Ideas for Civilization 4

[AceDragon]

cyclic periods (random) in stock markets cause fluctuations in your gpt

random chances for corruption in stock market ( *cough cough Enron, Tyco ) which doubles corruption/waste in a city for a period of time

I don't know if its possible but I'd like an Alpha Centauri scenario. I realize there is a few differences between the game engines so it may not.

 

[wtiberon]

Ace Dragon unintentionally brings up a good point about governments...The type of government should not dictate the amount of corruption...For example look at Russia during Communist times were less corrupt then they are now. A free market of Democracy leads to massive corruption and waste I'd say, unless a government can effectively battle it...For civ this could be the job of domestic advisor and once the police tech is discovered then you could chose how much money to place into the police program...also a new small wonder could be FBI that would GREATLY reduce corruption and waste as it has done in america.

 

[ainwood]

The time taken to make improvements in a tile should be affected by the improvements already there - Ie it should take less time to mine / irrigate / forest if it has been roaded / railroaded first.

 

[Laser guided]

This may have been mentioned before... but

I miss the old Civ1's idea of a Civil War. If a Capital was captured the Civ would break in two. I'm not sure how it worked, but any cities you captured would break away. I would launch attacks at the capital only for that reason. Had it happen to me a few times too.

Changing of governments in Civ3 seem to be more of a cultural revolution and not a military coup d'etat. Cultural revolutions are not necessarily changes in authority but more along the lines of changes in thinking or doing something.

 

[Mojotronica]

wtiberon -

I think that in "game terms" Russia went f/ a Communist gov't to a Monarchy or Despotism, or made no gov't shift. In Civ, corruption is a measure of Libertarian principles in gov't.

The folks that neo-liberalized Russia's economy back in the early 90's believed that Capitalism was somehow synonomous with Democracy, that by freeing the press and markets that Democracy would follow. But Boris Yeltsin and the Vladimir Putin have retained REAL power over the electorate, because the gov't is still appoineted by committee, not truly elected.

Meanwhile their neo-liberalized economy is very corrupt, thanks to the inability or lack of desire of the gov't to regulate it. Clearly Capitalism exists independent of Democracy. In fact, the gov't has become a tool in the hands of Russia's Capitalist elite.

Theoretically if Russia shifted to a true Democratic gov't, Putin and his ilk would soon be out of power and true populist leaders would emerge who would act in the interests of the citizens. They may institute a Socialist economic policy, or clean up the Capitalist one... but however they run it, it would benefit more people than the current system. This results in the reduced corruption inherent to a more Democratic gov't in the game.

 

[LionQ]

Originally posted by ainwood
The time taken to make improvements in a tile should be affected by the improvements already there - Ie it should take less time to mine / irrigate / forest if it has been roaded / railroaded first.

You're right. Now it's more efficient to first cut the Forest and then Irrigate, Mine or Road/Railroad that Square.

 

[Mojotronica]

Corruption in Civ III is so brutal that it makes it impossible to build a large empire in the same way one could in Civ II. I think that this really annoys a lot of players, but I like it. It makes sense to me that a large spawling empire would be rife w/ corruption.

In the real world, large spawling empires collapse or fragment into smaller, more managable chunks. I only wish that the designers had included mechanisms to better control corruption in the core game.

I also wish that the designers had retained the potential for a Civilization to split in some way, spawning a "new" civ. In the old versions this could happen if the empire was large and lost it's capital -- it is not without precedent.

In the next version there could be many factors that contribute to this:

a) large empire size
b) loss of capital city
c) massive corruption in a city (it's far f/ the capital)
d) massive unhappiness in a city
e) existance of a Forbidden Palace-like city improvement -- a Provincial palace. This would solve the problem of rampant corruption allowing for a large empire but at the risk of causing the empire to fragment into rival civs. Obviously, some people will hate my idea, and by extension hate me and everything I stand for. But I think it would be wicked mad cool, and more realistic!

It's controllable by the player -- they can avoid being split by avoiding building a Provincial Palace and taking the corruption hit, or by keeping their empire small, their corruption low and/or their populace happy. And of course by defending their Capital city.

And it can work to the player's advantage. The AI would be dealing w/ the effect too, especially Expansionist Civs. Often a player may be behind in the game but regain some ground on the road of victory thanks to a timely -- or well-timed -- rival fragmentation.

 

[Mojotronica]

Check out Kryten's proposed graphics enhancement in the "War in Civ4" thread -- very impressive!

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=39905&perpage=20&display=&pagenumber=2

Kryten wants the core game to feature multiple figures in each unit, to demonstrate graphically that these are collectives of troops rather than individual soldiers. Just a bell-and-whistle, but a nice one!

The current game could be moded to feature this, but I think it's good enough to be considered for the core game.

 

[Mojotronica]

Sim_One suggested that each figure represent a "hit point," which is not technically possible in the current game, but could it be incorporated into Civ 4?

This could make the hit point bar obsolete.

 

[Mojotronica]

Get past the flame war in this thread and you'll find some interesting ideas for future technologies proposed by The President.

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&postid=677502#post677502

I think that the game could use a FIFTH epoch, the InterPlanetary Epoch, involving the colonisation of the Solar System and culminating in the development of the InterStellar Spaceship, as in the current game. A Great Wonder could be the Mars Colony, for example...

