FastWorker
Warlord
- Joined
- Mar 16, 2006
- Messages
- 136
I would like to be able to go from negotiation with one leader to the next with one button instead of having to exit the window to close and then clicking on the next one to open.
Things you'd like to see in the next patch / expansion / civ game
- Thread starter Alistriwen
- Start date
agoodfella
Prince
KeldorKatarn said:
I like all of those, esp:
barley, salt, rubber, coffee, tea, and i also agree with cocaine / weed... (why not? has there been a natural resource that has been traded more? - off the top of my head i'd say that happiness would get a boost of "2", health gets a "-1", gold/commerce gets a "+5" and possibly production goes down 2 hammers (if harvested in your city) or something - i.e. if you've got massive overcrowding / unhappiness, give 'em some weed)... we all know that its never going to happen unless someone mods it...
so, basically, yeah, more resources, would be great - which should lead to some more buildings, units, etc.
Aussie_Lurker
Deity
What would I like to see? Well:
1) End Cottage Spam by having Cottages work like Workshops-i.e. they add gold but at the cost of 1 food.
2) Alter the appearance of certain resources-like stone, marble, copper and iron-and then have access to these resources make the attached tech easier to get. i.e. if you have access to copper, then bronze working and metal casting are cheaper to research. If you have access to stone or marble, then masonry becomes easier to research etc etc.
3) For too long, the key focus of the game has been about the impact of external factors to your empire's well-being. It is now time to raise up the impacts of internal factors-like internal revolts and rebellions-whether driven by political, religious, ethnic or general well-being factors.
4) Introduce a greater opportunity for conflict arising from both religious and doctrinal (i.e. Religious Civics) differences between civs. Also make certain Religious civics bad for multi-religion cities within a nation (related to (3) above)-this time to reduce the impacts of 'Religion Spamming'.
5) Also on religion, it would be nice if founding a religion required both the 'tech' and a prophet-to prevent the 'Isabella always gets Bhuddism' scenario (or, heck, even just make bhuddism come a bit later in the tech tree).
6) Expand the number of civics categories and civics options, and make differences between them count more in diplomatic relations.
7) In the post-Liberalist era, as I have said elsewhere, it would be nice to see ideologies take the place of religion as a source of conflict-so Nationalism, Fascism, Socialism, Capitalism, Fundamentalism, Liberalism and Absolutism-and possibly Militarism-could all vie for victory in the global sphere-with each one granting certain benefits and penalties to cities which hold the ideology-assuming it is the State Ideology!
8) Introduce a new Religious and Ideological victory, and improve the AI so that it will pursue ALL victory types with equal vigour. Give Religion and Ideology a greater role in the Diplomatic Victory condition.
9) Introduce a range of Navy and Airforce specific promotion types, and allow certain sea and air units to be able to bombard units and infrastructure (as said in OP).
10) Open up the economic side of the game. Have more of a single resource be better for the economy/production than just one-to make monopolies more meaningful. Have demand for certain goods, and the value of trade routes, depend on the relative culture strengths of the trading parties. Have trade routes and trade goods be able to 'infect' foreign cities with your culture. Allow for an ability to 'smuggle' goods into-and out of-foreign nations.
11) Give spies more to do, and have them appear earlier in the game.
12) Allow for the movement of people (and some of their culture) between cities, especially on the basis of civics types, wealth, happiness and border status.
13) Allow for a middle-level of border between Open and Closed.
Aussie_Lurker.
1) End Cottage Spam by having Cottages work like Workshops-i.e. they add gold but at the cost of 1 food.
2) Alter the appearance of certain resources-like stone, marble, copper and iron-and then have access to these resources make the attached tech easier to get. i.e. if you have access to copper, then bronze working and metal casting are cheaper to research. If you have access to stone or marble, then masonry becomes easier to research etc etc.
3) For too long, the key focus of the game has been about the impact of external factors to your empire's well-being. It is now time to raise up the impacts of internal factors-like internal revolts and rebellions-whether driven by political, religious, ethnic or general well-being factors.
4) Introduce a greater opportunity for conflict arising from both religious and doctrinal (i.e. Religious Civics) differences between civs. Also make certain Religious civics bad for multi-religion cities within a nation (related to (3) above)-this time to reduce the impacts of 'Religion Spamming'.
5) Also on religion, it would be nice if founding a religion required both the 'tech' and a prophet-to prevent the 'Isabella always gets Bhuddism' scenario (or, heck, even just make bhuddism come a bit later in the tech tree).
