Philips beard
Prince
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...
The Official Civ4 Ideas Thread
- Thread starter Chieftess
- Start date
- Status
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...
Philips beard
Prince
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!
NB! Firaxis! Hire me and civ 4 will be a classic to survive the test of time!
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!
NB! Firaxis! Hire me and civ 4 will be a classic to survive the test of time!
Philips beard
Prince
And I really want this game to be even more complex, and filled with even more units, improvments, techs, time periods, everyting! And for those of us that dont know where the save button is, you can make some small conquests or quickgames 
Philips beard
Prince
I agree the combat system must be improved, and it will be, but I dont wish the days of ctp2 back! Its nicer as it is where all battles are solved on the main map, and not in a kind of special chess system or something!, and by the way, I really like that you use one and one unit to fight down others. It makes it more realistic, because it forces you to use combined arms (artillery, air, mounted units etc)! I dont want a game where you can tile 12 tanks, and then go arround concuerring everything, the armies in Civ3 are strong enough! Great numbers are never enough to win battles or wars, you have to be smart as well (example the winter war Rusiia vs Finland)! The way its made now also adds the importance of keeping a frontal line...
What will be more important in civ 4 is to add attack and defence bonuses for certain units vs others, for instance anti panzer infantry great vs tanks, but weak vs ordinary infantry!
It should also have a great negative impact on armies to be isolated from transport routes from home, for instance if they are surrounded by the enemy, as the germans where at Stalingrad in the end! This forced them to surrender at last, with a large army!!!!
mitsho
Deity
A more logical vicotry. IN modern times, you shouldn't just to get your country growing and growing and growing. (for example Iraq didn't became a new state of the USA... 
) bad example...
and more civ traits. If we want more civs, we have to get more traits. We've now (in opponent pairs):
Expansionistic <-> seafaring
Agricultural <-> [f.e nomadic]
commercial <-> [f.e monumentalistic]
religous <-> [f.e. perhaps 'entertainistic']
militaristic <-> [f.e. isolationistic]
scientific <->[f.e. a deceiving nation (bad name)]
industrial <-> [f.e cultural]
Then we would have 14 traits. But of course, some of them are bad and would drop out. Explanation
nomadic: Mountains (higher lying regions which produce less food) are giving more food; same by no-good-food-climata
monumentalistic: wonders are a bit cheaper; building rushes cost less
entertainistic: have no idea. just needed an opponent for religous
isolatistic: inside the own borders, you get a higher defensive bonus; defensive buildings cost less and are better, (-> no one can conquer you), BUT you're army is worse outside your country (-> no good conquering other nations)
a deceiving nation: Instead of researching their own, they have a greater chance to succed in stealing techs, etc ,also cheaper.
cultural: other cities are more likely to jump over to you, etc.
mfG mitsho
) bad example...and more civ traits. If we want more civs, we have to get more traits. We've now (in opponent pairs):
Expansionistic <-> seafaring
Agricultural <-> [f.e nomadic]
commercial <-> [f.e monumentalistic]
religous <-> [f.e. perhaps 'entertainistic']
militaristic <-> [f.e. isolationistic]
scientific <->[f.e. a deceiving nation (bad name)]
industrial <-> [f.e cultural]
Then we would have 14 traits. But of course, some of them are bad and would drop out. Explanation
nomadic: Mountains (higher lying regions which produce less food) are giving more food; same by no-good-food-climata
monumentalistic: wonders are a bit cheaper; building rushes cost less
entertainistic: have no idea. just needed an opponent for religous
isolatistic: inside the own borders, you get a higher defensive bonus; defensive buildings cost less and are better, (-> no one can conquer you), BUT you're army is worse outside your country (-> no good conquering other nations)
a deceiving nation: Instead of researching their own, they have a greater chance to succed in stealing techs, etc ,also cheaper.
cultural: other cities are more likely to jump over to you, etc.
mfG mitsho
Philips beard
Prince
Its a lot of talk about improving the AI skills in battle, and thats exstremly important of course, but what about the AI skills with their workers? When I conquer an AI player I have seen that he builds an awfull lot og irrigation, but not so much mining as I do, to improve production! The AIs production capacity is incredible small, I would never survive in civ using my workers like that!
sela1s1son
King
Name of Feature: Commercial "Culture"
What this feature should do in the game:
A commercial like affect similar to culture (like how American corporations (Coke, or McDonalds as examples)) have a presence globally.