This would be more realistic, because the current game takes us only a few years into the future but anticipates that we already have much of the technology to colonize Alpha Centauri, which rings false.

 

[Mojotronica]

I think that the colonization of the Solar System should be very abstract -- represented by a few Great Wonders and several new techs. NOT involving the development of a sub-oceanic or orbital overlay for Civ'ers to exploit -- that's too much!

 

[Mojotronica]

Fix the Diplomacy screen so that players can see all Civ relationships at the same time.

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=39953&perpage=20&display=&pagenumber=1

 

[Naval Freak]

I have thougt about this for awhile: 1 tank on 1 tile= 1 tank in about 500 square miles! It should be 1 platoon of tanks in 500 square miles. What do you guys think?

i like the idea of provincial palaces, it would be more realalistic.


i wonder if good ol' Sid is in this forum, disgused as a cruddy newbie.

I'm not Sid, if you get suspicious.

 

[Xerol]

(i had a LOT more but now that i'm typing them i forgot most of them)
1) Commercial victory. Requires several conditions:
a) Control 2x number of cities req'd for forbidden palace WITH MAJORITY OF POP DOMESTIC(i.e. cities with more foreign nationals than members of your civ don't count)
b) At least 50% of ALL cities have at least 1 commercial improvement, and one city MUST have either ALL COMMERCIAL IMPROVEMENTS of the age --or-- A COMMERCIAL WONDER
c) A certain amount of gold, varies based on number of civs and size of map, etc.

2) About barbarians(this is a compilation of the best ideas i've heard and some of my own)
a) Barbarians become their own little civs, but extremely crippled(1/2 production of AI at chieftain level)
b) Barbarians fight amongst themselves
c) Barbarians don't research tech, but each village does gain gold based on its life, this amount of gold is what the human gets when he captures a camp.
d) Can eventually build all units, but only when every civ has the ability to build that unit, and it can't build any unit that requires a resource unless the camp is on top of one(and i don't think that's possible anyway)

hm...i had more...the commercial victory was the main one i thought about though...

 

[Xerol]

one more(dunno if its been said, didnt feel like reading):

allow for scenarios/campaigns/multi-game strings, i.e. You are Hammurabi of the Babylonians. It is 4000 BC. You will win this scenario if you culture-flip 10 cities. and stuff like that.

and allow multiple copies of the same civ(i'd just ONCE like to have a culture war between babylon and babylon)

 

[Laser guided]

Wouldn't it change strategy in Civ if on the strategic map horses and men moved the same rate to mimic logistics a little better?

Suggest two movement (non-road movement) for most land units with a few exceptions.

Exception 1 would be for scouts who no doubt travel light and live off the land. Suggest a 3 movement or 4 movement.

Exception 2 Mongol knight (Keshik or whatever its carnation in 4) with a 3 movement.

Exception 3 Zulu Impi with a 3 movement.

Artillery would be treated like foot troops.

Calvary and motorized units could keep current values. Modern foot soldier would move up to 2 movement.

There would be no change to road movement rules.

All units can retreat or disengage the enemy, except foot troops could not retreat from mounted/motorized units.

 

[Samurai X]

only thing i dont really like about your barbarian idea is that if the barbarians could produce cities of their own and whatnot, they would essentially just be another civ. if you are suggesting that their little encampments that pop up be considered cities that you can take over, then that might be an idea i can shoot for of course, then destroying the encampments would have to be a lot harder then it is in the easy settings of the game. would have to be as hard to kill a defending barbarian in the encampment as in a normal civ city. would surely make expansion early on in the game a lot easier a more active.

 

[Illustrious]

Originally posted by Naval Freak
I have thougt about this for awhile: 1 tank on 1 tile= 1 tank in about 500 square miles! It should be 1 platoon of tanks in 500 square miles. What do you guys think?

I think it's been agreed by virtually everyone ever since the game came out that the land units don't represent single instances of that troop type....

OF COURSE 1 tank on 1 tile represents a squadron/regiment of tanks!!!!

Good grief, you'll be telling us next that you think a spearman unit represents one little man clutching a pointed stick...

I'm not Sid, if you get suspicious.

I think you're safe from suspicion.

 

[Illustrious]

Originally posted by Laser guided
Wouldn't it change strategy in Civ if on the strategic map horses and men moved the same rate to mimic logistics a little better?

It would.

But the problem is, there is only one map - which has to do double duty as the strategic and tactical maps. Unless we end up with a second "zoom-in" map (perhaps on the lines of Shogun: Total War), the units are going to be able to model either strategic movement/logistics or tactical mobility, but not both.

Since the "flavour" of warfare comes more from the tactical mobility, the solution on a "one map" game has to be the one currently used, ie cavalry outmove infantry.

Personally I'd prefer a "two map" solution - with the option to override it for those people who prefer to de-emphasise war and concentrate on city-building.

 

[Xerol]

A real-time mode would probably solve a lot of the distance problems, i.e. within a square a unit would have a certain position as the unit walked THROUGH the square over a period of time. Also, make railroads still take SOME time to move, but make it something like a 1/20 or 1/100 rate, even on railroads, moving around the world in the equivalant of one year is unrealistic, but make a third type of road that DOES have unlimited movement