I am a very old civ fan (from the days of CIV1), and I was left with a mixture of feelings after the completion of my first games in CIV4 - some things are much better, but still there are other aspects that (IMHO) needs improving. Please forgive me in advance for the quite big list.
1. My biggest frustration was once again from the "Open Borders" concept. Of course, it doesn't make sense at all that this thing means the freedom to pass ALL your troops through another country - normally it should just mean that you can pass civilians, not armies. So I would like to have two versions of Open Borders: one that allows only non military units, and another one that allows all units. Or, maybe (considering my note #2) that you can pass troops to explore, but if you declare war to a neighbor then the borders will be immediately closed if I say so. Alternatively, it could be arranged that all troops that enter a foreign territory through the "soft" Open Borders could be "disarmed" that means, havent the ability to attack later, unless they return home to take their guns.
2. Say that a faraway country declares war against you, and you notice that your (otherwise very pleased) neighbor allows all their troops to pass through his territory. Of course, in real life that would be equivalent to a treason or a declaration of war by your neighbor - that means, if you feel like it, you should be able to "declare" war against him (for opening the borders to your enemies) without having the "penalty" of war declaration (he should be considered fully responsible for the war). At least, there should be the option of giving the neighbor an "ultimatum": either close the borders, or declare war. Then the decision is his, and so is the decision penalty.
3. This combination on "Open Civilian Borders" and "Open All Borders" can also answer the (very untrue) effect of "cultural invasion". If we look around, we notice that whatever country wants to avoid cultural invasion, it immediately closes (or makes extremely difficult to pass) the borders even for the civilians. That means, with a "Fully Closed Border" the cultural invasion should be really slower than in the game, but the civ that enforces closed borders should have an immediate "science penalty" (for example, -10% total science - as the ideas cannot travel, science is slowed down). On top of that, if despite the closed borders the cultural difference is so great that the revolution can't be avoided, then when the revolution comes there should be a quite big period of anarchy (it reminds Eastern Europe in the late 80's).
4. I think that the result of the battles, especially in older eras (or not so older, it also happened quite a few times in the 20th century), was much different: after winning a city (i.e. a territory) the victorious armies used to enforce the well known idea of "population evacuation" - that means, it could be arranged in the following peace treaty that this area would be "cleaned" by the old citizens and the winner had then a nice and working area (to populate it with his own people). In CIV4 you may win a city but, if you don't continue the war until the end, the neighbor cities usually allow you only to use (at most) half of the squares. Still, there could be a treaty option like "evacuate conquered areas" that gives you immediately command of all the WORKING squares of the city (of course, the other party must also agree on that condition). If in the future these tiles change again status through culture it's OK, but immediately after a won war it is very untrue to have a still occupied city working area.
5. The system with the Unit strengths is a bit relaxed in that it allows for "impossible" results. I always remember as an example the experience I had in CIV1, when I lost a Battleship to a Barbarian Warrior - in CIV4 things are much better, but still I believe that there should be an "era penalty" (if I remember well, there was one in CIV3) - when a unit is "obsolete", it just doesn't fight (for example, what meaning does it have to lose a Tank to a Knight, as happened to me in a recent game). In my opinion, when you advance to an era, you should be forced to change all the units from "era-2" - otherwise these unit will be able to be used only for parades. The other way round, if you attack someone that is left in the stone age, there should be no battle at all if you attack with units "2 eras later than his".
A small note: This helps also to avoid a usual "shortcut" used by the AI: it avoids Military Tradition if it sees that is falling behind in technology, sensing that with a mixture of Catapult+Riflemen+Knight vs Cavalry or Cannons+Infantry+Knight vs Tank it can put up some defence (which is quite true, if we ignore the fact that it can protect only the cities, since the Tanks are quite slow to build and you usually dont have many factories ready with energy at that time). Still, it is unthinkable for me that Infantry and the later military units can be built without some kind of Military Tradition (the "combined arms" principle), so I believe that there should be a dependance between the two.
6. The old "Mutual Protection Pact" doesn't necessarily have to mean that you like someone very much, as is interpreted in CIV4's AI. It just means that you fear someone else even more. So, even though this wouldn't be very helpful for my game style, I think that it would be correct the weaker civs to make such pacts, or in fact any civ that believes that is threatened. This doesn't apply to Multiplayer, of course, (as men know better than AI), but in single player it's stupid to see each one sitting there and waiting for his turn to be killed.
7. Finally (not to make the list too big), I agree with the many others that noted that naval units are far less functional in CIV4 (as also happens with Artillery and air units). I would also like to add that I think Gunships are a bit weak too: they should be able to cross seas (but not stop in sea squares), to attack at least the Transports and the Fishing Boats, and to carry infantry units (to name only some of the functions they can have in battles). Also, it has no meaning at all to lose a Gunship from an ancient unit (that happens only with Rambo III "archery"). And, of course, there should be a big defensive penalty for Gunships vs Fighters.
