The Official Civ4 Ideas Thread

Status
Not open for further replies.
1. Industry. National prosperity is a function of the ability of a people to convert raw materials into consumable goods. Let us build industrial improvements that will allow us to input raw materials (mined or traded for) and output goods that can be consumed or traded. This would create markets, industries and economies and would greatly enhance the non-military aspects of the game. Some countries would be rich in raw materials but if they don't invest in industrial capacity they'll get left behind. Others (i.e. Hong Kong) could be poor in raw materials but wealthy because they invested in factories and found markets for their goods. The point is that it's really not the raw materials that make a nation wealthy so much as what they do with them. You could add additional layers of complexity based on this such as trade embargos (increases prices), free trade agreements (reduces prices). etc. etc.

1 Hexes are beautiful! I think you can even bend them into a spherical world with a little geometric aptitude.

2. Navigable rivers

3. Add the concept of Money! (deficit spending and money creation). Have a budget shortfall? Borrow it but watch as your future treasury gets devoured by interest payments. Print money and watch your short term economy take off but careful, your prices will inflate, people become unhappy and you can no longer afford the resources that get pumped into your factories. Next thing you know your in a depression! I've got hundreds of ideas on how to add this in.

4. More in depth, year over year stats to track your progress/failure: GDP, Trade Balance, PCI, Current Account, Income Disparity, Undemployemnt, Interest Rates, Inflation, etc. etc.

One clarification from earlier: Democracy is a government of referendum where the majority rules. The Athenians were the last to have it. We are gravitating that way in the U.S. which I would argue is bad. Republic is a government whereby lected officials make the decisions and are limited by law.
 
This thread, as unorganized as it seems, has a few good ideas that keep popping up. Although I'm re-iterating, for anyone who's listening, these are some of the most popular ideas that are coming up:
1) Improved combat system that allows for specialists, combined arms, guerrilla tactics, and and overall deeper strategy
2) Terrain naming, such as naming rivers and mountain ranges
3) Improved diplomacy that allows for greater depth of interaction between friends, such as selling units
4) More civs
5) More civs on map
6) The idea I am seeing most that I also largely support is the concept of civil wars, where one civ breaks off from another
7) Barbarians in more modern ages
8) Lowered corruption, espionage costs
9) More great leaders, like religious or business leaders
10)Choosing religion as one would a government
11)The ability to choose from more than one leaderhead when you select a civ
12)A more user-friendly, in-depth editor
13)Bridges and canals
14)Re-working "culture-flipping" and possibly adding immigration
15)Flavour units, city graphics
16)Multi-figure units
These ideas, by this point, are nothing new. I think, however, that they represent the most frequent and best ideas posted on this thread. Hopefully this will organize the thread a bit better and capture the attention of the game's developers.
 
Great Leaders

Great Leaders should have a lifespan. Assuming these geniuses arrive at age 20 and live to 120, they should disappear after 100 years. A warning before they disappear would be nice.

Great leaders ought to be capturable and ransomable.

A captured MGL should cause a significant morale loss (if morale rules are implemented). If not ransomed, then after a peace treaty has been signed, the MGL could be used to build any of the capturing civ's available military unit, or to perform one espionage function.

A captured SGL, after peace is signed, could be used as a standard SGL, but at 1/3 the ability (1/3 of Wonder cost is added for example), or to gain a free tech. The US got a lot of Rocket Scientists form Germany after WWII, which significantly boosted our knowledge.

A MGL or army created by a MGL could exert a zone of influence in enemy territory. The influence would be tile the MGL is in in any case, and the nine surrounding tiles except if enemy troops are in or adjacent to that tile. Within this boundary, all units may move freely, taking advantage of roads or rails.

--

Construction Equipment. If more tasks are added to workers (as I suggested in a previous post) then cities could produce construction equipment. Paired with a worker, any worker action would be completed in one turn.

--

Major Game Flaw – Has anyone else ever noticed that the French actually fight wars?
 
I would like to see Poland as a new civilization. They had been, for a brief period of time, biggest country in the Europe - from Baltic to the Black Sea - and they stopped Ottoman Turk advance at Wien. They also had Copernicus, Shopin etc... so I believe they deserve to "participate" more than many that are already in.
 
More kinds of maps:
true spherical (East links with West), torroidal (North links South, East with West).

