Ideas to put into Civilization 4: Beyond the Sword

[Skell Jell]

Do you realise how many trees you'd have to chop down, just to print the flaming manual?

Ok. The Manual will be condensed. It will be shortened.

 

[Skell Jell]

Seriously, some of those countries you listed....what a waste of time it would be making them into civs...Phillipines, Georgia, Kosovo (I though having Ethiopia as a selection was bad). Also, if all much of what you have discussed was implemented, it would make it much too complicated, 15 religions? Some of the wonders you'd like to see are actually wonders such as the Great Wall and The Statue of Liberty. Cathedrals are actually available in the game too as is an ironworks and colliseums.
Your "Great Culturer" (that isn't a word) is a Great Artist in the game. The negotiator is also done in the game although not as a person, it would however be good to have a "Great Diplomat" who could establish an embassy as their special building although that is a bit like Great Spy.
Some new types of great people would be cool but "great tourist" is a bit stupid. Also the workers do build factories outside of the city, they are called workshops, it would be cool to see their graphic change though.
Also, don't see how highways are better than railways, an upgrade to Maglev would be better. Some of your ideas are good but I wouldn't want the game to include everything as that would make it much too complicated.

Ok. I know Culturer is not a word. I will call it the Great Culture Person. The Railway will disappear. Instead the Highway will go in its place and the Maglev will be next. Thank you for your considerations

 

[DroopyTofu]

Skell Jell, I respect the time and effort you put into this, but most of your idea's are to complicate, redundent, and are just renaming already existing stuff. Like other people have said, remember the Enginering quote.

P.S. About WWIII, you messed up the date of WWII in the OP, they were just giving you a hard time.

 

[Skell Jell]

Yes but you should know something about that, something what is not from "CIA Factbook". Not to mention that a lot of things you posted are very politically incorrect to say at least. Oh here is great IDEA, let's make game based on CIA Factbook!

It's not the CIA factbook.

 

[Skell Jell]

Skell Jell, I respect the time and effort you put into this, but most of your idea's are to complicate, redundent, and are just renaming already existing stuff. Like other people have said, remember the Enginering quote.

P.S. About WWIII, you messed up the date of WWII in the OP, they were just giving you a hard time.

It's Fixed Now!

 

[Skell Jell]

If your are wondering here is what is under the categories under Government

Confederate
(Barbarianism,Confederation,Feudalism)

Supreme
(Monarchy,Oligarchy,Totalitarian)

Constitutional and Federal
(Democracy, Republic, Democratic Republic, Federation)

Unitary
(Parlimentary, Parlimentary Monarchy, Parlimentary Democracy)

 

[Skell Jell]

Interesting list of features/additions.

However, the game is already VERY complicated. I personally would like it to be more streamlined (like vanilla) with fewer units and such.

"the designer knows he has achieved perfection, not when there is nothing left to add, but when there is nothing left to tak away"

This couldnt be more true for civ.

just as an example, i think we could do away with the following units:

1. Paratrooper
2. Anti-Tank
3. Stealth destroyer
4. Attack Submarine
5. Airship
6. Ship of the Line
7. Trireme
8. Missile Cruiser

Civ 5 is probably a long way off yet, but i hope the idea behind it is to keep it as simple and as fun as possible because by nature it is already a very complicated game.

Also, you can make a mod to add in all that stuff you did. go check the mod forums if your not happy with the game as people have done all sorts of things there.

Ok. Those units will go. Plus I HATE Paratroopers. Paratroopers suck. They are the worst unit in the modern era of Civ 4. If you want to start an invasion, do not use paratroopers as your main force!

 

[Skell Jell]

Have any more ideas???




My Website
http://historyhermann.com

 

[Bushface]

I agree with the list of 8 disposable units, but think a few new ones wouldn't hurt. I suggest for starters :-
Farmer: can take seeds of wheat, corn or rice to a suitable undeveloped plot in another BFC. Limit his movement to 1 tile per turn, though; action consumes unit, only 1 at a time per civ.
Forester: can plant forests (surprise!). Behaviour like Farmer.

And what about new techs ?
Sanitation: requires Engineering, allows Sewage Works (required for city to grow past 12 points, adds one )
Concrete: requires Chemistry; with Electricity, allows Hydro Plant and 3G Dam - why these now depend on Plastics, goodness knows.
Antiseptics, Anaesthetics, Antibiotics: successive dependents on Medicine, each adding 1 to each Hospital.

