Next Expansion

[mynystry]

ah! almost forgot: some natural catastrophes are missing... vulcanos, earthquakes, disease, hurricanes, floods, drought, tornados, tsunamis, godzilla... well, maybe godzilla don't

also i don't see what's the problem with planting forests, although this should take several turns.

 

[Jevggis]

also i don't see what's the problem with planting forests, although this should take several turns.

Maybe it should take few turns AND take some hammers away from nearest city, so the feature wouldn't be overpowered.

 

[gnome]

I like Talkie_Toaster's idea... it would let you form something like NATO as well.

While we're at it... having the UN is interesting, but I think you should be able to refuse to join it (or refuse to obey its resolutions) at appropriate cost in reputation. In fact, make it more powerful if more countries are in it, and so forth.

 

[Shadowhal]

i agree that naval warfare could need an update, but in effect how can you do it? i mean that trick with land units is that you have so many different types that are each good for some thing or another. on the sea you have effectively just two: warships and transports.

now, one idea is to have ships able to attack coastal tiles ie land units stationed there, which is not really a totally unrealistic idea. or ... you could just go into actual warfare and see what types of ships existed in history and how they were used and see if you can come up with something. honestly, though, i don't really think an awful lot will come from this, so it will - again - end up with "the more technically advanced and / or more upgraded one will win"

for land i think the fortresses could use an update. would be cool if you could fortify your borders, build defensive tile improvements that really are a benefit, maybe zone of control or something will manage it. that might even lead to diplomacy penalty "you have been fortifying your borders with us".

civ wise, we heard a great many propositions, though honestly that's not the most important part for me. would be nice to have my country in, in some ways it would be justified, but still austria is just not quite the same category as france or america. as a leader i would in fact prefer francis josef or maria theresia, but UU would be a tough one, would know anything in particular. maybe a good cannon (the siege weapon one). as a building i would favor coffee house, but then what does it replace?

i think my vague wish is to have improvements to actual gameplay rather that a collection of scenarios. was just not what tempted me a lot.
yeah, maybe a science alliance, that you agree to research the same techs and get a nice bonus to it. or free trade area which gives you some monetary bonus, say, extra trade route for some cities (question is which ones).

the UN might even give the option that a few countries agree to build super wonders or some other thing that would benefit multiple nations. the best thing to give you an idea would be the real world ISS, ie projects that might surpass any single nations capacities but would bring enormous yields (ISS miight confer large a large bonus to science and maybe a bonus on certain spaceship parts.)

ugh, i think i will come up with some more at some later point in time.

 

[El Koeno]

Yeah, I'd like something like NATO as well. It would be cool to have "official" big blocks of great powers.

And some sort of trade agreement too, which could also be between multiple countries (like Europe or NAFTA). Not sure what the free trade agreement would do, but seeing how trade is such an important thing in real-world diplomacy it should be fleshed out a bit more in the game.

 

[Sarek]

i agree that naval warfare could need an update, but in effect how can you do it?

now, one idea is to have ships able to attack coastal tiles ie land units stationed there, which is not really a totally unrealistic idea.

I would like Battleships, for example, to have a similar option to bombers and fighters, where you can pick a button to bring down city defenses OR on to attack units (down to 50% strength) within the coastal cities.

Not so much destroyers, leave them to fight other ships, but more of a reason to build battleships to bombard coastal cities.

 

[snipperrabbit!!]

Yeah, I'd like something like NATO as well. It would be cool to have "official" big blocks of great powers.

And some sort of trade agreement too, which could also be between multiple countries (like Europe or NAFTA). Not sure what the free trade agreement would do, but seeing how trade is such an important thing in real-world diplomacy it should be fleshed out a bit more in the game.

I think permanent alliances actually represents organisations like NATO, so it's in the game already !

Hey, this is my 100th post !

 

[Talkie_Toaster]

Permanent Alliances are only for 2 civs aren't they? And they're a bit more like "merged Civs" than what I'm suggesting.

 

[Shadowhal]

I would like Battleships, for example, to have a similar option to bombers and fighters, where you can pick a button to bring down city defenses OR on to attack units (down to 50% strength) within the coastal cities.

Not so much destroyers, leave them to fight other ships, but more of a reason to build battleships to bombard coastal cities.

I don't quite get the point where this is different from what is in the game. at least my knowledge battleships can reduce city defenses. or do you mean they can, but destroyers should be able to.

in any case, you sparked an interesting thought in me. modern day warfare would be interesting if you have the following combinations

destroyers kill subs
subs kill battleships
battleships kill destroyers and cruisers
cruisers kill planes and bombers
planes in general kill destroyers and battleships

not sure if this is anything like in reality but at least it would give it a lot more complexity. and a bonus for planes attacking ships would in fact make sense considering their role in modern day warfare. i am not sure but i think i copied that balance from empire earth but since it worked nice there for my tastes i don't mind.

+50% income from trade routes, but grants you line of sight to each others cities?

that would be an idea. but maybe only for the trade routes you have with that particular civ(s). it could also result in a decrease of revenues for all other trade routes, which could make it anohter nation block builder.

edit: just something I thought of before and forgot again: some way to improve water tiles. I mean, yeah you have boats for ressources, light tower and great light tower and clossos but those are wonders. but still I feel it would be good to have at least something providing like +1 food or +1 gold.

 

[Sarek]

I don't quite get the point where this is different from what is in the game. at least my knowledge battleships can reduce city defenses. or do you mean they can, but destroyers should be able to.

Currently Battleships can bring down city defenses. I would also like to (like Bombers/Fighters) see Battleships be able to "injure" units within the city. The planes have both options.