This might be accomplished by creating corporations via wonder (or an economic type leader created by being one of the better economic powers, or having one of the best inudstrial capacities) which then bring income. Perhaps a fraction of a cities gold, although maybe the corp has a cost (to reflect costs). This might depend on cultural influence, your governments (yours and others), geographic location, etc. Example: Playing a Democratic nation, you will have a better effect (and be better effected), as opposed to a Communist or possibly Fascist nation. Also, civ traits might contribute to this. (IE Industrial/Commercial America under Democracy would greatly affect a yyy/Commercial Democratic Greece with less economic and industrial capacity)
It might not even drain the other economy, but represent the citizens spending the money they do have. Little connection to taxrate probably. (Saved money, money for mowing lawns doesn't get taxed, etc)
How would this feature work: See above
Gameplay:
[*] AI - How does it affect the AI, and how will they use it?
Maybe they move to a less capitalist so society if you're gaining from it, or might move the other way if they're raking in the cash. This would also affect how they wage war, logically.
[*] Processor Power - I don't think so, probably not a lot more complex then culture... with commercial 'outlets' appearing in cities a few or one at a time.
[*] Complexity - believe so
[*] Programming Complexity - Not something simple enough to put in expansion I'm afraid, but with the culture foundation layed, the job will probably be easier
[*] Multiplayer - Dunno here
[*] Exploits - With appropriate countermeasures, such as government changes or improving thier own economy and industrial complex, they should be able to handle it well.
[*] Player Decisions - Two possibilities in this realm: 1, it's like culture and no one directly starts it, but by improving your cities through commercial and/or indusrial buildings it is affected.
2. Perhaps they can go against this route, making the Communist government stand out more from the Fascist government. Possib having a global adverse affect by the player trying to forment world revolution or something.
[*] Affects - It'd offer more possibilities, without dragging the game to a halt, and not being something choice intensive... like culture.
[/list]
What this feature should do in the game:
A commercial like affect similar to culture (like how American corporations (Coke, or McDonalds as examples)) have a presence globally.
This might be accomplished by creating corporations via wonder (or an economic type leader created by being one of the better economic powers, or having one of the best inudstrial capacities) which then bring income. Perhaps a fraction of a cities gold, although maybe the corp has a cost (to reflect costs). This might depend on cultural influence, your governments (yours and others), geographic location, etc. Example: Playing a Democratic nation, you will have a better effect (and be better effected), as opposed to a Communist or possibly Fascist nation. Also, civ traits might contribute to this. (IE Industrial/Commercial America under Democracy would greatly affect a yyy/Commercial Democratic Greece with less economic and industrial capacity)
It might not even drain the other economy, but represent the citizens spending the money they do have. Little connection to taxrate probably. (Saved money, money for mowing lawns doesn't get taxed, etc)
How would this feature work: See above
Gameplay:
[*] AI - How does it affect the AI, and how will they use it?
Maybe they move to a less capitalist so society if you're gaining from it, or might move the other way if they're raking in the cash. This would also affect how they wage war, logically.
[*] Processor Power - I don't think so, probably not a lot more complex then culture... with commercial 'outlets' appearing in cities a few or one at a time.
[*] Complexity - believe so
[*] Programming Complexity - Not something simple enough to put in expansion I'm afraid, but with the culture foundation layed, the job will probably be easier
[*] Multiplayer - Dunno here
[*] Exploits - With appropriate countermeasures, such as government changes or improving thier own economy and industrial complex, they should be able to handle it well.