And a new building :-
Fusion plant: requires Fusion, adds 100% to production (with Forge and Factory), replaces all other power plants (earlier ones disappear, though not the 3G dam), no meltdown risk.

But I also think that lots of the OP's suggestions are unnecessarily complicated.

 

[Skell Jell]

I agree with the list of 8 disposable units, but think a few new ones wouldn't hurt. I suggest for starters :-
Farmer: can take seeds of wheat, corn or rice to a suitable undeveloped plot in another BFC. Limit his movement to 1 tile per turn, though; action consumes unit, only 1 at a time per civ.
Forester: can plant forests (surprise!). Behaviour like Farmer.

And what about new techs ?
Sanitation: requires Engineering, allows Sewage Works (required for city to grow past 12 points, adds one )
Concrete: requires Chemistry; with Electricity, allows Hydro Plant and 3G Dam - why these now depend on Plastics, goodness knows.
Antiseptics, Anaesthetics, Antibiotics: successive dependents on Medicine, each adding 1 to each Hospital.

And a new building :-
Fusion plant: requires Fusion, adds 100% to production (with Forge and Factory), replaces all other power plants (earlier ones disappear, though not the 3G dam), no meltdown risk.

But I also think that lots of the OP's suggestions are unnecessarily complicated.

Good ideas I will consder them


My website:
historyhermann.com

 

[Skell Jell]

It will be considered

 

[Rusty Edge]

I can see that you want more of most everything. I can relate to that. More units, more wonders, more corps, more religions, more random events, more resorces, etc.

Much of this has already been done in the mod I play. I suggest you read up on it.

Maybe if you learn how to add units and change maps you could make your own modern scenarion from this or another mod.

I share your interest in adding a confederation as a government civic, maglev upgrade to the transportation system, and an airdefense network as a national wonder. I also kind of like the idea of using a great spy to assasinate a leader. So maybe you could kill Boudica and Brennus could take over for her after a few turns of anarchy. This would cause a war if you weren't already in one.

You've put a lot of thought into this already. Keep thinking and refining those ideas, with an eye towards, realism, balance , and gameplay . Then there's the matter of implementation. Maybe some of your ideas are better implemented as random events, or additional abillities of existing units or great people.

Just because many of your ideas probably won't make it into CIV V, doesn't mean that you can't find a home for them somewhere here, or make one of your own in time.

 

[LordBuildaholic]

Skell Jell, I truly respect the amount of time and thought you put into your post, and had the nerve to not only share it with us, but also to defend against the haters.

There are multiple issues with your ideas. Some good. Some bad. Some redundant and cosmetic.

I would strongly discourage the game makers adding civilizations like Kosovo (WHICH IS A VALID COUNTRY!) and Canada. Those are just two examples in which you would be VERY hard pressed to find an identifiable leader, and even then, the traits would overlap considerably.

Also, Canada's unique unit would be...?

Kosovo's unique building is definitely...?

 

[LordBuildaholic]

I HATE Paratroopers. Paratroopers suck. They are the worst unit in the modern era of Civ 4. If you want to start an invasion, do not use paratroopers as your main force!

Yeah. You and Hitler!

The paratrooper works great dropping behind lines to an unexpected area to pillage and attack weaker units, and to bolster lightly defended cities or attack partisans from a destoyed one.

(I will add that I am a pretty weak player)

 

[Magma_Dragoon]

I thought about listing all the bad ideas in your post, but I'd rather spend my time elsewhere.

 

[King Flevance]

I rank myself at prince level although I can win on monarch a decent amount as not to fear it. (All though Emporer has me stumped with only a few victories in my vanilla days.) Anyways, I am trying to kill time right now and not many threads are active in my subscription list currently.

Ok. Those units will go.

I wouldn't chuck things out of the game just because someone out there says they serve no role. Just as I wouldn't chuck things into the game just because 1 person says they need or deserve a role in the game. What is important is the role they actually have, not the thing itself.

I was going to comment on the units listed before that the game could "do without" but didn't have time and now that exactly what I have.

1. Paratrooper
2. Anti-Tank
3. Stealth destroyer
4. Attack Submarine
5. Airship
6. Ship of the Line
7. Trireme
8. Missile Cruiser

The only one of these I agree with is the Airship. Although I partly agree with the attack submarine and the missile cruiser. But honestly, I would rather see them modified in some way to actually implement a deeper aspect for them into the game. I think both hold great ideas for their unit type but I haven't found much use for them yet outside of a guilty pleasure. I am baffled you listed Ships of the line and Triremes though.

