Iraqi_Tank
Chieftain
I made this thread for people to discuss how the Civ3 game can be improved. 
Post away!
[
Post away!
[
What do you think should be on CIV4 (improvements from CIV3)?
- Thread starter Iraqi_Tank
- Start date
Iraqi_Tank
Chieftain
Well, now I'm starting out with suggestions. I like the new PTW thing in "Capture the King," but that shortens games sometimes just a little bit too much. There is almost no Modern Age. Then again, the regular game can be even bigger and more detailed by making it super, super huge. 512x512 could be a start, and I think even 1024x1024 or 2048x2048 would be cool. But then again, there is always lag 
.
Oops! I don't have any more time here.
. Oops! I don't have any more time
here.
America444
Coming Back To Life
new civs incans, mayans(maybe maybe not)and others, new units, terrorism, bio chemicals, longer game, special forces like when a unit of marines becomes elite if your the us they become green berets, and there are more improvements that i'm sure you can go find in the other threads about this and there are many to chose from if you look
one_man_assault
Dir-tay Uno
Deeper Diplomacy... CIV3s diplomacy sucked if compared to Galactical Civilizations or even Alpha Centauri they actually took a step back when it comes to this area. You should be able to secretly fund opposition to your rivals. Have long term plans with your rivals (in terms of economy and Millitary)and coordinate attacks with your allies (like in Alpha Centauri) you should also be able to costumize your weapons and such. Like having Millitary Standard rifles (USA M16/M4, Russia AK74, England SA90) custom tanks. like being able to change barrel size and armor to make supeiror tanks. I think It should remain simple though just some configurations or it will end up being like some massivly micromanagement like game and every one knows thats not fun....To me it goes more deeper that having new civs and huger maps 
but hey maybe I have a future in creating games some day!
but hey maybe I have a future in creating games some day!
Benderino
Loyal American Democrat
Definetly better diplomacy (ie. the ability to give/trade UNITS, not just cities and workers) and the ability to broker peace between two OTHER nations, if their war is dissadvantagious to the human. More government choices (I see Communism, but no Fascism). More # players available on hotseat games. Better resouces idea (less random disappearances and more detailed ways of "using them up") and more resources (ie. cotton, tobacco, sugar, tea, etc.).
Iraqi_Tank
Chieftain
Great suggestions...
America144> New civs are great, but since I already suggested larger maps... yes that does make games longer but I do like the unit change into special forces idea
One_Man_Assualt> Although diplomacy wasn't a huge idea on my mind, it does seem very reasonable, especially if you can coordinate attacks with your allies. Sometimes I think military alliances just make things worse. Simplicity is a key to game-making, but I think most people who play Civ3 can handle more stuff than Firaxis can make out. When you talk about weapon costumization, it's becomes sort of a "differing unit." I like thatI think Firaxis should release more Civ-unique attributes. This could create a difference in everyone's favorite civ.
Great suggestions everybody
Footnotes:
My suggestions were very quick and sloppily thought of. I have more time now .
More suggestions coming soon!
America144> New civs are great, but since I already suggested larger maps... yes that does make games longer but I do like the unit change into special forces idea
One_Man_Assualt> Although diplomacy wasn't a huge idea on my mind, it does seem very reasonable, especially if you can coordinate attacks with your allies. Sometimes I think military alliances just make things worse. Simplicity is a key to game-making, but I think most people who play Civ3 can handle more stuff than Firaxis can make out. When you talk about weapon costumization, it's becomes sort of a "differing unit." I like that
I think Firaxis should release more Civ-unique attributes. This could create a difference in everyone's favorite civ.Great suggestions everybody
Footnotes:
My suggestions were very quick and sloppily thought of
. I have more time now .More suggestions coming soon
!
dguichar
Warlord
...nice ideas.
Check out thousands more at the other 3 threads about Civ4
Keep civilized
David
Check out thousands more at the other 3 threads about Civ4
Keep civilized
David
Iraqi_Tank
Chieftain
Benderino> Yes, definately better diplomacy. Trading units- I haven't thought of that, but now to think of it, it's a great idea (didn't Iraq buy tanks from Russia?). Alliances should be able to negotiate with other alliances (like 2v2), that's something I thought of before but slipped from my mind 
anyway, good job.
anyway, good job. Corruption rules based on sane levels instead of some dark economic nightmare.
