Civ Add-on/Expansion Pack Ideas

[boca]

Graeme:
you're probably right, the only problem I see is that when you build scientific improvements, these also generate culture, so it is kind of an overlaped improvement (cultural, scientific)
Also thing like the temple would be cultural/religious.

As for industrial leaders, I can only think of
Henry Ford, but there should be others.

 

[joebasstard]

{posted by crushslider:
I envision my zone of control shot idea taking care of the run from harbor to harbor. Say my enemy has a trade route 3 squares wide at its narrowest point. I plant a subs and/or warships in the center of that trade route or better yet I place ships three wide across it. He doesn't see these ships because he foolishly doesn't have any of his ships patrolling his trade route. It is just a harbor to harbor move," he thinks, "I have done this many times before". During his strategic move (movement grateer than his tactical move rate, using the benefits of his infinite move trade routes) he must pass by or try to pass through my ships. If he passes by then I get a percentage chance (more ships and/or more advanced ships the higher percentage) of a zone of control shot }

(Like others have said...Ihaven't read all the threads, but anyway,)
Ship ZOC Great Idea...let any combat ship(or plane {I know-there's air superiority, but I'd really like to see the patrol radius})have an order: PATROL... naval patrol zone pops up like the city radius around a settler...the greater a ship's movement, the bigger the patrol radius. You just pick the center of that radius with the ship's location. % chance to intercept is greater towards center of radius. The larger the ratio of "runner" speed/ patrol ship speed, the lower the chance of intercept. Technologies like radar and sonar multiply percentage by some factor.
Also, maybe allow combat ships (and planes) the option to attempt to attack ships in ports, not just some random attack on the city. Depending on what naval (and air) units are based at, or patrolling that area, what detection apparati (radar station, low-level radar, etc.) and defenses (AA emplacement, coastal fortress), a marauder could attack more obsolete naval forces and transports or trade routes...you could end up with an ironclad sneaking into an enemy harbor thast hasd no coastal fortress or ironclads such as in the civil war, pearl harbor-type attacks to cripple enemy fleets. Also, ships should possibly have an operational range somewhat like helicopters. Multiply their movement factor x a certain # of turns and when they surpass this, their attack and defense rates wither, and eventually hit points also. Greater technology or new eras could extend #of turns or allow supply ships, I don't know.

 

[Leonel]

Originally posted by ShadowWarrior
Please!!! A calvary should never be able to defeat a tank!! Fix that!!

Well the Northern Alliance did that when they were fighting Taliban tanks. They just charged at the tanks and before the tank could let off a second shot, the horse riders would be on top of the tanks, force open the hatch and pull the occupants out.

 

[Kryten]

I agree with leonel. If you picture the Cavalry unit as Napoleonic type sword/lance armed horsemen, then yes, they would have trouble knocking out a tank. But all 'Cavalry' in reality have been MOUNTED INFANTRY since the 1860's. This is how they were mostly used during the American Civil War, the Boer War, and how they were supposed to be used in WWI. In WWII the Russians had many Cossack Divisions, which were also mounted infantry armed with grenades/SMGs/AT Rifles/divisional artillery/anti-tank guns, and so on. And in Civ3 mounted infantry (called 'Cavalry' or 'Cossacks') have an attack of 6, the same as an Infantry unit....

Originally posted by Charles


Why have a gigantic list of things to add or change, why not take your entire list (because I have read it) and compile it into one concept make everything optional and toggle-able.

Charles.

I also agree with Charles's comments on page 8 of this thread. Isn't this what we almost had with Civ2?

One last thing: I'd also like to see 'dead' nations reappearing in the game (this has been mentioned before).
For example: I'm trying to make an 'Historical' mod. I want England, France, Spain (you must have Spain in the game!), Rome and Greece in their historical starting locations. But in reality the Roman Empire conquered all of them and they are out of the game for good. Well I'd like the game to 'remember' their CAPITAL CITIES and have them 'culture flip' back into existance (maybe after a certain time period and/or when there is a change of government). This would allow history for these nations to continue and would represent the fall of the Roman Empire. The same thing with the Mongols (both Spain and the Mongols had a much bigger impact on history then the Aztecs or Iroquois). I'd like to see Mongol Horse Archers conquer all of Asia/Russia/China, but later in the game these nations would reappear. Then Russia would conquer Asia and the Mongol lands, only to have the Communist empire break-up in the 1990's when Russia becomes a Democracy. You could even have England 'remember' that one of it's distant cities will rebel and become the capital of America....

 

[Beard Rinker]

A few posters have skirted around this concept, I thought I'd fill out a few details.

