Civ4 Suggestions

[MrMulan]

Perhaps an alternative to corruption based on distance from capital and FP, could be in terms of regions. Just like in the US, we talk about the Northeast in a slump, while the Pacific North west is doing ok. There would be a random chance of certain regions becoming more productive than other, and others experiencing a slump.

This way you could cover half a huge map, and have many regions, but wouldnt know exactly when each one would hit a slump or boom. So if there is a war and all of a sudden there tons of space open up, but your agriculture region is experiencing a slump, it would be hard to produce settles from here.

Not only that, but people could leave cities in these regions, and trying to rush produce something would incur penalties.

Comments?

 

[FredLC]

Especially with the concept of being able to breed resources. I mean if you buy horses from a neighbor, you should be able to have a farm that will grant you horses in the future. For instance, it could be like this: If you don’t build any horse-based units in a 20 turn period, than the horses you bought will still be yours, and you can breed them from there on.

It should be like this with all animals and plants, and only the mineral kind of resources should be as scarce as the game makes them.

Other thing that I don’t like is that you have to get your food in the nearby area. I think that the game should allow specialized cities, like, if you have an area of your countryland that is good for food, than cities over there will be farms and feed your whole civ. If an area is good for shields, than that will be an industrial zone.

Working that way, combined with the ability of setting the city purpose, you’d be able to have an planned progress, and it’s more realistic, and not so hard to achieve.

But the thing that I’d like to be changed the most is the way that roads works.

When you think of real wars, there’s always thinks like key points. Take down that fortress, the foe is down. Take that city, they are history. But, in the way that movement works now, it’s unimportant what city you strike first.

How I think that it should be: Ok, in real life, you don’t have countries that have railroads in each square, like it happens in civ. You have urbanized cities and connecting roads. So, I think that roads outside of the FAT X radius should be WAY more expensive, in the sense that it’s only worth to build them to link one city to the others, and limiting them as your way to be able to really move.

This, combined with giving back the road bonus to the foes (after all, the roads on Afghanistan do not disappear under the feet of the USA soldiers), would create a logical war path to the enemy forces, would justify the building of fortresses, as you would have stress points to defend, and would make surprise attacks much more interesting, like: “Oh my God. They tricked me. I was waiting for them in my mountain road and they came trough the forest. Who could have guessed?”

Finally, I think that colonies should survive in the culture zone of the other civs, and have a culture flip factor like the cities, even if smaller. After all, why should you build a colony in the other side of the ocean if you know that when the other civ expands minimally their cultural borders, they will absorb yours anyway?

Well, those are the most important remarks I wanted to make.

Regards .

 

[-proletarian-]

You have many ideas, however in my opinion they are all just meaningless distractions that would hugely complicate the game without actually adding any new gameplay. Firaxis should make Civ4 a better game, not a more complicated one. I think we sometimes miss that point.

 

[Cyc]

i believe proletarian is right. instead of going for the smaller tweaks(they've already been done, they're history), go to the bone of the game. work on it's basic structure, strenthening it.
one of the big complaints i read here in the forum is the AI and all the low life, illogical moves it makes. by improving the other world leaders accountability for their actions, it would reduce the frustration level by leaps and bounds. (this would not help in a MP game, but that point is irrelevant at this time.) when i think of a world leader, a cultured, intelligent, charismatic person comes to mind. in all the civs, AI world leaders are always adult babies wanting to be pacified and throwing tantrums and fits. sid has made civ3 so that the AI will say "hey, you're doing to well, too quickly. we have to take you down a notch or two. so your polite friend for 3,000 years flips and sneak attacks. (or a number of other low tactics). outlandish trade practices are now the standard. i find myself asking the AI - "you mean you don't want 3 horses, 2 spice and 500 dollars for that one tech?" let's make the AI world leaders a little closer to reality. no more low life leaders. and btw...cleopatra does look like a wood elf, parmenion.

 

[hzm]

I've always wanted aliens in the game.

A new victory type. If you aren’t recognized by the galactic council by 2020 the grey aliens will declare war on your civilization and all the other ones on earth.

You'll die unless you get another alien civ to back you up.

 

[JoseM]

chieftess no offense but those suggestions sounds too complicated to me and to anyone, thats a lot of micromanagment and makes the game bore and less fun...

 

[JoseM]

Originally posted by Parmenion
Governors:

In cities that experience Civil Disorder, the city governor (whether it is a prince, duke or senator etc...) could declare that city to be independent rather than burning down marketplaces or flipping to the neighbouring culture. This would be more frequent with a greater distance from the capital, and the city would have to be retaken by force. This happened historically with large empires such as Rome or Alexander's empire, and the rulers in question had to dispatch a military force to persuade the citizen's back into the empire (either that or put them to the sword).