Corruption rules that enable far flung cities to still do their bit without being 100% corrupt for thousands of years.
Lets see an end to AI cheating please. Not the usual cheating that people say the AI does but the kind where the AI knows all your techs, your weakest cities, how many units you have and where and the exact location of all unprotected Workers and Settlers in your kingdom. Lets see an end to preferential trading between AI's as well.
No wonder 'cascade effect'. The single most annoying thing other than the daft corruption rules is the wonder cascade. You have 2 turns to go to build a decent wonder that no-one else is building - the AI then builds some other wonder, the other AI's switch to a second wonder, an AI builds that in 1 turn then they all switch to the wonder you were building and then build that instantly leaving you with turn upon turn of wasted production and no wonder that you thought was certainly yours. IMHO, if you are over 50% more into a wonder than another civ then no-one else should be able to build the wonder!
A much longer game with lots more to do in each era!
Non-aggression treaties.
Corruption rules that enable far flung cities to still do their bit without being 100% corrupt for thousands of years.
Lets see an end to AI cheating please. Not the usual cheating that people say the AI does but the kind where the AI knows all your techs, your weakest cities, how many units you have and where and the exact location of all unprotected Workers and Settlers in your kingdom. Lets see an end to preferential trading between AI's as well.
No wonder 'cascade effect'. The single most annoying thing other than the daft corruption rules is the wonder cascade. You have 2 turns to go to build a decent wonder that no-one else is building - the AI then builds some other wonder, the other AI's switch to a second wonder, an AI builds that in 1 turn then they all switch to the wonder you were building and then build that instantly leaving you with turn upon turn of wasted production and no wonder that you thought was certainly yours. IMHO, if you are over 50% more into a wonder than another civ then no-one else should be able to build the wonder!
A much longer game with lots more to do in each era!
Non-aggression treaties.
Iraqi_Tank
Chieftain
More ideas:
I think unit movement needs to be improved. Modern Armor should move much faster than three moves. And didn't Marco Polo reach Asia in just a year or two. And that was with dodging Arabs along the way.
I need to go offline
I think unit movement needs to be improved. Modern Armor should move much faster than three moves. And didn't Marco Polo reach Asia in just a year or two. And that was with dodging Arabs along the way.
I need to go offline
one_man_assault
Dir-tay Uno
I forgot to type about theese ideas also
1.I also revolutions should occur to stir the game up. Sorta like civil wars. Lets say Germany is in a recesion its Government is still a monorachy which with considerable philisophical advances around Europe cause the people to welcome this new idea called Communism...Germany revolt its weakest cultural region form a new civilization. The Communist Republic of Prussia. Germany would then want to sieze there rebelous province. If it fails a new leader would emerge. The list of nations and leaders would be preprogramed sorta like leader names and such. would add a new dimension of the world was constantly changing. I belive there was a simple model of this implemented in Call To power (havent played that in 3 years so i forgot...)
2. nations should have Karma. not like the one now but evil civilizations should be outcast and considered barbaric. And eventually late in the game they should form 3 main camps. The evil empires the nuetral and the Good. Sorta like Cold War (Soviet considered "evil", someone like Portugal considered Nuetral, and USA considered good). And what you do through out the game determines witch camps suit you most. Theese camps would also have diffrent government types Democracy Good/ Republic Nuetral/ Despotism/Communism Evil
1.I also revolutions should occur to stir the game up. Sorta like civil wars. Lets say Germany is in a recesion its Government is still a monorachy which with considerable philisophical advances around Europe cause the people to welcome this new idea called Communism...Germany revolt its weakest cultural region form a new civilization. The Communist Republic of Prussia. Germany would then want to sieze there rebelous province. If it fails a new leader would emerge. The list of nations and leaders would be preprogramed sorta like leader names and such. would add a new dimension of the world was constantly changing. I belive there was a simple model of this implemented in Call To power (havent played that in 3 years so i forgot...)
