pyramids, and their own unique looking warrior, without affecting the main game-play

CHOOSE UP TO FOUR
(plus as many of the "free" options you want)

Science++ is very important!
Negotiation++ is necessary!
War++ is needed, too...
Provinces could be great fun!

Free:
Improved AI
and the most important: worker system reforms... :D

Resources++: the all or nothing system sucks IMO ;)
war++: supply lines and such
economics++: that stockpile thing sounded good

then modding, ai and more art from the free ones :)

Haha! Well, I'm going to add another assumption:

Assume the developers simplify something else that you don't like about the game in order to make room for your favorite killer feature.

For me, in my perfect world, I'll probably assume that workers get simplified drastically to make room for my favorite killer feature. I can't quite decide, although there are a few I'm not crazy about.

This is really just to look at the "big vision" for the game, without getting bogged down in details.

I chose science, provinces, resources, disasters, AI, and modding.
I'm big on exploration and research in my games and often win peacefully although I'm quite capable of pulling off domination when I want. Science, provinces, and resources all fit into the way I like to play. I'm a weather junkie so want disasters just for kicks. It goes without saying that the AI needs improvement. I haven't really messed with the editor because it looks complex so simplifying the process of modding would be awesome.

I'm pleased with the poll response. Definitely full of surprises, ups, and downs from where I sit. Gotta love democracy for that reason :)

Vote now, more discussion later...

Provinces no matter what

Research: Knowlege is my main focus in my Civ games, so I would love to see a better system of research.

War: Supply, definately. Siege, Flanking (maybe), groundwork and walls, and combat modifiers.

Provinces: just because they would be great.

Disasters: To add a degree of randomness.

Geez, Colonel. What part of "pick only 4" was so hard to understand?

Oh well. :confused:

Dammit, DH, you made it sooooo hard to pick ONLY 4!!! I did, though but, looking at the results, I feel I could have picked a bit better!!
Civics, economics and religion are very important to me, but I also hope to see terrains have a greater impact on the game than simply the amount of food and shields they produce!!

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

Hey Aussie,

I tried my best to really look at the threads and find all the different areas that people were focusing on, so the fault isn't all mine. About half of them I'm either negative towards or lukewarm towards (would be cool, but I wouldn't fight for it)... but the other half make me excited at just the idea of playing them.

Needless to say, I'm having a lot of trouble making the choice myself. Why do you think I haven't voted yet? :)

Assume the developers simplify something else that you don't like about the game in order to make room for your favorite killer feature.



Soren has said that this will happen. He said that the overall complexity of CIV would stay roughly the same.

NEGOTIATIONS: to me, greatly enhancing this part of the game could even make Civ3 seem awesome!

PROVINCES: I think this is a great idea and can lend more credance to running an empire, even having different levels of government, annexing provinces, etc.

CIVICS and RELIGION: adding these new levels to the game will help enhance the immersion feel of it. I'm not sure what these would entail, but it sounds intriguing.

Thanks, warpstorm, for relaying the word of Soren. Forgot to back that assumption up myself.

I picked all the free ones, naturally, since they don't interfere with the complexity of the game and could make the difference between an okay and a great game.

In the end, I settled on:

INTELLIGENCE: to me, this would spice up the modern game vastly. you need to be able to do illegal activities and covertly fight your enemies, while smiling at them in the UN. It would be the most interesting thing you could do in a world where the borders are largely determined.

RESOURCES: This would make for more strategic wars and more war in general. It would also allow peaceful nations to leverage their neutral status during war time as a resource seller, and for warring nations to drag said peaceful nations into the conflict by saying "I will KILL you if you give oil to the British!" This simple gameplay lick would lay a foundation of great war AND peace strategy.

DOMESTIC AFFAIRS: i just really like the idea of being able to make your nation stronger at home in the face of crime and corruption, apartheid, and class warfare. I also like the idea of exploiting weaknesses in other nations with violent leadership, but a disenfranchised population. it also makes your civilization feel like a living breathing entity, instead of little chess pieces you move around.

PROVINCES: i just kind of felt obligated :) but this is a lot like domestic affairs in its ability to make your civilization come alive. it could also add a lot of strategy to war.

... but i almost picked a tech tree overhaul, or adding social engineering to government. The others sounded too complex, not important enough, or not fun enough.

I picked all of them. He HE ;)

Ugh. Someone needs to lock Ballazic in a room with Colonel with a bunch of weapons, so they can pick all of them and DESTROY EACH OTHER.

:gripe:

PS: i ain't mad atcha. a little disappointed, but i'll be fine. :twitch:

Hey how'd i get into this arguement i havent even posted here. i voted for all but something else feature. Anyways i think out of the chooses i would say provinces is the best

I like the social engineering/governmental forms idea. Can you imagine if they did that for each country? It would be rather cool.

As an example:

Americans:
New Deal
Reaganomics
Capitalism

England:
Mercantilism
Capitalism

Russia:
Theocracy/Czarism
Communism/Planned Economy
Capitalism

Some of these social choices could be put under Values or Government and each would have an effect on how things work out for the civ. Similar to Alpha Centauri's social engineering.

Was this how the rest of you thought of this idea or is this new? (I might have missed the thread on this topic if it was already discussed)

Haha, while it would be cool to do it for each country, I think it came up in a lot of different topics... "New Governments", "Bring Back SMAC-Style Choices", "Freedom within Governments" or even "More Distinct Feel" type threads.

There was always one person or another who suggested a few multiple choice radial buttons, or sliders... they could determine whether you were legalist (dress code, outlaw swearing, etc.) or the exact opposite (legalize all drugs, legalize marriage between people and animals) or anywhere in between. The sliders would be powerful enough to create a feeling of immersion and open up strategies, but not so detailed that they couldn't apply across ages and civilizations (Reaganomics is probably a bit too specific, if only by name).

Here are a few threads, even ones that started out, and moved towards that kind of idea:

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=94794
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=93547
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=89523

My choice:

1.Intelligence: would be an excellent addition
2.War: a must
3.Economics: will give the game more depth, albeit complexity?
4.Religion: i had suggested this myself. Religion Wars ! Locked alliances !
*improved AI: and allow the AI to build Armies (and load them with units intelligently), PLEASE :worship:
*Civ-specific art: in order to avoid being so Eurocentric or Western. A touch of exotism.

The idea of provinces is very cool also (civil wars à la CivII)

Does anybody know what they refer to as "civics" (no dictionary definition please, only what it means in CivIV) ?

Ressources: I want to have stacked ressources
Economics: alittle more complex, please
Provinces: just love it
Civics: sounds good (although I still doN't know what they really have in mind)

*AI !!!

