Civ IV wishlist

[hawai_74]

Civ 4 without the palace view will be nice.
the palace view sucks. Perhaps it can be improved (a jungle palace or the Sauron's palace):vampire:

 

[rilnator]

Like in Civ 2 you should be able to give military units as gifts. Kind of like lend- lease in WW2.

 

[Laughing Gull]

everything on a smaller, more detailed scale. smaller grid squares, less time going by per turn (like months/days, instead of years/decades). more turns.

The game should continue onto another planet after the space voyage, or even better, give you the ability to govern on both planets in a similar fasion at the same time, setting up interstellar trade routes, Alpha Centauri politics being effected by Earth politics and vice versa. The game should go VERY far into the future. A complete game of Civ 4 would take 10x longer than a complete game of Civ3

cities that expand beyond one square and merge into each other, wiping out the resources/terrain inbetween (think southern california) .

the planet's environment and seasons must come into play more... ie earthquake zones, hurricane season, tornonado alley...altitude differences. just as the game generates random maps, it should also generate somewhat realistic, partially random weather patterns based on the geological features of the map. These weather paterns vs. geographical features could trigger floods, droughts, wild fires, etc etc
include a .0001% chance each turn that an asteroid or comet hits the planet, with varying degrees of damage and damage conditions, the most severe case would be total destruction, game over , whoever has the highest points at that time wins.

A lot of this stuff seems like it would be difficult to program.

 

[Mal_da_Despot]

I like the idea of changing weather conditions over very loooong periods of time. Say Tundras creap south/north (from polar to equitorial) until enough pollution is generated to reverse the trend. As Tundras Dispate, random coastal squares might go under (coastal cities would be much less likely to sink, just to be a little fair). Deserts could also expand and contract.

Forest Fires could devestate Forests (and threaten cities).

Tsunamis could also wreck havoc on coastal lands (a new tile called 'beach' anyone? ) Hurricanes may be too frequent (and for that matter Tsunamis) given the time between turns. But perhaps extraordinary large and powerful versions (occuring very very seldomly) could add some spice and upset to the game.

Also, large Volcanic erruptions do effect our weather long after their explosions giving us mini-nuclear winters.

 

[Spacedog]

Originally posted by t0mme
Real-time combat system. When you go to war and start a battle you can choose between Civ-style combat or RTS like C&C. This way you can beat your opponent, if the odds are against you, because of cunning tactics.

This was my thought exactly!

I use to have an old PC game of the American Civil War (I think it was called The Blue and the Grey) that had basically this system. You moved your armies around on a large strategic map of the U.S. When two armies came in contact, you had the option of just letting the computer determine the outcome (which would be similar to how Civ does it now) or pulling up a tactical map and directing the battle yourself. You had the chance to position your troops on your side of the map before the battle began (line them up, put them in groups, position your cavalry and artillery, etc.). Then during the battle, you would give your units orders (fire, charge, move, etc.).

I would usually send my cavalry on a wide sweep around the enemy's front line. I would use some of them to keep his cavalry occupied while the rest of them attacked his artillery. Once I took out his cannons, I could use my cannons to decimate his infantry.

I also liked the fact that when you attacked an army, you could use any and all armies that bordered the enemy army being attacked (all your armies did not have to be in the same space).

Another aspect of this game I liked was that instead of hit points, the strength of an army was determined by the number of troops in it. It would actually list the number of troops in an army (this army has 20,000, this one 13,000, etc., and it was broken down by type...15,000 infantry, 2000 cavalry, 30 cannon, etc.). As your armies fought in battle after battle, they would slowly lose people, and their strength would decline (even victorious armies suffer casualties). Now in this game, your reinforcements were preordained based on actual history (you get 9000 troops this turn, the North would get more and more each turn as the game progressed, and the South would get less), so you had no control over what you got when, but you could decide what to do with them...you could either use them to create a new army in one of your cities or reinforce existing armies or both. You could put X number of troops in this army, X troops in this army, etc. You could also join 2 armies together if they were in the same square, or split an army into two (if you wanted to surround the enemy, of course this would make it possible for the enemy to attack ONE of your now smaller armies).

It was also difficult to completely destroy an army. When an army lost a certain percentage or number of troops, it would automatically retreat, if possible. It would retreat back (away from the attacking army) one space on the strategic map. If you had the army surrounded or otherwise in a position where it could not retreat, then it would surrender (be eliminated from the game). If an army fell below a certain strength (X number of people, but I don't remember what that number was), it would disband (be eliminated from the game).

I would love to see something like this added to Civ. Sure it could/would make a game longer (remember, you always had the option of just letting the computer decide the outcome of the battle), but Civ games are already so long what's one more week/month?