2. nations should have Karma. not like the one now but evil civilizations should be outcast and considered barbaric. And eventually late in the game they should form 3 main camps. The evil empires the nuetral and the Good. Sorta like Cold War (Soviet considered "evil", someone like Portugal considered Nuetral, and USA considered good). And what you do through out the game determines witch camps suit you most. Theese camps would also have diffrent government types Democracy Good/ Republic Nuetral/ Despotism/Communism Evil
Kryten
Smeee heeeeed
What I would really love to see is some sort of mechanism that caused empires to break-up and split apart.
Suppose I wanted to make a 'World History' scenario, with England, France, Spain, Greece, Egypt and Rome all in their correct starting locations. But in reality, Rome conquered all these nations. And once conquered, thats it, they are out of the game for good, and Rome becomes a typical civ3 'eternal' empire that still exists in the 21st century.
Well, I'd like to have these conquered nations eventually rebel and flip back into the game with a sizable army, so that the history of these nations can continue while the Roman Empire breaks-up and falls apart.
Another example is the Mongols. I want to see Mongol horse archers conquering Asia/Russia/China, then centuries later these nations reappear and Russia conquers Asia and the Mongol lands, only to have their own Communist Empire breaking-up at the end of the 20th century.
The fact is....EVERY empire eventually declines and falls, NONE lasts for ever.
(Something that Civ3 seems to ignore)
Let's look at Greece:
*Hellenistic empire under Alexander, which breaks-up after his death.
*Conquered by Rome, and so (temporarily) out of the game.
*Comes back into the game as the Greek speaking Byzantine Empire.
*Conquered in 1453 AD by the Ottoman Empire, so (temporarily) out of the game for a second time.
*1821 AD, Greek war for independence, and she's back in the game.
*1941 AD, conquered by Nazi Germany, out of the game again.
*1945 AD, she's back for a third time.
*1980 AD, a part of NATO and allied to the EEC.
(The dates are just what happened in OUR world. In the game they would be different)
So, the Greeks final score is --- 2 empires (Alexander & Byzantine), conquered 3 times (by Rome, Ottomans, Germany), but still in the game in the 21st century. Now I know that modern Greeks are not the same people as those that built Athens or Sparta, just as modern Egyptians are not the same as the people who built the Pyramids, but if we had nations rebelling we could at least give the illusion and simulate the history of the REGION, even if not the PEOPLE.
How Can This Be Done?
------------------------
Change the current city razing and population assimilation rules, and make it inevitable that one day a city of a conquered civilization will 'culture flip' that civilization back into the game, along with a substantial army, in spite of any garrison.
(A simple random 3% chance per captured city would do the job. If you had some 30 conquered cities, then you would have on average one revolt per turn. If you were unlucky, you would have two revolts in a single turn. Add to this the cities that had revolted in the previous turns that have not been re-conquered yet....and all this while trying to hold off the invading Germanic tribes....well, now you can see why the Roman Empire fell! )
These ideas will make all empires decline and fall eventually, and lead to lots of small nations (but only the nations that the game started with, NOT hundreds!). It would also be more of a challenge: imagine the 'fun' of trying to hold the Roman Empire together when conquered cities keep rebelling and have to be recaptured. It explains all those civil wars Rome had....usually one every 20 to 30 years!
That is the real skill of 'Building an Empire to Stand the Test of Time'....the ability to hold one together!
And to all those people who do not like these ideas (and there will be many!), answer me this:-
After 6,000 years of human history, how come countries like England/France/Germany/Greece/Egypt/China/and so on still exist? All of them have been conquered at one time or another, some of them several times. But, in the 21st century, they are still here, and the world is covered by a patchwork of independent nations, NOT just two or three vast empires!
Ask yourselves...."why?".
Suppose I wanted to make a 'World History' scenario, with England, France, Spain, Greece, Egypt and Rome all in their correct starting locations. But in reality, Rome conquered all these nations. And once conquered, thats it, they are out of the game for good, and Rome becomes a typical civ3 'eternal' empire that still exists in the 21st century.
