The Official Civ4 Ideas Thread

[Mad Danny]

I like how Ant509y put the idea of provinces - it would incorporate several previous ideas and could really make the civil wars work.. plus if they had the animated video advisors from Civ2 back again why not incorporate a random 3D face-maker system and give each provincial leader a unique persona? (although I don't know how viable a direct pitch shift on an audio sample would do in a game or if instead there would need to be several alternate recordings of each quote) it could also work well in terms of shifting surplus food and resources - provinces could have internal trading but can disrupt it if particular leaders don't get along, and on a variation of the civ2 city-based unit support unit support could be specific to the province - so you as supreme ruler would need to mediate arguments to avoid treason during wars (examples such as if one province has low miilitary might but high culture so a militant neighbouring province might feel less inclined to support them if attacked - perhaps increasing their units' support costs when they are in the other province's territorial boundary, or another example being one province not supporting another in densive battle when asked, but needing their surplus food so if you pay the cost of the food from the royal coffers to be able to redistribute it to the needy province)

on another note regarding some people's ideas on introducing religion, methinks it could work provided you don't use 'defined' religions - as in don't use Christianity/Islam/Buddhism instead relate them to the generic techs so things like Monotheism/Polytheism

and I've done it before I'll do it again - methinks a text file with all suggestions neatly organised by topic (ok so this one'll be longer than GeneRally but I can still do it I have free time now) - provided people will start reading it before posting rather than repeating ideas

 

[SirBois]

The number of units stacked on one square should be limited. The number could vary with the kind of terrain, and cities can have a differend maximum. Having twenty units or so in a city is not really realistic and should even pose problemds for the defender in stead of extra strenght.

Armoured units in cities should have their defence halved or at least lowered, because that defence-factor is based on using their armor in open battle. Compare this to the defence bonus of a pikeman against mounted units, but the other way around.

I think this one has been suggested earlier: allow units attacking or defending together to combine their strenght. Ideally a stack of difrerend units would have a bonus over a stack of identical units. This is to reflect the advantage of 'combined arms' warfare. Practically speaking, this means plotting the whole assault on any square (or hex) and then executing. Otherwise you cannot include artillery-support and a multi-sided attack. A good example is the way battles are resolved in the 'World at War' series. Maybe I am making the game to military, but the fighting would be more realistic.

 

[Aphex_Twin]

Civ2 CTP-style combat. Or better, Heroes-style combat !

 

[LULA CANIBALL]

3D 3D 3D 3D

 

[Comrad Poopoff]

I like most of the suggestions submited so far, especialy on those about the Cannal and selling Units to under developed civilizations. But the one thing I'd like to see taken away in civ 4 is researching Future tech. I mean what the hell is that good for anyway??? But that doesnt mean we should replace it with some kind of future technology that we dont have here right now, because then it gets too impersonal. The good thing about Civilization is that its identifiable and personable. Do we realy want to go back to the days of Alpha-Centurai?? We know when you research Fussion you get the Bomb but when you research "Super ultra lubricant nanotechology ++4" do you realy know what the hell that means, much less what the hell it gives you.
I think with the Future Tech thing (if kept in civ 4) should be something useful. Like every time you research a future tech it adds like a point to your military's striength or economy or somthing. Or researching a Future tech could do away with one coruption point or add to your bombing acuracy. What ever it is it should remain RELEVANT to the game and the technology today. It would be nice to recearch something like Cloning but if only for increased food production or for sheep but thats all. It would be kind of dumb to have a bunch of cloned Aztec super soldiers running around hacking stuff...its bad enough we gotta deal with their Jag warriors!

 

[Ant509y]

thank you, Mad Danny, for your words. ^_^;

Also, your thoughts about support of units, and the means by which provinces would support-or not- each other are very much what I intended for it! The provincial system would also make communication with rival nations more interesting, and, as an interesting spin on the current 'culture flip', potentially, if a rival nation bordering your own is powerful enough, has enough culture, and has an administration that follows more closely what it desires for itself than you do, it may defect, and join to become a province of that nation.

Internal trading could open up large new areas, and, as stated before, incorporate other good ideas. But for now, I'll limit my intent with that to things like the trade of food and resources, so that, for instance, an area with a famine could be given relief by cities with large amounts of excess food stores, for trade units, however, or production aid, or some other such thing. Also, a province that is connected to some other province could control whether trade goes or not, and the provinces which control resources could have influence on the cost of exporting it, and it may not always be totally under your control, though concessions can be made to help change this. Also, provinces can do the same when it comes to trading other nations.

Changes in anything you do, to things like taxes or scientific research or luxuries could cause different areas different reactions, so if luxeries are decreased, some provinces could be upset, but others may be glad that scientific research that they need is being done, and the same with choices of tech research, seeming favortism/neglect when it comes to infrastructure, amount of military power, and government changes.

