News: civ4 features
- Thread starter cassius84
- Start date
genghis_khev
Surviving Monarch Level
I think we are all agreed that for religion "monotheism, polythiesm, philosophcal beliefs (i.e. Budism or the like, not a religion per say but a defined belief stucture), etc are infinitely better than Real World religion names.
I would also include:
Atheism (no god),
Secular Society (all religs. toterated but none supported),
Astrology (Sun / Moon / Star based relig) and
Wicken (Paganism / Earth Worship).
To name a few!
EDIT: Would Occultism (Woship of "evil / non-benign" deity) be a step too far?
I would also include:
Atheism (no god),
Secular Society (all religs. toterated but none supported),
Astrology (Sun / Moon / Star based relig) and
Wicken (Paganism / Earth Worship).
To name a few!
EDIT: Would Occultism (Woship of "evil / non-benign" deity) be a step too far?
Aussie_Lurker
Deity
Hey Playshogi, I do agree with your point about Monotheism in Civ. Of all the things I felt they needed to change in the game, it was to make ALL religious 'techs' non-compulsory! I don't really see, in game terms, monotheism being an advance on polytheism. In fact, I think that monotheism appears in the game WAY to late-the Jews were monotheistic almost 2000 years BCE, after all. In my own Civ 3 games, I moved monotheism BACK to the ancient era, and made it dependant on 'Code of Laws' and 'Polythiesm'. I then had a 'Late Monotheism' which required 'philosophy' and 'Polytheism'-to represent Islam and other, later, montheistic faiths. I also added two branches of Eastern Philosophy (Religion), one which reflects the Bhuddist and Taosist Ideals, and one which is more in line with the Polytheistic beliefs of Shinto and Hinduism. I made ALL of these techs non-compulsory and made them dependant on different religious resource! Also, when I have C3C, I will probably give these techs 'flavours', in order to encourage different civs to favour the pursuit of certain religious techs over others! I confess that this is a bit of a hack job but, if I can do all of that, with the tools available in Civ3, then imagine what civ4 could do for religion in the game 
!
EDIT: BTW, Ghengis-Khev. I hope that the ability to become a 'Secular' society, or more religiously tolerant, will be in some way represented through societal 'Influence', and the passing of laws in the game!
Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.
!EDIT: BTW, Ghengis-Khev. I hope that the ability to become a 'Secular' society, or more religiously tolerant, will be in some way represented through societal 'Influence', and the passing of laws in the game!
Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.
Well, I've said this before [not since several months ago, however. x.x] but one thing that I'd really want to see is a system of 'provinces'. I've said stuff about this in the main cIV thread, and since its been awhile, I've probably lost much of the original idea, however... basically, it would be a set up where every few cities become organized and seperated into 'provinces' which have their own 'provincial capital' [in other words, if the current model of corruption still exists, these would be weaker versions of Forbidden Palace. If not, well, they'd still have the other uses I shall mention!] and their own organized needs. To form these provinces, roads [or harbors, or later airports] would need to connect the cities together, to a regional capital [usually the greatest city in the region at the time] and you may possibly have to build the capital, though I am not sure.
This system would allow many large changes in the game, and would allow much deeper depth to governmental form, civil wars, and political relations, allow intranational diplomacy as well as international diplomacy also. These provinces would all have their own needs, and their own level of 'closeness' [pardon the clumsy word] to the capital province. This would depend on if it has access to the resources of the capital, how much infrastructure it possesses, how culturally affluent it is related to the capital, how it is doing related to the other provinces, whether or not there seems to be 'favoritism' towards or against that particular province [or, if more resources are used to help the other provinces than that one, or if more are used for that one than others] distance from the capital, levels of total happiness, and how productive the province is, and whether it was originally created by that nation or conquered, and how long it has been part of that empire. It isn't as simple as 'it's productive and well infrastructured, so it's loyal', in fact, sometimes it may be opposite. A highly culturally affluent, somewhat far away, heavily infrastructured and populated area may become dissatisfied with being ruled by a capital so far away, and may desire to become its own state, and bring smaller nearby provinces with it.
To add to this, each province would have a relationship to each other, and foreign nations, to better represent regional feelings, which can be different in different areas. Each of these provinces would answer to you, would say what it needs, what it wants, what and who it likes and dislikes, and what it would desire to do then. Depending on how you treat them, their closeness to you might slip away, depending on the other factors as well, and also depending on government form.
Here's where government form may become quite distinct from how it is now, and far more interesting. Depending on the government, your control over the provinces, their power and influence over you, and even to an extent HOW you control your nation change. For instance, in despotism, you control everything with an iron fist, and the provinces have no say, they're just together out of organizational purposes, as well as tax purposes. Yet if they get too far away from you, they may want to start their own little kingdom, and if you don't want that, you'll need a military presense there, from your capital province. [btw, yes, that would mean a very revised version of the old CivII idea of units being funded by particular cities, but in this case, you don't have city unit limits (dealt with the same way as in Civ III) but the city you build a unit in is still it's home city, and province, and if it is from, say, a province which shall rebel, it will also rebel, and if it's from your capital, it is most useful for keeping other grumbling provinces in line, etc]
In other forms of government, like the city-state format, each province is really its own country, that you barely control, almost like an alliance for purely defensive reasons. If there's a war, they may not allow you to send troops from the province [they cannot be moved from ithe home province if it doesnt want to fight] for instance, and outside of war, it might allow a nation to stay together that wouldnt under despotism since the provinces would basically get their own needs first, and wouldnt really need to rebel. [maybe differences in commerce, maybe first used within the province, with some taxation (maybe) being sent to the capital?]. Later on, more complex forms such as Feudalism, Republic [Roman style] Monarchy, Communism, and Democracy could do things a bit differently. Also, overseas imperial colonies could be done differently this way too. However, I must leave now, so I cannot continue for this moment. But, please tell me what you think, ask whatever questions about it you want, and do give me feedback on what you think, please! Well, later!
