Ideas for Civilization 4

[Snoopy]

Well, by the time a Civ4 came out, (bout 3-4 years from now), the price of a good graphics card wouldn't be expensive.

 

[Suki]

Originally posted by 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.

I think the military was most realisticly reprisented in SMAC, personally I think of the the units as being a company, aboust 100 troops +attachments. the unit I was with was a mech infantry. and looking around the batallion (3 company's + attachments) building were each of the company's "special abilitys" the Anti Tank platoon, the Reconisance, the Pioneers, and the mortars.... using the SMAC eigin one ability would have gone to each company and the player would have to be sure to moove them together.

 

[Quokka]

What I was thinking was that a civs traits should be changeable. They should have a set starting value and you should be able to change one or both when you enter a new age. Historically new ages have brought about new thinking and redefining of roles.
America is a good example. Initially it was Expansionist (to fill the land) and Industrious (improve those lands) in Modern times I would say it was Militaristic (only Superpower) and Commercial (definition of Capitalism).
Of course this could be incorporated into an idea more like the Social Engineering in SMAC. After all you can choose the direction of your research, so why not your civ in general?

 

[Brewno]

Originally posted by Czarina
How about the occasional natural disater?

Excellent idea.

In CIV4 should have volcanos, some sort of sea storm (to eventually but not frequently destroy or damage small boats), lakes (different from sea/ocean/coast), cannyons, etc.

Another idea is: in the future, by year 2050, develop a technology that allows to build submarine cities (more likely Star Wars I style); that could be attacked by submarines; defended by coast guard or something.

In the future, with robotics, all workers should be upgraded to robots;

I guess it's all for now. I'll write some more when I remember something else

Brewno.

 

[wtiberon]

I think if Disasasters were added it should be game option or it would just be one more thing for people to complain about. As for Quokka's idea it has merit. I think that civ's traits do change with time and should change with age. Although I think a Civ could be more binded by its trait. For example if a civ is expansionist it would find it harder to keep citizens happy unless it is becoming larger or if Militaristic the people could demand you invade a neighboring country via the Advisor or when you click on an unhappy face.

 

[CenturionV]

i'm just sick fo there being no infantry in the modern age!!! come on there like millions of people in the army in the US and most of them are NOT driving tanks or mech. inf and make paratroopers/marines more useful i usually get them just about 5 turns before tanks make them obsolete. also i would like to see realistic exhaustible resources like as in Rome might have 5000 oil but use it up on tanks and need more in 60 turns, it would make economics way more realistic. oh and one more thing FIX THE AI AND MAKE THEM HALF DECENT i dotn care if they spend 2 years on the ai alone as long as its realstic and doesent attack me for no reason trample all over me and then make me whip them when they wont leave only to ally with me against there old ally 10 truns later.

 

[Nelson1379]

I like the idea of barbarian cities and better combat. These two concepts really need to be looked over. However, I doubt that there will be any drastic new conceptual changes in civ4 as long as game developers keep thinking that fans want better graphics. I'd rather they use the exact same graphics as civ3 (or even civ2 for all i care) and focus on gameplay.

 

[CenturionV]

i'm just sick fo there being no infantry in the modern age!!! come on there like millions of people in the army in the US and most of them are NOT driving tanks or mech. inf and make paratroopers/marines more useful i usually get them just about 5 turns before tanks make them obsolete. also i would like to see realistic exhaustible resources like as in Rome might have 5000 oil but use it up on tanks and need more in 60 turns, it would make economics way more realistic. oh and one more thing FIX THE AI AND MAKE THEM HALF DECENT i dotn care if they spend 2 years on the ai alone as long as its realstic and doesent attack me for no reason trample all over me and then make me whip them when they wont leave only to ally with me against there old ally 10 truns later. and as to the trait thing i think they should let you change for at the end of each age and if you change inbetween theres some kind of penalty.

 

[Michael York]

Allowing a civ to create a new civ mid game and give them several of your existing cities. Say I capture 5 far off cities, I can then give them independence because they are too far away for me to use them, but i dont want someone else to have them. Also allow defeated civs to regain independence like germany & the ukraine

 

[MC4K]

i think that a wider range of units in the modern era would be good, and also, i would love to see more future techs. maybe a new era.

i think it is pretty unrealistic that in the "modern era" we are somehow able to reach alpha centuri, a goal which in the real world can not be met for decades! maybe by 2250 or summin. rocket propulsion would be useless if we planned to get there in more than like... 400 years!

i think that more units, and an extended tech tree would be great.

also, i really love the idea about having a tech tree that could actualy evolve. allowing civs to develop down different routes to make them really unique.

and does anyone know y firaxis didnt carry exelent ideas like social engineering over to civ3 from smac? it seems to have gone back a step in some respects!!!

