Current topics

I am sorry to be making another request, but I believe my thread link should be named "Unified Economic Theory (UET)" or "Trade-peror's Unified Economic Theory (UET)" to be clear, since I refer to my thread as "the UET" in all of my posts at CFC. I hope making the change will consume only a small amount of your time.

THANKS!

:thanx:
 
new features:

i am considering adding some features to the main list please comment on any you would like, or what you think of these:

an asterix (*) to denote new additions- I really see no downside to this

put links in bold to denote ideas that are particualrly good, or feasible- this is probably going to be contreversial, as people may say "why didn't you mark my thread" but at the same time, with all this information, there's got to be a way to look at important imfo without reading every post (and it will help the devolpers) if this idea has support, i may limit the number of posts i mark to a maximum of 1 bold print for every 2-5 ideas in a catagory

a plus sign (+) to denote frequently repated topics- dont see muc of a downside


comments requested, THIS MEANS YOUespecially about the bold type ideas
 
PLEASE RESPOND. NOW. THIS MEANS YOU!!!
 
Interesting. Would you consider the UET thread to be a "bold-type" idea, since it has been extensively discussed (through 9 pages :eek: )? Whether it has "support," is "particularly good," or is "feasible" is not really for me to say--as the author, my answer would be completely biased.
 
well, any bold type would be based on my judgement (unless soemone can giv e a particuallarly good reasonfor otherwise). But right now, what i'd really like to know is wheter you support bold print in geeral

and in case your curious, yeah i would probably include yours as bold, assuming i actually do this

I STILL NEED MORE COMMENTS!!!!
 
I support the bold-print idea, particularly if the conditions for becoming bold are objectively obtainable (for the most part, at least). Maybe a certain number of views or posts could be a condition. I simply hope that there isn't too much bias in determining bold-print status, because the bolding idea would lose support and become a waste of time.
 
what be a good requirement for this, in your opinion? 2 pages? 100 views? 15 posts? at least x # of people in a thread have a greed to it?
 
About your comment request:

I suggest you go ahead with all of them, if you get flamed about the bold, remember that this is your thread and you are doing a service, but it still remains yours and you do whatever you want with it.

I suggest you put (new) instead of (*) for new topics
 
Hi, I have a thread here called "Summary at the end? :)" if I remember well... :) Could it be mentioned in the list? It got some positive response (the idea in it), and I wish Firaxis saw it - maybe if listed here...
 
Actually, if it is not too much work for you, ybbor, everything you mentioned should be considered--number of posts, views, and number of people agreeing. Rather than having a specification of the requirements, however, perhaps you could just bold a certain number of threads with the highest values in those categories (for example, the threads with the top 20% of posts, views, and/or agreements could be bold, in each category).
 
hmm, interseting idea. i will use that model, taking those factors into consideration on what to make bold. now the only question is what the proportion should be. currently i'm thinking 1 bold post for every 6 ideas proposed
 
well, bold has been implamented, i don't want to get any complaints as to why your idea was not boldened (for those curious, i had no real # of boldened posts for every idea proposed, i just went with whatever i felt like, no set ratio)
 
done .
 
The one thing that all Civ games ahve been missing is bridges! I hate when I have 2 landmasses seperated by one square of coast and I have to use a transport or an airport to get units back and forth. There should be some kind of option attached to one of the naval units to make it able to build bridges connecting landmasses that are only 1 or 2 costal squares away from each other.
 
this is not the place to discuss that, make a thread about that

or discuss it here
 
-Military base

Military bases, once researched, train military units using shields and resources from nearby cities. This is sort of like having a slider for shields going to military units. That way the cities themselves concentrate on only on civilian upgrades. While the military bases concentrate on making veterans and military buildings.
With Military bases, a wider variety of military units can be created. Depending on the shields the cities may have and shield-roll-over, maybe 2 or 3 units will be built at a time instead.

Barbarian/tribe:

As for Barbarians, every civ starts out as a plain tribe or barbarian, in other words there are no civs to start with. Playing as a barbarian/tribe you must gain power through local conquest using free of charge barbarian units and making an early scientific advancement. Barbarians can either be allies or enemies. This is similar to Mojotronica idea, posted below, except there are many different types of barbarians or tribes using that 32nd civ spot which is broken down further.

In otherwards, only the stronger tribes and barbarians survive and the remaining either join you, stay as either a barbarian, or become an enemy civ themselves.

Mojotronica's post
 
this is not the place to discuss that, make a thread about that
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

P
Feedback on Civilization VII: Crises, Ages, and Strategic Freedom
Replies
4
Views
673
Psytoxin
P
SupremacyKing2
I hope Firaxis improves governments in civ7
2
Replies
22
Views
3K
Eddie Verdde
Eddie Verdde
stealth_nsk
Potential ages in Civ8
Replies
1
Views
661
Nikolai II
Nikolai II
Hellenism Salesman
Treasure Resources need a shake-up. Here's how to do it.
Replies
6
Views
1K
Krikkit1
K
Xandinho
My suggestions to make the Exploration Age legacy paths more interesting and challenging
Replies
0
Views
404
Xandinho
Xandinho
Back
Top Bottom