Suggestions and Requests

[freethink]

Air Conditioner Factory: Unlocks with Electronics, +1 and +1 per desert tile

This also causes the local aquifer to be depleted within 100 turns, starting a water crisis that can only be resolved by the player building a national project to reroute fresh water from another location to the alleged desert paradise...

In the current rules of the game this will accelerate global warming I think.
Wonder how AI would play with it.
In a similar vein, I want to ask if planting a forest as a worker action is on the table

 

[freethink]

Also this is more of a comment than a suggestion, but I hate deforestation in the game, even at the cost of temporary gains I never demolish a forest unless there is a resource on top of it, but I never deforest for its sake. I prefer lumber mills --> natural parks later. Does anyone else play like this?

 

[FishFishFish]

Swap the current Congo's leader portrait with this one.

 

[Tigranes]

Also this is more of a comment than a suggestion, but I hate deforestation in the game, even at the cost of temporary gains I never demolish a forest unless there is a resource on top of it, but I never deforest for its sake. I prefer lumber mills --> natural parks later. Does anyone else play like this?

I share your sentiment but sometimes you just need those hammers.

 

[Dracosolon]

I generally keep lumbermills unless the terrain is sufficiently hilly that production is no big deal (like China). In the late game they're often replaced if possible with Central Planning Watermills though.

 

[1SDANi]

Perhaps this was mentioned before... The concept of population migration between cities is missing from the game, unless I'm missing something. I suppose it was left out to keep the challenge of growing cities on less fertile sites, which is a gameplay reason but not realistic. Suppose we have an infertile site with a luxury resource, such as gold. History shows that a massive migration will take place, such as the California gold rush. Even if there's no reason for voluntary migration, forced relocations took place worldwide until most recent times. I don't think that allowing a settler to join a city would be appropriate. As I see it, the settler is not just 1 population but also includes all the resources needed for founding a city. Another argument is that both the settler and worker don't subtract population, so they shouldn't add any. So I propose a new unit: the migrant costing 1 population. Real migrants don't have resources, so the migrant should cost just a few hammers. Real migrants are also unhappy, so I'd make the migrant unhappy upon joining a city for X turns, so a city would gain one temporarily unhappy citizen. This one unhappiness could also be interpreted in another way: the immigrants cause temporary unrest among the city population until they are assimilated. You could relocate angry citizens, giving you another way of dealing with overpopulation. You might reconsider your preferred site for expansion. Colonization would be way more dynamic. The ability to move populations would be quite a power trip, which is what Civ is all about. Thanks for considering!

I've always been partial to splitting Health and Food Resources and reworking how Trade Routes work. Keep medicinal and preservative resources like Salt (salting meats) and Tea (boiling water) giving Health while food resources like Wheat and Cows give both Food and Unhealthiness (Wheat representing its domination of diets leading to worse nutrition and Cows representing cross-species diseases and the like), with Trade Routes moving resources in addition to generating Commerce in both cities based on the total Commerce that each city produces each turn (not Commerce per turn, but Culture + Science + Espionage + Gold, real world examples of each contributing to commercial trade being Hollywood, Silicon Valley, the CIA's drug smuggling venture, and Stock Brokering), maybe with all but the 5 wealthiest cities being willing to trade their last copy of a given resource, as well as spreading a little of each cities' culture output to each other as the owner of the other city's culture and, if it's foreign, giving both civs espionage on the other based on the espionage output of their respective cities, as well as a little progress towards all techs that the other civ has already discovered. Would be a massive change tho, and like, trade routes already are some of the main contributors of turn times from what I've heard, so unless it can be super optimized I'm not sure if it'd be worth it. Would be super cool to give Culture more of a use and Open Borders more of a reason to not be an auto-accept/propose tho.

 

[smileywalk]

Religious persecution exists ever since religion appeared. Jews were persecuted in Egypt. Christians were persecuted in Rome. In my opinion, the persecutor appears way too late. I would situate him soon after the first religions appear, for example within the technology Law.

 

[freethink]

Religious persecution exists ever since religion appeared. Jews were persecuted in Egypt. Christians were persecuted in Rome. In my opinion, the persecutor appears way too late. I would situate him soon after the first religions appear, for example within the technology Law.

I think this makes sense. Persecution took a more advanced form with organized Monethesic and Dharamic religions. For instance, historians agree that the Nicean Christians were more comprehensive in their persecution of Greek Polyothesists. Hence, except for a few revival groups historical Polyothesists don't really exist anymore. However, I did propose a while back making a special multiple-choice BTS event where a pagan player can choose to persecute religion in his cities to have a few more turns to build classical wonders or achieve a religion UHV. The text was designed to be pretty generic.

 

[Dracosolon]

Speaking of which, I've been wondering if there would be interest in discussing possible new pagan URVs? The two generic goals aren't very fun and could be combined into something simple like "control seven pagan temples" while introducing a second custom goal. OTOH there are so many pagan religions by now that coming up with a second interesting goal for all of them might be too difficult.

 

[trexeric]

Speaking of pagans and persecution, I've been wondering for a long time if there was a way to stop the Vikings from converting to Catholicism so early. They seem to always convert as soon as Catholicism spreads to one of their cities, which is often before you even meet them as other civs, frequently as early as the 8th century. You could make the historical argument that Catholicism was spread to Viking cities in the 9th century (see Ansgar), but nothing really stuck until the 10th century (see Harald Bluetooth). And even then, it was regional, and I don't think an all-encompassing Vikings civ should be converting until around the year 1000, which theoretically should make them better antagonists for the rest of Europe. I get that organized religions should generally be preferrable to pagan religions, but the Christianization of Scandinavia was contentious and filled with back and forth, persecution on both sides, and a single Catholic city ought not a Catholic civ make.

