the next expansion

Kc7mxo · August 4, 2006, 18:55

from a historical point of view, most of the city of rome's grain came on ships from egypt. shipping food around is not a new invention.

basic foodstuffs like grain, rice, and corn (the big 3 of low tech food) can all keep for quite a while if they're properly taken care of.

alms66 · August 4, 2006, 20:07

Originally posted by Grandpa Troll
I think it is very realistic, you have a BIG CITY like Chicago Illionois and a small community 500 miles away, you ship food there and it helps it grow

It doesnt seem that far fetched of an idea.

Or concept.

Well, if you want to bring realism into the picture

, your logic is severely flawed. First, food does not equal growth. Take a quick look at many African countries where population continues to skyrocket while food supply either decreases or only slightly increases. Second, BIG cities, do not produce lots of food, they consume it. The great plains in the US produces much of our food... that's why it's called the breadbasket.

That concludes your lesson on realism for the day.

Grandpa Troll · August 4, 2006, 20:21

Originally posted by alms66

Well, if you want to bring realism into the picture

, your logic is severely flawed. First, food does not equal growth. Take a quick look at many African countries where population continues to skyrocket while food supply either decreases or only slightly increases. Second, BIG cities, do not produce lots of food, they consume it. The great plains in the US produces much of our food... that's why it's called the breadbasket.

That concludes your lesson on realism for the day.

No sir your are INCORRECT, thats your Flawed answer. I never said shipping food from one city to another would rectify all the population problems. Thats an entirely different matter. The African Food Crisis can be contributed to lack of quality land to feed its people or Warlords hording the supplies.

Ok, and here is a point I did not use because I felt most people would understand this is a GAME and many factors are not exactly one for one like a Marine is not a Marine but signifies a group, perhaps a company or perhaps a Battalion.

When I spoke of a Bigger city I also felt like perhaps many here would know without me insulting their intelligence by explaining but alas i see at least ONE Individual with FLAWED thought process and that is you sir, what I meant by a Bigger city I meant more workers to say work in a factory or shipping/receiving facilities like say you have this huge Foodlion warehouse in Chesapeake VA (I believe thats where it is located), they ship to all the Food Lions throughout North Carolina, no the people in Chesapeake dont consume all the warehouse has to offer, they work there and ship where it is needed.

Now this does not "conclude" your lessons on realism for today, for this is a game not realism, I mean, you are aware that you dont really rule the world dont you? You do realize that a CD has all sorts of data and that this makes up a game to have fun with, I dont actually Nuke people or kill real people only data.

Ok, just so you get a grasp on whare I was headed, its a PC GAME!!! Look at my Picture, its a Box with the Game inside and a manual showing the various details on how to use it

That concludes todays lesson on "Realism

alms66 · August 4, 2006, 21:35

A bit testy today aren't we grandpa?

I see someone didn't get his favorite flavor of pudding at the nursing home today.

Originally posted by Grandpa Troll
No sir your are INCORRECT, thats your Flawed answer. I never said shipping food from one city to another would rectify all the population problems. Thats an entirely different matter. The African Food Crisis can be contributed to lack of quality land to feed its people or Warlords hording the supplies.

Your exact words were, since your memory seems to be failing you in your old age

:

Originally posted by Grandpa Troll
...you ship food there and it helps it grow...

I merely cited an example as to why this logic is wrong. I did not attempt to explain anything other than having plentiful food does not cause population to grow, by showing an example of where food isn't plentiful and the population continues to grow rapidly. I don't know how to make that any clearer, so I'll let that point rest, unless you make me respond to something further...
and you don't want to make me angry...

you won't like me when I'm angry!

Originally posted by Grandpa Troll
Ok, and here is a point I did not use because I felt most people would understand this is a GAME ...blah...blah...blah

That, sir, was my point! You were the one that said:

Originally posted by Grandpa Troll
I think it is very realistic...you ship food there and it helps it grow...

YOU brought realism into the conversation, I merely proved that it was not realistic at all.

Willem · August 4, 2006, 22:41

Originally posted by Grandpa Troll

I cut my teeth of CIV 1 IIRC on Playstation and I have stated many times, I miss where you had a caravan and it could transport food or production to help build a wonder or even trade a good.

The problem with using caravans was the AI never knew how to use them. It was ridiculously easy for the human player to end up with most of the wonders in the game because all he/she had to do was spam caravans. And it got rather tedious trying to get your caravans to your trade destination in order to make any money. I for one don't miss them at all.

diemex · August 4, 2006, 23:34

Well I'm just thinking back at Civ 3. That was a big success as well. Its still a damn good game.... I just dont find a reason to play it when I have 4 now.

Civ 3 really only had 1 expansion... PtW really is just adding MP support. Conquests is the expansion.

