Poll on Firaxis.com

[Thedrin]

My one suggestion (give or take a few words):

"Optional economic civil wars. If a cluster of cities have a larger maintenance than income for a significant period of time a new nation is formed. Offset by either a) Austro-Hungary type government (building the Forbidden Palace) or creation of a common wealth (non permanent alliance with bonus trade routes)."

Optional - the warmongers would have a fit if this was forced upon them.

Economic - I don't think other ways of starting a civil war can be realistically considered unless there is a massive overhaul of the culture system. Currently cities only produce culture of their own nation. Civil wars based on cultural issues would need a city to generate an alternate culture.

I love the idea of empires merging and seceding from each other throughout the game but realistically this will need a massive overhaul of culture or the introduction of a new, less obvious, parameter to make it work. I don't expect it to happen in CivIV.



A couple of ideas I wanted to add but couldn't (due to the fact that they ask for 1 suggestion in 250 words - if I'm tallying an informal poll quite often I don't bother with the entries that break the rules of the questions):

1) When a technology is discovered it is discovered in the city which added the last beakers. This way if a less advanced empire takes control of that city they get a possibility of a beaker boost towards that technology. Example: The US reached the German center for rocket research first and subsequently a lot of German scientists were involved in the Us rocket programs.

2) Technology leakage. I'm surprised no one has suggested this yet. I chose not to because I thought loads would. Possibility of leakage is proportional to trade between empires. Therefore the empire with the most foreign trade will probably generate more income than other empires and so have a technology lead but because they are doing the most trading they have an increased chance of their trade partners learning their secrets (or at least getting beakers).

 

[SPQR300]

Hehe.. I asked if they would add Stalin and Hitler.. Wonder if they'll do it

I did the same.

 

[krantzbucks]

I have firefox and I changed my e-mail address to all lower case letters then it worked.

I asked for the usual stuff. But for my write in I asked for Name your Wars/Battles. I still think it would be awesome to look back and see the wars you started, the dates, and a name you gave it. Plus they could implement some type of casuality data also. Wouldn't it be great to go back and see all your wars?

I thought this would be great too. I called it a "history book" so that it might include other accomplishments such as when the golden age was, wonders that were constructed, or any significant events in your civs glorious reign.

 

[Reignking]

I can't see the poll (I'm at work)...

Can I vote for "Leave the game alone"? I really get annoyed that I learn how to play the game one way, then I have change everything around because something got nerfed.

 

[The Beastmaster]

I would have to vote for a game that isn't a mid beta release.. which sadly, Civ 4 is.

 

[NikNak]

Right now, my only must-have feature is for the names and labels I place in the globeview to stay when I save and re-open a game. It would also be nice if the game remembered that I like the gridlines on...

 

[BCLG100]

just pretty much clicked more everything.

 

[lord_graywolfe]

i asked them to add steam powered navies to fill the gap between the ironclads and the more modern ships. i also asked them to put in a terraforming tech or somthing similar in the industrial age to allow you to build or settle on mountains and improve ice and desserts with your workers.


other ideas i would have like to give them would be stuff like if you take a city and that civ has tech you dont there is a chance for you to learn it, like in CTP. id also love to see custom leaders/leaderheads, let them create a leader by choosing the 2 traits you want and a few premade leaderheads to choose from for it.

 

[ljofa]

Now I think about it, I'd also like to see more options for the UN. Granted, it's heavily influenced by SMAC and it's only available towards the end of the game but I think the UN could go further and be more versatile.

How about a choice of being able to build the League of Nations as well as the UN. The League has responsibility for military affairs such as being able to force ceasefires in wars if a majority of the membership concurs as well as agreeing to pass censure on nuclear weapons.

I think you should be allowed to canvas/lobby/bribe for UN votes on measures and be able to repeal measures as well as impose them. You should also be allowed to refuse changing of civics but this results in sanctions - all external trade ceases until you comply.

Thinking about environmentalism, the UN should be able to offer the banning of coal powered plants or nuclear plants owing to environmental concerns - but solar plants, tidal farms or wind farms should be available with ECOLOGY. Once you have discovered FUSION then ALL powerplants should become obsolete unless the designers want to put a small wonder for fusion power.

Artillery should have the chemical attack promotion reflecting WW1 artillery which can be subsequently outlawed by the UN. Bombers should have a chemical attack promotion also.

 

[Pooh]

This seems like a great post for modders to lurk in...

My suggestion to Firaxis (or any able Modder) was this:

I would like to redefine how a civilization's borders are determined. Rather than an expanding cultural ring around a city, that eventually "pushes" against another civilization's cultural ring, I think it would be more appropriate for certain types of military units to be able to claim territory for their civilization.
This would add some interesting nuances to the game, in particular in terms of military relations and combat. Currently, if a rival civ has an iron resource just across the border that you want, you have two choices: (1) March all the way through the civ's territory to take the city nearest the iron, a city you may or may not actually want; (2) Build temples, theatres and museums, since these are the kind of structures that allow you to control more territory (presuming you have more of them than your rival). Trading is also an option, but we're talking about control, not usage of. It seems to me, that a much better option may be to march a couple of soldiers over to the iron and proclaim, "I claim this territory for the greater glory of [insert civ name here]".
Now things are interesting. Gone are the days when the defender can hole up in a city behind walls, with cultural defense bonuses and whatnot. Gone are the days when forts are structures that few, if any, players would bother with. Gone are long undefended borders between civs that are, more likely than not, unfriendly with each other. (Some) battles would take place in the field, over strategic peices of territory. Control over strategic resources would require defending them with units and forts. It will no longer be necessary to capture an unwanted city just to gain a resource that is nearby to it.
Of course the system would need appropriate rules. Not every unit should be able to claim territory (aircraft and gunships are obvious examples) and territory should only be claimed under appropriate conditions (contiguous to the claiming civ's territory or unclaimed by any other civ, for example). Furthermore, there could be a technology associated with this ability, prior to which a civ would exist as a collection of city states in the fashion of Ancient Greece. The influence of these cities could be determined to a certain extent by their culture, but would never extend beyond their "fat crosses".

