Tweet
Index
1.0.0 Types of Civs
2.0.0 Rulers
3.0.0 Colonies
4.0.0 Immigration
5.0.0 Nations' Compositions
6.0.0 Proposed Civ Lists
7.0.0 Civ Traits
8.0.0 Civ Placement
9.0.0 Unique Units
10.0.0 Other
Conclusion
3.0.0 Colonies
3.0.1 Colonies As Air Bases
*Colonies should be counted as air bases. You own them, they're outside of your territory and they are semi cities...so why can't you land planes there?
-Jer8m8
3.0.2 Combatting ICS With Colonies
*If the colonies, for example, contribuited toward corruption costs but couldn't grow beyond certain sizes or produce certain items, and yet proved useful to the player in harvesting resources in certain areas, then they would fit a nice civ-game niche.
-DarkCloud
-You can only build it on top of a resource. However, you can build one on the coast as long as it's on an island, across a sea, ocean, etc, and connected to a resource (with a colony on it).
-You can only build one colony per resource tile, and you must declare which resource it is connected to (any of them not already claimed by another colony).
-You can only station (and build) smaller boats there (galleys, privateers, caravels, galleons, transports, destroyers).
-You can station up to two air units there, but only if you have an airstrip (same functions as an airport).
-You can station as many ground units as you want until you hit tanks (you can only station 5 or so).
-You can build a barracks, so that you don't have to transport back obsolete units to upgrade them.
-A colony only has influence on the square that it is located on.
-Colonies act as population 1, and may fall into civil disorder (which may eventually force the disbading of the colony). There is always a specialist, however, and it may be any of the normal kind (so as to make it specialized in some sort of way).
-A colony will disband if captured or if someone elses boundaries encircle it.
-Bob Rulz
4.0.0 Immigration
*Immigration/ Emigration.I once sent a post on another pre-CIV3 forum somewhere where I wanted this issue debated. CIV3 already has parts of it: if you conquer an enemy city, e.g the Greeks its inhabitants will still be greek for some while, happy or not. Now what would happen if the greeks could actually send people into your cities as workers whenever you're not at war, for example if your city is close to the greek borders. What if any civilization could do that? The city status window could show a diagram of the city population demographics, saying "90% Romans, 5% Greek, 2% Babylonians" or so. Those cities with more than, say, 20% foreign inhabitants could likely fall into disorder when a war erputs, or anytime on higher difficulty levels... restrictive/repressive governments (Communism? Despotism?) might throw out "unwanted" foreigners, thus decreasing city sizes... of course, YOU (the player) could send your own people to foreign cities... they would leave anyway if they don't like the way you govern the country, adding up to your competitor's city sizes... spies could only plant propaganda in cities holding inhabitants of your civilization (they can barely hide with people which language they don't speak or so)...
-Cozy_22303
*Migration between cities of the same Civ
-Brent
*Allow some sort of ethnic purging, or allow some ability to expel ethnic groups from your civ if they grow too rowdy.
-Shogun Gunner
5.0.0 Nation's Compositions
5.1.0 Minorities
*You should be able to set up specific policies concerning how you treat your minority populations - do you tolerate them, promote a multicultural society, try to assimilate them or persecute them?
*Perhaps you should only be able to set policies about minority groups comprising 20% of any individual city's population or 5% of your civilization's population, just so that this system does not become too unweildly.
-Stefu
5.2.0 Dual-Heritage
*As for citizens, they should be able to have at least a dual heritage that affects the relative levels of happiness and corruption in the cities you conquer... and also, this could introduce problems of immigration- for example: if too many Assyrians come into Babylonian cities- then perhaps the city will 'culture flop' into Assyrian when the next war occurs.
*I would also like to see nationality levels for all citizens.
-Drachasor/DarkCloud
5.3.0 Ethnic Heritage
*I think that generally every conquered civilization should maintain its ethnic heritage. There should be some way to deal with the various ethnic values/wants/disagreements when managing your civilization. Therefore, if you want to conquer the world you'll have to find some way to appease those you are conquering, otherwise they might revolt and refound their civilization (perhaps this would allow you to exceed the max number of civs in the game). This would make it so that as you take over more groups it becomes more difficult to manage them all which means that conquering the world would not become a cake walk after a certain point. (Ed: Note, much like Europa Universalis’ religion-slider, except adapted into an Ethnic-slider)
-Drachasor
6.0.0 Proposed Civ Lists
6.1.0 More Balanced (Asian, Africans Included) (37 civs)
Americans
Iroquois
Aztecs
Mayans
Incas
French
Germans
English
Celts
Spanish
Romans
Greeks
Russians
Norsemen
Dutch
Portuguese
Hungarians
Turks
Arabs
Hebrews
Babylonians
Assyrians
Persians
Egyptians
Carthagians
Ethiopians
Mali (or possibly some other West African civ of the era - Songhay, Dahomey etc.)
