Next Expansion

[ratrangerm]

I'd certainly like to see new scenarios included in the expansion pack, but there needs to be ones in which you can have a peaceful goal in mind as much as warmongering goals. That's what I liked about C3C... you had some goals which required peaceful strategies and some that required warmongering, while others could be one, the other or a combination of both.

The Statue of Zeus would be nice to have again, although I don't know if they'd make it where it would produce free units for you. Leonardo's Workshop to halve upgrade costs would be great. Maybe Theory of Evolution can make a comeback.

I don't know if we need too many move new Civs... the Dutch would be good to have, ditto the Portugeuse. New leaders for the various Civs would be a nice idea, however.

I'd like to see diplomats make a return, with the option to establish embassies that can have the effect of improving relations with other Civs in some form.

Civil wars would be an interesting concept... might add a little more challenge to domination strategies, if you were to be conquering cities and they end up revolting and forming their own faction. Only question is if they would just become barbarian cities or a new civ could rise.

Speaking of which, if civil wars came into play, could that original Civ concept of "the empire splits when the capital falls" come back as well? Might make sense if civil wars are introduced.

 

[drkodos]

Somebody has some opinions about FDR. I still rate him highly, given the situation he was in. But Polk? You must be a conservative, in favor of arbitrarily invading neighboring countries and annexing vast amounts of their territory...that typically doesn't fit in with the "modern" American self-image (I can't seem to picture any conservative saying we should make Mexico part of the United States). I'm not going to argue with the results, though--California has the highest GDP of any American state and a greater GDP than most foreign nation--it's a good thing that's in American hands and not Mexican hands. For Americans.

Teddy not a blusterer? Big stick diplomacy, right? The guy who went blind in one eye because he was boxing in the White House? The man who decided it would be a great idea to cut off South America from the North by cutting a canal through it? The man who decided to show off the rather large and intimidating American fleet by floating it around the world? Okay...whatever you say. Sounds a little over the top for me.

I am not a conservative, and I do not take offense that you think so.

Ever hear of Manifest Destiny? USA would not stretch from sea to shining sea were it not for Polk.



Regarding Teddy Roosevelt:

Your take on events such as the Panama Canal are interesting, albeit a bit skewed, but hardly unique. Ever been to Panama? There was hardly a connection that was severed. It is quite mountainous and was made much more passable by the big ditch.



How about National Parks? Fighting for Modern Medicine & Health care, progressive reforms, and he was the first president to look upon the position as being the "Steward of the People."

He was one of the first Presidents to rip apart large trusts and monopolies (Sherman Anti-trust Acts), and was definitlely the first President to put USA solidly into the arena of International Politics.


No, I am not a Conservative, but you clearly have been drinking some mighty leftist Kool-aid if you truly believe the skewered version of his presidency that you have outlined.


http://www.whitehouse.gov/history/presidents/tr26.html

So, which socialist are you supporting: Hillary or Obama?

As far as the "modern American image", I have no clue what that is, nor would I be inclined to share a mass hallucination with a bunch of undereducated, self absorbed morons that we have parading around the nation. Remember: the masses are a$$es. These are the same fools that put Brittny Spears and K Fed at the top of the charts and concern themselves with what miscreants like Paris Hilton and Lindsay Lohan are wearing next to their cootie catchers.

Please, you are much, MUCH , smarter than that.

 

[botur2young]

I love how you call democrats socialists.

Who are you supporting?

 

[Talkie_Toaster]

I'm glad diplomacy is being redone =]

 

[rbis4rbb]

I think these are civs I want to see

Portugal
POLAND!!!!
Netherlands
Austria!
Lithuania/Courland

These are top 5 civs I want to see

 

[Gorman Truart]

I'd like to see something to improve naval warfare, such as taking away a portion of trade route revenue when enemy vessels are near a city, privateers, and naval bombardment of units and improvements. New civs I'd like are Thailand, Khmer, Ethiopia, and Maya, in addition to some of the European civs already mentioned.

 

[Talkie_Toaster]

I'd like to be able to implement rationing, maybe each individual needs less food but there's a happiness penalty? That would mean you could focus more on production, of troops =]

 

[cairnsy44]

I'd like to see something to improve naval warfare, such as taking away a portion of trade route revenue when enemy vessels are near a city, privateers, and naval bombardment of units and improvements. New civs I'd like are Thailand, Khmer, Ethiopia, and Maya, in addition to some of the European civs already mentioned.

