The Official Civ4 Ideas Thread

[cinattra]

Originally posted by Winston
I also have some suggestions about adding more depth to military strategy. Civ 3’s combat system is good but I tend to find that the easiest way to conquer cities is to mass produce loads of the fastest, most powerful attackers of any particular time period and I tend to ignore the other units apart from for city defence. I am hoping that civ 4 will force the player to produce a large variety of units – this can be done by making units require specific buildings before a city can produce them (I’ve already posted this suggestion earlier in the thread) and by giving units combat bonuses depending on what units they are fighting and the type of terrain they are fighting in; here are some suggestions for combat bonuses:

We don't want Civ to become a militiristic game despite the fact of how military has shaped history and continues to do so. The type of units one produces is depended on the chosen Civ and the Civ's neighbors. There are not enough variety of units for every unit to have pluses and minuses against every other unit.

Let Age of Empires stay Age of Empires and let Civ stay Civ.

 

[cinattra]

Originally posted by Winston
Another suggestion I propose is to allow cities to simultaneously construct city improvements and to train soldiers. City improvements would be constructed using the production shield system in civ 3 and units would be trained by the city based upon a separate production value that would be based upon the city’s population size (the pool of people that the city would draw upon to train) and the value would be enhanced by buildings such as barracks, civil defence (better training facilities), and granaries and hospitals (healthier population to draw upon).
This would allow civ 4 to include a lot more buildings without detracting from the cities capacity to produce military units. However, cities could be restricted in both the number of military units they can produce and the number of buildings they can construct.
Units could be limited in that a city can only produce two military units per head of population (this could vary from government to government) e.g. a size 3 city could support 6 military units – if you want that city to produce more military units it has to grow first. Secondly you could limit the type of units that a city can produce by making cities require specialist buildings to build specialist units e.g. you need a tank factory to produce tanks. The result of this will mean that players will be forced to produce a variety of units instead of mass-producing the best units. This also allows the option of having small wonders to produce really specialist units e.g. only one city can produce an SAS/Delta Force type unit and it requires a small wonder.
City improvements could be limited by introducing a rule that cities can’t build any more city improvements than the infrastructure of the city can sustain. I suggest that cities shouldn’t be allowed so many city improvements that their combined maintenance cost (in gold) is in excess of the amount of revenue produced in trade and that many city improvements should be restricted to cities and / or metropolises. By doing this, the player is forced to specialise his/her cities rather than building numerous uber cities.

Galatic Civilizations makes a great go at your first idea. They have two separate build queues. One is the regular build queue and then there is a second build queue and for the second one you pay out of your cash to have it built almost as if you were contracting that building project out. The faster you want the unit built the more the contractor asks for.

Specialist buildings won't work because there are already a huge number of buildings you already have to build especially as you progress to the modern times. To build a tank building just so you can build tanks just adds a layer on top of the need to do the research. Unless.... these buildings are one of kind or two or three of a kind depending on the size of your civ. Which would mean these tank buildings would have to be able to build more than one tank every few turns. Otherwise the upkeep on all of these buildings is going to drive your Civ into ruins economically.

I love your idea about limiting the number of buildings a city can build based on the amount of gold the city produces. I wonder how this play out?

 

[cinattra]

Originally posted by Howard Mahler
Make settlers cost significantly more shields in order to slow down the early growth.

On most Civ3 maps the only viable stategies are variants of racing to fill up the map ASAP.

TRUE DAT! I hate the mad land ruSH!

 

[cinattra]

Originally posted by Mobilize
The ability to trade units with other civs. Like giving aid or asking for aid against opposing forces with friendly people's mercenaries. This was in Civ2 and for some reason not in Civ3.

Also more civs.. way more.

Originally posted by Philips beard



Really agrees in this one, but the opnent country of the one you support should be angry at you, since its a great trigger for war that you support their oponents with arms...

Isn't this already a feature or am I thinking of SMAC?

 

[cinattra]

Originally posted by Philips beard
I have a great idea!!!!!!

When your civ-empire falls (your last city is taken) The remains of your army in the field should not just pass away, but the conqueror should be able to choose if he wantet to place a new government over the captured cities, or parts of them! Then the remains of the old army will become the new governments army in a kind of vasal or vichy state. If the conqueror chooses to keep the whole conquerred nation as a part of his own empire, or large parts of it, there should be a great risk that this army converted to resistance fighters, and the one ruling the conquered country before should be in charge of them, trying to get their old powers back. He could survive even without cities if he was supported by a third nation with arms and gold, but this should seriously harm the third countries relations to the conqeror civ!

You have quite a few posts and you know what this just doesn't make any sense.

Usually any Civ that is about to be exterminated has such an inferior army that resistance would be futile!

 

[cinattra]

Originally posted by cgannon64
How about global warming creates receding water levels? I know water tiles can turn into land tiles in Civ3 but its a bug and not widespread. I say if global warming gets really out of hand they add a tile to some, most, or all shorelines.

Water levels rise due to global warming because the ice at the poles start to melt.

 

[cinattra]

Originally posted by Craterus22
----
1
---
Civil Wars should make a comeback. This would counter the poor expansion minded (go to locations that make no sense -inevitably will return in a new version) AI. This could be a HUGE balancing force in the game.