This system would allow many large changes in the game, and would allow much deeper depth to governmental form, civil wars, and political relations, allow intranational diplomacy as well as international diplomacy also. These provinces would all have their own needs, and their own level of 'closeness' [pardon the clumsy word] to the capital province. This would depend on if it has access to the resources of the capital, how much infrastructure it possesses, how culturally affluent it is related to the capital, how it is doing related to the other provinces, whether or not there seems to be 'favoritism' towards or against that particular province [or, if more resources are used to help the other provinces than that one, or if more are used for that one than others] distance from the capital, levels of total happiness, and how productive the province is, and whether it was originally created by that nation or conquered, and how long it has been part of that empire. It isn't as simple as 'it's productive and well infrastructured, so it's loyal', in fact, sometimes it may be opposite. A highly culturally affluent, somewhat far away, heavily infrastructured and populated area may become dissatisfied with being ruled by a capital so far away, and may desire to become its own state, and bring smaller nearby provinces with it.
To add to this, each province would have a relationship to each other, and foreign nations, to better represent regional feelings, which can be different in different areas. Each of these provinces would answer to you, would say what it needs, what it wants, what and who it likes and dislikes, and what it would desire to do then. Depending on how you treat them, their closeness to you might slip away, depending on the other factors as well, and also depending on government form.
Here's where government form may become quite distinct from how it is now, and far more interesting. Depending on the government, your control over the provinces, their power and influence over you, and even to an extent HOW you control your nation change. For instance, in despotism, you control everything with an iron fist, and the provinces have no say, they're just together out of organizational purposes, as well as tax purposes. Yet if they get too far away from you, they may want to start their own little kingdom, and if you don't want that, you'll need a military presense there, from your capital province. [btw, yes, that would mean a very revised version of the old CivII idea of units being funded by particular cities, but in this case, you don't have city unit limits (dealt with the same way as in Civ III) but the city you build a unit in is still it's home city, and province, and if it is from, say, a province which shall rebel, it will also rebel, and if it's from your capital, it is most useful for keeping other grumbling provinces in line, etc]
In other forms of government, like the city-state format, each province is really its own country, that you barely control, almost like an alliance for purely defensive reasons. If there's a war, they may not allow you to send troops from the province [they cannot be moved from ithe home province if it doesnt want to fight] for instance, and outside of war, it might allow a nation to stay together that wouldnt under despotism since the provinces would basically get their own needs first, and wouldnt really need to rebel. [maybe differences in commerce, maybe first used within the province, with some taxation (maybe) being sent to the capital?]. Later on, more complex forms such as Feudalism, Republic [Roman style] Monarchy, Communism, and Democracy could do things a bit differently. Also, overseas imperial colonies could be done differently this way too. However, I must leave now, so I cannot continue for this moment. But, please tell me what you think, ask whatever questions about it you want, and do give me feedback on what you think, please! Well, later!
To continue:
When it comes to changing governments, this system of provinces could make that more interesting as well. When you desire to change the government, for example, those who benefit from it [or just some of the population. x.x] will not be happy, and they may fight you for it, leading at least to the loss of all government for awhile while it the government is reformed [may take different amounts of time for different areas] if the resistance is too much, one or more provinces may decide to rebel, to reestablish the old government, and force you to go back. Or, if worse comes to worse, become it's own country with the government it desires. Also, some places may initiate a revolt if you dont go to a government they desire.
Of course, remember, it wouldnt be fun if rebellion were constant, so, basically, I'd say they shouldn't be that common, though they should happen, and also in other non-player countires, often enough so that it is noticed. It should be a fun dynamic, not an annoying constant frustration, and reward doing well by your nation's people.
The provinces would have differing relations with each other, as well. Some provinces may end up in competition with each other, for instance, or not send troops to defend a certain one during a war [if provincial influence is strong enough to prevent it] or argue over border disputes [especially who gets the rights to the special benefits of owning the resource at the edge of the provinces] or even, if things get bad enough, to skirmishes using their units without your permission.
Well, that's all I have for the moment. I need to study what I wrote in the past to get all my ideas back. So... please give feedback on these, I'd appreciate this.
When it comes to changing governments, this system of provinces could make that more interesting as well. When you desire to change the government, for example, those who benefit from it [or just some of the population. x.x] will not be happy, and they may fight you for it, leading at least to the loss of all government for awhile while it the government is reformed [may take different amounts of time for different areas] if the resistance is too much, one or more provinces may decide to rebel, to reestablish the old government, and force you to go back. Or, if worse comes to worse, become it's own country with the government it desires. Also, some places may initiate a revolt if you dont go to a government they desire.
Of course, remember, it wouldnt be fun if rebellion were constant, so, basically, I'd say they shouldn't be that common, though they should happen, and also in other non-player countires, often enough so that it is noticed. It should be a fun dynamic, not an annoying constant frustration, and reward doing well by your nation's people.
The provinces would have differing relations with each other, as well. Some provinces may end up in competition with each other, for instance, or not send troops to defend a certain one during a war [if provincial influence is strong enough to prevent it] or argue over border disputes [especially who gets the rights to the special benefits of owning the resource at the edge of the provinces] or even, if things get bad enough, to skirmishes using their units without your permission.
