Ideas for Civilization 4

[trumpeteer]

Truthfully, I wish they would add religion to the game. I don't think they will, but it would be a great idea, and even better if they gave you an option in the editor to change the name, or add/subtract religions. Kind of like governments. So if anyone complained about their religion not being in there, they would have the option of putting it in there. Unfortunately, it would probably be too complicated to add a whole new dimension to the game (perhaps we can make small steps towards it in later versions of the Civ series), and I imagine that it would offend many people. I doubt any large company would want to take that risk.
You seem to have a lot of good ideas. Glad to have you here.

 

[frekk]

Originally posted by wtiberon
One idea i have always wanted to see is civilization changes. What do I mean? Well just as the Roman Empire became the Byzantine Empire so could one Civ become another. Reasons for this could if a Civ's capital is plagued by civil disorder for too many rounds or something along those lines. Also not all civilizations could appear at the same time. Have some civs (probably AI) appear later.

Also I don't think that civs should be the only one that build cities. For example the barbarians could also build cities and they could be called warlords or something.

Well - I sort of like it, I don't like the idea that your own civ could become a new one, but I do like the idea of 'breakaway' civs. It would help to explain things like the Byzantines and America. I imagine a system whereby a number of cities far from your capital might, under the right circumstances, revolt and form a new civilization, if you do not manage them well enough.

Also: I don't like the idea, in civ, that the government (essentially) chooses when it's time for revolution. You shouldn't have a choice about it. Revolution and changing of government type ought to come under certain triggers, probably when you DON'T want it.

I also like the idea of barbarians building cities. Even aspiring to become a civ. For instance, if a barbarian town remains around long enough, it could become a size 1 city. If they get 3-4 cities in the same area, they could become a new civ.

 

[Ant509y]

Hey everyone, I'm back with number four. Thanks for the complemetn, trumpeteer, and I look forward to more posts.

4.) Government change, revolution (take two) colonies, and barbarians!:

Governments would change in one of several ways: a.) you choose to start a revolution; b.) you're forced into it by anarchy caused by civil disorder. Also, if some of your provinces realyl dislike the idea of the change you're making, or it realyl harms them, they might possibly start a civil war to stop it, and return to the previous government, especially if it was a "Free" government with low corruption. High corruption and civil disorder will cause the people to try and force a government change, and a civil war will begin, without the intention of splitting away... of course, that may end up happening.

Colonies: My take on colonies is that they should be a kind of all-in-one useful item, with all the abilities of the worker settlements. First off, replace all the other things with just the colony choice, and give them these abilities (or otehrs... tell me your thoughts!)
They would act as, at first, a mini-village, to take resources (as now) also, they would be a port (well, with the trade ability of a harbor, but no food, of course) and, later on, an airport. They would also be outpost-type fortifications, and would have a population and a cultureradius of one, with no growth potential. Also, with the culture ability, these colonies would be much more useful for you. They would also be great defensive bases for units (since they do act like villages, only much smaller) and with the culture radius, they do not "dissappear" when another civ's culture reaches that area. All in all, I think that (and maybe some other stuff) would make the colony useful really. Also, if you put a second worker into it, it will become a city. Oh, they wouldnt interfere with the squares of the city if the radius overlapes, also.

Barbarians: Barbarians, I think, could be much more interesting than they are now. First off, you should be able to contact the cheifdoms, and they contact you. However, they arent full-fledged civilizations, but they want to be, and will do anything to reach it. They start with founding a cheifdom (which acts like a colony in actual use) and when they have three (maybe two) units in a place, they could start another cheifdom, with a 50% chance of staying under the same control of the original. Their units could also be, in the contact screen, "hired" for your own use, for something like three units for a gold per turn of use, or something. They will attempt to become a new civilization on their own (besides the starting in the map, and it doesnt matter if the number is max, with barbs, you could go over) They could become one in several ways, I think: First, gain six encampments by settling or conquest (these also include colonies, if they capture one, it will become an encampment) second, take over a province ( or at least four cities), or, maybe for third, gain control of four seperate resources i their encampments. When they become a civ, if they have encampments, the original encampment, and the closest one become level one cities, with multiple advances to help them in their start. The other encampments become colonies. If they capture cities, all the cities become part of the civ, and the capital becomes the original encampment. Also, the barbs would all be different, with eac tribe being against or allied with each other at will, in a much more simplified version of what the civs can do.

