Louis XXIV
Le Roi Soleil
There were some features that, when I heard how they were described, I picured how they would work (based on how they historically worked). Although Civ3 did a decent job of implamenting them, I think they could have done so much better. I don't know how Civics or Religion will affect Civ4, but I did try to think of ways to prevent these features from causing the game to be bogged down by too much work to do. I have a few, more complicated, ideas, so, if you don't feel like reading them, just read the first two paragraphs of each topic.
Trade - This is the most important thing. The concept as described before I got Civ3 had me really intrigued. But, although much better than Civ2's trade, fell short.
Here's what I would do. Similar to a right of passage, you should have to negotiate with another Civ for a right to use their roads to trade with a civ on the other side. Cities like Timbuktu got rich by simply being the Middle man. And other times, countries found alternate routes to their trading destination because the traditional path was blocked off by an enemy power.
I'm not sure if Sea power should be the same. I think that, at the very least, if there is an actual ship blocking the coastal path, you need their permission to trade past it (or you must destroy the ship). I'm not sure off hand what exactly should be done with this, but unlimited sea trade might encourage trade this way, which is significantly less important than land trade in Civ3.
Colonies - OK, let's be honest. Colonies suck the way they are implemented in Civ3. Most people would prefer to build a city when they get the chance. Also, you can't build colonies over seas, because you can't transfer the resource back without building a city anyway (why would you build the colony in the first place).
The fix is simple. Allow you to have colonies along the sea act as a harbor, trading resources back to the motherland. Also, allow roads to connect colonies together so a colony inland can move its resource to the seaside colony, which trades it overseas. You should probably be able to build coastal colonies even when a resource isn't nearby, so you can always get the harbor in place.
Also, colonies are "popped" without repercussions by an enemy city who builds in the area. Either the colony shouldn't be popped (the tile doesn't fall under another civ's control) or popping it should require declaring war. An interesting thing is that, historically, European powers tried to change natives to their culture by using colonies, while, in Civ3, the colonies "flip" and start following native culture.
More complicated stuff that I'll just throw out are these ideas. When someone thinks of colonies, they will probably either think of the American colonies, or the European Imperialism of the 19th Century. Combining the "trade rights" treaty of the previous example, it would be cool if it were possible to represent the "Sphere's of Influence" European powers had in places like China. Although the native country was weakened by it (and the European powers profitted from it) there were benefits a country could get to open itself up to imperialism (although it was short term, not long term).
One last idea to consider about colonies is allowing them to eventually turn into cities. This happened historically with places like Syracuse, which was one of the most important Greek cities, and was originally a Corinthian colony.
Nationality and Culture - Look at places like the Balkans. Ethnic groups have caused large countries to be split up before. In Civ3, there are some people of ethnic groups that just stay in their cities, only complaining when you go to war with them. I think much more could be done, without having more work required, while still impacting the game.
The biggest thing to do would be to add an influence of culture. People of a nearby cultural group would have an influence by affecting the nationality of the citizens of a border city. Suppose Russia and Germany are next to each other and Russia has a stronger culture. The border cities will begin to have Russian citizens appearing in German cities. Eventually, the Russian influence will grow to the point that the city switches who its loyalty is to (thus, a culture flip). Now suppose Russia captures a bunch of German cities. These cities start out mostly German. In civ3, any new citizen would be a Russian. I don't think this is very realistic. Culture will convert Germans into Russians, but new German citizens should be produced in a city filled entirely with Germans. They might become loyal to you, but they aren't likely to hate Germany.
Now lets expand on that more. Suppose both Germany and Russia invade Poland and split up the country. The Polish civ is destroyed from the game. But the Polish people are not gone from the game. They have a Polish identity, even though they have a loyalty to their new government. Now suppose the Russians don't treat the Polish very well. The Russian Poles start fleeing into Germany and German border cities begin to have higher Polish populations. The German Poles will not like Russia and, if Germany declares war on Russia, the German Poles will have "war happiness".
Note: I don't know what changes to happiness have been made, but I'll continue anyway. Nationalism is more than sympathizing with an ethnic group across the border. Suppose nationalism in the Poles grows exceptionally strong (or that they have been treated poorly). They might rebel in Russia. They aren't Germans, so they might not want to shift their allegiance to Germany (general culture flip). Instead, their old nation is re-born (obviously, this can't be a Human player in MP, but, aside from that, it should work out well). Nationalism can be a strong force (just look at the Austro-Hungarian empire) and the Poles on the German side of the border get caught up in the spirit and flip to the new Polish kingdom.
Now on to cultural flips in general. Again, assumes old happiness model, since I have no clue about the new one. When loyalty is extremely low (say the city grew too large, was treated poorly, or has loyalty to a new country) the people will rebel. Production grinds to a halt and units in the city will begin to be attacked. Obviously, countries can bring units to the city to crush the rebellion, but all units could be destroyed. When this happens, one of a few things can happen. If the reason was because of culture, the city could flip to the other power. If the reason was nationalism, the dominant ethnic group in the city could reestablish the civ. If it was just because you are a lousy ruler, the rioting would continue until supressed. All rioting might spread to other cities, nationalism being the fastest way this happens.
I'm not sure if I want Civil Wars, for the simple reason that only so many civs are included in a game, with art, traits, uus, etc for only those civs. Civil Wars would be different than this. But, if this was included, rioting cities could form their own seperate country and begin to produce units.