.

this idea sounds good.. . something similar was able in Civ 2 but Civ 3 didnt added this... also in call to power ur cities rebeal which is something fun...

 

[JoseM]

Originally posted by Parmenion


Borders:

A civilisation could declare that it has national borders, thus defining the nation properly rather than with just a cultural boundary. The cultural boundary could still exist, but the national boundary can never exceed it. I think the various civ leaders could get together and debate their own respective national boudaries and claim unsettled lands etc... It would be great if this happened, just like when the US bought Alaska from Russia for tuppence-ha'penny and then settled it with their own people (later discovering gold there must have really annoyed the Ruskis.)

this idea sounds good

Originally posted by Parmenion


Espionage:

Make it much cheaper - it is almost impossible to carry out anything useful with spies, and in reality they provide mucho information for a nation regarding it's enemies. So far I have only ever carried out one successful operation with a spy and that was the propaganda campaign for a city that would have culture-flipped in a few turns anyway. Also more options could be added such as kidnapping, inciting riots, assasinations of leaders etc...

true, civ 3 espionage sucks, espionage in civ 3 is really expensive and most of the missions fail. Also assesination of leaders sounds good, for example if u assesinate the german leader then its nations goes into anarchy for 7 or 10 turns... and infliting riots in cities sounds good too, for example u can incite riots against a civilization that is in war against u and that will stop their production and then u can take advantage of it, also is a lot of cities riot they can create a minor nation... for example an independent nation... like EUROPE UNIVERSALIS where the rebels can create their own minor nations... and also u can use the "inciting riots" thing against a civ that ur competing for the spaceship race ect...

Originally posted by Parmenion


Minor Civs:

Allow barbarians to develop into small Civs that can be annexed into a larger Empire or allowed autonomy/protection for trade purposes etc.. Alexander the Great allowed Cappodocia it's own autonomy as it would have been a pain in the backside to scour it of resistors and as the King there was willing to pay tribute to him he didn't bother to conquer it. Negotiations could also be made with barbarians aswell, allowing the player to decide whether or not it would be worthwhile to bring the backward axe-wielders into the civilization (ie: do they have the knowledge of a certain science)

yeah this sounds good too

 

[JoseM]

Originally posted by hzm
Maybe if you are far enough in science, have a large military, and get enough wealth per turn, you could be declared a superpower. Other nations would no longer make ridiculous demands (except other superpowers) and you would be able to built bases in other civs territories if you had good relations.

yeah sounds good too... i dont know why firaxis doesnt listen to this kind of suggestions... firaxis made a good game but they still lack in good stuff like this... micromanagment like CHIEFTESS proposed isnt good is more like frustrating.. but this kind of stuff about minor nations, national borders, public works and superpower stuff are neccesary, i agree with HZM its ridicoulus when a small nation demands u stuff when ur being the power empire of the world.... lol can u inmagine turkey demanding the soviet union nuclear technology? and if the soviet union denies it then do u see turkey declaring war the soviet union? lol stupid but in civ3 is a reality.

 

[JoseM]

Originally posted by Hawkman
I think a Public Works fund with the workers would make it real!

yeah public works is better than worker units.. because in civ 3 the world is full of railroads in the 1800s and in real life even in the 2000 there are not too many railroads like in civ3 shows... i remember playing call to power i had a big empire and i had to make a railroad, but it was expensive, and in real life IS EXPENSIVE to build a railroad line... in civ3 is just so fast and easy, the whole word is a railroad, in real life isnt like that.

 

[JoseM]

read below

 

[JoseM]

Originally posted by baseballtwin86
The biggest disappointment for me in Civ 3 was the lack of more civs. This has been a major complaining point. It would be nice for there to also be a possiblity to add in new civs. Easier modding would also be nice, and improved load times between turns. A little more intuitive battle system would also be nice. Especially the idea of more technology and less amount. I get tired of my German Panzer being defeated by a spearman in a city. Use of the other civs roads would also be a nice addition.

yea they had to add more civs and also when u invade a capital the empire split in two parts, like in civ 2.

 

[JoseM]

Originally posted by Benjamin Miller
Relations should be better between democratic countrys, communist countrys, etc.

Make it possible for the citizens to start a revolt by themselves, change governement by themselves, this should happen more when they are in civil disorder.

You should be able to install a puppet governent when you march into a capital. That is, the country still maintains itself, but you control many things about it, such as government type.


You should be able to walk on the same square as an ally, walk into your ally's city, etc. You should also be able to build military bases in allied territory.



Make it better to give territory back to a country if you are democratic.

Get diplomatic penalties if you are really powerful and fail to intervene in a foriegn war.

