Could we have some more trade-offs?

[EmpireOfCats]

Excuse me for posting a new thread without any relevance to the Steam discussion, but after playing Civ IV again (well, more like again and again and again), I was wondering if the new version could include more trade-off decisions. What I mean is this: Nuclear power is pretty cool, but there is a downside: The risk of nuclear meltdown. This makes you think long and hard if you need it.

How about we have get of that?

Say, Police State really helps you fight wars, but there is a chance of a military takeover that will bring anarchy for X turns if you're unlucky and gets worse the longer you stay in that mode. Call to Power (I think) had a neat feature that you could let an AI help you run your civilization, but at the risk of it rebelling and breaking off it's own country.

There are some of these already, of course, mostly having to do with pollution. It would be nice if we could see more, so we have to consider more carefully if we want to build something or switch to a certain civic.

 

[Ahriman]

We know civics are gone and replaced by "social policies", but we dont' really know anything about them. Hopefully they will have interesting tradeoffs.

 

[Vordrax]

I agree, not really much else to add.

 

[Disgustipated]

grrrr, don't get me started on nuclear meltdowns again LOL. I argued against them in another thread. There's a lengthy argument for and against meltdowns there.

 

[Alsark]

This sounds like it would be turning the game into more of a random chance kind of thing... so no thanks. I'd like to win/lose based on strategy and tactics, not based on luck. Granted, luck will always be an element of Civilization, but the least it's present the better. If the trade-offs are 100% guaranteed, however, then sure. I guess you could say the coal plant was a trade-off - power to the city in exchange for unhealthiness. I doubt that's what you mean, but it's really the only kind that I'd find acceptable.