1. We have added a Gift Upgrades feature that allows you to gift an account upgrade to another member, just in time for the holiday season. You can see the gift option when going to the Account Upgrades screen, or on any user profile screen.
    Dismiss Notice

The Civ V wish-list!!!

Discussion in 'Civ - Ideas & Suggestions' started by Logitech, Nov 18, 2007.

  1. Loppan Torkel

    Loppan Torkel Deity

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2004
    Messages:
    4,756
    I haven't noticed it, but then I haven't played it a lot either. So the whole appearance of Shaka and Cleopatra is racist or sexist, and it should rather be applied on civs outside Africa...?
     
  2. Huayna Capac357

    Huayna Capac357 Deity

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2007
    Messages:
    8,194
    Location:
    Boston, Massachusetts
    It's racist. In Civ Rev, here is Cleopatra:

    First of all, Cleopatra was Greek. Secondly, this portrayal is sexist.

    Okay, here's Shaka:



    This portrayal is also very stereotypical.
     
  3. Loppan Torkel

    Loppan Torkel Deity

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2004
    Messages:
    4,756
    I see. The image of Cleopatra is a bit sexist. They could change that or not imo.

    The image of Shaka is stereotypical but not racist, and I think it's perfectly good as it is. Stereotypical images are alright in a game such as civ, they're not going for extreme realism, but rather for something with a bit of character and tongue-in-cheek humour, if that's the right expression for it. You could claim that the characterisation of the Vikings is completely wrong too, but it's a bit more fun this way if it's not taken too seriously.
     
  4. Gamemaster77

    Gamemaster77 PC > Mac

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2009
    Messages:
    998
    Location:
    In a place.
    This is a little obvious but in Civ5, at higher levels make the AI Smarter, not cheat more.
    Also make it easier for people to connect to MP and have a large guide on how to do so and troubleshooting.
     
  5. MtB

    MtB Chieftain

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2009
    Messages:
    18
    The attached file contains 167 suggested changes to be considered for Civ V. It also contains a rough copy of the Civilization Tribune newspaper. My thanks go out to all those players who have posted suggestions on the civ fanatics forums.

    Sorry about the size as there are a couple of graphics included.
     

    Attached Files:

  6. Alarconte

    Alarconte Chieftain

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2009
    Messages:
    47
    Location:
    Barcelona, Catalonia, Spain
    The idea of study some type of Techs, instead of the especifical techs, is done already at Alpha Centaury, And was very good.

    The thing is that Alpha Centaury was a lot of divergence in tech tree, but in Civ, the techtree is usually singleway, and 'cause of that the especifically tech selection has more sense.

    But, I love the Alpha Centaury way, the thing I want more to improve in next civs is a more extended tech tree, A tech tree thats allow the civs to be very different! (as AC, again)

    The thing about racism and sexism.. You are talking about CivRev, not the usual Civs.

    Civ Rev is for a easy public; They want nice girls! (And I apreciatte that in a cartoonize game, the girls at lest should be pretty and sexy!

    In Civ I don't see too many racism and sexsym... Well, Catalina of Rusia (Chaterine?) has too much hot dialog... Is not very normal. Althougth, the characters of the leaders inself are well.

    I don't understand why you calify of racism the image of Shaka (in CivRev or any Civ): He is black, He is Zulu. Everybody has seen images and portraits of Zulus all his live. They were this way. Maybe Shaka is too much musculated and pompous-dressing (in the zulu way) and too much black... But.. Isn't he this way? Who could know?
    (sketches and representations):


    More Shaka Images:
    Spoiler :




    And well, Cleopatra in CivRev could be a Beautifull woman, and the "camera" can be appointing to his breast... But our society is this way; I don't know any representation of Cleopatra that doesn't show she as a egiptian sex symbol xD


    more HOT (xD) Cleopatra images:
    Spoiler :




    The reason that makes "a little black/arabian" Cleopatra in Civ, maybe is only for giving the rigth mood to the leader of the civilization, is no need to be sexyst. I have heared one time in one movie a black woman saying "You know? The another day I was seeing a Cleopatra movie and she was white, WHITE!!!", offended. I think is only a question of civilization flavour.

    And everybody like to see beautifull woman! (And man, I suposse, look to the idealized George Washington!). You need to see an Ugly Cleopatra to don't see sexsym? And about the clothes... I suposse she generally whore not much clothes, as historian says about egyptian people what don't labour the camps.
     