Well, that's all I have for the moment. I need to study what I wrote in the past to get all my ideas back. So... please give feedback on these, I'd appreciate this.
genghis_khev
Surviving Monarch Level
Aussie_Lurker, people keep banging on about the mysterious and elusive "Civics". Perhaps "Secularism(?)" has a home here?
hmmm...
change regent back to prince.
i know it may seem sacrosant, but revamp the idea of the tech tree. maybe make it more fluid and uncontrolled, like real life.
No more spearmen vs tank battles (with the upset). it is impossible. (make cities/units surrender if to badly outnumbered, outmoded?)
I like the idea of provinces, though idea has to be thought out carefully b4 implementation.
change regent back to prince.
i know it may seem sacrosant, but revamp the idea of the tech tree. maybe make it more fluid and uncontrolled, like real life.
No more spearmen vs tank battles (with the upset). it is impossible. (make cities/units surrender if to badly outnumbered, outmoded?)
I like the idea of provinces, though idea has to be thought out carefully b4 implementation.
Bobby Lee
Confederate General
ok, heres my big demands 
1- The military system needs to be fixxed, the whole idea that everytime you fight one unit or the other is completely wiped out is absurd...i dont think its wrong that it happens upon occassion but in reality most of the time there is a winner and a loser with the loser retreating and both sides hurt...
2- the province idea was amazing...i dont think ive heard a better idea of how to organize things than that thus far...it would add so many dynamics to the game and the same time make many of the current ones make more since if it was properly incorporated
3- diplomacy wise...I really must have multilateral negotiations...if there is one thing i hate its when i make a mpp with two nations and they go to war the next turn....its so stupid....i think you should be able to negotiate with as many nations as you like at once... this would add a dimension to the game that is sorely needed....for example how much easier would it not be to have a real world war with 2 or 3 *distinct* sides going at it in a normal game? and trade embargoes would make more sense
4- the trade system has got to be changed....there must be defined trade routes and such which can then be privateered, cut off, or undermined....history is littered with wars that were over trade routes....and changes in the course of the world that resulted from blocked ones (for example the discovery of America)
5-rebellions and civil wars must be put back in...there must be a separation of the two though....rebellions are for provinces or cities who want to break away and form their own nation or join another....civil wars are for changes in gov or reforms in society (i.e.- you didnt spend enough on luxuries so your citizens revolted because of thier low standard of living)
6-i was never around for civ 1...too young at the time to play....but the idea of interesting little tidbits and popups like sewspaper clippings sounds good...i already derive great joy from having my cities celebrate we love the king day and such ...so that would be even more interesting and fun
7-the naval game must be revamped...it just stinks...dont ask me how to do it...just needs to be done
8-the whole air system at the moment must be reworked...who ever heard of a lone bomber bombing a city....its a stupid thought...its not how they're used...actually all military units are used in tandem with eachother....so i suppose you should be able to time units to attack into different areas at the same time and the same hex at the same time...i guess land wise that would mean putting unit directions...so you could flank, attack the rear...and so on
8-production scales...in general most things do not take years to build when being built by the state and such...they take less time like training a civil war era infantry unit would have taken a minimum of a month and max of 6 (prolly not the exact numbers but you get the point)
9-is it not true that a city can build multiple things at once...YES IT IS! that also annoys me about the game...why cant you use your shields in a split up fashion at least (actually i dont like shields i think it should just be a number which can be done in decimals) to produce multiple things? like it makes no sense at all to not be able to produce a rifleman and a temple all at the same time...
10-im in awe that atari has the guts to bring in religion...i honestly didnt think the company had it in em (to be fair i didnt think any company did) but now that they have they need to do a good job with it....it influenced and still influences the world in alot of ways....a good example of modern times is the iraq situation....the sunni's dont like the shiites and the americans are infidels and so on and so forth....
11-military units should be given automatic names according to their city of creation (ie-the 1st and 2nd New Orleans Regiments) and then upon making a veteran type status the user should be given the oppertunity to give them a nickname (ie-our 1st New Orleans Regiment now becomes the New Orleans Tigers)
12-governments must be reworked...the bottom line is that with the current system one gov will always be better than the others and therefor the comp will gravitate to it automatically...there needs to be that check and balance type thing...communism is absolute but your people tend to be unhappy so you better be able to back up your harsh rule with an iron fist or they may revolt and break away (real world example-USSR)...democracy is good until your people realize they can vote thier way into the treasuryand pay themselves....republics are good..as long as the other provincial reps are on your side and wut you want is in thier best interest....the original american model is awsome except that pesky congress keeps getting in your way or helps you if more provinces would like the idea....fuedalism is great..till you wanna pass a reform or tax sumbody...theocracies are great until your people change religions or get annoyed by having to go to the temples everyday
13-railroads should not defy the laws of physics....enough said....
14-im thinking that nukes need to be beefed up sum.... i just dont think thier power is shown to its full extent..furthermore i think the pc needs to be more sparing when using them....when a war gets bad it shouldnt immediately resort to them...i mean it just doesnt work that way....
15-nukes need to find a way into spy and terroism missions....think how easy it would actually be to sneak a nuke into a city and then detonate it....its a scary thought but thats my real fear these days....
16-culture specific unit lines if not civ specific....
17-the way certain units work should be rethought...the basic attacker, defender, bombarder process is not a good one... combined arms must be taken into consideration...when you assault that one hex you're not just assaulting that musketman but also that cav and the artillery and the other 2 musket units along with the 2 pikes there....also unit strengths should be used but units should get flagged as certain types....for example...in the medieval ages....you would have a hvy cav, lt cav, hvy inf, lt inf, militia, each with its own advantages and capabilities against certain things...actually napoleonic europe is the best example...
18-diplomatic annexation.....again the point is made...