6) Expand the number of civics categories and civics options, and make differences between them count more in diplomatic relations.
7) In the post-Liberalist era, as I have said elsewhere, it would be nice to see ideologies take the place of religion as a source of conflict-so Nationalism, Fascism, Socialism, Capitalism, Fundamentalism, Liberalism and Absolutism-and possibly Militarism-could all vie for victory in the global sphere-with each one granting certain benefits and penalties to cities which hold the ideology-assuming it is the State Ideology!
8) Introduce a new Religious and Ideological victory, and improve the AI so that it will pursue ALL victory types with equal vigour. Give Religion and Ideology a greater role in the Diplomatic Victory condition.
9) Introduce a range of Navy and Airforce specific promotion types, and allow certain sea and air units to be able to bombard units and infrastructure (as said in OP).
10) Open up the economic side of the game. Have more of a single resource be better for the economy/production than just one-to make monopolies more meaningful. Have demand for certain goods, and the value of trade routes, depend on the relative culture strengths of the trading parties. Have trade routes and trade goods be able to 'infect' foreign cities with your culture. Allow for an ability to 'smuggle' goods into-and out of-foreign nations.
11) Give spies more to do, and have them appear earlier in the game.
12) Allow for the movement of people (and some of their culture) between cities, especially on the basis of civics types, wealth, happiness and border status.
13) Allow for a middle-level of border between Open and Closed.
Aussie_Lurker.
kaoruchan42
Chieftain
I think terrorism should definitely be included in the game somehow. While I will say that the world has become overly fixated on terrrorism since 9/11, it was an influential in the world long before that.
There should be three kinds of terrorism:
1. State-sponsored terrorism, which could be implemented through some sort of terrorist unit, which would be invisible to the enemy, or possibly through cells planted in a city like spies. They would terrorize cities to cause unhappiness and/or destruction of buildings/citizens. There could be several types terrorist missions, such as assassinations, car bombs, etc., which would mostly cause unhappiness; bombings, which would destroy buildings; or chemical weapons, dirty bombs, poisoning food/water, that would mostly kill citizens or possibly military units. This would also allow smaller, weaker empires to compete with larger, more powerful empires militarily, albeit at the cost of seriously lowered approval ratings.
2. Random terrorism, which would be like above, but random and within your own empire. This sort of thing would be very rare, but would increase with greater unhappiness in a city.
3. Religious-inspired terrorism, which would be like above, and would occur when a city has a religion that is not the state religion, and would occur with higher frequency under the Theocracy civic. This effect could be countered by an "inquisitor" unit, or something to that effect, that could expel a religion from a city, but cause unhappiness.
Along this line, but unrelated to terrorism, would be the idea of religious persecution of people who do not practice the state religion in a city, similar to what happened to Jews in Europe throughout history. This would also expel a religion from a city without causing unhappiness, but at the cost of population instead. As sickening as it seems, there should also be the possibility of genocide, if only because it has happened so much in history. It could be used by the state to increase happiness at the cost of population and lowered approval ratings, and would obviously be used only in a very dire situation.
Another idea could be the possibility economic recessions and depressions, which would last so many turns, and would cause decreased output of gold and production (sort of like a reverse golden age). Also along those lines, there should be the possibility of the food resources of a tile becoming depleted. This would be a temporary effect, but would cause that tile to lose food production for so many turns.
There should be three kinds of terrorism:
1. State-sponsored terrorism, which could be implemented through some sort of terrorist unit, which would be invisible to the enemy, or possibly through cells planted in a city like spies. They would terrorize cities to cause unhappiness and/or destruction of buildings/citizens. There could be several types terrorist missions, such as assassinations, car bombs, etc., which would mostly cause unhappiness; bombings, which would destroy buildings; or chemical weapons, dirty bombs, poisoning food/water, that would mostly kill citizens or possibly military units. This would also allow smaller, weaker empires to compete with larger, more powerful empires militarily, albeit at the cost of seriously lowered approval ratings.
2. Random terrorism, which would be like above, but random and within your own empire. This sort of thing would be very rare, but would increase with greater unhappiness in a city.
3. Religious-inspired terrorism, which would be like above, and would occur when a city has a religion that is not the state religion, and would occur with higher frequency under the Theocracy civic. This effect could be countered by an "inquisitor" unit, or something to that effect, that could expel a religion from a city, but cause unhappiness.