  7. redbaron1123

    redbaron1123 Chieftain

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2009
    Messages:
    13
    There should be some way to differentiate the abilities of units from two separate nations. As it is, the promotions of civ 4 and special units help with this, but are inadequate. A nation with rocketry should have ships with a better anti air capacity than a nation without rocketry because of surface to air missiles. Two jet fighters shouldnt necessarily be the same (the Me-262 and F-15 certainly arent). A big problem is that the developement of a unit doesnt stop when that technology gets discovered. Also, different countries use the same technology to develop two completely different units in real life. It should be that way in civilization too.

    one way would be to allow the player (and ai) to design their own units and redesign them later based on what technologies are known, how much money gets spent on research, how much the nation can spend on the unit, and some or all of the other factors that go into such decisions. Giving various predesigned components that the player could choose from (i believe the game spore does this at each stage of developement) would add more strategy to how wars are conducted and make the player consider how they want the war to be fought when designing the attack, defense, movement, range, bombardment, etc. specifications of the units.
     
  8. V. Soma

    V. Soma long time civ fan

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2004
    Messages:
    3,878
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Hungary
    could the file be zip or rar?
     
  9. aragogthebest

    aragogthebest "God Save The Queen"

    Joined:
    Jul 25, 2009
    Messages:
    75
    Location:
    United Kingdom Of Great Britain and
    garrison able forts like in orbis so you can claim far away resources and territory but the forts borders would be automaticly overridden by city borders
     
  10. rysmiel

    rysmiel Emperor

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2007
    Messages:
    1,401
    No, there really, really, really shouldn't. Everything needs to be available to every nation.

    And that would be something drastically unlike what many of us play Civ for.
     
  11. Huayna Capac357

    Huayna Capac357 Deity

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2007
    Messages:
    8,194
    Location:
    Boston, Massachusetts
    That really is sexist. Most things about Cleopatra say she wasn't that beautiful; it was her charisma that won the people over. And how is George Washington related to this? And Cleopatra would dress as a Greek because she was Greek. She was white.
     
  12. vinx98

    vinx98 Chieftain

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2009
    Messages:
    5
    I think within your civilization, there should be regions/communities/zones/states (depending on what type of empire you have). In the beginning the region and civilization will be “one”, but as it grows, new regions could appear especially depending on resource or natural borders – for example a river could be a region border, or a region could be small as it is extremely wealthy already, or even better you could change the borders of the region as you see fit. You could put a leader to head up each region, perhaps a successful military leader, or a major religious leader, or even a warrior, swordsman, etc each one will have their benefits, but obviously the more prestigious the person, the better the leader is. I like this tactic because it means that if you don’t want to, you don’t have to micromanage each city, you can manage at a regional level, or you could get another leader to take care of the region for you. What you could do is manage on a macro level, check to see how your regional leaders are doing, and throw the person out if they are doing a bad job. WHATS THE POINT OF THIS you may ask? Well, I see it that this could be a new dynamic dimension to the game – can you imagine that your region wants to split (Colonization style) and has to fight you for it – or perhaps you could cede a region in peace negotiation – the region could have a different religion causing inter-regional tensions, the region might have terrorist activites (like ETA, IRA, etc), the region could set it’s own taxes (or you could set taxes for each region separately depending on their resource requirements, one region might be resource rich – so you could have inter-region trading, the possibilities are endless and would add a new, fun dimension to the game for sure – you could also make it as detailed as you want because assigning leaders to regions would mean that the cities that fall within those regions could be managed without you. If you have a particularly badly managed region, you could move a really good leader into the bad region to get it sorted out or just take over control yourself and sort out the problems. You could devote one region to making great buildings, another region to farming and production, another region for trade, another for producing defense units, etc. Finally (and the one I like the best), is that a region would act as a traditional AI (but they are on your side!), for example, units can belong to a region, or you can assign your units to a specific region – instead of guarding cities, they roam around the region – guarding the region. You could instruct a region to attach another civilization, so basically it would be like making the AI declare war against another region – your civ would be at war, but you wouldn’t have to do any fighting as your AI is hard at it.

    MY OTHER IDEA – and it’s just gives the game another thing to aim for. I love at the end of my game to check out my great cities, but there are only 5 of them to see… I want to extend this concept so that there is a hall of fame for cities, so one of the objectives of the game is to build the biggest, greatest city ever! For example, I made a city which ended up with a size of “26”, and I think it might be the greatest city I’ve ever created – but after that game is ended, I lose that city and the memory of that city forever – so it would be great if we could store the attributes of that city and admire it forever!
     