Zulus
Mongols
Indians
Vietnamese
Siamese
Koreans
Chinese
Khitai
Japanese
Javans
-Stefu
6.2.0 Add-on to Conquests' Civs
*Besides the civs that are in Conquests, I strongly agree on including the Hebrews and Ethiopians. Many small ancient Middle Eastern civilizations can be added.
-Brent
*The first thing period should be: every civ in civ3+ptw+conquests should carry over.
-Q Cubed
6.3.0 The Grand List of Proposed Civilizations (61 Civs) (39 if the 'maybes' are taken out)
The Americas (11)
Iroquois
Americans
*Sioux/Lakota
Mayas
Aztecs
Incas
*Nazca (maybe)
*Inuit (maybe)
*Utes (maybe)
*Anasazi (maybe)
*Mississippians/Mound Builders (maybe)
West Europe: (11)
English
France
Spain
Portugal
Germany
Netherlands/Dutch
Vikings
*Sweden
*Ireland (maybe)
*Italy (maybe) (ed: We already have Rome)
Celts
Eastern Europe: (3)
Russia
*Poland (maybe)
*Austria (since they had alot of slavs) (maybe)
Mediterranean: (4)
Rome
Greece
Carthage
Egypt
Byzantine (maybe)
Africa: (7)
*Shonghai
*Ashanti
*Mali
*Ethiopia
Zulu
*Xhosa (maybe)
*Bantu or Kenya or Tanzania (maybe)
Middle East: (9)
Arabs
Turkey/Ottoman Empire
Persia
*Israel/Hebrew (maybe)
*Numbia (maybe)
Babylon
*Assyria
Sumeria
Hittite
South/Southeast Asia (6)
India
*Harappa (maybe)
*Khemer (maybe)
*Indonesia/ Majaphit empire
*Thailand (maybe)
*Champa (maybe)
Far East Asia: (6)
China
Japan
Korea
Mongolia
*Tibet (or should this go with south asia?) (maybe)
*Dai Viet (Vietnamese civ) (maybe)
For Oceania: (3)
*Polynesians
*Maori (maybe)
*Aborigiese (ed-Can we really count this as a 'civ'... from my understanding, they weren't that civilized... and Plotinus backs me up on this: "I'd have thought that the definition of a civilisation - at least from the point of view of this game - involves some degree of urbanisation." And frankly I think that Civilization has to do with movement from Hunter/Gatherer to Farming.
*All Civilizations marked with a * are new civilizations not already in Civ3, PTW, C3C
-civilleader/Nuclear Master
6.3.1 Anti-Byzantine
*I hate to say it but I really don't want Byzantium again, they are Greeks in the location where the ottomans need to be
-civilleader
6.4.0 More than just names
I'd favour more civs, so long as its not just a CtP style list of names that makes your eventual choice meaningless
-joncha
6.5.0 Criteria for the Inclusion of Civs
Civs should be included not just did because they played a role in the history of civilization (because which culture hasn't?) but can you give them a specialization that has some historical importance and add to game play in a unique way
-joncha
6.6.0 Adding Israel Should Open Doors/ A Mandate for Adding Civs
*But if Israel were to be included then the mandate for including other civs which were not dominant or don't rule their own territory would be opened. How about a Kurd, Basque, or Rom/Rum civ
-EnduringBlue
6.7.0 The "Overkill" Civ List (64 Civs)
American (11)
USA
Inuit
Sioux
Iroquois
Hopewell
Mississippian
Anasazi
Aztec
Olmec
Maya
Inca
Europe (15)
Portugal
Spain
Basque
France
Dutch
Germany
English
Scandinavia
Celts
Ukranians
Lithuanians
Rome
Russia
Austria
Greece
Africa (4)
Carthage
Egypt
Ethiopia
Zulu
Near East (12)
Egypt
Israel
Moab
Canaan
Arabia
Hittites
Phoenicians
Assyria
Babylon
Sumer
Persia
Crete
Central Asia (4)
Turkey
Turkmenistan
Mongolia
India
Far East (8)
Tibet
Tocharia
China
Korea
Japan
Harappans
Ainu
Java
Oceania (3)
Australian Aborigines (ed: see my comments on this in 6.3.0)
Maori
Hawaiians
-Brent
6.8.0 A Civ-Creating Philosophy
To me the most important reason for more civs is to have thew designers pregenerate names for the cities. Different abilities are not so important to me, and maybe if we do get 200 civs we should do away with abilities. If there aren't 200 pregenerated civs, at least makke it easy to store that many and use them conveniently, and if there are 200, have space for 100 custom ones.