One of the things in Civ that I find very lacking is armies. They are much too limited and much too hard to get. In reality, you would never send out an army of just cavalry or bowmen or infantry or tanks (tanks without infantry to protect them are very vulnerable), which is basically what you are doing if you do not have an army. You would send a combined force comprised of all elements, and they would work together (bowmen/cannon in the rear to fire on the enemy, spearmen/infantry in front to protect the bowmen, cavalry charging to break the enemy's lines or take out the bowmen/cannon).

Spacedog

 

[alja]

First of all I like a lot of things coming along with Civ 3. When I think want different or where I want more is:

- release finished products. Civ3 and PTW took at least half a year and patches before they became playable. So much wasted time.

- Military area is plenty of room for improvements.
* Strongholds with big Artillerie should be able to control more than 2 hex
* same for coast lines. Difficult to control/protect them effectivly from land
* more/different types of defense installations such as radar, sonar, defense lines, mine fields, etc.
*I know it will be difficult but weather effects will add some strategic possibilities by limiting the effectivness of specific units depending on the weather condition.

Diplomacy:
* Basically I want to be able to do everything.
* What I really miss is interactions such as trading units to support secretly in a battle without giving the tech away.

Roleplay items:
* Each leader should have some (random?) characterisics. E.g. some are less tolerant when walking on their territory, some appreciate trade contracts more than others, etc.. This might even chance each aera randomly.

Gameplay:
Cities should be able to support another city (maybe even an ally city). I would like to use my strong cities to build components for the smaller, less efficient cities. Maybe 100% production in the capitcal assigned to city XX will give them a bonus of YY% depending on the distance and connection.

The improvements should give more flexibility in how to play the game as well as allow some creativity.

 

[redstoner]

I'd like to see smaller version of the world map, not just the tiny one in the corner. More zoom functions have been mentioned before and I like that idea too. Basically I want a better way to examine the map without having to scroll around to see all the parts.

I always make up names for the continents and seas/oceans in my games. I think it would be cool to incorporate that into the game. The game could randomly generate a name for the body of land or water like it does for the names of the barbarians.

 

[Spacedog]

How about being able to liberate the cities of your allies from your enemies? If you recapture one of your ally's cities from the enemy, you should be given the option of returning control of that city to your ally.

I am thinking in terms of WWII when the Allies liberated France. Say you are playing a WWII scenario as the Allies. If you liberate Paris from the Germans, you should be given the choice of returning control of the city to France, even if France had been previously eliminated from the game (this would bring them back in the game).

This could work in a regular game as well. Perhaps the Civ that you liberated the city for could get a production bonus or a population boost, so the city would be productive sooner than if you kept the city for yourself (could be helpful in a war). Plus, if the Civ was previously eliminated, then they would automatically be friendly toward you, and grant you RoP and military alliance against your enemies, to show their appreciation.

Perhaps this would only be an option while the city still had citizens from that Civ. Once all the citizens had converted to the conquering Civ, then it would be too late to liberate it as all the people in the city would consider themselves citizens of the conquering Civ.

Perhaps if you are in a locked alliance (a la Conquests), this wouldn't even be an option. Control of the city would automatically pass to the original owner. Something to think about.

 

[Roxtar]

Originally posted by rilnator
Like in Civ 2 you should be able to give military units as gifts. Kind of like lend- lease in WW2.

Right on! I did that all the time in Civ2, when my ally & I were on different continents, or I otherwise felt too ill-equipped to actively fight my ally's enemy. In future Civ games, traded units could retain their nationality (like workers already do) while fighting alongside my own troops.

I also miss the Civ2 ability to heal my wounded troops in allied cities. By the same token I would like the option of marching through allied cities without attacking, esp. if my ally's territory is not very heavily roaded. Having to go AROUND those cities tends to slow me down a lot in getting to where the action is. Anytime you need help fighting an enemy, you'd need to enable your friends to reach the battlefield ASAP, would you not?

Case in point: I'm the Aztecs, allied with the Germans against the Iroquois. The map is North America. The Germans have just captured a city on Mexico's Baja Peninsula. Fortunately, a few turns ago, my own troops captured another coastal city farther north, so I am able to rush a couple of galleys for getting troops around that bottleneck city to finish the Iros off. But if I had not been so fortunate, my alliance, though still in effect, would become useless; the Germans would have to fight the Iros on their own from this point on, all because I can't pass through their newly captured city!

 

[Punkymonkey]

Originally posted by Spacedog
How about being able to liberate the cities of your allies from your enemies? If you recapture one of your ally's cities from the enemy, you should be given the option of returning control of that city to your ally.

I am thinking in terms of WWII when the Allies liberated France. Say you are playing a WWII scenario as the Allies. If you liberate Paris from the Germans, you should be given the choice of returning control of the city to France, even if France had been previously eliminated from the game (this would bring them back in the game).

