Kryten
Smeee heeeeed
Do you mean something like this?......
....and this?.....
If so, have a look at the "Multi-Figure Forum", which can be found here.....
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=42225&pagenumber=1
-
We are currently performing site maintenance, parts of civfanatics are currently offline, but will come back online in the coming days (this includes any time you see the message "account suspended"). For more updates please see here.
What do you think should be on CIV4 (improvements from CIV3)?
- Thread starter Iraqi_Tank
- Start date
Do you mean something like this?......
....and this?.....
If so, have a look at the "Multi-Figure Forum", which can be found here.....
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=42225&pagenumber=1
^Qudos
Anti.Flag Superstar
yes i know those 
but they look weird for some reason. what i want is seeing dozens of armies not just 2 rows or 3
ala braveheart battle
where everyon just charges
but they look weird for some reason. what i want is seeing dozens of armies not just 2 rows or 3 ala braveheart battle
where everyon just charges
And that matters, how?
Some of us don't need to do anything more than read and participate in this forum as and how we like, as long as we abide by the rules.
It comes down to the fact if you're all playing the same game, yeah, you're sometimes going to have the same idea as someone else. Discussing those ideas is what a forum is for, and there is no need to read up on past messages before posting (except relevant stickies, moderator notices or FAQs). Not everyone has that much free time, or indeed the inclination.
So yes, some topics get talked about again and again. What's wrong with that. You can just ignore the topics that don't interest you and move on.
Sorry if I sound stern at all, it's not intended.
Ayatollah So
the spoof'll set you free
Maybe despotism should automatically be fascism in industrial or modern times, and have slightly different effects.
Making government's effects era-dependent might also solve the problem with Republic coming too early, that some people have mentioned in other threads. Let Ancient and Medieval republics be less science-friendly than later republics.
Lots of great ideas here. Keep 'em coming.
They should should have an upgrade from civil disorder called civil wars. Suddenly your empire is split in two (more or less).
Of course, this would be very difficult to implement in the game.
Also, for mp, something I wish to see: Hotseat can have more than 8 people!
Of course, this would be very difficult to implement in the game.
Also, for mp, something I wish to see: Hotseat can have more than 8 people!
America444
Coming Back To Life
immigration in addtion to culture flip should be one were laborers from other civs cities will move to near by cities of other civs and if all the laborers move then the city is abandoned and new wonder statue of liberty increases the amount of immigration to your civ
P.S. the u.s. sold iraq missiles when they were fighting iran Moderator Action: -- And this P.S. applies to this discussion how? --Padma
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889
P.S. the u.s. sold iraq missiles when they were fighting iran Moderator Action: -- And this P.S. applies to this discussion how? --Padma
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889
Ben E Gas
King
to one man army:
what do you want us to do, go read through hundreds of pages of posts just so we don't repeat? would you?
what do you want us to do, go read through hundreds of pages of posts just so we don't repeat? would you?
Cilpot
Pretentious Schmuck
Originally posted by ^Qudos
yes i know those
ala braveheart battle
I second that! Armies would be cool..
I also would like this small feature:
Lets say you allied to Spain, and their city Malaga has been captured by Japan. You retake Malaga. Then I would love it if there were an option to liberate the city, hence give it back to Spain immediatly.
.: Cilpot
O, where are my wonder movies. Bring them back to me.
And the social engineering screen in Alpha Centauri rules, so something like that would be very neat.
I also have a weakness for the voice in AC that says: Please don't go, when you want to quit. Little things like that are cute.
Also, I agree with the one who said that different music for different cultures are cool. Let's have that.
And the social engineering screen in Alpha Centauri rules, so something like that would be very neat.
I also have a weakness for the voice in AC that says: Please don't go, when you want to quit. Little things like that are cute.
Also, I agree with the one who said that different music for different cultures are cool. Let's have that.
Mark Young
Formerly Sir Eric
- Joined
- Feb 14, 2003
- Messages
- 1,799
I remember playing a game once (was either civ2 on playstation or call to power) where I attacked the dominent empire's capital, took it and half of his empire split into a different civ. Has anyone one else had the same thing happen to them?
