another idea for unplanned settlements. these dont involve settlers. the byzantines built a long road through no mans land to connect their capital to distant cities. i find it useful so i build a couple of forts and station units along to detect and defeat barbs. in real life eventually towns would build up to service the forts and the caravan and other traffic along the road...not sure exactly how it would work but i am thinking if the forts are built and then a unit fortified there for a number of years it should become a city. it should happen slowly for ordinary forts and maybe quicker for citadels, but they cant be in any civs territory at any time. so if someone settles a city there and it expands its area before the fort becomes a city the process is halted. or you can leave the fort unattended for a turn now and then to reset the counter if you dont want to found a city there at all.
Civilization 6: Ideas
- Thread starter Pepo
- Start date
awesome
Meme Lord
Yeah, that happened tons of times. I can't think of any ancient examples off the top of my head, but I know it's happened lots in the modern world. A lot of settlements in the USA are from stopover points during the gold rush and I'm pretty sure the capital of Kenya was originally just a railway depot built by the British.
Naokaukodem
Millenary King
- Joined
- Aug 8, 2003
- Messages
- 3,952
I wouldn't count too much on it... you could do an effort on presentation, come on.
true. sometimes i get an idea and it sort of fleshes itself out as i type. those are common when someone else has an idea that triggers me to expand it or something. i will need to go back and edit those to make them more simple to digest.
Carl5872
Prince
I like this idea!
Another more mechanical thing I've always wanted, was the ability to group military and nonmilitary units. Steal a worker from half way across the world and want to move it back home safely. This is a click fest each turn to make sure that they both go the same path and stop on the same tile. Otherwise, it may get captured and killed. Its even worse if units have different movement abilities. A horse escorting a worker means each turn you have to click "skip turn". Same thing with Missionaries being escorted. Would really speed up a tedious part of a wonderful game. To be honest I really hope they put this in Civ 5 in a patch, but I think that its done sadly.
awesome
Meme Lord
I think you could do that with civ4?
And, if you couldn't, it shouldn't be too hard to program*
*I know nothing about programming
And, if you couldn't, it shouldn't be too hard to program*
*I know nothing about programming
yep you can stack in civ 4, and move the whole stack. if they keep 1UPT in civ6 then please let us stack workers or settlers with an escort unit, and then move the stack (or if stack is term they want to avoid then give an option to 'move unit and escort')
barbarians. aside from changing the names with eras to more modern names (guerilla/revolutionary/terrorists or others) and the graphics...how about letting them alone long enough they become a CS OR if they become a city choose to join a civ that seems to fit them? this might involve giving each camp that spawns one of same traits as a CS has already.
militaristic barb camps would spawn lots of offensive units and these would range out pillaging and attacking workers, which come in handy if it is left long enough to become a CS/city. they might also raid other nearby barb camps with a different trait.
mercantile barbs make units for defence as well and maybe even the odd caravan. they would be able to supply one resource through trade but this would reveal the camp to a trade partner civ...what the civ does with the info is up to their own leader traits.
religious ones would spawn missionaries and going to CS is possible only if they spawn a great prophet. they also have fanatical units which will destroy any city they havent converted to their pagan pantheon. but if they form a city they will join whichever civ converts them first either with religious unit or just pressure.
cultured barbs may be a contradiction but if they existed they would mainly make defensive units, and would always become a CS if left long enough.
militaristic barb camps would spawn lots of offensive units and these would range out pillaging and attacking workers, which come in handy if it is left long enough to become a CS/city. they might also raid other nearby barb camps with a different trait.
mercantile barbs make units for defence as well and maybe even the odd caravan. they would be able to supply one resource through trade but this would reveal the camp to a trade partner civ...what the civ does with the info is up to their own leader traits.
religious ones would spawn missionaries and going to CS is possible only if they spawn a great prophet. they also have fanatical units which will destroy any city they havent converted to their pagan pantheon. but if they form a city they will join whichever civ converts them first either with religious unit or just pressure.
cultured barbs may be a contradiction but if they existed they would mainly make defensive units, and would always become a CS if left long enough.
awesome
Meme Lord
I like that idea a lot more than all of the "barbarians becoming civs" posts that go around. Barbarian diplomacy might also be fun, talking them into attacking your enemies for proxy wars, or at least city-states that actually attack.