 

[Sayounara]

NEW IMPROVEMENT NEEDED:

STOCK EXCHANGE

ADVAnce needed: The corporations
Effects: 50% increase in tax revenue.
COst: 200
MAIntenance: 2 gold, or Adam Smith's.

 

[-proletarian-]

Originally posted by Sayounara
NEW IMPROVEMENT NEEDED:

STOCK EXCHANGE

ADVAnce needed: The corporations
Effects: 50% increase in tax revenue.
COst: 200
MAIntenance: 2 gold, or Adam Smith's.

You want stock exchanges, buy "Play The World".

 

[Sayounara]

Tell me about it...

 

[Suki]

I first wrote this for the 'Historicly inaccuracy's thread' but It applies here

and I fixed that blank post I put up above.

Originally posted by zeeter

Units (including settlers) should not be able to move more than a set distance from the culture borders. Lets say six spaces for warrior. Explorers can be the exception to this. This way you cannot attack a civ that is on the other side of the continent.

if you don't mind a bit of math I have a way to fix this, just have the support costs for a unit rise exponentially as they get farther away and not farther in squares count but the number of moove points it would take to get home, then building roads to the front reducer the path length greatly, because really in history it hasn't been the time it takes to walk there that limiter expansonism in the past but just the supply lines, explorers would just be the first units that require no support. 50 years to walk the one square is a bit much...

I think it would explaine a lot of things, but we'd have to go back to units being supported by a home city, which is ok because it's probably more realistic

 

[Suki]

Originally posted by Ayatollah So

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.
So keep 'em coming, folks.

we can do it! programming isn't hard, only eye candy, and that's not what matters, I hope soon they start butting as much work into gameplay as they do into other things..

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.

we could start with a blind research option, nice and simple and gives some of the affect you just tell them how much to focus on each area.

but that's a major problem in all games a lack of randomness in the game's core, it's like all the people who get past "Rainbow Six" not because they get good at it but because each time they die and restart the level it's EXACTLY the same.

 

[Suki]

Originally posted by 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.

natural disasters and random things like that are fine as long as they are small enough that that they won't have any huge effect on the game, you can also allow for good things too (or would good just be when a disaster happend to your enemies...) like a bountyful harvest

in SMAC I once raised soem terrain which diverted a river and flooded one of my cities, a good example of an unnatural disaster...

that's one thing I'd like, to go to mars...

 

[wtiberon]

Good Ideas about limiting expansion. I believe the same thing that early massive expansion is very unrealistic. I like the idea of creating greater cost for movement away from the borders. Of course one penalty of expanding to far too fast could result in your civ splitting off into a new civ like we discussed earlier in the thread.

 

[Globetrotter]

As posted in another thread, i thought it useful to add some ideas here.

- I would say Berserk are way too strong for their era
- The Longbowmen should have a bombard capability, as longbowmen were used on the battlefield sometimes to clear advancing enemy units before an assault was launched.
- Numidian Mercenary upgrades to Pikemen (?) or am i wrong? It means that you upgrade a unit to become weaker?
- Immortals upgrade to medieval guerilla of same strenght. Is there any cost attached to this upgrade?
- Samurai has more advantages than other equivalent knights (no need for horses + higher defense). When upgraded to cavalry, it looses defense...
- Conquistador upgrades to explorer??? Jeez, that will surely make them loose a lot...
- I think marines should have a stronger attack, as much as 12.
- Paratroopers should have higher defense too.
- Modern Guerilla should be granted attack/Defense bonuses in forests/jungle/hills/mountains and loose these advantages in areas as grasslands, plains, or a city, as it is in real life. Otherwise, why use guerillas?
- I think Plane Transporters should be added, with the ability of transporting more than one unit.
- Attacking choppers leathal to Modern Armor (such as the AH-64) should be also implemented, as the Modern Armor seems to become almost invincible.
etc...

As for buildings, i would say we should add a steel factory taht converts iron to steel, and only from which modern armor / battleships and other advanced units could be produced... thus, making steel a needed produced resource to make things crazier...

What about a central bank to create our own currency?

 

[Fanny Brice]

Glad I found this thread because I was thinking of starting one like it. Here are a few ideas...

Functional

* Color code the pop-up menu for stacks of units. For example, in a city you can have land, sea, and air units, plus workers, etc. When you have a lot of units in there, it is extremely difficult to locate a particular unit or type of unit. Make the text for land units green, sea units blue, etc.