The possibility for civs to start on diferent Worlds and to meet up in space. :cool:
 
One thing I will never understand is why they eliminated the Civ2-style Air Force :crazyeye:
 
I have got an idea.

Couldn't there be Dark ages for each civ?
Like in 1910-1940(I am not a bit certain about the eyars), the time of the great depression ,America would suffer from a high corruption, many unhappy people and citie's population dropping due to the drop of food and shield production.

Germany would suffer in the time after the first world war.

Russia, after the bolcheviks got power and so on.
 
That is too arbitrary. The purpose of Civ is to create your Own, alternate history.
 
Yeah, but there are golden ages. So, why not adding dark ages? (every civ has its ups and downs). And having more than one golden age/dark age would be good too, not? (thinking of 2 each per game?).

In addition to that, this would also allow a more logical leader system. Make them change whenever a dark age/golden age starts or ends. I know that leads to a problem with the pictures (in diplo screen).

solution, take only one picture per each leader. (not moods) --> a civ would have 9 (1 start, 4 ga/da, 4 (inbeetween times) leaders, ok, that's too much. (36 pictures per civ, lacking of leader names for many civs) So why not let some leader having the same graphic?
 
The game is probably going to be 3D, right? how many big games released now are 2D? and how many will there be in 2005?

Civ 4 should have
smooth zooming and camera rotation that you can control whenever you want.
things can actually stand higher when ontop of a mountain.
the world will actually be a 3D sphere.
 
Lots of ideas...poorly-formed statements:

1. 3 government "tracts" where the actual government type changes with each age of advancement...
So, the tracts are despotic, parliamentary, and communal (e.g.).

Government "tract" - Ancient - Medieval - Industrial - Modern
Despotic - Tyrant - Monarch - Fascist - Religious Icon
Parliamentary - City Democracy - Republic - Democracy - Internat'l Democracy(?)
Communal - Tribal - Feudalism - Communism - Collective

Govt.s with names similar to Civ3 names should be similar to their Civ3 counterparts. As you progress up each "chain", the govts. should get better, so Collective is better than Communism is better than Feudalism is better than Tribal, for example. Different chains are hard to compare, so Communism vs. Democracy is hard, for example. To change within a chain should be a very brief "anarchy" -- like one turn and only for shield production or something. To change chains should be difficult -- one turn per two cities or another pretty painful (fixed) cost. Starting government chain determined by civilization.

Each government chain would be very good at something and bad at other things. Parliamentary should be very good at science and culture, but struggle with corruption, separatist nations, offensive wars, etc. Despotic are very low corruption at home but bad distance penalties early on, with good military skills -- probably the worst at the beginning and the best at the endgame, in my particular view. Communal civilizations should do well on local stuff but lack a cohesive strategy (not sure how to implement, exactly). I somehow view low equal corruption but wars of conquest very hard, localized workgroups, etc.

2. Tie corruption/happiness/food/culture together

Growth shouldn't depend exclusively on enough food to grow. People have to want to be a part of your civilization and to grow. Plus, unhappy people should grow slower.

I'd like to see unrest more obvious, a bit harder to solve, and more problematic. Once unrest begins, that city should be much more likely to revolt -- join another civ or start its own new civilization with neighboring cities. This should be something that can be seen coming, but not necessarily prevented (e.g. American "Revolutionary War" vs. American "Civil War") through strength of arms. Corruption could/would tie into this, too -- the more corrupt a place, the more likely it is to secede.....

Again, though, this must be clear and visible. Founding cities halfway across the globe too early should make them highly likely to be a problem that's easier to let go of than to solve -- at least in the short-term. Try to encourage world-spanning empires to not occur until late in the game.

3. More diplomacy options

Don't force everything into a one-size/fits-all 20 turn deal. Allow some variations in length. I have no problem with continuing to put everything in terms of present gold pieces for value, as long as it's done well. 1 gpt for 100 turns is much less valuable than 50 gpt for 2 turns, for example.

If/when a deal is broken, allow the breaker to "pay reparations" to the one who lost the deal -- some kind of interest system wherein the longer you wait, the more you have to pay. Have somebody owing reparations not be given any kind of reasonable per-turn deals.

That's all I have right now. But I like bold/creative/big leaps forward as the Civ-series grows/changes/develops.

Arathorn
 
Civ 4 should have
smooth zooming and camera rotation that you can control whenever you want.

