I know its a bit early but..........Civ 4 wish lists.......
- Thread starter sd5
- Start date
-proletarian-
Chairman and CEO
graphics:
Unique city graphics for EVERY civ, not just 5 different cultural graphics (European, American, Greco-Roman, Asian, Middle Eastern)
More varied terrain. (why is there no arid hills, or tundra hills? Are all hills in this world green?)
gameplay:
A means to acquire a leader through non-military pursuits.
Speed up the AI turn somehow, late-game lag is a MAJOR issue.
Make the game less land-dependant. Increase the value of the open seas by locating natural resources there, such as oil or natural gas, this will add depth to the game, and make the building of a navy a vital component of any strategy.
Allow air units to attack naval units.
Include a firepower rating. Spearmen should stand no chance against tanks.
Raise the stakes on nukes. Make them more devestating, but more damaging to one's reputation. As in real life, nuclear war should be a last resort.
new features:
More resources.
Include the Spanish civ. (maybe even the Italians?)
Unique city graphics for EVERY civ, not just 5 different cultural graphics (European, American, Greco-Roman, Asian, Middle Eastern)
More varied terrain. (why is there no arid hills, or tundra hills? Are all hills in this world green?)
gameplay:
A means to acquire a leader through non-military pursuits.
Speed up the AI turn somehow, late-game lag is a MAJOR issue.
Make the game less land-dependant. Increase the value of the open seas by locating natural resources there, such as oil or natural gas, this will add depth to the game, and make the building of a navy a vital component of any strategy.
Allow air units to attack naval units.
Include a firepower rating. Spearmen should stand no chance against tanks.
Raise the stakes on nukes. Make them more devestating, but more damaging to one's reputation. As in real life, nuclear war should be a last resort.
new features:
More resources.
Include the Spanish civ. (maybe even the Italians?)
personally i would like to see some of the concepts of colonization integrated into civilization. for example, i thought the founding fathers were great. i think it would be cool to have founding fathers instead of the small wonders, and have them appear as a result of a variety of factors. for example, if a particular city has huge science output, then, say, albert einstein would appear in the city. then, like a leader in civ3 he could be moved and whatever city he was fortified in would get some sort of bonus. then, after an alotted amount of turns, the person dies and the effect goes away. i think this would be a cool feature because it would reflect the great influence that individual people have had on history. also, while im on the subject, it would be interesting if every founding father had a positive and negative side which manifests itself depending on what sort of government youre in and other conditions.
i know might be wishful thinking but heres a few ideas of "founding fathers" who could make the game more interesting.
lenin: appears under monarchy when war weariness sets in during an industrial age war. effect: allows conversion to communism in 1 turn, but will create unrest if monarchy remains in place.
caesar: appears in ancient times after a certain military accomplishment. makes armies stronger and decreases shields to build units, but if you are in republic or democracy he creates civil disorder unless you change to monarchy.
castro: like lenin but in the modern age, and also makes guerilla warfare unit (like in civ 2) more powerful.
etc, etc.
it might be worthwhile to make the founding fathers like unique units so that they contribute to the differences in playing as different civs.
also, id like to see many more forms of government, that you could potentially chose, each with a unique unit and building associated with it. let me know what you guys think of this idea.
i know might be wishful thinking but heres a few ideas of "founding fathers" who could make the game more interesting.
lenin: appears under monarchy when war weariness sets in during an industrial age war. effect: allows conversion to communism in 1 turn, but will create unrest if monarchy remains in place.
caesar: appears in ancient times after a certain military accomplishment. makes armies stronger and decreases shields to build units, but if you are in republic or democracy he creates civil disorder unless you change to monarchy.
castro: like lenin but in the modern age, and also makes guerilla warfare unit (like in civ 2) more powerful.
etc, etc.
it might be worthwhile to make the founding fathers like unique units so that they contribute to the differences in playing as different civs.
also, id like to see many more forms of government, that you could potentially chose, each with a unique unit and building associated with it. let me know what you guys think of this idea.
-proletarian-
Chairman and CEO
Zeeter, I diagree. The Romans and Italians would be two very unique civs, were they both to be included in the future. Although sharing the same land and people, they couldn't be more different. Having the Romans as commercial and militaristic captures perfectly, in my view, their might in both arms and trade. However, the Italians were on the leading edge of the renaissance, the great leap forward that finally lifted Europe out of it's dark age. In civIV, I imagine that the Italians would be scientific and commercial. The potential for great leaders are there (think Michalangelo and Leonardo DaVinci). However, I cannot, off the top of my head, think what they could have as a unique unit.......some help?
