What you don’t want to see in Civ 4

Bluetooth

Bluetooth

King
Joined
Nov 4, 2002
Messages
379
Location
Sweden
We all play Civilization in different ways and we like and dislike different aspects of game play. In most threads we discuss what we want to see in Civ 4. I thought it would be interesting to see what we don’t want to see in Civ 4. What is it you hate most of all in Civ II or Civ III?

I’m a builder and I love to see my nation grow in strength and power. What do you think I hate most of all? Exactly, the brainless corruption system :mad: in Civ III. That’s what I don't want to see anything of in Civ IV.

Come on guys, take a moment and get really angry :mad: .
 
An expansion of that point is I don't want to see 1 transport guarded by 3 other ships and carrying one unit.
 
Vizurok said:
Yes, I hate this corruption system, but I hate cultur flips, too. It's OK in peace, but in war it's totally stupiD!
Click to expand...

Except that they did happen...just read the newspaper (well except for the part of wiping out your entire stack).

I do agree the corruption system needs reworked (or scrapped).
 
warpstorm said:
Except that they did happen...just read the newspaper (well except for the part of wiping out your entire stack).
Click to expand...
I do read newspapers... :)
You're right, the problem is not the flip, the units!!! I cant understand why do they die when the city flips. Losing few units while escaping from the city is OK, but do not kill my entire stack!!! Place them wherever you want, to the next square, to my nearest city, to my capital, or tothe other continent :), just do not kill them!
 
The best solution would probably be returning units to the capital so that they can be used again eventually although then again just dropping them to one health and putting them in the nearest city would have the same effect of delaying the civ that the culture flip has occured against from recapturing the city with the same troops. Also perhaps units that are on one health should be killed when a city flips.
 
Assault settler? Is that where you replace captured cities with your own?
 
The way to solve that would be that you need at least one turn before you could get even one tile radius of cultural expansion.
 
Dell19 said:
Assault settler? Is that where you replace captured cities with your own?
Click to expand...
No, it's when you plop a town directly next to the AI's border, so "stealing" a row and tiles, and therewith the use of the railroads there. It allows for some truly obscene breakthrus.
 
The Last Conformist said:
No, it's when you plop a town directly next to the AI's border, so "stealing" a row and tiles, and therewith the use of the railroads there. It allows for some truly obscene breakthrus.
Click to expand...

Okay so using settlers to increase movement, similar kind of idea but the one I stated was more to avoid culture flipping...
 
Actually, Dell19, I agree with your assessment on burning cities and reestablishing them as well. The idea that you could routinely wipe out a city and then put your own people in its place strikes of Hitler's plans for Stalingrad and Leningrad. Those cities are still not German, so the idea is probably not really feasable.
 
Well thats something that will be difficult to do for lower ended machines although it should be possible to play smaller map sizes without problems.
 
I agree on the Corruption thing. I also don't want to see another non comunist leader for the Russians. :p
 
I don't want to see something where the AI is visibly cheating. I know this is hard but it is annoying when you direct a settler to a really nice location you've already explored and right before you arrive, some other civ plants a city there.

Another gripe is that the computer players are very very averse to any kind of city trading. There is no way for me to say to the Carthaginians after I captured Lepis Minor "I will give you back this valuable city of yours if you give me this tech and 100 gold". Nor is there any way to trade what are essentially "colonies". Far off cities are given just as much anti-trade priority as nearby ones. The AI will only trade cities when negotiating a peace, never any other time. Even if you offer them a colony type city (far off) that is sitting on oil or some other resource they need but don't have, they will still refuse to even discuss trading for it. A stupid attitude on hteir part.
 
I hate the time it takes to build improvements.

I build a barracks in a new city in acient times it takes 1000years. I build a barracks in a new city in Modern times (say the 90's) it can still take years - 40 years!!. It just doesn't make sense, it should only take a few years at either time.

So basically make turns = 1year and concentrate on availiable resources to build improvements. - and be able to trade them through out your empire.
 
I build a barracks in a new city in acient times it takes 1000years. I build a barracks in a new city in Modern times (say the 90's) it can still take years - 40 years!!. It just doesn't make sense, it should only take a few years at either time.
Click to expand...
I think that this depends on the production of shields of your city.When population grows and improvements (mines RR)are made in the city radius, production increases and building times decrease.
So basically make turns = 1year
Click to expand...
that is of an aesthetic value and can be done through the editor...
 
I don't want to see me having to make a Watercolor Terrain mod to get a nice looking map. :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

K
Feature requests for Civ VII
2
Replies
25
Views
2K
GeneralZift
GeneralZift
SupremacyKing2
Where does civ go after civ7?
Replies
18
Views
2K
Eddie Verdde
Eddie Verdde
O
What do you want changed in mapping?
Replies
3
Views
342
GeneralZift
GeneralZift
evonannoredars
Teotihuacan - Antiquity Era Civ Concept
Replies
19
Views
2K
evonannoredars
evonannoredars
F
will there be a patch to fix the graphics in Civ VII?
2
Replies
37
Views
2K
FORRREST
F
Back
Top Bottom