 

[Dracosolon]

Speaking of pagans and persecution, I've been wondering for a long time if there was a way to stop the Vikings from converting to Catholicism so early. They seem to always convert as soon as Catholicism spreads to one of their cities, which is often before you even meet them as other civs, frequently as early as the 8th century. You could make the historical argument that Catholicism was spread to Viking cities in the 9th century (see Ansgar), but nothing really stuck until the 10th century (see Harald Bluetooth). And even then, it was regional, and I don't think an all-encompassing Vikings civ should be converting until around the year 1000, which theoretically should make them better antagonists for the rest of Europe. I get that organized religions should generally be preferrable to pagan religions, but the Christianization of Scandinavia was contentious and filled with back and forth, persecution on both sides, and a single Catholic city ought not a Catholic civ make.

Do the AIs have different thresholds for converting away from paganism? In my experience most civs very quickly do it. If yes, the Vikings could be higher.

I guess the alternative would be meddling with the religion map but once you do that that opens up a whole can of worms over doing it for everybody to ensure historical spread.

 

[1SDANi]

I usually convert ASAP when playing so it's also kinda a problem on the player end too, maybe a Pagan Viking-era Wonder or making their UP require a Pagan State Religion? I'd personally go with the latter if we want them to convert around the 10th century, as the Viking raids massively fell off after the 1066 CE Battle of Stamford Bridge

 

[trexeric]

Either or both of those would be cool, and I've advocated for adding the Temple at Uppsala and Þingvellir as potential pagan Viking wonders in the past. I also think that limiting the UP to only working under paganism would be a great constraint for the player. Though Christianization did not end the Viking Age (and indeed most rulers in Scandinavia were at least nominally Christian well before 1066), it was certainly one of the factors that contributed to it, and it would be pleasingly efficient to represent the Christianization, the Norse resistance to Christianization, and the impermanence of the Viking Age all with that one UP change.

 

[Dracosolon]

There's also this proposal by Publicola:

Okay, let's write this up as a full proposal:

Jomsborg

Primary Effect: all units get +10% combat bonus when attacking cities with a state religion (or boost it to 20%? Not really sure; that seems a bit OP)
OR
Primary Effect: Units get +25% bonus to loot when capturing cities with a state religion (or boost it to 50%? Same issue as above)
OR
Primary Effect: all units produced here get free City Raider I promotions (and City Raider II?)

Great People Points: Great General

Double Production Bonus: either Stone or Furs, depending on whether we use Furs as a required resource

Tech Requirement: Generalship?

(I wanted something early enough that the Vikings could build it shortly after spawn, and 'Generalship' fit the military theme for this wonder -- it's not notable for its construction or appearance, but for the military order that was based there).​

Obsolete by: Clergy?

(It was destroyed by the Christian king Magnus the Good during the period when Scandinavia was being Christianized, so Clergy fits)​

Other Requirements: Coastal city + 'Pantheon' civic + 'Furs' resource

(Coastal because it's a harbor fortress, Pantheon because it's a military order dedicated to the Norse gods, Furs to geographically restrict it to northern Europe. Though if we do add an early native American civ to the game with the new big map, it'd be hilarious to see this wonder built in early America...)​

Paganism + Fur might be a bit too conveniently restrictive for the Vikings, but maybe it could be something like:

- Requires Fur, coastal city.
- Gives a bonus (pillage? city attack?) against civs or cities with a different religion. That way you're still encouraged to not convert if your targets are mostly Catholic, but some rival civ like England or Russia can potentially build it if you're not fast enough.

 

[smileywalk]

Stacking melee and archery units does not enable the archery unit to strike an opposing melee unit without getting engaged in direct combat. If the archery unit is weaker than the stacked melee unit, the archery unit does nothing while the melee units fight it out. This is contrary to the very nature of archers being SUPPORT troops. In real life, archers would be protected behind melee soldiers and would fire on the enemy without getting engaged. I propose supporting fire ability for archers and gunpowder units if they are present at a melee or pre-gunpowder cavalry battle. I would use the first strike number to calculate the damage inflicted by supporting fire.

 

[smileywalk]

So I'm playing China and Kunming is my southern city bordering Indochina. I knew war elephants were gonna appear and positioned two spearmen at the border. Guess what? The elephant appeared THREE tiles within my territory. Barbarians should not appear deep within your land, right? Maybe at the outermost tile but that's it. Not to mention that this elephant destroyed my paddy field. That's another thing. How do you destroy a paddy field? It should be possible to destroy improvements that can be set on fire but not a paddy field. Mines can only be blown up, so I'd make then destructible when 1/2 of civilizations have gunpowder.

 

[Dracosolon]

The elephant ate all the rice and crapped in the field.

 

[Leoreth]

Barbarians should not appear deep within your land, right? Maybe at the outermost tile but that's it. Not to mention that this elephant destroyed my paddy field. That's another thing. How do you destroy a paddy field? It should be possible to destroy improvements that can be set on fire but not a paddy field.

Me posting during the warring states period

 

[Logoncal]

Me posting during the warring states period

This Fella would have fun trying out India, Russia or Persia.

 

[CometHalo]

I’m not sure how feasible the transformation from land unit to sea unit but I have always thought Civ4 should allow inland cities to build ships (maybe a unit named “Galleon (parts)” or something) and then you bring it via road to a port city or fort and it turns into a ship