Empire Changes
- Thread starter Colonel
- Start date
Aussie_Lurker
Deity
I agree. It would be great if you could change the name of both the empire AND its 'ruler' every so often. At these times, your civ-traits might also change according to how you have been playing the game over the past X turns. So, for instance, if your expansionist/industrial civ has been focusing very heavily on war and religion, then when you next change your government, your civ traits might change to religious/militaristic.
I think that these ideas will give Civ4 a much more 'organic' and 'immersive' quality, and will significantly increase the replay value of the game!
Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.
I think that these ideas will give Civ4 a much more 'organic' and 'immersive' quality, and will significantly increase the replay value of the game!
Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.
Like the changing names - don't like the changing traits. If you wanted a win through the expansionist/industrious trait then why would you want to change to a militaristic/religious trait? And if this happened automatically, and only because you had to fight someone and combat war-weariness, then I'd be cursing and it would make me against playing the game again because I'd be bloody furious at it!
von Bismarck
Chieftain
I agree with Spatula. I am choosing my Civ because of its traits.
Aussie_Lurker
Deity
But the thing is, how many civs in the world do we know whose traits are exactly the same as those they had at the start of history? I want my games to be more 'organic', and my game-playing style should influence the look of my civ. If I am a religious civ who is overusing military conquest as a means of pursuing my agenda, then I should run the risk of turning into a militaristic civ! I get the benefits of said traits, but could lose the benefits of whatever trait I lose! It might help to also limit rampant warmongering and expansionism!
Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.
Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.
Trade-peror
UET Economist
I agree, Aussie_Lurker, except for a detail--this could possibly exacerbate warmongering, because militaristic would rapidly become a trait and thus promote further warmongering. And since Civ is such that warmongering is clearly the easiest and fundamental way to victory, the world risks becoming increasingly homogeneous as time progresses.
Even so, I dislike the rigidity of the current traits system, so some kind of change should be implemented.
Even so, I dislike the rigidity of the current traits system, so some kind of change should be implemented.
I agree that traits should change over time, but not because of a revolution or name change ...
trait change should occur because of a combination of factors, like the areas your people inhabit, the amount and type of buildings, and also additional factors, like how many cities contain foreigners (which would lead to new traits like Multicultural - might give your civ more culture bonuses & less resistance)
I also think there should be a thing like a negative trait, so too much luxuries might cause your people to become Nihilistic (no happiness from temples etc) or somesuch, while too much military might mean your society becomes Aggressive (negative relations, less economy), and a science leader might turn Aloof (more resistance, more war weariness - as people say, why can't we win quicker, we are smarter and have bigger guns!)
Just some ideas ...
trait change should occur because of a combination of factors, like the areas your people inhabit, the amount and type of buildings, and also additional factors, like how many cities contain foreigners (which would lead to new traits like Multicultural - might give your civ more culture bonuses & less resistance)
I also think there should be a thing like a negative trait, so too much luxuries might cause your people to become Nihilistic (no happiness from temples etc) or somesuch, while too much military might mean your society becomes Aggressive (negative relations, less economy), and a science leader might turn Aloof (more resistance, more war weariness - as people say, why can't we win quicker, we are smarter and have bigger guns!)
Just some ideas ...
Aussie_Lurker
Deity
Oh sorry, I didn't mean 'oh, you've changed your empires name, or your rulers name, so now your traits are going to change' What I actually meant was 'Oh, you're having a revolution are you? Well, you nation has been acting in a warlike and expansionist fashion, so you are going to lose your religious and industrious traits in favour of those' Also, though people might THINK this plays into the hands of warmongers, just think how disasterous the loss of the industrious and religious trait, in the previous example, might be for both the economy and stability of the nation!!! In addition, if traits change, then it could make the transition from one government type to another longer-thus prolonging the anarchy state and restricting your ability to make war or perform any other functions for that matter. Alternatively, of course, you could simply choose to pay through the nose to avoid much of the anarchy period!
Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.
Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.
brianshapiro
King
- Joined
- Mar 6, 2003
- Messages
- 775
Wycoff said:
I really like this idea!