You know, I'm not enticed by Civics. But there has been a discussion about it, and some of the ideas are kind of neat.

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=91140

I, too, think the civ specific art could be a great thing. I'm just really into the idea of rewriting history to the core. If the Japanese conceived of the pyramids, they'd look totally different. If the Zulu survived long enough, what would their musketmen look like?

Can we have unit design like in AC?

Science, Domestic affairs, Civics and something else plus all the free ones.

My something else is an end to reliance on terrain for a rich and productive city. Forget using terrain to produce shields and trade, at least to an extent. Trade shouldn't be something terrain produces it should occur when cities and nations actually trade with one another much like in civ2 only without the caravans (too much micromanagement). Maybe a system of employed and unemployed could be worked in too so the more employed citizens a city has the more trade you get. Shields should also be made another way too, sure hills, mountains and bonus grassland are all good for shields but you really shouldn't have to rely on them. As an example we can use the city of London in the real world, it has a lot of production but does it get all of it from people mining in nearby hills? Absolutely not. We need better systems for Commerce and Shield production.

Gelion -- the unit workshop was something that came up in a bunch of threads but was considered a huge undertaking, like a future age, or settling without settlers. Definitely appreciate the thought and support for the idea, although I think a bunch of people have spoke out against the unit workshop (because the AI sucks at using it, and because it takes up a lot of time, I think).

Hey Dr. Broom, sounds like you should have picked "Economics" instead of something else, as I think that's very much related to your concerns. But hey, the idea got across. I'm gonna try to consolidate all this and break down the results, and look at it from a bunch of different ways a little later. Maybe once we hit 100 votes, or after it plateaus for a while. When I do that, I'll factor out stuff like misvotes or the details within the messages.

Science +++ - Really needs to eliminate planned history. Blind Reserach baby! Fluid tech tree would be nice too.
Negotiations +++ - Whatever happened to multi-lateralism? I have a coaltion of the willing. Forty-two nations ready to roll son! I was playing SMAC last night and was the most powerful faction. I managed to get another faction warring against my best trade partner to quit, just by asking. There is no option for third-party interferance in Civ 3.
Intelligence +++ - Wow, I spent 5000 gold on propaganda for what?! WE cannot forget all those tyrants the US put in power over the past forty years. Puppet govs all the way!
Governments +++ - This is eurocentrism out the ass. Socialist politics do not disagree with capitalist economics people. Bring back the 'free market' 'police states'.

Improved AI - Come on Firaxis. This should not be that hard, Creative Assembly could do it.
More Civ Specific Art - Buildings in Memphis and Nashville do not look alike, much less buildings in Memphis, Tennessee and Memphis, Egypt.

Workers - You are the weakest link, goodbye.

This is covered under the extras, but I would very very much like to see more civ specific art for not only buildings and units, but possibly user interface as well. Music would also help. Understanding that adding extra sound and graphics files will inevitably inflate the size of the game assets, I still think that these would be wonderful tools to 'immerse' a player into their role as the guiding force behind a civilization. Some examples here.. Most European civilizations used stone to build their middle ages castles and fortifications, but the various cultures had remarkable diversity. I have never been to Europe, but have seen pictures of German castles in the Alps with towering spires, English castles built more for security than style with solid bulwarks, French and Roman manors, etc. Linking building art to a 'cultural' group doesn't feel right. Playing America can be somewhat unsettling when one builds their 'white house' from a pyramidal blueprint!

Regarding the sounds I remember some of the older games, possibly civ 1 even, that had several different midi music scores that you could select to play in a shuffle rotation or just the same one in a loop. I think Colonization was like that too? I do like the way the music changes through the ages, but hearing the same music over and over (within an age) can get old. Sure would like more variety and again, civ specific.

Last thing... Bring back wonder movies!!!! I'll probably get flamed, but I really miss them :) Art assets might just be frosting on the cake, but that frosting can leave a very sweet taste in your mouth when you're done.

-Elgalad

My picks: Intel, war, province, diasaster, and all the free ones.

Intel: More Spy options, more diplomatic options, make spies available EARLY, not Industrial age (heck, Sun Tzu was talking about them).

War: Pretty much the more the merrier:satan: More Units, more unit varieties, etc. etc. Plus I want GOOD NAVAL COMBAT! How about a ship dedicated to attack before the mid industrial age?

Province: Alright, here's my idea (sorry if someone else stated something similar): You can create a province once you have twelve cities+ and you have Republic. Provinces can have up to six cities, eight once you discover democracy. A province is created by choosing a city to be the capital of the province, then choosing five/seven other cities. You can add and remove cities into your province at any time. Once you choose your capital, you have to build "provincial capital". The provinces don't necessarilly need to be filled, either.

ALL Cities in a province get 25% reduced corruption, plus benefits from palaces (forbidden/reg). Area around the province also get a reduction in corruption, though it is not as good as if they were actually in the province (like 10%ish). The city with the PC doesn't have a bonus corruption fighting power, so that players won't be encouraged to build PC's in all there cities.

If an enemy civ captures a provincial capital, the province gets dissolved. This would make PCs a very desirable strategic target, as it would cripple an entire area.

Provinces also facillitate the much beloved CIVIL WAR!!!111! :eek: If 2/3 of the province's cities are in disorder for longer than y turns, there is a x% chance the province will go into civil war, based on proximity to Palace or FP. A province that revolted would get the following benefits: All cities draft two reg defenders that are as modern as possible (if the province can build pikes, then they will draft two pikes). All units produced from the province in the province itself will turn into enemy units, while all the units produced outside the province that are in it will be moved outside the province. Finally, a province going into open revolt causes rampant unhappiness, getting more severe based on proximity to the province in revolt. This will cause a domino effect on provinces going into revolt. This domino effect is reduced with Nationalism/equivalent advance. Granted, it needs some fine tuning, but I like that idea.

What do you think about that? :thumbsup: or :thumbdown:?

Disaster: What can I say, I like it when my enemies get crippled :satan:
Seriously though, I like the idea of tornadoes and hurricanes, as put forth by... someone in another thread. But the basic idea was treat Hurricanes as a unit that moves around, with bombard and attack, etc.

And all the free ones because more is better.

Thanks for keeping the interest level high, guys! At 93 voters as I read this, the lead is negotiations (which surprises me, but doesn't disappoint me). 50 voters, which is more than half of people, think Civ needs to overhaul its diplomacy, trade, alliances, threats, and promises. There's your coalition of the willing!

(Like who?)

Who the **** said that?