-Brent
6.9.0 Adding Too Many Civs
CON
*Each civ, if Included, should have Unique Units, Unique Traits, Unique City Names and Unique Ruler Names (although some face-heads could possible be grayed out... therefore, since we want each civ to be unique-
Why bother putting in fifty redundant civs?
-DarkCloud/skywalker
PRO
*Frankly, if there are dozens and dozens of Civs, then I'm not concerned if some are just like others. I can pick a group of Civs out for their strategic pros and cons, and then select among that group for less tangible reasons.
*What I would like to see in Civ 4 are a greater spread of Civ traits and their effects (even degrees... a little agricultural or a lot?), and a huge number of Civs that I think are "cool" and "deserve" to be in. Any ancient Civilization that we know about should be in, no matter how minor they wound up being. Those Civs deserve a place long before America, anyhow.
-Fosse
6.10.0 Solve Diverse Civ Problem with Minor Civs
*Maybe the controversy of how many civs and whether unique or not could be solved with the concept of minor civs.
Have one one hand side a number of premade "unique" civs and then "non-player" minor civs. Not barbarians, really independantly acting civs with the handicap that they aren't allowed to build settlers and don't have unique units etc.
-Wernazuma III
6.11.0 The 100 Civs List
North America (7)
Cherokee*
Iroquois*
Americans
Hopewell/Mississippi
Anasazi/Hopi/Pueblo
Sioux*
+Ojibwa*
Central America (5)
Mixtecs/Zapotecs*
Maya
Aztecs
Olmecs
Toltecs
South America (8)
Aruak*
Inca
Chibcha*
uche*
Tupi*
Chimú*
Nazca
GuaranÃ*
Africa (14)
Zulu
Egypt
Carthage
Ethiopia
Mali/Songhay
Nubians/Meroe*
Haussa*
Berber*
Ashanti*
Lunda/Luba*
Bornu-Kanem*
Kongo*
Yoruba*
Bantu*
Near East (13)
Babylon
Arabs
Persia
Ottomans
Hittites
Sumeria
Israel/Hebrews*
Phoenicians
Assyria
Armenians/Urartu*
Kurds*
Lydians*
Nabateans*
Middle East/Central Asia (12)
India
Mongols
Kushan*
Indus Culture
Tibetans*
Choresmians*
Tamils/Chola*
Khazars*
Tocharians*
Sikhs*
Uzbeks
Uygurs*
Far East/SE-Asia (10)
China
Korea
Japan
Khmer*
Thai/Siam
Annam*
Javans*
Malayans*
Champa*
Arakan/Burmese*
Europe (27)
Spain
Portugal
France
Germany
England
Vikings
Celts
Romans
Netherlands/Dutch
Greeks
Byzantines
Russians
Hungary
Poland* (Ed: Personally I would combine it to Poland-Lithuania)
Bulgarians*
Lithuania*
Minoans*
Etruscans*
Bohemia*
Austria
Serbia*
Croatia*
Scotland*
Finland*
Cordobese *
Thracians*
Bosnia*
Oceania (2)
Polynesians*
Maori*
(Ed: Personally I have issues with all the starred civs and think that, if included, they should only be minor civs)
*The list was never meant as a list of 100% worthy fully developped civs. Most of them wouldn't make good large civs. However, it should be possible to find one personality for most of them, and at least two cities/sites for each, thus being ideal for "minor civs".
-Wernazuma III
*(Ed: Here's Enigma_Nova's comment on the whole 'Many-Civ's concept’)
There are plenty of historical civs, but some of them are closely aligned.
It would be pointless to have clone civs - even if they have different graphics.
Some of those civs mentioned would be pretty close to one-another. It's not worth making a new facade for the same underlying principle.