Concept

In ancient times, people were organized in city-states. The concept of a group of cities forming a country did not exist although cities close together with strong cultural ties were considered the same civilization. When settlers went to distant lands (i.e. crossed the Mediterranean Sea), this almost always resulted in the eventual formation of a distinct civilization.

Conquest of the world in ancient times was essentially impossible. The Roman empire and the territory conquered by Alexander the Great were probably smaller than continental United States. Furthermore, these empires had no knowledge of North, South America and Australia and minimal knowledge of any other parts of the world not conquered.

In industrial times, civilizations were organized into countries and empires. Rule over countries on distant continents only worked for a short period of time before the country demanded and in many cases fought for independence. Countries founded in this manor were often strong allies of the founding civilization.

Civ 4 Suggestion

Cities that are distant from the capitol can band together and form a province with a provincial capital. Corruption and waste are determined by distance from the provincial capital instead of the civilization's capital. There is no limit to the number of provinces that are formed by one civilization.

Each province is controlled by a civilization but has some degree of autonomy such as its own tax rates, treasury and perhaps its own form of government and research project. Provinces can transfer/receive funds from a federal treasury on a per turn basis or in a lump sum.

Each province has ties to its controlling civilization and all other provinces. The strength of these ties determines some of the provinces behavior. Provinces with strong ties will be happier, less corrupt and wasteful. Provinces with weak ties are more difficult to manage and may even separate. Provinces with strong ties to other civilizations may join other civilizations.

A provinces ties are determined by the following factors:
- Distance from each civilization and each province and the current era. Distance has a greater effect in the ancient eras. For example: A city 40 tiles away in ancient times will almost always demand independence from the founding civilization. A cluster of cities on a remote continent in industrial times will almost always demand independence.
- Cultural points accumulated while a member of a civilization. This effect would not be lost if the province was under the control of another civilization for a period of time.
- Population makeup. Each citizen has a provincial and national identity. A citizens loyalty is to his province first and civilization second.
- Form of government.
- Marginalization. The smaller a province is compared to other provinces and the controlling civilization as a whole, the more marginalized the population feels. Thus, conquering a large province and dividing it into many smaller provinces may result in many small provinces trying to separate (and possibly re-join each other).
- Units loyal to controlling civilization stationed inside the province. The effect depends on the type of government. With despotism this might keep the population in line whereas in a democracy it might cause resentment.
- Provincial units stationed out of the province. Again, the effect depends on the type of government.
- Amount of gold transferred to/ received from the controlling civilization.
- Luxuries found in the province compared to luxuries provided by the controlling civilization.

A province may attempt to separate in the following ways:
- Province requests to separate. Request can be granted or denied. Denying a request may silence the objectors but also may result in civil war or provincial unrest. Depending on the provinces attitude towards the controlling civilization, granting the request may make a loyal ally.
- Controlling civilization separates a province. Depending on the ties to the province, this may result in the creation of a loyal ally. A civilization may do this with the purpose of creating a loyal ally or to save resources.
- Civil war. Province separates and declares war on the controlling civilization. All units loyal to the controlling civilization are ejected from the cities in the province and all units loyal to the province convert to the provinces control. Units loyal to the province, which are not located in the province, may become rogue units and attack the controlling civilization or repatriate themselves. Depending on the provinces attitude towards the controlling civilization and the controlling civilizations response to this, it may make a loyal ally or a blood enemy. The province may be retaken or independence can be granted and units loyal to the province repatriated.

Units are loyal to the province in which they were commissioned first and the controlling civilization second. This has no effect on the behavior of the unit unless the units province of origin separates, declares civil war or descends into provincial unrest.

Provinces may descend into provincial unrest. This may result from being overly oppressive with a province or from denying a request to separate. When in provincial unrest the entire province descends into anarchy. Units loyal to the province may turn into rogue units especially units located within the province.

Provinces may be traded during negotiations.

Provinces may join other civilizations. This differs from cities being assimilated in that it usually occurs between two provinces about the same size but relatively weak in the world. In this scenario, a country might be 1/2 conquered by some larger civilization becoming a province of the larger civilization. The larger civilization runs into some problem such as going broke under communism, and the province separates, then joins its original civilization similar to modern Germany.

When attacking another civilization with only one province, that civilization may surrender unconditionally and become a province of the attackers civilization without having to conquer every city. However, if the new province is not managed correctly, it may attempt to separate at some point in the future.


Afterthought

This modification would make conquest or military domination much more difficult. A military victory would have to be very balanced and not too early in the game or it might be like nailing jello to the wall.

It might also add some interesting twists to a diplomatic victory. Granting provinces independence may improve your odds of a diplomatic victory or it may make you an easy target for your neighbor.

