Civ Add-on/Expansion Pack Ideas

[Beard Rinker]

This suggestion is way out in left field.

What about an API so users can write their own AI opponents. Let’s face it, the weakest part of this game is the computer opponent. If the user community was unleashed on this task, I'm quite sure a few more challenging AI opponents would emerge. Even if they were no better, each AI would have its own algorithms therefore would respond differently under similar circumstances. A winning strategy against one AI wouldn't necessarily work against others. Ultimately, it would be nice to be able to “plug in” several different AI opponents and play against them.

I realize the easiest way to improve the opponents’ skill is to make it multi-player, but I just don't see how this is feasible without significantly modifying the game. A typical game plays for about 50 hours and I've had some civ 2 games last literally 6 months. I'm hard pressed to complete the game of the month in one month so I can't imagine playing against human opponents and trying to coordinate that.

 

[danielkulla]

My thread-proof and poll-proof suggestions:

-The Alpha Centauri politics concept (several interchangeable and combinable values of economy, government, morals and social technique)

-Possibility to find out how likely a city is going to fall to another civ

-Possibility that a revolting city splits and forms a new civ that starts with a culture bonus and some free units, probabaly nearby some important resources. (like it happened with Holland, the USA, and India for example) Would stop the lamenting about the 4000BC-Americans.

-If you have an alliance with another civ it must be possible to peacefully make them join you (like it was possible in Europa Universalis and like it happened in the real world with the USA, the Soviet Union and right now the European Union)

-Replacing the purely "idealistic" improvements by at least some "materialistic" ones, for example, social insurances make a lot more people content than any colosseum ever did.

Na, nu.

 

[danielkulla]

My thread-proof and poll-proof suggestions:

-The Alpha Centauri politics concept (several interchangeable and combinable values of economy, government, morals and social technique)

-Possibility to find out how likely a city is going to fall to another civ

-Possibility that a revolting city splits and forms a new civ that starts with a culture bonus and some free units, probabaly nearby some important resources. (like it happened with Holland, the USA, and India for example) Would stop the lamenting about the 4000BC-Americans.

-If you have an alliance with another civ it must be possible to peacefully make them join you (like it was possible in Europa Universalis and like it happened in the real world with the USA, the Soviet Union and right now the European Union)

-government-based units like a Russian Red Army (improved Infantry to fight German Tanks) only under Communism, a Japanese Kamikaze fighter (early missile-like plane) only under fascism, American field artillery (cheap defense unit) only under Democracy and so on.

-Replacing the purely "idealistic" improvements by at least some "materialistic" ones, for example, social insurances make a lot more people content than any colosseum ever did.

Na, nu.

 

[Exsanguination]

i think something should be made very clear, in regards to group movement. The key word is movement[/]. This means no group attacking (it's turn based, so this should not be a problem...).

the reason i bring it up is because civ3 has armies, which kinda takes care of this. Shoot me for pointing it out, but I think that distinction should be made.

**note: i didn't read all 6 pgs, so if this brought up already, i guess that just shows how important it is!

 

[Mozenwrath]

Sorry, to everyone if this has already been mentioned, but I wasn't going to read ALL those posts! :crazyeyes I would hope for great artists\scientists to be produced by cities with a lot of culture\science points. You could have two options for each thing; an artist could either expand a citie's cultural borders by one stage OR build an "Arts College" or something which would give the city more culture per turn in the long-run. Scientists could either get two free advances (maybe just one?) or build "Scientific Institutes" which would give more science points in the city each turn. It would be up to the people @ Firaxis to decide exactly how many more culture\science points you get but I think it would make the game that little bit more interesting. As for giving names to the "geniuses" ala Great Leaders, I don't know, I'm sure that I'd be hard pushed to think of more than a couple Great Persian Artists, but maybe the civ team can dig something up...
Whaddya think?

 

[Chaz]

Two items I would like to see relate to Rights of Passage:

1. Being able to negoiate with a tribe for them to cancel a ROP with another tribe. I hate being attacked by a tribe that has to pass through three others to reach me (two of which are supposely friendly to me). It is sometimes possible to get them to declare war, but that not be in thier (or your) best interest. This would be an intermediate step.

2. Closing your borders. There should be some way to keep those darn settler groups from just waltzing across your terriority. Asking them to leave is no good, as first they ignore you and then you actually end up helping them reach the other side of your territory faster! At the very least when you ask units to be removed from your borders they should be returned to the owner's borders, not fresh, ready for settling territory.

 

[gozarian]

I'm not sure if the patch has changed this but I don't think so. The ability to airlift workers. And, an option to send units from harbor to harbor at a slower rate (4 turns or so?).

In the diplomatic screen, you should be able to request that a civ cancel its right of passage with another civ. It's pretty annoying to fight one civ, while your 'ally' lets your enemies use its rail system to attack your flank.