-Enigma_Nova
6.12.0 Great Rulers/Unique Units/Unique Traits Needed for Civ Inclusion
*Firaxis really shouldn't add a civ unless it could put up at least 2 Kings/Queens/Rulers for each of the nation (2 rulers that are VERY GREAT) and well known
*And possibly each civ should only be allowed in if it could have some unique trait or attribute that no other civ on the face of the planet possesses
-DarkCloud
6.13.0 Another Way to Add Civs To the Game: Themed Expansions
*How about each expansion has a theme for the civs it includes, such as minor ancient civs, minor modern civs, ficticious/ mythological civs. Maybe let there be a small amount of content in each expansion that doesn't fit the theme.
-Brent
6.14.0 Civ-Engineering
*This would work similar to Civs "traits", but could include more a la Alpha Centauri. A player could distribute a numer of points on special abilities of his civ.
Like:
Scientific 5
Industrial 6
Religious 6
Expansionist 4
.
.
.
Obdient 3 --> less riots, war weariness
Diplomatic 6 --> improved AI negotiations
Isolationist -3 --> worse trade negotiations
Repulsive -5 --> bad AI relations
Unique Unit 10 --> chose name, which unit to replace, which graphics, then distribute a bonus point on A, D or Movement
Slavers 2 --> all units can turn enemy units into slave workers
Peaceful -10 --> no barracks, high war weariness
etc. etc.
In the same screen you'd be able to set how your people stands towards certain governments which, in turn, could determine chances of civil war at govt. changes
-Wernazuma III
6.15.0 Imperial Civs
*In no way should Israel be a Civ. Nor should any proposed Civ that was not at some time for want of a better term "Imperial". If this isn't the criterion, then we might as well have everyone and I don't believe the programmers want that.
By that I mean a civ which was militarily and culturally dominant over a large amount of territory at some time in the past.
-Agathon
6.16.0 Change "Scandinavians" back to "Vikings"
*Scandinavians is not a 'race' nor has it ever been. Viking was a conglomeration of many Scandinavian tribes. If you notice, as the renaissance and the 1600's came to the fore, the Norwegian and Swedish people were members of two separate nations. The two nations may be Scandinavian, but they are not and were not united- only under the Viking empire were they united with the Danes.
-DarkCloud/Nikolai
7.0.0 Civilization Traits
*Perhaps One Trait should be able to fill two slots?
-Brent
*Perhaps there should be some civs that have a bonus 3rd trait?
-DarkCloud
*Some wonders of the world can either give the trait, or give opportunity to add one, or freely change the traits for some time.
-MxM
*Each civ should have like 4 or 5 or 10 special attributes out of a list of as many as they can come up with, instead of just 2
-Kramerman
*It'd be cool if resources were somehow attached to civs. Like maybe there are like 3 times as many iron deposits in the game but only a one in 3 chance of finding them, and the chance is higher for certiain civs.
Therefore if the xxx civilization had a good Mining Trait, then it could discover more iron deposits whereas the civ with the Hunting trait could only find 1, the miner would find 4... Sort of a "Search and Discover" sort of thing.)
-wrylachlan
*Or how about horses that tend to migrate towards a "horse-friendly" culture like the mongols. If there is a mongol city within 5 tiles of horses they'll move one tile every ten turns to get within their radius. Or maybe if you take care of them (irrigate their tile) they have a percentage chance of generating a second herd, and that chance is higher for the Mongols.
-wrylachlan
7.0.1 Give the AI a Target Philosophy
*Please, give the AI a target to follow. Everyone wants to win, but some civilization prefers to win by domination, others by diplomatic achievements. They should be intelligent enough to determine if their starting position makes this way of winning possible at all - starting in a huge swamp will not actually give you a huge bonus. I would have expected the Zulu, for example, to be a very aggresive people, giving you with one hand and threatening you with the other, regardless of their current strategic and financial situation.
-Cozy_22303
7.0.2 Switching Off Traits
*I couldn't care less about UUs or civ traits. Utterly meaningless fluff, IMO. So long as they give you an option to switch them off.
-Sandman
7.1.0 Specific Trait Ideas
*Authoritarian/Obedient - Cheaper courthouses and police stations. Reduced corruption. Less unhappiness from forced labor. War weariness is reduced.
*Fecund (couldn't come up with a non-pejorative sounding word. "Breeder" doesn't sound good either) - cheaper granaries. Possibly cheaper workers, settlers, harbors, aqueducts, and/or hospitals. Cities (pop 6-12) generate extra food on city square. Metropolises (pop 13+) generate even more extra food on city square). Workers possibly irrigate faster (but no other terrain improvements are faster).