Speaking of govenrments, as I stated in my first post on this here, I said it could allow a new means for governments. Here's what I mean. I'll give examples using some existing, and some wished-for governments.

Despotism: You have absolute control, and your capital province is where all power lays. The other provinces you make have more and more corruption, and also less and less loyalty, especially since they have no power whatsoever, and no real influence. When you have provinces fully made outside of your own province, there is a good chance they may rebel if their needs are not met, as they would have little tolerence, except, only, if you use sheer force and military from your capital to contain any discontent.

City-states: Each province has a high level of internal control, almost autonomous, and your capital is, truly, only the place of congregation of a council of these states. Each province's seperate needs are their main priority, not the needs of any other province, and even if oyu declare war on an enemy, only if they are attacked will they join without reservation, and you would have to convince them [maybe through money or administrative changes, like alterations in research or tax %] to fight with you against your enemy. Same thing goes with trade, esecially if it's someone the nation believes is a threat. in fact, if their demands are not satiated or controlled, they may use their units for their own purposes, i.e., taking them off to fight a way themselves, with you losing control of their units, or something. They could easily depart the union made in this sort of city-state council, however unless things become too bad, they will not leave the union due to the fact that it benefits them too much, than being alone without this sort of union, unless you do too much to make it any longer worthwhile.

Direct Democracy: This one works for small nations, and is a forum of the populous. This means that anything that upsets too many of the citizens will not be allowed. Though there is less corruption than despotism. In fact, in city-state government, though each province is controlled by you, each one can choose it's own government, either [early on] despotism or direct democracy, or maybe theocracy.
later, please respond!!

 

[Ant509y]

thank you, Mad Danny, for your words. ^_^;

Also, your thoughts about support of units, and the means by which provinces would support-or not- each other are very much what I intended for it! The provincial system would also make communication with rival nations more interesting, and, as an interesting spin on the current 'culture flip', potentially, if a rival nation bordering your own is powerful enough, has enough culture, and has an administration that follows more closely what it desires for itself than you do, it may defect, and join to become a province of that nation.

Internal trading could open up large new areas, and, as stated before, incorporate other good ideas. But for now, I'll limit my intent with that to things like the trade of food and resources, so that, for instance, an area with a famine could be given relief by cities with large amounts of excess food stores, for trade units, however, or production aid, or some other such thing. Also, a province that is connected to some other province could control whether trade goes or not, and the provinces which control resources could have influence on the cost of exporting it, and it may not always be totally under your control, though concessions can be made to help change this. Also, provinces can do the same when it comes to trading other nations.

Changes in anything you do, to things like taxes or scientific research or luxuries could cause different areas different reactions, so if luxeries are decreased, some provinces could be upset, but others may be glad that scientific research that they need is being done, and the same with choices of tech research, seeming favortism/neglect when it comes to infrastructure, amount of military power, and government changes.

Speaking of govenrments, as I stated in my first post on this here, I said it could allow a new means for governments. Here's what I mean. I'll give examples using some existing, and some wished-for governments.

Despotism: You have absolute control, and your capital province is where all power lays. The other provinces you make have more and more corruption, and also less and less loyalty, especially since they have no power whatsoever, and no real influence. When you have provinces fully made outside of your own province, there is a good chance they may rebel if their needs are not met, as they would have little tolerence, except, only, if you use sheer force and military from your capital to contain any discontent.

City-states: Each province has a high level of internal control, almost autonomous, and your capital is, truly, only the place of congregation of a council of these states. Each province's seperate needs are their main priority, not the needs of any other province, and even if oyu declare war on an enemy, only if they are attacked will they join without reservation, and you would have to convince them [maybe through money or administrative changes, like alterations in research or tax %] to fight with you against your enemy. Same thing goes with trade, esecially if it's someone the nation believes is a threat. in fact, if their demands are not satiated or controlled, they may use their units for their own purposes, i.e., taking them off to fight a way themselves, with you losing control of their units, or something. They could easily depart the union made in this sort of city-state council, however unless things become too bad, they will not leave the union due to the fact that it benefits them too much, than being alone without this sort of union, unless you do too much to make it any longer worthwhile.

Direct Democracy: This one works for small nations, and is a forum of the populous. This means that anything that upsets too many of the citizens will not be allowed. Though there is less corruption than despotism. In fact, in city-state government, though each province is controlled by you, each one can choose it's own government, either [early on] despotism or direct democracy, or maybe theocracy.
later, please respond!!

 

[Howard Mahler]

There should be a limit on the number of cities affected by one luxury.

