What do you think could be added to the game?

[Desertsnow]

I like the idea of research treaties. It's something that is sometimes done in real diplomacy.

Religion was tried in Civ IV, with mixed reactions.

 

[Theov]

Please. Spare me to deal with that nonsense in games.
It was done alright in IV though.

 

[lucky duck]

The treaties could be part of a more grandiose vision of diplomacy. Maybe the player can only make treaties with friends, and breaking treaties is a tool to punish civs for opposing your foreign policy. I'm a big fan of such treaties because I grew up playing Master of Orion 2.

I've never played Civ 4, but I think that religions could be added to Civ 3. I always thought that mobilization was infrequent and often unnecessary, so a modder could replace mobilization with different religions that make each game a truly dynamic experience (If this has already been done, I would like to play that mod). However, if mobilization is more of an on/off switch than a variable of enhancement, it would probably take the source code to add religions.

By the way, if anyone ever needs a thread killed, just send me a PM and I'll be happy to do the job.

 

[Kirejara]

I agree with Theov, the introduction of Religion in Civ4 was one of worst decisions they have done in the serie, second only to the horrible "open border" also in Civ4 (especially with such unreliable allies as the KI are... ).

In Civ3 you can at least block a bottleneck with a fortress city or simply units even from a friend and allie.

 

[timerover51]

I agree with Theov, the introduction of Religion in Civ4 was one of worst decisions they have done in the serie, second only to the horrible "open border" also in Civ4 (especially with such unreliable allies as the KI are... ).

In Civ3 you can at least block a bottleneck with a fortress city or simply units even from a friend and allie.

Theov is an atheist, and views all religion as nonsense. I dislike the addition of religion to a game, unless it is an integral part of the game, as in the board game, Here I Stand, however, I am most definitely NOT an atheist. I greatly enjoy reading the various essays of C. S. Lewis, along with the Chronicles of Narnia.

As for Civ4, I dislike that game immensely, while in Civ3, I do build lots of fortresses to keep out the AI.

 

[Theov]

Theov is an atheist, and views all religion as nonsense. I dislike the addition of religion to a game, unless it is an integral part of the game, as in the board game, Here I Stand, however, I am most definitely NOT an atheist. I greatly enjoy reading the various essays of C. S. Lewis, along with the Chronicles of Narnia.

As for Civ4, I dislike that game immensely, while in Civ3, I do build lots of fortresses to keep out the AI.

Yes I'm not part of any religion, but on a gameplay level, to me it's like adding magic spells/mana/ogres/deep sea monsters or other mythical things. So that's why I label it 'nonsense'.

I quite liked the religion mechanics in civ4 however, because it was almost like building a great wonder that you could do stuff with... although I don't think the game needed it. Just like the corporations, religion was another flavor added to Civ4. They also added diseases and another government mechanic. I liked it, the game just didn't need it; in the end I would love civ3 on a civ4 engine with some added stuff and a more versatile AI.

 

[Lanzelot]

I quite liked the religion mechanics in civ4

Are you serious?! It was the main reason why I stopped playing Civ4 after a game or two. The impact that religion had on the trade system spoiled every fun in playing that game. The trade system in Civ4 was already very "limited", e.g. it was not possible to buy/sell techs for resources etc. etc...
And then, when your neighbor happened to establish a religion different from yours, he stopped trading with you completely! How much fun is that? Trading has always been an integral part of Civilization for me, from Civ1 through Civ3. Technologies, Maps, Resources, Contacts, Workers, Gold, Pacts and Alliances, etc. And in Civ4 that was possible only in a very limited way and then at some point no longer possible at all. That killed the game for me.

And honestly: how realistic is that? In "real life" trade relations between Occident and Orient have been established since Marco Polo's times, and probably even before that. Religion has never been a hindrance when it comes to making business... Not even in the Thirty Years War, which supposedly was about Religion: France (katholic) lead war against Austria (katholic) and during that time had alliances with Sweden (protestantic) and the Osman Empire (Muslimic)... Don't tell me that different Religion is always a hindrance for good relations...

And today? Arabia is selling Oil for big bucks to all the (Christian) western nations and China is selling about everything to the western nations... And here we not only have different Religions but also different political systems on top of that...

So in short: for me, the way Religion was implemented in Civ4 was the worst thing that ever happened to the Civ series.