I-Kaiser, I like your thoughts on provinces. I do recommend taking the discussion to one of the many province threads though, as I want to avoid cluttering up this thread with any detailed discussions (for now). You only have to look as far as any thread with the word "provinces" in it, or "civil war" for that matter.

And I like the idea of Civ-specific Interface Art too, Elgalad. Consider that grouped in with the rest of the art. Like I said, there will be a time to get feedback on detailed ideas, just not now.

For me the most important thing is to have many ways for whole new rival civilizations to appear. I don't care if this is done with provinces, barbarians, rebellion, or civil war, I just want a growing number of civs in the game.

r poo i only picked one i really should hav read the threat i think.anyway negotiations was the one i picked as i believe civs dont rely on allies as much as they need to in real life for instance supplying oil or weapons or food or more complexed protection/war pacts.it would make the game cool:P

Jake5555555, I definitely like the idea of civs entering and leaving the game -- even just as generic AI "noncompetitive" civs. I think that ties into provinces, but also has something to do with domestic affairs -- civ splitting and such. A lot of threads on provinces, so it's no surprise that this pick is as popular as it's turned out to be.

Stid, it's okay that you only picked one, at least you didn't pick all of them. :) Negotiations looks like the smart pick, since a lot of people liked it. I agree that for a game that lets you live out history, the only interesting interaction that two civilizations can have is to go to war. Otherwise, you're in the default mode of "peaceful competition" if not "allied for war purposes only". There's way more to history than that, and I'm not saying that because I like realism but because I love strategy.

This poll is very interesting, indeed.

I am not surprised negotiations is one of the top choices. It is a pain to scan through all your rivals to get the best deal possible.

A1 improvement is a given

Slow day at work ;) I'm also an excel master in my offtime.

Just throwing this up here to stimulate discussion.

(see attached picture)

Discarded: Ballazic, Colonel, Cmonkey, Salomao (too many votes)
Accepted: Drakan, Vuzurok (5 votes, but discarded "other"/"more of same" votes)
Good Job: Everyone else

Vote Tally: 122 - 4 = 118

A quick question:

Should we migrate the post poll discussion to another thread? I'd like to focus the discussion on what people think about the most popular features, instead of talking about why we voted the way we did. Would that be easier in another thread?

shoot, maybe I'm just not a warmonger but it seems like the stuff I want the most is near the bottem. Civics, govs, religion, economics, and domestic affairs are all way outvoted. I do like provinces though... As far as negotiations go I don't see how they could practically be improved. And what's to improve with war other than the stupid randomness? I guess I like civ for stuff other than the war. If you want a really war centered game play hearts of iron or any in that europa universals series.

Provinces gotta be in it.. And you should be allowed to determine your provinces yourself.. Maybe you want to tax some conquered regions a lot more? ;-) Or you want your best buddy to govern some ov your provinces in order to have some more power himself to support you in times of trouble - or not??

Negotiations and the UN have to be expanded.. THe more realistic, the better.. I don't mind some complexity. But maybe you should allow to play without certrain things or have your advisor do the work for you.

I voted Provinces, Disasters, Terrain and Science Advances.
Provences are a great idea as well as new terrain and weather systems.

I have a fantastic vision here.

Ok. We all know how the mini-map in the corner of the screen shows us both the territory of countries and the geography of the world? Well what about a setting where you can see the atmospheric/meteorological conditions of the entire planet say after the invention of satellites?

~or...

There could be two layers of the playing map itself wherein you can see the world's geography as you can in CivIII, as well as being able to 'zoom out' or pull back to see the worlds atmospheric weather patterns from a space orbit perspective after gaining an appropriate advance such as satellites or space flight.

These ideas would be incorporated into the natural disasters concept with weather/climates and seasons.

In regards to civilizations 'leaving' the game, how about some of them simply turning into their modern counterparts?

I voted Provinces, Disasters, Terrain and Science Advances.
Provences are a great idea as well as new terrain and weather systems.

I have a fantastic vision here.

Ok. We all know how the mini-map in the corner of the screen shows us both the territory of countries and the geography of the world? Well what about a setting where you can see the atmospheric/meteorological conditions of the entire planet say after the invention of satellites?

~or...

There could be two layers of the playing map itself wherein you can see the world's geography as you can in CivIII, as well as being able to 'zoom out' or pull back to see the worlds atmospheric weather patterns from a space orbit perspective after gaining an appropriate advance such as satellites or space flight.

These ideas would be incorporated into the natural disasters concept with weather/climates and seasons.

In regards to civilizations 'leaving' the game, how about some of them simply turning into their modern counterparts?Incorporating the weather could also affect fighting. (storms and blizzards are bad for attacking)

I'd like to focus the discussion on one topic at a time. The first topic, also the most popular topic, is war. It beat out almost every "free" improvement except AI. In other words, it's popular enough that even if it made the game more complex and closed off complexities in other parts of the game, people would be happy. They'd be willing to sacrifice other complexities to make war more compelling.

Here are some of the advertisements I made for War.

WAR++
W01. More unique units
W02. unit types with bonuses against other unit types
W03. terrain penalties and bonuses for unit types
W04. new special abilities and tactics
W05. social engineering during wartime
W06. occupation
W07. military aid
W08. liberate allies
W09. rewards for liberating allies
W10. take prisoners
W11. take no prisoners
W12. hostile territory
W13. cut supply lines
W14. traps
W15. troop stacks
W16. (anything not mentioned above)

Here's all the people who voted for war:
-0blivion-, America444, Arathorn, ArbitraryGuy, Ballazic, Bangorash, baseballfan45, batteryacid, biggamer132, BlueNine, Boleslav, CIVPhilzilla, Colonel, Coorae, Dauntless, denyd, deo, disturbed bacon, Drakan, echinococcus, eg577, Elgalad, GVBN, gwd20055, Haradrim, Ian Beale, ieatfish, juballs2001, Khift, Lennon, luckykitkat, Lumbergh, MaXXXXXuM, Me-262, Mewtarthio, Midnight Piper, Rammr, RedAlert, RedFusion, redhulkz, Salomao, searcheagle, SemperFi2382, shawne3386, slyj, sspanzer, Strider, superskankster, SwitchbladeNGC, Synthshadow, T-Money, Thangorodrim, The Great Apple, toh6wy, Verowin, Vizurok, ybbor, Yom, yujit, Zeekater

To the war mongers (voters): My question to you guys is what enticed you to vote for enhanced war? What are your favorite few picks?

To everyone else (who voted for something else): Did you just want more complexity elsewhere, or do you genuinely hate some of the ideas for war? If you really do hate war, then what features make you especially afraid of changing the war system?