19-economics needs to take a much greater role in this....its not an all up thing...nations rise and fall on thier economies....revolts are triggered on thier downturns...incredible works on thier rises...
20-i also agree that pollution needs to be fixxed sumhow....not sure hows best...
21-i have always thought it wierd that when you conquer a city it is automatically part of your nation then...why cant it be given back at the end of a war unless you demand it in return for peace...essentially automatic annexation doesnt make since to me....annexation was always deliberate.. you could even tie it in with the provinces...annexing whole provinces or districts...
22-should fuedalism not be able to be undermined through dealing with the individual lords? it was a trademark of the medieval ages that nobles could change sides whenever they wanted because they had thier own armies...
23-i always thought the civ money scale was wierd...this is just sumthing that is me...but i have always wanted real dollar amounts...that are realistic according the economics of your country....
24-should international issues not be a subject of your citizens contentedness...or even national issues...do you allow abortion?...what are your environmental rules?...do you allow slavery? (if so which race and this should also be a larger issue as well through some method or another)... should your nation interfere in the so and so's and john doe's war? and so forth
25-the UN has to be fixxed into a realistic entity not just sum stupid wonder that means nothing except a diplo victory with like the top 3 nations and progressively a civ can demand a veto right with the rest just having votes on various issues....like to send UN troops...and if you want to send UN troops and its approved then you can temporarily make some of your troops UN and use them in a police action however that may be....
26-international media....ever since the moveable type printing press the media has a had a huge role in the politics and feelings of peoples...this needs to be implemented sumhow in such a way you can interact with it...like in particularly bad situations you can keep the press out of things by blocking them out or only allowing them to see good things....all the way to bribing them or controlling them totally in an autocracy....
27-is it not true you can have irrigation and a mine in the same area?....'nough said
thats all i can think of for now but im sure more will come to me later....lol
1- The military system needs to be fixxed, the whole idea that everytime you fight one unit or the other is completely wiped out is absurd...i dont think its wrong that it happens upon occassion but in reality most of the time there is a winner and a loser with the loser retreating and both sides hurt...
2- the province idea was amazing...i dont think ive heard a better idea of how to organize things than that thus far...it would add so many dynamics to the game and the same time make many of the current ones make more since if it was properly incorporated
3- diplomacy wise...I really must have multilateral negotiations...if there is one thing i hate its when i make a mpp with two nations and they go to war the next turn....its so stupid....i think you should be able to negotiate with as many nations as you like at once... this would add a dimension to the game that is sorely needed....for example how much easier would it not be to have a real world war with 2 or 3 *distinct* sides going at it in a normal game? and trade embargoes would make more sense
4- the trade system has got to be changed....there must be defined trade routes and such which can then be privateered, cut off, or undermined....history is littered with wars that were over trade routes....and changes in the course of the world that resulted from blocked ones (for example the discovery of America)
5-rebellions and civil wars must be put back in...there must be a separation of the two though....rebellions are for provinces or cities who want to break away and form their own nation or join another....civil wars are for changes in gov or reforms in society (i.e.- you didnt spend enough on luxuries so your citizens revolted because of thier low standard of living)
6-i was never around for civ 1...too young at the time to play....but the idea of interesting little tidbits and popups like sewspaper clippings sounds good...i already derive great joy from having my cities celebrate we love the king day and such ...so that would be even more interesting and fun
7-the naval game must be revamped...it just stinks...dont ask me how to do it...just needs to be done
8-the whole air system at the moment must be reworked...who ever heard of a lone bomber bombing a city....its a stupid thought...its not how they're used...actually all military units are used in tandem with eachother....so i suppose you should be able to time units to attack into different areas at the same time and the same hex at the same time...i guess land wise that would mean putting unit directions...so you could flank, attack the rear...and so on
8-production scales...in general most things do not take years to build when being built by the state and such...they take less time like training a civil war era infantry unit would have taken a minimum of a month and max of 6 (prolly not the exact numbers but you get the point)
9-is it not true that a city can build multiple things at once...YES IT IS! that also annoys me about the game...why cant you use your shields in a split up fashion at least (actually i dont like shields i think it should just be a number which can be done in decimals) to produce multiple things? like it makes no sense at all to not be able to produce a rifleman and a temple all at the same time...
10-im in awe that atari has the guts to bring in religion...i honestly didnt think the company had it in em (to be fair i didnt think any company did) but now that they have they need to do a good job with it....it influenced and still influences the world in alot of ways....a good example of modern times is the iraq situation....the sunni's dont like the shiites and the americans are infidels and so on and so forth....
11-military units should be given automatic names according to their city of creation (ie-the 1st and 2nd New Orleans Regiments) and then upon making a veteran type status the user should be given the oppertunity to give them a nickname (ie-our 1st New Orleans Regiment now becomes the New Orleans Tigers)
12-governments must be reworked...the bottom line is that with the current system one gov will always be better than the others and therefor the comp will gravitate to it automatically...there needs to be that check and balance type thing...communism is absolute but your people tend to be unhappy so you better be able to back up your harsh rule with an iron fist or they may revolt and break away (real world example-USSR)...democracy is good until your people realize they can vote thier way into the treasuryand pay themselves....republics are good..as long as the other provincial reps are on your side and wut you want is in thier best interest....the original american model is awsome except that pesky congress keeps getting in your way or helps you if more provinces would like the idea....fuedalism is great..till you wanna pass a reform or tax sumbody...theocracies are great until your people change religions or get annoyed by having to go to the temples everyday
13-railroads should not defy the laws of physics....enough said....
14-im thinking that nukes need to be beefed up sum.... i just dont think thier power is shown to its full extent..furthermore i think the pc needs to be more sparing when using them....when a war gets bad it shouldnt immediately resort to them...i mean it just doesnt work that way....
