Ideas for Civilization 4

[Czarina]

How about the occasional natural disater? There was a show on awhile back, called Catastrophe, and it outlined how one massive volcano eruption affected civilizations across the globe for hundreds of years afterwards.

Say a tsunami hits your coastal city so you lose some population points and improvements; or an earthquake reveals a new source of gold, iron, or other resource.

On the more far out side, I'd like to see the game time extended untill 2100, with more futuristic technology, and perhaps an alien invasion option ("The Borg has noticed your cute civilization..."). After all, what's left after you've dominated the world, launched your spaceship, and been elected Sec-Gen?

Finally, I would like a "Monroe Doctrine" option to issue to the other Civs. Nothing ticks me off more than having a whole continent to myself, and some other civ setting up ONE city on it. If it worked for America (in real history) Civ 4 could try it. Of course, given the AI, the other civs would probably declare war on me just for doing it.

 

[Ayatollah So]

Originally posted by Zouave


Sure. Firaxis/Infogrames has NOTHING to do with Civ 4.

I think Zouave's idea has merit. Unfortunately, they aren't likely to release their hold on the Civ series. That leaves two obvious alternatives for dissatisfied grand-strategy-game fanatics: either talk another game-maker into making a whole new game, or try to scrape together a team and make it yourselves.

I think we've seen enough good ideas in this and similar threads to prove that an alternative IS possible. I recommend starting with this point by another Fanatic:

Algernon Pondlife wrote in another thread ("PTW: the downfall of Civilization"):

Go straight to monarchy and get the Great Library."

"Plan to get Michaelangelo's Chapel at the same time as Democracy."

No thanks! Why can't the future be dark? I recently played the Science fiction game in ToT and revelled in the fact that I hadn't a clue what anything did until I tried it (real life!). You can do the same with the fantasy game, but soon enough you will learn it all even if you leave the charts in the box and mostly resist the temptation of the help button. If you know all the rules then the game is a (admittedly very big) closed system and ought either to be abstract like chess and go or a simulation like Sturm Nacht Osten or Third Reich.

How about not knowing if gunpowder will ever be invented? Or if, say, some combination of religious and economic models make it virtually impossible to perform the transition to democracy - but you don't find out until you're well and truly in it? Too radical? Okay but perhaps we could have whole alternate development trees that you cannot readily predict? And a foggy future, so that you know what is possible one or two steps down the line but are fairly clueless about the longer term.

To implement this, a game maker could include a whole array of technology trees, to randomly select from. Moreover, the different possible histories could be "crossed off" until all have been used at least once. At which point, fans may well have created enough new possibilities so that the internet-connected could keep enjoying new surprises.

So keep 'em coming, folks.

 

[wtiberon]

I played a game that took natural disasters into account. It was called Romance of the Three Kingdoms. It was alright but mostly it was annoying. You would build up an army or city and BAM a disease would wipe out half your population and army. Or a tsunami would kill your production. The only thing that might be alright is if you city gets too big early in the game disease would wipe some of them out.

 

[iguana1]

Civ 1 had natural disasters but you could minimize or eliminate the possibility of some of them. For instance, occasionally you would get a message saying "Fire swept through Boston, granary destroyed", but if you had built a aquaduct in Boston, damage from a fire was not a possibility (or at least greatly reduced). Others included pirate raids that would destroy production or buildings that could be stopped by building barracks, famine that would kill citizenry without a granary, etc. So something like that is possible, especially if implemented as an option to turn off.

As for the "dark future", I really like the concept. I created a couple of programs that did some randomization of things in the "rules.txt" of civ 2 that help create some of this. For those not familiar with Civ 1 and 2 (if any really exist...), instead of civ specific traits, you had leader specific traits. There were 3 traits (attack, expand, civilize) and each trait had 3 possible values. The attack possibilities ratings were aggresive, neutral or rational, the expand values were expansionistic, neutral and perfectionist and the civilize values were civilized, neutral or militaristic. The traits were used to help the civs decide what to research, build, etc.

