farting bob
ThEy MaDe Me Do iT.
disease from polluton. citizens working in a pollution tile for 15 > 20 turns die.
Ideas for the next expansion (if there will everr be one)...
- Thread starter Grey Fox
- Start date
hbdragon88
haunted by blackness
Citizens don't work on a polluted tile. They're out of work. AFAIK...
Globetrotter
...wherever i may roam...
Already in another thread, but i think i'll post it here too...
Storage Pit for Shields
I don't know if this has been mentioned in this thread, but i believe a storage pit where you could store shields (for example after switching your production to a less costy improvement/unit), the x-tra shields could be stored and used next turn.
With time, we could upgrade the pit to a wider one, etc.
That would be nice especially if a player does not have anything special to build, and does not want to switch to "wealth".
Storage Pit for Shields
I don't know if this has been mentioned in this thread, but i believe a storage pit where you could store shields (for example after switching your production to a less costy improvement/unit), the x-tra shields could be stored and used next turn.
With time, we could upgrade the pit to a wider one, etc.
That would be nice especially if a player does not have anything special to build, and does not want to switch to "wealth".
Globetrotter
...wherever i may roam...
Oops... missed the "/" 
Laser guided
Warlord
- Joined
- Dec 9, 2002
- Messages
- 188
You mean something like a warehouse city-improvement; where you could say store up to 50 shields (just an example)??? If they did add something like that it would have to be limited it in some way. Otherwise they might as well bring back the caravans to quick build everything. Warehouses can only store so much material and then there is cost of upkeep.
hbdragon88
haunted by blackness
Ahh...
Have trees be able to absorb carbon dioxide, so global warming can be slowed a little. And give more incentive for replanting forests.
Have trees be able to absorb carbon dioxide, so global warming can be slowed a little. And give more incentive for replanting forests.
Silverflame
OBJECTION!
Mike B browses these forums occasionally. Hopefully he reads this thread. Otherwise, someone should email them or something.
hbdragon88
haunted by blackness
Yeah! "Email This Page to Someone" at the end of every page 
we could email this page (and the Ideas for Civilization 4) threads to one of the Firaxians.
we could email this page (and the Ideas for Civilization 4) threads to one of the Firaxians.
Globetrotter
...wherever i may roam...
Yep, a warehouse with limited storage, that has an upkeep, and that can be upgraded to have a wider capacity (in each era for example)
fangnasher
Chieftain
How about a functional game?
Mark_Everson
Chieftain
Originally posted by Pembroke
So you say you want a revolution?
Real Revolution
When you hit the "revolution" button to change your government type your empire splits: You command the Revolutionists, make up a new Civ name, and control half of the original cities and units. The AI commands the Loyalists with the original civ name and controlling the other half. Of course, you are now at war, and hate each others guts with the worst possible diplomatic moods.
Then it's your job to unite the Empire again. If you can.
(snip)
This was one of the more interesting ideas I came across in my skimming of this thread. However, a lot of people wouldn't like that much of a setback. Maybe it'd only be at full strength if you're the biggest/most powerful civ, and would be less bad the further behind you are. Also, I'm not sure the AI could be made to deal with this very well.
I also think that the proposal above would only apply when the player is trying to change things quickly. It should also be possible to take a slow route to a new government. I guess you could lock in a change, say 10 turns ahead, and assume it could then be made as happens now.
After thinking about this a bit more, I fully agree: it would need a lot of finetuning to make it work gamewise and to balance it so that it was a challenge but not a killing blow. (Ok, I admit, originally it was just an extreme idea thrown in the pot... )
The major problem would be the AI. It already has a severe disadvantage when it comes to strategic planning and long term goals and this kind of revolution would make the situation even worse.
One alternative could be to use this as an extra handicap option, i.e. applies only to humans and you could tune the severity from having to conquer, say, only the capital to the full civil war of a nation ripped in two.
Usually I dislike special rules for the AI and other hidden cheats but if it's a true option that you can turn off or on and that clearly states the effect then it's ok. Kind of like giving away your knights in a chess game to make it a more equal match.