Aussie Lurker
I suggested something like this.. but I dont think the traits of your civilization should just change at selected periods , they should change more naturally whenever some thresholds are passed. or have the ability to have some of the benefits of all traits if you can manage juggling your civilization so that you focus on everything; and then if you only follow one path you get benefits from that disproportionately.
also i want to bring up another suggestion I made.. try to make technological development dependent on resources or anything else tied to the locale. This would make civilizations restricted based on geography, and means of production. (which could be balanced with more flexible research trees, though making it necessary to research more in resource limited areas)
whatever is added to the game, I think things like these two suggestions need to be done just to prevent every game from seeming the same , which is one of my sources of boredom. It would also add realism.
revolts and civil wars, disputes of territory would also add to this, as would some trade features. and an intelligent management of not just religion but all culture, art, philosophy, etc.
:>
Aussie_Lurker
Deity
I agree with your idea about resources brian. My idea was that, rather than have resources simply 'appear' when you discovered the relevant tech, you actually went LOOKING for them (prospecting). Your chance of finding a resource would depend on
(a) the terrain you're searching
(b) the money you invest into finding it
(c) whether its in a city radius, or your national borders, or OUTSIDE your national borders
(d) whether or not you have a terrain improvement on that square already
(e) how far away you are from the tech which requires it.
This way, you might find a resource like coal whilst you are in the Middle Ages, and the SIZE of the resource will determine the size of the bonus you get to researching tech which depend on that resource!
As far as changing traits go, I think that traits ought to be Ranked, with the difference between traits determining how severe the anarchy period is when traits change! Same with government choices.
In fact, I remember someone who suggested that Anarchy should start bad, but gradually settle down over time, which is something I agree with! Perhaps how severe Anarchy starts out (and hence how long it lasts) depends on what the people think of the new government and/or whether or not your traits change too! What do you think of that idea?
Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.
(a) the terrain you're searching
(b) the money you invest into finding it
(c) whether its in a city radius, or your national borders, or OUTSIDE your national borders
(d) whether or not you have a terrain improvement on that square already
(e) how far away you are from the tech which requires it.
This way, you might find a resource like coal whilst you are in the Middle Ages, and the SIZE of the resource will determine the size of the bonus you get to researching tech which depend on that resource!
As far as changing traits go, I think that traits ought to be Ranked, with the difference between traits determining how severe the anarchy period is when traits change! Same with government choices.
In fact, I remember someone who suggested that Anarchy should start bad, but gradually settle down over time, which is something I agree with! Perhaps how severe Anarchy starts out (and hence how long it lasts) depends on what the people think of the new government and/or whether or not your traits change too! What do you think of that idea?
Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.
Aussie_Lurker said:
Well ever since Alfred and the Vikings England/Britain has been seafaring. The merchant class have driven the wheels of our economy since at least as far back as Elizabeth I. The Roman world was dominated by moneymen and good road-builders right up till the end. America is still expanding its influence, helped by its industrial might (for weapons you see). The Greeks are producing good scientists even to this day. I could probably think of many others if I knew more about them.
If I am a religious civ looking for a cultural victory, but am invaded and then find myself at the mercy of 3 other civs, than I would have to use military to survive. I bet off the others and sign peace. I decide to hold a revolution to change to a government that will benefit me more. But then I stare in horror as my wonderful plan to build many temples and cathedrals on the cheap is dissolved in front of my very eyes because the game has switched my trait. Big problem.
searcheagle
Emperor
On the resources thread:
to have the user "look" for resources, I am opposed to.
This would introduce to much micromanagement. However, it would make sense to have the user be able to allocate a certain amount of money towards searching for resources. This would make a lot of sense when a civ has, or is about to, run out of a certain type of resource.
to have the user "look" for resources, I am opposed to.
This would introduce to much micromanagement. However, it would make sense to have the user be able to allocate a certain amount of money towards searching for resources. This would make a lot of sense when a civ has, or is about to, run out of a certain type of resource.
dguichar
Warlord
the player it's not really the leader...
it just controls leader's decisions... no matter who the current leader is
changing names it's just cosmetical under my point of view
Keep civilized
David
it just controls leader's decisions... no matter who the current leader is
changing names it's just cosmetical under my point of view
Keep civilized
David