15-nukes need to find a way into spy and terroism missions....think how easy it would actually be to sneak a nuke into a city and then detonate it....its a scary thought but thats my real fear these days....
16-culture specific unit lines if not civ specific....
17-the way certain units work should be rethought...the basic attacker, defender, bombarder process is not a good one... combined arms must be taken into consideration...when you assault that one hex you're not just assaulting that musketman but also that cav and the artillery and the other 2 musket units along with the 2 pikes there....also unit strengths should be used but units should get flagged as certain types....for example...in the medieval ages....you would have a hvy cav, lt cav, hvy inf, lt inf, militia, each with its own advantages and capabilities against certain things...actually napoleonic europe is the best example...
18-diplomatic annexation.....again the point is made...
19-economics needs to take a much greater role in this....its not an all up thing...nations rise and fall on thier economies....revolts are triggered on thier downturns...incredible works on thier rises...
20-i also agree that pollution needs to be fixxed sumhow....not sure hows best...
21-i have always thought it wierd that when you conquer a city it is automatically part of your nation then...why cant it be given back at the end of a war unless you demand it in return for peace...essentially automatic annexation doesnt make since to me....annexation was always deliberate.. you could even tie it in with the provinces...annexing whole provinces or districts...
22-should fuedalism not be able to be undermined through dealing with the individual lords? it was a trademark of the medieval ages that nobles could change sides whenever they wanted because they had thier own armies...
23-i always thought the civ money scale was wierd...this is just sumthing that is me...but i have always wanted real dollar amounts...that are realistic according the economics of your country....
24-should international issues not be a subject of your citizens contentedness...or even national issues...do you allow abortion?...what are your environmental rules?...do you allow slavery? (if so which race and this should also be a larger issue as well through some method or another)... should your nation interfere in the so and so's and john doe's war? and so forth
25-the UN has to be fixxed into a realistic entity not just sum stupid wonder that means nothing except a diplo victory with like the top 3 nations and progressively a civ can demand a veto right with the rest just having votes on various issues....like to send UN troops...and if you want to send UN troops and its approved then you can temporarily make some of your troops UN and use them in a police action however that may be....
26-international media....ever since the moveable type printing press the media has a had a huge role in the politics and feelings of peoples...this needs to be implemented sumhow in such a way you can interact with it...like in particularly bad situations you can keep the press out of things by blocking them out or only allowing them to see good things....all the way to bribing them or controlling them totally in an autocracy....
27-is it not true you can have irrigation and a mine in the same area?....'nough said
thats all i can think of for now but im sure more will come to me later....lol
Do_Sa_Nim
Chieftain
I like your ideas Bobby Lee. Its just I think that the air force system is just fine. I do believe that there should be combined forces in attacks. Also, I think that somehow morale and training should affect units. Its covered a little with the hitpoints, but some tiny armies have completely wiped the floor of larger less trained armies in history. I think that you should be able to drill units to increase their stats. (Not so much as to have a warrior able to take out a rifleman). Also morale affects how people fight. If the war has been going bad for you I think that units should then have less fight in them. If anyone thinks my ideas are stupid thats ok.
Aussie_Lurker
Deity
OK, I tried to post this yesterday-and it TOLD me it was posted successfully 
!
Anyway, what I tried to say yesterday was that I hold out TWO hopes for what civics might be:
First, I hope it is the power to enact laws and legislation-such as emancipation declarations, martial law, secularist (religious tolerance) and the like. These laws would have numerous 'in-game' effects: such as increasing/decreasing happiness, increasing/decreasing corruption, increasing/decreasing cultural/religious conversion rates.
The second aspect of civics I'd like to see are concepts like 'Factions', 'Factional Influence' and 'Absolutity'.
These concepts are as follows:
Factions: basically breaking your civ down into the sectors which comprise it-such as workers, the military, religious groups and the administrati. Each faction will have its own agenda, its own happiness, and its own degree of 'influence' over your decision making. Also, each faction is capable of contributing a varying amount of revenue-per head of population-to your coffers.
Influence: represents the % chance that a given faction may try to thwart your goals, or try to force theirs upon you! These goals can range from your choice of government and religion, to the types of improvements you construct.
Factional influence is determined by several factors:
1) Your Civ Characteristics (commercial, industrious etc).
2) The number and type of city and tile improvements you build.
3) Your Government/Religion Type.
4) Laws, Edicts and Small/Great Wonders.
5) Self-adjustment by use of a slide bar (up to the min./max. allowed by your government type.)
6) The number and type of resources you possess.
Basically, whenever you try and change your research path, sign a diplomatic agreement or build a great/Small Wonder-there is a chance that one of the factions will try to oppose you. This will almost ALWAYS be the most powerful faction at any given time.
In addition, each city's level of factional influence will both effect the build decisions of the Governer of that city and the chance of your build queue being opposed. Lastly, every turn, there is a % chance that the most powerful faction might approach you to DEMAND that you do something for them (like go to war, change government, increase luxuries, changing building priorities or research a given tech). You can ignore their demands/opposition, but it will impact on their happiness-in which case you could end up with a revolt by that faction. Each type of factional revolt would have a different effect on your civ (for instance, a military result might cause you to lose control of your units for x-turns, or new units might not get built for x turns!
As mentioned above, each city will also have varying amounts of factional influence-so building an improvement in one city might be supported, but building the same improvement in another city might be opposed-because a different faction is in control there!
