lostcause
Forever Lost
Ever since I first played Civilization II at a cousin's house, I've been in love with the game. After I bought Civilization III for myself, I have actually been able to kind of develop a list of things I would like to see in Civ IV. The list is short and simple (besides simultaneous release on the Mac). The Two Main things I would want to change would be colonization and war.
While I'm not sure about most people, I play a more hegemonial game. I might not be the largest kid on the block, but I generally have to most power or control. I don't typically fight my way onto another landmass, but I always try to make my presence known. The way I do this is by placing cities, but that is not what I wish I could do. I have come up with two things that I would change concerning empire building: Colonies and Civil War
Colonies
Currently, the only way you can colonize is by placing cities in locations away from your main sphere of influence. This is probably OK for many, but is missing an element for me. I want to create colonies. Not like worker colonies, but small towns that are placed by a settler. Maybe instead of one city, a settler can build two or three colonies. Colonies wouldnt have as much influence as a city, but they would be more numerous, and could still develop into cities. Boston was originally a British colony, but now it is a full-fledged city, it wouldnt still be called a colony, overlooking American independence. It would be more historically accurate, instead of a city; it would be like that small group of people left by the colonizing power, which could lead to huge colonization battles, similar to that of the Americas, Africa and to some degree Asia.
Civil War
When I thought of the colonization idea, came up with another idea that could easily lead to a whole new level of difficulty: Civil War. Say that when you are playing Greece. And you go to some nearby island and place a colony. The people are inherently Greek, but they view themselves more as an entity of the Grecian empire. The people would love their homeland, but irritate them, or just not care for them, Civil War would break out. In the end there would be two Grecian civilizations, or one. Do you fight them, or give them independence? It would lead to a more difficult game to try to keep troublesome colonies in line. Imagine just discovering a new continent with two Greeces. You would have to make a decision: Do I build cities, and only have to deal with losing the city to a rival civ? Or do I build twice as many colonies; have a greater sphere of influence, while also dealing with a chance at Civil War, as well as losing the city/colony to a rival civ?
I havent got into many wars. Maybe I am timid, but that doesnt mean I dont have any ideas. My two main ideas are occupation and AI Declaration of War.
Occupation
If I were part of a coalition to defeat the evil Roman Empire, maybe I dont to use my military force to try to force my rule on the Roman people forever and ever. What would be nice if the Roman people would still rule themselves, but under the guidance of my countries fist for forty years, so a stable, friendly government can be put in place. But maybe I still want some cities. You should have the option to occupy a city, or place it under your rule as part of your empire on a colonial status like that I mentioned above. You now would have to deal with a Roman revolt in a colony, or occupy Rome like the allies did in Germany after World War II.
AI Declaration of War.
I havent been in many wars since I began to play Civilization. Its not that I dont want to, but that I dont want to be the one to declare war. I want it to be somewhat easier to irritate a rival AI into fighting a war. The next time I move my troops back on your turf, maybe you will actually declare war on me instead of threatening me again. I want to go to war because the AI is irritated, and not have to declare war for no reason.
Though my two cents worth might not mean much, but I think it would be cool to have some of these elements included in the release of Civ IV.
Colonization
While I'm not sure about most people, I play a more hegemonial game. I might not be the largest kid on the block, but I generally have to most power or control. I don't typically fight my way onto another landmass, but I always try to make my presence known. The way I do this is by placing cities, but that is not what I wish I could do. I have come up with two things that I would change concerning empire building: Colonies and Civil War
Colonies
Currently, the only way you can colonize is by placing cities in locations away from your main sphere of influence. This is probably OK for many, but is missing an element for me. I want to create colonies. Not like worker colonies, but small towns that are placed by a settler. Maybe instead of one city, a settler can build two or three colonies. Colonies wouldnt have as much influence as a city, but they would be more numerous, and could still develop into cities. Boston was originally a British colony, but now it is a full-fledged city, it wouldnt still be called a colony, overlooking American independence. It would be more historically accurate, instead of a city; it would be like that small group of people left by the colonizing power, which could lead to huge colonization battles, similar to that of the Americas, Africa and to some degree Asia.
Civil War
When I thought of the colonization idea, came up with another idea that could easily lead to a whole new level of difficulty: Civil War. Say that when you are playing Greece. And you go to some nearby island and place a colony. The people are inherently Greek, but they view themselves more as an entity of the Grecian empire. The people would love their homeland, but irritate them, or just not care for them, Civil War would break out. In the end there would be two Grecian civilizations, or one. Do you fight them, or give them independence? It would lead to a more difficult game to try to keep troublesome colonies in line. Imagine just discovering a new continent with two Greeces. You would have to make a decision: Do I build cities, and only have to deal with losing the city to a rival civ? Or do I build twice as many colonies; have a greater sphere of influence, while also dealing with a chance at Civil War, as well as losing the city/colony to a rival civ?
War
I havent got into many wars. Maybe I am timid, but that doesnt mean I dont have any ideas. My two main ideas are occupation and AI Declaration of War.
Occupation
If I were part of a coalition to defeat the evil Roman Empire, maybe I dont to use my military force to try to force my rule on the Roman people forever and ever. What would be nice if the Roman people would still rule themselves, but under the guidance of my countries fist for forty years, so a stable, friendly government can be put in place. But maybe I still want some cities. You should have the option to occupy a city, or place it under your rule as part of your empire on a colonial status like that I mentioned above. You now would have to deal with a Roman revolt in a colony, or occupy Rome like the allies did in Germany after World War II.
AI Declaration of War.
I havent been in many wars since I began to play Civilization. Its not that I dont want to, but that I dont want to be the one to declare war. I want it to be somewhat easier to irritate a rival AI into fighting a war. The next time I move my troops back on your turf, maybe you will actually declare war on me instead of threatening me again. I want to go to war because the AI is irritated, and not have to declare war for no reason.
Though my two cents worth might not mean much, but I think it would be cool to have some of these elements included in the release of Civ IV.