Graeme the mad
Certified Maniac
EVERYBODY - LETS NOT MAKE CIV 4 suggestions yet
Instead post them in the already well-developed x-pack ideas here - if we can keep all the ideas together then there is more chance of what you want being done
The thread is here
Incidentally I think the ital UU should be modern definetley - we need more modern units but personally i am against having the italians.
The list of 16 expansion pack civs I see is
Austro Hungary
Mongolia
Spain
Turks
Arabs
(i believe the above 5 have to be included because they were so important in world history.
Korea
Incas
Poland
Nubians
Norse/ scandanavians (not vikings for the same reason we don't have tudors though the Su could still be the longboat)
Brazil
Canadians
Australians (these three because modern civs are definetley needed and because it gives a better spread to world maps)
Dutch
Portrogeuse
Indonesians
Instead post them in the already well-developed x-pack ideas here - if we can keep all the ideas together then there is more chance of what you want being done
The thread is here
Incidentally I think the ital UU should be modern definetley - we need more modern units but personally i am against having the italians.
The list of 16 expansion pack civs I see is
Austro Hungary
Mongolia
Spain
Turks
Arabs
(i believe the above 5 have to be included because they were so important in world history.
Korea
Incas
Poland
Nubians
Norse/ scandanavians (not vikings for the same reason we don't have tudors though the Su could still be the longboat)
Brazil
Canadians
Australians (these three because modern civs are definetley needed and because it gives a better spread to world maps)
Dutch
Portrogeuse
Indonesians
I would like to have cultures develop into new cultures over time. Each Civ could have a Web of successor cultures to turn into as you progressed into the next level of development.
I.E You start as Babylon but advance to Monarcy and become Persia. Then Persia becomes a republic and is known as Turkey.
Goths -> Prussians -> Germany
Celts -> Saxons -> British -> America
Goths -> Franks -> French -> Canada
It doesn't have to be a big change but it works well in History of the World. And it would keep the Americans from being destroyed by the Aztek empire in 2000BC
I.E You start as Babylon but advance to Monarcy and become Persia. Then Persia becomes a republic and is known as Turkey.
Goths -> Prussians -> Germany
Celts -> Saxons -> British -> America
Goths -> Franks -> French -> Canada
It doesn't have to be a big change but it works well in History of the World. And it would keep the Americans from being destroyed by the Aztek empire in 2000BC
Beard Rinker
Warlord
Coastal Tiles
Concept
Throughout history, coastal invasion is one of the most difficult types of invasion. Defenders may fortify their beaches (d-day), or there just may be no place to land.
In Civilization III, coastal invasion is both too easy to execute and too easy to defend. In executing a coastal invasion, you simply land your troops on any coastal square and start blasting. In defending, you line your coastline with workers preventing any landing (up to marines of course).
Civ 4 Suggestion
Coastal tiles are divided into two tiles, a shore and water part.
Shore 1/2 tiles are accessible from land by workers only and from by sea by any land unit aboard a ship. Shore 1/2 tiles have a movement cost of 3. Shore tiles may be beach or cliff. If the shore tile is a cliff, it is not accessible by any unit.
Water 1/2 tiles are accessible by sea as normal.
Workers can go onto shore tiles to fortify them. Fortification provides an automatic bombardment style attack for every unit that lands on the shore tile. The level of bombardment attack depends on the level of technology of the civilization at the time it is built.
Military units can move on to a shore tile from a ship only. If any opposing forces unit (be it worker or military unit) is already on the shore, the unit occupying the shore is bumped to the next land tile. The bumped unit is not attacked or captured, it is simiply moved. If the tile contains fortifications, the landing unit receives a bombardment style hit on landing and every turn it sits there. Military units will not be able to do anything other than land the first turn. They can pillage the fortifications, attack a land square or move to a land square on subsequent turns. The only exception: marines can land and pillage the first turn. Pillaging a shoreline fortification may or may not be successful. Military units attacking a land square from shore move to the attacked square on victory. Military units can also attack a shore tile from land but do not move onto it on victory.
Units with no defensive rating can also move on a shore tile from a ship. If the shore tile is fortified, the unit is killed.
Concept
Throughout history, coastal invasion is one of the most difficult types of invasion. Defenders may fortify their beaches (d-day), or there just may be no place to land.
In Civilization III, coastal invasion is both too easy to execute and too easy to defend. In executing a coastal invasion, you simply land your troops on any coastal square and start blasting. In defending, you line your coastline with workers preventing any landing (up to marines of course).
Civ 4 Suggestion
Coastal tiles are divided into two tiles, a shore and water part.