  13. vinx98

    vinx98 Chieftain

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2009
    Messages:
    5
    bump ...
     
  14. eddiewillers

    eddiewillers Chieftain

    Joined:
    Aug 6, 2007
    Messages:
    64
    MAPS

    I'd like to have an enhanced Map feature with the military advisor, where I can see my and my rival's empire throughout the world in different displays that would might just be annoying on the general grid map.

    In that way one could see resources, units, trade routes and most importantly frontiers and areas of influence, free trade agreements, corporations and religions and other statistics pretty much as the map feature on Sim City 2.

    One of many potential benefits of this would be to be able to draw borders on a map and use it as an offer (or intimidation) during a negotiation. Maybe you don't want that city, but you can force your enemy to cede many vital tiles in exchange of peace. Maybe you can sell some useless tiles to a greedy neighbor in exchange for a technology you actually need. Et cetera.
     
  15. eddiewillers

    eddiewillers Chieftain

    Joined:
    Aug 6, 2007
    Messages:
    64
    I like your ideas: the point is twofold, in one hand each city already represents a whole region (its tiles of cultural influence) and military units are used to keep it from rioting and or seceding, as well as buildings. But it is quiet corny, so if we had municipalities (tribes, counties, states, federal territories, as well as colonies and then protectorates, each according to a new tech) then we could have a new dimension an also less micromanaging:

    By having techs and or buildings that produce "Political Units" then one could create these municipalities and treat them as one city if you like. There will be sparsely populated areas treated as one municipality (meaning no more useless tiles) and as you pointed out one cities that are big enough to account for its own municipality.

    The point is obvious: You don't spend the same time managing your top 3 cities, than your 8 farthest and least productive cities.

    Each Region should or could have its official seat in one city, something intermediate between a Courthouse and a Forbidden Palace.

    Vassal regions would probably be under military leadership and should not be able to build a courthouse-X-forbidden palace until certain % of "Native" Culture is achieved.

    This brings me to my next point: Ethnicity and degree of National Unity:

    Suppose at the beginning of the game a friendly tribe joins you. It doesn't mean its population has assimilated, the city resulting from it should be different (culturally) than a city resulting from a settler from your own tribe. In the latter game Techs such as Constitution would allow for fully multicultural states that would almost eliminate what I'd call "Cultural Corruption". During the mid game, religion could be another alternative to reduce this cultural corruption, assuring a united empire.

    Linguistics would be the easier way to differentiate the different ethnicities as given by code (de natura).
    Religion and techs would be the way in which ethnicities result in nations, as created by the user/s and AI (de praxis).
     
  16. WhatMeNo

    WhatMeNo Chieftain

    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2009
    Messages:
    44
    Carry over Civs from previous games. The Civs of note are:
    America
    Aztec
    Babylon
    Carthage
    Celtia
    China
    Egypt
    England
    France
    Germany
    Greece
    India
    Japan
    Mongolia
    Persia
    Rome
    Russia
    Souix
    Spain
    Scandanavia
    Zulu
    Irioquois
    Arabia
    Korea
    Ottoman
    Byzantium
    Hittite
    Inca
    Maya
    Netherlands
    Portugal
    Sumeria
    Austria
    Mali
    Ethiopia
    Holy Rome
    Khmer

    Scenerios:
    Mesopotamia
    Rise of Rome
    Fall of Rome
    Middle Ages
    Mesoamerica
    Age of Discovery
    Napoleon
    Senguko
    WWII in the Pacific
    WWII in Europe
    WWII in Africa
    WWII Globally
    American Revolution
    Russian Civil War
    Broken Star
    Defense
    Next War
    Peloponnisian War
    Chinese Unification
    Alexander
    Genghis Khan
    Barbarian
     
  17. Sky Viper

    Sky Viper Chieftain

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2009
    Messages:
    3
    I wish that in Civ5 has the following changes...

    1) You know when you reach the tech that allows u to build mech infantry the Marines and Infantry can be upgraded to Mech Infantry. Its in the Modern Era. But thats False!. Put it this way.For example in real world America has alot of Mech Infantrys, but that doesnt mean they dont have NAvy Seals, Marines, Foot soldiers, etc. Another thing is Tanks get upgraded into Modern Armor. Thats Fake! Alot of countries have got alot of tanks AND Modern Armor (Heavy Tanks). Maybe they should put Mech Infantry and Modern Armor as a single unit and not as a Possible Upgrade.