I'll start.

I didn't vote for war.
I guess I'm not really against any of the ideas, but I'd just sooner like to see some of the non-war aspects of the game enhanced. The game is already too war heavy. Only after some of the other strategies are enhanced (diplomatic, economic, intelligence, domestic) would I care enough to see war enhanced -- if there's still "room".

Again, this is based on the word from the designers: the game can't get any more complex than Civ 3. They'd have to simplify something in Civ 3, and add a new complicated concept -- and keep the overall complexity equal.

I did not vote for war.

I agree with dh_epic, a more tactically involved military model will be nice, but wouldn't improve gameplay the most. After replaying SMAC, the much better negotiation range and options made me sad when playing Civ III.

I did not vote for war. I also did not know how to make the previous sentence bold.

I agree that we need to see the non-war aspects of the game improved so that there is more that can be going on than just fighting. There aught to be more complex and sophisticated methods of achieving victory and progressing on the national scale. Aside from tending to domestic affairs in times of peace, there needs to be a lot more foreign relations and things that can be negotiated between countries (i.e. the AI and human player(s) should be able to interact at a far higher level together than ever before) for starters.

Considering that economic and trade relations have been the bulk and basis of interactions between civs throughout history, a critical step toward a more balanced game that allows builders to compete effectively against warmongers would be a more in-depth economic system that has a significant effect upon foreign policy.

Therefore,

I did not vote for war.

but

I did vote for economics!

Damn, anybody who DID vote for war... was there anything in particular that enticed them? Was it just more units, or was there an actual strategy you felt like you were dying to see added for Civ 4?

I don't see why so many people want provinces. I can't see this addition adding anything to my enjoyment of the game.

@Slax
I think the reason provinces seem appealing is for manageing those super-large empires. It would also make it easier to model regional effects and possbily trade. It would also make it really easy to model regionalism, seperatims, a deeper ethnicity model, etc.
Personally, there are a couple reasons I also did not vote for it. 1) There are features that need implementation more, this is rather advanced. 2) Firaxis would screw this up. 3) I like how city placement and civ growth just happen and the world ends up like it is. This is also a reason I do not like planning strategies, because it reduces interesting simulation to calculated gameplay.

@Captain
I bet you have not ever played SMAC. In SMAC you could request that other factions stop making war against your friend(3rd Party Negotiation, I did it effectively when I was a AC power). They could surrender to you so you would not have to stomp them out. Units could share the same spaces and bases(would have to modify sneak attack rules). The only part about Civ 3 diplomacy I liked was the idea of a bargaining table. But there should also be a way to just make demands or speak not in terms of trade. There was also the Planetary Council which acted as the UN should. YOu could enact trade treaties, change the sea levels, and even make atrocities legal.

@Trade-Peror
I think the big problem with Civ 3 trade was that trade was only encouraged when the vending nation could get ridiculous rates. A less player-controlled trade system would make controlling resources an economic, rather than strategic advantage. Currently resources make the player who controls oil uber-powerful and all others cannot possbily compete. War should be considered a method of profitability or security, and right now it is the only way to make money in the modern age(in Civ).

GOVERNMENT Especially the Social Engeneering part
PROVINCES Especially the annexing, secession part
ECONOMICS
CIVICS
*Free: Quality Mod-Tools
*Free: Improved AI

Had I been allowed to choose more than 4:
NEGOTIATIONS
INTELLIGENCE
MORE OF THE SAME

Things that I NOT want into the game:
RELIGION -- because I don't like religion
DISASTERS -- because they annoy me (I would be ok with them if I could disable them)
More Civ-Specific Art -- because it confuses me (again, I would be ok with it, if I could disable it)

I didn't vote for war
The only thing that I think is worth improving in war (and it is a big one) is the ability to have global controls to send the units at the attack without having to move them manually. Something like: "as soon as created attack X" or "as soon as 5 are ready attack X" or "as soon as created attack X, then Y, then Z". I had a whole post on this, who knows how buried it might be now.
None of the "improvements" listed under "war" by dh_epic appeal to me

Your right Sir Schwick, I have never played SMAC but I know someone who has and the more I hear about it, the more I want to check it out. Chances are Civ4 will be the successor to that and all other previous SM models while incorporating the major points from each one (we can hope) becoming Thee Unified Game of all time.

PS: Can I call you Towelie? Please? :)

Your right Sir Schwick, I have never played SMAC but I know someone who has and the more I hear about it, the more I want to check it out. Chances are Civ4 will be the successor to that and all other previous SM models while incorporating the major points from each one (we can hope) becoming Thee Unified Game of all time.

PS: Can I call you Towelie? Please? :)

Actually I doubt that Civ 4 will be any kind of successor to SMAC. Brian Reynolds no longer works for Firaxis and most of the AC team does not work for Firaxis. Sid Mier's did not have as big a role in SMAC as in the other civs. Also, in Soren's presentation he sited the SMAC market as being way too small. PLus, Civ 3 took maybe one or two features from SMAC(bombardment).

I really wish I could say something different, but for now we will have to look to mods or Brian Reynolds at Big Huge Games for a successor of SMAC. After playing Rise of Nations, I would not mind a RTS version of AC in the same spirit.

Officially my title is the 'Archbishop of Towels', but towelie is perfectly cool with me.

We'll leave the provinces discussion for later. I'm finding it the least bit odd, however, that nobody's standing up and saying why they felt war was the most compelling option.

Anybody? War? Come on!

I did vote for war.

I might have misunderstood the poll question at first, but in retrospect, I still agree that war aspects are important to my game experience in civilization even when I play a 'relatively' peaceful civ. I'm primarily a 'builder' at heart, but I do enjoy the options that military strategies open up. I'm by no means one of the 'experts' at conquering the world on the divine setting, I usually play on Empire, and often find my country (usually Germany :) slipping behind going through the middle ages, as the nasty AI's all seem to conspire against me! But I take heart when my first cavalry units start riding out to deal harsh wakeup calls to my closest neighbors... If I can get a leader or two out of the deal and rush build some late middle ages or early industrial wonders, great! I dont usually use war as a path to victory though, but more of an extension to diplomacy. If I play my cards right, build an alliance against a powerful neighbor, take a few cities and survive my 20 year war contract, I can sometimes make a quick comeback from obscurity. Additionally, the tactics in an extended war can be challenging and rewarding. Using chokepoints, slashing enemy supply routes (roads/railroads/naval blockade), amphibious assaults, combined arms attacks (artillery/infantry/cavalry), and capturing enemy workers. All of these aspects enrich the game for me. I would therefore like to see more of all of it:

Unique units (maybe one for each age with each civ?) would be neat. How about 'renting' units to another civilization (as mercenaries.. the 'lessor' would assume the risk, while the 'lessee' gets to move the units for X turns after paying for their service). I dont like the idea of outright selling a unit to another civ, but maybe military aid would be useful; Gold tradeunits that would be earmarked Only for military unit or building purchase and/or upgrading. You mentioned special bonuses vs other units.. how about receiving bonuses also from stacked units? New unit: General/Admiral - Special ability to add +1 to a military stack's movement or attack or defense once per turn. All ranged units (any infantry after the gunpowder invention) should have zones of control I think. All ground units should also get bombardment with the invention of rocketry (TOW missiles/stinger AA missiles).