 

[Kyriakos]

The elephant EVENTS in the room, should be mentioned

 

[timerover51]

Tech -
Transportation - Cities now can transport food or shield in exchange of commerce with another city (edit: if they were connected by railroad). (I think this one is the most important and realistic)

I do this to an extent with Coast cities by having Coast-related improvements increase food, shield, and commerce production of Coast, Sea, and Ocean tiles. This reflects the increased efficiency to maritime transportation. The AI makes use of the improvements as well.

 

[Kirejara]

I would like to have an adjustable effect of railroads.

So one can set the movement on railroads to anything other than "unlimited".

But it should be independent of the movement points of the individual units (A cavalry unit does not get a faster train than an infantry unit in real life ).

 

[Theov]

Are you serious?! It was the main reason why I stopped playing Civ4 after a game or two. The impact that religion had on the trade system spoiled every fun in playing that game. The trade system in Civ4 was already very "limited", e.g. it was not possible to buy/sell techs for resources etc. etc...
And then, when your neighbor happened to establish a religion different from yours, he stopped trading with you completely! How much fun is that? Trading has always been an integral part of Civilization for me, from Civ1 through Civ3. Technologies, Maps, Resources, Contacts, Workers, Gold, Pacts and Alliances, etc. And in Civ4 that was possible only in a very limited way and then at some point no longer possible at all. That killed the game for me.

And honestly: how realistic is that? In "real life" trade relations between Occident and Orient have been established since Marco Polo's times, and probably even before that. Religion has never been a hindrance when it comes to making business... Not even in the Thirty Years War, which supposedly was about Religion: France (katholic) lead war against Austria (katholic) and during that time had alliances with Sweden (protestantic) and the Osman Empire (Muslimic)... Don't tell me that different Religion is always a hindrance for good relations...

And today? Arabia is selling Oil for big bucks to all the (Christian) western nations and China is selling about everything to the western nations... And here we not only have different Religions but also different political systems on top of that...

So in short: for me, the way Religion was implemented in Civ4 was the worst thing that ever happened to the Civ series.

You're right, that sucked and totally forgot about it.
I was thinking that you could establish a religion; spread it and make money out of it. I thought that was pretty cool.
I didn't like Civ4 for more than a few games. Then I felt restricted and bored with it.

 

[Civinator]

There are some mods, trying to implant religion for Civ 3.

 

[Quintillus]

I've never played Civ 4, but I think that religions could be added to Civ 3. I always thought that mobilization was infrequent and often unnecessary, so a modder could replace mobilization with different religions that make each game a truly dynamic experience (If this has already been done, I would like to play that mod). However, if mobilization is more of an on/off switch than a variable of enhancement, it would probably take the source code to add religions.

Mobilization is on/off. It also disallows building non-military units/buildings (other than wealth). So, I don't think it could really be repurposed for very much.

Are you serious?! It was the main reason why I stopped playing Civ4 after a game or two. The impact that religion had on the trade system spoiled every fun in playing that game. The trade system in Civ4 was already very "limited", e.g. it was not possible to buy/sell techs for resources etc. etc...
And then, when your neighbor happened to establish a religion different from yours, he stopped trading with you completely! How much fun is that? Trading has always been an integral part of Civilization for me, from Civ1 through Civ3. Technologies, Maps, Resources, Contacts, Workers, Gold, Pacts and Alliances, etc. And in Civ4 that was possible only in a very limited way and then at some point no longer possible at all. That killed the game for me.

And honestly: how realistic is that? In "real life" trade relations between Occident and Orient have been established since Marco Polo's times, and probably even before that. Religion has never been a hindrance when it comes to making business... Not even in the Thirty Years War, which supposedly was about Religion: France (katholic) lead war against Austria (katholic) and during that time had alliances with Sweden (protestantic) and the Osman Empire (Muslimic)... Don't tell me that different Religion is always a hindrance for good relations...

And today? Arabia is selling Oil for big bucks to all the (Christian) western nations and China is selling about everything to the western nations... And here we not only have different Religions but also different political systems on top of that...

So in short: for me, the way Religion was implemented in Civ4 was the worst thing that ever happened to the Civ series.

The not being able to trade per-turn for one-time in IV is a bummer. And yeah, the religion penalty to trade can be pretty harsh. I wouldn't say it shouldn't be a deterrent at all, but maybe it should be more of a detriment to alliances and such than trade. Even alliances should be possible with different religions, though (take France and the Ottoman Empire as an example), and that's quite difficult in Civ4.

For me, whether religion is fun or a hindrance in Civ4 depends on the individual game. Sometimes it is fun, other times it's more annoying than fun.

The elephant EVENTS in the room, should be mentioned

Definitely!

I would like to have an adjustable effect of railroads.

So one can set the movement on railroads to anything other than "unlimited".