Think gulf war here. Lets say the powerful Germans attack and occupy peaceful India with their Panzers. Persia, England and Russia sign an alliance to contain German aggression. If you are playing as the Americans and have the best military in the world, the alliance would think that you are on the German's side. In addition, the AIs would give back the territory to the Indians after the war. They should even give territory back after winning a war against an ally. I'd hate to see what France and Germany would look like if World War II was like Civ3....



You should be able to build canals. It drives me crazy having my battleship in the Red Seal go all the way around Africa just to bomb Italy when I should be able to build the Suez canal.


That's all for now, I'll think of more later. It really drives me crazy when I have to declare war on a former ally when they keep my cities that they liberated from the Aztecs or something....

i agree with u, civ 3 lacks in diplomatic stuff...

 

[JoseM]

why dont WE (the people giving suggestions in this thread) create a game ourselves? i mean we are all here giving nice and good ideas that firaxix or company will never listen... i think if we create a game by ourselves (the people giving these suggestions) i think our game could be much better than civ or call to power,... civ 3 is good call to power 2 is good also, but they still lack in stuff that im reading here, if we just had the money and the people to create a civ style game i think we could success... i mean with these ideas i think we could... im very sure that civ 4 or call to power 3 WILL STILL lack in this kind of things, this kind of suggestions are never listened by firaxis and company... damn ... if we had the people and the money to create a game... thats all we need because these ideas are really nice.

 

[JoseM]

Originally posted by Chieftess
Maybe it's just me (regular antiquity units defeating my elite indutrial and modern units - I had a galley dent my battle ship once! ), but make units have a stat bonus vs. a unit from a lower era. (i.e., i.e., middle vs antiquity would be +2 on all stats, indust vs antiquity would be +4, and so on). I don't think a band of regular warriors should be very successful against elite modern infantry.

- More on the workers (why would worker units have no immediate protection anyway? ). I never played CTP, so I don't know what the civic works does, but instead of workers, have an "Order Improvement" option where you select the tiles you want to improve (you might be allow to improve the same number of tiles as your city population level (1,2,3 etc)). There could be a cost involved, but at least it would build roads/mines/irragation, and put a laborer to work there. (a small "construction" graphic could indicate which tile is being worked on).

- Make civs willing to take your cities. (i.e., You're allied with the French, and the Russians capture a French city, say, Paris, and you recapture Paris. You should have the option to give Paris back and not have France reject your offer).

ur workers idea is similar as Call to power "public works" ...yea i agree with u ..there should be an option about to give the city back to ur ally....

 

[JoseM]

Originally posted by Parmenion


PS - Do you think that anyone at Firaxis will actually read this, or will it just be us lot discussing pointless topics that will Sid will never even see? Not that it matters, I like hearing all the cool ideas you lot come up with anyway - if I ever happen to own a software company I will make them create a game modelled on ideas from this forum.......promise.

jajaja lol man u read my mind, if u read the post before this one, there i say the same that u said, and i made that post before reading ur post... yeah i think firaxis and company will never read this and if i had my own software stuff i would already start creating a game with these ideas, like i said in the previous posts WE SHOULD create a game by ourselves, after all we are gamers and we know what is good or not... so why dont we create our own game then?

 

[JoseM]

Originally posted by hzm
I've always wanted aliens in the game.

A new victory type. If you aren’t recognized by the galactic council by 2020 the grey aliens will declare war on your civilization and all the other ones on earth.

You'll die unless you get another alien civ to back you up.

lol this is funny... but i wouldnt include this to any game lol.... i supose this was a kind of joke right? lol ...i agree with proletarian, CHIEFTESS u got some good ideas but most of them are just micromanaging stuff that eliminates the fun and creates frustration, anyways ur ideas are always open... so anyone here open to create a new game? lol im really interested in creating a game with these ideas, since we give good ideas and firaxis will never listen to them... maybe we can create the game... anyone interesting in searching the right people to create this game? that people should have the tools and we give the ideas, so what do u think?

 

[hzm]

I was kidding, but I think aliens should be in somehow. I am one of "those people" that think the bible was about aliens and thinks they have been around us since the beginning.


From a different post by me, things I wanted in.

Alien civilizations

Near future technologies and units

Scenarios.

The ability to add new units, resources, and wonders without major hacking. No number limits either.

More civs.

Colonization of other planets, the moon, and the oceans.

Peaceful great leaders.

Offspring civilizations. Like America, Australia, and Canada from Britain.


I suggest this government system.

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=18886

 

[JoseM]

yea i believe aliens influenced humans in the begennings of our times, also im very sure the humans have aliens DNA ... anyways i agree with u about creating new stuff without a major hacking and more scenarios like WW2 or Rome scenario in civ 2.

 

[NY Hoya]

this link has tons of good ideas for Civ4:

http://home.att.net/~civgames/ideas.html