[*] Player Decisions - Two possibilities in this realm: 1, it's like culture and no one directly starts it, but by improving your cities through commercial and/or indusrial buildings it is affected.
2. Perhaps they can go against this route, making the Communist government stand out more from the Fascist government. Possib having a global adverse affect by the player trying to forment world revolution or something.
[*] Affects - It'd offer more possibilities, without dragging the game to a halt, and not being something choice intensive... like culture.
[/list]
Some system that allows you to conquer nations by forcing surrender, so that remaining cities get automatically transferred to you without having to conquer them, in return for eventual freedom in a locked alliance and forced tribute (kind of like Alpha Centauri). So much of history is about conquered people trying to get independance, I would like to see that implemented in the game.
blackhalo15
Booby Pie
- Joined
- Aug 7, 2003
- Messages
- 209
I think there should be a reputation system. Where everyone that was in contact with each other could see each others reputation... I think it would work well on a rating system. For example: You double click to trade with Zululand. Your foreign advisor could tell you something like, "Zululand has a reputation of 35." (On a scale of 0 - 100) Or, "Zululand has a bad reputation". Ratings could go like this.
85-100: Awesome reputation... Treat them great, they bring the world joy.
65-84: Very good reputation... Treat them nice, maybe help them every and then.
55-64: Good reputation, treat them with respect
45-54: Normal reputation, They have done neither good or bad.
35-44: Bad reputation, be careful when dealing with them.
15-34: Very bad reputation, if you break a right of passage agreement, nobody will care. If you nuke them, nobody will care. But, you can expect them to try to destroy you.
0-14: Terrible reputation, to get a reputation this bad, you have to betray almost every other civilization on the map. If you nuke these people, everyone will be happy.
And, if you put a spy in their capital, you could use the spy to see the last few things that civlization did to gain their current reputation.
85-100: Awesome reputation... Treat them great, they bring the world joy.
65-84: Very good reputation... Treat them nice, maybe help them every and then.
55-64: Good reputation, treat them with respect
45-54: Normal reputation, They have done neither good or bad.
35-44: Bad reputation, be careful when dealing with them.
15-34: Very bad reputation, if you break a right of passage agreement, nobody will care. If you nuke them, nobody will care. But, you can expect them to try to destroy you.
0-14: Terrible reputation, to get a reputation this bad, you have to betray almost every other civilization on the map. If you nuke these people, everyone will be happy.
And, if you put a spy in their capital, you could use the spy to see the last few things that civlization did to gain their current reputation.
Tonsoffun
Chieftain
BIGGER DOES NOT MEAN BETTER. In Civ3 the biggest civ is the most productive. They really need to find ways around this. Also, you should be able to send excessive food from some cities to cities that dont have enough. THis would lead to more specialization within your civ. Some cities would focus on producing food while some cities would be highly industrialized. It would also be nice if there were multiple versions of city improvements. You could have the option to build factories if you want the city to focus on shield production or if your city is more agriculturally focused you could build a granary system that would effect food output instead of shield production.
PorthosdPirate
Chieftain
Here's mine
1) Bring back the Sioux! Also could add the Cherokee and Apache. If we can have multiple Civs from Mesopotamia why not more from the Americas.
2) Make Sargon the great leader of Sumeria. There is actual proof of him.
3) Naval leaders or Naval Academy
4) Increase the number of possible Civs to 48 (yes I know some want 64 but can even most 2GHz machines with 1GB of memory handle that many?)
5) Flavor specific units, ie Japan has their on set, America their own, etc
6) Give us the ability in the editor to add more ages
7) Add a future age and place in some of the SMAC technologies!
8) Bring back the Civ2 style space race! Just because you launch does not mean you make it to Alpha Centari
9) How about adding space stations, moon bases, for small wonders that give some added bonus and Mars base and Solor system exploration for great wonders in a future age.
10) Start the Game at 6000 BC and let it run through 2200 AD. 2050 is only 47 years away.