Civ 4 already does MP well enough.... thier 'conquests' expansion is out... I dont forsee any others. I know lots of combos are available... but I'm sure that they will leave that to the modding community.

A real expansion would involve adding new content... not rearranging content. And I dont have the foresight to see where they can add now... its 'complete'.

Adagio · August 5, 2006, 03:25

Here is what I wrote in the other thread about the next XPack:

Originally posted by Adagio
1) Advisors from Civ II

2) Some kind of civil war (maybe giving both sides of this war an extra bonus, to avoid them becoming too weak)

3) Most units that requires resources should also exist in a "cheaper" version (like giving the cheaper axemen a strength of 4 and only giving it a 25% bonus against melee units). This way civs without access to copper/iron wont get beaten up that bad. When gaining access to the resource the "cheaper" units can get upgraded

4) An "auto-upgrade" for all units. In some cases when you invent a tech that changes a lot for military (like going from archery to gunpowder) all old units will over time (5-20 turns) auto-upgrade into a "cheaper" version of the new unit. This will mostly just be a graphical upgrade (maybe also giving these units a +1 strength over the old units, without giving them the special powers this new unit has). A longbowman will get a strength of 7 and get some kind of muskets (graphically), when gunpowder is invented
This is to avoid having archers in the modern age, and will probably help the AI a great deal

In some other post I wrote a bit more detailed description on what I had in mind with the civil war, don't remember which thread it was though

Also I'd like religion to become a bit more advanced:

1) Each population point has a religion

2) The happiness bonus for having a religion only shows up for cities where more than 50% of the population has that religion (if above 90% you get 2 happiness)

3) A temple helps converting your population to the religion of the temple for that city (if you want to get rid of a religion in a city, just don't build the temple)

4) Another way of getting rid of religion could be with civics. Have on civic also give the effect of trying to get rid of all other religions (adding the effect of the temple (for state religion) to all cities. Cities with a temple for the state religion gets a double bonus)

5) When chosing the above mentioned civic you have 3 choices: Only use the normal benefit of the civic (no killing/converting other religions), go after all religions (Civs with other religions as state religion will hate you a bit more) or go after a certain religion (all civs with that religion as state religion will hate you much more... during this time only population of that religion will convert)

Or something like that

But most important of all with religion, I want a religious victory

Will9 · August 5, 2006, 10:34

Originally posted by Adagio

In some other post I wrote a bit more detailed description on what I had in mind with the civil war, don't remember which thread it was though

Also I'd like religion to become a bit more advanced:

1) Each population point has a religion

2) The happiness bonus for having a religion only shows up for cities where more than 50% of the population has that religion (if above 90% you get 2 happiness)

3) A temple helps converting your population to the religion of the temple for that city (if you want to get rid of a religion in a city, just don't build the temple)

4) Another way of getting rid of religion could be with civics. Have on civic also give the effect of trying to get rid of all other religions (adding the effect of the temple (for state religion) to all cities. Cities with a temple for the state religion gets a double bonus)

5) When chosing the above mentioned civic you have 3 choices: Only use the normal benefit of the civic (no killing/converting other religions), go after all religions (Civs with other religions as state religion will hate you a bit more) or go after a certain religion (all civs with that religion as state religion will hate you much more... during this time only population of that religion will convert)

Or something like that

But most important of all with religion, I want a religious victory

That was my thread titled "civil wars".

http://apolyton.net/forums/showthrea...hreadid=155253

About the rest of your post

.

Max · August 5, 2006, 13:19

As I read diemex I understand that a second XP is not even sure? Firaxis never spoke of its plans for a second XP? Not even a small hint somewhere?

Damn that's bad news: that means we'll have to wait for a 5 more years period to get CIV5...

Kuciwalker · August 5, 2006, 13:48

A second XP would make money, therefore there will be a second XP.

Krill · August 5, 2006, 13:53

I'll bet 5 quid there will be a second XP...I'll take all the free money I can get...

Adagio · August 5, 2006, 14:14

Originally posted by Max
As I read diemex I understand that a second XP is not even sure? Firaxis never spoke of its plans for a second XP? Not even a small hint somewhere?

Most game companies never talk about plans for a second XP before the first one has been released (and often not for at least a couple of weeks, to see how the first XP sells)

Willem · August 5, 2006, 15:05

Originally posted by diemex
A real expansion would involve adding new content... not rearranging content. And I dont have the foresight to see where they can add now... its 'complete'.

There's all sorts of things they could add to the game. Just look at some of the ideas popping up in the threads discussing ideas for the next XP. And there were lots of things added to Civ 3 that could find thier way back to version 4. Like Outposts, Radar Towers, disasters etc. And with unique buildings now in the game, I'm guessing the next thing will be unique National Wonders/Wonders. They could even expand on the unique buildings to the point that each civ has completely different versions of all the basic buildings. The possibilities are no where near to being exhausted.

Son of David · August 5, 2006, 17:54

I've noticed a few posts by official Firaxians like alexman which STRONGLY suggest that they are already working on the second XP. Did anyone ever doubt it?

Alexander I · August 5, 2006, 18:38

Originally posted by Son of David
I've noticed a few posts by official Firaxians like alexman which STRONGLY suggest that they are already working on the second XP. Did anyone ever doubt it?

Links?

Max · August 6, 2006, 04:27

Yes links please, Son of David.
Then we should lobby around these guys to push our ideas: it never works very well but we get the biggest surprises when the actual game (or XP) is in our hands.

BTW has anyone already made a comparison between apolyton suggestions for CIV4 and the actual game when it came out?

Son of David · August 6, 2006, 06:57

Read the post at the top of each of these links:

http://apolyton.net/forums/showthrea...68#post4525568

http://apolyton.net/forums/showthrea...37#post4526337

I can also remember something posted by Locutus, saying he was at work on some new project. I have no idea what thread that was, however.

Although I suppose if you are pessimistic for one reason or another you might not see into all this what I am seeing into all this.

Locutus · August 6, 2006, 08:32

There *will* be a second XP. If not, the last few weeks of my life have been rather a waste of time

Wiglaf · August 6, 2006, 18:07

Originally posted by Will9
What about Coast Gaurd as a natioal wonder. It increases your naval units strength within your borders, and lets your coastal borders extend 4 squares. It would require Combustion.

i can't imagine why you would want that. i mean, why not add a "National football league" national wonder that adds happiness . or a "Projects" city improvement that turns the city into a veritable ghetto that attracts unhappy citizens from other, better cities. or a "Deep Blue" unit that goes around and plays chess. first person to build deep blue causes +1 unhappiness in all the civs that dont know **** about how to play chess.

you can keep adding garbage to the game...and i'm sure firaxis will. it doesn't add any strategic depth, it's just more stuff to deal with.

they should fix the naval game, add in some more personality, fix the UN, and improve the AI, in particular as it pertains to transporting units. maybe take a page from Galciv2 in some regards, such as moral alignments. honestly this could just be a patch, but I guess I'd pay $20 to see these improvements. can't think of much else to add to the core civ4 game.

Wiglaf · August 6, 2006, 18:10

Originally posted by Locutus
There *will* be a second XP. If not, the last few weeks of my life have been rather a waste of time

scenarios..ugh. i don't get why people play civ4 scenarios, honestly. are they really that popular?

Will9 · August 6, 2006, 19:23

Originally posted by Wiglaf

i can't imagine why you would want that...

...they should fix the naval game

This idea is meant to reduce number of ships you need to have defend your cities so you can have more to attack with. It would cause a naval war to happen before troops can land.

LordShiva · August 6, 2006, 19:54

Originally posted by Wiglaf
scenarios..ugh. i don't get why people play civ4 scenarios, honestly. are they really that popular?

Yes

Kuciwalker · August 6, 2006, 20:04

Yeah. The Chinese one, and Ghengis Kahn are pretty fun. Trying Rome now...

LordShiva · August 6, 2006, 20:59

Originally posted by Wiglaf
you can keep adding garbage to the game...and i'm sure firaxis will. it doesn't add any strategic depth, it's just more stuff to deal with.

QFMFT! Wonder spam, "unique buildings," more civs, etc, are all just window dressing

Bloated build queues

Gameplay improvements

Better trade

Better navies

Better air war

Better modern war, while we're at it

Son of David · August 6, 2006, 21:05

Originally posted by Locutus
There *will* be a second XP. If not, the last few weeks of my life have been rather a waste of time

Yay!

And to think that there was one or two people here who doubted.

kiky · August 6, 2006, 21:15

Originally posted by Locutus
There *will* be a second XP. If not, the last few weeks of my life have been rather a waste of time

So, it has been started.

Hope that it will be an improvement on AI focusing on winning or taking cities. Instead of sending 1-2 units to pillage.

alms66 · August 6, 2006, 23:48

Originally posted by Wiglaf
i can't imagine why you would want that...

How about, because it adds something to the naval game, which is rather bland at the moment? Sure, it's just another building if you want to look at it that way, but if you look at it in context, it's actually a building worth adding.

Wiglaf · August 6, 2006, 23:57

Um, it adds strength to naval units within borders. That adds virtually jack **** to the naval game.

What's needed is fleshed out overseas trading, or something to make ships worth building in the first place.

in fact, all this "coast guard" thing would do is further encourage the use of ships as stupid defensive patrol boats that watch your water tiles. it'd further ruin the offensive power of navies.