    2) 1 more thing that is unrealistic is tht for example when i was playing Civ 4 as Peter ( cause im russian :D) Eizabeth demanded a tech. As i was playing Domination/Conquest as victory it was vital that i keep a good distance from the AI civs. I turned the offer down. As i pointed my cursor on Elizabeth on the Score board it said ' -1 you rfused to give us tribute) She then requested for the tech 1 more time before declaring war on me... Is that what Obama will do if india dont give him the recipe to curry? Picture Russia going to war wid USA just cause USA wanted to know how russia made good vodka. World would be such a chaos.

    I really realy really really really hope that these probs get fixed. Maybe some terrorists too :D
     
  18. Huayna Capac357

    Huayna Capac357 Deity

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2007
    Messages:
    8,194
    Location:
    Boston, Massachusetts
    Those things you mentioned are not really realistic, but they're some of those things you have to sacrifice realism for to get good gameplay.
     
  19. Camikaze

    Camikaze Administrator Administrator

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2008
    Messages:
    27,227
    Location:
    Sydney
    So America hasn't finished upgrading all its units yet? :confused:

    It must've run out of gold...

    It's a simplification for the sake of the game. Gameplay trumps realism, even if realism is important. Realistically, if two nations do not co-operate, then they are more likely to have bad diplomatic relations. This is the -1 penalty in the game. Note that that one penalty was not the sole reason why war was declared, although it may have been the tipping point.
     
  20. Hecateus

    Hecateus Chieftain

    Joined:
    Apr 5, 2009
    Messages:
    11
    I have not read every post =yet=. But I will. first a few things off me chest.

    I have a Mac. It is getting old, but still does pretty much what I need it to do (browse intarweb, watch anime), except play CIV 4 well. But for some design discussions, I think it is designed fine. It's just slow, bloated, and crashes; and has an annoying visual bug which can't be fixed (map graphics go all wonky). Today I had to wait about a whole hour for one turn to pass so I could make decisions for my civ (huge map 14 cities, renaisance era)...I decided to turn off the game.

    I would like an OnLive version http://www.onlive.com/ this way one can play with maxed out graphics, huge map, lots of units etc without having to worry about graphics slowdowns, incompatible versions, etc

    I would like Civs to start with one warrior and one scout, (Easy modes give one a worker as well.)AND the AI should attack your defenseless civ at the start if you are unlucky/dumb enough to leave your city undefended. WRT to that, we should not have to research hunting...we've been doing that for meeelyons of years already.

    I would like scouts to be more useful early on. Scouts can upgrade to be Spies, or (bring them back) Diplomats. They should have some stealth capabilities so they can watch without being snuffed out quickly, can attack wild animals (treat animals as their own civ instead of grouping with barbarians), Explorers can attack barbarians, Other scouts are better able to find scouts than normal units. The mechanic is similar to but incompatible with Fortify, call it Hide. Any unit can do this, scouts/explorers do it better. Units not moving or other actions, spend their movement points instead on Searching the squares they can move in, this is automatic. Most units have Heal/Fortify as their first automatic; Scouts and Explorers Heal/Hide first, Fortify must be chosen. Explorers can after fortifying fully, similarly Convert themselves to coastal Trading Posts, which extend Lines of Logistics to new lands or areas , after doing that they slowly convert to Colony which can do better, which is like a very friendly Goody Hut that won't turn against you, see below. Explorers can cross mountains.

    Tribal Huts. I like some of the tribal drama stuff from Civ Rev, lets extend that to Civ 5. I also like the colonies from Civ3. This is an amalgam of those, and of the Hamlet-towns of civ 4. But first a pet peeve. I have a time wasting tendency to save/reload when confronted with the huts. This is stupid boring design.

    First all ground and sea units can perform some diplomacy with other units, but scouts, spies, explorers, diplomats, caravels, etc, can do it better than most, and have contexts and different options which apply. All units can talk to visible units within movement radius, or are adjacent, e.g. Caravel next to a coastal hut. Also units can Raid nearby visible specific developed squares including Huts, within movement range instead of moving; this disrupts production on that square it does not destroy improvements, and nets some small variable cash for the attacker, this is automatic for units who not otherwise busy in hostile non-ZoC territory. Back to huts.