1) Bring back the Sioux! Also could add the Cherokee and Apache. If we can have multiple Civs from Mesopotamia why not more from the Americas.
2) Make Sargon the great leader of Sumeria. There is actual proof of him.
3) Naval leaders or Naval Academy
4) Increase the number of possible Civs to 48 (yes I know some want 64 but can even most 2GHz machines with 1GB of memory handle that many?)
5) Flavor specific units, ie Japan has their on set, America their own, etc
6) Give us the ability in the editor to add more ages
7) Add a future age and place in some of the SMAC technologies!
8) Bring back the Civ2 style space race! Just because you launch does not mean you make it to Alpha Centari
9) How about adding space stations, moon bases, for small wonders that give some added bonus and Mars base and Solor system exploration for great wonders in a future age.
10) Start the Game at 6000 BC and let it run through 2200 AD. 2050 is only 47 years away.
enigma2010
Chieftain
- Joined
- Nov 30, 2002
- Messages
- 39
Name of Feature: The ability to transfer military units to other civs.
You should be able to sell or donate military units to other civs. Transfers of advanced weaponry (those units you've only had for a short while) should only be made to close allies, whereas less advanced weapons could be transferred to anyone. There should also be a scale that rates the relative value of the units. (for instance, an aircraft carrier should be MUCH more valuable than an infantry unit).
Name of Feature: being able to mediate between two civs.
By this, I mean that you should be able to get two other warring civs to sign a peace treaty. You should be able to include
"sweeteners" in the deal (gold, resources, units, techs). The receptivity of the warring civs to you should depend on your influence with them (eg: if you're sending them a resource, gold, etc), your power relative to them, and the number of your units located close to them. The number of units close to them is important because it's a measure of the likelihood and success of a military intervention by you. In real life, having a carrier battle group has usaully meant that countries are a lot more receptive to the demands of great powers.
Name of Feature: Bridges and Canals.
Perhaps these should be made incredibly expensive (~1000 Gold/square) and have a cap on their maximum size (for example, bridges should only be able to span 3 squares of ocean, and canals should cut through only 2 squares of land). Bridges would link land masses separated by water, and canals would link two bodies of water separated by a land mass. Having them as great wonders wouldn't be realistic because this would entail having only one bridge/canal on a map. Having them as minor wonders would result in their destruction upon capture, which rarely happens in reality - even if it is destryed, the invader rapidy tries to rebuild the structure (this is especially true for bridges). These are the reasons why paying for them seems attractive. The cost, however, should be enormous to preclude players from building several of these structures.
You should be able to sell or donate military units to other civs. Transfers of advanced weaponry (those units you've only had for a short while) should only be made to close allies, whereas less advanced weapons could be transferred to anyone. There should also be a scale that rates the relative value of the units. (for instance, an aircraft carrier should be MUCH more valuable than an infantry unit).
Name of Feature: being able to mediate between two civs.
By this, I mean that you should be able to get two other warring civs to sign a peace treaty. You should be able to include
"sweeteners" in the deal (gold, resources, units, techs). The receptivity of the warring civs to you should depend on your influence with them (eg: if you're sending them a resource, gold, etc), your power relative to them, and the number of your units located close to them. The number of units close to them is important because it's a measure of the likelihood and success of a military intervention by you. In real life, having a carrier battle group has usaully meant that countries are a lot more receptive to the demands of great powers.
Name of Feature: Bridges and Canals.
Perhaps these should be made incredibly expensive (~1000 Gold/square) and have a cap on their maximum size (for example, bridges should only be able to span 3 squares of ocean, and canals should cut through only 2 squares of land). Bridges would link land masses separated by water, and canals would link two bodies of water separated by a land mass. Having them as great wonders wouldn't be realistic because this would entail having only one bridge/canal on a map. Having them as minor wonders would result in their destruction upon capture, which rarely happens in reality - even if it is destryed, the invader rapidy tries to rebuild the structure (this is especially true for bridges). These are the reasons why paying for them seems attractive. The cost, however, should be enormous to preclude players from building several of these structures.