Why? To completely ruin the experience? For a useless feature that adds nothing to gameplay but adds a ton of development time/cost. LOTS of games have pretty, fancy 3D engines. Some of them even deserve them. But the Civ-series has been (and should continue to be, IMO) about gameplay and thinking, not fancy gadgets.

Arathorn
 
No, but it's needed to go with the time. Be modern, in other case, no NEW player will buy it! BUt I don't think it has to have a camera rotation, thats useless. But it's perhaps needed if a city 'hides' behind a mountain and you can't see it! Or a other solution.

I think, a graphic like the coming 'Rome - Total War' would be totally fine and enough!

mfG mitsho
 
Hi fellow civers!

Yes, I am aware that there is another "official civ 4 idea" thread in action. But, it's too crowded and i really like my ideas, so i want to post them here.

Before i begin with some of my ideas, I'd like to say that i have not read all of the posts regarding civ 4 ideas.

I have tons more, but here are some that currently come to mind:

1) Immigration: Immigration is a BIG factor in civilizations. Just take a look at, say, America - if it weren't for it's large amounts of immigration, it would never be as powerful and influential as it now it. Different people coming in contribute to the innovations, etc. of civilizations and nations. If your people are happy, and you have a government that is appealing to people, other people from other civs will immigrate to you. Your population increases, theirs decreases. Of course, you can set you policies not to allow them in, and it also largely depends on the other civ. YOu get the point.

2) Introduce the media: the media plays a crucial role in our society! TeeVee, Internet, Telecommunication! Applications: I'm not too sure. FOr one, you could propagate propaganda to other civs, and maybe they will become loyal to you. Or do it to your own people, lie to them about wars, but in a democracy/republic, in wars for instance, there effects could be increased war weariness too, as a risk. I don't know. i just think it's all a big thing, and civ should implement it somehow.

3) Viruses: you have diseases from jungles and marshland, why not have viruses? like SARS. the effects: some citizens may die, others will be unhappy (or both :) ). YOu need to stop it before it spreads. maybe hospitals will do the thing. i don't know.

4) Terrorism: now, this one has to be in civ 4 somehow. YOu have barbarisms, i know, but I've never seen ancient-style barbarians with axes running around recently. have you. modern-age barbarians: terrorists. maybe they could have a different barbarian style for every different age. HOwever, the terrorists would work differently then the barbarians. For one, they don't have a physical "hut" and other things, and you start them up for different reasons...maybe even have cyber-terrorism...

5) Other leaders: you have the military leader, and they just added the scientific to conquests, why not have others, such as cultural or religious? they should all be capable or rushing wonders, but have another alternative effect.

6) i know this one sounds lame, maybe it is: environmental tourism....on second thought, maybe it's a bad idea. No, it is a bad idea.

7) civil wars!: not all civs and nations started out in the beginning. For example, America came to be when it parted from England...you can have them when they are too far, or isolated from the other cities, or your people are unhappy, something like that.

8) Protectorates: you know, like Guam or something. sometimes, you don't want to destroy a city, or run it, you get the jist. the details, i am not sure.

9) the internet and globalization: very important. it must be somehow implemented late in the modern age. how, i am not sure, but these days it a big thing.

10) satellites: i heard they have them in conquests, but, i think, only to reveal the map. they should have many other operations: for example, for a turn, they should allow you to, say, eliminate fog of war in any location on the entire map.

11) highways and superhighways: as for land transportation: first, you have roads, them railroads? does it stop there? why should it? i'm not about the details.

12) economics: there is not much of this in civ. people don't realize what an effect this has on civilizations and nation. I'd like to see concepts of tax levels, investments, business cycles, markets, (un)employment...

13): maybe, maybe, have bridges: you need some tech first, and you can only do it across ONE COAST square, and it should be more complex than a simple workers' action...

14) maybe have national parks: i dont know...

15) you should have the ability to trade units. think about real life. it is often that countries give weapons to other nations. however, there should be a tech requirement.

16) you should be able to loan money, but have interest on it.

17) maybe have the ability to transport food from city to city, i don't know, maybe it will make it too easy...

18) Oil rigs, it's an idea...

19) wind affecting movement of galleys? probably a bad idea...

20) better interface: for exam, if i wanted a certain tech, it is damn inconvenient for me to go and ask each other civ to see if they have it. instead, the advisor should tell right away...