 

[tek2b]

What about the possibility of captured workers changing allegiance? If your CIV has more culture, luxuries and /or a better form of government, it stands to reason captured workers might want to switch sides. This would be very true if their CIV started the war. Thus, after a few turns they would start working just as hard as workers you built yourself. Flip side of that is now you have to pay them their gold per turn.

This could be expanded to include roaming workers. If a neighboring CIV is more attractive, they could run for the border. Make it an effect of war weariness or government type. Maybe it would be a good way to show a city was about to flip to or away from you.

Also they need some new improvements for dealing with corruption. I was playing a standard size map, with a lot of cities. Under democracy corruption was eating half of my income. I switched from Monarchy +5 gold per turn to democracy thinking that less corruption would boost my income. It went from +5 to –125. And the book says corruption is minimal in a democracy, yeah right…….. J

 

[WOPR]

LESS CORRUPTION

Even post-patch, it's horrible.

 

[Beam]

Originally posted by rapid
I hope that the addon includes the Austrians. We were the most powerful empire during the Middle Ages. The Netherlands, Spain, Mexico were a part of our empire. Now, there is the Austian civilization?

Well, there is not very much to quote, this is horsesjit, 'though I leave it to the Spanish and Mexicans to respond on their part.

The Netherlands were never part of anything called Austria. And if Austria ever becomes a Civ in this game it better be the "Sick man of Europe" i.e. each Austrian city by default populated with 80% resistors.

Yep, Austrians kept the Ottoman Empire from further expansion in Europe and with that all is said..........

Hey, this is an add-on / expansion pack forum, not a customization forum!

 

[CrushSlider]

I would like to propose my solution to the naval problem:

Movement is too slow, everyone "agrees" on this. I can trade resources to a civ half the world over EVERY turn (if we both have harbors and the correct level of navigation ability) but my Battleship will take 5 turns to travel the same distance.

Could you just imagine the Admiral's face sipping his coffee on the bridge of the battleship USS BigA$$Ship as he passed by an oil tanker doing 5 times his speed (or is it 10 times since the trade isn't complete until the money is back in our treasury?) I realize that trade is abstract, but if I am that Admiral I am not happy or if am the Admiral's Commander in Chief I AM NOT HAPPY...

Does adding movement points correct this? Not in my opinion... Just makes a problem less bad, not good...

Does allowing infinite movement? Not in my opinion... sure it allows the fluidity of naval movement to be recreated - no lines in the sand so to speak, but a destroyer being produced in Danzig should not be able to bombard Washington DC on the first turn of creation.

Other Naval problems:

Pirates that cannot commit piracy...

Subs that cannot terrorize merchant ships from the deep... they sure as heck don't terrorize my Battleships or Destroyers, just irritate that sailor that has to paint over the scratches in the battleship grey that the sub's attack caused... Destroyers - my supposed sub hunters- don't have much purpose in life except as mini-battleships...

Ok here is my solution... This will cause Firaxian developers to have nightmares... Needs a lot of tweaking

Trade routes

Trade routes would act like railroads do on land. They would allow for infinite movement as long as you remained on the trade route.

Who creates them? Any transport ship could create the trade route one square at a time (like a worker working on a road). It would require the "trasnformation" of each square into a trade route square. I envision the square would be highlighted in the host civ's color. ( the highlight would only appear during naval unit movement so as not to blemish the map any more.) Transport ships would have an increased importance...

Trade: Each civ would have its own trade routes and as long as the trade route connected to the trade route of another civ and both civs have harbors connected to those trade routes then the trading of resources could commence.

Would you always know your opponents trade routes? NO. You would have to spy or trade for them on the Diplomatic screen. Trading for them would only last for 20 years with updates occuring automatically until the end of 20 years, trade embargo or war. Spying would not update, but you would have to spy again to get updates.

Piracy: Hey pirates can now commit piracy... Pirates would enter into the other civ's trade route and have a percentage chance of collecting booty along a route. Say for instance China is trading the luxury Silk to England. The Germans want some of that action themselves. They could send pirates out blocking that trade route. The German pirates would have a percentage chance of collecting some of that booty. Depending on how it was set up, they could actually stop/stiffle the flow of Silk. England sends out its Man-of-War (holy cow... finally a use for this special unit) and clears away the pirates, trade resumes unmolested. Pirates could also be used as trade-route-building transport ship killers...