rather than barbs becoming a civ (the only ones they really could have historically become would be the huns), its more likely if a number of city states are close together such that their borders touch they will become a civ. either because one of the CS spawns a leader great person who then conquers the neighbours, which should be as rare a thing as possible; or more like the hanseatic league, a special CS only 'civ'. only CS could become this (it does open up the possibility of you being a merchant prince of a CS: the game already has an option for one city only for human players and this isnt a civ like venice more defensive pact that is infinite turns long when formed between CS only).
also that made me think; there are a number of times a leader has arisen, formed an 'empire of a 1000 years' and promptly died or been defeated and the empire broke up. i think a CS 'civ' would be more likely like this. if two or three CS have borders which touch, players would get notification that a CS has been taken over by such and such name 'khan so-and-so' or something, and shortly after he wages war against the other CS and if wins forms a new 'nation' but if not defeated by a civ and annexed/liberated, he just dies (randomly from assasination by rebels, or disease or old age) after so many turns and the CS then revert. thats just a random 'historical type' event which would give some more choices to players.
OR the 'nation' descends into civil war and THEN splits or maybe one CS remains after razing the others.
also that made me think; there are a number of times a leader has arisen, formed an 'empire of a 1000 years' and promptly died or been defeated and the empire broke up. i think a CS 'civ' would be more likely like this. if two or three CS have borders which touch, players would get notification that a CS has been taken over by such and such name 'khan so-and-so' or something, and shortly after he wages war against the other CS and if wins forms a new 'nation' but if not defeated by a civ and annexed/liberated, he just dies (randomly from assasination by rebels, or disease or old age) after so many turns and the CS then revert. thats just a random 'historical type' event which would give some more choices to players.
OR the 'nation' descends into civil war and THEN splits or maybe one CS remains after razing the others.
ok the team system. i just started a game with the lord of the rings civs mod. i put azog and sauron on same team, forgot about the southrons completely but they would be dominated by sauron so should be on his team. aragorn and theoden are a team. elrond and thranduil are teamed...but i see something missing. sauron actually made a deal with me for a luxury. the elves would never talk to sauron no matter how tempting the deal, not since they were decieved by 'annatar' (sauron) and especially not after the fall of numenor when sauron cant ever take a pleasant disguise again. its like saying north korea would ally with the usa, never gonna happen.
so there should be a way to set a game up so that you can set one team as the mortal enemy of another. it doesnt mean they are always at war although that can be true, just they never will trust another enough to ever do a deal, and anyone on the same team.
another problem is, sauron is always going to dominate azog and his orcs, and the southrons, but civ doesnt have a way other than the puppet system to represent a 'team' like this; the puppet system is not correct for the relationship with sauron and azog for example. azog has independence to a degree, but bows to sauron when commanded. so there should be a form of team alliance where one of the civs can be superior. samurai warriors 2 empires does this. you can brow beat a weaker state into becoming the inferior party in an alliance. they can be persuaded sometimes to renounce this also, although i dont know if any orc would be so brave as to disobey the dark lord of mordor openly
so there should be a way to set a game up so that you can set one team as the mortal enemy of another. it doesnt mean they are always at war although that can be true, just they never will trust another enough to ever do a deal, and anyone on the same team.
another problem is, sauron is always going to dominate azog and his orcs, and the southrons, but civ doesnt have a way other than the puppet system to represent a 'team' like this; the puppet system is not correct for the relationship with sauron and azog for example. azog has independence to a degree, but bows to sauron when commanded. so there should be a form of team alliance where one of the civs can be superior. samurai warriors 2 empires does this. you can brow beat a weaker state into becoming the inferior party in an alliance. they can be persuaded sometimes to renounce this also, although i dont know if any orc would be so brave as to disobey the dark lord of mordor openly
Engineer idea.
