What Civilization IV is missing

[Zombie69]

The build queue should allow selecting buildings that are still missing prerequisites. For example, you need a library before building a uinversity, but you cannot put a university in the build queue until your library is complete.

It was like that before the latest patch and it could be abused considerably. You could put the prerequisite building in your queue, then the second building. Delete the prerequisite building from the queue. The city will stock production for this turn and ask again next turn what to build. Rinse and repeat. Using this, you could accumulate production à la civ 1 until you got the tech to build a wonder or something.

I'm glad they fixed this exploit in 1.61 by removing the possibility of queuing buildings you don't yet have the prerequisite for.

 

[newfgamer]

Point well taken with the civ games not being a historical game. Washington D.C. couldn´t indeed be founded in 4000 b.c. but then again do Americans constitute being considered a civilization in their own right, being former colonies of European countries and all (but that is another story). I still think that Settlers are far to valuable and should be constucted instantaneousely, good point also that settlers should cost you two population points from cities. I think also that it would add more realism and pose a more challengeing gameplay if natural disasters were introduced again. Random events are in many cases what has put some civilizations ahead of others so I belive that it would add another dimension to the game.

It's a game for Christ Sakes. Not a History simulator.

 

[Zhahz]

To answer the OP's thread entirely:

It's a game, not a simulation of history or reality.

Game rules and systems exist in such a way that both players and AI can use them reasonably, and as a result sometimes concepts from reality get altered in favor of good gameplay.

 

[Magnon I]

It's a game for Christ Sakes. Not a History simulator.

It is already stated in the quote that it is indeed not a "History simulator" you twit

 

[King Flevance]

Well, just to add - It actually is somewhat of a "history simulator". It may be off and untrue to actual history but the entire game is based off of the history of human civilization. NO Wonders are just made up and all exist in reality, with the exception of the space elevator I believe. NO Civilizations/rulers are fictional charactors only. All units are based on fact. All City improvements/tile improvements are based on actual real things.

Now this does not make it a hard core history simulator, but maybe kind of soft core. The entire idea of the game is based on historical landmarks in human civilization history. I see no reason why Magnon's viewpoints are met with malice , as I bet if Firaxis released the information they were going to do this, alot of people would be saying "That's a flippin' sweet idea."

I personally like the ideas of instantaneous workers/settlers along with the idea of possible distasters able to wipe out a city. Although I think some sort of warning should show up soon before its arrival, and you should have a chance (at least 50/50) that the city will survive the disaster. I think the early years should be slown down as well. BUT, this would mean a huge tech tree. Along with increased costs. So, I am fine with how it is as I don't need the game performing worse than it already is.

Settlers and workers make total sense though you employ a part of your population to make cities. Empire cost is what would stop you from expanding too fast and capitalizing on this which is no different than it is now.

 

[heljik]

There were amies in Civ 3. Grossely overpowered and obtained randomly. I'm glad they're gone.

hm. I enjoyed building armies. Many of them... And also enjoyed killing the AI's armies. Happened all the time

 

[Grabnar]

Two other things that I am missing from Civ IV is the ability to be able to construct ship canals. And also, a bit related, but I also think that you should be able to sail up major rivers at least with smaller ships.

Yeah, about the only thing you can do about ship canals is build a city on a narrow area like where Panama City, Panama is located. If done correctly, your ships will enter the city from one ocean & exit out the other side of the city into the other ocean....instant canal.

 

[Zebra 9]

Originally Posted by King Flevance
BUT, this would mean a huge tech tree. Along with increased costs.

No it would not!
I find that it is almost impossible to have swordman and the pyramids before the ADs. The only way it happens is by trading technology!
I agree with everything else that you had up there.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Some More Ideas
Make the workers look like what they are supposed to. For example;
A worker clearing fallout should be wearing a white outfit.

