News: civ4 features

Hi,

I am very satisfied by the developers support that is given to Civilization! The beta testing must have been a lot of work, I have not experienced any bugs that really make the game unplayable (except maybe this menu display error after about 50 restarts - but hey that's my problem). And then those great Add-Ons beeing released later on. I LOVE IT!

I know CIV IV will probably blow me away, since I, II and III did :king:

The biggest wish I can think of is an improved multiplayer gameplay. If a player drops he should be replaced by an AI that has a simmilar skill ;)

now i forget the point of my post but well.
 
Originally posted by Turner_727
Oil spills?

Randomly appearing? :p

btw, I think civics is pride in ones government.
 
Something that pisses me off is after you capture a city, hold on to it for a few turns an lose it to some stupid rebellious defectors. Normally, I could be mistaken, but normally the people with the guns make the rules. Even if the the resistors won, the troops would shoot their way out of the city and some poulation points should be lost (like if a size 15 city rebelled, it would be reduced to 11 and your troops would be end up 2 or 3 spaces away. This is a little nit picky though.
 
I also think terrorist would be awesome. They could be kind of like spies, but they could blow stuff up!
 
I also think terrorist would be awesome. They could be kind of like spies, but they could blow stuff up!
No, we don't want anything to do with terrorism. The next thing you guys will ask is: "How about a Suicide Bomber as a UU (Unique Unit)"?
 
Sort of like if they made guerrilla units stealth (sort of like the ninjas in the Sengoku scenario).

One thing I'd really like to see is options for major rise and fall of empires. That way, Rome could collapse, The British Empire could split into separate states, you know, things like that. Countries unite split all the time in history, changing names constantly. Rome became many separate countries, then later became Italy. France was once the Kingdom of the Franks. Germany wasn't a nation until the late 1800's. America has only been around for just over 225 years. Even recently countries like Yugoslavia have split into pieces. I think Civ 4 should illustrate the fact that civilizations are not concrete things and are subject to constant change.
 
OK, first of all, I don't think that a stronger focus on religion needs to be controversial in order to work! You just have broad religious categories throughout history, which your empire can change to over time. For instance, you might start off as 'paganist', then move to 'Pantheist-then you might become 'monotheist', and even to 'Reformist/Orthodox'. Each religion should have its own list of Wonders (Small and Great), Improvements, units and benefits/penalties. You should also be able to change to these religions in much the same way as you change your government (though the lag time for changing should be MUCH longer). Religion should also introduce new concepts like religious schisms-where, if you become 'aware' of a new religion (either through 'tech' advancement or discovery of a new civilization), then there is a % chance/turn of citizens converting to that religion. Like CtP, a city which contains such a 'heretic' would have a special symbol over it. Such converts could have several effects 1) If enough of them appear in one city they can force that city to 'break away' from your empire-becoming independant or part of a bordering empire which shares that religion, 2) If there are enough of them in your empire, they can force a change in the 'State' religion 3) They can cause violence and even anarchy/revolution or 4) they can become 'colonists' breaking away from your city to found a new civ under their religion. In fact, the chance of a 'convert' randomly appearing could, to some degree, work in the same way as plague spread in C3C-with the chance being increased by city size and connection, by trade route, to other 'infected' cities.
It should also be possible to 'forcibly' convert foreign citizens to your religion-either through a subset of espionage, or via cultural 'Great Leaders'!
Anyway, they are just a few starting thoughts on how religion could work in Civ4! Hope to have more ideas later!

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.
 
I think that the best way to deal with pollution, in civ4, is as follows.
Basically you have a pollution 'Bar' for each city-broken up into sections-no pollution, annoying pollution, harmful pollution and Lethal pollution.
In many ways, pollution modelling would be the same-as in, the more mines, farms and factories etc you have, the worse pollution gets. Once a city's pollution reaches the annoying stage, then peoples happiness starts to drop-(btw, I think that happiness should work on a 1-100% scale-with 0% being frenzied, and 100% being total adoration, though it should be nearly impossible to reach these extremes ;)!) At this stage, though, happiness drops will be quite small. Also, there is a small chance of a tile, in your city radius, becoming less productive.
If it reaches the harmful stage, then happiness drops become more extreme, and could threaten to cause violence or even a revolution-demands for pollution control measures would be assured. Also, there is a much increased chance of tiles becoming less productive, and even a small chance of the tile becoming unproductive-minor terrain changes, within your radius, are possible at this level as well. Lastly, there is a slight chance, per turn, of one of your citizens dying from pollution effects.
When you get to lethal levels, things are REALLY bad. Happiness drops are extreme, and could even lead to a civil war. Lost productivity is almost guaranteed, each turn, with an equally increased chance of a tile becoming totally unproductive. More extreme terrain changes are also almost certain! Also, you have a much greater risk of citizens dying from the pollution.
You can reduce pollution by either reducing the proportion of your budget going to industry-which will reduce producivity, or upgrading your industries to a cleaner, but more expensive, variety. Lastly, you could pass environment laws, or place more money into your environment budget-which would not only reduce the immediate pollution levels, but will increase the speed at which polluted tiles are cleaned up!
On a final note, these pollution levels would also exist at both a regional and global level, with harmful levels of city-based pollution contributing to regional pollution, and harmful levels of regional pollution contributing to global pollution. All other effects would be the same, but obviously effecting a much larger area in each case!