I don't know if anyone suggested this because I haven't read back but wouldn't it be nice if on each unit that is fortified you tell him exactly how many turns after you fortify him he should wake up?
Here is when it becomes useful:
You are close to building the Great Lighthouse and you are just circling around your continent with a galley and you fortify the galley on a place where you know you can go further so you fortify it and tell it to wake up when you build the Great Lighthouse which is 10 turns away. When you build it, it wakes up and you proceed.
Very useful IMO.
Here is when it becomes useful:
You are close to building the Great Lighthouse and you are just circling around your continent with a galley and you fortify the galley on a place where you know you can go further so you fortify it and tell it to wake up when you build the Great Lighthouse which is 10 turns away. When you build it, it wakes up and you proceed.
Very useful IMO.
saintly_saint
Regent
I don't agree with smilitary trade, i mean wha would stop you from paying 1000 gpt taking all their military and then conquering them?
sela1s1son
King
Civilizations sprining up part way into the game. Through various possible means.
A collection of Barbarian villages after a period of time
If I'm playing, let's say the Swiss (which I'd like to see also), and I have a collection of colonies and cities on (using world map) Australia. There's a chance, especially when they are underveloped culutrally/infrastructure, they might rebel. This could be tied into what government I am, and civil disorder. The cities I have keep thier names while the colonies (ala Civ 3) adopt a few of my names, and a few of thier names. Colonies/cities near these of another civ or two may also rebel with them (to form the same civ) So perhaps Rome is created by Rebellion, and my four colonies, and three cities on West Australia form Rome, with two cities from Portugal joining them as well. While my Northern and Eastern presence continues to exist. I suggest that some would stay loyal as all of North America did not rebel when the American War for Independence occured.
To go further
The Rebellion might start, and I may be at war with them, so I can try to reclaim it. Nations I'm at war with, or who have various negative attitudes for me for various reasons, may enter on the sides of the Rebels.
I DO NOT want this to inhibit me playing the Americans, or (let's say India, as they once were ruled by Britain). I'm not suggesting each civ have a potential rebel. Perhaps a relationship of liklihood to rebel out of X civ's cities. (IE Korea less likely to rebel from Spain or Inca, but very likely to rebel from India).
A collection of Barbarian villages after a period of time
If I'm playing, let's say the Swiss (which I'd like to see also), and I have a collection of colonies and cities on (using world map) Australia. There's a chance, especially when they are underveloped culutrally/infrastructure, they might rebel. This could be tied into what government I am, and civil disorder. The cities I have keep thier names while the colonies (ala Civ 3) adopt a few of my names, and a few of thier names. Colonies/cities near these of another civ or two may also rebel with them (to form the same civ) So perhaps Rome is created by Rebellion, and my four colonies, and three cities on West Australia form Rome, with two cities from Portugal joining them as well. While my Northern and Eastern presence continues to exist. I suggest that some would stay loyal as all of North America did not rebel when the American War for Independence occured.
To go further
The Rebellion might start, and I may be at war with them, so I can try to reclaim it. Nations I'm at war with, or who have various negative attitudes for me for various reasons, may enter on the sides of the Rebels.
I DO NOT want this to inhibit me playing the Americans, or (let's say India, as they once were ruled by Britain). I'm not suggesting each civ have a potential rebel. Perhaps a relationship of liklihood to rebel out of X civ's cities. (IE Korea less likely to rebel from Spain or Inca, but very likely to rebel from India).
saintly_saint
Regent
Also a why not have a defeat mode where the civ collapses on itself (a loss condition) bankrupcy, hatred of the people (1792 style) or something of that jazz
Sparrow3
Prince
As I see it the obvious answers would be:
1) They do not give you all of their military.
2) Military units would revert to the mother country if you declare war on it.
I like the idea of trading military units/mercenaries.
Dr. Yoshi
Emperor of the Universe
The one thing I would love to see in Civ 4: A dynamic multiplayer universe!