Subs: Let's give our subsy wubsy more terror ability. Allow the subs to disturb trade routes similar to pirates, but they only have that ability to do that when at war with one of the two trading partners. If subs block the trade route completely then the resource trade could have a percentage chance of being stopped for that turn. (more subs = higher percentage). By the way allow the nuetral power in the trade that is being blocked to get upset at the sub wielding civ, possibly escalating to war. Also allow the sub (or for that matter any non-transport ship) to destroy/pillage trade route squares of an enemy. This would allow you to prevent the enemy from putting ships near you in one turn. If an enemy ship comes within striking range of a sub, as it moves swiftly along its trade route then allow for a percentge chance of a sub pot shot (Zone of control shot similar to on land)

Trade Blockade:
A ship could sit on a portion of the trade route and successfully block the trade from occuring. As stated before a non-transport ship could also destroy a trade route square.

Optional: Planes and jets: Allow Planes to enter into a protect the sea lane mode. Again, just like subs, they would have a chance for a pot shot against an enemy ship that is seen moving within its range.

Ship movement.
Ships would have a Strategic movement of infinite along the trade route squares, but they would only have one move (they cannot stiop and move again). If struck by a sub pot shot or air power pot shot they would stop. Once a naval unit stops after a strategic move it cannot move or attack.

Tactical movement rate would be the same as it is now. move attack move again or any variation thereof.


It isn't complete and it would be difficult to implement in a mod but it opens many possibilities...

A battle like the battle for Midway could occur... we wouldn't want an enemy to have an island city (read airbase) here in the middle of our trade/shipping routes.

Destroyers would be out actively searching for subs (whihc they can only do in tactical movement)...

Enemy Pirates would irritate me with Piracy which would be good...

If I had a complete trade route to a foreign continent, and that trade route is being swept for subs by destroyers and I don't move through enemy airspace I can get there in one turn, so what if I have to wit till next turn to attack, at least I am there.

Tell me what you think...

 

[Huanie]

Perhaps it's a good idea to know if you are on the good side of someone, or some type of indicator to tell you the world opinion about you (and perhaps other civs too).

Example: other than just annoyed, there could be a number associated to it, ranging from 1-100, with 1 being furious and 100 being gracious or something.

At the same time, there is a 'global' indicator, the way other civs view your civ. So for example this value takes a hit when you perform some atrocity like razing a city.

Also, if it's possible, atrocity penalties should vary depending on if you are on their good side or not.

Anyway, just some random thoughts.

Huanie!

 

[Cerberus]

Originally posted by CrushSlider
I would like to propose my solution to the naval problem:
[...]
Tell me what you think...

The way Naval Warfare is handled in this game is worse than even in Civ II. Sid does not have the vaguest idea what navies are for. In Civ III we can't even attack a diplomat or caravan on a transport!

Your above suggestions are a big improvement.

In Civ III, bombers canNOT sink warships. I am not sure if giving bombers an attack strength (and unclicking 'immobile') in the Editor will solve the problem. This might be the most absurd aspect of the game - and the most non-Historical. In WW II, warships were regularly sunk by both land-based, and carrier-based warships.

Yes, naval units are too slow in Civ III. And frigates, MOW, and ironclads have too low combat values.

No naval unit should be able to bombard to destruction improvements, except battleships.

Even battleships rarely risked attack to sit off shore shelling improvements. Didn't happen.

Battleships became so vulnerable to air attack - and sinking by planes - that by 1942 they were obsolete.

Sid has no idea that the real purpose of submarines and privatweers was to attack MERCHANTMEN, not warships. They threatened and menaced TRADE ROUTES; other warships could do this also. The Germans sent out many surface raiders in both wars, and the Bismarckl voyage in 1941 was meant to get on trade routes and attack CONVOYS, not warships. Sinking the Hood just happened; it wasn't what the main purpose of the Bismarck was intended to be.

I could have DOZENS of privateers in the ocean between two rivals' harbors but it would accomplish NOTHING regarding their trade and commerce. I would have to actually blockade totally the port. That is NOT how navies work.

Both privateers and subs have had to have their values increased in the Editor to make them worth building; in otherwords, to make them have a chance attacking warships. But, again, that was never their real purpose.

As for Destroyers, I went into Editor and they now CAN "see submarines".

Nuclear submarines should be different from the pre-1950's diesel subs: the former remain submerged all the time; the diesels were more easily spotted being on the surface most of the time.

The other suggestions by CrushSlider are a LOT better than the mess Civ III offered us for naval warfare. His suggestions, and some of mine, need to be incorporated into the game.

PATCH THIS MESS, Firaxis.

And this is just one of many problems, both in terms of playabilty, realism, and with bugs.

 

[Sybil]

I'd like to be able to right-click on anything in the build pick list and have the appropriate civilpedia entry pop up.
It would be much easier and faster than looking at everything my city can build, closing the city view, going into the civilpedia and looking up each of those things, then going back to the city view and picking what I wanted to build.

Sybil

 

[ShadowWarrior]

Several changes, which I have been advocating since a long time ago, should be made, or at least be considered.

First is the corruption level. In Civ III, corruption level is determined by corruption combating improvements, and distance to the capital city.