Leave Destroyers as is.

 

[Shadowhal]

Currently Battleships can bring down city defenses. I would also like to (like Bombers/Fighters) see Battleships be able to "injure" units within the city. The planes have both options.

Leave Destroyers as is.

well, then this is really what I would appreciate as well. good point.

 

[gnome]

I would like to see cruisers implemented as well... standard and AEGIS later on. It fills out the list of sea units nicely... fast enough to make good transport escorts... perhaps the "poor man's" battleship...

 

[Holycannoli]

in any case, you sparked an interesting thought in me. modern day warfare would be interesting if you have the following combinations

destroyers kill subs
subs kill battleships
battleships kill destroyers and cruisers
cruisers kill planes and bombers
planes in general kill destroyers and battleships

not sure if this is anything like in reality but at least it would give it a lot more complexity.

It really doesn't work like that. From my understanding from a book about the modern US navy, destroyers are anti-missile ships, cruisers are anti-ship ships, subs are anti-ship and anti-sub boats, and battleships aren't even used anymore.

In reality, most modern ships are multi-role ships. I've compared the armament of destroyers to cruisers and they're nearly identical; the only difference is that destroyers are a bit smaller and have more anti-missile/anti-air capability and cruisers have more anti-ship capability. But not by much for each.

Battleships are totally outclassed in every way today. Battleships may be the biggest of the ships (besides modern carriers), but they rely on cannons. Cannons these days are not used as a primary weapon. Today is all about the missiles. There's no way a battleship could ever defeat a modern cruiser or destroyer; there's no way it would even get into firing range. That's why they aren't used anymore. And the fact that they aren't used anymore is why it really bugs me that they're still the most powerful naval unit in Civ.

 

[ViterboKnight]

It really doesn't work like that. From my understanding from a book about the modern US navy, destroyers are anti-missile ships, cruisers are anti-ship ships, subs are anti-ship and anti-sub boats, and battleships aren't even used anymore.

In reality, most modern ships are multi-role ships. I've compared the armament of destroyers to cruisers and they're nearly identical; the only difference is that destroyers are a bit smaller and have more anti-missile/anti-air capability and cruisers have more anti-ship capability. But not by much for each.

Battleships are totally outclassed in every way today. Battleships may be the biggest of the ships (besides modern carriers), but they rely on cannons. Cannons these days are not used as a primary weapon. Today is all about the missiles. There's no way a battleship could ever defeat a modern cruiser or destroyer; there's no way it would even get into firing range. That's why they aren't used anymore. And the fact that they aren't used anymore is why it really bugs me that they're still the most powerful naval unit in Civ.

Ok, you are talking about the most recent ships, like something more powerful which becomes available with the latest techs (an AEGIS cruiser, or something like this).
However, if you think at how things worked a half century later, Shadowhal's combinations are not so incorrect: battleships still ruled.
Both in the game and in the real life, each unit must have a strong point, a usefulness (as soon as it's not obsolete), and it must be worth it to build it.
If a battleship is identical to a destroyer, just stronger, then the destroyer is an obsolete unit. No good!!! Why did they produce both battleships and destroyers in World War 2? Why did destroyers stay useful, and stand the battle against battleships? Give historymen the answer!

 

[wilboman]

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.

You know, it's people like them that put us future lawyers out of future jobs

 

[Harald500]

Maybe others have pointed this out, but I feel the Carrier is underpowered in the game.
If you look at the biggest US carriers today, they have more firepower than most european countries.
It should be able to have 4 or 5 fighters.
In addition I would like the battleships beeing able to take out wonders or special buildings in the city, with the right tech. As the tomahawk did in the gulf war.
This abillity would have to be balanced in some way (only every fifth turn or something.)
You would see players look at the naval warfare a little different with that threath.

 

[mynystry]

Battleships are totally outclassed in every way today. Battleships may be the biggest of the ships (besides modern carriers), but they rely on cannons. Cannons these days are not used as a primary weapon. Today is all about the missiles. There's no way a battleship could ever defeat a modern cruiser or destroyer; there's no way it would even get into firing range. That's why they aren't used anymore. And the fact that they aren't used anymore is why it really bugs me that they're still the most powerful naval unit in Civ.

I think the problem is that most modern units are not so modern, except for stealth planes and modern armor... but all the rest are old things, this is terrible for naval units as well as artillery units. They should include some supercarriers, nuclear subs, AEGIS cruises, etc. and modern missile artillery.

Another thing that bugs me a little bit of the game is how the "upgrading" of units work out. I think it is very illogical that you cannot use money to hurry up productions most of the game, but you have to pay so much gold to upgrade a simple archer ot longbowman... this sucks!!! I think a better option would be if only cities with barracks and drydocks could upgrade units, and this should take shields and not gold. Besides, it makes no sense that calvalry upgrades to hellicoptes. Can someone explains me how that works???? It made more sense in Civ3

 

[Ishon]

Civs I'd vote for: Poland, the Netherlands, Portugal, Israel.

Other innovations: Mod developers here have produced things that Firaxis should simply copy the best solutions and implement with their approval. I am against focusing on minor issues such as new civs, wonders, intro movies and other crap of this sort. Most important are changes in the gameplay, such as the introduction of vassalization or boosting forts in Warlords.

 

[Elandal]

The modern tech tree is too short for more modern units - unless you cram them all to composites + computers/robotics categories (which is probably the best choice for most modern units).
Oh yes - Mech Inf is real-world modern unit as well. As is Gunship. And SAM Inf. All are post-WWII unit types, and for most parts in action around the world in these days still.

 

[Talkie_Toaster]

So expand the tech tree =]