 

[Kryten]

To Beard Rinker,

A LOT more complicated than what I was thinking of! But I agree that your idea would be realistic (think of the 'fun' of trying to hold the Roman Empire together. It might explain why Rome had a civil war about every 20 or 30 years!)

In fact, the more I think about it, the more I like it!
It would simulate the break-up of the Spanish Empire into todays Latin American states. And the dissolution of the British Empire. And all the independant Arab states of the 9th century following the Arab conquests of the 7th century. And many, many other historical examples.

It would also make managing an empire 'to stand the test of time' a lot more challanging (and take away the 'boredom' of the modern eras in civ3)

You have my vote!

 

[Grey Fox]

This Idea about provinces is the best Idea I have heard so far. Done right it should ad a realistic twist to the game that could kill the Corruption problems or be the cause of the corruption problems we see in Civ 3 today...

If this is done to Civ 4, I think they should taka away Americans from the game and make them a Province of England. They could become a civilization of their own if they revolt. Canada could be a Province of France, and/or England. Australia could also be a province of England. Well I could go on the hole night but I don't have time, well only for one last...

The Vikings could be brought a Civ, and Sweden, Norway, Iceland, Denmark, and Finland could be Provinces of that, (I don't know about Finland though, it might be a provinde of Russia instead, because of their Slavic Language...)

Well I could think of more ideas, but I don't have the time...

 

[PolarisXP]

How about a new city improvement and small wonder?

Shipyard - Required to build larger ships
Naval Headquarters - Required to build Modern ships and Capital Ships

The harbour will be used only for trade routes.

No Shipyard - Only build Galley and Caravel

Shipyard - Can build Gallion, Transport, Frigate/Man-O-War, Privateer, Iron Clad, submarine and Destroyer.

Naval Headquarters - (needs 5 shipyards) Can build Battleship, Carrier, Nuclear Sub and Ageis Cruiser.

Also why not sell your surpless units to other civs or even buy units from other civs? This would be handy if they or you were unable to build larger ships. Afterall not all countries are capable of building all types of ship.

 

[Juize]

Erm, I dont have civ3, and I'm REALLY sorry if it has this ability, but land units should be able
to gain special bonuses by the terrain they're on, for example, the elephant would have
+50% defense and offense bonus in jungle. This way, the Indians would have hard time for
getting out of jungle.
I don't have Civ3, so I really don't know is this on it, but this ability to gain bonus on
certain terrain would be REALLY WOOL!

 

[Jove]

The change I'm really yearning for is in how the game selects the next active unit. Say I have 10 artillery on the same tile and I'm finally in range to shell the hell out of Berlin. I fire the first one, and then the game jumps to a worker on the other side of the map. Drag it all the way back to Berlin, fire the next one, and automatically the same damn worker on the other side of the world is activated. If I have a stack of non-fortified units on the same tile, I'd like the next active unit to always come from the same tile as the last unit used. That way, if I want to mess around with that worker in Kansas right in the middle of D-Day, I go to him by choice.

 

[Grey Fox]

Good Point Jove, and that's something they should have fixed for Civ2 or at least for SMAC

 

[Dirk Aurel]

OMG my 3627 character post was deleted because I used too many smilies

 

[Graeme the mad]

Doesn;t your browser have a back button?

Im seeing lots of good ideas here again - love the province one.
However qslack doesn't seem to be around so could amod update the list with the idea including the one to make all these suggestions toggalable and then delete this post and the one suggesting that units should get bonuses's on tiles from some idiot

I dont polaris's idea though - i think the ship idea on the previous page was much more comprehensive.

 

[conquerant]

OK, I read all nine pages, but I sped through the last four so I don't THINK any of what I have to say has been brought up (except when I agree with something someone else said

First:
I'd like to see Nationalism have more affect, much more representative of the huge effect it had on real history. Historically, Nationalism didn't only have the effect of people seeing themselves as part of a nation, but it also had the correlating effect of people seeing other people as part of a nation. I think after Nationalism, you should suffer happiness penalties for conquering an enemy city (unless, of course, some of their citizens are your culture.) and diplomatic penalties from other countries who also have Nationalism. Adding to that, I'd like to see "Occupy" as an option when you take over an enemy city. During occupation, you get a part of its production, but not all, and if the enemy attacks, your units are weakened to represent resistance movements. Then in peace, you can bargain for more, and then the enemy gets its city back. Part of this would be resorces and luxuries would have to be added for peace negotiations.

In my opinion, this would be so much easier, and more historically accurate. So you don't have oil and noone will trade with you? Instead of trying to conquer a city with oil, and then spending tons of resources to rebuild it, crush oppostition, and defend it, you just occupy a bunch of enemy cities until they agree to give you oil.