*Pacifist/Green/Tree Hugger - non-military based (no barracks, units, etc.) production is cheaper (10-20%). Population produces less 10-20% pollution. Cultural improvements are 10% cheaper. Extra resources from jungle and tundra tiles. Military Morale is VERY LOW. People riot if there are more than 2 military units per city.
-sophist/DarkCloud
*Growth Oriented civs, with following bonuses : Extra food in town / city / metropolis. Growth oriented improvements twice cheaper.
-Spiffor
*Offensive/Defensive
*Sedentary/Nomadic
*Forest Dwellers/Mountain Dwellers (Ed: Personally I think this is more of a scripting issue than a civ attribute)
*Urban/Rural
*Industious/Environmental
-Kramerman
*Scientific
*Religious
*Militarilistic
*Industrious
*Seafaring
*Agricultural
*Expansionistic
*Commercial
-Nuclear Master
7.2.0 Altering Traits
*With each change of government, the civ can change the traits (like social engineering in AC). Example: communist revolution in Russia, made that country be militaristic, industrial, may be scientific as well.
*Different governments might allow a different number of traits
*Some of the traits should be fixed even with changes of government.
Example: Communist government must have militaristic trait, can not have agricultural trait, and can chose to other traits
-MxM
*You could possibly alter during gameplay slightly by using the SMAC-like social engineering and government: (Choosing which would give penalties and bonuses)
-Kramerman
7.3.0 Modifications to Traits
*The Scientific trait: Instead of one free advance for each age(which does little good with so few ages), I'd like to see a bonus when researching, or a bonus for scientific buildings.
-Nikolai
7.4.0 Differing Degrees of Traits' Effectiveness
*Perhaps the traits should differ in degree and effectiveness as well... For example: a civ can be VERY agricultural +++ (as in Sid Meiers Alpha Centauri) or GOOD agricultural ++ or just ABOVE NORMAL agricultural ++.
-Fosse/DarkCloud
7.6.0 Barbarian Civ Traits
*Barbarian Civs should have traits
-Brent
7.7.0 "Hardcoding" Traits
*I would like the Traits to not be hardcoded. So instead of a "Commercial" trait you could simply assign different civs different bonuses, like commercial building bonuses, an extra road bonus, extra trade in the city center, etc. etc. This would allow a lot more differentiation of civs.
-wrylachlan
7.8.0 Option to "Turn Off" Traits
*There should be an option to "turn off" traits.
-DarkCloud
7.9.0 Selectable Traits
*Maybe you should type in your civilization's name at the beginning of each game, and then choose your attributes from a list.
(Or at least have an option to as well as picking one of the pre-programmed civilizations.)
This way, the people who want to play as the Scientific / Religious Faroe Islander nation can do so.
-Mr. President
7.10.0 Golden-Age Bonuses for Traits
*In order to add more variance to traits I believe that Traits should gift extra bonuses during civilization's golden ages.
In addition to the usual one extra gold and shield per tile during a golden age:
Scientific:
Increase the chance of scientific leaders appearing to ten percent, culture from scientific buildings doubled
Militaristic:
Increase the chance of Military leaders to 1/8 (1/6 with Heroic epic), one extra hitpoint for each unit
Agricultural:
Food from city square increased by one
Commercial:
Less corruption, one additional extra gold from city square
Industrial:
Workers take one less turn to complete tile improvements, one extra shield from city square
Expansionist:
Land units which have two in movement + workers and settlers, have movement increased by one
Religious:
Two extra content citizens per city, culture from religious buldings doubled
Seafaring:
Ship movement increased by one, one additional extra gold per coastal city square
These are only suggestions. Some might be unbalanced, while others might suffer from lack of imagination. I am especially unsure of the expansionist trait. Agricultural is such a strong trait, that I think one golden age benefit will suffice, and I could not think of another anyway.
-Tripledoc
7.11.0 Faction Editor
*Rather than have traits, how about have something about as involved as the SMAC faction editor?
*This editor would be mainly for the benefit of scenario designers, and game setup, not something that would get used in-game. Of course, the civs that get shipped with the game will be designed using the full potential of this editor.
-lajzar
7.12.0 Role-Playing Traits
I really like the idea of taking a bit from RPGs and having the traits decided by points, such as:
Ag 6
Sea 2
Exp 3
Mil 5
etc.
Therefore, the game is more customizable and as a culture evolves, it can gain points in specific traits.
These points can lead to benefits such as cheaper building, faster ships, etc.
If you look at the game Europa Universalis and note how the leaders of each culture and the generals gave their Empires different bonuses- you can get an idea of how RPG-development of a civilization might work.