You should be able to reastablish a country that you took over.
We have an example of this in Iraq today. It happend after WWII as well.
This would be nice if like someone declared war on you and they were at a distance from you and you realy did not want to take them over.

I also think that you should be able to liberate an allies city if it gets
captured.
---------------------------------------------------------------
A Question
What does a Golden Age do any way?

"Look on my works, ye mighty, and dispare."​

 

[King Flevance]

No it would not!
I find that it is almost impossible to have swordman and the pyramids before the ADs. The only way it happens is by trading technology!
I agree with everything else that you had up there.

Both of these are possible if playing on marathon. Pyramids, I sometimes dont even try for anymore, but if I go for it early I have gotten them before the ADs. Swordsmen I easily get before the ADs sometimes as I dont have copper near me very often, so I have to do a Iron rush, especially in the jungle.

As it stands the tech tree is very small. Once you have a decent science system working for you, you breeze through it.

What does a Golden Age do any way?

x2 hammers and commerce in all cities.

 

[MrCynical]

x2 hammers and commerce in all cities.

No, golden ages give +1 hammer to every tile that already produces at least one, and +1 commerceto every tile that already produces at least one.

 

[King Flevance]

No, golden ages give +1 hammer to every tile that already produces at least one, and +1 commerceto every tile that already produces at least one.

ah. good to know, I thought it doubled. Now they really suck IMO.

 

[Cosmichail]

I too miss the armies and the great leaders. Some good units went missing like nuclear submarine/tactical nukes. I also like how the civs changed over time to represent the era. Alexander is the same in the beginning as in modern times. Could do without the religion and have better battle simulation. Battle is really lame now as artillery can only fire from one tile which is "dumb" since in real life artillery can fire from a considerable distance. (30-50 miles or more) Howitzers anyone? Battleships could affect coastal areas, no more. In real life they can. Although against coastal defences don't do too well. Yes the palace too but that isn't overly important what I like to see is that shack in your city turn into a grand palace over time but not important. I know a lot civers didn't like Call to Power CIVII but I loved it with the advanced civics (technocracy) and going beyond modern times with Plasma tanks and dreadnoughts. The Nano wonder that wiped out nukes on the planet.

Civ4 does have excellent traits like the ability to create super science/commerce cities and of course great graphics but don't really see them as I have a card with 64 VRAM only and not intending to upgrade for a game. The civics are also well done offering a good range rather than just Despotism, Hereditary Rule, Democracy and Communism. I too could do without Spock and all the buddist/hindus/christians etc., singing away. Play with the sound off. I also like the Great People and all in all it's worth the money spent.

For the person who is modding armies and etc I will be following that one. Hopefully it will be compatible with the new patch. I like the idea of mines too.

EDIT: Why didn't somebody do a followup to SMAC that has them returning to Earth finding no one there and settles there again. Only to find Alien invaders on their doorstep and the reason why Earth is wiped out. Something along those lines bringing the series ahead instead of just keeping the same format Earth BC/AD and then diplomacy/conquest/domination or space race win. Same old Same old. PS I love the ability to design your own units in Alpha Centauri and the only other game that I play that allows that is Warzone2100. Now there's a game that understands what mortars/artillery do.

 

[Caine13]

I'm just arguing from the gameplay side, not realism. In reality, large groups of people didn't suddenly wake up one morning and leave en masse to a new city site. People trickled in slowly from surrounding areas. Of course this can't really be modeled in civ so the alternative is building settlers. My point is that if settlers are too easy to come by, we'll have a return to previous civ versions that encouraged you to spam cities all over such that all the land was claimed asap.

Ok you say that people trickled in slowly. What about towns that were formed before a nation claimed them? Small outlying villages with no rule that eventually became part of a larger empire for one reason or another. Civ Iv should have these villages similar to a barb city that has grown slowly by its self but more or less became encompassed into your expanding nation. The people could revolt and join or you could have to march your troops in and declare it yours. Force them to pay taxes like the British did. Am I thinking right on this?