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.
 
Originally posted by Do_Sa_Nim
Something that pisses me off is after you capture a city, hold on to it for a few turns an lose it to some stupid rebellious defectors. Normally, I could be mistaken, but normally the people with the guns make the rules. Even if the the resistors won, the troops would shoot their way out of the city and some poulation points should be lost (like if a size 15 city rebelled, it would be reduced to 11 and your troops would be end up 2 or 3 spaces away. This is a little nit picky though.

Resistors are a pain to deal with, even in real life, but they attack enemy units, not make them disapear. When I city is resisting, they should damage and destroy units before flipping the city back. They would also destroy improvements, especially ones that were built by the occupying regime. There probably should be some more modern tech (maybe Guerrilla Warfare) that allows more effective resistors, and probably resistor units (like the Partisans of Civ2) that pop up when a city is captured. Only these unit would probably be more for mayhem (pillaging road squares and being a general pain in the ass) than for capturing cities. The army, in turn, would try to stop the resistance from gaining the upper hand in the city, and would try to cause them to submit. The amount of troops would certainly be a factor, but not every resistor would need to be killed for the population to loose hope and give up the fight.

On a related note, populations should welcome cities more with open arms, especially if they belonged to them in the past, or the previous owners were cruel to them (I'm not saying that citizens who were pop rushed by the last guys wouldn't resist the new ownership, that's definately not true, they just shouldn't blaim you for the actions). Also, when you capture a city from a third party that either was pop rushed, or is still in resistance, the resistance should end immediately (or their won't be any immediate resistance). Over time, depending on how you treated them, they might want to be free from you to, and a delayed resistance will begin (probably start with unhappiness, than go to rioting, then active resistance). Once there is active resistance, you can, of course, crush it with military force. But "democratic" governments are probably limited in their ability to use such harsh methods.
 
Originally posted by Louis XXIV


Randomly appearing? :p

btw, I think civics is pride in ones government.

It may appear random in the game, but we really don't know what's going on in that city. Each city has a certain chance to produce pollution each turn. The more industrialized, the bigger the chance. Seems to me that Supertankers holding millions of barrels of oil is pretty industrious.

Besides, pollution is just the game equivalent of real-world mishaps. Exxon Valdez, Chernobyl, Three Mile island. . . with 'random' pollution based upon how big the city is population wise. Cars, trucks, trains, airplanes. . . Pollution in civ is just a simplization of real-world concepts.

And I have no idea what Civics is. Sounds interesting, tho.
 
Originally posted by rschissler

No, we don't want anything to do with terrorism. The next thing you guys will ask is: "How about a Suicide Bomber as a UU (Unique Unit)"?

I remember at least three terrorists having been custom made (not counting some rebel units). There is also a Suicide one amongst these (think it is supposed to act like a ground missile).
 
So, let's compile a wish list and make it beat Old Testament and New Testament in size taken together. Okay?

Yes, we need Civil Wars restored (Civ II). And thanks for explaining the Civics. But can't we already make custom governments in the editor? Yes we can.

Religion should also affect international relations - before Nationalism. After nationalism, it should lose much influence, and be replaced by Idealogy (democracy, communism, fascism, etc).

Would've been nice to make a UN somehow more resemblant of the SMAC Planetary Council, by the way.
 
Originally posted by das
So, let's compile a wish list and make it beat Old Testament and New Testament in size taken together. Okay?

Yes, we need Civil Wars restored (Civ II). And thanks for explaining the Civics. But can't we already make custom governments in the editor? Yes we can.

Religion should also affect international relations - before Nationalism. After nationalism, it should lose much influence, and be replaced by Idealogy (democracy, communism, fascism, etc).

Would've been nice to make a UN somehow more resemblant of the SMAC Planetary Council, by the way.

:D definitly- second all points !!! (and yes), it would be much more interesting to have civil wars also at changing state form, instead of the traditional transition period where work is halted and poupulation drops due to starvation
 
Originally posted by das
So, let's compile a wish list and make it beat Old Testament and New Testament in size taken together. Okay?


No problem, I'm sure I could think of a ton of ideas (I actually haven't been paying attention to the wish list, but I can always think of new stuff).

Yes, we need Civil Wars restored (Civ II). And thanks for explaining the Civics. But can't we already make custom governments in the editor? Yes we can.

Civics isn't the government itself, it has more to do with patriotism (unless I'm thinking of a different definition of civics, it could be something I'm not thinking of).

Religion should also affect international relations - before Nationalism. After nationalism, it should lose much influence, and be replaced by Idealogy (democracy, communism, fascism, etc).