I also would like to hear a lot more of a choice of music. Perhaps there could be a website that you download them from?
I would also like to be able to have a much bigger palace to build. One with infinite additions. I get bored with mine to easily.
More trade options.
Elite units to actually be that and not softie's that die more easier than regulars.
More UU for each civ.
Civ specific buildings that only they can build.
Also civ specific govs and tech's
I realise that I've said the same as others, I'm just agreeing with you.
I also would like to hear a lot more of a choice of music. Perhaps there could be a website that you download them from?
I would also like to be able to have a much bigger palace to build. One with infinite additions. I get bored with mine to easily.
More trade options.
Elite units to actually be that and not softie's that die more easier than regulars.
More UU for each civ.
Civ specific buildings that only they can build.
Also civ specific govs and tech's
I realise that I've said the same as others, I'm just agreeing with you.
Ben E Gas
King
wonders videos. that was the first thing I noticed missing in civ3, then the cheat menu. I like the idea about being able to liberate a city for another civ. I'n my current game, I've been shelling a celtic city with artillary, bombers and ships and the English just can't seem to retake the city. I really don't want it, but I want their people to be free.
I also think the social engineering was much better than the current system, where you basically have two options (representative or non-representative).
But as for propaganda, luxuries = giant tax cuts = capitalist propaganda
I hear MOO3 has an 'oppressometer' with a similar function.Here are some more ideas for politics:
Starvation should cause unhappiness. At the moment it's too easy to keep cities under control by turning the population into entertainers. Specialists should have a happiness rating too.
Once you have a certain tech, you should be able to impose martial law on a city. Martial law would suppress happy/unhappy citizens and stop the city culture flipping, but would tie up a certain number of military units depending on city size (you wouldn't be able to use them for defence until martial law ended) and severely impair commerce and production in the city (like despotism, only worse) and under representative governments it would cause an effect similar to war weariness. The Punishment Sphere in SMAC was a great idea, unfortunately Specialists were so easy-to-use I never had to use one.
Corruption represents lack of government control. Unhappiness represents lack of popular support. If you have serious problems with either or both, revolt and civil war should be a real possibility, with military being shared out proportionately.
When you cause a change of government (or radical social engineering if a more sophisticated model is used), instead of anarchy, a section of your population decides to support the old order and adopts a separate 'nationality' (eg you have Russians and Russian Tsarists.) If they form the majority in a city, it joins the counter-revolution, with no possibility of a peace treaty. Similarly a portion of the military would oppose you. People who end up under control of the side they oppose become resistors. You want a revolution, you'll have to fight for it.
There should be the possibility of computer-triggered peaceful government changes (though you'd have the power to prevent 'progressive' change if you wanted at the cost of unhappiness.) If you use the whip sparingly, for example, despotism could eventually evolve into monarchy, but if you keep fighting wars and using blanket martial law in a democracy, it regresses to despotism. This would allow you to avoid the ruinous consequences of revolution.
National humiliation (having to hand over your own cities to get a peace treaty, paying tribute to another civ, falling far behind in the power stakes etc) should cause unhappiness and possibly lead to serious problems (one of the claims of the Nazis was that they were restoring German pride after the humiliation of WW1).
War weariness should be more sophisticated, and depend on people's opinion of your enemy and the threat they pose. Democratic Britain was at war with Nazi Germany for six years, but people didn't hold protests about the war. Why? Because he was a tyrant and a threat to democracy and freedom in the whole of Europe. In contrast there was great 'war weariness' in the US during the Vietnam war, because it was seen by many as another case of pointless US imperialism.
Anyone played Tropico? That game makes internal politics much more challenging and interesting than in most other games I've played. Take elections: you can either have fair elections, rigged elections or no elections at all - but if you lose the election, you're out!
Starvation should cause unhappiness. At the moment it's too easy to keep cities under control by turning the population into entertainers. Specialists should have a happiness rating too.