'Absolutity': Each government type will have an Absolutity Index, or AI, which modifies the influence of your factions-up or down-and thus altering the amount of 'absolute' power you wield. Governments with a positive AI are more democratic than those with negative AI's. Also, though, the AI alters the happiness of the factions in a similar direction. i.e. more democracy grants greater happiness, and vice versa. To make things more complicated, though, some government types might increase, or decrease, the influence of ONE faction, whilst leaving the rest untouched (or even moving them in the OPPOSITE direction!) For example, a fuedal government might increase the influence of the religious, military and wealthy factions, whilst decreasing the influence of the workers.
Lastly, a governments AI can also be altered, up or down, by different small/great wonders, different religions, and the enacting of laws and edicts-again, just to name a few!
Anyway, those are just a few of my thoughts! The main benefit of my ideas, IMHO, is that, in combination with Civil Wars and War Weariness, it might give the player the feeling that his civ contains REAL people-with their own dreams, demands and agendas! For instance, just because YOU might want to go to war with your neighbour, doesn't mean that the Workers and Merchants of you civ will want you to and-if they happen to be in ascendancy-then they might just try to thwart such plans! It certainly would be a welcome change from the current situation where you feel like your people are merely passive observers of your civs progress-only kicking up a stink every so often!
Anyway, I'd like to know what people think of this idea and, if you would care for any clarifications, I'd be more than happy to give them.
Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.
!Anyway, what I tried to say yesterday was that I hold out TWO hopes for what civics might be:
First, I hope it is the power to enact laws and legislation-such as emancipation declarations, martial law, secularist (religious tolerance) and the like. These laws would have numerous 'in-game' effects: such as increasing/decreasing happiness, increasing/decreasing corruption, increasing/decreasing cultural/religious conversion rates.
The second aspect of civics I'd like to see are concepts like 'Factions', 'Factional Influence' and 'Absolutity'.
These concepts are as follows:
Factions: basically breaking your civ down into the sectors which comprise it-such as workers, the military, religious groups and the administrati. Each faction will have its own agenda, its own happiness, and its own degree of 'influence' over your decision making. Also, each faction is capable of contributing a varying amount of revenue-per head of population-to your coffers.
Influence: represents the % chance that a given faction may try to thwart your goals, or try to force theirs upon you! These goals can range from your choice of government and religion, to the types of improvements you construct.
Factional influence is determined by several factors:
1) Your Civ Characteristics (commercial, industrious etc).
2) The number and type of city and tile improvements you build.
3) Your Government/Religion Type.
4) Laws, Edicts and Small/Great Wonders.
5) Self-adjustment by use of a slide bar (up to the min./max. allowed by your government type.)
6) The number and type of resources you possess.
Basically, whenever you try and change your research path, sign a diplomatic agreement or build a great/Small Wonder-there is a chance that one of the factions will try to oppose you. This will almost ALWAYS be the most powerful faction at any given time.
In addition, each city's level of factional influence will both effect the build decisions of the Governer of that city and the chance of your build queue being opposed. Lastly, every turn, there is a % chance that the most powerful faction might approach you to DEMAND that you do something for them (like go to war, change government, increase luxuries, changing building priorities or research a given tech). You can ignore their demands/opposition, but it will impact on their happiness-in which case you could end up with a revolt by that faction. Each type of factional revolt would have a different effect on your civ (for instance, a military result might cause you to lose control of your units for x-turns, or new units might not get built for x turns!
As mentioned above, each city will also have varying amounts of factional influence-so building an improvement in one city might be supported, but building the same improvement in another city might be opposed-because a different faction is in control there!
'Absolutity': Each government type will have an Absolutity Index, or AI, which modifies the influence of your factions-up or down-and thus altering the amount of 'absolute' power you wield. Governments with a positive AI are more democratic than those with negative AI's. Also, though, the AI alters the happiness of the factions in a similar direction. i.e. more democracy grants greater happiness, and vice versa. To make things more complicated, though, some government types might increase, or decrease, the influence of ONE faction, whilst leaving the rest untouched (or even moving them in the OPPOSITE direction!) For example, a fuedal government might increase the influence of the religious, military and wealthy factions, whilst decreasing the influence of the workers.
Lastly, a governments AI can also be altered, up or down, by different small/great wonders, different religions, and the enacting of laws and edicts-again, just to name a few!
Anyway, those are just a few of my thoughts! The main benefit of my ideas, IMHO, is that, in combination with Civil Wars and War Weariness, it might give the player the feeling that his civ contains REAL people-with their own dreams, demands and agendas! For instance, just because YOU might want to go to war with your neighbour, doesn't mean that the Workers and Merchants of you civ will want you to and-if they happen to be in ascendancy-then they might just try to thwart such plans! It certainly would be a welcome change from the current situation where you feel like your people are merely passive observers of your civs progress-only kicking up a stink every so often
!Anyway, I'd like to know what people think of this idea and, if you would care for any clarifications, I'd be more than happy to give them.
Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.
warpstorm
Yumbo? Yumbo!
I think Firaxis should not listen to ideas from hard-core players for Civ4.
These ideas will in general make for a game that only the hard-core elite will like. This is a death knell for a franchise. Hard core ideas should go into an expansion (since the casual players who buy the most copies of a game aren't likely to buy an expansion unless they become part of the hard core elite).
These ideas will in general make for a game that only the hard-core elite will like. This is a death knell for a franchise. Hard core ideas should go into an expansion (since the casual players who buy the most copies of a game aren't likely to buy an expansion unless they become part of the hard core elite).
Beeblbrox
Warlord
I love the way anytime Civ IV is even mentioned, people start posting their Civ IV ideas. Any news from Thunderfall on that Civ IV forum since February yet Chieftess?