Shore 1/2 tiles are accessible from land by workers only and from by sea by any land unit aboard a ship. Shore 1/2 tiles have a movement cost of 3. Shore tiles may be beach or cliff. If the shore tile is a cliff, it is not accessible by any unit.
Water 1/2 tiles are accessible by sea as normal.
Workers can go onto shore tiles to fortify them. Fortification provides an automatic bombardment style attack for every unit that lands on the shore tile. The level of bombardment attack depends on the level of technology of the civilization at the time it is built.
Military units can move on to a shore tile from a ship only. If any opposing forces unit (be it worker or military unit) is already on the shore, the unit occupying the shore is bumped to the next land tile. The bumped unit is not attacked or captured, it is simiply moved. If the tile contains fortifications, the landing unit receives a bombardment style hit on landing and every turn it sits there. Military units will not be able to do anything other than land the first turn. They can pillage the fortifications, attack a land square or move to a land square on subsequent turns. The only exception: marines can land and pillage the first turn. Pillaging a shoreline fortification may or may not be successful. Military units attacking a land square from shore move to the attacked square on victory. Military units can also attack a shore tile from land but do not move onto it on victory.
Units with no defensive rating can also move on a shore tile from a ship. If the shore tile is fortified, the unit is killed.
Civilizator
Chieftain
Two ideas for Civ4:
1) Instead of squared the maps grids should be hexagonal,
as in most war games. This corrects importantly distance
issues created by squares.
2) Planets are spherical, thus map representing whole
worlds should be spherical. The aspect of the screen during game
would be the same as it is now, because you would only
see a small portion of the world in it. This corrects entirely
the distortion produced by any projection of the spherical
surface of any world on a plane. Furthermore, the poles
would be included in the world, tremendously hostile for
settlement, but for example, on a map of earth, you could
navigate the north pole with nuclear submarines if
necessary. Settlement (of cities) in the poles could be made impossible after a certain latitude, and the tremendous
hostility of the area could be represented by a huge chance
of a unit to perish there, every turn. But for a nuclear submarine
for example, it would be the same as navigating anywhere else.
I think with these two changes the game would be much much better. Do you agree?
1) Instead of squared the maps grids should be hexagonal,
as in most war games. This corrects importantly distance
issues created by squares.
2) Planets are spherical, thus map representing whole
worlds should be spherical. The aspect of the screen during game
would be the same as it is now, because you would only
see a small portion of the world in it. This corrects entirely
the distortion produced by any projection of the spherical
surface of any world on a plane. Furthermore, the poles
would be included in the world, tremendously hostile for
settlement, but for example, on a map of earth, you could
navigate the north pole with nuclear submarines if
necessary. Settlement (of cities) in the poles could be made impossible after a certain latitude, and the tremendous
hostility of the area could be represented by a huge chance
of a unit to perish there, every turn. But for a nuclear submarine
for example, it would be the same as navigating anywhere else.
I think with these two changes the game would be much much better. Do you agree?
-proletarian-
Chairman and CEO
You don't think the Italians should be in CivIV, yet the Brazilians should?! -rolling on the floor laughing-
Poland, Brazil, Canada etc. are NOT civilizations. They are nation-states. The game is called Civilization for a reason. Only nations that have had a huge impact on the course of history, whether by military conquest, scientific excellence or glorious expansion should have a place in the game. For this reason, both the Iroqouis and the Zulu shouldn't have been included, however we all know that political correctness dictated that Firaxis include a black civ and a native american one. The Italians had a huge impact on the history of the world, as it's renaissance lay the foundations for modern western civilization as we know it. The Spanish were also integral, as they discovered and settled central and south america, conquering and converting as they went. The Mongols? they were less a civilization than a huge army of brutish thugs on horseback, with no culture to speak of. The Polish? Please, don't even get me started. Bottom line, Firaxis should not get carried away and include every country and their mother as potential civs.
Poland, Brazil, Canada etc. are NOT civilizations. They are nation-states. The game is called Civilization for a reason. Only nations that have had a huge impact on the course of history, whether by military conquest, scientific excellence or glorious expansion should have a place in the game. For this reason, both the Iroqouis and the Zulu shouldn't have been included, however we all know that political correctness dictated that Firaxis include a black civ and a native american one. The Italians had a huge impact on the history of the world, as it's renaissance lay the foundations for modern western civilization as we know it. The Spanish were also integral, as they discovered and settled central and south america, conquering and converting as they went. The Mongols? they were less a civilization than a huge army of brutish thugs on horseback, with no culture to speak of. The Polish? Please, don't even get me started. Bottom line, Firaxis should not get carried away and include every country and their mother as potential civs.
Hamlet
Manic Depressive
Make the game longer with CTP style future tech.
