What do you think should be on CIV4 (improvements from CIV3)?

What would you like to see implemented in the game? (note: this was a merged thread)

  • Your regional model sounds fine...

    Votes: 1 14.3%

  • Historical emphasis in other ways...

    Votes: 2 28.6%

  • Forget the history, add to the gameplay!!

    Votes: 3 42.9%

  • Other... (if you could come up with it :) )

    Votes: 1 14.3%
  • Total voters
    7
As I have pointed a couple of times, it would be nice if the maps would be sprerical, like real worlds. Locally the maps would be flat as in our world, but zoomed enough you should see some curvature and seen from far away you should see an sprerical world.

Subs should be able to navigate under the polar ice caps as in reality, and advanced civs should be able to lauch sattelites to see everything going on on earth, including military movements.

Also, squares should be changed into hexagons. Hexagons minimize the distances distorsion produced by squares.

Just some ideas.
 
As I have pointed a couple of times, it would be nice if the maps would be sprerical, like real worlds. Locally the maps would be flat as in our world, but zoomed enough you should see some curvature and seen from far away you should see an sprerical world.

Subs should be able to navigate under the polar ice caps as in reality, and advanced civs should be able to lauch sattelites to see everything going on on earth, including military movements.

Also, squares should be changed into hexagons. Hexagons minimize the distances distorsion produced by squares.

Just some ideas.
 
Originally posted by JC Denton

Which leaves me wondering why Communists are communists, besides the control, wheres the economic benefits?
Click to expand...

There has been no communistic society ever. Because they turn out to be everything but the esence of it.

The only reason because capitalistic market hasn't colapsed yet, it's because there are many countries that hold strong labor unions as part of their work policies.
The equal distribution of wealth is given by the equal distribution of property. Where a few owns almost everything, the most owns almost nothing; then, in turn, the wealth makes the wealthy to become wealthiest.

The economic benefits, in game terms, will come from the feelings of the people that they own a share of its country. This in turn, will be reflected by a higher happiness, because they know no matter how low are they salaries they will always have access to health, education and social services. Also, it increase they're productivity, because as the workers are also the owners of the factories, they'll get a percentage of the utilities.

Keep civilized

David
 
Things I'd like to see as Civ evolves....

Surrender and the Vassal State

It should be possible for an AI player to "surrender" when the tide of battle looks hopeless. The outcome of surrender talks can be one of two things: the surrendering state becomes a "vassal" state, or resumes it's independence after agreement on territorial and monetary concessions.

A vassal state should function somewhat similarly to ROP. You do not control city production, nor may you use vassal state cities, but you have full control of any military units produced by the civ with exception to a standard 2 or 3 defensive units per city. You also have access to any resources and luxuries accessible by the vassal state.

Vassal states may choose to revolt, but they may also end up serving you faithfully for a long time. Subservience will be based on how well you treat them (how many happy faces), how many of their military units you lose in battle (casualties make them unhappy), and your form of government. You'll find it difficult to hold on to a vassal state while in republic or democracy. A shared religion will also be a factor...

Religion
A new advance in the ancient age. Upon reaching it you'll be required to choose from a list of religions. For example:Christian, Jewish, Islam, Buddhism, Animist.


Religion will affect the game in a number of ways. For example Diplomatic relations will be better between civs with a shared religions. Alliances and vassal state relationships will be affected.

And there may be a few other unique twists. As an example: only Christian civs will be able to build the "Crusader" unit. And the Crusader unit may only be used in battle against civs of a different religion.

Each religion could bring with it a set of economic and cultural benefits and drawbacks ... although i realize that may be too touchy of a subject for game designers.
 
Some people would hate these ideas, so if implemented they should be optional, but...

It would be nice if the game would "read" your personality through your actions and adjust accordingly. For example, if you stay in despotism and go around conquering and razing cities, your advisers fear you. They start telling you what they think you want to hear, resulting in inaccurate information. If you go for peaceful builder democracy, your senate gets uppity and starts vetoing some of your economic decisions.

Your victory conditions could likewise depend on your play style (instead of having to check or uncheck a box beforehand). Despotic conqueror? Then you laugh at UN votes. Couldn't care less. Domination, however, is a show-stopper.

A second idea is to inject a little more uncertainty. Since when do we know exactly how many years it will take to discover the next scientific advance? :crazyeye: Or how much revenue will be generated in the coming year by a given city? Or exactly how another civilization's military might compares?

Third. More flexibility should be built into, well, plenty of things. Rushing production. Unit strengths and costs. Trade deal terms. But others have already given some great ideas there, I'm just repeating their points.
 
I would like to see gold become a resource like iron etc. so a player could mine it out side the city area to make extra capital. It is annoying to capture an enemy city that has not been placed correctly and end up loosing potential gold.
 
Make the game run in a minimizable window and at any graphics resolution. C'mon, it's the 21st century and this game still looks like one of those DOS-based infocom travesties.
 
good post and great point I never really thought about that, but I remember you had the option of doing this in CtP...
 
It is not really an improvment, since it isn't in Civ 3, but I think their should be religions. Each religion is researched in its age that it came into existince. Have it work like government so that you can only have one type at once, and give each its own unit that can only be built if you use that religon. (e.g. Crusader, fundementalist)
 
Sailing ship age Longer

WWI style planes/Era

Leaders for Victorious navy vessels to make a fleet

Mines-cost a wrker

Surrendering enemy units - instead of a kill once in a while

Assyrians as Civ

Long Boat for Vikings as UU

Facism and Fundamentalism as gov.
 
One thing I feel could be improved is the culture flips of cities. Having your entire stack vanish is unsatisfying to say the least.