I should have thought of this sooner, but...if engineers can build manufactory then make them also able to build a bridge across or a tunnel under places like the bosphorus? japan has a bridge between two islands, then there is the channel tunnel. or a canal like the panama canal.
the way i see it working with these massive engineering projects is, they consume the engineer but take say 5 turns. if the tunnel links 2 countries and they suddenly go to war the project is stalled and the Great Engineer vanishes. if the works are pillaged they disappear completely unlike a normal pillage; representing tunnels blown up, and bridge piers dynamited, the trench of the canal filled or the banked or aqueduct sections removed. if not pillaged, then a new GE will be able to complete it quicker, otherwise its just like a new build.
with a canal, once a ship enters, no other vessel can enter it, until the ship exits. the ship can be taken over if defeated by any military unit using the privateer combat; the ship either is destroyed or captured by the unit. (if aircraft attack it, they just destroy the ship).
with tunnels, any unit expends all its remaining movement to go through - same with bridges. the AI would need work though to not casually pillage these supreme engineering wonders, so maybe once in place they will be unpillagable, so they become terrain features rather than improvements. thats a workaround since if a civ is down to just one city the other side of such a structure in real life they WOULD destroy it to save themselves. still that would give you another use for great engineers...
I should have thought of this sooner, but...if engineers can build manufactory then make them also able to build a bridge across or a tunnel under places like the bosphorus? japan has a bridge between two islands, then there is the channel tunnel. or a canal like the panama canal.
the way i see it working with these massive engineering projects is, they consume the engineer but take say 5 turns. if the tunnel links 2 countries and they suddenly go to war the project is stalled and the Great Engineer vanishes. if the works are pillaged they disappear completely unlike a normal pillage; representing tunnels blown up, and bridge piers dynamited, the trench of the canal filled or the banked or aqueduct sections removed. if not pillaged, then a new GE will be able to complete it quicker, otherwise its just like a new build.
with a canal, once a ship enters, no other vessel can enter it, until the ship exits. the ship can be taken over if defeated by any military unit using the privateer combat; the ship either is destroyed or captured by the unit. (if aircraft attack it, they just destroy the ship).
with tunnels, any unit expends all its remaining movement to go through - same with bridges. the AI would need work though to not casually pillage these supreme engineering wonders, so maybe once in place they will be unpillagable, so they become terrain features rather than improvements. thats a workaround since if a civ is down to just one city the other side of such a structure in real life they WOULD destroy it to save themselves. still that would give you another use for great engineers...
Heart Break Kid
Warlord
- Joined
- Mar 27, 2012
- Messages
- 174
I think that's a good idea. Would be nice to see CS' that actually go on the offense.
i have seen the civ:BE and they have a quest system i am completely taken by. i want this very much in civ 5 but definitely in civ 6, please. it looks awesome, particularly what they have done with espionage. i am on the verge of changing my mind and buying it when it comes out (beyond earth i mean; civ 6 is on the list anyway.)
i keep wanting to be able to give or trade techs with other civs, other than through stealing. this has come up in most of the games i played now. always one civ i want to be friendly with, and either they are struggling with the neighbours opposite, because of low tech and war, or just to beef up my buffer zone on that side while i deal with a warmongering AI on another border.
particularly this comes up when using a lord of the rings civ mod; i group the civs into teams, the 2 elven civs on one team, aragorn and rohan another, sauron + goblins + southrons + angmar, and the last unteamed (hobbits, the dwarves and saruman in isengard).
its great that my team mates have access to my tech...although i wonder if the other civs can steal them easier from his capital than mine (which begs the question if this was the case, whats the point leaving a spy in YOUR capital to prevent espionage...). however, in the books aragorn and rohan were friendly with the elves - well aragorn is anyway; so i also would like to selectively teach them techs when i am elrond of the eldar elves. as it stands all i can do is, if gondor/rohan or hobbits steal techs forgive or overlook every time, and demand they stop of the mordor/angmar/goblins/southrons and isengard, or denounce those. its not really very satisfactory.
perhaps, giving them a GS to complete the tech they are working on might work.
i keep wanting to be able to give or trade techs with other civs, other than through stealing. this has come up in most of the games i played now. always one civ i want to be friendly with, and either they are struggling with the neighbours opposite, because of low tech and war, or just to beef up my buffer zone on that side while i deal with a warmongering AI on another border.
particularly this comes up when using a lord of the rings civ mod; i group the civs into teams, the 2 elven civs on one team, aragorn and rohan another, sauron + goblins + southrons + angmar, and the last unteamed (hobbits, the dwarves and saruman in isengard).
its great that my team mates have access to my tech...although i wonder if the other civs can steal them easier from his capital than mine (which begs the question if this was the case, whats the point leaving a spy in YOUR capital to prevent espionage...). however, in the books aragorn and rohan were friendly with the elves - well aragorn is anyway; so i also would like to selectively teach them techs when i am elrond of the eldar elves. as it stands all i can do is, if gondor/rohan or hobbits steal techs forgive or overlook every time, and demand they stop of the mordor/angmar/goblins/southrons and isengard, or denounce those. its not really very satisfactory.
perhaps, giving them a GS to complete the tech they are working on might work.