I usually play the double your pleasure mod, which has Tons of extras like these. I hope that when CIV 4 comes out it isn't just a rehash of the earlier games with improved AI. That seems to be all I read about on these boards, some folks will give up everything else as long as the AI is on par with Deep Blue! :crazyeye:

Anyway, that's my two cents.
-E

Argh, reading back over this thread again, I'm starting to get the SMAC bug! Might just have to start another game, it's been a while :D

I have played Rise of Nations and a few other RTS'.. Warcraft, Age of Empires, etc. They can be a lot of fun, even if they always seem to devolve into a click fast fest towards the end. I havent played Starcraft and probably never will, just dont see the appeal. SMAC really was on a whole other plane though, turning that into an RTS game wouldn't do it for me.

Cause see, the thing that made SMAC so wonderful was the immersion. It combined quality aspects of unit design, government economy tweaking, diplomacy, wonder races that MEANT something more than a 50 turn bonus cause yes, you got the wonder movie reward, ha! :goodjob: Top all that off with an actual by God rpg story underlying the whole game. Sure, it was basically just a scripted plot, but it added so much character to that game!

Civ 3 continues to be a fine game, I still play it today. It has a permanent (until 4 comes out) spot on my hard drive. But if I were TPTB working on CIV 4 right now, I would take a good long hard look at SMAC as my reference of a game that will Always be a true classic.

-E

Elgalad, thanks for your input. I'm definitely understanding where the warmongers are coming from :)

Even though I'm someone who thinks there's "enough" war to keep people happy in Civ, I really still feel as though there could be improvements. Right now it's too much "my higher numbers against your lower numbers, multiplied by luck". Renting units, units that provide bonuses to the stack, units with bonuses against other units would make war a lot more strategic. In Civ 3, if I build up a huge enough army of the "best" unit, I'll probably win. But in this kind of Civ 4, I could build up a huge army of one unit, and then realize that my opponent built up an army of that unit's weakness!

Unfortunately Soren decided that the 'Single Best Unit' paradigm was better than RPS because RPS quote, 'does not make for a good game'.

That's BS if you ask me. I don't think he said that explicitly, but come to think of it you might be onto something. He did basically analyze AOE and then more or less dis it.

I do see his point that too much of a RPS distinction turns any system into, guess what the enemy has. A good vs. bonus and penalty system allows for comprehensive situations which favor a variety of tactics, but certainly not absolutely stupid ones. A bad one makes it so combat has to be fought one way or you lose.

I didn't vote for war.
I think Civ suffers from a 'build and bash' complex as it is. Not that that's a problem, but there is soooo much more to this game than build and conquer. More actual governing. That requires a strategic mind of an entirely different kind. Anybody can set production to all military units and then try to thrash everybody around them. BORING!!!! (and predictable). It needs more social advances and tech tree tweaking, especially for modern times. Current tech tree favors militaristic development, I think.

all of the above!

...

Okay, ignoring that last post, the kind which never ceases to annoy me...

It seems as though the most vocal people are not really into pushing war in Civ, arguing that the game needs to allow other diverging strategies. I guess it's the silent majority who would love Civ if it had new war elements -- even if they can't exactly point at what that entails.

Rock-Paper-Scissors wouldn't bug me too much, seeing as it's pretty simple to learn and would at least correct the "build the best unit" obviousness that plagued Civ until now. Plus it would still leave a lot of room for complexity in other areas, seeing as it's such a simple tweak.

-More of the same! More new techs, civs, governments, units, and so on.
-Religion. You could then have special units per religion and that sort of thing, almost the way governments work.
-Intelligence. I have an idea that sounds very fun, and extremely evil. A new option with your spy would be an asssassination, which would put the enemy civ in Anarchy but they can't choose a new government after the anarchy. A killer feature... literally :sniper: .
-Something else. Make it have less loading times, even on slow computers!

*Better Multiplayer. I don't know if this is possible or not, but make Multiplayer easier! Somehow figure a way to make it so that you don't have to mess around with everything to be able to play it, somehow get past firewalls
*Quality mod tools. Make modding easier and make literally everything possible!
*Last one, make the AI smarter! The current AI is too stupid. Obviously, this another variable in difficulty levels, so they'll probably need to add difficulty levels to support this, which is fine.

Although I did not vote for war as a priority, I am not implying that I would like Civ3's system of warfare to remain unchanged--in fact, that would be a calamity that may possibly even out any bonuses from focusing too much on other elements. In other words, I expect improvement in all areas, but I would like to see more improvement in certain aspects, particularly economics and trade, than in others.

And, interestingly, I might even be characterized as part of that "silent majority" since I would love if war were improved, but would not be able to point out exactly what improvements would be most desirable.

OK, I did NOT vote for combat as a priority but, just as T-P has said, that does NOT mean that there aren't things about combat which cannot be improved.
My key issues are as follows:

1) Units should have 'Morale', 'Firepower' and 'Armour' ratings.

2) Units should have an 'Operational Range' to limit how far they can penetrate into uknown and enemy territories! (No great surprise THERE I guess ;))

3) Tiles should have a stack limit and, if possible, units should have a 'stack no.'! So a tank might have a 3, whilst infantry might have a 1!

4) A bonus system for units WITH other units which encourages combined arms tactics. So, for instance, tanks might give a bonus to the move and/or Firepower of all other units in a stack, wheras Cavalry might give a bonus to morale and/or Attack Strength. Archers might give a bonus to attack strength and/or reduce the morale of units in the opposing stacks (to represent 'harrassing fire'. Infantry and other 'defensive' units might boost the hp and/or defense strength of other units! These are just very crude suggestions, but I am sure you can see what I am getting at!

5) Along with (4), more emphasis on an ability to attack as a STACK-either in a tactical 'mini-map' or just an abstract 'stack move and attack' system!