One better method might be:

If a city "decides" to do a cultural flip, it:

Generates insurrection units.
Holds a battle between the defenders of the city and the insurrection units. If the defenders win the insurrection fails and the city still belongs to the original civilization. If it succeeds and all defenders are killed, then the city joins the new civilization.

For insurrection units:

All units are conscript.

The unit type is limited to resources found on the city square or perhaps city radius. So if there is no saltpeter on the city square (or within the 9/21 squares around the city), then they would not be musketmen (or cavalry). Note that this would lead to guerrilla troops in the modern age which is appropriate I think.

I am unsure if the tech of the troops should be based on the new civilization or the original. I am thinking the original (though if they were a recent addition through conquest, maybe the previous civilization makes sense).

Citizens of the same nationality as the one that it is switching to would generate more units. Relative culture could also affect the number of units created. Unhappy generates more units, and resisting even more.
something like:
#insurrection units = Culture Mod * (0.5*Happy citizens + 0.8*(content+specialists) + 1.0*Unhappy + 1.25*Resisting) rounded to the nearest integer.

Citizens that are of the other country count double (so a happy foreigner would be 1.0, a resisting would be 2.5).

Culture mod would not be a direct ratio of the two cultures. Perhaps it varies from 0 to 2 where near 0 means the original culture is much higher, and 2 means the new civ's culture is much higher.

The player would see the battle. It would see its modern armor hold out against superior numbers, or crumble beneath the assault (large numbers of gorillas, ooking at them and throwing sticks prove too much). I would think insurrections would be like barbarian attacks. The units can become elite, but will not generate great leaders.

If the insurrection units win, they vanish (go back to being citizens), and the standard "single unit" appears.

Huge losses of the insurrection units might cause the population size to drop a point or two.
 
Originally posted by SuperBeaverInc.

Have it work like government so that you can only have one type at once, and give each its own unit that can only be built if you use that religon. (e.g. Crusader, fundementalist)
Click to expand...

Actually, in many countries, there's religious freedom. Thus, every person may choose which religion (or none at all) to devote.

If you institute a state religion, there may be some people who may not agree with it and choose to join another civilization (this may fall in another new concept of inmigration-emigration). As the leader you may choose to execute those who dare to choose a different religion (remember christians in roman times) and increase happiness of citizens loyal religion but decrease it for citizens of other religions. Of course for a citizen to choose a different religion it first must know it. Cultural influence of border cities may include the religion influence. A strong religion can indeed convert some of your citizens to it.
Also you may have a small wonder similar to the spionage agency to perform missionaries missions as a sort of religious spies.

Keep civilized

David
 
The biggest one on my wish list is the ability to script the AI, i.e., to be able to write scripts to control an AI on various aspects so that it can compete against a human player (or another AI - I can see from right here some events like Civ AI Tourney). It maybe difficult to make it as hard as Deity but still would be a lot of fun either developing one or playing against one - at least a lot of more fun than competing against some cheating ones.

My other wishes are: (I went through the thread and tried to not duplicate but still sorry if some of these are mentioned before)

* the concept of army generals. Generals are less powerful than great leaders in that they can't rush building, but on the other hand they appear more often and can boost either the power/morale of the units they lead.

* the concept of influence, which can be a combination of culture, size of nation, size of military force, etc. It's different from culture in that it doesn't determine the border but it can reach everywhere in the world if a civ has strong enough influence. This way influence can have a lot more interesting impact on games than culture does.

* the leader of a civ doesn't have to live forever. he/she would die and a successor would take over. then there can be marriages between civilizations and whole bunch of fun diplomacy going from there. (sort of like the system in Medieval: Total War but more complicated than that)

* some tech like "supersonic jet" that would make all the cities appear to be on the same continent when things like wonder effect is calculated.

* the mobility of modern naval/air units need to be a lot better. it seems a bit silly when your bomber has a limited radius while some tank can move as far as it wants on railroad.
 
Add a naming ability to name armies and such ( is there already one?). Ex. Paratrooper Army I would call it One Hundred and First or Eighty Second.
 
So this is my first post guys. Anyways I'd like to see a few major changes to the game in incarnation #4:

1) No more: "Wow the city you just captured and stationed your whole military in decided they liked their old country better and have flipped, so inspiring your armies that they too have switched sides." - Duh enemy cities are gonna wan't to be with their own nation! Every revolter pop unit should be turned into a unit which will have to battle your stationed army for control of the city, like in good old Civ: Call to Power.

2) Fix the wierd corruption and have the infogrames programmers read their history books. Did they British empire produce 2 and a half gold per turn because they were big and spread out??!!!

3) Give range units a range and assault attack, like in Civ: Call to power.

4) Lower all the huge defensive bonuses so that the game makes sense.

5) Allow units to attack in grops like in Civ: Call to power (okay so that game wasn't the greatest but they got some things bang on)

Thats all I can think of right now but there is tons more.
 
most people believe it will be another 3 to 4 more years
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Quintillus
Blast from the Past - Remembering Official Civ3 Websites from 2001
Replies
6
Views
1K
Takhisis
Takhisis
Lazy sweeper
Civ 3 = Chess. Set standard rules. Where is true innovation?
Replies
8
Views
958
Lazy sweeper
Lazy sweeper
M
This game is too addictive. I need to make it shorter
2 3
Replies
44
Views
3K
Buttercup
B
Fergei
Alternative campaigns - directory & drafting
Replies
19
Views
1K
Fergei
Fergei
K
A few...political questions
Replies
1
Views
415
Fergei
Fergei
Back
Top Bottom