Anyway, in Civ 1, you could press Alt+R and randomize the attributes so that you no longer new that the Russians would be "Aggresive, militaristic", etc. In Civ 2 the option went away so I wrote a program to read in the rules.txt file where these traits were stored and create a new rules.txt file with random values for all civs. This made the game slightly less predictable as now the Indians might be an "aggressive, militaristic" society instead of the normal "rational, civilized" foe you would normally expect.

I worked on a second program to do a similar thing with the tech tree since all the definitions of what led to what and which tech was a pre-req for another were also stored in the rules.txt file. My goal was to jumble them up a bit so that although you may know what advantages you got by researching Steel, you had no idea what techs would be opened up to you by acquiring said knowledge. I have a couple of test versions of the program but never fully developed it to work in a way that was remotely feasable (real-life kicked in and the project is curretly sitting off to the side waiting, probably indefinately, for me to get motivated enough to work on it agian).

Since you can change the civ sprecific traits using the editor, I assume similar programs could be done to randomize the AI but I haven't done any research into what people currently know about the setup files for civ 3. If I ever get motivated I may try to at least create another civ randomizer program for civ 3. It adds at least a little extra replayability and surprise. It makes you do a little more work to research your neighbors to know what kind of foe you have. For example, one of the strategy threads talks about using a strong militaristic civ (such as the Germans) as a rogue state to get the rest of the world to attack. If you randomize the attributes, you will have to do more work to find your "rogue state" than just picking a known aggressive civ like the Germans.

Anyway, the point to my long winded post is that I really like the idea of unkown tech trees/paths, unknown enemies, etc and think that the more than can be included in future civ versions, the better.

 

[DaDoo]

I don't like the randomization of the tech and the dark future aspect. As for letting another game company do the civ series... they tried that. They gave Activision the naming rights so they can make civilization:CTP. And you know what? It sucked so bad that they took back the naming rights. So now it's only CTP I think theniceone has a really good idea though.

What I'd like to see is civ specific tech trees. This will bring in an infinite amount on what modders can do and have the each civs in the game truely differenciate from one another. But(there's always a but) that'll also bring much more complex coding and make the game so big I don't think it'll happen any time soon.

 

[West German]

I want there to be revolutions such as a new nation forming. Like Americans revolted from the English.

 

[wtiberon]

Before I first bought Civ2 for playstation, a friend of mine explained to me that the technology you possessed depended on the path that you researched. For example if you research technology based on magnetism or hydrogen instead of Fossil fuel your furture technology would be much different. Of course once i started playing I found it was untrue and anybody could own any technology. I had always hoped that Civ3 or (if there is one) Civ4 would contain something like that.

I agree though that we are never going to get a Civ game that we will 100% like unless a group of fans creates it. Don't get me wrong I love civilization but there is always room for improvement .

 

[Alpine Trooper]

I must agree with another idea for Civilization 4. The idea is that Infrogames and Firaxis go out of business, leading to a better Civ 4. This is obviously the key concept which needs to be introduced before all ideas from others can be implemented.

 

[Snoopy]

Civ must go 3D, think along the lines of GTA3, Black and White and Total War. If not, Civ is dead and lies with those who only play chess-type games; it costs a lot of money to re-create chess, so nobody will do it. If Civ is to survive, it must go 3D, I don't see any excuses after seeing Civ3. The only reason I wanted to play Civ3 was because I played a lot of Civ1 and 2; Civ3 has almost brought those memories back, but it didn't, and that's because of all the problems and lack thereof from what we come to expect these days.

Civ must go 3D if we want to see it survive on the market. If not, then we can all say goodbye to it.

 

[Karstedt]

3D would be cool, as long as it doesn't go RTS... I'm not a point-and-click-faster-than-the-other-guy kind of gamer.