Along this line, but unrelated to terrorism, would be the idea of religious persecution of people who do not practice the state religion in a city, similar to what happened to Jews in Europe throughout history. This would also expel a religion from a city without causing unhappiness, but at the cost of population instead. As sickening as it seems, there should also be the possibility of genocide, if only because it has happened so much in history. It could be used by the state to increase happiness at the cost of population and lowered approval ratings, and would obviously be used only in a very dire situation.
Another idea could be the possibility economic recessions and depressions, which would last so many turns, and would cause decreased output of gold and production (sort of like a reverse golden age). Also along those lines, there should be the possibility of the food resources of a tile becoming depleted. This would be a temporary effect, but would cause that tile to lose food production for so many turns.
kalkas
Chieftain
I would like to have two useful features that was in Civ3:
1) In the list of your cities (accessed with F1), it would be nice to have displayed information of how many and which units are present in the cities.
2) New hotkey that allows quick search/location of cities on the map; e.g. Ctrl+L would open a dialog where you specify the city you want to find on the map. This feature was present in Civ3. It is quite tedious to find it through
F1-list.
1) In the list of your cities (accessed with F1), it would be nice to have displayed information of how many and which units are present in the cities.
2) New hotkey that allows quick search/location of cities on the map; e.g. Ctrl+L would open a dialog where you specify the city you want to find on the map. This feature was present in Civ3. It is quite tedious to find it through
F1-list.
budweiser
King of the Beers
1.) I'd like to see the Iroquios or some sort of Native Americans back, along with the Dutch. Oh and Austria.
2.) I'd like to see a certain leader put in for Germany. I won't mention his name, lets call him Alpha Hotel. Several of his contemporaries are already in place; FDR, Churchill, Stalin. Stalin is arguably just as bad. Lets just get the whole WWII crowd in there.
3.) Civ specific unit graphics where appropriate. Espcially in the WWII era. Russian infantry, T-34, IL-2, etc for Russia, German inf, MG-34/42, Panzer, Me-109 etc for Germany. British infantry, Spitfire, etc, etc, etc. The USA is good on land units, give them P-51 and B-17 graphics. Vassals take on same graphics.
4.)Bring back the Civ 2 advisors.
2.) I'd like to see a certain leader put in for Germany. I won't mention his name, lets call him Alpha Hotel. Several of his contemporaries are already in place; FDR, Churchill, Stalin. Stalin is arguably just as bad. Lets just get the whole WWII crowd in there.
3.) Civ specific unit graphics where appropriate. Espcially in the WWII era. Russian infantry, T-34, IL-2, etc for Russia, German inf, MG-34/42, Panzer, Me-109 etc for Germany. British infantry, Spitfire, etc, etc, etc. The USA is good on land units, give them P-51 and B-17 graphics. Vassals take on same graphics.
4.)Bring back the Civ 2 advisors.
Emerald Melios
Chieftain
- Joined
- Jul 9, 2006
- Messages
- 71
The last thing we need is a bunch of Phi/Ind leaders..........Bluetooth said:
meisterbrau
Chieftain
- Joined
- Aug 10, 2006
- Messages
- 6
Emerald Melios said:
In which way are you affected which leader I choose for playing? As nice as modding is, I find it rather annoying that you can not build your on Civ/Leader in a nice easy menu.
Emerald Melios
Chieftain
- Joined
- Jul 9, 2006
- Messages
- 71
Philosophical/Industrious is too powerful.meisterbrau said:
I would like to see some new units specially in modern area.
I would like these units coming with a new air warfare system that allow dog fight between fighters!
I would like to se more terrain type and some disaster/plague/volcano stuff
I would like to see partisans from civ2 back
I would like these units coming with a new air warfare system that allow dog fight between fighters!
I would like to se more terrain type and some disaster/plague/volcano stuff
I would like to see partisans from civ2 back
Veritass
Emperor
1. I, like many, would like to see the AI get smarter and smarter. Along those lines, I would like to see the following:
2. I would like to see the AI code optionally use a second processor if available. Many of the stock systems are coming with dual-core processors these days, and I would like to see the game take advantage of this.
3. I would like to see the AI and leaders really have different strategies. I would like to see some go for conquest while others go for space ships. I would like to see an AI actually go for a culture victory. I would like some to spam cottages and others to use specialist strategies. I would like to see them use their UU's strategically.
4. I would like to see a system where Civ takes advantage of a couple hundred thousand idle CPUs (a la the distributed SETI project) and runs background games with various combinations of AI code to see the trade-offs. I would volunteer my system as one to be given saves to run for 100 turns (or start to finish) with various AI code changes (in mod directories) to really compare different AI strategies.
