Civ4 suggestion

[purplengold14]

Heres one that can and should be added to civ4. When you wage war and eliminate another country, you should get all the advances they had that you didnt have. This has happend from the greeks and romans all the way thru WW2 when we got the axis powers secrets on rocketry that helped us build jet fighters and go to the moon. It is realistic and gives one a further reward for that hard fought elimination of another civ. Do it guys.

 

[Mongoloid Cow]

It's hopelessly overpowered, and suddenly war-mongering becomes the only way to play the game in this idea. One tech per city is more than enough.

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

I agree MC! Though they tried hard to balance the game in civ3, the game STILL favours the war-mongers path to victory, and doing this would simply exacerbate the problem! As I have suggested elsewhere, if capturing a city gets you anything in the way of science, it should be a % of the beakers the city had-depending on the the ratio of the city's size at capture versus its original size. In additon, where these beakers go should depend on what the original owner was studying. So, for instance, capturing a city belonging to a civ that was heavily invested in economic technology, would probably get you 5% of the city's beakers placed into your economic tech stream!

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

 

[Spatula]

I never saw why capturing a city would mean all of its improvements (bar Wonders) being destroyed. Since the cities get hopeless amounts of corruption, then what you basically have is a useless pile of rubbish.

PS: I can't think of a single civ that didn't use warfare at some point to prevail over a rival. There SHOULD be an imbalance in favour of warmongers to reflect this - but only a small one. The consequences (e.g rep hit) of going to war should be increased, but the gains you get shouldn't be lessened.

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

Well Spatula, I do agree that HISTORICALLY it might be accurate to be a warmonger but, from a gameplay perspective I would like to know that I have as much chance of winning via a peacful building/culture game as I do through a conquest game. That said, I also DO agree that it is ridiculous for a captured city to loose all of its improvements and wonders. It should be ABLE to happen, but should not be guaranteed. Perhaps each unit you move into a city at the time of capture has a % chance of either damaging or destroying one improvement (to reflect general looting) given that I envisage a game where cities have LOTS more improvements than is currently the case, then even a few improvements lost will still leave the city as a worthwhile capture!

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

 

[Spatula]

It should be equal for gameplay's sake yes. But instead of trying to think up of new ways to make war less attractive, how about thinking of ways to make peaceful victory more attractive? War (in a game) is often very fun, and I wouldn't like to see it become any less so.

I like the percentage chance idea.

By the way, does the AI know if a certain victory condition has been disabled? Like if you can only win diplomatically will it not attempt to destroy you in a war?

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

OK, I DEFINITELY agree with you, Spatula, that the strongest focus should be in making the peaceful game MORE attractive but, at the same time, there should also be attention paid to making war more.....realistic, which I feel would also be good for gameplay. By realism I mean making war weariness dependant on more disperate factors-such as victory/defeat, government/religion/culture being fought and distance from home! Also, giving units an improved economic and population cost AND limiting the ability of said units to fight wherever and WHENEVER they want. I guess what I am saying is that I don't want combat to be RESTRICTED, merely have it tweaked so that the strategic and tactical elements of war are more engaging (hope that makes sense?)
In parallel, I would like to see culture revamped and improved, along with the economics, population growth and research models. Lastly, but most importantly diplomacy and international standing (especially in the modern age) should be beefed up quite considerably!!
Last of all, related to your question about victory conditions, I had this idea of the game ending at a random point between say 2100 and 2500-the point is that you don't know exactly WHEN the game will end within that time frame! When the game ends, though, each of the seperate victory conditions (which are currently active) are checked to see who won, and the player who wins the most victory conditions is the overall winner!

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

 

[Kilroy]

Heres one that can and should be added to civ4. When you wage war and eliminate another country, you should get all the advances they had that you didnt have. This has happend from the greeks and romans all the way thru WW2 when we got the axis powers secrets on rocketry that helped us build jet fighters and go to the moon. It is realistic and gives one a further reward for that hard fought elimination of another civ. Do it guys.

Two words: Dark Ages.

 

[Spatula]

I understand perfectly what you're saying, Aussie, although I'm not too sure about that last idea - I would want it to be in a box that said 'Average Victory' which I could switch off if I wanted to - getting a Diplomatic win and then suddenly an enemy with 2/3 world territory launching a spaceship would be frustrating if I hadn't expressly said that someone could win that way.

Has anyone inadvertantly won by Domination when going for Conquest? You take one city and that put you over the limit?

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

Oh, I forgot to point out, Spatula, that I feel that both the Diplomatic and Space Race victories should be more 'Gradual'. The space race, in particular, would be based on 'points per successful mission', with relatively easy missions-such as launching a sattelite-garnering only a few point, but with very expensive and risky missions-such as extrasolar colonization-garnering LOTS of points! Also, I want more victory types, such as religious, economic and scientific victories.

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

 

[norwegianviking]

Allow me to explain the new victory conditions:
Scientific- You reseach a certain tech or number of techs and you win.
Economic- You accumulate a certain amount of gold or gold earned per turn.
Religious- You convert enough civs to your religion and you win.

Well Aussie_Lurker, did I get them right?

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

In part you are right, but with these victories its more that you are a certain amount GREATER in these areas than your nearest rival. Also, it might be based on a single city AND your whole nation. So, for example, you might have a single city which is 5x more wealthy than any other city in the world OR you might have a city which produces 5x more beakers than anywhere else in the world. In each case, these will give you POINTS towards victory.
Hope that makes sense, and good to see we are pretty much on the same page !

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

 

[dh_epic]

A happiness victory if happiness is made to be more challenging and fulfilling, instead of just means to an end.

An improved cultural victory -- one that depends on your culture being admired throughout the world. How can people admire your culture if they absolutely hate you, burning your books, and arguing against your way of life?

An economic victory that also requires some level of international respect. How many economic powerhouses do you know that don't TRADE? (maps and techs don't count)

And even a glorious victory based on liberating nations or intervening in a genocide, as opposed to the traditional conquest route of keeping the spoils entirely for yourself. This definitely contributes to the glory of your nation's history in a way that's equal if not sometimes better than the world domination -- and isn't recreating history what Civ is all about?

But enough about victory conditions:

Giving out free techs to warmongers is a big NO. Not only does it tip the gameplay balance further out of wack, but it isn't entirely realistic. For every invader that DID learn new things from the conquered, there's an invader who dragged the conquered people down. (I'd sooner give out free techs for having a magnificent culture, attracting the world's greatest minds and ideas -- this would at least be better for gameplay.)

 

[Dwarven Zerker]

Heres one that can and should be added to civ4. When you wage war and eliminate another country, you should get all the advances they had that you didnt have. This has happend from the greeks and romans all the way thru WW2 when we got the axis powers secrets on rocketry that helped us build jet fighters and go to the moon. It is realistic and gives one a further reward for that hard fought elimination of another civ. Do it guys.

It's already bad enough that you can demand techs for peace and in the higher levels can demand a large number of techs. On Emporer I razed only 1 city (the capital) of a rival nation and demanded all his techs for peace (3 or 4 techs.) He not only the AI willing to do that but gave me 8 gpt and his entire treasury (something like 800 gold) so that I didn't raze his remaining 3 cities. Seeing as I want him to continue researching for me I took the deal as I had accomplished my goal.

 

[Spatula]

Allow me to explain the new victory conditions:
Scientific- You reseach a certain tech or number of techs and you win.
Economic- You accumulate a certain amount of gold or gold earned per turn.
Religious- You convert enough civs to your religion and you win.

Well Aussie_Lurker, did I get them right?

Now if only I'd read that before they were metnioned in the other thread.....