One way of doing this would be to have each server be a solar system of Earth-like worlds with hundreds, maybe thousands, of players to each solar system. The planet sizes would range from Earth-size to Jupiter-size to meet demand and tailor it to your own personal tastes (ie. if you want to play against a lot of nations going for a lot of land you would choose a Jupiter size world.)
Another way of creating a Civ 4 dynamic multiplayer universe would be to have each server be a planet with player created regions much like the webgame NationStates. These regions can either choose to be like the modern European Union with a strong alliance or to be like Medieval Europe with wars constantly going on between the nations in the region.
In order to make your nation a bit more distinctive you will get to choose your nation's name and to create a customized leaderhead in a manner similar to the character creation systems seen in MMORPG games. You will also be able to choose your traits from the civ list and your military speciality which will offer benefits but also penalities to your nation's military, ie. if you choose to specialize in armor production the tanks you produce will be stronger and faster than normal tanks but as a downside your air units might not be as strong as the standard air units.
That would be awesome!
One way of doing this would be to have each server be a solar system of Earth-like worlds with hundreds, maybe thousands, of players to each solar system. The planet sizes would range from Earth-size to Jupiter-size to meet demand and tailor it to your own personal tastes (ie. if you want to play against a lot of nations going for a lot of land you would choose a Jupiter size world.)
Another way of creating a Civ 4 dynamic multiplayer universe would be to have each server be a planet with player created regions much like the webgame NationStates. These regions can either choose to be like the modern European Union with a strong alliance or to be like Medieval Europe with wars constantly going on between the nations in the region.
In order to make your nation a bit more distinctive you will get to choose your nation's name and to create a customized leaderhead in a manner similar to the character creation systems seen in MMORPG games. You will also be able to choose your traits from the civ list and your military speciality which will offer benefits but also penalities to your nation's military, ie. if you choose to specialize in armor production the tanks you produce will be stronger and faster than normal tanks but as a downside your air units might not be as strong as the standard air units.
That would be awesome!
DesertWolf
Chieftain
- Joined
- Nov 26, 2003
- Messages
- 78
i would like to see the day of the king more like in civ 2 than in civ 3
giving only a production bonus is not that much worth in my opinion but getting benefits from a better government is much more effective, and iirc if you have dotk in democracy citysize raised every turn - that was great
edit: oh i also forgot to increase the spy ability. its kind of boring when you are able to use spys and can't convert enemys cities cause of whatever .... i never managed to get a city by spying missions , and imho nearly everything else is useless (except steal plans sometimes)
giving only a production bonus is not that much worth in my opinion but getting benefits from a better government is much more effective, and iirc if you have dotk in democracy citysize raised every turn - that was great
edit: oh i also forgot to increase the spy ability. its kind of boring when you are able to use spys and can't convert enemys cities cause of whatever .... i never managed to get a city by spying missions , and imho nearly everything else is useless (except steal plans sometimes)
Sparrow3
Prince
It seems that most people don't like the idea of a future age in Civ; but I do. How about THE CONQUEST OF MARS? In which, at the end of 2050 AD, each remaining nation capable of space flight send out a colony ship to Mars. Sounds like SMaC, I know (I like SMAC). I would like to be the first to build a city at the base of Olympus Monts. Each would establish a colony and proceed to attempt to terraform the planet.
The colonies would, of course, receive periodic supply ships from earth to help in this effort. So, one strategy might be to intercept an oponent Civs supplies. A trip to the asteriod belt for resources might also be made. These would require researching fuel refining methods (isolating hydrogen & oxigen).
(I like SMAC). I would like to be the first to build a city at the base of Olympus Monts. Each would establish a colony and proceed to attempt to terraform the planet. The colonies would, of course, receive periodic supply ships from earth to help in this effort. So, one strategy might be to intercept an oponent Civs supplies. A trip to the asteriod belt for resources might also be made. These would require researching fuel refining methods (isolating hydrogen & oxigen).
- Status
Similar threads