I think corruption level should be proportional to the map size. Also, corruption level should be determined by relative distance, not absolute distance. Relative distance is itself determined by better technology, which makes communication and transportation easier.

Secondly, the movement rate for units should be proportional to the map size. For example, a warrior on a small world map would have a movement rate of three where the same warrior would have a movement rate of six on a giant map.

Thirdly, cities should be able to transfer food and resource shields among each other, as long as they are connected by some kind of transportation network. For example, the city of Shanghai can transfer two units of food to the city of Tatung to promote Tatung's population growth.

Construction of harbor should increase the yield of food on ocean square by two units, not just one.

Increase the ship's movement rates.

Please!!! A calvary should never be able to defeat a tank!! Fix that!!

Either entirely do away with the city overview or add more buildings. Right now, all we see in the city overview are the improvements and wonders we've build. I personally think that is kind of dull.

Airport should actually have some economical benefit. It is nice to be able to airlift units through airport. But I think, in the real world, airport did more benefit in the economic arena than in the military arena.

Future technology should actually confer some benefits other than just increasing our game score. For every five future technology discovered, random benefits should be given. For example, if I discover five future techs, the corruption level throughout my empire is reduced by five percent. If I discover another five future tech, the production level throughout my empire is increased by ten percent.

Make it possible for us to claim land by stationing some military units, so that we don't neccessarily have to build cities to gain land.

Just a minor thing. When when we get to the modern age, we shouldn't be building coloseum anymore. Isn't coloseum where those gladiators beat each other to death back in the Roman days? Once we get into the Industrial era, coloseum changes to stadium, marketplace to supermarket, acquaduct to sewage system, harbor to seaport, and blah blah blah. You get the point.

I admire the AI's expansionist spirits. But this doesn't mean they can build cities randomly wherever there is land available. It is really annoying when one of the enemy settler build cities in the middle of my empire simply because there happens to be a breach. If possible, fix this.

When our long range units, such as canons, bombard a city, can we have the choice of what we wish to bombard? I really don't like reducing a city of 12 to a small village using my long range weapons. I prefer using it to kill the enemy units stationed in the city I am trying to take over.

 

[wervdon]

A spy mission designed to get two foreign powers into a war.

Currently, unless Im wrong, the only way to get two civs to go to war is an alliance which puts you in the war.

The spy mission could work by framing one side for a different spy mission Maybe just false orders to a unit to attack ( both sides think the other fired first or such)

It should be moderately hard to pull off, and if you fail make both sides very angry at you, possibly both declare war and sign an alliance against you if they think they can win together.

Course spying is one of the major things that needs overhauling in the game now anyways.

 

[Cerberus]

You can increase ships' movement rates in the Editor. But changing they way Firaxis MISHANDLES the use of navies (as I and CrushSlider mentioned above) cannot be corrected there.

Colossuems represent amusements. They are approrpriate in any age: now we have the NFL and WWF instead of gladiators and chariot races.

 

[Cerberus]

Originally posted by wervdon
. . .Course spying is one of the major things that needs overhauling in the game now anyways.

Espionage is not even worth the effort in Civ III. It is ridiculously expensive even to have a moderate CHANCE of success. I've greatly lowered the costs for the advance, the Sm. Wonder, and for missions.

As for Diplomacy, the AI NEVER forgets. If you don't cancel an alliance, even after the 20 turns, and then make a peace, the other civ will HATE YOU FOREVER. A thousands years and they and others still hate you. It is a crock.


Patch that, too, Firaxis.

 

[Graeme the mad]

GREAT IDEA ABOUT THE NAVIES CRUSH SLIDER - except i would say that moving alonfg a trade route triples the amount your ship moves - not makes it infinite - this would mean ships could just run from harbour to harbour risking no atttack in between.
It should also be impossible to do the whole ocean with trade squares - this would make it just as impossible to blockade as normal ones. Possibly there should be a max of 4 squares joined on to each other (see what i mean? - so you could only get a cross.)

 

[Quentin]

-change barbarians into terrorists after the start of the industrial age, these would probably be more sophisicated networks then barbarian tribes and people should be able to communicate with them and this would add the possibility of new diplomatic agreements like "don't harbor terrorists in your country or you're our enemy"
-Ability to speak to a few civs at one time
-make possible to choose anarchy as a "system of government" , sure it is a lack of a government but some people might like not having to pay maintenence and stuff
-ability to agree with other civs to allow use of harbors and airbases
-further research already researched techs like further researching bronze working would produce spearmen with an ADM of 1.3.1, there should be a limit to this though, since spearmen with ADM of 1.30.1 would be rediculous

also countries always seem to remain as developing countries in the game, most people do nothing but mining and farming
I have a rather long list but i cant recall right now