This could work in a regular game as well. Perhaps the Civ that you liberated the city for could get a production bonus or a population boost, so the city would be productive sooner than if you kept the city for yourself (could be helpful in a war). Plus, if the Civ was previously eliminated, then they would automatically be friendly toward you, and grant you RoP and military alliance against your enemies, to show their appreciation.

Perhaps this would only be an option while the city still had citizens from that Civ. Once all the citizens had converted to the conquering Civ, then it would be too late to liberate it as all the people in the city would consider themselves citizens of the conquering Civ.

Perhaps if you are in a locked alliance (a la Conquests), this wouldn't even be an option. Control of the city would automatically pass to the original owner. Something to think about.

Well you could always give the city back to the original owner. Just go to the bottom of the diplomacy box and click on the city you want to give back

 

[zurichuk]

I would like more victory conditions BUT the option to choose how many victory conditions are satisfied to win the game or how big a lead of victory conditions are needed, eg you must have a lead of 2 to win the game

ie 2 victory conditions required

if someone launches the spaceship first then you have to win culturally and UN to overhaul the opponent

eg a lead of 2 victory conditions required

if someone launches the spaceship first then you have to win culturally and UN to overhaul the opponent and destroy the civ who won the spaceship race to regain a lead of 2

it wouldn't work so well at the moment but if there were more conditions ie continental mass monopolised and owned, wonder builder leader, various levels of domination, winner to each age etc etc then it could be really interesting and tactical

 

[Spacedog]

Originally posted by Punkymonkey
Well you could always give the city back to the original owner. Just go to the bottom of the diplomacy box and click on the city you want to give back

That's true, but can you give a city to a Civ that has been eliminated from the game? Also, there should be some incentive for giving the city to the other Civ. Otherwise, why not just keep it for yourself?

 

[JavalTigar]

"Also, there should be some incentive for giving the city to the other Civ. Otherwise, why not just keep it for yourself?"

Exactly! I hate when I take a city from on civ that belonged to another civ, I try to trade it for something small(1 GPT) and they are offended. But they will let me give it away. That's just stupid.

How about a positive rep bonus twice what the rep hit is for razing? Seems fair.

Or some kinda trade bonus (Most Favored Nation Status).
Double the going rate for techs, lux, etc..

 

[farsay]

Originally posted by Ordep
Like Civ3 you would have base governments (anarchy, Despotism, monarchy, republic, and democracy, and communism). In addition to this, there are several modifiers to the base governments. The base governments have an effect on corruption and control what modifier options are available.

Brilliant! This would do much to lead to a more personalized style of gameplay. This is the direction we need to go if we want a constantly-running multiplayer online CIV in the future.

Hey -- if you have any more ideas on this kind of modularity, post it to my thread, "CIV IV and beyond" in the <Civ3 General Discussions> section. Thanks!

 

[The Head]

I would like to keep the free movement on railroads, first of all to keep the management simple, but also because it can be used in some improvements.

Production:

This needs the most work. When a city produces 55 shields and you want to build a modern armor, it takes 3 turns, and then you have 0 shields in stock. I would really like to keep the 45 wasted shields in the production stock, so you don’t have to micromanage what every city is building. Or even better: When you have some cities connected by railroads, you should be able to select an output city. Then when you want to produce units you just select "unit production", and then all the shields are send to your output city, where you might collect let’s say 710 shields. You can then select units for those shields e.g. 5 modern and 1 mech. would definitely decrease micromanagement.

Also when hurrying production, it shouldn’t cost double to buy a unit/improvement from scratch, especially when you just buy a warrior and changes production and buy the rest at normal cost.

Bridges and canals: - But only for two squares. Should take forever/cost a fortune

Combat: I really like the combat system, but a unit two ages prior to another unit should always loose. – Some naval units should carry missiles.

UN: like SMAC, and with pollution- and nuclear control. After the UN has been build territory claims should be available. (besides the cultural borders)

Statistics: All kinds of statistics e.g. number of different lost units, number of different killed units (like civ 2)

Movies: Like civ 2 play a small movie when you have achieved something special.

Useable future techs: I would prefer tech like SMAC, but less could also do. Like every second future tech increase your modern armors attack value by 1 and so on.

Info on rep damage: When ever an act causes rep damage, you should be informed.

Obsolete, obsolete units: Why can I still build warrior, when Modern Armor is available??? You have to scroll through al those obsolete units to get down to the improvements.

Civil war: Let’s get that back as well, perhaps with the option to support the rebels in another civ. (or maybe terrorism)

Offshore oil tiles:

Odds stats: Before attacking a unit, it should be possible to press a key e.g. “O”, and press the key for the direction for your attack, and a stat-screen showing your odds should appear.