Herr_Doktor
Chieftain
- Joined
- Apr 26, 2003
- Messages
- 13
Yes a bit too far!
I don't think that any civ ever decided to worship absolute evil. Even gods such as Baal were "good" once they had their blood baths. Only some sects or early tribes did (Haschaschins or Indian sect whose name can't remember for example.)"Paganism" is not really good, because it designates all the "non-christians" religions, which is A LOT. "Animism" might be better, for it designates spirits and minor deities such as nymphs or nature thingies (the chessnut tree, the spring, etc...).
Also I don't really understand the meaning of "atheism" as a state-religion. Which country did ever claimed that religion was banned? Even the USSR did not!
"Philosophical belief" is good, because it also includes religions such as taoism or confucianism.
To Ant509y:
Whow you DO have a lot of ideas
Now in my opinion, it's maybe too much. Do you honestly think that a newbie could make his way through this system? So it might be better as a game option such as "capture the princess" or so.
Another thing is that it's too difficult to put it as a permanent thing. Many govts do not suit this configuration. Centralized states, dictatorships, etc... did not allow ANY kind of parallel movment. How about a sort of "event" which automatically triggers when, as a republic or a democracy, you reach a level of cities (15-20 cities perhaps). The computer would then designate "interior borders" which definite provincial capitals (you wouldn't choose). These provinces would have various effects, but according to the type of govt: city-state republic would have rebellions, and war thingies you said (like as if u had to have ROP in ur own territory, or incresing war weariness...) and in democracies taxes or so... What do you think?
Storn
Chieftain
- Joined
- Jan 3, 2004
- Messages
- 9
One thing that has always bothered me is this: why do all cities have to produce their own food? I think that civilizations should have something like a 'food bank' in which all surplus food is placed (stored at the capitol, perhaps). If a city is running a deficit of food, AND it is connected to the food bank somehow via road, harbor, airport, etc, then it will draw whatever food it needs from there.
S.
S.
Bottom line: Keep the good, improve the bad, don't fix what ain't broken.
Please don't screw it up by adding some big new not-so-needed change. We don't need another [Warcraft III] or [Master of Orion III] disaster that scars/destroys the series.
Please don't screw it up by adding some big new not-so-needed change. We don't need another [Warcraft III] or [Master of Orion III] disaster that scars/destroys the series.
To Herr-Doktor:
Thank you for responding! I have been developing these ideas for a long time now, you must understand.
Though you may be correct, still, even in ancient despotisms, if it was large enough, you DID need to have governors and seperate smaller domains to remain effective, did you not? Though in things like despotism and other govs in which you have full or near full control, the demands of the provinces would have very little effect, and since you start out in despotism, provinces might help with organization and so forth. Maybe. Though who knows, maybe a comprimise with what you said could be done...
Also, even though it may SOUND complicated, much of it would be done automatically [like the setting up of the provinces, pretty much...] also, though I wouldn't mind my ideas going in full, I don't want it to be too complicated to bog down the game much. And I'm just saying it would be more interesting to have your people do something different than rioting in the streets. Instead, they could be [or, their governers, unless you have troops 'stopping them'] telling you they'll rebel unless you help them! Remember, much of the likes/dislikes will be compliled by factors by the computer, and the player would just have to react to [or, if they get better, anticipate..] their demands. And you could put things like civil wars/rebellions as optional, and if you REALLY wanted, you could put provinces as optional, though that might need a lot of simplicifaction of the idea...
Also, thank you for the words, I hope others give their opinions of it.
Thank you for responding! I have been developing these ideas for a long time now, you must understand.
Though you may be correct, still, even in ancient despotisms, if it was large enough, you DID need to have governors and seperate smaller domains to remain effective, did you not? Though in things like despotism and other govs in which you have full or near full control, the demands of the provinces would have very little effect, and since you start out in despotism, provinces might help with organization and so forth. Maybe. Though who knows, maybe a comprimise with what you said could be done...
Also, even though it may SOUND complicated, much of it would be done automatically [like the setting up of the provinces, pretty much...] also, though I wouldn't mind my ideas going in full, I don't want it to be too complicated to bog down the game much. And I'm just saying it would be more interesting to have your people do something different than rioting in the streets. Instead, they could be [or, their governers, unless you have troops 'stopping them'] telling you they'll rebel unless you help them! Remember, much of the likes/dislikes will be compliled by factors by the computer, and the player would just have to react to [or, if they get better, anticipate..] their demands. And you could put things like civil wars/rebellions as optional, and if you REALLY wanted, you could put provinces as optional, though that might need a lot of simplicifaction of the idea...
Also, thank you for the words, I hope others give their opinions of it.
Originally posted by warpstorm
I think Firaxis should not listen to ideas from hard-core players for Civ4.
These ideas will in general make for a game that only the hard-core elite will like. This is a death knell for a franchise. Hard core ideas should go into an expansion (since the casual players who buy the most copies of a game aren't likely to buy an expansion unless they become part of the hard core elite).
Amen! The best thing about the original game (Civ "1") was that it could hook you even if you weren't really into computers and didn't really like computer games. My wife played tons of Civ, the only other games she ever touched were Minesweeper and Solitaire. Civ 1 was so easy to figure out how to play, so addicitive once you started, but so "deep" that it never got boring (well, it took a really long time, anyway). I worry that the franchise, in an effort to get "deeper" and satisfy the desires of us civ-fanatics, has been losing the broad appeal that made the original game so successful. And what good is a game that we like a lot if it doesn't sell well and so they never make any expansion packs and never contemplate Civ 5
? Seriously, I hope they give thought about how to make the game better for casual gamers as well as people like us, and don't take too seriously all these ideas that we post.I'll quote another post since the sentiment is expressed well and it bears (frequent!) repeating:
das
Regeneration In Process
I think there shall always be things to add as imagination is limitless.