So that's my idea. I don't think its too wacky. If you recall in CivII, landing strips on the world map could be claimed by moving a unit over top of them and the end-game calculation of territory controlled was calculated by the number of tiles over which a civ's units had moved over last.

Regards,

Pooh

 

[Luhh]

Zone of control, but perhaps not an end all blocker, and instead something like war attrition effects and perhaps penalties when fighting if unable to trace a LOS back to friendly territory. Certain upgrades could help against that like commando and march for instance.

Also, I really detest the SAM infantry unit. Because there are no such units. They are incorporated in general modern infantry fighting units. The same with machine gunners. I don't really know what they were thinking there.

We lack an early gunpowder siege unit, like bombard for instance, and naval speed are much too slow compared to land speed, especially ancient time.

Also, it would be better if they tried to balance the leaders out a bit more to try and fit at least 2 leaders for most nations, and 3 for the popular ones perhaps. Also, balance UUs and rethink them. The later they are, the more power they ought to get depending on how long timeframe they span. In the case of an end game UU it should again power down because it could never be trumped by another unit etc.

Air superiority missions for fighters. A bit cheaper upgrade of units so that we'll get rid of those ancient units from modern eras, or at least some disband reform merging choices or reimbursement.

Cityzoom on growth, because the computer doesn't know best what tile to work. This would actually LOWER micromanagement because you wouldn't have to scouer your empire to find those cities every turn that are far from ideal because they gained a size.

Fix the goto command so that a second click means acceptance of the route, because far too often the unit take the wrong path. It only concerns itself with reaching the destination at the same turn, and not best movement allowance once reached. This has cost me turns on workers and units far too often and some times critical like losing cities because of bad AI choices.

Perhaps an incremental AI threat scale choices, since often the human will lag behind a lot of the game to run past end game. The same with barbarian threat that are bigger than AI civs in the BCs.

Era starts and finishes, where you play certain time frames with more appropriate and diverse units and buildings. Like classical to medivial and medivial to renaissance etc.

That's all I can think of right now.

 

[OzzyKP]

Austro-Hungary definitely should be in.

I cast a write-in vote for Hungary on its own without Austria, heh.

 

[eddie_verdde]

I'd overly curious how you think slavery could be "controlled". Slave owners do whatever they want with their slaves, always did, always will. Slavery is a system that puts a group of individuals outside the "controlled area" which was structured by social and legal rules. Their absence is what results in slavery.
I don't think there's anything you could control within a given civ using slavery... would be interesting though to have insurgency of slaves (Spartakus, anyone? ) just for kicks...

When I say "control over slavery" I mean bringing more depth to the concept of slavery, so that it has the same impact in the game that it had throughout history...In Civ4, "slavery" is merely represented by a civic option that allows the player to rush buildings at the cost of the population of a city...which is odd...I mean, you adopt Slavery and you sacrifice your own people to build things?

What about building slave markets? what about capturing enemy cities and turning it's inhabitants into slaves that could work your tiles or help build your wonders? What about slave traffic? What about selling your slaves to your rivals? What about having lots of slaves to do the hard work, so that your own subjects could specialize in literacy, science, art, etc??

That's what I mean by "controlling slavery"...I agree with everything you said, but your arguments are not very cohesive, because all you said could also be applied to religion, and religion can also be controled in the game, if you choose a state religion, for instance...

But thanks for the post...

Happy new year.

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

Eddie, if it helps I am currently working on a mod which has slavery produce a free slave specialist AND lets you build a slave market/slave labour system in your cities. Maybe, if I get it finished in time, they might adopt it as an official addition to the game !

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

 

[Theodorick]

Where's Ronald Reagon and George Bush on the leader list? Everyone knows both are great American leaders and led the world into a new age of freedom and prosperity.

 

[puglover]

Thomas Jefferson

Sorry, I can't help myself. Jefferson would be a terrible choice for a new American leader. He hated being president, even though he cheated and slandered his way to the position. He had "president of the united states" omitted from the list of his life's achievements on his gravestone.

He accomplished several great deeds during his life, most notably the Louisiana Purchase, and I do not want to overlook them, but to have him represent America is downright silly. Abraham Lincoln should be the chosen leader if any is to be chosen for the next X-pack.

 

[André Alfenaar]

My suggestions:

1. Option to disband a city at any time.
2. Add an ancient naval unit that like a caravel can explore enemy waters without open borders.
3. Explorers and Scouts should be able to explore enemy land without open borders.

 

[The Q-Meister]

Disappointed that 6 of the possible leaders on that poll came from America and England; two countries that already have 2 leaders to begin with.

With all due respect to America and England, (I am an American for crying out loud) there are just too many civilizations that need a 2nd leader far more than America or England need a 3rd.

Rome, Egypt, Spain, Japan, Greece are all in despereate need of 2nd leaders and certainly as deserving, if not more so, than some of the other countries that got 2 leaders. And the same goes for France and De Gaulle too - no 3rd leaders for countries that are already well represented until some of the other civs get their second.

 

[The Q-Meister]

With regards to Civs, I would've like to have seen a Southeast Asian Civ nominated, maybe Thai or Vietnamese. Austria-Hungary would be nice although it is true that Europe is too well represented as it is.

My selections:

Austria-Hungary
Carthage
Babylonians
Mayans
Navaho
Korea
Ottoman Empire

Write in vote: Thailand

 

[SPQR300]

Why isn't it Hungaro-Austria at the first place?