What would you have wanted different in Civilization 4?

[elgado]

And a map-style more like SMAC's would be nice too... ie: elevation/ rockiness/ and rainfall stats for each tile.

Personally I think CIV V will have a more realistic global enviroment as a primary feautre... ie: global weather patterns (oceanic currents and whatnot) which are affected by pollution and terraforming. Tectonic plates as a paradigm for map generation, with subsequent vulcanism and earthquakes. And a water system modeled on the same princibles, meaning mountain ranges break clouds, which then determine the courses of rivers.

Couldn't agree more. I was pretty disappointed that Civ 3 didn't come out with a n Alpha Centauri-like climate system.

Another thing I'd appreciate being replicated from Alpha Centauri is bits and pieces of that game's diplomacy system. Though I like the fact that the AI shows you just what factors are affecting your relationship, I much prefer Alpha Centauri's more serious approach to foreign relations. Not only are the leader avatars less cartoony, but I also preferred SMAC's system leader attitudes of magnanimous -> solicitous -> cooperative -> noncommittal -> ambivalent -> obstinate -> quarrelsome -> belligerent -> seething.

 

[The Frisian]

You're technically right, but by the same application of true history you shouldn't be able to research Agriculture unless you have Rice, Corn, Wheat, etc. resources nearby, and several continents shouldn't. Horses, Cows, Pigs and Sheep should be required for Animal Husbandry, and several civilizations should have no hope of getting them. Really, unless you start out next to several food resources your people should remain hunter-gatherers and probably nomads until someone conquers them.

Then here is another suggestion to balance things out: The ability to create plots with a resource, once you have located one. A Great Merchant (or maybe a caravan unit) could have this extra function: When you move him to a square with a bonus on it (e.g. Corn, pigs, horses, silk, spices, suger, etc, as long as it's alive, i.e. not gold, coal, silver etc.) then he can take seeds/young and move to another square and create a new plot with that resource on it. This also means that he can move onto an opponents square, take horses or elephants (not destroying the original plot) and bring them back into your own land. You could import horses and breed them in your own country. Or furs, or bananas. Did you know that Iceland doesn't import bananas? They grown enough to feed their population (or so I've read on the internet somewhere). Obviously they send a Merchant to fetch some bananas and start a plantation of their own.
And America has horses now too. There should probably be some limit to prevent resource spamming. But specializing a city with an extra bonus square shouldn't ruin the gameplay, right? Perhaps a limit of 1 resource per era? Or, link it to the Great Merchant. I never specialize in GMs, but if they had the ability to create a new resource plot, then I certainly would.

This would balance it out a bit. And I think Agriculture should always be available. After all, there are vegetables and potatoes which require farming, but are not visible on the map.
And you can always build settlers to find new food squares. The permanent hunter-gatherer scenario would be a bit extreme

 

[a4phantom]

This would balance it out a bit. And I think Agriculture should always be available. After all, there are vegetables and potatoes which require farming, but are not visible on the map. And you can always build settlers to find new food squares. The permanent hunter-gatherer scenario would be a bit extreme

Right. This is unrealistic (there really are only a small number of instances in history of major crops being domesticated, and thus agriculture only arose in a few places, Meso-America, the Fertile Cresent, China and maybe Egypt, probably a few others). But it wouldn't be a very fun game if most civs were doomed from the start to remain in small bands of low tech hunter gatherers.

As for importing plant and animal resources and creating a local supply, that would be very accurate. I like the idea of tying it to a Great Merchant, although I think that would instantly obsolete every other GM function and devalue every other Great Person as well.

 

[deanej]

Such a function would kill resource trading. Remember: resources are not quantitative, it doesn't matter if you have 1 or 100 (no do I want them to be... it's too much micromanagement). It would also unbalance the game, as tiles with resources on them give super bonuses when worked.

 

[Comrade Alex]

climate changes, maybe. To mirror the medieval warm period and the little ice age.

oh wait, that'd just be irritating and unesseccary.

To be honest, it think that the resource system is fine already, and further interference would cause the game to become dangerously unbalanced.

 

[Kazbar]

New idea: secessions.

They would be very uncommon, of course. And could only be triggered if a city (or group of cities) is EXTREMELY displeased with you. And when I say secession, I don't mean just switched over to the nearest civ, I mean become their own nation.

It would certainly have to be balanced out so that it wasn't just happening on a whim, but I also certainly think it would be possible to pull off.

 

[Comrade Alex]

sorry, what does SMAC stand for.

I'm considering downloading... i mean... purchasing this game just to have "quarrelsome" and "belligerant" foregin relations.

 

[a4phantom]

sorry, what does SMAC stand for.

I'm considering downloading... i mean... purchasing this game just to have "quarrelsome" and "belligerant" foregin relations.

Sid Meirs' Alpha Centauri. It came after Civ2, it's the next chapter to the Space Race. I think basically the colonists from the winning civilization reach Alpha Centauri but split into factions and start the whole competition over. I never played it but it has a great reputation.



