Classenemy
Chieftain
- Joined
- Nov 3, 2008
- Messages
- 7
Hello list,
And sorry if I repeat what others suggested before. I don't know this forum that well. By the way, is there a central place where all suggestions made for improvement are kept by topic?
Anyway, there are many suggestions for improving CIV4 and won't bother you with all the little ones. I happen to be an old CIV player (for about 15 years) and here is my idea for a civ game that is not based so much on city management:
1. Instead of managing resources by city (food, wealth, and labor within its radius), resources should be managed centrally.
a) You should be able to control the amount of food, wealth, labor in one window (this way, you don't have to open each city and juggle its resources by square--good for reducing micromanagement).
b) If linked by roads, irrigations and diamond mines--among others--should provide for cities/urban squares at the other end of the continent (this way, you can have "the country's breadbasket" in the fertile plains in the east and the industrial cities in the arid west, for example)--consequence: hunger, if appears, affects all cities/urban squares/overall population
c) because of this, you should be able to build cities near each other, without fear of "eating" each other's resources. Moreover, you should be able to sprawl out of the "square" and develop into urban twin cities or multi-polis (or poleis)
d) if you choose to go this way, of course, there is a financial and ecological price: bringing resources from too far costs more and big urban sprawls create pollution
2. industrial and military improvements, such as chemical plants, nuclear plants, power/hydro plants, various factories, forges, mills, harbours, barracks, fortresses, could be built in unlimited numbers and also outside of the traditional "cities", in areas near resources (to avoid high costs), such as coal, rivers, fertile bays etc. Even civil improvements should be built outside of the city itself once the growth of the city takes it beyond its "square" limits
a) as a consequence, cities should be able to appear even if you don't explicitly choose to settle there--a number of improvements in one place attract people and, voila, a new city/ubran square appears.
b) the construction of industrial improvements should be relative to the economical needs for certain products (the national and global demand for timber, domestic commodities, industrial machinery, weapons, etc); this way, a certain supply-and-demand regulates how much you build.
c) urban population growth should be made relative to the growth of the industries & cultural, educational, and commerical amenities within the square (in a supply-and-demand growth logic) and not be city-based
d) these urban squares can grow through migration from other areas or from abroad (with advancement: immigration)
e)inefficient factories or amenities that cannot be financially supported in a weak economy lead to population decrease just as urban areas without necessary industry and amenities lose their population in favor of other cities
f) units should be produced in the squares with the corresponding improvements: tanks near factories, archers near barracks, trebuchets near workshops, great prophets near temples/certain units, such as riflemen could also be produced in one turn through conscription in every inhabited square (with general mobilization).
3. Cities should not be the focus of conquest, but territory (prolonged occupation of territory should bring it to you), and you should be able to make territorial demands by drawing on the map (or napkin, a la Churchill and Stalin
)
Conclusion: cities should be represented by their "city core squares" but this would have at most a symbolic/historic value, since the emphasis will be on the improvements built all over the territory, according to market demands and to your development plans. In this logic, it is possible that a "suburban" square becomes more developed and has a bigger cultural output than a city (which is actually the case with many American cities). We do not have to base everything (culture, wealth, industrial power) on how many cities we have, but on how developed our territory and how powerful our economy are.
Cheers!
And sorry if I repeat what others suggested before. I don't know this forum that well. By the way, is there a central place where all suggestions made for improvement are kept by topic?
Anyway, there are many suggestions for improving CIV4 and won't bother you with all the little ones. I happen to be an old CIV player (for about 15 years) and here is my idea for a civ game that is not based so much on city management:
1. Instead of managing resources by city (food, wealth, and labor within its radius), resources should be managed centrally.
a) You should be able to control the amount of food, wealth, labor in one window (this way, you don't have to open each city and juggle its resources by square--good for reducing micromanagement).
b) If linked by roads, irrigations and diamond mines--among others--should provide for cities/urban squares at the other end of the continent (this way, you can have "the country's breadbasket" in the fertile plains in the east and the industrial cities in the arid west, for example)--consequence: hunger, if appears, affects all cities/urban squares/overall population
c) because of this, you should be able to build cities near each other, without fear of "eating" each other's resources. Moreover, you should be able to sprawl out of the "square" and develop into urban twin cities or multi-polis (or poleis)
d) if you choose to go this way, of course, there is a financial and ecological price: bringing resources from too far costs more and big urban sprawls create pollution
2. industrial and military improvements, such as chemical plants, nuclear plants, power/hydro plants, various factories, forges, mills, harbours, barracks, fortresses, could be built in unlimited numbers and also outside of the traditional "cities", in areas near resources (to avoid high costs), such as coal, rivers, fertile bays etc. Even civil improvements should be built outside of the city itself once the growth of the city takes it beyond its "square" limits
a) as a consequence, cities should be able to appear even if you don't explicitly choose to settle there--a number of improvements in one place attract people and, voila, a new city/ubran square appears.
b) the construction of industrial improvements should be relative to the economical needs for certain products (the national and global demand for timber, domestic commodities, industrial machinery, weapons, etc); this way, a certain supply-and-demand regulates how much you build.
c) urban population growth should be made relative to the growth of the industries & cultural, educational, and commerical amenities within the square (in a supply-and-demand growth logic) and not be city-based
d) these urban squares can grow through migration from other areas or from abroad (with advancement: immigration)
e)inefficient factories or amenities that cannot be financially supported in a weak economy lead to population decrease just as urban areas without necessary industry and amenities lose their population in favor of other cities
f) units should be produced in the squares with the corresponding improvements: tanks near factories, archers near barracks, trebuchets near workshops, great prophets near temples/certain units, such as riflemen could also be produced in one turn through conscription in every inhabited square (with general mobilization).
3. Cities should not be the focus of conquest, but territory (prolonged occupation of territory should bring it to you), and you should be able to make territorial demands by drawing on the map (or napkin, a la Churchill and Stalin
)Conclusion: cities should be represented by their "city core squares" but this would have at most a symbolic/historic value, since the emphasis will be on the improvements built all over the territory, according to market demands and to your development plans. In this logic, it is possible that a "suburban" square becomes more developed and has a bigger cultural output than a city (which is actually the case with many American cities). We do not have to base everything (culture, wealth, industrial power) on how many cities we have, but on how developed our territory and how powerful our economy are.
Cheers!