Better trade for coast cities: 90% of all major cities founded before 1900 are placed on a coast line or a river bank. The main reason for this is trade. This should also be reflected in civ 4. (maybe with the possibility for 2 naval units to make a naval blockade, canceling the extra trade, luxury and resources)

 

[Cardenio]

that I actually DON'T PLAY CIV ANYMORE.

So My suggestion for Civ 4 now is :

Great work ! You plagerised Axis and Allies AND Shogun. What an opportunity there with Shogun too. The units were made already and just sitting there ! Kewl.

So anyway - for the people who want to play AnA and all that with lots of pieces - keep developing the ' Conquests ' line. Maybe with ' Star Wars ' units.

However, some people want to play ' CIVILIZATION ' A that's a geopolitical simulation. Contuine with that - maybe redoing the whole game form the ' ground up '

Get Jared Diamond and Stephen Huntington to help you.

Get someone competent to do the art.

 

[nova]

Originally posted by rilnator
Grouping units for movement and attack. Better delegation of city maintinence and delegation of armies.Individual unit histories so maybe you can see like how many times they've seen combat or how many kills they've had.

I agree. Grouping units for movement and attack needs to be a reality. The lack of it is an unbelievable oversight. And I don't just mean the ability to send all of the same kind of unit to one destination with the "j" key command, I mean being able to pair dissimilar units, like a settler and a horseman, then giving them the "go to" command so they can function on automatic. The progress of the group would be set by the slowest unit, but they would stay together (the horseman reducing its movement rate to 1 square per turn in order to stay "on top of" the settler and defend it).

 

[nova]

Originally posted by redstoner
I'd like to have the ability to bribe enemy units again, like you could in older versions. I used that alot and was dissapointed it wasn't included in CIV 3.

That was probably taken out because it was extremely unrealistic, even from a fiction standpoint. A better approach might be to allow units to "turn" with massive civil unrest; think of all the times in history -- from ancient Rome to modern South America -- that the military (or a portion of it) did an about-face on the current head of state. In such a scenario it might be interesting too if the "turned" unit produced a Great Leader.

 

[nova]

Originally posted by Winston
Other items on my wishlist would include:
2) Different role for the UN (one of the forums (can't remember which one) suggested having the UN as a means by which civs could issue edicts and bans - could be interesting)[/QUOTE]

Giving the UN in Civ the same function it has in reality would create a nightmare scenario. Imagine a multitude of little civs that are furious with you because of your choice of government and level of scientific achievement banding together to create bans and restrictions and roadblocks in order to slow your progress "diplomatically." Then the only way to keep up your progress would be to start a war with this clique of civs that would then turn against you permanently because of your "aggression." There are certain no-win scenarios that are better left to the real world.

3) Captured cities should create guerrilas (like in civ 2) instead of/as well as the resistance thing ...
4) There should be three levels of irrigation to represent the advances that have been made in agriculture (could have an initial level of irrigation to represent ancient and medieval agriculture, then could have a second tier to represent 18th C, 19th C, and early 20th C agriculture, and then could have a third tier to represent modern agriculture).

Yes, yes, yes!

5) Similarly, there should be 3 tiers of road (road, railroad, and motorway) and none of these improvements should allow infinite move. Only roads should provide tile bonuses (+1 trade) as this would provide less incentive to cover the map with railroads.

The infinite movement of railroads reflects the turn-based limitations of the game. The shortest amount of time to pass in a turn is a year, so a unit that expends zero movement points to get from one end of a continent to the other, then disembarks and goes on to spend its normal points is entirely feasible. It's like a real-world battalion being shipped by rail from Ft. Stewart, GA to Ft. Lewis, WA in a year. It could be done with months to spare. BTW, I completely agree with the tile bonuses being restricted to roads. Railroads should be for getting from city to city ONLY.

 

[nova]

Originally posted by Winston
Other items on my wishlist would include:
13) Maybe units should have movement bonuses depending on the number of years represented in a turn e.g. in the early turns where its 50yrs per turn, maybe units should go 5 times faster? This would make things more realistic but it would need to be implemented very carefully (a horseman that travels 10 squares a turn is a scary thought)

The movement rate in the ancent times is definitely a problem. I can sort of see the sense of equating the very early forays into the world (where essentially everything is black) to the slow prehistoric migration of peoples, but after you're familiar with the area, 50 years to move one square is ridiculous. And even when you get to the equivalent of what was the height of the Roman empire in reality, in the game you're still taking 20 years to move one square. That's like a Roman emperor deciding to lay some whupass on the German savages and taking 160-200 years to get the armies there and back for one campaign.