    The huts are basically proto-civs, just use the non-main player/AI civs to stand in for them instead of barbarians. Or have a Hut civ as an alternative, or rework the barbarians so they can be neutral or friendly.

    There are different Hut sizes similar to Hamlet-towns.

    The tribal huts should not simply disappear when found. A unit which finds them is presented with choices about what to do, much like the special events in BtS. Instead of getting just one result automatically, one result (or multiple partial results) is rolled for success/partial success/failure.

    A hut should have a unit on them defending them against barbarians and other enemies; animals do not move adjacent to huts. There is at least one Leader-warrior, and one scout. The scout wanders around the hut within a few squares radii. If the player or AI encounters this they can choose to fight it, which will provoke the huts defenses, and will be hostile some set of turns (just like angry citizens), if it has more than one warrior, it will leave the leader to defend, and send the other out to hunt down the offender, possibly attacking your civ.

    They can of course be razed for money and if lucky and given Slavery civic a worker*, scouts cannot do this but do not provoke a barbaric response. An unsuccessful raze does not destroy the hut as hostile warrior(s) move out, your offending unit is pushed back to its' previous square it came from. A successful raze gets all the gold just like razing a hamlet-town. Failing to destroy an unhappy hut will allow it to generate hostile warriors for for every set of turns since the last fight with your forces...this can go on and on; so enraged, it will form a barbarian city if hostilities continue, and it must be destroyed or conquered. Hostile huts automatically gain full zone of control when hostile...they have been developing it all along.

    In the event of success, the hut is friendly and depending on your choices and success roll, via continued trade adds to your civ some gold, and research per turn (just like a hamlet-town) rather than a lump sum or random tech, also to some extend they reveal a map of the surrounding area, not some random senseless quadrant, but an actual radius. In exchange for gold or whatever, a friendly hut can also perform some services, such as watch over an area to prevent animals barbarians from forming (adds to your visible squares), if it sits on a resource, this can be traded for, you can hire a spare warrior or scout (it is cheaper to use like to hire like). The closer to your civ the hut is, the friendlier it is likelier to be, If it gets within a cultural radius, it becomes a hamlet-town, depending on how friendly it is/was, and how long it has been left unmolested. A quest can also result from a good 1st response, which may net in turning the hut into a Settler (large Hut), or free worker (medium hut) or warrior (small hut). If holy relics/artifacts are in then this is another possible result of a Hut quest; only original huts can offer these.

    A neutral response will result in nothing much happening, try again later. Or it may provoke a minor quest, =[ "go! Bring us the hides of 5 Bears, or we'll not trade with you." etc.

    Some huts are formed from lost but surviving units who could not return home after losing contact with their civ.**; or they were surviving hamlet-towns from fallen cities outside a cultural border. Given a successful negotiation, these towns and units may be incorporated more successfully than unrelated Huts, especially if they were one's own units and towns. Attempts at incorporating a hut by a previously hostile civ can backfire, causing the hut to turn hostile or even barbarian.

    If left unharmed long enough, and a main civ is destroyed, a big hut may form it's own civ, generally positive interactions with other civs may also encourage a big hut to form a civ if it is not too close. Negative interactions can cause it to join the barbarians.

    *ZoC Zone of Control
    my suggestion is that ZoC is available for units/armies not otherwise preoccupied. It is primarily limited by the movement range of the selected unit. It must be actively chosen in neutral territory, wherein one has the option to attack the moving unit or let it pass, possibly negotiating for money. Pushing ones way through is an option but provokes automatic attack. It must be developed over several turns, much like Fortify; it is automatic for defenders of cultural territory if they are not otherwise occupied, invaders must grow their ZoC against that. If your unit is healing, hiding, fortifying, moving, raiding, blockading, etc it cannot exercise a zone of control on adjacent squares. This is also like blockading, it prevents hostile trade/logistical lines, neutral ones must be negotiate piecemeal, Open Borders allows freely; blockading btw must also grow over the course of several turns. It can be done from either hiding or fortified positions once these are finished; however, fortified positions cancel hiding on that square. ZoCs only work on military units; ground and naval cannot influence each other except with bombardment or with units with the water crossing skill. That said, ZoCs cannot otherwise cross rivers either without Water Crossing skill. ZoCs grows better along Roads, adjacent rivers and coasts(not across them). ZoCs trip automatically against hostiles when a controlling unit is not hiding. Hiding units are given the choice to act, or allow passage of an enemy. Scouts and a few other units can ignore hostile ZoCs, possibly with skill checks. Occupying a constructed fort hastens a units growth of ZoC even in hostile borders.