2. I would like to see the AI code optionally use a second processor if available. Many of the stock systems are coming with dual-core processors these days, and I would like to see the game take advantage of this.
3. I would like to see the AI and leaders really have different strategies. I would like to see some go for conquest while others go for space ships. I would like to see an AI actually go for a culture victory. I would like some to spam cottages and others to use specialist strategies. I would like to see them use their UU's strategically.
4. I would like to see a system where Civ takes advantage of a couple hundred thousand idle CPUs (a la the distributed SETI project) and runs background games with various combinations of AI code to see the trade-offs. I would volunteer my system as one to be given saves to run for 100 turns (or start to finish) with various AI code changes (in mod directories) to really compare different AI strategies.
Lance of Llanwy
King
- Joined
- Mar 10, 2006
- Messages
- 710
Hmmm...in the expansion I'd like to see...
New Civs!
From Europe- Any or all of the following(so long as other areas are given their due): Dutch, Portugese, Polish
From Asia- Any or all of the following: Vietnam, Thailand, Khmer
From Americas- Mayans and/or some Northern native american civ
From Africa- I'm stumped....maybe Ethiopa/Kush?
Others- Either Sumerians or Babylonians
New Leaders(for pre-existing civs)
Greece- Pericles: He offers a more moderate Grecian leader. Though he should certainly be fairly aggressive, he should be more balanced than Alex.
Japan- Meiji or Hirohito. I see them as sort of "Victorian" as they both presided over and indeed greatly facilitated Japan's transitions and encompasses, more than any other leader, the mood of the time in which they ruled. Again, they both offer an alternative to the isolationist Tokugawa.
Arabs- There must be more than Saladin, but I'm not well-read on Arabic history.
Spain- See above...but maybe Franco?
Vikings- Rework them into some sort of blanket Scandinavian civ. Independantly, they may not make the cut, but together they were integral. Gustavus Adolphus II would be my personal favorite, but I'll leave that to the Danes, Norwegians, and Swedes to work out.
China- I know they already have two, but China is bursting at the seams with great leaders. To me, the leaders that stand out are the Han Emperor Wudi( who expanded Chinese borders into present-day Kazahkstan and the southern regions of modern China), and Tang Emperor Tai-cung(pronounced tsung), who pushed China into bordering Sassinid Persia. Both would be aggressive leaders insofar as declaring war goes..
Existing Leader Changes.
Mao- For the love of God, his policies resulted in a huge drop in China's population. Isn't Expansive supposed to exemplify the opposite? And Protective? No...just...no. I like Charismatic/Philosophical myself. Fits him better, IMO. He was a very good military leader and was certainly philosophical
Qin- He's a toughie. He wasn't very Protective in the least, but with China's UU, Protective becomes something more of an offensive trait. Still, it doesn't sit well with me. Maybe Imp/Ind?
New Civs!
From Europe- Any or all of the following(so long as other areas are given their due): Dutch, Portugese, Polish
From Asia- Any or all of the following: Vietnam, Thailand, Khmer
From Americas- Mayans and/or some Northern native american civ
From Africa- I'm stumped....maybe Ethiopa/Kush?
Others- Either Sumerians or Babylonians
New Leaders(for pre-existing civs)
Greece- Pericles: He offers a more moderate Grecian leader. Though he should certainly be fairly aggressive, he should be more balanced than Alex.
Japan- Meiji or Hirohito. I see them as sort of "Victorian" as they both presided over and indeed greatly facilitated Japan's transitions and encompasses, more than any other leader, the mood of the time in which they ruled. Again, they both offer an alternative to the isolationist Tokugawa.
Arabs- There must be more than Saladin, but I'm not well-read on Arabic history.
Spain- See above...but maybe Franco?
Vikings- Rework them into some sort of blanket Scandinavian civ. Independantly, they may not make the cut, but together they were integral. Gustavus Adolphus II would be my personal favorite, but I'll leave that to the Danes, Norwegians, and Swedes to work out.
China- I know they already have two, but China is bursting at the seams with great leaders. To me, the leaders that stand out are the Han Emperor Wudi( who expanded Chinese borders into present-day Kazahkstan and the southern regions of modern China), and Tang Emperor Tai-cung(pronounced tsung), who pushed China into bordering Sassinid Persia. Both would be aggressive leaders insofar as declaring war goes..