Second:
I don't care if at one time some cavalry units took out a couple tanks; as someone else stated they wouldn't be taking out an entire brigade. Ancient units should not be able to beat modern. Of course a really simple way to end this argument would change the AI to put more emphasis on upgrading/disbanding outdated units.

Also, since we're talking about brigade-or-whatever-sized units, there should be no healing. You should need to recruit a few more men to get a unit back to full strength.

Railroad movement:
Same as a mechanized unit on a road. Really, that's what they are. How you can move 5x faster in a railroad car than driving a troop carrier on the highway is beyond me. Not to mention it takes away from the strategy...you land on your opponent's shore, and he brings in all his offenive units on the continent to attack you and can reinforce the city with every other unit on the continent. WHERE you land should mean something strategically.

Resources:
Find resource BEFORE tech. Doesn't make much sense that you learn how to work iron before you know what it is. Or that you can learn how to ride horses when you've never encountered one. I'd also like to see a "usage"-based system. You lose iron when you build a swordsman. You can't use your tanks unless you have oil.

And finally (complimets of Beammeuppy)...

5. Make the AI UNDERSTAND that there is a point where it should stop messing around and just plain surrender!

For the love of god, please yes!!!!!!!!!! And there's nothing worse than your cities all revolting due to war weariness becasue a computer opponent with almost no navy and a weak army on the other side of the world keeps refusing your envoys. Well, I suppose losing the war would be worse, but you know what I mean

 

[gonzo_for_civ]

Well, I only have one idea. I was thinking that maybe the American special unit should be changed. F-15s just aren't that good and come really late. I think that the new unit should be called the minuteman like the minutemen used during the American Revolutionary War most notably during the battles for Lexington and Concord. This unit could have somewhat similar attributes to a musketman but maybe have one more defense or else be a fast unit instead of a slow musketman. This is just my opinion.

 

[Grey Fox]

Can the F-15 kill a unit?

If it can't it sure as hell is a bad unit... no Golden Age...

 

[Dirk Aurel]

Yes it does Graeme,but when I pressed it everything was gone, blank!As if I had been writing an e-mail.Strange no.

But what can you do these smilies are soooo cute


Many of my ideas have been mentioned already I guess,but no harm done in "enforcing" them again.I know a lot of these things can be edited now already but I´d like to see ´em as standard so that ppl can play each other without always having to adjust their mod.Would have more ideas,but expect an addon not Civ4


All Civs on Foreign Advisor screen,I actually saw some fool rejecting this,er what?!

Non-aggression pacts,crucial in history.

Being able to trade/sell/lend military units,likewise crucial.This played a role in every war.Really shouldn´t be missing.

Bribing/Forcing/Proposing to a country to make a peace with a third party.

Food supply of cities.

Terraforming should be included again.

LOWER CORRUPTION FFS!!!I wrote this large,it´s not more important to me than the ones mentioned above,but it´s annoying me.Especially on huge maps,and so what if you control half of the world,isn´t that the point?And don´t gimme this cultural bs,esp not in MP
But corruption really destroys any sort of way winning this game,
wether military,domination or culture (takes a while to build a cathedral with two shields...)

Either lower it or include a police tax,being able to set rates as in tax but instead creating thugs beating up ppl who waste or embezzle money.Ofcourse they would switch to something like the much nicer I.R.S in modern governments.

Just lowering the corruption factors or adjusting the PC might do the trick too.

I like subs and would like to see ´em as effective as they really are or better were.So first of all A to 10,D to 5.Let´s be honest an Ironclad can´t really harm a sub.Ofcourse if the tech was there, Civs would probably fit their Ironclad´s with waterbombs,sonar,diesel propulsion and...and...BUILD A DESTROYER, sheesh!

I´d also like the tech of "Anti-Sub Warfare" added,I´m aware this tech isn´t as breathtaking as The Wheel,but subs were close to impossible to intercept succsessfully before these techs came along.Would even make subs invunerable to begin with,like air units are to ground units,Civs can´t intercept bombers either before they have the proper tech.

Nuclear Sub something like A12,D6 maybe 8.

Battleship bombard higher.We are talking 18"...

Add cruiser,maybe weaken Destroyer but give it Anti-Sub capability instead,only unit in early stadium,and an anti-naval bomber,long-range,anti-sub,buildable after anti-sub tech. Providing the Civ has flight maybe...heh

Definitely more units.