    **Logistical Lines
    For most units, a continuous logistical line is needed to an owned, allied, or vassal civ. Continuous ZoCs in hostile territory, allow for logistical lines into enemy territory. Neutral territory does not need such, but a logistical line is needed, any hostile or non-open borders neutral cultural border blocks logistics. Ground units require clear logistical lines along the ground, ocean & coastal waters and mountains also block that for them. Explorers can hole up and form a Friendly Trading Post/colony to extend such lines given unblocked water logistical lines. Naval units require unblocked coasts, oceans initially block until later on. Units need to be in or adjacent to logistical lines to maintain control of the unit. In neutral territory, the unit is still visible but not under control, but it cannot normally heal and it will try to return to friendly logistics. In hostile territory, the player cannot get information from the unit, but it will try to return, and it cannot heal. Scouts, explorers, and any unit with Commando of course is excepted from the healing problem, units with Heal can only heal themselves. In either situation, if they cannot return, they may fight to the end, be captured by an enemy or surrender depending which unit initiates negotiation; in neutral territory, they will hole up as close as they can to friendly border and wait, if they wait too long, they give up and form a Hut or go barbarian, they can also be bought by another civ. Which brings up mercenaries.

    Mercenaries
    Currently one can ask another civ to join in a fight. For Civ 5, a civ can request a specific action by a specific unit, lease or purchase trade units from that civ. Writting Tech needed.

    Writing is not need for units to bribe other distinct units not to attack, allow passage, rebel, give intelligence, or join the opposition. Scouts, explorers, and especially diplomats and units with Leadership are better at that stuff as well as countering such (spies counter). Like or unlike properties between units also affect success e.g. religion.

    Other stuff.
    Natural channels. Isthmus are already in Civ4 when connecting two diagonally adjacent land squares otherwise surrounded by water, these block ships and shipping. But there should also be natural channels as alternative, allowing ships and sea logistics to pass. Land traffic is not fundamentally halted. Cannot build roads or rails until advanced steels become available.

    Islands groups. Basically squares usable by both land and sea units, both limit movement to 1, and both receive 25% defensive terrain bonus. Land units with Water Crossing don't have movement limited. Cities cannot be formed on them, but hamlets can be. Can be defined also as a freshwater lake with islands which allows ships, and land units. no roads or rails.

    Wetlands, lakelands, marshes. Basically, oasis for non-desert squares. Limits movement, provides water if freshwater, not saltwater marshes. but does not allow ships, does allow roads and rails. Cities can be built on them, but inlike oasis adds :yuck:.

    I don't like workers much. most of their functions can be replaced with work orders within the Fat Cross via the city screen by assigning population, or spending money. Any specific work within cultural borders but possibly not in the Fat Cross should require just some cash, ie connecting cities with roads, just like in CivRev.

    Engineering allows for construction of passes & tunnels in otherwise impassable mountains, once built, Forts and mines may be built there. These roads may be deliberately inaccessible from one side, the side not started adjacent to an existing owned road. I hate the lack of utility of Mountains in Civ4. Volcanoes may not be built on at all.

    Military engineer. A unit which can damage defenses, but does not bombard, can also make fortifications useful against gunpowder units.

    Resource depletion. Alternative to treechopping and applicable to other resources. Assign a population in a fat cross, to a spot, normally it can draw resources indefinitely, tell it to over produce and it will produce greater resources for a while. This will eventually alter the terrain: the trees disappear, grass land turns to prairie, prairie turns to desert. Special resources such as fish go away permanently after too much depletion. Left alone some of these replete if there are still some left. Mines do not replete, but they can also turn to desert with overmining, they will eventually deplete entirely even without overmining; similarly with Oil. Like Mathematics tech improved woodchopping yields, techs can ameliorate depletion or just generally improve yields without risking depletion. Some special resources can popup elsewhere, game, fish, whales etc can emerge in areas left untouched. These start small and must grow to achieve the potential.

    The larger your resources, the less effect owning a special resource has, too many specials has diminishing effect too. Trade for what you need.

    Tech Research
    More like the Spy control by adding Weights of :science: to respective technologies.

    That's all for now. Maybe more later.
     

Share This Page