Some possibilities

[Betenoir]

1. Improving the naval game - change coastal,sea and ocean movement cost to 1/3 MP or "treat as road". Allow naval units to "blitz". This lets the naval units really affect the game and will really make you think twice before discounting that seafaring culture.

2. Pillaging should generate a small amount of gold - maybe 5 gp. After all, that was why it was done historically. I rarely use pillage but would definitely use it MUCH more if there was an economic incentive. Think about those Vikings again...and the Zulus...

3. I don't know why the Polynesians aren't one of the civilizations - a seafaring, commercial culture with a start-of-game replacement for the curragh that can carry a single unit and has a better chance of surviving the open sea. In conjunction with suggestion #1 this culture would have an interesting effect on the game even as an AI culture.

4. I never, ever, use helicopters. But I would if they could spot submarines and attack them. Speaking of which, submarines should ALWAYS be allowed to choose their target and should never remain visible once spotted (give a quick glimpse then fade away) Submarines should be classed as a lethal naval BOMBARDMENT unit with a defense strength.

5. Air units should be allowed multiple sorties equivalent to their bombardment "shots". These expensive units are underutilized. Each shot should be individually targeted.

6. There should be an AWACS-type unit that extends the intercept range of fighters assigned to air superiority available with a new optional advance "Advanced Radar" branching from "Rocketry". This would give me more incentive to use airbases.

8. Historically, urban combat was rare until WWII - some incentive to defense-in-depth outside the city needs to be in place. I suggest that any attack against a city be treated as a regular attack AND a strength 1 bombardment. This could actually be a strength n bombardment with n being the "age" the attacking unit was built, producing an appropriate level of collateral damage.

9. There is no disincentive to simply building the most powerful units available with a modern armor costing the same maintenance as a lowly warrior. I suggest a multiplier, again based on the "age" in which the unit belongs. A unit should cost maintenance at the following rate - current tech 100% x "age" where "age" proceeds from ancient(1) thru Modern(4) , obsolete 50%(round up). Makes upgrades and builds much harder decisions.

10. An immediate check for a "culture" conversion should be made after the first attack on a city - perhaps with a modifier that would make it possible that a third-party "protector" or "champion" culture might gain control of the defense.

To be clear - I love this game and have played it to the detriment of family and friends ever since it was released. Sid has both enriched and impoverished my life- not his fault. These suggestions are those which I have thought over many times as I play this wonderful game.

Having not truly read all of the content on the forums, I am sure that I've tread some familiar turf - please forgive me if I have wasted your time.

 

[vmxa]

If it was a complete waste of time, I would not have read all of it. I think some of could be worth considering. It is probably to late for even Civ4 at this time, though.

It may be worth posting in that forum.

 

[whereagles]

Well, here is my opinion.

1. (Increased naval movement) No. I think it's fine and realistic as it is.

2. (Gold for pillaging) Seems fair. Expansionistic civs could even generate 10 gold instead of 5.

3. (Polynesian civ) I'm sure we'll see a lot of new civs in civ 4.

4. (Helis and subs) Helis cannot be used to spot subs. In real life the heli radius-of-action is too small for patrol missions. An improvement on helis is allowing them to undertake "rescue" missions, e.g. an heli could uplift a red-lined infantry-type unit under attack to the nearest city. This is what helis do in real life. As for subs, they CAN sink ships, so they're not bombardment units - they are attack units. I think they're fine as it is, because ships can fight back at subs using depht charges and air-sea torpedoes.

5. (Precision bombing for air units) Don't we have this already? There's precision strike for stealth bombers. But I agree the idea could improved a bit.

6. (AWACS units) Sounds more like an idea for civ 4 xpac

7. There is no 7. LOL

8. (City attack also bombards) I don't see the relevance of this

9. (Lower maintenance for obsolete units) Interesting idea. Something to think about.

10. (Culture conversion from attacks) That is an interesting idea, but to be realistic you'd need to have some sort of espionage operation underway in that city. That being said, I don't think the idea of cultural conversion itself is realistic, at least not if you have 2-3 units on the city.

Cheers!