That's all for now, I hope for some comments and replies! Later!

 

[yoshi]

I don't like the idea, in civ, that the government (essentially) chooses when it's time for revolution. You shouldn't have a choice about it.

Easy fix: civ has unhappiness/defeat in battle = revolt = revolution.
Changing govts. should be optional in preferences or through the Scenario Rules (Editor). Some people intensly dislike automation and like controlling every aspect of the game. But Civ3 should definitely have the option of uncontrolled revolutions. The problem is, any govt. has its advantages so having your govt. changed to another one (e.g. Communism to Democracy) will just give you different advantages --having a revolution should have a downside (loss of points I guess).

I hope for some comments and replies!

The civil war option would make revouition far more destructive --in this case it would be a "war of independence", where one your civ is loyalist and the split civ is rebel.

Not behaving according to your government's needs (i.e. if you're a peacenick and have an authoritarian govt. a coup d'etat may occur (military units become rebel and destroy you).

The problem with cahnging civs and governemnts mid -game is that Civ spans history, and getting a revolution means that technically you lose and the game's over right? If not there has to be some kind of penalty to gameplay (e.g. restrictions on your decisions).

As for barbarians, well I used them a lot as fillers when designing Civ2 scenarios. But in Civ3 you should just be able to add as many civs as you want. So, the UK would include a Scottish, English , Welsh and Irish civ. Whoever dominates functions like the English did historically.

[This is a Civ4 thread, right? My comments sound more like alterations to Civ3 --I think I'm in the wrong thread.]

Note: Much of this stuff could really just go into Civ3 if Firaxis or Atari or Infograms or whoever it is that is responible for Civ3's programming weren't so thick-headed.

 

[Suki]

there needs to be some stronger direct interaction between unhappieness, corruption, uprisings and revoloutions.

one thing I think could really help is to rework support to having most units cost more per turn depending on the distance they are from a city, have the effect increased for units that take pop points to build. and I don't just mean distance in squares I mean how many moovment points it is from the nearest city. it would limit expansion, exploration and far flung armies. have units take damage if you can't pay their upkeep. have it cost (?) triple support for a turn where the unit heals which would keep healing in far off lands hard, have the battelfield medicine make it cost 2x insted of three.
and because you're basing it on the number of move points it also makes you build roads out to your front.

you could use a similar system for choosing which squares we let a city cultivate (not counting rails fo course.)

 

[trumpeteer]

Some big changes that need to be made (summarized):

1. Like many have said, make colonies sorta like cities with 0 pop and no cultural borders. Include harbors for overseas colonies. Perhaps a new improvement called "Town Center" or something that makes a colony a city. Completely eliminate cities from the game. Carthage, after all, started as a Pheonician colony (I think.)

2. Take the option of govt.-controlled revolutions off. After all, how often does the President of the United States wake up, have a cup of coffee, and say, "Hmm. I think I will support a group of revolutionaries looking to overthrow the government and plunge the nation into anarchy for the next four years, and emerge victorious before actually thinking about what type of government I will install in the new state." Instead, aspects such as culture, happiness, and Favorite/Shunned Government should influence the decisions by the people, not the state, to overthrow a government. So if the Americans were in Communism, and culture was high in faraway discontented cities, then a civil war would occur, in which a portion of America will revolt and switch to (most likely) Democracy. You would have a choice - support the new state or the old. Then a war would occur until one side admits defeat.

3. Make the United Nations more realistic. Perhaps the builder could appoint new members to the UN, and each member would have a permanent MPP with all others unless they resigned, which would have a negative impact on popularity.

Here's some summarized thoughts on the subject.