What I would like to see in an expansion...(Or Civ V)

[Edward The Big]

I'd like to see religions broken down even further to resemble history...Such as having Catholicism eventually split off with the Orthodox Church, and having the Reformation occur...You could also have Sunni and Shia Muslims...It would provide more options for conflict....I also wouldn't mind having your opponents always go toward their historical religion (Saladin goes to Islam eventually, Isabella towards Christianity, etc.)

 

[Superkrest]

i dunno about religion ...the game isnt ment to be historicly accurate..i actually find it fun to be the Islamic republic of america...but one thing i think must be done is to have far more civs...i dont care which ones...and im not about to get started on who deserves to be there..but i would just love to see about....18 more civs.

 

[Bakaroyna]

I'd like to see food as a tradable resource (between your own cities), meaning you could have farming cities, whose sole purpose would be to supply your empire with the food needed for growth and production.

 

[Edward The Big]

I'm sure when the expansion pack comes out (Presumably a year or two from now), you will see more Civs.....I'd personally like to see more leaders...Where is Caesar Augustus for Rome? Pericles for Greece? Lincoln for the US? Churchill?

 

[Edward The Big]

My bad, I didn't know this had been covered in another thread...Sorry...

 

[Turner]

Moderator Action: Thread moved to Civ4 - Ideas & Suggestions

 

[KingG]

First of all I'd like to see some basic deficiencies in the interface/gameplay/speed rectified. The game has some great new strategy but it falls short in many areas.

After much searching I found eotinb's thread here that gives notifications when one of my cities grows ... this makes the amount of time I have to worry about adjusting my citizens much less.

There are also mods by others for better advisors, an area of the game where civ IV has gone backwards from civ 3. The Civilopedia needs to be redone too.

And I would like to see an option like "Show friendly moves" for our OWN units ... so we dont accidentally bump into a lion with a settler for example, and this would also be helpful in times of war and long sea journeys.

Just the basics that we lack, that could make our enjoyment of civ even better. I am a relative newbie to civ - I played older versions and recall them as being much more friendly than this release.

And of course, MUCH faster. The game runs like a three-legged dog on many/most systems as far as I can tell and on mine it's slow enough to detract significantly from the game. And it's not hardware that's the problem. It's the game software itself.

So, what I would like to see in an expansion is just the basic tools and options to play the game easily, as well as an improvement in speed.

And I suspect that for the time being I will have to rely on modders to do what Firaxis should have done in the first place - make civ an awesome game.

 

[Ratsock]

I'd like to see food as a tradable resource (between your own cities), meaning you could have farming cities, whose sole purpose would be to supply your empire with the food needed for growth and production.

I agree, its there to some extent atm, but could be expanded a great deal.

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

A couple of thoughts:

1. Either Food resources should grant a bigger 'food' bonus to all your cities OR health should be the main determinant of city growth.

2. Relations between civs with the same religion-but different religion civics-should probably be as bad, if not worse, than that between civs of totally different religions.

3. Related to # 2 is the idea that certain civic vs. civic relations should probably start more sour than others.

4. Unless in pacifism or free religion, cities with non-state religions should not provide major benefits for that civ, and cities with more than 1 religion in them should actually cause problems-particularly in theocracy. By the same token, though, it should be possible to 'cleanse' a city of a religion, but only at the cost of population, happiness-in all cities with that religion-and your standing with that religion's founder.

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

 

[MRM]

2. Relations between civs with the same religion-but different religion civics-should probably be as bad, if not worse, than that between civs of totally different religions.

3. Related to # 2 is the idea that certain civic vs. civic relations should probably start more sour than others.

4. Unless in pacifism or free religion, cities with non-state religions should not provide major benefits for that civ, and cities with more than 1 religion in them should actually cause problems-particularly in theocracy. By the same token, though, it should be possible to 'cleanse' a city of a religion, but only at the cost of population, happiness-in all cities with that religion-and your standing with that religion's founder.

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

I agree with you basicly but I would go even one step further - even under freedom of religion cities should not get a happines bonus from more then one religion. Why should they ? In a city with only one or in a city with 5 Religions , under freedom of religion all citiziens can practice their religion - so I see no reason for a happines bonus here - therefore freedom of religion should "only" remove happiness penalties that come from several religions under theocraty and organized religion. ( not sure about pacifism and paganism - maybe only a small penalty for several religions here ? )

btw - there should be a better name for paganism, since politheistic religions are religions on their own and that somehow don't fit into the civic category.

Why not add them as national religions for isolationistis ?

Additional I have a idea that may trigger a "holy war"

IMO if you hold a holy city ( no matter if yours or a conquered one ) that is NOT your state religion, but is the holy city for a religion that is state religion of other civs, then this should damage your relation to those civ with an extra penalty. - MAybe this situation may even trigger an alliances of those civs who now want to liberate their holy city ?

I think that would balance the extra income from grabing as much religions as you can get with extra trouble ...

MAybe even here the religous civic should play a role ?

Your idea that the question of different or same civic should play the same role is great - at least in modern world this playes a even more importen role than religion in relationship between states

 

[Panzeh]

It makes me wonder why everyone wants to split the religions without really thinking about what it would do to gameplay. Is there a real point in giving each civ their own religion?

 

[MRM]

It makes me wonder why everyone wants to split the religions without really thinking about what it would do to gameplay. Is there a real point in giving each civ their own religion?

Don't know - I share your concern. Would IMO only make sence if one religion become too dominant ( is state religion of more than 50% of the civs )


And another idea - ZOC ( Civ3 style ) exclusiv for fortresses - ontherwise this tile improvment is worthless because you can just walk aroud it ...

 

[crazy canuck]

I wish...
I had paratroopers back.

I had alpine troopers.

I could build fortresses and road on mountains.

I can choose how many civs I want to fight against on the board.

I can have a slower game speed option for advancement.

I had advisors that talked to me as in CIV II.

I had a better spy system.

I had the AGEIS crusier that could launch tomahawk missiles in a 3
square radius, decent defence against aircraft and can track subs.

I had nukes that don't half a city population, but drop it down to 1
and leaves a burned out shell of a city (as they usually do)

I had M1A2 Battle tanks that don't fear spearmen on a hill.

 

[p dandy]

I wish:

1) True balancing of traits so that we don't have one that is supreme (Financial)
2) add a unique unit to each race
3) Better spies
4) Bring back the nuclear sub
5) Mountains are crossable but the unit will lose health (better representation than making them uncrossable; perhaps add a tech that decreases the health lost)
6) More leader instead of new civs (maybe change it so that a leader will have a unique unit from his/her time or rule)