Trading System

* One of the things that bothers me the most about Civ 3 is the trading system. All Civs seem to instantly trade techs among themselves and the human player is often lagging behind, especially in the early ages. Makes for monotonous trading. I'd like to see something that slows down the instantanious spread of knowledge.

First, somehow tie the spread of knowledge to the age of the civilizations. Historically, in early ages, knowledge "spread" more than it was "transferred" in modern times. Make it easier or more likely to be able to trade knowledge with nearby civs vs. civs on the other side of a huge continent. For this, my idea is a diplomatic mission or an ENVOY. The envoy is dispatched to another civ capital. The greater the distance, the longer the time it takes for the envoy to reach the destination. Perhaps this trip can be speeded up with an available road network between capitals. Upon arrival, technology can be traded. As the ages advance, the time it takes for the envoy to allow trade decreases until you have no delay in the modern age.

A second idea, not necessarily tied to the first, is a technology auction. If the spead of technology is slower in general, then possessing "advanced" techs has more value. If a civ is the first to discover a tech, it could have the option to auction off that tech. The originator and winner of the auction must not trade that tech for a certain number of turns. Once a third civ has discovered that tech, it is no longer unique and fair game to trade. (this system can be expanded on, but I'll keep it short).


Diplomacy

* It would be nice to have more info on how other civs regard each other. Also, it would be helpful to have a list of your "transgressions" against other civs.

* Civs that have had long-standing cooperative or harmonious relationships should not be so easy to stab each other in the back as often happens. This would promote the world to create "blocks" (ie NATO/WARSAW PACT, EU, etc.).

* Would like more opportunity for political intrigue. For example, being able to underhandedly cheat on some of your allies by breaking trade embargos, selling techs, improved esponage options, etc. Of course you would suffer reputation lose if caught. Also, on that score, have the penelties suffered set on a curve instead of hard and set time limits or penalties that never seem to go away. By on a "curve," I mean that if all other civs are breaking pacts, then the penalties would be less. If only a few, then these civs would be regarded a "rogue" nations and suffer longer, move severe reputation penalties.

* Radicalization of "smaller civs" in later ages. Often, smaller civs will be hopelessly left in the dust by way of tech, resources and luxuries. These civs would have a chance to turn radical and join their own trading block with other radical civilizations. Radicalized civs might trade technology amongst themselves in order to catch up. They might also be more likely to join forces to attack or conduct esponage on stronger civs. Radicalization would be a wildcard... sometimes it happens, sometime not, and the outcome could be different depending on circumstances.

* Pirates and Guerrilas -- (see below). Should have ability to make a pact not to produce or sponsor these types of units. In later ages, the pressure to sign such a pact from and join a league of "civilizated nations" would increase. Resulting reputation lose would eventually occure if a pact is not signed (when other nations have signed). Of course, as mentioned above, you can always cheat with a greater hit to your reputation if caught.

Military

* I miss the barbarian-like guerrila uprisings from Civ 2 that occured in the late game. I haven't played PTW yet, so I'm not familiar with the new guerrila unit, but I don't think it sounds like what I'm propossing:

First, spontanious uprisings by AI controlled guerillas much like early age barbarians or the old Civ 2 event. These typically occured in mountain or other "rough" terrain that was remote from cities. In Civ 4, the result would be a lose of territorial control, destruction of roads, etc. Guerillas would be invisible unless a unit was next to them.

Second, the ability for a civ to sponsor guerilla activity in other civs territory. These would be "privateer" type units that carried no identifying color/flag. This would be an esponage mission with a possibility of being detected.

Thirdly, I also miss those guerrilas that spontaniously appeared with the lose of a city. However, these guerrilas may be short lived... when the resistance in their city ends, they disappear.

Pirates -- give these units more of a purpose. They should be as strong and as fast as a frigate for one... and they should have a % chance to capture the vessel they are attacking, capture it's cargo, or steal gold from the target vessel's national treasury. Should also have a chance that their true civ would be identified.



Sorry to make list so long... slow day at work.

 

[DaDrunkenFish]

Originally posted by CenturionV
FIX THE AI AND MAKE THEM HALF DECENT i dotn care if they spend 2 years on the ai alone as long as its realstic and doesent attack me for no reason trample all over me and then make me whip them when they wont leave only to ally with me against there old ally 10 truns later

Ummm, I reckon thatto th ai(if it tought about thse things) you were doing the same same thing, there not doing it for no reason, its just a sneak attack, the ai(with a few minor flaws) is positively briliant.