For example, maybe a single wine would only affect up to 15 cities.
If you wanted to affect more cities, you would need access to a second wine.
Want to affect more than 30 cities you would need access to a third wine, etc.

I think this makes a little more sense, without adding too much extra complication. It also gives value to keeping a second luxury of the same kind rather than trading it.

If this rule change were made, one would also have to be allowed to trade for that second or third wine.

Please note that there was nothing magic about the number 15; perhaps 10 or 20 would be better. Perhaps the number should depend on the size and type of map. The choice of cities to be affected could be in distance order from the capital or by some other simple system.

Howard Mahler

 

[Mr. Cackle]

I really like the idea of provinces. It would allow for a whole bunch of new options to be opened.

As for your idea about governments, I think that there should be 3 main categories for government type, such as the following:

They would be:
Absolute----------------Representative---------------Direct Democracy

Absolute means no one will oppose your rule in Congress. Representative means each province has representation based on their size, so if you concentrate on the more populated provinces you can sway the reps. Direct Democracy is where you have an internal approval rating (viewable by pressing F11 perhaps). If you want to perform an action that would require a vote (such as war, major economic change, etc.) you must convince 51% of the population. Absolute has very little chance of rebellion as long as you have lots of troops, Direct Democracy has little chance as long as you keep the people happy, and Representative is in between.

Then, you would have three economic types. THey would be:

Laissez Faire-----(basically current day capitalism)-----Socialist

Laissez Faire would allow for greater commerce, but would suffer from unhappiness. The middle one would be normal, and Socialism would allow for increased production, decreased commerce and harder for people to become unhappy or happy (just content)

Food should be provincial.

 

[Rik Meleet]

Fortification.

When there is more than 1 unit on a tile I'd like to have an option for "specialised fortify", meaning I use a movement point to prepare my troops for defense. In real combat a general positions his troops in such a way that suits him best and gives the highest chance of surviving/winning the battle. In Civ3 the defender is chosen from the units by the computer; usually the unit with the highest chance to win the battle, no matter how long the odds are. I'd like to have the option as defender to determine who defends first and who won't defend at all. If a tank appears I'd rather have a conscript warrior defend than my elite longbow.

This might be unbalancing since the AI will also be able to easily check which unit has the highest chance of winning the battle, but it will probably not sacrifice obsolete units, but try to 'win' the battle by using the unit with the highest chance of winning. The newly introduced feature in C3C; the attacking unit decides who he/she attacks; can be a counterbalance to this 'choose your defender' principle. Of course only a few, specialised units like "commando's"/"navy seals"/"whatever" should have that ability.

And if this is too extreme, limitations are easily included. For instance a red-lined unit can't be appointed, or you can only use this in multiplayer. Or some units (like units with higher defense than offense) only have this ability.

 

[Ant509y]

Thank you for your reply to my province idea, Mr. Cackle. I appreciate anything at all about it, I really like the idea, and hope it becomes popular enough with those here to be added in some form! Anyway, in response to your thoughts.

I had not really thought much about your means on implementing governments, in other words, with the continuum of absolute to representative to direct democracy. However, they are good ones. My thoughts were along the lines of keeping the type of gvoernment 'system' as we still have, except by elaborating upon it using the provinces. For instance, in direct democracy, my plan was for every change of policy made, if enough citizens are discontent, each province chooses how it votes based solely on population numbers. While in despotism, the amount of unhappy people really has no true effect on rebellion or not, and though they cannot force you not to... in despotism, using that example alone, they will tell you, as I have shown before, what they request, and if enough people are unhappy, and if they become tired of your 'oppression' [VERY easy in old-style despotism] a revolution will happen. Direct democracy would have the provinces stop you if too many [say, 20%] of the people disagree with the change, or something like that. Nothing magic about 20%, though, either.

there's another small bit on the government portion. This province system could also incorporate a form of commerce system type, which makes some changes on commercial levels based upon which one is chosen. Though please elaborate more on it, Mr. Cackle, and I also hope others will begin conversing about the province idea also, and find ways to enrich it even more, since my ideas alone will not make it perfect. ^_^

Thanks, all!

 

[Khan Quest]

I really like Ant509y idea about provinces (I was just about to submit nearly identical idea). Along with that, bring back a military unit’s city (or province) of origin. A unit fighting in its own province might get bonus.

Rift between provinces would occur when overall city improvement types differ in provinces. For example cities in one province have a higher ratio of libraries and universities per city than another province (indicating different cultural values); and also if a province is forced to produce more military units than the others.

--

Bring back the Statue of Liberty wonder. It could reduce the amount of time or number of resisting citizens of a “liberated” city. It could also make one oppressed and unhappy citizen in each city content.

How about an Amusement park wonder like Coney Island or Disneyland? I would make citizens happy and bring in trade.