21) the future is cool, but i always thought it's better to have a more developed present and past. but maybe just a little into the future, like cloning could increase population, or nanotechnology, which can do something else…

...

22) black market? Drugs?

23) the international space station?

24) different kinds of government. and by this, i don't mean republic, communism...but city-states, empire, and, later on, nationalism.

25) why shouldn’t you or AI be able to surrender. for example: france...

26) more city improvements: theaters, zoos(?), museums?

27) maybe when you conquer cities, you can hand them over to the UN for example. have the UN play a bigger role.

28) you have mountains, but don't you find it unrealistic that a warrior can trek grassland as easily as, say, mount Everest?! have special mountains, that only planes, helicopters, and special unites can go.

29) forest fires...

30) underground tunnels? like in japan, or the one between England and France?

31) farms...?

32) how your recourses deplete should depend on how much you use them, instead of them depleting randomly

33) resources should have other than military applications: just think today - the us, for example, uses middle eastern gas for not just military, but for us, citizens, who need to drive, heat our homes, etc...later, upon researching certain techs, you could eliminate this need (THIS IS EXACTLY WHAT AMERICA SHOULD DO!!!).

34) have power lines or something. and shouldn't power plants be outside the city? you should be able to build a plant, somehow, outside the city, and connect it with power lines. there is a chance of meltdown, and there should be a limit, maybe two per city.

35) just for prettiness, when you have multiple unites on a tile, have it so that they are all seen, but each is smaller

36) more govs, like theocracy for instance, or oligopoly, and more conquests!

37) INTRODUCE ISRAEL AS ANOTHER CIV: a must. Leader: Ben gurion, or king david/solomon. Attributes: not sure, maybe scientific and religious. UU?: maybe the macabee?



Well, that’s it, for now at least.

Thoughts?
 
Okay, I've checked most all of this thread, and have not found the ideas which I have been trying to explain as of yet. This is unfortunate, and I hope to rectify this, and see other people use it! Here it goes again!

The idea I am putting forth for a new version of Civilization would be provinces. This idea would allow a means to add internal diplomacy, civil wars, a new slant on the uses of seperate governments,and a means to change corruption and balance the game, as well as simply make things simpler.

The provincial system I have thought of is not that complicated of a thought. in the real world, nations are seperated into provinces, prefectures, etc., which allow better management, and more local government. this is not really well shown in Civ 3,

The province system would seperate cities into groups of somewhere between 2/3 and 5/6. [Haven't decided on minimum and maximum numbers] the first group would be led by your capital city, and this 'province' would be the center of the nation you create. After the first three or four cities, the new cities made would seperate into a new province, which would, while under your control, interact with your capital area, and make known the area's cities needs, and wants. Each of these could have a provincial capital, which would be the fulcrum of this unit, and slightly lower corruption in the province, with no effect on other provinces, and could only be built[ not automatic] once a province has three or more cities. As more provinces are created, each one could have seperate tallies of culture and economic totals, which, while still added to your entirety, are also local to each province, so that some [like your capital] could have large amounts of culture, while smaller, newer ones may not. The balance between provinces could allow new intranational politics, as the different needs of the provinces are spoken out, and diferent provinces even possibly disagree on issues like military strength, government, scientific research, and focus of production, and so on, and cause new types of problems for the player. this system would allow for civil wars, if one high culture province a ways from your capital, for instance, feels wronged to the point of revolution, factors like the relations with other nearby provinces, strength of the central government, and relation of provinces to the capital could be the deciding factors on which provinces defect, and which stay. This would also allow new bends on international politics, as different provinces may suggest different courses of action, and the ones you take woul affect national opinion of your rule in each seperate province.

I have more thoughts on it, but please tell me what you think of this? I would like to know, alright? See you later with more!
 
a lot of people, such as myself, want to see israel as a new civ. that would be great! i think they had it in civ I or II, as the hebrew. sadly, i'm afraid they won't due to recent political correctness.
 
Here's my idea. I find it absurd that Modern Ages civs still have a bunch of spearmen and archers roaming the world. So why not force a player, upon the discovery of an upgrade tech, to either upgrade its units or disband them ?
This will reflect the cost of keeping an up-to-date army, will still allow tech-******ed civs to build military units, and bring more realistic fights without altering the combat model.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom