Ultraworld
Emperor
- Joined
- May 2, 2003
- Messages
- 1,156
Vote on the best Civ4 Ideas
- Thread starter ybbor
- Start date
elementgoo
Lazy Monarch
Are there links to all of the threads for these ideas. If so, someone should post them. I have started a thread about terrain naming. (SEE SIGNATURE)
JonathanValjean
Porschephile
I voted for civil wars, armadas, and dark ages.
Trade-peror
UET Economist
When I played Civ2 I liked civil wars & loved unit trading; I was a bit bummed when Civ3 threw those features out. In Civ2, whenever I was allied with some civ that was at war with another, I loved being able to give units to my ally whenever we were on different continents with vast ocean between us or I otherwise felt too ill-equipped to actively fight my ally's enemy. By the same token I would love the addition of joint attacks--that way, if allied troops occupy a bottleneck square, I can move my own troops to join them in that square & thus make our alliance more useful. I also would love the addition of immigration (more realistic, I think, than entire cities culture-flipping) & the certain-units-strong option (to reflect the realism of spearmen being no match against tanks).
Wow. I haven't been keeping up with the Civ4 ideas thread, but I have to say that I really, really like alot of these proposals. I have always thought that there should be multiple leaderheads for each civ, and having flavour units for each civ would just be too cool. These 2 things *are* just cosmetic changes, don't really affect gameplay, and would cause a bit of unnecessary bloat some might say. I would argue that the enhancement of the game, by creating new individuality for each civ by adding these 2 items would definitely be worth the additional harddrive space taken. 
A couple of ideas that were implemented in other games, then not put in Civ3 for whatever reason have made their way onto the list, I see: The ability to give units to the ai; I can understand the reason for deletion, even though I too often lament the departure of the option. How one-sided would some games get if you could send a stack of Modern Armors to an ally across the world? The player would become the puppetmaster ala Civ2. I agree that it sucks to have a rival on another continent take out 2 opponents and become 3 times your size before you even make contact. However, there *are* tactics you can employ to undermine his success still, without having to resort to pimping out your glorious armies to underachieveing civilizations. But that is another topic.
Terrain-naming: I loved it in Alpha Centauri when I would uncover fog to find some sort of landmark on Planet that was significant enough to have its own name. I guess the ability to name it myself would be cool too, but less meaningful in my eyes. In my estimation, this would be a great inclusion, even if only on an included, Firaxis-made (err Atari?) earth map.
Some of these other ideas are great, and this is the first time I've heard of or even considered them. Among my favorites are:
More in-depth guerrila warfare: it reminds me of Civ2 and also Tropico
Armadas, armies for the sea: duhh! why didn't *I* think of that?
Civil Wars that spawn new civs - brilliant!
Dark Ages or Economic Depressions - Excellent counter to the Golden Age. Love it.
Love these ideas, and as for the poll, I had to vote for 4. Flavour units for every civ, multiple leaderheads, armadas, and Dark Ages/Depressions.
A couple of ideas that were implemented in other games, then not put in Civ3 for whatever reason have made their way onto the list, I see: The ability to give units to the ai; I can understand the reason for deletion, even though I too often lament the departure of the option. How one-sided would some games get if you could send a stack of Modern Armors to an ally across the world? The player would become the puppetmaster ala Civ2. I agree that it sucks to have a rival on another continent take out 2 opponents and become 3 times your size before you even make contact. However, there *are* tactics you can employ to undermine his success still, without having to resort to pimping out your glorious armies to underachieveing civilizations. But that is another topic.
Terrain-naming: I loved it in Alpha Centauri when I would uncover fog to find some sort of landmark on Planet that was significant enough to have its own name. I guess the ability to name it myself would be cool too, but less meaningful in my eyes. In my estimation, this would be a great inclusion, even if only on an included, Firaxis-made (err Atari?) earth map.
Some of these other ideas are great, and this is the first time I've heard of or even considered them. Among my favorites are:
More in-depth guerrila warfare: it reminds me of Civ2 and also Tropico
Armadas, armies for the sea: duhh! why didn't *I* think of that?
Civil Wars that spawn new civs - brilliant!
Dark Ages or Economic Depressions - Excellent counter to the Golden Age. Love it.
Love these ideas, and as for the poll, I had to vote for 4. Flavour units for every civ, multiple leaderheads, armadas, and Dark Ages/Depressions.