As for the rebel nations, the only problem here is how do we determine how they are called and what are their traits and stuff. It is very easy if it's a nation that already existed. But we can't have five Greeces running around (Greece and Greece signed a military alliance against Greece. Greece declared war on Greece. Greece declared war on Greece, honoring their MPP with Greece.). A solution could be city names. Traits, city names and UU from the dominant nationality, technology from the civ they rebelled from. Government - anarchy, ofcourse! Rulers and great leaders could be the same but with different names or if someone here or in Firaxis wants, with different pics and texts too. But that would be somehow strange.
Another thing about culture flips - I think these should be not only due to culture, if due to it AT ALL. Rather per preffered government (I think citizens should get idealogy and religion stats as well), per nationality and per religion, as well as patriotism. A patriotic Russian city won't rebel and join China just because they built a bunch of wonders and cultural improvements in several cities nearby. They probably won't even know about these. Now, an originally German city occupied by the Ottomans, or at least some of the people in it, won't just surrender because Ottomans built a mosque there. They would resist, well, unless they are discontent with their government. Ofcourse, later generations probably won't care much. Also I think we should have, like in Europa Universalis, rebel units - unaligned partisan-type people who will try to establish their own country.
As for the rebel nations, the only problem here is how do we determine how they are called and what are their traits and stuff. It is very easy if it's a nation that already existed. But we can't have five Greeces running around (Greece and Greece signed a military alliance against Greece. Greece declared war on Greece. Greece declared war on Greece, honoring their MPP with Greece.). A solution could be city names. Traits, city names and UU from the dominant nationality, technology from the civ they rebelled from. Government - anarchy, ofcourse! Rulers and great leaders could be the same but with different names or if someone here or in Firaxis wants, with different pics and texts too. But that would be somehow strange.
Another thing about culture flips - I think these should be not only due to culture, if due to it AT ALL. Rather per preffered government (I think citizens should get idealogy and religion stats as well), per nationality and per religion, as well as patriotism. A patriotic Russian city won't rebel and join China just because they built a bunch of wonders and cultural improvements in several cities nearby. They probably won't even know about these. Now, an originally German city occupied by the Ottomans, or at least some of the people in it, won't just surrender because Ottomans built a mosque there. They would resist, well, unless they are discontent with their government. Ofcourse, later generations probably won't care much. Also I think we should have, like in Europa Universalis, rebel units - unaligned partisan-type people who will try to establish their own country.
Bobby Lee
Confederate General
after all of what has been said since when i last responded i would say that politics inside your country are a must both with regions and at time with specific types of organizations (though i think we're better off if we make those like the medical type pplz demand more funding and refuse to heal any government units until they do or the Priests are protesting your recent laws and are making your people discontent and such)....but they should be able to be turned off for newbs....
as for the rebel factions...normally all civs could have a list...sumthing like the leaders list which have a list of possible names for rebelling nations...even the US has a long enough list to support the few times it should happen in game...then those names could refer to a sort of secondary civ list which would specify if there are different traits, UU's, who the leader should be, etc.....plus i think it also important that there is a non alighned rebel type faction (thanks Das, twas a a very good thought) these would be for minor rebellions or revolts that do not intend to establish a different nation or are only temporarily revolting (like the peasants have all revolted and have decided to cut off all trade to the capital for the next 5 turns...they have established a military style group to enforce this or they want to destroy a particular improvement or sumthing...)
I had a thought as well...what if you could put your military units under an AI general and give him instructions on what to take...saving your efforts for the more important areas....you could use this for like taking that minor city to the east that you dont want to bother with and is relatively unguarded but it has to go down cause its in your flank....maybe this is a bad idea leaving anything of this nature to an AI but i think it has potential
I also think it is important that we remember that morale and training have affected the outcome of battles and wars on numberous occassions and smaller armies have cleaned the floor with much larger ones....in some cases it wasnt even just the training or morale sumtimes that infantry was just plain better for sum reason....but it wasnt anything different in its makeup or size or armament....the Southern Units in the US civil war are an excellent example
i think all civs should get multiple UU's if that is possible....for civs like the Romans it could be difficult
that is all for now
as for the rebel factions...normally all civs could have a list...sumthing like the leaders list which have a list of possible names for rebelling nations...even the US has a long enough list to support the few times it should happen in game...then those names could refer to a sort of secondary civ list which would specify if there are different traits, UU's, who the leader should be, etc.....plus i think it also important that there is a non alighned rebel type faction (thanks Das, twas a a very good thought) these would be for minor rebellions or revolts that do not intend to establish a different nation or are only temporarily revolting (like the peasants have all revolted and have decided to cut off all trade to the capital for the next 5 turns...they have established a military style group to enforce this or they want to destroy a particular improvement or sumthing...)
I had a thought as well...what if you could put your military units under an AI general and give him instructions on what to take...saving your efforts for the more important areas....you could use this for like taking that minor city to the east that you dont want to bother with and is relatively unguarded but it has to go down cause its in your flank....maybe this is a bad idea leaving anything of this nature to an AI but i think it has potential
I also think it is important that we remember that morale and training have affected the outcome of battles and wars on numberous occassions and smaller armies have cleaned the floor with much larger ones....in some cases it wasnt even just the training or morale sumtimes that infantry was just plain better for sum reason....but it wasnt anything different in its makeup or size or armament....the Southern Units in the US civil war are an excellent example
i think all civs should get multiple UU's if that is possible....for civs like the Romans it could be difficult
that is all for now
Similar threads
- Sticky
