Discussion in 'Civ3 - General Discussions' started by wtiberon, Nov 20, 2002.
Go to Civ3Edit and mod it
actually: the real world is a mix of pangea and archipello.
Maybe a good feature for Civ4
I love scary pics
why when i capture a city i can take their cannons and workers but not a galley or plane? their could fix things like this too
new wonder- the papalcy aloughs you to double your culture pts ( a couple of border cities flip to you because you are the religious capital of the world ) or lets you call for a crusades every 100 yrs or so ( you call for a crusade against france and the wonder lets your chances improve with others to alliance with you againsty them
One thing I would like to see in Conquests or Civ4 is the United Nations as an independent military force. As far as it working, after the UN is built, any nation strong enough to vote would be required to supply X number of military units every X turns or years, and have some of those UN units stationed in their cities. Thus when conflicts broke out, the UN would take action as seen fit. It might not be enough to bring a stop to a full-scale war, but it might make the difference in holding back an unprovoked attack by a non-member nation.
the u.n.? how many game turns would go by before the u.n. would think it was o.k. to do any of these things 10-20, never
It should be possible to trade food and shields with other civs.
This way cities can still become important (like in real life) despite a bad "resource-location"
eg all the european cities have a bad resource location, they get them from the middle east, africa, Siberia.
The output of your specialised citizens (eg taxmen, scientists) should be added to your city output.
eg. Universities now could help the scientists in that city.
remark: in civ3 the ouput of entertainers is already added to your city. So why don't taxmen and entertainers follow this rule.
I have yet to read through all of the posts, but one thing I would like to see is the revamping of colonies.
I am not quite sure I like the way it is set up at present, being so easily assimilated. If colonies were somehow able to be mini-cities - for example, restricted to size 1 or 2 and having its parent civs cultural influence halved (to better simulate that colony jumping sides through culture flips), one would finally be able to have the opportunity to fight over your precious resources. At least if the colony culture flipped, your civ will have some reputation issues with the civ that 'stole' it.
Better than a complete loss, and the dreaded, 'Kindly remove your chicken stealers from my territory, you goon!'
In general, colonies were rather important aspects to many of civilizations histories. It's too bad the concept is somewhat pointless in-game.
It is not pointless but you can easily get rid of them.
If another civ builds a city close to them they are gone. That is not fun. They just need a city radius of 0 + the cultural border.
They can flip (just like cities) to another culture.
They definately need a harbor function too. This way you can set up colonies to trade with oversea areas without the need for building (+ the entire management thing) a new city. The Greeks and Cartaghe had lots of colonies (which sometimes turned out into cities) on the entire Mediteranean coast.
It should be disabled to build cities. It is just ridiculous. The current situation: build as much cities as possible (but beware of corruption). This is definately NOT realistic.
Colonies should turn into cities if they are succesfull. That is much better.
Better Barbs would be nice. I like using them to get all my units to Elite level.
It should always be possible to mod Civ4 into Civ2 -plain & Civ3-plain (to a certain extand).
If you lose (eg they kick you out of your last city around 100 AD) it should be possible to continue with another (already existing) civ.
I'm sure some people love the Edit program, but I don't. Im not going to spend 50$ or whatever on some program then have to make all the units. I think thats what the money is supposed to do, pay the people to make the units.
AI civs which have monarchy as government might run the risk of a split up.
Split ups are certainly a very interesting idea, very realistic, but why only under monachies? Wouldn't distance to capital, local culture and happiness be more desicive factors?
And why only AI civs?
ivory, that has been mentioned here a hundred times, however you are right that NOBOBY seems to mention what if their civ split up into 2-3 chunks, i bet we all would be p*ssed. if they do it , it should affect both player and AI.
It should only hold for AI
eg: after the death of the king two sons both want the crown: They get a querral and the nation splits up because one part of the nobles supports . . . etc . . . . etc
pawpaw, I merely responded to the previous hundred posts, never claimed the idea as my own.
Keeya had a very good idea in this post, which is to make forests a luxury item once the majority has been cut down. This can be an incentive to leave a few trees standing. The rationale behind this is of course that urban folk love days out in the alien world of the countryside. Trading them would be a bit difficult though.
Separate names with a comma.