6) Seperation of turns into movement and combat phases (not as important as the other 5 points!)

What all of my 6 points are about is making war a much more TACTICAL/STRATEGIC exercise, instead of just an exercise of moving 'Stacks of Doom' into enemy territory, and destroying your opposition where they stand, without any great thought! So, for instance, wheras now you can just move 20 tanks to capture the enemy city in the heart of your enemies nation, you would now have to split it into 4 lots of 5 tanks (point 3) and, in fact, you would be better off having 5 stacks of 2 tanks, mixed in with about 3 infantry units, a Spec Ops unit and a couple of bombardment units (Point 4)! These 5 stacks could then surround a city, with each stack being moved to attack a city simultaneously-or being broken up to attack several different cities (Points 5 and 6)! Last of all, due to operational range constraints, your stacks would now be forced to capture and consolidate border cities before moving deeper into enemy territory!
Anyway, I'd be intrested in hearing thoughts (both negative and positive, about the ideas I have posted here!!)

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

Oh can I also just say though that I was VERY happy when they gave archers, musketmen etc the 'defensive bombardment' ability in C3C, as this went part of the way to encouraging a 'combined arms' strategy to stacks! I definitely feel, as I have stated above, that this concept CAN be extended further!

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

I think those are all really good ideas, Aussie. Even though you didn't vote for war, it seems you have a lot of good ideas on the matter. Shouldn't surprise me, however :)

1) Care to elaborate on the effects of these ratings?
2) I'm a fan of operational range, since I think limits actually induce strategy. What if you can't send those troops deep without having an intermediate stopover?
3) Stack limits too, they would induce a lot more strategy. Instead of "put 16 units on one square, and then attack"
4) I think this is a pretty good idea, and combined with stack limits could be quite interesting. It would force genuine choices about how to assemble your units onto one square to maximize bonuses without cutting down on your best strength.
5) I think this one's a nobrainer, for so many reasons. And it wouldn't add complexity, it would in fact reduce it, or worst case leave it the same.
6) Kind of contraversial. I'd actually like to see Civ even more streamlined like this -- build phase, maintainance phase, movement phase, combat phase ... but this is probably a whole other conversation, and a shade complex.

I'm concerned that 1 through 4 are complex enough to prohibit Civ 4 from building on Civ 3 in some other respect. Don't get me wrong, they're compelling, but if you told me that enhancing this military meant that the game didn't enhance any non military aspects, I'd be greatly disappointed. Do you think the developers would agree?

I like the concept of armies that were introduced in Civ 3. I use them whenever I can, but the frustrating thing about them is that there does not seem to be any way to modify them once they have been created and loaded. I'd like to be able to remove units from an army and upgrade them or rotate out inferior ones for superior tech ones. In reference to the units gaining bonuses from other units in a 'stack', maybe the bonuses should only come when the units are in an army together. Your mobile infantry/tanks would give movement increases to the army, maybe add a new noncombat support unit in various ages - war wagons, supply trains, etc.

-E

This is more of a movement idea then a unit, but it has special implications for units.

1) All your units are now organized into 'battle-groups', which are generated when you group units as a 'battle-group'. Armies are thus eliminated in their current form.
2) Battle-groups are limited in size, and their composition determines how they perform. Different composition favours different venues and styles of combat. Limit of one battle-group per square.
3) Battle-groups have a Zone of Engagement of x number of squares around them.
4) Instead of moving all your square by square, you designate a destination square in the movement planning stage. Range and location are limited by logistics(makes geurilla and scouts more important), maps(you will go farther if you know the way), and what path you have to take(going around Poland may add a few miles to the trip). All moves are executed at the same time.
5) What square your unit is 'stationed' from is the one you chose unless there are units from other nations around. Then the battle-group with the most initiative gets to choose first. Initiative is based on who would get their first on speed mostly. This goes from highest ot lowest initiative.

Hi DH_Epic, I'd be more than happy to elaborate on those values.

Firepower merely represents the maximum amount of damage you can dish out in a single 'round' of combat. Your firepower number would be multiplied by your success of your 'hit' to determine actual damage! This will help to smooth out combat results between wildly unequal opponents (like the old 'spearman vs tank' thing!)

Armour represents the amount of damage a unit can sustain per 'round' of combat. It would be deducted from Total damage inflicted by the opponent! Again, this might greatly assist in smoothing out combat results.

Morale would be a % number which is a factor of both unit training and # of victories achieved by the unit. Morale would modify the units Attack/Defense Strengths, as well as increasing 'armour' values. Lastly, Morale would effect the chance of a unit undergoing a forced retreat when put up against a far superior opponent, and the chance of that unit 'surrendering' or being 'routed' after a particularly savage 'mauling'!!
Hope this clarifies things!

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

So basically this is a combination of the Civ 2 and SMAC systems which were abandoned. Obviously there was a good reason...... or not. I go with the second one. Although, your morale concept is more rounded and definitley reflects how morale effects combat in reality.

I voted for terrain, science, resources and economics.

These are partly because I think they would add substantially to mods. Allowing greater civ-specificness with terrain, resources and science would allow far more detailed scenarios. That goes from having different tech trees for the Americas vs Europe, to having Orcs and Elves have different bonuses from forest vs waste. I'd also love to see more terrain types.
With economics, I think this can be far better used. I don't like the way you can't trade for multiples of an item. If I've only got diamonds, of course I'd like to trade for two ivory, so my next trade can be diamonds AND ivory. I'd like to see an improved CIV2 method of trade. Get rid of the "wealth", bring back trade caravans - espescially if both nations get the trade bonus. That would also make the "trade sanctions" much harsher. And it would allow you to tie in more civs to your success, having an impact on declaring war and diplomacy. I'd also like a "market", where luxuries and resources could be far more "auction" like.

One other concept I'd be interested in is Religion. This has had such a huge impact on this world's development. In addition to cultural groups, having religious groups would be cool. Espescially if you could then "promote" your religion, and try to convert other nations religions. Think or religious Wonders that could be created, and "converted" if captured. Holy lands, etc. I think this is a concept that would be cool.
I also lent towards negotiation, but with that it would really just be tweaking, and would be impacted more by improving the AI.

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=2121387&postcount=4

It was an idea I posted about how to improve the Civ 2 system.

Aussie:

I have no real opinion on the spearman VS tank thing, but I think it would be a pretty simple thing to resolve without adding new variables / attributes. Increase the number of hitpoints and thus number of rounds, or tweak an equation. Less new numbers for the user to follow in combat means more new numbers they could follow in other aspects -- that's just the angle I'm using.