--

I also like the idea of a Polish civ. They had an awesome cavalry. Maybe a 7.4.3 cavalry unit or 6.3.3 blitzing unit.

How about a pacific Islander civ like Samoans?

--

I’d like see a history of advisors advice. I could go back and see when and who made what alliance, stated a war or a wonder, etc.

It would be nice to see some sort of graphic on a city to indicate the ratio of happy and unhappy citizens.

--

I really liked the movies and histories/significance of technical achievements. Ok, so I skipped most the movies after seeing them once or twice and didn’t read all the history. I still think it’s a great idea.

 

[valamas]

Workers cannot travel outside border to try to walk to a distant city.

Rally point options.
Do not send unit to rally point if it is the only defensive unit.
If it is a settler or worker too.

Rally points by type of unit. I want my tanks here, my artillery here and my workers here.

 

[valamas]

i meant to say, the only defensive unit in the city it was built.

 

[Aphex_Twin]

I like the idea of provinces. I do think it should be included in a separate package (i.e. you can still play the old fashioned way)

 

[Favorius]

1. Barbarians must be more dangerous. They usually rise up during age of despotism and steal gold which does little impact. They can raze cities or capture several cities and build up a warmongering empire. (e.g. Huns)Of course they maynot build culture so they may lose their cities to other cultures.

2.Trading military units seems unrealistic for me. But an advanced civ can sell military epuipment, say muskets, to a backward civ to allow it produce a musketman.

***3.Several units should have combat bonus vs. other units. e.g. Traditional combat bonus of pikemen vs. mounted units. Also some units must fight better in different terrains. An armor in city or in jungle cannot do much but infantry may prove better.:tank: :ripper:

4.Still in modern times barbarians with warriors or galleys exist.These must be changed. Guerilla and pirates seem more challenging.

***5.I think there must be flank attacks and even attacking from backwards which will reduce defense ability of defenders. So when players advance into enemy terrýtory they should be more careful to protect their flanks and form a front. If a front is splitted into two then defeated may be enveloped from flanks and surrounded. Also to apply this principle, movement rate on railroads must be decreased.

6.I have never seen AI using intensive bombarding to reduce a well defended city to capture it. Also I wonder whether AI upgrades its units. AI must be improved to use military units.

 

[Favorius]

.........
Give a man a fish and he eats for a day.
Teach a man to fish and he eats for a lifetime.
Conquer a city with fish and get bonus food and trade.
........
Khan Quest that was really funny.LOL


1.A civilization may enter a golden age why not a dark age??For examle if a civ loses a certain number of battles or cities or it remains backswards for a long time it may enter a dark age, losing points for production and commerce.

2.Under MMP, allied units may occupy same square.

 

[andvruss]

How about a unique battle system. You have an option, when fighting against an enemy unit, by be the general of that unit. Then you would command that army, and if you win or lose, based of tactics like Risk, your army advances and kills or dies. After the battle, you then go back to managing the whole empire.

 

[Aphex_Twin]

Originally posted by Favorius
1.A civilization may enter a golden age why not a dark age??For examle if a civ loses a certain number of battles or cities or it remains backswards for a long time it may enter a dark age, losing points for production and commerce.

2.Under MMP, allied units may occupy same square.

That would be like addind insult to injury. It would also make it much more dificult for civs to recover, thus making the game more predictible.

But I do like your option 2.

 

[aliss77777]

Originally posted by LeroyJr


How about instead of a mass flip to you of a town they instituted immigration. If the citizens of one civilization are very unhappy they can ask to immigrate to your civilization. And vice/versa. A strong culture and economy would result in immigration from other civs. "A group of oppressed people from Boston would like to immigrate to Marsailles" You then have a choice of taking them or turning them away. If you take them Boston would drop a point in population and Marsailles would gain a point in population. Have a bad civ and watch your people leave for better ones. Have a good one and watch the people flock to you. Perhaps you could limit it to bordering countries. Refuges from your neighbors at war would flood you as war weariness and oppression set in. How about the immigrants carry their traits into your civilization. If you get immigrants from an agricultural society and put them to work on a dessert square you get the same advantage that an agricultural society would get. Have your Viking immigrants build your boats in your coastal city and gain the Seafaring trait for that unit. Build a worker unit with your American immigrants and get an industrious worker and so on. Work your propoganda into scientific civs and watch your science move up as you turn them into scientists.

Would take a lot of work but would certainly add an element to the culture flip idea.

This is a great idea!!! I was just thinking something like this would be good. In world history, I don' t know how often entire cities have "culture flipped," whereas immigration is real, and has played a major part in making some countries powerful (for example, the USA). This would add a great dimension of realism and variety to the game.