Rusty Edge
Deity
This idea is not new . Players have wanted to extend their roads and railways across straights and through mountain ranges. They have wanted to be able to move their navies between contiguous continents. Historically we have the Suez and Panama Canals, various suspension bridges and causeways crossing major waterways and the Chunnel.
Making it cost a GE means that it will be rare. The time has come.
making the player or AI able to leave teams under certain conditions maybe. that might really negate the point of teams tho. i still think there should be dominant allies who can depending on ideology exert some greater or lesser control...in freedom it would be called influence. in order it would be named something like socialist solidarity/union, and autocracy, empire, or something like, reflecting how those two directly puppet the lesser allies, openly or not.
i would like the diplomacy option to say to a weak member of a team 'control your allies if you wish to remain in existence' when their team mates keep denouncing you; because in the war that their team began against another team that my team had defensive pact with, i obliterated the army invading our pact partners lands and then obliterated Sauron capturing his capital and also holy city, razing a third one and leaving him with one when he sued for peace. now the goblins who are on his team and who lost only a trireme and 2 scouts are denouncing everyone arrogantly despite the peace treaty. and i have his capital in my possession, with a large army clustered around it, and only a road trip from his last city...i think he would rein in azog and the goblins. OR even leave the team...even the witch king is smart enough not to annoy a sleeping dragon (i have HIS capital also).
the civ names might be different but, the diplomacy might still occur in another game with different civs in teams. England and america being teamed against germany and austria might be another example.
i would like the diplomacy option to say to a weak member of a team 'control your allies if you wish to remain in existence' when their team mates keep denouncing you; because in the war that their team began against another team that my team had defensive pact with, i obliterated the army invading our pact partners lands and then obliterated Sauron capturing his capital and also holy city, razing a third one and leaving him with one when he sued for peace. now the goblins who are on his team and who lost only a trireme and 2 scouts are denouncing everyone arrogantly despite the peace treaty. and i have his capital in my possession, with a large army clustered around it, and only a road trip from his last city...i think he would rein in azog and the goblins. OR even leave the team...even the witch king is smart enough not to annoy a sleeping dragon (i have HIS capital also).
the civ names might be different but, the diplomacy might still occur in another game with different civs in teams. England and america being teamed against germany and austria might be another example.
Luis_Ah_Hoy
Chieftain
I've been reading through some excellent ideas in here, but couldn't read them all at once. So, sorry if this has been posted before:
--> why do we have to construct a Special Improvement (using a Great Person) outside the cities? Why can't it be constructed INSIDE the city?
I mean, there's only advantages in it. It simplifies things:
1 - It will be far more protected from enemy raids.
2 - It won't occupy a tile that can later be discovered that contains a Strategic Resource, for instance.
3 - There won't be the need to allocate any citizen to work on it, as it will be 'worked' by the own city tile.
--> why do we have to construct a Special Improvement (using a Great Person) outside the cities? Why can't it be constructed INSIDE the city?
I mean, there's only advantages in it. It simplifies things:
1 - It will be far more protected from enemy raids.
2 - It won't occupy a tile that can later be discovered that contains a Strategic Resource, for instance.
3 - There won't be the need to allocate any citizen to work on it, as it will be 'worked' by the own city tile.
DudewiththeFood
King
Great People improvements improve strategic resources anyway.
Rusty Edge
Deity
How would ethnicity best be represented in the series? I liked Civ III's racial approach, and often wish that IV's religions could have been added to that.
How do you introduce the element of ethnicity without controversy?
What about language groups?
Luis_Ah_Hoy
Chieftain
As far as I know, GP Improvements can improve any terrain they have been built over, whether it contains strategic resources or not.
But, if for instance, I build an Academy over a tile which contains Aluminium, it's obvious that I'll not fully 'capture' it, since Aluminium needs a mine to be exploited.