I do like morale, though, and it's a pretty valuable thing to leverage, and adds a new strategic dimension. Like to see that idea fleshed out more.

I agree with Aussie about bringing back HP and FP. While you have a point dh that adding those means taking away elsewhere, the system worked really well in Civ2.

So to summarize so far, the only differences people really want to see in war is:

- renting units and military aid
- firepower / armor / anything to reduce the spearman-over-tank phenomenon
- volume / stack limits on a square (no more stacks of doom)
- operational ranges
- unit bonuses, bonuses to groups/stacks
- stack and group behavior (less micromanagement)

I don't think these are actually terribly complex. These are small modifications to the existing system that would be pretty easy to comprehend at first glace, especially with appropriate visual cues and error messages (e.g.: fog of range wouldn't be that different from fog of war, hitting the stack limit would display a "no can do" message with a "do not show this message again" checkbox).

Agree? Disagree? Is there something missing?

Alright, let's change the subject.

For all those who voted for Negotiations: Why NEGOTIATIONS?
For all those who didn't: why not? Did you just like everything else more?

Negotations involved any or most or none of the following:

- UN that does something cool instead of instant-victory
- 3 or more civ trade agreements
- 3 or more Civ defence agreements
- surrender
- annexing rival nations
- encourage peace between two nations
- encourage war between two nations
- trade embargos that mean something
- tariffs and bans
- improved intimidation and coercive action
- liberate allies
- rewards for liberating allies
- change diplomatic victory
- remove diplomatic victory
- (anything else)

Do these appeal to people? Do any of these scare people?

Exactly, multi-lateralism would make epic wars more then MPP webs(although WWI did start like that).

Also, I would like to be able to move through allied units and station in allied cities.
I would also like to see multi-lateral aggreements mediated by a 3rd party. The 3rd party would make sure the deal was fair and provide(theorhetically) enforcement to the treaty.

- UN that does something cool instead of instant-victory


How about giving you the ability to stack your units with ally units and go into ally cities to heal. This could last until the current war is over (by either side) and then kicked out of the city/stack.

EDIT: I guess I need to not keep my edit screen open so long good ideas Sir :lol:

I didn't personally vote for negotiations, but I do like the idea of multilateral agreements. The UN is really just the ultimate multilateral agreement. You could really have a natural evolution towards a UN, instead of this sudden wonder that appears out of nowhere.

Coordinated attacks is also very key. Why shouldn't I be able to ally with England and drop my American paratroopers in France from London?

Third party enforcement is cool, never even considered it.

I'd personally like to see a reward for liberating allies. That one's pretty important to me. That way there's an incentive, particularly in the modern age, to pull what the Allies did with France. It shouldn't be money, it should be a kind of victory and scoring system -- points given for altruism. (I've sometimes called it "Historical Victory".)

well...i chose but 4 options are few... :D everything should be improved :D

I didn't personally vote for negotiations, but I do like the idea of multilateral agreements. The UN is really just the ultimate multilateral agreement. You could really have a natural evolution towards a UN, instead of this sudden wonder that appears out of nowhere.

Coordinated attacks is also very key. Why shouldn't I be able to ally with England and drop my American paratroopers in France from London?

Third party enforcement is cool, never even considered it.

I'd personally like to see a reward for liberating allies. That one's pretty important to me. That way there's an incentive, particularly in the modern age, to pull what the Allies did with France. It shouldn't be money, it should be a kind of victory and scoring system -- points given for altruism. (I've sometimes called it "Historical Victory".)

Actually this is one area where Civ 3 devolved from SMAC. The planetary council in SMAC allowed you to elect a planetary governor(more trade and intel) do some wierd stuff with the sea level and even repeal atrocities(tons of nerve gas and planetbusters). You could request that other players cease hostilities agianst one of your allies. I even got them to stop a couple times when I was one of the big guys. Your units could also use allied squares, bases, and facilities(healing). The only real addition would be non-UN multilateral agreements, and sitting in as a mediator. This would allow you to truly simulate being a superpower.

You know, the more I hear about it, the more I feel as though I should play SMAC... for "research purposes". :)

I would like to see negotiations grow in scale until the point of the united nations. That would be key.

Yes Yes, the SMAC is calling to you...

Come play me Epic, come now...

:D :crazyeye: :D :crazyeye: :D

-Col. Elgalad, leader of the Spartan faction

++Science
++Negotiations
++Government
++War

And if I had to pick another (although I cant) Id have to say terrain (ie larger, more detailed earth-like maps).

Wow, I guess one of the reasons negotiations is so popular is because it's so simple and uncontraversial?

Any more thoughts on negotiations? Any detractors who think there are many more important things?

Here's all I want out of a putative Civ IV:

1.) MOre civilizations. We still need:

(a) An African regional grouping (incl. Xhosa, Ethiopians, Berbers, Ashanti, Afrikaaners).

(b) Other significant cultures not included -- Sioux, Vietnamese, Franks, Thai (any African/Asian civilization that avoids colonization deserves to be included -- just as with Ethiopia.)

2.) Better AI to handle all the changes made so far more effectively (Armies, SGL, etc.)

3.) Ability to play with MORE AI civs in multiplayer mode. (I'm talking a monster game on a huge map with 16+ total human and AI civs).

4.) Window dressing: Better interface for unit movement (controlling workers/large stacks of units, etc.,) better graphics, city view pictures of ALL improvements, and return of the wonder movies ala Civ 2/SMAC (but not at the expense of (1), (2), and (3), above!)

5.) That's it. I'm pretty content otherwise. :)

Ok my votes:

Terrain++ : This is a part of the game that could easily be improved and enhance both eye candy (more terrain types thus more diversity on-screen) and gameplay (more worker actions, more terrain types allowing for different offensive\defensive strategies, city dev. and so on...)

disasters++ : linked to my previous choice leading to a more interesting\dynamic map that is no longer just a playing board...

negociations and economics : these areas need more depth IMHO.

I did not vote for war because I think the best way to improve it would be through other fields (like different unit support, unit building sys).

We're about to shift gears from negotiations. But before we do --

What do people think about the idea of involving "hub" nations in multilateral trade agreements? For example:

Rome wants to trade with China... but in order to do so, they need to involve both Persia and India in the agreement, to be able to get the goods back and forth. India and Persia charge a premium for using their roads as a trade route -- which Rome weighs against the costs of finding and paying for the maintainance of an alternate route themselves.

Not only does this let people jockey for good geographic position for reasons other than resources or plains.

