You can currently capture workers from other civs and force them to work for you (slavery). I think the idea of those workers being able to foment a rebellion is a good one (and, as with the "turned" units mentioned above, such an incident might well create a Great Leader or even -- additionally -- a new civ if the slaves' original civ was destroyed).
Civ IV wishlist
- Thread starter Mr. Dictator
- Start date
- Status
A few more thoughts (I may have blanked on some of the previous posts and I've never seen PTW or C3C, so forgive me if I repeat someone's idea or state the obvious):
If you form an alliance with another civ, during wartime your units should be able to occupy the same square at the same time. Also, If one of your ally's cities is overrun by the enemy and you take it back, it should automatically fall back under the control of your ally (as opposed to your having the option of keeping it or being generous and gifting it back to them). If you "liberate" the city of a civ that is fighting against the same enemy but that you are not formally allied with, you can be more devious in your dealings.
Barbarians that attack en masse ("raging" contingents of 20 or so horsemen) that destroy all units in a majority of a civ's cities should have a percentage chance of overwhelming that civ and producing an entirely new -- fully functioning -- civ of their own, instead of just depleting the treasury as they do now. All successful civilizations were originally some other civ's "barbarian" neighbors. We've immortalized a certain few because they were the most successful in reality, but if Civ is about rewriting history, why not give the Goths a chance to rule?
Allies that are brought into a conflict by one main civ should cease fire and grant peace to the enemy civ when it negotiates peace with the main ally (think World War II). Or, alternately, there should be a mediation aspect to diplomacy.
Settlers and Workers should have skill levels (like the military units) but appropriate to their abilities to create or transform: i.e, faster Workers or engineers; or maybe more productive farms and mines; sturdier fortresses; better, more streamlined roads for faster travel; cities that go up larger or with bonus food/shield/gold values for the city square, etc.
Resources and luxuries should be more complicated and variable than 1,2 or 3 of some value. Combined with the above idea of levels of worker abilities, other factors should be added, such as gradual depletion, general productivness, quality (purer vein, more valuable fur, unique varietals), demand, etc. Resources should dwindle, but different caches should have (sometimes greatly) differing starting values (think Kuwait or OPEC versus central California). Some people have complained about resources going away then popping up elsewhere, but that doesn't bother me because it reflects our standard scramble to locate new sources when we start running dry.
Cities in advanced civs should not have their size restricted by their location. Look at Las Vegas and the largest cities of Japan and the Mideast, all of which are very dependent on imports, especially food (internally to a civ definitely, externally to some extent).
Roads and other improvements from abandoned or destroyed civs should degrade and eventually disappear if not encompassed by another civ's borders (think Roman roads nowadays), and it shouldn't take very long.
Completely scrap the tech tree concept (or at least make it invisible). It's utterly ridiculous that you should be able to look ahead 500 or 2000 years to map out your progress. In addition to the "fog of war" there should be a "fog of science" that would let you look ahead very narrowly when you're concentrating on a certain discipline (such as weapons or religion or government). Of course, by now we all have the tree memorized so just making it invisible wouldn't really accomplish anything. Oh well.
Well, I have other ideas but they're even more nitpicky. And it's late. And this post is really long. So, enough.
If you form an alliance with another civ, during wartime your units should be able to occupy the same square at the same time. Also, If one of your ally's cities is overrun by the enemy and you take it back, it should automatically fall back under the control of your ally (as opposed to your having the option of keeping it or being generous and gifting it back to them). If you "liberate" the city of a civ that is fighting against the same enemy but that you are not formally allied with, you can be more devious in your dealings.
Barbarians that attack en masse ("raging" contingents of 20 or so horsemen) that destroy all units in a majority of a civ's cities should have a percentage chance of overwhelming that civ and producing an entirely new -- fully functioning -- civ of their own, instead of just depleting the treasury as they do now. All successful civilizations were originally some other civ's "barbarian" neighbors. We've immortalized a certain few because they were the most successful in reality, but if Civ is about rewriting history, why not give the Goths a chance to rule?
Allies that are brought into a conflict by one main civ should cease fire and grant peace to the enemy civ when it negotiates peace with the main ally (think World War II). Or, alternately, there should be a mediation aspect to diplomacy.
Settlers and Workers should have skill levels (like the military units) but appropriate to their abilities to create or transform: i.e, faster Workers or engineers; or maybe more productive farms and mines; sturdier fortresses; better, more streamlined roads for faster travel; cities that go up larger or with bonus food/shield/gold values for the city square, etc.
Resources and luxuries should be more complicated and variable than 1,2 or 3 of some value. Combined with the above idea of levels of worker abilities, other factors should be added, such as gradual depletion, general productivness, quality (purer vein, more valuable fur, unique varietals), demand, etc. Resources should dwindle, but different caches should have (sometimes greatly) differing starting values (think Kuwait or OPEC versus central California). Some people have complained about resources going away then popping up elsewhere, but that doesn't bother me because it reflects our standard scramble to locate new sources when we start running dry.
Cities in advanced civs should not have their size restricted by their location. Look at Las Vegas and the largest cities of Japan and the Mideast, all of which are very dependent on imports, especially food (internally to a civ definitely, externally to some extent).