If a civ is too big (either player or AI) and the civ is allowed to fall to a certain extreme level of unhappiness, there should be a penalty in excess of loss of production. Civil war would solve this. It could also shake up the middle game in a way that would make it more fun.

Civil wars should vary in size... not just a split down the middle - perhaps a combination of culture and war could redefine the new borders. The newly created civ would have to have an alternative known form of govt. This would be helpful for early game CW's because the off shoot would be weakened by Anarchy.

In the good old days of Civ 1 civil wars were triggered when you captured an enemy capital. Definitely a missed featured.

 

[elementgoo]

I think that it would be cool to be able to name places on the map, like mountain ranges, river, oceans etc.
I cant really think of any strategic value to this, but it would be cool to think in your mind, "I'll send my troops of the English Mountains and attack over the Blue Valley River!" It might also help to know at which parts of the map u were planning on attacking or mining etc. Kinda like in SIMCITY 4

HERE IS A SCREENSHOT FROM SIMCITY 4 OF WHAT I WAS THINKING ABOUT FOR CIV4:

http://www.eagames.com/official/sc4/rushhour/us/screenshot/screen_pops/euro_build.jsp

 

[Howard Mahler]

On huge arcipelego maps, the unlimited distance of airlift is extremely powerful. Given one can build airports with flight, in the late industrial age prior to "modern times", this capability is gross!

Airlift should have limited range, with perhaps the range increasing with some advance researched in modern times.

Also, what can be airlifted should be rethought. Workers should be able to be airlifted. Tanks and modern amror should not be able to be airlifted, until perhaps some advance researched in modern times.

Howard Mahler

 

[Howard Mahler]

On huge arcipelego maps (on which I like to play), in ancient times and to a lesser extent the middle ages, it is very, very risky to try to build a wonder.

First at a high difficulty level you are almost guarenteed to be behind in research and be slower at building anyway. On this type of map, you are unlikely to have made contact with many other civilizations before the middle ages, so in most cases you have no idea who is building a wonder or when they started.

On this type of a map, it is very rare to have a leader this early in the game, so that is not much of an option to build a wonder.

Thus playing against the computer, unless I am already doing so well that the game is virtually already won, I do not even try to build an ancient wonder and very rarely try to build a wonder in the middle ages.

On this type of a map, building the ancient and middle age wonders are usually not a good option for the player.

It would be good if this did not also occur in Civ4.

Howard Mahler

P.S. These ancient and middle age wonders still have an impact. Some computer civs will benefit from building them. Other computer civs will waste shields by being beaten out on building a wonder. Also, occassionally early on, the human can conquer a city in which a wonder was built by the computer. Hopefully later on, the human can conquer those wonders which still grant a benefit.

 

[saintly_saint]

Time dependent government types e.g, monarchy in the ancient types is not the same thing as the monarchy in Britain after Oliver Cromwell, or the republic of Rome which also isn't the same thing as the rupblic of, say, France. Oh ya. and also it would be nice if they included motorized transportation like jeeps to carry infantry, workers etc. faster to battle.

 

[Drakken]

I'm not sure if it has been suggested or not. I believe the singlemost important change would be to make a hex based mapping system. this silly checkerboard with diagonal moves makes me crazy. It is time for Civ to become a real wargame with a more realistic mapping and movement system.

 

[Sparrow3]

Originally posted by Howard Mahler
Airlift should have limited range, with perhaps the range increasing with some advance researched in modern times.

Also, what can be airlifted should be rethought. Workers should be able to be airlifted. Tanks and modern amror should not be able to arilifted, until perhaps some advance researched in modern times.

I think that aircraft should have limited range also and movement capabilities just like any other unit. Heavy lift cargo planes could have a movemnet of say 20 and a carrying capacity of 4 infantry or 2 mech. inf./mod armor. Jet fighters would have a lessor range (10) but be allowed air to air refueling so they could escourt the cargo planes. Research into air to air refueling might extend the range of both cargo planes and fighters.

In addition, I would like to see them include the B-52 bomber in the game as an intermediate between B-17 and Stealth bomber.

 

[Aphex_Twin]

My suggestions:

- Bridges

- Underwater tunnels

- Space combat a-la Civ2 CTP

- Civ2-style Air Force !!!

- Diferent types of barbarians

 

[charmcd]

More Risk/Reward City Improvements!

Right now the only city improvement with a downside is the Nuclear Power Plant.

Things like: Civil Wars are possible only if you build a forbidden palace, or granaries can lead to a tainted food supply, or universities can bring disruptive protests?

Tying these into culture/happiness/government type would make decisions that are currently straightforward into long range planning issue.

 

[happy_Alex]

The theme of Civilization is the development of human civilisation. Yet in civ3 it has sadly moved further from acheiving this self stated aim.

History has more than 8 nations, so why are the other peoples of the world not represented in some way?

Drop characters for leaders of nation

Having the same leader all the time is illogical and ruins authenticity.

Civ could keep the concept of leaders but they could be like the special units, arising at certain times in the nations history and giving us a special advantage in a field; militarily, culturaly, economically etc.