Well, I'd like to have these conquered nations eventually rebel and flip back into the game with a sizable army, so that the history of these nations can continue while the Roman Empire breaks-up and falls apart.
Another example is the Mongols. I want to see Mongol horse archers conquering Asia/Russia/China, then centuries later these nations reappear and Russia conquers Asia and the Mongol lands, only to have their own Communist Empire breaking-up at the end of the 20th century.
The fact is....EVERY empire eventually declines and falls, NONE lasts for ever.
(Something that Civ3 seems to ignore)
Let's look at Greece:
*Hellenistic empire under Alexander, which breaks-up after his death.
*Conquered by Rome, and so (temporarily) out of the game.
*Comes back into the game as the Greek speaking Byzantine Empire.
*Conquered in 1453 AD by the Ottoman Empire, so (temporarily) out of the game for a second time.
*1821 AD, Greek war for independence, and she's back in the game.
*1941 AD, conquered by Nazi Germany, out of the game again.
*1945 AD, she's back for a third time.
*1980 AD, a part of NATO and allied to the EEC.
(The dates are just what happened in OUR world. In the game they would be different)
So, the Greeks final score is --- 2 empires (Alexander & Byzantine), conquered 3 times (by Rome, Ottomans, Germany), but still in the game in the 21st century. Now I know that modern Greeks are not the same people as those that built Athens or Sparta, just as modern Egyptians are not the same as the people who built the Pyramids, but if we had nations rebelling we could at least give the illusion and simulate the history of the REGION, even if not the PEOPLE.
How Can This Be Done?
------------------------
Change the current city razing and population assimilation rules, and make it inevitable that one day a city of a conquered civilization will 'culture flip' that civilization back into the game, along with a substantial army, in spite of any garrison.
(A simple random 3% chance per captured city would do the job. If you had some 30 conquered cities, then you would have on average one revolt per turn. If you were unlucky, you would have two revolts in a single turn. Add to this the cities that had revolted in the previous turns that have not been re-conquered yet....and all this while trying to hold off the invading Germanic tribes....well, now you can see why the Roman Empire fell!
) These ideas will make all empires decline and fall eventually, and lead to lots of small nations (but only the nations that the game started with, NOT hundreds!). It would also be more of a challenge: imagine the 'fun' of trying to hold the Roman Empire together when conquered cities keep rebelling and have to be recaptured. It explains all those civil wars Rome had....usually one every 20 to 30 years!
That is the real skill of 'Building an Empire to Stand the Test of Time'....the ability to hold one together!
And to all those people who do not like these ideas (and there will be many!), answer me this:-
After 6,000 years of human history, how come countries like England/France/Germany/Greece/Egypt/China/and so on still exist? All of them have been conquered at one time or another, some of them several times. But, in the 21st century, they are still here, and the world is covered by a patchwork of independent nations, NOT just two or three vast empires!
Ask yourselves...."why?".
one_man_assault
Dir-tay Uno
yeah It would be sorta neat that after my allies get invaded I come save the day and restore the nation after a brutal war...catch is it can never happen to you...once your conquered its game over. Unless there was some sort of mini game were you had to follow all your superiors orders (conquerers) in your former land. you wouldnt be able to have a say in what you build and have to move your troops to the invaders liking (reminds of Warsaw pact...sorta) but to me that wouldnt be fun. GIVE ME MY NATION OR...Heck Ill REALOAD!
i like the idea of nations breaking up. It does seem to have a nice catch. Keep your nation as one! personally Id also like to see tribal races and how you deal with them could shape later on if your an evil civ good or nuetral. There should be tests of character through out the game to see were you end up in one of theese 3.
Example. You land on a fresh new island new for colonizing. You meet a band of wild men they call them selfs the smurfs. What would u do.
A. Gather them all up and ENSLAVE THEM mwahah +10 shield for first city built.
B. Seperate them from us divide the land up -10 to first city that gets to 11 shields (could be rejected by tribe and they could revolt if u stomp them then it would be considered as bad to your Karma as A)
C.Let them decide were we will live (can only build 3 citys)
i like the idea of nations breaking up. It does seem to have a nice catch. Keep your nation as one! personally Id also like to see tribal races and how you deal with them could shape later on if your an evil civ good or nuetral. There should be tests of character through out the game to see were you end up in one of theese 3.
