Need To Be!

[Latvian "Hound"]

1) I think in Civ 4 there should be at least 40 civs. As well not so big civs but like Baltic, some african and other.
2) I think there should be posible to play at the same time whith all civs on same map.
3) I think huge map should be much bigger at least 2X Civilization III Huge map.
4) I think there should be more than one special units in civ. For example scandinavia has Berserkers and viking ship
5) There should be more recources rice, potatos, chery tree etc. But f.e. potatos could apear just in Industrial times.
6) When I always play civ I go into Modern age around 1100 AD. There should be bigger prequests of reserch or more researches.
7) There should be far future after Modern age. Whith researchable things
8) Units evolution should be finished as well.
9) Armys should be able to upgrade for example I have Archers army I reserch Invention and I want to make them Longbowmen army.
10) Armys should be namable
11) Armys should have option to have strategys formations

Maybe theres more that I want to say but I can't imagin it right now

 

[Rammstein]

These suggestions would like triple or quadruple the complexity and size of the game. Is it any fun if there are no boundaries?

 

[Latvian "Hound"]

Boundries makes your life miserouble. Just think how it would be if in atleast civ you could do all in the world. Maybe even in CIV future you could habbit other planets. Try toi colonyze them. Its great when all is in one.

 

[ComradeDavo]

Yup I agree with basically all you say there.

4) I think there should be more than one special units in civ. For example scandinavia has Berserkers and viking ship - Always teh first example I think of

 

[judgement]

Yup I agree with basically all you say there.

4) I think there should be more than one special units in civ. For example scandinavia has Berserkers and viking ship - Always teh first example I think of

Its funny that everyone who suggests this uses the same few examples. How come no one ever suggests what the second Aztec UU should be? Or Sumerian?

Sorry for the sarcasm but the point is, multiple UUs are easy for some civs, but not for others. Lots of people have criticised the "Enkidu Warrior" as being completely made-up (they just took the name of Gilgamesh's buddy and named a special warrior after him). Imagine the criticism they'd get if they had to make up a second, or a third.

 

[Dell19]

6) Research currently depends on the difficulty level with the higher levels researching techs quicker because of the AI but it would be interesting to have more techs for the increased choice of what to research.
9)If armies were upgradeable then some mechanism would need to be in place to limit their power an army expiring is something that limits their power.
10) Units are already nameable.
11) How would unit formations work considering that Civ is based on tiles with unit values?

 

[Mewtarthio]

1) Lots of Civs are good, I suppose, but having every autonomous tribe in the jungle a separate Civ is a tad overboard.
2) And wait 48 hours at the end of each turn? Not to mention the coloration problems
3) Try using the Map Editor to test this out (I haven't, so I don't know how it would work). By the way, what's the square root of two? You might need that to get twice the area.
4) As has been adressed, certain Civs don't have enough possibilities.
5) That's already simulated by bonus grassland and, heck, even the ability to get food/commerce/shields from tiles without unique resources. Too many would just be overkill.
6) I agree with that. I think the tech tree should look something more like the DyP mod.
7) This makes Civ just another sci-fi game. The idea of Civ is to include important things in history as well as how they've shaped our history. Nobody really knows how, say, nanotechnology will shape our history. Maybe they could release an updated Alpha Centauri?
8) I don't understand.
9) So long as you don't break the army apart, it's good.
10) The renaming feature is under the advanced commands. It's the "ABC" button.
11) Why?

 

[judgement]

9)If armies were upgradeable then some mechanism would need to be in place to limit their power an army expiring is something that limits their power.

Here's a simple solution: armies aren't upgradeable, but when you disband an army, you don't lose all the units in it. In other words, once your army becomes obsolete, you can disband it, and it reverts to its 3 (or 4) individual units (who are then upgradeable as normal). If you get a new great leader (or have the military academy) you can then make a new army to put the upgraded units into.

There's no problem with armies being too powerful, but it also solves the frustration you feel when its the industrial age and you have an army of elite swordsmen running around, and you can't bring yourself to throw it away, but its not so useful against infantry. You can't convert it to an army of infantry, but at least you can convert it to three individual veteran infantry.

In fact, the first time I got an army in Civ 3, once I figured out that I couldn't upgrade the units or unload them, I clicked Disband, assuming that what I just suggested was the case and that I would get the units back once the army was gone! Imagine my bitterness to learn that not only was the army disbanded, but all the units in it as well.

 

[Dell19]

Thats a good solution

 

[ComradeDavo]

Its funny that everyone who suggests this uses the same few examples. How come no one ever suggests what the second Aztec UU should be? Or Sumerian?

Sorry for the sarcasm but the point is, multiple UUs are easy for some civs, but not for others. Lots of people have criticised the "Enkidu Warrior" as being completely made-up (they just took the name of Gilgamesh's buddy and named a special warrior after him). Imagine the criticism they'd get if they had to make up a second, or a third.

I get your point. It would be difficult for some civs, but still I think it would be better for the overall game.

 

[Latvian "Hound"]

Its funny that everyone who suggests this uses the same few examples. How come no one ever suggests what the second Aztec UU should be? Or Sumerian?

Thats the problem that people don't learn history. In no civ is for example spearmen the same as in other civ. There even could be 10 unique units per cive. Others example: japanese had difrent kind of Pikemen with Javelin in top. Romans could have as well light legionairs. What they had when barbars started attack and they formed barbar legions with light armour. Of course theres problem with sumerians because they were advanced country but with no suitable units...

11) How would unit formations work considering that Civ is based on tiles with unit values?

ANy other questions?
For example Army can take line formation (that would be offensive formation). Armys ofpoint increses by 1 or 2. Or they can take box formation (that would be defensive formation).Armys defpoint increses by 1 or 2.

 

[Dell19]

The problem with using unit formations for normal units is that I feel that they would be used all the time. For instance defensive units would always be set to defensive for the extra bonus and attacking units set to attack formation so essentially its already included in the game with the difference in defence and attack values. Only for some units would it actually make a noticeable difference.

You can have more UUsbut the problem is that from your example the Romans would end up with more UUs in the same period whilst other nations would have their UUs spread out which is likely to be far more useful as you have advantages whenever you go to war.

 

[judgement]

Thats the problem that people don't learn history. In no civ is for example spearmen the same as in other civ. There even could be 10 unique units per cive. Others example: japanese had difrent kind of Pikemen with Javelin in top. Romans could have as well light legionairs. What they had when barbars started attack and they formed barbar legions with light armour. Of course theres problem with sumerians because they were advanced country but with no suitable units...

If the game represented each nation's spearmen (and swordsmen, and knights, and tanks, etc.) differently, there would be a heck of a lot more complication but very little benefit. All civs get the same spearmen not because spearmen were really the same throughout the world, but because it keeps the total number of units to a manageable number. And while one civ's spearmen might not have been quite the same as another civ's, they were more similar to each other than they were to horsemen, or swordsmen, or tanks, or airplanes. The units in civ are broad types, not meant to be extremely specific or accurate. UUs complicate this by introducing specific historical units, but the point is just to make the game more interesting and to give some variety between one civ and the next, not to accurately model every type of military unit a civ ever fielded. Sure, there could be a dozen different types of legionaries, all unique to Rome, but would that really improve the game at all? Not IMHO.