Once you have a certain tech, you should be able to impose martial law on a city. Martial law would suppress happy/unhappy citizens and stop the city culture flipping, but would tie up a certain number of military units depending on city size (you wouldn't be able to use them for defence until martial law ended) and severely impair commerce and production in the city (like despotism, only worse) and under representative governments it would cause an effect similar to war weariness. The Punishment Sphere in SMAC was a great idea, unfortunately Specialists were so easy-to-use I never had to use one.
Corruption represents lack of government control. Unhappiness represents lack of popular support. If you have serious problems with either or both, revolt and civil war should be a real possibility, with military being shared out proportionately.
When you cause a change of government (or radical social engineering if a more sophisticated model is used), instead of anarchy, a section of your population decides to support the old order and adopts a separate 'nationality' (eg you have Russians and Russian Tsarists.) If they form the majority in a city, it joins the counter-revolution, with no possibility of a peace treaty. Similarly a portion of the military would oppose you. People who end up under control of the side they oppose become resistors. You want a revolution, you'll have to fight for it.
There should be the possibility of computer-triggered peaceful government changes (though you'd have the power to prevent 'progressive' change if you wanted at the cost of unhappiness.) If you use the whip sparingly, for example, despotism could eventually evolve into monarchy, but if you keep fighting wars and using blanket martial law in a democracy, it regresses to despotism. This would allow you to avoid the ruinous consequences of revolution.
National humiliation (having to hand over your own cities to get a peace treaty, paying tribute to another civ, falling far behind in the power stakes etc) should cause unhappiness and possibly lead to serious problems (one of the claims of the Nazis was that they were restoring German pride after the humiliation of WW1).
War weariness should be more sophisticated, and depend on people's opinion of your enemy and the threat they pose. Democratic Britain was at war with Nazi Germany for six years, but people didn't hold protests about the war. Why? Because he was a tyrant and a threat to democracy and freedom in the whole of Europe. In contrast there was great 'war weariness' in the US during the Vietnam war, because it was seen by many as another case of pointless US imperialism.
Anyone played Tropico? That game makes internal politics much more challenging and interesting than in most other games I've played. Take elections: you can either have fair elections, rigged elections or no elections at all - but if you lose the election, you're out!
Acalanthis
Warlord
I would like to be able to change terrain. For example, plains/desert into grassland. Also, visible improvements for sea squares. It would also be good to know whether you have drowned units when sinking a ship. Ghoulish or what?!
Certainly, lets have less AI cheating, a bigger game area and an option for more years of gameplay. I agree with all the other suggestions.
Is there going to be a Civ4?
Certainly, lets have less AI cheating, a bigger game area and an option for more years of gameplay. I agree with all the other suggestions.
Is there going to be a Civ4?
Johnnyboy
Chieftain
I would also like stratetical nukes, H-bombs. Who's area af destruction (depending on size, cost of bomb) can extend to several grids (e.g. 5) A cool blast animation that destroys forests and improvments.
The area should then be turned into drylands or something, and some pollution at the center grid.
Disable option
The area should then be turned into drylands or something, and some pollution at the center grid.
Disable option
Ayatollah So
the spoof'll set you free
Acolyte, you are sooo right about politics. Your ideas would be a ***** to program, I think. But they would be worth it.
Never heard of Tropico. More info?
Never heard of Tropico. More info?
Tropico's been around for quite a while now. Basically you are in charge of a small caribbean island in the second half of the 20th century. You have to keep the money coming in by exporting things like bananas and cigars, but just as importantly you have to maintain your grip on power. Your island is inhabited by a few hundred people (only this many for performance reasons), and each of them gets a job, has a family and has his/her own opinions on how things are going, with different Tropicans having different priorities. If you don't build enough churches, the more religious Tropicans get annoyed, for example. If someone doesn't like the way things are going, they'll vote against you in an election if they get the chance, but if people get really pissed off they start protesting in the streets, and they can become rebels who attack your outlying buildings and fight your military.