But it should be independent of the movement points of the individual units (A cavalry unit does not get a faster train than an infantry unit in real life ).

That would be nice. Civ4 did that, at least somewhat... I'm not sure if it's possible to adjust the 10 movements points on a railroad per turn in Civ4 when modding or not.

I liked it, the game just didn't need it; in the end I would love civ3 on a civ4 engine with some added stuff and a more versatile AI.

Has anyone ever done a Civ3-rules-on-Civ4-engine mod? I've thought about that, since it would open up some new possibilities (more fine-grained building effects, to name one), but I can't recall ever having seen it. There would be some issues (square map instead of isometric, no per-turn-for-one-time deals, etc.), but I think a lot of Civ3 could be carried over to the Civ4 engine with modding (unit stats, tech tree, building effects, most of the terrain stuff, etc.). You could even implement something like the Civ3 experience system with some very limited Civ4 promotions if you wanted. I don't know if it would end up being enough fun to be worth it, but it's an interesting idea to ponder.

 

[gps]

Religion has never been a hindrance when it comes to making business...

So in short: for me, the way Religion was implemented in Civ4 was the worst thing that ever happened to the Civ series.

Now come on, it's not exactly like as soon as you have a different religion trade stops completely and immediately. It's one criteria out of many which decide how good relations to another Civ are. Actually I liked the "culturally linked" stuff quite very much in Civ III and I also liked how Civs of the same culture group get along better than others. The religion system in IV from my point of view came from that Civ III culture group system, but it has been made a bit more dynamic so that now you can decide yourself which culture group (religion) you want to belong to - or not. It also enables you to motivate you clergymen to produce more science or to increase business (which is totally plausible, monasteries were centers of wisdom in the middle ages and the catholique church was and still also is a huge business enterpise), but - unlike in Civ V - it never gives you magically added production or other bonusses beyond what would make historic sense.

 

[CELTICEMPIRE]

Whatever one thinks of religion, you cannot deny its impact on history.

Also, in a recent CIV game of mine I am on good relations with many civs of other religions. The importance of religion to diplomacy goes down as the game progresses.

 

[ZeekLTK]

Are you serious?! It was the main reason why I stopped playing Civ4 after a game or two. The impact that religion had on the trade system spoiled every fun in playing that game.

So you didn't even give the game a chance, basically.

Religion in Civ 4 makes the game very interesting IMO. You can use it to help solidify alliances or to cause conflicts, whichever you prefer.

One thing you may not have realized is that religion is not static. It's not "pick one and keep it for the whole game." You can change it to suit the situation you are in. Just because you found a religion doesn't mean you have to use it. Sometimes it's better to adopt someone else's (that more civs are already using), even though it would be ideal if everyone followed yours.

If your neighbor has a different religion and you are finding it difficult to establish good relations with him, then you can CHANGE YOUR RELIGION to match his! You can even bribe (or force, as terms for a peace treaty) the AI to change religion too, so it's very fluid.

Also, if there is a conflict of interest - one of your neighbors is Buddhist, the other is Taoist, and you don't want to anger either, you can simply NOT adopt a religion and then neither of them will be mad at you for "having the wrong religion". Although you will miss out on the positive aspects of having one, it's a viable option sometimes.

You should try the game with a more open mind and you would probably enjoy it more.

 

[Moosezilla]

Source code access. Better AI game play.

 

[Lanzelot]

So you didn't even give the game a chance, basically.

Well, Religion wasn't the only thing I didn't like in Civ4. The castrated railway (10 squares is just not enough), the stupid way artillery-type units worked (why should a cannon be destroyed, when it fires a shot at the enemy??) the fact that ships couldn't bombard (and planes neither, iirc), the graphics.
It just didn't feel like Civ anymore. Don't get me wrong: Civ4 is not a bad game. If Civ3 would not have existed, I would probably have played Civ4. But it simply was not in the same class as Civ3, and as my time for computer games has been very limited since 1998, I just stuck with the game I liked more and didn't see a reason to switch.

 

[gps]

the stupid way artillery-type units worked (why should a cannon be destroyed, when it fires a shot at the enemy??)

This sure is not the most brilliant meachanic in IV. However I would rather see it as getting consumed, worn out or running out of ammo than actually being destroyed. Barrage is a powerful game mechanic even the way it is implemented now, it probably would be way overpowered if the artillery units were able to survive attacks unharmed...

 

[ThinkTank]

Warehouse. Shields from production overflow go into the warehouse. These can be used for production later.

This would eliminate a lot of MM.