Oh yes, multiple leaderheads. Come to think of it, that would give some extra flexibilty, so the leaderhead can match the gender of the player. For example, if you're male & choose to play France & customize the name to Louis XIV, you won't be stuck with Joan of Arc's face. Or, if you're female & wanna play Japan & name your leader Amaterasu, you can choose a female face over Tokugawa's.
Civil Wars that spawn new civs! Culture flip to "corruption"? These could not only be chance calamities, but player initiated. At the juncture, one would decide which side to go with - and that could be a radical incarnation or just the old nationality with minor changes, like different government. It would be a neat moment for redefining one's civilisation by acquiring new traits, etc. and lend some historical accuracy with a handy means of bringing in or taking out hulking civs like Mongols, Americans, Romans, Soviets, to name a few. Perhaps in some cases the old civ could be rapidly devoured by its culturally energised successor.
RedAlert
Love one another
-Civil wars that spawn new civs-
DEFINATELY! YES! YES! GREATEST IDEA EVER!
That would make for tons of more scenario options, not to mention much more interesting/challenging gameplay.
Multiple leaders to choose from for each civ would be a great idea too.
DEFINATELY! YES! YES! GREATEST IDEA EVER!
That would make for tons of more scenario options, not to mention much more interesting/challenging gameplay.
Multiple leaders to choose from for each civ would be a great idea too.
mitsho
Deity
more realistic maps. I don't want to chose between continents and archipelago. Perhaps I want both. 
Just an example! And of course it would be nice, if the shape of the continents could be made after Wegener. Don't know how it is named in English perhaps not after its inventer (because he's not American/ English )
mfG mitsho
Just an example! And of course it would be nice, if the shape of the continents could be made after Wegener. Don't know how it is named in English perhaps not after its inventer (because he's not American/ English )mfG mitsho
trumpeteer
Player of Trumpet
I voted for spherical map above other things.
Dragonlord
Fantasy Warlord
Why only RANDOM events? I loved the event scripting in the editor of Civ2, it made great scenarios possible!
Spherical maps (although I think it'd be a nightmare to make a checkerboard pattern fit against it) and armadas (I've been calling them Fleets) are my top two choices, though all the ones in the poll are pretty good.
Civil wars (spawning new AI civs or
restarting colonized civ.s) would be great!
I like the idea of climate zones, too
(see krunvald's posts and my post in
the "official civ4 ideas forum", posted
on Dec 30 and Jan 9), can it be added
to the voting table?
restarting colonized civ.s) would be great!
I like the idea of climate zones, too
(see krunvald's posts and my post in
the "official civ4 ideas forum", posted
on Dec 30 and Jan 9), can it be added
to the voting table?
How about the idea of joint research ventures?
For example:
Let's say there are 5 civs. Civ A and B are ahead of you in research (they've achieved feudalism), and are threating your borders. You can research feudalism, but it's going to be 25 turns away.
Civ C and D are friends of yours; neither of these Civs have feudalism.
So what do you do? Well, normally you would try to:
A) Steal the tech
B) Ramp up the economy and try to buy it
C) Hope you don't get attacked any time soon
D) Go ahead and obliterate Civs A and B
How about this? Let's reward those who are kind to their neighbors by allowing joint research projects, so that Civs C, D, and you can join together to research one tech more quickly.
In this way, Civs can pool research efforts if they have a clear trade route. Research is shared in the form of "Research per turn" just as gold is. When the tech is researched, the deal is cancelled, and all Civs involved in the project receive the tech.
Now you might be thinking, "Wait a minute. That means I could contribute only 1 beaker of research per turn and get a near freebie?" Well, in theory, yes. However, both human and AI players would require some sort of compensation for your lack of research contribution, so this balances out. Also, if this is the case, it would be no different than someone just giving you an advance, which I haven't seen happen too often.
Where this would really shine is the above scenario, where getting one particular advancement is of critical importance. Where you would take 25 turns to research, it would take all 3 of you 7 turns for your joint project. You will be able to build those pikemen for defense much earlier on.
This adds a whole new dimension in long-term planning: as you could really focus on particular branches of the tech tree, at the detriment of being limited in other areas of research.
The overall time of research would remain the same, as this is the time equivalent as you researching one, C researching one, D researching one, and then trading each other for the missing advances. However, instead of trading the advance, you're trading the beakers needed for the advance, which allows 1 advance 3 times as quickly, rather than 3 advances at normal speed.
The catch to all of this: all participating civs must be able to research the target advance. If Civ D cannot research feudalism, then D cannot contribute toward the joint research project.
For example:
Let's say there are 5 civs. Civ A and B are ahead of you in research (they've achieved feudalism), and are threating your borders. You can research feudalism, but it's going to be 25 turns away.