There are six ways for the game to end: retirement (the happy ending); you lose an election; rebels storm the palace; the military stage a coup (it's especially important you keep your soldiers happy!); there is a popular uprising (basically the protests get ugly and the protestors start fighting the loyalists; you lose if the protestors storm the palace); or either the US or Russia invades because you've pissed THEM off (the US might invade if the island is too communist, say.) Staying in power by any means necessary (giving people what they want, or propaganda, rigging elections, sending out hitmen to kill troublemakers etc if you can't satisfy their demands) is the name of the game.
There are six ways for the game to end: retirement (the happy ending); you lose an election; rebels storm the palace; the military stage a coup (it's especially important you keep your soldiers happy!); there is a popular uprising (basically the protests get ugly and the protestors start fighting the loyalists; you lose if the protestors storm the palace); or either the US or Russia invades because you've pissed THEM off (the US might invade if the island is too communist, say.) Staying in power by any means necessary (giving people what they want, or propaganda, rigging elections, sending out hitmen to kill troublemakers etc if you can't satisfy their demands) is the name of the game.
$
$iginally posted by Johnnyboy [/i]
I would also like stratetical nukes, H-bombs. Who's area af destruction (depending on size, cost of bomb) can extend to several grids (e.g. 5) A cool blast animation that destroys forests and improvments.
The area should then be turned into drylands or something, and some pollution at the center grid.
Disable option [/QUOTE]
If you've played SMAC, then three words for you: Singularity Planet Busters
$iginally posted by Johnnyboy [/i]
I would also like stratetical nukes, H-bombs. Who's area af destruction (depending on size, cost of bomb) can extend to several grids (e.g. 5) A cool blast animation that destroys forests and improvments.
The area should then be turned into drylands or something, and some pollution at the center grid.
Disable option
[/QUOTE]If you've played SMAC, then three words for you: Singularity Planet Busters
Johnnyboy
Chieftain
Acolyte----->I have, but think you'll agree, that Civilization 3 is better in every other way
And how about an option that make battle animations even more detailed, a quick change to a kind of 3D view showing e.g. 2 f-15's flying over and attacking some tanks, 2 armies of swordmen charging each othes.
Even though it's strategy doesn't mean we can't have a little eye-candy?
And how about an option that make battle animations even more detailed, a quick change to a kind of 3D view showing e.g. 2 f-15's flying over and attacking some tanks, 2 armies of swordmen charging each othes.
Even though it's strategy doesn't mean we can't have a little eye-candy?
Massive improvement to borders and how they are played.
1. Crossing a border and invading someone else's territory should be considered an AN ACT OF WAR. Not simply a transgression that you get annoyed at, but they get away with.
2. Units should bring a small "culture zone" with them.. much like the square you get moving a settler around.. except it's a real colored border, and you can draw food from it, ask enemies to leave it, etc. It is essentially "controlled territory".
This would correctly represents the control and impact units and armies have upon uncontrolled/unclaimed territory. If units are near your cultural borders, your border stretches and meshes with their control. The "culture zone" is equivalent to the number of moves per turn a unit has, but also obeys "culture clash" rules, as if you'd built a city next to someone else's culture border, you know what I mean?
This means you would no longer have outposts. You'd simply move a military unit to the resource. The military unit would exert control on the resource square and surrounding squares - exactly like a military force really does! From this little island of "culture and control" you would automatically draw resources as if it were really within your borders, provided there was a road to take the resources to a city.
In enemy territory, well, imagine building a city in enemy territory and how big the cultural borders of that new town would be.. ie, pushed in from all sides, none at all. A unit's "cultural influence" would be limited to ONLY the square it occupied. This still has significance, however, because if you then land troops in enemy controlled territory and occupy crucial squares, you deny them resources, and more importantly, can take stuff like airfields and claim them as yours without having to take the nearby city.
You could also use units - patrolling just outside your city's cultural limit - to extend your empire's influence and borders. Just like real life. You wouldn't have to man the border with 3902424 units to present a hard physical barrier to enemy civ's who want to plant their city in that obscure "my borders haven't expanded to claim it yet" corner of your continent.
It would also add value to units with more movement, who would exert a larger area of culture and control and be able to push your boundaries even further.