 

[Crazy Eskimo]

1) Naval units - Whole heartedly agree with your theory. I think this is one of the reasons that naval power is so underrated in Civ. The movement of ships is just too slow to be effective, and in later ages, just plain doesn't make sense.

2) Gold for pillaging - Make sense. Maybe a combo of one gold and one shield to your nearest city?

3) Polynessians - I'm indifferent. They certainly sound like they could be an interesting addition

4a) Helicopters - I agree with the suggestion that they could be used for rescue missions. Since Civ 2, I've found them to be a useless unit. Adding a unique ability, especially one that's so useful like rescuing workers and artillery that are dangerously exposed, an infantry unit that inexplicably redlined against a spearman and is in danger, etc. would actually make me me want to build them.

b) Subs - Submarines would be one of the benefactors of a change I feel is very much needed - units from different civs should, under certain circumstances, be able to occupy the same tile. Examples: Units in some sort of uber-military alliance (there would be two levels of military alliance) like Britain and the US storming Nazi Germany, spies (yes, I think they should be made into units again), and, of course, submarines (I've been meaning to post the all encompassing theory behind this in the Civ 4 forum... maybe now I will). It just seems realistic to do so. If I don't want my sub to confront an Eqyptian battleship, it should be able to go low and stay quiet while the ship goes by. Ships should be able to perform a perception check when they enter and leave the tile that the submarine operates in. The value of that check would depend on the type of water square (coast, sea, ocean) and the type of unit. A destroyer would have a good chance of seeing the sub; a trireme/galley would not. The fact that, currently, they both have equal chance, is ludricrous.

5) Because I win games so early on, I've never had to really explore the intracacies of air combat. So, I dunno.

6)Sounds good.

7) You couldn't be more wrong. Just... please... stop talking before you embarrass yourself further.

8) I don't see the value that this adds to gameplay

9) Cheaper maintenance for obsolete units - Makes logical sense. Will largely help out the AI, who I've seen use numidian mercenaries alongside tanks.

10) Umm... not sure what you mean by this. More details?

 

[Betenoir]

Like the Crazy Eskimo's idea for pillage with possibly a scale for what is being pillaged - road, mine, farm, fortification, railroad - increasing value.

The naval thing - I just want to be able to run amok with the only battleship on the baord sometimes - think the Bismarck taking on a flotilla of lesser ships, tearing them up and then retreating out of visual range or to a port to prepare another round of nastiness.

I guess to appreciate the Polynesian thing you really need to read Jared Diamond's books Guns, Germs, and Steel and Collapse. Highly recommended to any player of Civ at any level.

#8 was a try at forcing units out of cities to defend their approaches rather than hunker down and let a huge invading army attack a population center. I think it would make building fortifications more viable in your gameplan - as it is I rarely build forts.

#10 was a try at making civilian policy matter. Think 1940, Germans approach Paris with what is believed to be overwhelming force - rather than defend the city, it is decided not to defend it so CULTURAL landmarks will not be destroyed. Think Peloponesian War, when trading independence for security was common among the city-states - and not necessarily permanent - with the possibility of cultural reversion in the future.

The thing about submarines is that I don't see them hanging around for a pitched battle - loose the fish and get the hell away. That's why I'd like them treated as bombardment units. In conjunction with #1, they could intercept a fleet, do some damage, and hide, sweating the response. Just seems more realistic. As for helis being incapable of a role in ASW I'd like a refund of all my tax $ immediately...

 

[Crazy Eskimo]

#8 - Ah. I understand now. It's much more likely, especially in more ancient and medieval times, that an army would head out to engage the enemy on favorable terrain rather than remain in an unfortified town (read: not a castle, but a nearby village.)

Perhaps, instead of a bombard value, if an attacker attacked an unwalled town (ie. where there isn't something physcial to add to the defense and keep an unsuccessful attack out), there is a chance that an improvement will be destroyed. (e.g. You did kill the knights you attempted to invade, but before you did, they made it to Main Street and set the marketplace ablaze). This would definitely make it more likely that walls and fortifications would be built.

