Do we want another expansion?

[Peng Qi]

It could be done in a really simple manner:
1 resource of a type = 10 (+/- based on map size?) total units that require it. So if you had 1 iron and 1 horses, you could have 10 knights or 10 horsemen and 10 swordsmen or 5 of each, and so on. This could be kept track of in your military adviser and could pop up in a tooltip when you select the unit to be built, such as: Swordsman (requires iron, 6 left). This would have the added benefit of copper not becoming totally pointless the second you have iron, since it would let you maintain more metal-required units.

1 resource of a type = +50% total bonus to all wonders being built that require it (max 50%/wonder), so if you have one marble and are building the Parthenon and the Temple of Artemis, each would only get a +25% bonus.

1 resource of a type = 10 cities get a happy/healthy bonus for that resource would be a bit too complicated if you ask me, thanks to needing to micromanage which cities get the bonus. The above do not require any micro other than not using up all of your iron if you intend to build something that requires it soon.

 

[Gaius Octavius]

You're all discussing the very same things we discussed when trying to make the mod. What we essentially decided on doing was to stagger the resources:

Strategic resources are quantified and stockpiled, so 10 iron might needed for 1 swordsman, etc.

Luxuries are sort of quantified, in that having more means a bigger benefit. This could be worked out by the number of cities, as suggested above, or other ways, including fractional happiness (which gets rounded up).

Food works just like it does now, as it can be grown more readily to provide health.

There is also another idea to have resources "obsolete" in the sense that after you pass a certain era, that resource is considered "plentiful" and isn't in short supply. The result is that you never have more than 7 or so stockpiles to watch over, greatly reducing micromanagement. For instance, copper might be extremely important in the Ancient Era, but not by Medieval or Modern times, so its supply later on is considered basically "infinite" for game purposes.

There are obviously some small historical problems with this idea, but it's a pretty good compromise for gameplay purposes. Any rate, I'm sure whatever Firaxis could come up with would be much better.

 

[tazpn314]

Take this with grain of salt but I seem to remember as Civ4 was shipped that Firaxis did not plan on making Civ5 immediately but indicated that following up on of the other properties like AC would be preferred for the team. I could care less for another Pirates or Gettysburg but would not fault them for looking for a little diversity.

I'd rather have AC than Civ5 and certainly not another expansion. One of the development teams should be actively designing and constructing the next project if the company is health. Basically the support team and contractors would have largely handled the expansions. They seemed to have hired a good number of modders to do the bulk of BTS from what it looked like to me.

The major new features of Civ4 were the multiplayer support and 3d graphics. Not much more to do there other than improve what is currently in place.

If I did want Civ5 then the only thing I really want is better AI so perhaps the game should be restructured to cater to the AI and no more cool features which the player can abuse. I'd like to see things like supply lines.

 

[bonafide11]

I'm pretty sure they're all working on Civ Revolution...

 

[MrFelony]

Now that is an interesting idea, but it is more like a CivV change since it a fundamental change to the game play mechanics. As far as it not being Civ anymore, it is a big change, but I personally still think it would fit. It would add a whole level of tactical fun, and their could always be an option to use the standard "random" combat.

the games take long enough as it is

if War Weariness gets bad enough (and especially if you declared war on someone else), each military unit in enemy borders costs +1 gp (or something similar).

it already does that. have you neve rnoticed the sudden drop in GPT whenever you moved you stack into enemy territory

 

[SenhorDaGuerra]

i think ultimately civ IV is good enough to keep everyone entertained for a good few years at least. you can micromanage so much that there are probably 100s of ways to go about winning a game, it jsut takes time to discover them all. im sure there is a way to win a corporation based game, or a purely espionage game (i know you can have an espionage economy) it just needs discovering. and for people like me who only play on prince a few times a week, there is easily enough in the game to keep me going for a long time. hell, it took me 6 years to get bored of civ III and it didnt have half the content civ IV has.

so even though i want futuristic wars with war walkers and fusions tanks, or the option to play one when u land on alphacentauri, i dont really need it. really. a few patches to fix a few bugs here and there obviously (has the GG academy thing been fixed yet?) but an expansion isnt necessary. and at this moment in time, neither is civ V, to be quite honest.

Also, there are so many other games out there that are equally as good. Pro Evo 7 is coming out (AWESOME!!) as well as FM2008. so if you get bored, play another game!

they're making civ revolution anyway. seen a few screenies and it looks a bit cartoonish to me... dont think i'll be playing that one!

OT: anyone following the Mourinho saga?

take it easy all

 

[magichj]

Not to bring up the whole hex thing again... I realize my previous post on it was misunderstood. I realize it isn't an octogonal grid, but moving to a hex based tiles would kill Civ for me. If I wanted to play a game with hexes I would go hang out at some board game store and not be able to get a date.

I think the best way to "fix" the movement issues for those of you who get all in an uproar about such things would be to have diagonal movements cost 1.5X more than vertical and horizontal movements.

 

[Lance of Llanwy]

Not to bring up the whole hex thing again... I realize my previous post on it was misunderstood. I realize it isn't an octogonal grid, but moving to a hex based tiles would kill Civ for me. If I wanted to play a game with hexes I would go hang out at some board game store and not be able to get a date.

I think the best way to "fix" the movement issues for those of you who get all in an uproar about such things would be to have diagonal movements cost 1.5X more than vertical and horizontal movements.

What's so bad about hexes? It makes more sense than what you suggest...would units with 1 move be unable to move diagonally, and if so, would they then be unable to make other moves that cost more than one movement? It would also make for better mountain ranges and stuff like that. Strategical board games use(d) hexes for a reason, y'know....

 

[ehecatzin]

well the CIV maps play as a huge board game anyway, I dont see the problem in having hexes instead of squares. would it really cripple the way civ is played or would it make it better?

I think it would be better for the combat part of the game ,wich in my opinion is the weak point of civ.

 

[Cía]

Perhaps a third expansion shoudn´t add some new features but add more leaders, civs and early units.
So, more of the same concept, new civs and some new traits will give many new chances too play the game.
But no hole new things.

 

[Legal_My_Deagle]

Do you guys think they are ever going to release a patch that would include any new leaders, graphics updates, or unit graphics?

 

[silvio82]

I want other two expansions for civ4 with 20 new civs and more leaders. Should be added a future era with battles between different planets like star trek and alien civs.