So, what do you think? Most of that stuff factors in a happiness model that might no longer exist, but the parts about nationalism, trading rights, and non-crappy colonies seem to involve features that won't be going anywhere.
Trade - This is the most important thing. The concept as described before I got Civ3 had me really intrigued. But, although much better than Civ2's trade, fell short.
Here's what I would do. Similar to a right of passage, you should have to negotiate with another Civ for a right to use their roads to trade with a civ on the other side. Cities like Timbuktu got rich by simply being the Middle man. And other times, countries found alternate routes to their trading destination because the traditional path was blocked off by an enemy power.
I'm not sure if Sea power should be the same. I think that, at the very least, if there is an actual ship blocking the coastal path, you need their permission to trade past it (or you must destroy the ship). I'm not sure off hand what exactly should be done with this, but unlimited sea trade might encourage trade this way, which is significantly less important than land trade in Civ3.
Colonies - OK, let's be honest. Colonies suck the way they are implemented in Civ3. Most people would prefer to build a city when they get the chance. Also, you can't build colonies over seas, because you can't transfer the resource back without building a city anyway (why would you build the colony in the first place).
The fix is simple. Allow you to have colonies along the sea act as a harbor, trading resources back to the motherland. Also, allow roads to connect colonies together so a colony inland can move its resource to the seaside colony, which trades it overseas. You should probably be able to build coastal colonies even when a resource isn't nearby, so you can always get the harbor in place.
Also, colonies are "popped" without repercussions by an enemy city who builds in the area. Either the colony shouldn't be popped (the tile doesn't fall under another civ's control) or popping it should require declaring war. An interesting thing is that, historically, European powers tried to change natives to their culture by using colonies, while, in Civ3, the colonies "flip" and start following native culture.
More complicated stuff that I'll just throw out are these ideas. When someone thinks of colonies, they will probably either think of the American colonies, or the European Imperialism of the 19th Century. Combining the "trade rights" treaty of the previous example, it would be cool if it were possible to represent the "Sphere's of Influence" European powers had in places like China. Although the native country was weakened by it (and the European powers profitted from it) there were benefits a country could get to open itself up to imperialism (although it was short term, not long term).
One last idea to consider about colonies is allowing them to eventually turn into cities. This happened historically with places like Syracuse, which was one of the most important Greek cities, and was originally a Corinthian colony.
Nationality and Culture - Look at places like the Balkans. Ethnic groups have caused large countries to be split up before. In Civ3, there are some people of ethnic groups that just stay in their cities, only complaining when you go to war with them. I think much more could be done, without having more work required, while still impacting the game.
The biggest thing to do would be to add an influence of culture. People of a nearby cultural group would have an influence by affecting the nationality of the citizens of a border city. Suppose Russia and Germany are next to each other and Russia has a stronger culture. The border cities will begin to have Russian citizens appearing in German cities. Eventually, the Russian influence will grow to the point that the city switches who its loyalty is to (thus, a culture flip). Now suppose Russia captures a bunch of German cities. These cities start out mostly German. In civ3, any new citizen would be a Russian. I don't think this is very realistic. Culture will convert Germans into Russians, but new German citizens should be produced in a city filled entirely with Germans. They might become loyal to you, but they aren't likely to hate Germany.
Now lets expand on that more. Suppose both Germany and Russia invade Poland and split up the country. The Polish civ is destroyed from the game. But the Polish people are not gone from the game. They have a Polish identity, even though they have a loyalty to their new government. Now suppose the Russians don't treat the Polish very well. The Russian Poles start fleeing into Germany and German border cities begin to have higher Polish populations. The German Poles will not like Russia and, if Germany declares war on Russia, the German Poles will have "war happiness".
Note: I don't know what changes to happiness have been made, but I'll continue anyway. Nationalism is more than sympathizing with an ethnic group across the border. Suppose nationalism in the Poles grows exceptionally strong (or that they have been treated poorly). They might rebel in Russia. They aren't Germans, so they might not want to shift their allegiance to Germany (general culture flip). Instead, their old nation is re-born (obviously, this can't be a Human player in MP, but, aside from that, it should work out well). Nationalism can be a strong force (just look at the Austro-Hungarian empire) and the Poles on the German side of the border get caught up in the spirit and flip to the new Polish kingdom.
Now on to cultural flips in general. Again, assumes old happiness model, since I have no clue about the new one. When loyalty is extremely low (say the city grew too large, was treated poorly, or has loyalty to a new country) the people will rebel. Production grinds to a halt and units in the city will begin to be attacked. Obviously, countries can bring units to the city to crush the rebellion, but all units could be destroyed. When this happens, one of a few things can happen. If the reason was because of culture, the city could flip to the other power. If the reason was nationalism, the dominant ethnic group in the city could reestablish the civ. If it was just because you are a lousy ruler, the rioting would continue until supressed. All rioting might spread to other cities, nationalism being the fastest way this happens.
I'm not sure if I want Civil Wars, for the simple reason that only so many civs are included in a game, with art, traits, uus, etc for only those civs. Civil Wars would be different than this. But, if this was included, rioting cities could form their own seperate country and begin to produce units.
So, what do you think? Most of that stuff factors in a happiness model that might no longer exist, but the parts about nationalism, trading rights, and non-crappy colonies seem to involve features that won't be going anywhere.