Obviously, more cool stuff would be nice. More civs, more terrain, more resources, more techs, more units. Many forms of artillery should be lethal. More spy options, better diplomacy. Better AI, so Diety level doesn't have to give them such a cheating lead. Some tech should not be availible to certain civs. More UU's, not neccessarily GA triggering ones, but for flavor (IE, russian migs, american Fxx's, obviously there would still be many generic units). I'm partial to hexes, and with some planning, I think civ could be effectively converted. I loved the ability to customize units in SMAC, it needed work though (it would alwas auto creat new units with each advance, even if you turned that feature off). Actually, there are several things from SMAC that should get incorperated. And one more thing, every friggin game should not end with a space race victory.

 

[Suki]

Originally posted by wtiberon
One thing that has always irritated me about Civilization is the endless city sprawl.

it didn't happen as badly in civ 2, even though it was easier with the settlers only costing 1 population, was the difference just that the maps were bigger? what was the maximum for civ 2

on the subject of maps, I want a round world like in X-com2, that's still the only game I've ever seen with one.

 

[Suki]

Originally posted by Igmod

Lucidity: Some of us love the historical aspect of this game so I think we should have a scenario with historical triggered events. So if you are the British you know that at some point a portion of your empire is going to revolt and attempt secession. Germany ALWAYS attempts to invade France. Spain will invade the Americas, etc. You could have these events date triggered but I think that would invite a lot of gamesmanship. Rather I believe a certain set of requirements need exist with a modest random modifier.

but I'm of the camp that moves largely in the opposite direction, personally I think all the civs should start off compleetly generic, and develope their civ traits gain bonuses and penalties to the social engineering table as time passes,

I like lucidity's suggestion, I've actually been working on the math for it, it seens like it will also work to describe species splitting apart and making new things or the evoloution of language, I"ll explaine later.

because Germany always trying to invade France in the early 1900's would be interesting if they haven't even made contact or something equally reediculas.

I've always liked at least having the option of blind research...

 

[wtiberon]

One complaint I've picked up on these threads concerns military units. I think that one good change would be to change the concept of military units. What I mean is instead of building units you would draft soldiers or create a professional army. Then you could buy horses, weapons, artillary or whatever to arm these soldiers with. Then when you wanted to launch an army from the city you would decide how many would be horseman or swordsman or archers by how many weapons you'd have. The army would appear as an icon across the map as it does now, however when two army icons collide then a second map appears showing the soldiers of each army. Then you could have a proper military battle with that thing what is it called...oh yeah strategy. Instead of just raming together two units until one green bar is empty. It would not be nearly as complicated as it might appear I have seen it done on a couple of Games. Empire Galactica would be a good game for Firaxis to look at for some good ideas.

 

[XSin]

I want to make my own units

 

[Magus Maximus]

Civ must go 3D, think along the lines of GTA3, Black and White and Total War. If not, Civ is dead and lies with those who only play chess-type games; it costs a lot of money to re-create chess, so nobody will do it. If Civ is to survive, it must go 3D, I don't see any excuses after seeing Civ3. The only reason I wanted to play Civ3 was because I played a lot of Civ1 and 2; Civ3 has almost brought those memories back, but it didn't, and that's because of all the problems and lack thereof from what we come to expect these days.

NOoooooOoOo!!!
Not 3D plz

Look to what hapened to neverwinter nights
They wanted to do a game looking sooooo good that they forgot about the part were the game is supposed to b fun

Fans of Baldurs Gate were expecting a great game just as great as BG was and what we got was a stupid game.

And the game doesnt even look this good.

Ppl had to buy new computers just to b able to play the freaking game cos the graphics werent compatible with some video cards

The game can do pretty good without going 3D as long as it is fun
BG is way better than NWN

 

[Zouave]

Moderator Action: Zouave, you've done this a lot today. Once more it's another month.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889 [/B]

I'd comment, but if I did you'd say it's "off topic". So, no response.