The one thing that would have to be done to go along with this, then, would be to create a penalty for the attacker to bypass a defended fort. ZOC does this to some degree, but there should be something where, if a military unit bypasses a defended fort to go raze a nearby village, the units from that fort could take the invading force in the rear, much to the invaders dismay.

#10: I think I now see what you mean. In my most recent game, the Zulus had picked a fight with me that left them with several fewer cities (now in my control) and substantially weaker. Because they were so much weaker, even though they were at peace with me, several Civs continued to invade and take out their cities. While I was nowhere near stupid enough to sign an MPP with them, I would have been willing to take some of the cities nearby to me under my wing and accept them as my own in exchange for defending them from the invading Eqyptians and Carthaginians. In other words, the Zulus come to me, say "would you please save us?" and I say "Only if you swear allegiance to me", the Zulus take one look at the tanks poised around Ngome, another at the mech. infantry I have in my cities that could protect them and decide that it's worth it.

The point you make about the subs is a good one. I still think they should be able to occupy the same tile as other civs units, but perhaps there are units where hit-and-retreat is their primary mode of operation, rather than simply what they would do if the battle is going badly for them. Subs would be one example, where they fire their torpedos and then slink off, while the defneding ship would have a check to see if they could harry the subs retreat (ie. keep them in the same square). Another example would be the guerilla, and this change could really make the unit viable for the player (and annoying in the hands of the AI). The guerilla could get one retreat per turn and treat all terrain as 1 movement terrain. When an enemy unit attacks a guerilla unit sitting on a tile with a certain type of improvement (city, fort, radar tower, etc.), the guerilla unit stands its ground and fights to the death. But, when the guerilla unit is on a tile that does not have the right type of improvement, the guerilla does a sort of defensive bombardment and then abandons the tile to its attacker before the attacker can initiate combat. If another unit then attacks the guerilla, it would have to stand and fight, beign to tired to run again. This could also be tied to a weariness meter for the guerilla, where, as long as the guerilla has stamina available, it can keep retreating, but that use of stamina would make it unable to do as much on the players own turn or if the guerilla unit was already tired (say, from attacking something else), it might not be able to retreat. As for other units, one civs unique unit could be soem sort of horseman than just harries the enemy with hit and runs.

As for the ASW, I think he meant that helicopters don't just go out on their own to go after subs. They generally work in conjunction with a destroyer or some other ship, and then in the immediate vicinity, not on an area many many miles away. Combining both of your concerns (yours- that helicopters should be able to do ASW; his - that helicopters don't hunt on their own mile and miles away)With my idea that subs could occupy the same square as the opposing civ, I think a combination of helicopters and destroyers could make an interesting, yet realistic combined arms strategy.

 

[Betenoir]

Loved the point about guerillas - perhaps a retreat check costs a hit - makes the guerilla much more what it should be - attacker takes bombardment from guerilla, guerilla checks for retreat, scoots if it can, leaving a rearguard as a sacrifice. Attacker moves up to try again, takes bombardment, etc. It truly would allow for some interesting microcampaigns in the game.

On #10 upon further consideration I think that anytime enemy units are within the city radius there should be a chance that the city defects - but not always to the culture that threatens it, maybe to a nearby culture with a local presence (the reference to a "champion"). This would simulate a truer range of historical outcomes and give the defender a real reason to flush out that enemy probing the outskirts of town. A linkage to government type is crucial - Why did Leningrad and Stalingrad resist while Paris surrendered ? In history, a large army's presence often caused evacuation of threatened population centers rather than a ruinous siege even when defensive fortifications existed. How may urban battles did Hannibal, Scipio, Napoleon, Wellington, Grant, Lee, Frederick, and my personal favorite Hamilcar Barca (Hannibal's dad) actually fight ? You probably know the answer.

To go back to the airpower thing - I think each shot should be a sortie, not a precision strike. You don't use airpower because you win too early ! You're missing out on some of the more interesting parts of the game, where corruption even for powerful cultures limits your reach and you have to use some new tactics to enforce your will.

On another front entirely - how about a small wonder "Emancipation" which converts all slave workers to settlers upon completion.