I'd also like to see less cities and more stuff like outposts, adding a greater importance to taking and holding resources and roads. To that end:
3. Roads and railroads should offer no bonus individually and only upon connection with another city (yours or other civ's). When a city is connected to another via road or railroad, ALL squares in that city's radius gain the bonus imparted by the underlying connection medium. Ie, if 5/6th of the connection is rail, and 1/6th is road, the connection bonus is the one imparted by ROAD until the rail route is complete!
Also, rail should not override road, but the two should complement one another. Each city gains a bonus from EACH city it is connected to. Therefore, central "hubs" of travel, with road and rail connections to a myriad of other cities, gain enormous trade bonuses - just like real life! Going to war should affect your border cities the most which are hit economically because their connection to cities that are now their enemy no longer grant a cross-border trade bonus!
Primarily, I want to get rid of the horribly messy "road/rail/irrigate in every single square" ethos that absolutely plagues the game. I'd love my civs to be neat, with one major arterial road and railway going places. I mean.. we don't see the individual buildings in a city unless we zoom in.. so why should we see all the sprawling suburban roads and dead end railroad tracks? Let's pull back from the road/rail spaghetti too.
What y'all think so far?
1. Crossing a border and invading someone else's territory should be considered an AN ACT OF WAR. Not simply a transgression that you get annoyed at, but they get away with.
2. Units should bring a small "culture zone" with them.. much like the square you get moving a settler around.. except it's a real colored border, and you can draw food from it, ask enemies to leave it, etc. It is essentially "controlled territory".
This would correctly represents the control and impact units and armies have upon uncontrolled/unclaimed territory. If units are near your cultural borders, your border stretches and meshes with their control. The "culture zone" is equivalent to the number of moves per turn a unit has, but also obeys "culture clash" rules, as if you'd built a city next to someone else's culture border, you know what I mean?
This means you would no longer have outposts. You'd simply move a military unit to the resource. The military unit would exert control on the resource square and surrounding squares - exactly like a military force really does! From this little island of "culture and control" you would automatically draw resources as if it were really within your borders, provided there was a road to take the resources to a city.
In enemy territory, well, imagine building a city in enemy territory and how big the cultural borders of that new town would be.. ie, pushed in from all sides, none at all. A unit's "cultural influence" would be limited to ONLY the square it occupied. This still has significance, however, because if you then land troops in enemy controlled territory and occupy crucial squares, you deny them resources, and more importantly, can take stuff like airfields and claim them as yours without having to take the nearby city.
You could also use units - patrolling just outside your city's cultural limit - to extend your empire's influence and borders. Just like real life. You wouldn't have to man the border with 3902424 units to present a hard physical barrier to enemy civ's who want to plant their city in that obscure "my borders haven't expanded to claim it yet" corner of your continent.
It would also add value to units with more movement, who would exert a larger area of culture and control and be able to push your boundaries even further.
I'd also like to see less cities and more stuff like outposts, adding a greater importance to taking and holding resources and roads. To that end:
3. Roads and railroads should offer no bonus individually and only upon connection with another city (yours or other civ's). When a city is connected to another via road or railroad, ALL squares in that city's radius gain the bonus imparted by the underlying connection medium. Ie, if 5/6th of the connection is rail, and 1/6th is road, the connection bonus is the one imparted by ROAD until the rail route is complete!
Also, rail should not override road, but the two should complement one another. Each city gains a bonus from EACH city it is connected to. Therefore, central "hubs" of travel, with road and rail connections to a myriad of other cities, gain enormous trade bonuses - just like real life! Going to war should affect your border cities the most which are hit economically because their connection to cities that are now their enemy no longer grant a cross-border trade bonus!
Primarily, I want to get rid of the horribly messy "road/rail/irrigate in every single square" ethos that absolutely plagues the game. I'd love my civs to be neat, with one major arterial road and railway going places. I mean.. we don't see the individual buildings in a city unless we zoom in.. so why should we see all the sprawling suburban roads and dead end railroad tracks? Let's pull back from the road/rail spaghetti too.
What y'all think so far?
Similar threads