But war has more sweeping effects than who's getting conquered. If India or Persia go to war, how the heck is Rome gonna trade with China? It's the start of globalization, even in 300 AD, where people say "hey, you settle your issues, because it's effecting us".

Am I making sense?
Assuming I make sense, is it a good idea?

Provinces all the way! If they do this that would most rule!

Hub nations make sense. However I do not trust the AI to handled themselves responsibly in negotiations.

Because they'd cheat? Or because they'd sell half their nation for a ham sandwich?

Science: Education.
If you don't keep up education, you lose techs that have already been researched, thus making a dark age possible. It could be a function of research, since they are linked. There is an automatic subtraction of test tubes every turn, then you add all the test tubes you earn through research spending amplified by education. If research spending and education are not high enough the result is negative and a tech is lost. Most recent or random choice would do. Or it could be more complex, tracking which tech was being used or not used, ie your advanced civilization may forget how to work bronze. Random would be almost right, but what do you do about prereqs? The core of the game is competing advancement (which is why silly frozen scenarios miss the point) over time.

Definitely Not: Provinces
Provinces already exist and they are called cities. If cities and city spheres of influence are not enough for you, subcapitols such as you get with the forbidden palace are the same thing. What's really fun is to make all wonders reduce corruption like the forbidden palace, and have a high level of corruption generally, so its a contest of developing distant cities into regional capitols. Leaders become really valuable, since they can increase the size of your empire by one such "province" by putting a wonder on the frontier.

Something Else: Multiple Layers Done Right. When I first bought Civ3 in October '01, not having played civ before, on rumor that Civ 2 had more techs than the Aof E series(which I loved, but had gotten tired of--as I have not really gotten tired of Civ SINCE IT IS MORE FLEXIBLE WITHOUT BEING FLUID) I looked at the box and thought: "Wow, Sim City with war, Aof E with cities!" Then I saw the lame city view and was disappointed, then learned to appreciate civ for what it is, not just what I had expected. But still, it would be nice to have that level of detail possible, where you can concentrate to a realtime tactical level of control similar to AofE, once two stacks start slugging it out in the civ like cental strategy and development game, or you can focus tightly on a single city, between turns, growing it like a simcity city. This would add without taking away, something the Civ4 manifesto apparantly abhors, but as long as this forum is about adding dreamy features, why not.
PS. The detail views could be something you earn with a tech/gov. For example, a City Management tech could earn you the right to micromanage cities (but only benefiting from free enteriprse to the extent you have a free government); a Tactical Leadership tech could earn you the right to micromanage battles, and etc...Not only would this produce a cool effect of lifting the veil of ignorance with progress, but it could be done as a lucrative series of expansions that don't alter the core. "NEW and IMPROVED with Advanced Dipomacy tech--now you too can micromanage international talks."

Resources: Resources could be done a lot better, and this would be the key to many other improvements that would snowball into a lot of fun stuff like supply lines and therefore better naval. It would have to be done very carefully or it would be a mess, which is why its a perfect item for a dream sheet with supposed supergenius designers. I think that Conquest on Colonization of the Americas was on the right track, but the treasures produced by resource exploitation buildings could be resource bundles, but there should also be some way to like stop tanks that don't have a supply line to oil--ie a city which has an unexpended oil bundle (buildng?).

Illegal Pick Number 5: Secessionist splinter civs.

Illegal Pick Number 6: Simple AI Editing. I want to be able to improve the AI without having to get a degree to do it.

Education is a neat idea. I think it has more role than just the advancement of technology, though. Obviously technology can advance with a very exclusive or limited education system based on the intellectually elite. And giving more people a strong foundation in education can make the big jump forward that much easier. Not to mention your thoughts on dark ages.

But education has a hidden curriculum. It builds national pride based on how you teach history. It builds moral values based on the manners you teach kids early on. In other words, it has the power to assimilate and build order in your empire. On the other hand, education has the power to make people ask harder questions, to explore the "grimier" parts of your history and criticize it, to even become cynical with the rule of your government. So education also has the power to destabilize.

I'm more just exploring the topic, not to say that all of it could be applied to Civ.

But choices to make could include:

- do you give a lopsided view of history, or do you encourage the truth, no matter how bad it makes you look? giving a lopsided view of history could reduce war weariness, and limit the *internal* damage that having a bad international reputation can cause, and prevent the probabilty of secession, even speed assimilation... but reduce happiness for those who are not ready to be assimilated, and increase the damage they do.

- is it something for the rich, or is it for everybody? does everyone in your society get public access until grade 5? does everyone in your society get public access until grade 12? can people go to university for free, so long as they want to? more education could have more effects -- good and bad

- do you want to encourage anything in particular? bare minimum is scientific stuff. but do you fund the sports and arts, encouraging culture? do you permit private education? do you give your schools a practical focus, encouraging manufacturing and production? do you tie your schools to the military?

These are all food for thought. I guess what I'm saying is that in real life, there's a genuine advantage to keeping your people dumb. Of course, in doing so, you take a risk of what you talk about -- a dark age. Because you failed to get those brilliant ideas out into the mainstream, the ideas disappeared, and your people are ignorant.

I'm also a fan of secession, as you might already know. I imagined that being tied into ideas of provinces, which i know might be hard to comprehend for the varied and polarized ideas about what provinces should do. I guess I failed to articulate that provinces could be exactly what we have in Civ 3 (that is, there are no provinces) except for adding secession -- which explains why the idea is unclear and uncompelling for some.

I've gotta bring support for your opinion on resources, though.

I think it should be possible that is a CIV lost al of its universities/libraries it could cause a dark ages. Think of all the knowledge that was lost when Alexandria burned...
Maybe the need for libraries (at least ONE/Civ) until Industrial, then Universities through modern...

Well a modified version of this would be interesting for the idea of Knowledge retention. There would be a need for a certain amount of libraries and universities to maintain knowledge and research. Research Libraries would be required to maintain and continue reserach in the modern ages. Maybe libraries and universiteis would make practical and decent research rates possible, instead of ssimply supplementing it.

I think this is kind of a bigger picture aspect... if libraries prevent dark ages, let alone influence the values and behaviors of your people, we're talking about a game where the people are kind of an obstacle. I know I'd like this, but a lot of people have made a case against this.

Still, I can't help but think of Warcraft, where you pump out units and they willingly go into battle to die no matter how stupid the order. I think that if Civ tried to be more like this, it would end up feeling like every Real Time Strategy Game, but slower because it is turn based.

It seems like a disasterous waste, guaranteed to only resonate with loyal Civ fans, if they even give it another chance. People who love war are going to say "enh, give me Age of Empires".