Serious consequenses

[Theoden]

What about having some more consequenses for what you do. I the real world there is a reason that people are worried about cutting down rainforest. There are a few ideas here

Battleground:
When enough battles have been fought on a certain square that square will drop to zero production. After some time it will regain (as people build up the countryside again)

Forests:
Have some kind of penalty if you just cut down all the rain forest and forest. Make it so there has to be a certain number of forest squares to sustain x number of population. Else people start dying because of air need.

Unions:
As the world is today there is great consequenses for going to war. Make it so that after the UN is built other nations will declare war at you if you attack a weak neighboor. Also perhaps make other unions like NATO as a type of strong MPP



That way nations will come to feel for that do. As it is now the only consequens is the global warming, and that everyone declares war at you if you use nukes.

 

[starrider]

Originally posted by theoden
Unions:
As the world is today there is great consequenses for going to war. Make it so that after the UN is built other nations will declare war at you if you attack a weak neighboor. Also perhaps make other unions like NATO as a type of strong MPP

Hmmm you must mean making the UN more beefy than it is in real life Didn't resolution 1441 threaten "serious concequences" to Iraq for non-compliance? (Or 10+ years of other resolutions..)

Hehe...Do you really want a game where simply going to war brings the whole world on you? It's an honest question

 

[warpstorm]

Originally posted by theoden
Forests:
Have some kind of penalty if you just cut down all the rain forest and forest. Make it so there has to be a certain number of forest squares to sustain x number of population. Else people start dying because of air need.

How many people in the world have suffocated to date due to lack of trees?

 

[sealman]

Originally posted by warpstorm
How many people in the world have suffocated to date due to lack of trees?

I did. Luckliy, my wife showed up in the house with a rubber tree plant and everything is good again. Plus, with my new access to rubber, I can build up my armies and crush the neighbors

 

[rcoutme]

I agree that the loss of forestation should have some consequences, but disagree with your overall plan. Instead, it should have an effect on their global warming calculations.

As for the UN ideas, I think that the UN is not nearly as effective as has been pointed out. Perhaps you should simply sign MPP's with small nations if you don't want them beaten up.

This would be more in line with what happens today anyways.

 

[collin_stp]

Originally posted by theoden
[
B]
Battleground:
When enough battles have been fought on a certain square that square will drop to zero production. After some time it will regain (as people build up the countryside again) [/B]

This one doesn't really make total sense to me. For modern chemical warfare, maybe, but ancient warfare, I would assume those extra bodies would make good fertilizer in the long run, plus all the extra iron and stuff you could get from the battlefield would actually have a value.

 

[warpstorm]

In the Roman days when they were serious about an enemy they would salt the fields after burning them so that nothing would grow there for a long time.

 

[Mewtarthio]

That would be a more deliberate thing, similar to the "Pillage" command.

 

[CiverDan]

I agree that forest/jungle chopping should be tied to Pollution or some other means of lost productivity. The fact the game does nothing but encourage rampant jungle clearing has always bothered me.

 

[Jake5555555]

The UN should be like the planetary council on SMAC, not an easy way to win or a way to stop invasions. There should also be alliances between groups of nations. Maybe your alliance could include several nations, and be a combination of a mutual protection pact and a right of passage.

 

[Theoden]

Ok, maybe the idea with air need was a bit stupid, but what i mean is just that I want consequenses for actions. For example when i'm a really powerhouse in the world (like USA now) I want there to be just some obstacles that prevent me from destroying everybody else at my liking.

For the union part maybe not have all declaring war at you but just have them mad at you for a while (no trade with them)

And maybe also have some decisions that can be made in the UN about for example that all countries must limit pollution.

And that you can just cut down jungles without any problems is weird i think. In the real world it's a big problem but in civ as it is now it's not even a small issue.

 

[Pirate]

Salting a battleground as a pillage command is a great idea. Or it could happen automatically when you raze a city. I always thought it was a bit of an exploit to raze an enemy city and capture all the workers, then build another immediately on the same spot, just so you didn't have to deal with resistors. This would at least make you fight to hold cities more often.

 

[Ballazic]

Ya the un should also require memebership fees due to its cost. But should come up with scans and reports and be a host for planetary discussion.

 

[struchnjak]

theoden - I'm not sure if Civ3 has this implemented, but in Civ2 a democracy could not just conquer the world if it was the most powerful, because the senate would veto that decision. I think that is enough realism, and probably one of the main reasons why the USA has not conquered the world so far