I really like your seafaring ideas. Those would be a good add. As for new civs, I would like to see 2 of Holland, Portgual and/or Austria; Babylonia should go in there too. I also would like to have Lincoln or Jefferson added to the American empire.

 

[Talkie_Toaster]

Doesn't Babylonia already exist in warlords?

 

[Nikis-Knight]

The man who decided it would be a great idea to cut off South America from the North by cutting a canal through it?

There was a rather useful secondary effect to a canal of cutting thousands of miles off of sea voayages...

edit: On topic, I'd like to see Israel added to the game as a playable civ. Might not have conquered vast areas for an empire, but certainly one of the longest enduring cultures in history.

 

[CivMonger]

we should bring in the Canadians! +2 to any relations with foreign civs. We could have Draft Dodgers for our Unique Units, and our unique building could be Tim Hortons. What it would do I don't know, but we should definately have it.

 

[Dale]

Mmmmm....... Tim Hortons!

I went there every day for the year I was in Canada, eh?

 

[Öjevind Lång]

Minor civs that can't be assimilated! And I would really like to see an end to the silly upgrading of cavalry to gunships. It was only in America that cavalry units were made airborne; in other countries, they were motorized and turned into armoured units. I like that better.

 

[Scaramanga]

I want to see the Dutch and Portugal at least in the next expansion; William I of Orange (Philosophical/Financial - Liz can get Creative/Financial) for Netherlands and Henry the Navigator (Expansive/Financial) for Portugal. Philip of Spain (Spiritual/Imperialistic) would be cool as well.

 

[Antilogic]

I am not a conservative, and I do not take offense that you think so.

Ever hear of Manifest Destiny? USA would not stretch from sea to shining sea were it not for Polk.

Regarding Teddy Roosevelt:

Your take on events such as the Panama Canal are interesting, albeit a bit skewed, but hardly unique. Ever been to Panama? There was hardly a connection that was severed. It is quite mountainous and was made much more passable by the big ditch.



How about National Parks? Fighting for Modern Medicine & Health care, progressive reforms, and he was the first president to look upon the position as being the "Steward of the People."

He was one of the first Presidents to rip apart large trusts and monopolies (Sherman Anti-trust Acts), and was definitlely the first President to put USA solidly into the arena of International Politics.


No, I am not a Conservative, but you clearly have been drinking some mighty leftist Kool-aid if you truly believe the skewered version of his presidency that you have outlined.


http://www.whitehouse.gov/history/presidents/tr26.html

So, which socialist are you supporting: Hillary or Obama?

As far as the "modern American image", I have no clue what that is, nor would I be inclined to share a mass hallucination with a bunch of undereducated, self absorbed morons that we have parading around the nation. Remember: the masses are a$$es. These are the same fools that put Brittny Spears and K Fed at the top of the charts and concern themselves with what miscreants like Paris Hilton and Lindsay Lohan are wearing next to their cootie catchers.

Please, you are much, MUCH , smarter than that.

All right, all right, I was just kidding. You don't have to go and post all this stuff... And I do know what manifest destiny is--and I didn't disagree that acquiring more territory was a bad thing.

I'm a moderate by my standards, if you are interested. However, I'm also sarcastic and play around, which is what you have just seen. Cheers!

By the way, at "leftist Kool-Aid". I'm glad I managed to confuse/bring amusement somebody here...



On the subject here:

Babylonia is not in Warlords, sadly--they must be in the next expansion pack of Civ--I don't think you could call Civ4 complete without either Babylon or Sumeria, and I would prefer the ones who are more well-documented.


I was thinking Financial/Protective for William I of Orange, and changing Wang Kon's traits...
Scaramanga's Portuguese leader is not disagreeable to me, although I originally thought Creative/Expansive when I thought of Henry...