 

[Shigga]

- decent air combat
- decent naval combat/sea2shore combat
- possibility to make a late-game-comeback against dominating civ's
- random natural disasters
- some near-future techs

 

[Magnon I]

Ok you say that people trickled in slowly. What about towns that were formed before a nation claimed them? Small outlying villages with no rule that eventually became part of a larger empire for one reason or another. Civ Iv should have these villages similar to a barb city that has grown slowly by its self but more or less became encompassed into your expanding nation. The people could revolt and join or you could have to march your troops in and declare it yours. Force them to pay taxes like the British did. Am I thinking right on this?

Interesting thought. So how would these towns differ from the current Bard cities? Would these be un-armed villages such as the "goody-villages" are only when your cultural borders would surround the village it would become a "cottage/village" of a certain size? I think I like your general idea, if I understand you right. But I would like for you to elaborate a little how you would like this to be.

By-the-way, is it possible for you, as a player, to take over a barbarian city through culture, like you can with other civ cities?

 

[gunkulator]

Ok you say that people trickled in slowly. What about towns that were formed before a nation claimed them? Small outlying villages with no rule that eventually became part of a larger empire for one reason or another. Civ Iv should have these villages similar to a barb city that has grown slowly by its self but more or less became encompassed into your expanding nation. The people could revolt and join or you could have to march your troops in and declare it yours. Force them to pay taxes like the British did. Am I thinking right on this?

Sounds very similar to existing barb cities and goody huts.

 

[Caine13]

Interesting thought. So how would these towns differ from the current Bard cities? Would these be un-armed villages such as the "goody-villages" are only when your cultural borders would surround the village it would become a "cottage/village" of a certain size? I think I like your general idea, if I understand you right. But I would like for you to elaborate a little how you would like this to be.

Sounds very similar to existing barb cities and goody huts.

What I meant was, were there not small villages in Europe and Asia centuries ago that sprang up because farmers and the like in the middle of nowhere needed a place of commerce? Isn't that basically how nations became? Smaller villages and towns grew to be under a government of one form or another. So you have a town of pop 1 or 2 that is near your cultural borders. It could benefit them as a village to be under your rule for defenses or commerce or whatever. So they ask to join your civ. It would be like getting a free city without having to have a settler and without having to take over a barb city. Territories and cities were not founded because a ruler sent a settler out to an unanimated area. There must have been villages dotting the country side that say the British came along and took as theirs forcing the citizens to pay taxes. They didn't have archers or axmen or any sort of defense other than rakes. Maybe you could force them to join your civ by simply occupying their city. The possibility could be there that if they are close enough to another civ that they could revolt. They could have another religion other than your state religion that could also cause them to revolt or have an angry citizen if they join your civ. So in that sense it wouldn't be a barbarian city. To my knowledge a goody hut does not become a city (unless you hit one that gives you a settler but I have never had that happen).

This is just an idea. Simply put it would be a bonus city that you could get without expending a settler or units that have to attack. But along with that bonus there could be problems like a revolt.

 

[Magnon I]

OK so what you want is to completely remove settlers from the game and introduce a completely new system of empire growth. Basically I think that the idea is good but I personally don´t think that it will work in the current format of the game. It would need a new game to fit this change.

Just think like I´ve said before that settlers and workers are too expensive and since the empire growth is already based on settlers it might simply be better to lower the cost of the said settlers.

 

[Caine13]

Which part of bonus don't you get? I never said anything about removing settlers. I think they play one of the biggest roles in the game. I just had an idea to add to what already exists.

 

[Magnon I]

OK relax, breath in breath out. Just asking you about your idea... so basically these "Bonus" cities would be like un-armed barbarian city occupied only with a worker, if that? Yeah that is a pretty good idea for my money. There used to be a simular thing in Call to Power II at least where goody huts would turn into cities once you entered them, not sure if that is still possible in Civ IV, at least it has not happened to me.