Roads and other improvements from abandoned or destroyed civs should degrade and eventually disappear if not encompassed by another civ's borders (think Roman roads nowadays), and it shouldn't take very long.
Completely scrap the tech tree concept (or at least make it invisible). It's utterly ridiculous that you should be able to look ahead 500 or 2000 years to map out your progress. In addition to the "fog of war" there should be a "fog of science" that would let you look ahead very narrowly when you're concentrating on a certain discipline (such as weapons or religion or government). Of course, by now we all have the tree memorized so just making it invisible wouldn't really accomplish anything. Oh well.
Well, I have other ideas but they're even more nitpicky. And it's late. And this post is really long. So, enough.
Haohmaru Khan
Chieftain
1. slaves - like workers with no maintanance cost.
2. Worker maintanace cost should differ with gov. type.
3. Military units maintanance cost should differ with gov. type.
4. Civ only techs.
5. Years should pass in a different manner...
2. Worker maintanace cost should differ with gov. type.
3. Military units maintanance cost should differ with gov. type.
4. Civ only techs.
5. Years should pass in a different manner...
CIVPhilzilla
Reagan Republican
More units! A special ops unit would be nice to take out key roads and access points.
Illeagle weapons trade- Honestly what country has not sold out at one time or another to secretly break a trade embargo to sell weapons to the "enemies."
No more spearmen beating tanks- This is crap make obsolete units actually obsolete by making them completely useless.
Enhanced upgrading trees- A continuation of Calvary and maybe some in between unit that would lead to tanks.
A realistic version of the UN- Maybe allowing the owner to intervein in a conflict between two opposing countries.
An old atomic bomb- I'm tired of all of a sudden gaining nuclear missles. I want to have something where I can fly a B-52 over a city and drob a nuclear weapon.
Natural disasters- In the history of Earth there have been countless amounts of disasters (earthquakes, tornadoes, hurricanes, blizzards, floods, you name it) I am happy that they added volcanoes in Conquests.
These are my ideas for now. Sorry if I repeated any.
Illeagle weapons trade- Honestly what country has not sold out at one time or another to secretly break a trade embargo to sell weapons to the "enemies."
No more spearmen beating tanks- This is crap make obsolete units actually obsolete by making them completely useless.
Enhanced upgrading trees- A continuation of Calvary and maybe some in between unit that would lead to tanks.
A realistic version of the UN- Maybe allowing the owner to intervein in a conflict between two opposing countries.
An old atomic bomb- I'm tired of all of a sudden gaining nuclear missles. I want to have something where I can fly a B-52 over a city and drob a nuclear weapon.
Natural disasters- In the history of Earth there have been countless amounts of disasters (earthquakes, tornadoes, hurricanes, blizzards, floods, you name it) I am happy that they added volcanoes in Conquests.
These are my ideas for now. Sorry if I repeated any.
amirsan
King of all Kings
Hmmm, better battles and strategic value is what I want. And better grapics!
also I thought, have you ever player Medieval Total War? I think there should be succession in nation leaders and hiers. Like an RPG type of part for the game. So if you leader dies through the ages without a hier your nation would revolt into a civil war and stuff. And you kings have special virtues that effect different things like hapiness and economy.
also I thought, have you ever player Medieval Total War? I think there should be succession in nation leaders and hiers. Like an RPG type of part for the game. So if you leader dies through the ages without a hier your nation would revolt into a civil war and stuff. And you kings have special virtues that effect different things like hapiness and economy.
wlievens
Warlord
The main thing the Civ series are missing, is national politics!
Sure, there's foreign diplomacy, but in a realistic (modern) civilization simulation, there should possible be parliaments, parties and elections, depending on your type of government.
Possible suggestion in a civ3 framework: Democracy and Republic could be made more powerful, but if your approval rating is below 50% for two subsequent turns, you lose the elections and your civ goes into anarchy. That would be fine for presidential lections.
Players would also have to pick a party, and regularly there would be elections in parliament, if they have a majority or plurality there could be other bonuses or so... GalCiv has something like that.
Comments or different ideas?
Sure, there's foreign diplomacy, but in a realistic (modern) civilization simulation, there should possible be parliaments, parties and elections, depending on your type of government.
Possible suggestion in a civ3 framework: Democracy and Republic could be made more powerful, but if your approval rating is below 50% for two subsequent turns, you lose the elections and your civ goes into anarchy. That would be fine for presidential lections.
Players would also have to pick a party, and regularly there would be elections in parliament, if they have a majority or plurality there could be other bonuses or so... GalCiv has something like that.
Comments or different ideas?
NankingDan
Chieftain
- Joined
- Dec 12, 2002
- Messages
- 79
Instead of a cutscene after every battle or founding of a city, it could be playing in a subscreen in the corner during the battle
truckingpete
On a Stark Trek
I would like a battle view.. so u can see the battle in 3D maybe 4D!!!
amirsan
King of all Kings
that would be sooooooo great, that is the reason I am starting to like Medieval Total War better than C3C, becuase of 3D battles. They are sooo much fun!
- Status