Atreas
1. My biggest frustration was once again from the "Open Borders" concept. Of course, it doesn't make sense at all that this thing means the freedom to pass ALL your troops through another country - normally it should just mean that you can pass civilians, not armies. So I would like to have two versions of Open Borders: one that allows only non military units, and another one that allows all units. Or, maybe (considering my note #2) that you can pass troops to explore, but if you declare war to a neighbor then the borders will be immediately closed if I say so. Alternatively, it could be arranged that all troops that enter a foreign territory through the "soft" Open Borders could be "disarmed" that means, havent the ability to attack later, unless they return home to take their guns.
2. Say that a faraway country declares war against you, and you notice that your (otherwise very pleased) neighbor allows all their troops to pass through his territory. Of course, in real life that would be equivalent to a treason or a declaration of war by your neighbor - that means, if you feel like it, you should be able to "declare" war against him (for opening the borders to your enemies) without having the "penalty" of war declaration (he should be considered fully responsible for the war). At least, there should be the option of giving the neighbor an "ultimatum": either close the borders, or declare war. Then the decision is his, and so is the decision penalty.
3. This combination on "Open Civilian Borders" and "Open All Borders" can also answer the (very untrue) effect of "cultural invasion". If we look around, we notice that whatever country wants to avoid cultural invasion, it immediately closes (or makes extremely difficult to pass) the borders even for the civilians. That means, with a "Fully Closed Border" the cultural invasion should be really slower than in the game, but the civ that enforces closed borders should have an immediate "science penalty" (for example, -10% total science - as the ideas cannot travel, science is slowed down). On top of that, if despite the closed borders the cultural difference is so great that the revolution can't be avoided, then when the revolution comes there should be a quite big period of anarchy (it reminds Eastern Europe in the late 80's).
4. I think that the result of the battles, especially in older eras (or not so older, it also happened quite a few times in the 20th century), was much different: after winning a city (i.e. a territory) the victorious armies used to enforce the well known idea of "population evacuation" - that means, it could be arranged in the following peace treaty that this area would be "cleaned" by the old citizens and the winner had then a nice and working area (to populate it with his own people). In CIV4 you may win a city but, if you don't continue the war until the end, the neighbor cities usually allow you only to use (at most) half of the squares. Still, there could be a treaty option like "evacuate conquered areas" that gives you immediately command of all the WORKING squares of the city (of course, the other party must also agree on that condition). If in the future these tiles change again status through culture it's OK, but immediately after a won war it is very untrue to have a still occupied city working area.
5. The system with the Unit strengths is a bit relaxed in that it allows for "impossible" results. I always remember as an example the experience I had in CIV1, when I lost a Battleship to a Barbarian Warrior - in CIV4 things are much better, but still I believe that there should be an "era penalty" (if I remember well, there was one in CIV3) - when a unit is "obsolete", it just doesn't fight (for example, what meaning does it have to lose a Tank to a Knight, as happened to me in a recent game). In my opinion, when you advance to an era, you should be forced to change all the units from "era-2" - otherwise these unit will be able to be used only for parades. The other way round, if you attack someone that is left in the stone age, there should be no battle at all if you attack with units "2 eras later than his".
A small note: This helps also to avoid a usual "shortcut" used by the AI: it avoids Military Tradition if it sees that is falling behind in technology, sensing that with a mixture of Catapult+Riflemen+Knight vs Cavalry or Cannons+Infantry+Knight vs Tank it can put up some defence (which is quite true, if we ignore the fact that it can protect only the cities, since the Tanks are quite slow to build and you usually dont have many factories ready with energy at that time). Still, it is unthinkable for me that Infantry and the later military units can be built without some kind of Military Tradition (the "combined arms" principle), so I believe that there should be a dependance between the two.
6. The old "Mutual Protection Pact" doesn't necessarily have to mean that you like someone very much, as is interpreted in CIV4's AI. It just means that you fear someone else even more. So, even though this wouldn't be very helpful for my game style, I think that it would be correct the weaker civs to make such pacts, or in fact any civ that believes that is threatened. This doesn't apply to Multiplayer, of course, (as men know better than AI), but in single player it's stupid to see each one sitting there and waiting for his turn to be killed.
7. Finally (not to make the list too big), I agree with the many others that noted that naval units are far less functional in CIV4 (as also happens with Artillery and air units). I would also like to add that I think Gunships are a bit weak too: they should be able to cross seas (but not stop in sea squares), to attack at least the Transports and the Fishing Boats, and to carry infantry units (to name only some of the functions they can have in battles). Also, it has no meaning at all to lose a Gunship from an ancient unit (that happens only with Rambo III "archery"). And, of course, there should be a big defensive penalty for Gunships vs Fighters.
Atreas