 

[gonzo_for_civ]

And that was on topic?

Zouave, I'll make it a week for this. You could've always pmed me or thunderfall if you disagree, and by now I know you know that. It's not hard to drop a comment, rather than spamming the same thread.

Consider yourself banned.

 

[lateralis]

I had this idea for a newer trait system (it was posted over at apolyton)

1. My first thought for a different system (and lets be clear, we're talking civ4 here not an XP) would be a three trait system(with a few more traits thrown in and editing done to the existing traits). examples added to what we have already in civ3:

america = expansionist, industrious, scientific
aztec = militaristic, religious, agricultural
china = militaristic, industrious, urban
babylonia = scientific, religious, political
egypt = industrious, religious, agricultural
england = expansionist, commercial, political
france = commercial, industrious, urban
germany = militaristic, scientific, productive
greece = scientific, commercial, urban
india = religious, commercial, political
iroquois = expansionist, religious, agricultural
japan = militaristic, religious, urban
persia = industrious, scientific, commercial
rome = militaristic, commercial, urban
russia = expansionist, scientific, political
zululand = expansionist, militaristic, agricultural

new:
agricultural = cheap granaries, one extra food per city (town/city/metro) or all, food producing squares +1 UNTIL size six (notwithstanding despotism) not really sure how to balance this
political = religious anarchy bonus moved here +something else, not sure what
productive = extra shield per town/city/metro
urban = one happy citizen when size = +6

existing but some changed:
expansionist = better goody huts, start with scout [same as now]
religious = cheap religious structures, no more anarchy bonus
scientific = cheap science buildings, bonus tech at age turn [same as now]
industrious = double speed workers, no shield bonus
commercial = less corruption only
militaristic = cheap military buildings, easier upgrades (normal -> veteran)

keep in mind these are just examples, some others could be imperial, colonial, whatever. but it leaves room for a bunch of new UNUSED combinations such as agricultural, political, urban.
but would keep the playability of (for instance) babylonia the same as religious(new) + political(new) = religious(old)

The idea here is to make room for more civs that all play very differently. I'm not saying that this system is balanced, far from it, but you get the idea. I'm also not saying all civs would be represented historically accurately, but it would be fun to play with.

2. my second thought is similar to the first but with some differences.

Primary, Secondary, and Tertiary civ traits

primary would be a civ3 existing trait
secondary would be a civ3 existing trait
tertiary would be one of a set of traits that only can be tertiary
example:

china: militaristic, industrious, (urban)
japan: militaristic, religious, (urban)
germany: militaristic, scientific (productive)
blah blah blah

the idea here being to keep say, the babs from being scientific, religious and commerical and dominating culturally in every single game by the ability to build every cultural building cheap even far away or the germans from being militaristic, scientific and industrious and building up an huge military empire instantly and roads to get them to you just as fast (these examples are with existing traits, not modded ones)

so that's my idea, just a thought

lateralis

 

[Snoopy]

Originally posted by Magus Maximus


NOoooooOoOo!!!
Not 3D plz

Look to what hapened to neverwinter nights
They wanted to do a game looking sooooo good that they forgot about the part were the game is supposed to b fun

Fans of Baldurs Gate were expecting a great game just as great as BG was and what we got was a stupid game.

And the game doesnt even look this good.

Ppl had to buy new computers just to b able to play the freaking game cos the graphics werent compatible with some video cards

The game can do pretty good without going 3D as long as it is fun
BG is way better than NWN

This is true, but this is not 3D's fault, this is the developers fault. When GTA went 3D, it completely blew away GTA 1 and 2. Rockstar Games did it right. So it's just a matter of doing it right.

 

[Furry Spatula]

aslong as my ancient VooDoo 3 works with Civ 4 and its 3d'ness I'll be happy. But mind you VooDoo's aren't directX 8.1 compatable with 3d games, so i guess I'm hosed and need to shell out around $200-400 for a new card if i want to play any new 3d games.