Another possibility to prevent civil wars from turning into frustrating backstabs would be to tie them to a less frequent event. For example the Forbidden Palace could be a two-edged sword: it helps you in fighting corruption but it would also have a small chance (maybe depending on the overall happiness and on the distance between the palaces) of invoking a rebellion. When (or if) this happens the player would be given the chance to choose his side (e.g. switching from the English to the newly created Americans).
The chance of a revolt could also depend on the size of the empire so that it would act as a counter-balance by preventing the overgrown number one civilization from getting too much ahead. This way the AI would also have a chance to cope with it. If the human player is less experienced or he happens to start from a tough position and falls behind in growth he could (if lucky) get a second chance when the supreme AI civ splits in half. OTOH after the player gets better the revolt would more probably occur in his civ, but as he already was the strongest civ the event would not totally cripple him.
[Edit: Wow! Just noticed that Mojotronica had a similar idea (and more fleshed out, too) about the forbidden palace in the civ4 thread so maybe there is something to this. ]
)The major problem would be the AI. It already has a severe disadvantage when it comes to strategic planning and long term goals and this kind of revolution would make the situation even worse.
One alternative could be to use this as an extra handicap option, i.e. applies only to humans and you could tune the severity from having to conquer, say, only the capital to the full civil war of a nation ripped in two.
Usually I dislike special rules for the AI and other hidden cheats but if it's a true option that you can turn off or on and that clearly states the effect then it's ok. Kind of like giving away your knights in a chess game to make it a more equal match.
Another possibility to prevent civil wars from turning into frustrating backstabs would be to tie them to a less frequent event. For example the Forbidden Palace could be a two-edged sword: it helps you in fighting corruption but it would also have a small chance (maybe depending on the overall happiness and on the distance between the palaces) of invoking a rebellion. When (or if) this happens the player would be given the chance to choose his side (e.g. switching from the English to the newly created Americans).
The chance of a revolt could also depend on the size of the empire so that it would act as a counter-balance by preventing the overgrown number one civilization from getting too much ahead. This way the AI would also have a chance to cope with it. If the human player is less experienced or he happens to start from a tough position and falls behind in growth he could (if lucky) get a second chance when the supreme AI civ splits in half. OTOH after the player gets better the revolt would more probably occur in his civ, but as he already was the strongest civ the event would not totally cripple him.
[Edit: Wow! Just noticed that Mojotronica had a similar idea (and more fleshed out, too) about the forbidden palace in the civ4 thread so maybe there is something to this.
]Mark_Everson
Chieftain
How about allowing different difficulty settings for each age? The idea is to avoid games that are too hard at the beginning, but a cakewalk in modern times. It would be really easy to program. And it seems that making the bonuses a little lighter in the early game, and better in the later game would make the balance of difficulty thru the ages closer.
You could even go beyond the normal set of difficulty levels for the late game. The only issue there is that there may be a range of arbitrary advantage for which the game becomes unstable in some ways. I remember fondly some Deity +1, etc games I played in Civ2 way back, but really weird things could happen. . . Cities shooting up to huge populations and such.
You could even go beyond the normal set of difficulty levels for the late game. The only issue there is that there may be a range of arbitrary advantage for which the game becomes unstable in some ways. I remember fondly some Deity +1, etc games I played in Civ2 way back, but really weird things could happen. . . Cities shooting up to huge populations and such.
anarres
anarchist revolutionary
I got a good one. Disable the left and right buttons on the city advisor screen when you zoom to a city that has just built something.
An annoying open exploit, not just for cheating on wealth, but for changing the tiles worked on other cities as well.
It is a shame that something as simple as this was ignored in all the patches so far, as it must be a known bug to Firaxis.
An annoying open exploit, not just for cheating on wealth, but for changing the tiles worked on other cities as well.
It is a shame that something as simple as this was ignored in all the patches so far, as it must be a known bug to Firaxis.
Similar threads