Civ C and D are friends of yours; neither of these Civs have feudalism.
So what do you do? Well, normally you would try to:
A) Steal the tech
B) Ramp up the economy and try to buy it
C) Hope you don't get attacked any time soon
D) Go ahead and obliterate Civs A and B
How about this? Let's reward those who are kind to their neighbors by allowing joint research projects, so that Civs C, D, and you can join together to research one tech more quickly.
In this way, Civs can pool research efforts if they have a clear trade route. Research is shared in the form of "Research per turn" just as gold is. When the tech is researched, the deal is cancelled, and all Civs involved in the project receive the tech.
Now you might be thinking, "Wait a minute. That means I could contribute only 1 beaker of research per turn and get a near freebie?" Well, in theory, yes. However, both human and AI players would require some sort of compensation for your lack of research contribution, so this balances out. Also, if this is the case, it would be no different than someone just giving you an advance, which I haven't seen happen too often.
Where this would really shine is the above scenario, where getting one particular advancement is of critical importance. Where you would take 25 turns to research, it would take all 3 of you 7 turns for your joint project. You will be able to build those pikemen for defense much earlier on.
This adds a whole new dimension in long-term planning: as you could really focus on particular branches of the tech tree, at the detriment of being limited in other areas of research.
The overall time of research would remain the same, as this is the time equivalent as you researching one, C researching one, D researching one, and then trading each other for the missing advances. However, instead of trading the advance, you're trading the beakers needed for the advance, which allows 1 advance 3 times as quickly, rather than 3 advances at normal speed.
The catch to all of this: all participating civs must be able to research the target advance. If Civ D cannot research feudalism, then D cannot contribute toward the joint research project.
h4ppy
You sir, pineapple?
Hopefully no civil wars. (or atleast an on off switch)
Chauliodus
Warlord
- Joined
- Dec 14, 2003
- Messages
- 292
I Love almost everyone of those ideas.
What would really be cool with civil wars is they wouldn't just occur when you capture an enemy capitol (like civII) but when you lose alot of units in a war, a chance of it when in anarchy or certain techs raise the risk for certain civs. (like Communism raising the chance of one for Russia).
Another thing that would be nice would be the break away civ not being a regular civ that wasn't selected at the start of the game (ie: America enters into a civil war and the rebels are the Babylonians), rather another civ that isn't regular to the game, but similar or an offshoot of the civ (ie: England enters a civil war with other side being Canada).
What would really be cool with civil wars is they wouldn't just occur when you capture an enemy capitol (like civII) but when you lose alot of units in a war, a chance of it when in anarchy or certain techs raise the risk for certain civs. (like Communism raising the chance of one for Russia).
Another thing that would be nice would be the break away civ not being a regular civ that wasn't selected at the start of the game (ie: America enters into a civil war and the rebels are the Babylonians), rather another civ that isn't regular to the game, but similar or an offshoot of the civ (ie: England enters a civil war with other side being Canada).
ybbor
Will not change his avata
nice idea Neophius (welcome to CFC btw, ![[party]](/images/smilies/partytime.gif "Party [party]")
) but the thing is, hoqw would the AI know when it's getting ripped off (not that it knows it now, but..) and would this be a part of the diplomacy screen?, what if the research id inturuppted by war, from one party? does the 3 way trade stop, continue with the 2?, do all beakers from the warring civ dissapear? and if the deal is based from, the AI's point on the # of beakers your making per turn, couldn't i concievably set my slider to 100% when i make the deal, have them throw in a bunch of stuff to get my research, set it to 0% and in effect have them be paying me to give me thier research? is thier a rep hit involved with lowering the slider? what about changing governments? or going out of a golden age so my beakers are reduced
This isnot ment to be critical, i'm just curious as to how you solve those problems
) but the thing is, hoqw would the AI know when it's getting ripped off (not that it knows it now, but..) and would this be a part of the diplomacy screen?, what if the research id inturuppted by war, from one party? does the 3 way trade stop, continue with the 2?, do all beakers from the warring civ dissapear? and if the deal is based from, the AI's point on the # of beakers your making per turn, couldn't i concievably set my slider to 100% when i make the deal, have them throw in a bunch of stuff to get my research, set it to 0% and in effect have them be paying me to give me thier research? is thier a rep hit involved with lowering the slider? what about changing governments? or going out of a golden age so my beakers are reducedThis isnot ment to be critical, i'm just curious as to how you solve those problems