I don't know how many times I have mentioned my distaste for something in the game only to have someone else counter my view with their playstyle. 1 in particular was in vanilla I saw no use for the submarine and a user named Bardolph countered me with varying uses. Now, in vanilla my personal opinion of them never changed as I still think they are nothing more than a guilty pleasure in vanilla. But I have actually used his advice in BtS. There are all kinds of people who will say that "this" or "that" are "worthless" in the game. But always know that on this forum there will always be the guy that comes in and says "What are you talking about?"
This forum is the best place to view all the mechanics of this game from many different angles. And that does feel "cliche" to say on here but it holds truth. Alot of people on here surprisingly think Horse Archers are "worthless". But it is probably because by the time they get them they are. That does not make them a terrible game mechanic. It makes them a bad game mechanic for them. And we are all guilty of this in one form or another. That includes the diety players.

My own advice is to discuss things on this forum with other members. They will point out imbalances you may not see, or simply a new perspective to view a mechanic from. Sometimes it may seem to come across as "your idea sucks" and it may have even been directed at you with that intention. But if you can disect irrelevant intention from the posts, (not easy to do sometimes) you can get what you are actually looking for out of the discussions.

 

[SheaD]

No offense but the original poster is behaving slightly odd, are you actually planning on making the additions or what. Also, the guy talking about world war III was obviously joking....
And as for "Great Culture Person", is english your native language because that is probably the second least eloquent way of expressing the idea after great "culturer".
And just to say it again, the Great Artist is the "Great Culturer". Artists are musicians, painters, architects, there are no other types of real life "Great Culturers".

 

[Skell Jell]

I see that you have put in a lot of work. How long did it take you to type all those suggestions?

It took a long time. I wrote it on paper first, then put it into a word doc, and then put in a thread on this website. It was a lot of work. But it took even longer because I had to put in all the revisions. It is still much work. Thank you saying something.

 

[Skell Jell]

I rank myself at prince level although I can win on monarch a decent amount as not to fear it. (All though Emporer has me stumped with only a few victories in my vanilla days.) Anyways, I am trying to kill time right now and not many threads are active in my subscription list currently.


I wouldn't chuck things out of the game just because someone out there says they serve no role. Just as I wouldn't chuck things into the game just because 1 person says they need or deserve a role in the game. What is important is the role they actually have, not the thing itself.

I was going to comment on the units listed before that the game could "do without" but didn't have time and now that exactly what I have.

The only one of these I agree with is the Airship. Although I partly agree with the attack submarine and the missile cruiser. But honestly, I would rather see them modified in some way to actually implement a deeper aspect for them into the game. I think both hold great ideas for their unit type but I haven't found much use for them yet outside of a guilty pleasure. I am baffled you listed Ships of the line and Triremes though.

I don't know how many times I have mentioned my distaste for something in the game only to have someone else counter my view with their playstyle. 1 in particular was in vanilla I saw no use for the submarine and a user named Bardolph countered me with varying uses. Now, in vanilla my personal opinion of them never changed as I still think they are nothing more than a guilty pleasure in vanilla. But I have actually used his advice in BtS. There are all kinds of people who will say that "this" or "that" are "worthless" in the game. But always know that on this forum there will always be the guy that comes in and says "What are you talking about?"
This forum is the best place to view all the mechanics of this game from many different angles. And that does feel "cliche" to say on here but it holds truth. Alot of people on here surprisingly think Horse Archers are "worthless". But it is probably because by the time they get them they are. That does not make them a terrible game mechanic. It makes them a bad game mechanic for them. And we are all guilty of this in one form or another. That includes the diety players.

My own advice is to discuss things on this forum with other members. They will point out imbalances you may not see, or simply a new perspective to view a mechanic from. Sometimes it may seem to come across as "your idea sucks" and it may have even been directed at you with that intention. But if you can disect irrelevant intention from the posts, (not easy to do sometimes) you can get what you are actually looking for out of the discussions.

The Airship, Missile cruiser and attack submarine will stay. Thank for make it a more productive decision.

 

[Skell Jell]

Yeah. You and Hitler!

The paratrooper works great dropping behind lines to an unexpected area to pillage and attack weaker units, and to bolster lightly defended cities or attack partisans from a destoyed one.

(I will add that I am a pretty weak player)

You are wrong. Paratroopers are terrible but you are right that they are only good against weaker units (do not use a paratrooper to attack a tank unless in very badly injured).