I would like to see Austria added to the game, with two leaders: Charles V and another, probably Maximilian I. Then, you could do something cool: since Charles V was officially the ruler of the Western Habsburgs in Spain (or however you want to spell it) before becoming the ruler of the entire Empire, you could have Charles V be a leader for both Spain and Austria. Then, if both countries are on the same map, Charles V could only rule one of the countries, and the other country would be under either Isabella or Maximilian, depending on which country Charles V was leading. Just an idea...I have Industrious/Philosophical as a placeholder for Charles V, although that probably needs to be changed.

I agree it makes sense to make cavalry upgrade into motorized units...I could probably do that with my modding skills now, though.

@ratrangerm: I disagree with your comment on Civs. I would love to see a dozen civs and twice that number of leaders added to the game--Civs are what makes the game interesting. A few new modern age units and better sea combat, yes, but I'd pick Civs over those (it's a tough choice, granted).

 

[deadperson21]

As for new Wonders:
Empire State Building is definitely needed.
Flavian Amphitheater and Pantheon
Panama Canal (canal built 1 - 3 squares between oceans, ships can pass)
Tower of Babel?

Civs
Babylon
Israel
Maya
Poland

Scenarios
WWII - They added Churchill and Stalin; full WWII scenario is needed. Hitler and Hirohito or Tojo would likely have to be added. Also Charles de Gaulle, Franco, Mussolini, Papagos, and Kai-Shek.

 

[wotan321]

Any ideas on when this expansion pack will be completed? Has Firaxis hinted at that?

 

[Dale]

Hitler and Hirohito or Tojo would likely have to be added.

This ain't gunna happen. There are some funny laws in some funny countries regarding these three due to the war (and atrocities).

Firaxis/T2 legal isn't going to risk a battle in the courts over something like this.

 

[mynystry]

Well, I haven't play still for very long Civ4, it was difficult to change from C3C to Civ4 for different reasons, specially because the new graphics discouraged me a little, and also because my computer is kinda old... but finally i did and I am enjoying it. I started playing Civ4 Warlords instead of the vanilla version.

I like it this far, I like somethings they changed from C3C; like the combat system and I like the add of religion, very cool.

Now... what would I like for the next expansion? Hmmm... I would really appreciate if they put more Civs in, it is just not possible that the Mayans or the Babylonians are missing. It would be great also to have more leaders, even those that are polemical like Hitler or Caligula for example.

I also would also like some changes about how the gaining of experience work for the units... I think it makes no sense that if a unit defeats another defending in a jungle it can get experience fighting in hills... the experience points should be related to the kind of victory they have, this way only units that have won attacking a city should be able to get the city attack promotion... that would be challenging

One thing I liked about Civ3 was how the siege weapons worked, they couldn't defend without a escort, and they could be captured by the enemy. Also they could bombard every tile, doesn't matter that there was no city there. so you could use them to bombard land improvements also and troops outside the city as well. Actually it make sense that archery units also had the ability of bombarding adjacent tiles.

Well, by now this is what comes to my head, if I think on something else I will post it

Please don't let the Mayans out, and for the Aztec new leaders think about Axayacatl and Itzcoatl! damn... why today mexican politicians are a bunch of thieves when in the past there were such kings!? modern times suck!

 

[mynystry]

One thing that needs urgent work on I think is the diplomacy section... god there are so few options... it would be nice if trading could be more flexible, like exchanging goods for knowledge or even units, and more alliances and protection pacts, etc.

I also noticed the problem with the modern ages walfare... yeah, it kinda sucks, there are many units missing i think:

guerrilla units
paratroopers
aereal transport
the AEGIS cruise (carry missiles as well as submarines)
cruise missiles and tactical nukes
nuclear subs
modern artillery (you have to fight with WWI artillery the rest of your days )
supercarriers (just three planes is not enough!)

I also would like that fortifications and barricades could play a more important role, as well as outposts and colonies from earlier Civ games. And what happened to the coastal fortress city improvement??


About the terrain types I would also enjoy if they show some more variety, like marshes and swamp. I like the idea that there are peaks that are impassable, but there should be also mountains beside hills, and it would make sense that when units try to cross mountains (as deserts and jungles) besides being a slow procedure, it could cost some of the health of the units...

...just came to my mind a "strategy" that used Antonio Lopez de Santa Anna when he went to attack the separatists in Texas; he decided (against the advice of his generals) to take the army across north Mexico's desert... the result: half of his army was exhausted after such trip... the other half was dead...