I think that if you are [Hindu] and you hold the [Hindu] Holy City, you should get a significant diplomatic bonus from other [Hindu] nations. However, if you are [Islamic] and you hold the [Christian] Holy City, you should get a penalty with [Christian] nations, at least those running Organized Religion or Theocracy.

Holding a religion's Holy City should give you +1 happiness in every city hosting that Religion.

 

[Crowqueen]

Holding a religion's Holy City should give you +1 happiness in every city hosting that Religion.

Now there I agree - building the shrine in it should give you a happiness bonus as well. It's really frustrating when the city is in uproar over something, you build one of the wonders like the Temple of Solomon in it and they go on rioting. They don't seem to care as much as when I build a humble temple!

 

[Comrade Alex]

Yes yes yes. You mean like Jerusalem.
The developers have to tread carefully with religion though, if they were striving for realism though, more religions present in a city would mean greater unrest.

Look at Derry. Or Israel/Palestine.

 

[a4phantom]

Yes yes yes. You mean like Jerusalem.

Bingo.

The developers have to tread carefully with religion though, if they were striving for realism though, more religions present in a city would mean greater unrest.

Look at Derry. Or Israel/Palestine.

Maybe under Theocracy (in which case it would need re-balancing), but in general I don't think that realism dog hunts. I'm sure NYC represents every religion on earth, and of all NYC's problems I don't think religious conflict is one. Most of the places with religious conflict, he fighting is between two religions not a free for all. Lebanon would be an exception, where three of three major religious groups are in conflict. But I don't see X of religions leading to Y amount of unrest. Besides, Shia and Sunni are lumped together in Civ4, and Catholic and Protestant, and those have been some of the worst fault lines.

 

[Comrade Alex]

Yeah I suppose your right. The addition of religious tensions and sectarianism would just throw the religious aspect of the game off balance completely.
Cultural victory would be pretty much impossible, for one.

 

[Dabur]

hmmmm , airbases like civ III , some canals , maybe only true the worldbuilder or as a small civ wonder , a few more world wonders and some more different resources , at least two UU for each civ and a few more traits

now where is the next expansion pack

 

[ICNP]

Two UU's are definitely a big one. I'd also like to see "Powers" Like in Rhye's and Fall.

Russian General Winter anyone?

 

[Comrade Alex]

Wouldn't really work though, if Russia was a tropical island nation.

That'd just be silly.

 

[AngryZealot]

1. Less lose-lose situations. For example, I despise the "stop trading with ____" demand. You lose relations with someone no matter what you pick. It doesn't seem very fair.

2. AI playing to win on all levels. Gandhi should build a military to protect his cultural cities, even if he doesn't use it. Monty should actually research things instead of attacking riflemen with archers.

3. Even less "AI vs the player" mentality. The AI shouldn't treat the player any differently than other AIs.

4. Food trading! Why can't a food-rich city donate food to a city of full plains hills?

 

[ICNP]

All excellent points. It always sucks when you can so easily tell that the AI is against the player.

 

[donovant22]

How about two unique units per civ?
America could have Navy Seals and Minuteman, a musketman that is built in half the time.
England could have the Redcoat and the Man O War, an especially powerful Frigate.
Rome could have Praetorians/Legionaires and Auxillaries, a better form of Spearmen.

That would make gameplay more diverse and unique.

 

[caketastydelish]

Wouldn't really work though, if Russia was a tropical island nation.

That'd just be silly.

One thing they could do, is have your spawn area be based on the civ you picked. It would still have some randomness to it because the maps are all randomly generated. However, for example, egypt would always spawn in the desert (and of coarse, they would have a desert bounus to even the negative desert effects out) Russia would not spawn on a little island, but on a large landmass, particularly where there is tundra or something. Japan and England would spawn on an Island. I could go on, but I think the basic point has been made.

 

[SharpMango]

The ability to tell vassals 'this arrangement is over, you're surrogate government in charge of my territories is worthless, you are incompetent, your armies pathetic, your value negligible, you will be hanged and i will take over your government'..

i want a big option stating that in the diplo screen.

( this relates to the fact i'm playing a massive earth map, i KNOW germany is a rubbish AI, but in any case, he wants to become my vassal, now im taking a lot of hits from the east so i accept his vassalage (im spain).....
so now im thinking, great i have a punching bag protecting me whilst i take over africa...
but first, lets give fredrick some territory, so i conquer poland/lithuania for him, give him some living space as it where...make him a bit powerful.....
and there i am conquering africa....200 turns later, a 2bit civ declares war on me and STEAMROLLERS fredrick...i mean....what was he doing...his landmass was larger than the civ he got pwned by....
seriously, some vassals just want an easy ride throughout the game...
and not meaning to be a bit politically incorrect, but the germans should be a bit decent at war right?)