Bring back movies and actors !

I loved the high council in civ2! It added a real human touch to the game and was a good laugh. So why have we got those creepy, crappy CGI advisors in civ3?

 

[Mr. Cackle]

Originally posted by Troy0628
Civ 4 should seperate economics and politics

Political systems would include:
Despotism (i.e. Saddam's Iraq)
Monarchy (i.e. Saudi Arabia)
Republic (i.e. Current U.S. model)
Democracy (has not existed since ancient Greece)

I like the econ slider idea for economic systems:

To the left would be "Planned economy" or "Communism" with slow growth, lagging technological development, few happy or sad citizens (only content ones), and cheap military

To the right would be "Laissez Faire" or "Capitalism" with rapid growth, rapid technological advancement, demanding citizens that are either happy or sad (rarely content), and expensive military.

The notion that deficit spending hurts GDP is backwards. If anything, deficit spending boosts CURRENT GDP and income at the expense of slower FUTURE growth.

Communism should get bad commerce but good industrial power, to represent how a leader is able to take control of the economy. I really like the whole "only content" idea though. See my post on govs and the economy for details.

Trade & Supplies:

I would like to see trade routes be implemented in the game. For example, if you want to connect your harbor the harbor of an ally or to another one of your harbors, you go to "trade/supply vision" and draw a line from Point A to Point B. Depending on how far away the harbor is, the route could take from 1 to several turns to build. If an enemy sent a ship onto your trade line (the line would be the same color as your civ) they could pillage it, in which case it would act like a road has been pillaged. However, it would be possible to set units to "guard the trade line" in which case they would patrol the line and if an enemy tried to pillage your trade and you had a ship 2 (or 3, not sure) your ship would fight it automatically.

The same would work for supply lines for your troops. If you have more than X units, you must make a supply line for those troops the same way as mentioned above, only the line would take one turn. The same actions could be applied to this line, and the route would have to be connected to a city or road which, in turn, is connected to your National Granary (I'll explain later).

The national granary is basically where you can select (by way of the governor) to allocate X amount of excess food (perhaps in more brutal govs/war-time mobilization you can actually DENY food to the populace) to the National Granary. This is viewable through your domestic advisor, and if a city is starving you can send food to them. Also, for units whom you must supply via a supply line, every x units takes up 1 food.

 

[windsor_juggalo]

I would love to see Canada as a playable country!!!

They always take civs like hittites who the hell are they????

 

[Mr. Cackle]

The hittites are a famous civilization who lived around the same time of the Egyptians and helped spread technology due to their many wars to various parts of the world.

The canadians have not conquered any lands, made any great cultural or scientific achievements as a nation (I know there are tons of brilliant canadian scientists and whatnot). Those are the primary criteria for qualifying in civ as being a "civilization"

I have come up with yet another way to modify how your gov is (in addition/alteration to my previous posts on government)

Everyone should start off as "tribalist" Depending on how many units they have, the measure of economic control they have, and what kind of "public improvements" (see previous post) they invest in, and if they hold elections or not, size of empire/cities within empire, a civ will ultimately branch off of "tribalism" into various stages of government without a revolution. A revolution will only occur if you must switch trees. For example, a tree could look like this:

N.B. I set the tree up like this:
(Government) -- (Criteria for government change) --> (If criteria are met, government changes to _______) and so on and so forth

Tribalism -- elections; small, contained empire of medium-sized cities; public parks and no military --> City-state Democracy -- Elections; Vast empire of large cities; medium military with conquests; laissez faire (no support for trade unions, conservative economy) --> Imperialistic Republic

Here's another possible tree:

Tribalism -- Some elections; public works, more controlled economy, somewhat small empire --> Monarchistic Commune -- Some elections, controlled economy, public works, lots of healthcare, lots of education, lots of union support --> Socialist Republic

I included only three "stages" for the sake of simplicity's sake in making the tree. In the real game, one could have many stages. Essentially though, to qualify as a change in government, one must maintain certain criteria for a certain number of turns and then there will be a little pop-up saying "Our people all agree, we have become a Dictatorship!" or something to that extent.

Elections: Basically, this could be called voting, referendums, etc. If you are about to go to war, make a drastic change in any of the sliders, or sign a trade embargo what have you, a pop-up will appear asking if you would like to have a vote for this. You can choose yes or no. Then, depending on what factions are dominant at the time (could be random, could be depending on neighboring/frequently trading countries) a vote is held to see if the people approve of your plan. If they approve, then you can proceed and the people will be get slightly happier. If they disapprove only a little bit, then you can continue but they will be disgruntled, if there is overwhelming opposition and you continue to do the action anyway, the computer will play for 5 turns and try to restore things the way they were previously.
Every now and then, a random election will be held. In this election, the people take a vote to see if they are pleased with what you have done since the previous election. Ways to hurt your standing include if you have drastically damaged the economy, drastically hurt international approval rating, used forced labor (we should have the option to do either one, no matter the gov.) etc.

 

[Snoopy]

CivFanatics has the most unorganised Civ4 Ideas List ever!

Who on earth would want to wade through all this crap?