Existing Leader Changes.
Mao- For the love of God, his policies resulted in a huge drop in China's population. Isn't Expansive supposed to exemplify the opposite? And Protective? No...just...no. I like Charismatic/Philosophical myself. Fits him better, IMO. He was a very good military leader and was certainly philosophical
Qin- He's a toughie. He wasn't very Protective in the least, but with China's UU, Protective becomes something more of an offensive trait. Still, it doesn't sit well with me. Maybe Imp/Ind?
Agarwaen
King
1. Economic domination over another Civ, maybe make them pay an gigantic debt service, economy is way more agressive in reality
2. Civic affecting external relations (i.e theocracys gain -1 relation with civ of other religions)
3. Some way to declare intentions, let the other know why you are in war, know the other motives. This can be explored to make holy wars or to be a champion of liberty or comunism..
2. Civic affecting external relations (i.e theocracys gain -1 relation with civ of other religions)
3. Some way to declare intentions, let the other know why you are in war, know the other motives. This can be explored to make holy wars or to be a champion of liberty or comunism..
kaoruchan42
Chieftain
Lance of Llanwy said:
Those are pretty good choices, though I think that Europe is always overloaded with Civs. Sure, they were all tremendously influential in recent times, but when you think from a historical perspective, what did the Dutch or the Portuguese contribute to history outside of the short time they were influential. Not to say that all of the other Civs are more important, it's just that Europe already has so many Civs representing it, so the issue of historical importance becomes greater when compared, for instance, to Africa, which has two Civs (not including the Egyptians and the Carthaginians, who weren't really African, but Semitic), or North and South America, which only have one Civ each. Europe, you will note, has 9 Civs in Warlords.
For North America, I would like to see the Mayans (with Yax Ehb' Xook or Ki'nich Pakal), the Iroquois (with Hiawatha), the Mississippians(since they left no written records, I don't know about a leader), the Anasazi (ditto), and maybe the Souix (Sitting Bull). I don't know much about South America to say who could be added there, but there should be more.
In Africa, I would like to see the Ethiopians (with Menelik and Ezana), the Nubians/Kushites (with Piye), and the Munhumutapas,or Zimbabweans (don't know about leaders) added.
In Asia, Cambodia (Jayavarman II and Jayavarman VII) and either Thailand or Vietnam. We don't want to overcrowd Southeast Asia. I would also like Babylon (Hammurabi and Nebuchanezzer) and Sumeria (Gilgamesh and Ur-Nammu).
Lance of Llanwy said:
In all honesty, I think the choice of Saladin as a leader of the Arabs was a bad choice by Firaxis. Saladin was not an Arab, he was a Kurd, born in the northern part of what is now Iraq, near the ancient city of Mosul. He was not an Arab in any sense of the word. It seems that Firaxis made that common mistake that so many Westerners make in thinking that Arab is synonymous with Muslim.
I think an excellent choice for two Muslim leaders would be Abu Bakr (I still don't understand why they didn't use him like they did in Civ 3) and Harun al-Rashid. They were both great leaders, and the were actually Arabs.
Lance of Llanwy said:
An excellent choice for another Spanish leader would be Rodrigo Dias de Vivar, popularly known as El Cid. He fought bravely for the Spanish, though he fought for the Moors too. The only other ruler of Spain of any note would be Charles I, usually known as Charles V of the Holy Roman Empire. He wasn't actually Spanish, but was born in Flanders, modern Belgium, though his mother was Spanish. If any Spaniards know any other significant rulers, please name them.
Your other leader choices are good as well.
In addition, I would like to see:
1. Pachacuti for the Incas. He was the one who really created the Inca Empire
2. Itzcoatl for the Aztecs. He essentially founded what would be the Aztec Empire.
3. Licoln for the Americans.
4. Jimmu for the Japanese. He was the first Emperor of Japan.
There are others, too, but I'm tired of thinking of them, so I'll end this ridiculously long post here.
Vox Mentis
Chieftain
- Joined
- Nov 11, 2005
- Messages
- 22
Some sort of helicopter unit that works similar to fighters and bombers (in that it doesn't move, but rebases and performs missions in a radius around its city) that can insert and extract infantry units (or only marines?).
Also maybe a Hebrew civ.
Also maybe a Hebrew civ.
DrewBledsoe
Veteran QB
KeldorKatarn said:
Excellent idea, then they could call the next expansion :- Civ IV Druglords, with voiceovers by Al Pacino
.Similar threads