I agree, but I think the most important factor about religion in real life is its affect on controlling your rule. Sometimes religion is great at helping you rule (the Medieval kings had a divine right to rule), sometimes religious leaders will have a significant influence on your absolute power (Second half of the New Kingdom in Egypt, a priesthood ruled half of Egypt, and this continued until the Egyptian queen married a priest to unite the 2 ruling powers).

Would've been nice to make a UN somehow more resemblant of the SMAC Planetary Council, by the way.

Of course there should, I actually took this for granted ;)
 
I personally dont want religion not because of controversial reasons, but because I dont see how it can fit in the game in a good way.

But if religion is on the table, you have to also put these things on the table:

art
philosophy
literature
politics
...etc...
 
but brianshapiro, most of them already are in the game in the form of wonders or governments or things like that. And religion needs to go in, they need to try to work a way to fit it in, I mean, they were able to fit fascism in.....

I'm not certain how it could be fitted in (although if Fraxis are willing to pay me a few thousand pounds I'm sure I could try :lol: ) but I think it needs to be just because of the significance.

Maybe there could be a wonder where you get to be the Holy Roman Empire (stealing from the scenario) where you're like.... the head honcho for the other civ's that are in your religion, you can go to war on people and call it a crusade, so other nations would follow you and declare war, or if they don't they get a kind of War Weariness from their population who are angry that their government isn't doing what their religious leader wants them to.
 
I would like to see them poll the fans to see what they would like to have added or improved. They are the ones paying for the game, afterall...
 
Please see above for how Religion can EASILY be fitted into the game (geez, don't you guys READ my posts :rolleyes: :D ). To recap, though:
1) Religion and culture should still be linked as they were in civ3 (i.e. religious improvements and wonders should still generate culture-and happiness).

2) Religious and/or Cultural Great Leaders-can be used to boost your empires culture or, a la CtP, they can wander off to other empires to preach gloom and doom (thus decreasing happiness levels) or even to convert citizens/units to your religion and or philosophy.

3) The ability to have a state religion-in much the same way as you have a government. Religions should be BROAD not specific (i.e. Monotheism, Polytheism-not Islam/Christianity)

4) Your relations to other nations should, as was suggested above, be a factor of both your culture group AND your religion-at least in pre-nationalism eras. i.e. Two European Monotheisms will get on better than an Asian and European Monotheism, but the latter will get on better than a European Montheisnm and a European Polytheism!

5) Under certain government types, it should be possible to declare a 'Holy War', as opposed to a standard war, against a civ with a different religion and/or culture. Such wars have a better chance of being approved by your citizens and by other civs (if they are 'Related' to yours by religion and culture). In addition, there is a chance, each turn, of these aformentioned civs joining in your crusade.

6) If you change to a new religion, or refuse to change to one that has popular support, there is a chance of a 'Religious Schism'. This is like a Civil War, but one driven by religion and not government.

7) (i) After you 'discover' a new religion, there should be a chance, each turn, of one of your cities population 'Converting' to that faith. Converts will have, in the city screen, a symbol over them denoting their new faith. The spread of conversion should work, in some respects, like plague in C3C-with larger cities being most 'at risk' etc.

7) (ii) Converts can either increase the chance of cultural conversion to a neighbouring empire (if it shares the same religion as your converts!); cause your city(s) to break away and become independant (religious schism), or try and force you to change religions; break away, as settlers, to try and found a new civilization.

8) Religious Specialists (Clerics/Priests)-sort of a slightly more potent version of entertainers (increasing happiness) and reduces the chance of conversions in that city.

9) Prior to the Industrial Age, it should be possible to commit acts of 'Religious Espionage', these would take the form of religious 'propaganda', as a means of converting enemy citizens. You should be able to spark a Religious Schism, plant a church (spy ;)) in an enemy city and the like. Obviously these will cost money, and the chance of success should be, in some respect, dependant on your cultural strength vs. that of your enemy.

Just as a side-note, planting a church in an enemy city both makes it easier to commit 'religious espionage' and increases the chance of natural conversions to your faith (if applicable).
Anyway, this is a more succinct re-hash of what I've said above-and shows that, in my opinion, religion can be easily incorporated into the game.

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.
 
Originally posted by Aussie_Lurker
OK, first of all, I don't think that a stronger focus on religion needs to be controversial in order to work! You just have broad religious categories throughout history, which your empire can change to over time. For instance, you might start off as 'paganist', then move to 'Pantheist-then you might become 'monotheist', and even to 'Reformist/Orthodox'.

Except that some countries never "advanced" i.e. India is still pantheist. It is already slightly offensive that the Civ series makes Monotheism an advance over Polytheism. If they want to enhance the current culture model, that's OK, but introducing "real" religions into a fictional game is a big mistake IMHO. I'd rather see them spend the time developing a more sophisticated government model. However, if they do, then they ought to introduce a more realisitic combat system too. From the brief remark "Introducing more sophisticated concepts of unit experience and upgrades", it sounds like they are still planning to keep the one on one combat again.
 
Back
Top Bottom