WW1 air units,maybe even tanks,low A values and D,they were just an armored gun after all,8/4 would be okay.They missed MG´s.I want triplanes and a WW1 bomber.Without these units fr WW1 there would have never been the units like we know ´em fr WW2.Resource costs could be close to those of WW2 since the tech will be there all too soon.

A dive bomber,being able to destroy ground/sea units -->tanks!!!
They could be upgraded to an A-10 later or attack chopper.
Anti tank bombers, really play a huge part ever since WW2.

Maybe a late WW2 jet fighter and bomber.

Definitely a heavy bomber,would like the B-52.

Attack-chopper.

English UU,has to be modified,either give them an improved ironclad,they were the first use iron in ship building after all,
or move the Magnestism units to Navigation,Magellan´s wonder to Magnetism,Caravel and sea traverse to Mapmaking.The Mediterranean isn´t coast but it ain´t ocean either.

Russian UU,the hind maybe?

New governments,fascism notebably.Quite effective,should be middle thing between Communism and Democracy,lots of Republic values maybe.Modern-Monarchy,like UK,Japan,Netherlands etc. , should be less vunerable to war weariness than Democracy since their Monarch keeps them inspired.But as effective as Democracy, am not sure how make Democracy more favourable though.

Armies,erm why can´t a four Marine Army attack from sea? Unbeatable eh...why were Armies included then?They can only attack once after all,and Mech Infantry would be tough nut to crack.Makes no sense to me,nor why they can´t pillage.Should definitely be changed.



Think that was it for now.Not much new but "enforced"

Am sure I forgot something....

Well the toggle buttons from Charles would def be good idea,to keep from having to load mods all the time.But all options should be included.

Think main part a lot relies on is a proper diplomatic chat.Secret chat,would make trade agreements like more than 20 turns easy to agree on.Or mean plans.It really should have been included before though ..grrr

Get it finished soon please

 

[Grey Fox]

Tha change the corruption problems, especially on larger maps.

- For starters, make more things reduce corruption. One thing could be culture. The more of "total" culture the country/empire has the less corruption the more "far-away" cities and every city else for that matter suffer.

- Make the "We love the **** day" work better against corruption. Like if you had it for 10 turns in the worst city, it would have no corruption until the WLTK day ends. (And to prevent this to happen when you have the Longevity, and the population increases so that the people starves, make the city only increase by one, when it can't hold two citizens)

- In communism and monarchy, let the police units help reduce corruption a little.

- Make provincial capitals, maybe as you build a new kind of palace in a city. Then you tell the game which cities this province shall consist of, it has to be at least 8 and no more then 16, and the cities can't be to far away. (Read the post about provinces above by some guy...) That provincial capital must be at least a certain number of tiles away from the nearest Capital. The provincial capitals don't work as good as the capitals against lowering corruption, but they should be nearly as good.

Well can't think of more things now so I start by addressing some other problems...

Food problems,

- Make it possible to share food, by supply to other cities... like to a mountain city that can't groe their own food, butr has to import from other cities. At least that is what we do today, in our "Modern Time", and I guess it should be possible in the Industrial ages, and maybe even in the late Middle ages.

Well I'll stop there, maybe I'll write more some other time...

 

[hzm]

Add more editing possibilities like making it possible to add new buildings in the city view and add new resources that have pictures.

I would also like to see paved roads. Units could have 5 movement points along them and could be an alternate to railroads and don't require any resources.

And one of the things that makes me not want to play the game is that you can't trade with other civilizations. You have the give a civ every advancement they don't have, 2 resources, a world map, 60 gold per turn, and 400 gold in advance just to get one resource like silks and the other civ will stop trading with you at the end of the 20 turns. There should be balanced trading. A resource for a resource etc.

 

[dadacp]

I agree about the time control. Personally, I'm only concerned with the turn number, from 1 upwards, not BC/AD dates that make it even more difficult to know when a treaty expires. Of course, we should know what are our existing treaties and when they expire.

A few minor changes to greatly reduce micromanagement:

Let extra shield production carry over to the next item in the queue. Let extra food production carry over to the next population level. Let extra science production carry over to the next reasearch project. If a worker is going to finish something in 1 turn, let us see it on the map. (We get the benefit already, but have to click each worker to see if it's almost done.) If more workers are working on an improvement than are necessary to finish it in 1 turn, let the extra worker(s) be available to do something else instead.

I find myself spending half of my playing time micromanaging to prevent the current minor wastage that these changes would stop. It would also help the AI to be a better oppenent.

Make it more difficult to keep the lead when it is attained. Perhaps allow revolutions such as the American ones: When the civ is way on top, has eliminated a civ, and has lots of far-flung high-corruption cities, then let a group of cities revolt and start a new civ. Not everyone would like this however.