Example. You land on a fresh new island new for colonizing. You meet a band of wild men they call them selfs the smurfs. What would u do.
A. Gather them all up and ENSLAVE THEM mwahah +10 shield for first city built.
B. Seperate them from us divide the land up -10 to first city that gets to 11 shields (could be rejected by tribe and they could revolt if u stomp them then it would be considered as bad to your Karma as A)
C.Let them decide were we will live (can only build 3 citys)
Kryten
Smeee heeeeed
Originally posted by one_man_assault
yeah It would be sorta neat that after my allies get invaded I come save the day and restore the nation after a brutal war...catch is it can never happen to you...once your conquered its game over. Unless there was some sort of mini game were you had to follow all your superiors orders (conquerers) in your former land. you wouldnt be able to have a say in what you build and have to move your troops to the invaders liking (reminds of Warsaw pact...sorta) but to me that wouldnt be fun. GIVE ME MY NATION OR...Heck Ill REALOAD!
"....once you're conquered it's game over."
This is true....IN CIV3.
But we are talking about what could be in CIV4.
There are two choices:-
(1) If people are such bad players that they lose all their cities, then maybe they deserve to have been deemed to have lost the game.
--OR--
(2) The player has to watch the AI civs playing against each other until one of the player's former conquered cities DOES rebel....
....suddenly, BANG, the player's civilization is back in the game, with a small army and a single city....just like all the other civs that have been eliminated then 'flipped' back into the game.
(This need not take long: with 10 oppressed cities on the map, and say 3% chance per turn of a city rebelling, then the player shoud back in the game in about 3 or 4 turns on average)
This would create some interesting situations, and give players more challenges:-
With a small army and only a single city (at least until another one of your oppressed cities also rebels), can you time it right to make your move against the empire that conquered you....waiting for that moment when they are distracted by other revolts and wars....so that you can swifty capture the nearby cities and start another empire of your own?
Realistic?.........yes.
Fun?................yes.
Challenging?...yes.
(And of course there would be a "Rebelling Civilizations" on/off switch, like there is with "Respawning AI Players" and "Allow Cultural Conversions"
)Iraqi_Tank
Chieftain
Wow... rebels... used to be one of by ideas... but you beat me to it...
It would sure make civ a bit more realistic
It would sure make civ a bit more realistic
Iraqi_Tank
Chieftain
Originally posted by Kryten
"....once you're conquered it's game over."
This is true....IN CIV3.
But we are talking about what could be in CIV4.
There are two choices:-
(1) If people are such bad players that they lose all their cities, then maybe they deserve to have been deemed to have lost the game.
--OR--
(2) The player has to watch the AI civs playing against each other until one of the player's former conquered cities DOES rebel....
....suddenly, BANG, the player's civilization is back in the game, with a small army and a single city....just like all the other civs that have been eliminated then 'flipped' back into the game.
(This need not take long: with 10 oppressed cities on the map, and say 3% chance per turn of a city rebelling, then the player shoud back in the game in about 3 or 4 turns on average)
This would create some interesting situations, and give players more challenges:-
With a small army and only a single city (at least until another one of your oppressed cities also rebels), can you time it right to make your move against the empire that conquered you....waiting for that moment when they are distracted by other revolts and wars....so that you can swifty capture the nearby cities and start another empire of your own?
Realistic?.........yes.
Fun?................yes.
Challenging?...yes.
(And of course there would be a "Rebelling Civilizations" on/off switch, like there is with "Respawning AI Players" and "Allow Cultural Conversions"
Iraqi_Tank
Chieftain
when you talk about watching the AI, isn't that boring?
dguichar
Warlord
Just change "realistic" for "deeper model" and we agree.
Games can't be "realistic", they nature is to be games.
Keep civilized
David
Iraqi_Tank
Chieftain
That's very true...
but it may be a putback
Similar threads