-JamesJKirk/DarkCloud
7.13.0 Political Traits
*Using a similar system to GalCiv, have standard traits for each civ plus the player chooses extra traits for a political party or a specific leader, and these bonus traits could be lost with a change of politics. The player can set a number of points for all civs in the game.
-Brent
7.14.0 Dynamic Traits
*In thinking about Civs for Civ 4, I attached an Excel spreadsheet "showing" what I think would be cool. Instead of a hard coded civ, like "England" with pre-defined traits, I think it would be fun if you were a blank slate and you either choose to meet your playing style, or these traits grow as you follow a tech tree or by your actions in game.
The spreadsheet is cool because it is interactive. I also wish for some form of legislative body because the chocie might be cool, but that is another topic.
But dynamic civs would be reaaaal cool. Because that is the next step (to me) fof the franchise.
*I would like to see the Civ as a concept, not as a type. You could actually make your "own" civilization each game, as you might pick different starting traits each time, and then throgh out the game tweak the Policy of your civ to specific circumstances.
*But as a meta-idea there are categories, people would have their own personal perfences, but some might like a Authoritative Plurist Plutocracy (maybe South Korea in the late 80's), others a Democratic Regional Aristocracy (kind of like Wales)
*With this system, you could make the change, giving you flexibility. For example, if you start Medieval times as peaceful, but as resources get tight, your neighbors start attacking you; then overtime you would become more open to military options because your people's attitudes change from war.
Therefore making a goverment policy to support the military would be more acceptable. Giving you better combat units, prodcution or zeal to not go into unhappiness. Those effects would be particular to the game mechanics.
-Mr. Orange
7.15.0 Civ-Uniqueness
*Maybe in the main game there would be only a few Civilizations with uniqueness, but the editor could be designed in detail to allow players to implement new civilizations and traits.
This would give us the large number of civs that apparently we all want, and could provide our own uniqueness for the civs we use.
-Brent
7.16.0 In-Depth Trait System Suggestion
The following information is combined for two possible systems using the same eight possible traits as Civ3: One primary and one secondary trait (the two with the most points for each civ), and 10 points divided among the eight traits. I welcome comments, alternate opinions for the same or an alternate system, and civs not listed in the same or alternate systems. Hopefully my stats will be of some use no matter what system we end up with.
America: industry 6, expansion 4
Arabs: religion 5, expansion 4, military 1
Aztecs: military 6, religion 3, agriculture 1
Babylon: science 6, religion 4
Byzantium: sea 4, science 3, commerce 2, military 1
Carthage: industry 5, sea 3, commerce 2
Celts: religion 4, military 3, agriculture 2, commerce 1
China: industry 5, military 3, science 2
Dutch: sea 4, agriculture 3, industry 2, military 1
Egypt: industry 6, religion 4
England: commerce 5, expansion 3, seafaring 2
France: commerce 6, industry 4
Germany: expansion 4, commerce 3, military 2, science 1
Greece: science 5, commerce 4, sea 1
Hittites: commerce 5, expand 3, military 2
Inca: expansion 4, agriculture 3, commerce 2, military 1
India: commerce 6, religion 4
Iroquois: expansion 4, religion 3, agriculture 2, commerce 1
Japan: military 5, religion 4, sea 1
Korea: commerce 6, science 4
Maya: industry 5, agriculture 3, military 2
Mongolia: military 5, expand 4, industry 1
Ottomans: science 5, industry 4, military 1
Persia: industry 4, science 3, military 2, commerce 1
Portugal: sea 5, expand 3, commerce 2
Russia: science 6, expand 4
Scandinavia: military 5, sea 3, expand 2
Spain: religion 4, sea 3, commerce 2, expand 1
Sumer: science 4, agriculture 3, commerce 2, military 1
Zulu: military 6, expansion 4
-Brent
7.17.0 Ruler Traits instead of Civilization Traits
One idea would be for civs to have the exact same trait system as Civ3 (two of the same eight traits), and the ruler could add a third trait or add an additional bonus to one of the civ traits. Or maybe the civ has 20 points divided among the eight traits and the ruler adds 5 extra points.
Using the first system:
Andrew Jackson of America: Expansionist
JFK of America: Scientific
Uncle Sam of America: Militaristic
Moses of Israel: Religious
Joshua of Israel: Militaristic
David of Israel: Militaristic
Hawaii- Loa of Polynesia: Seafaring
Joseph of Egypt: Agricultural
Steven of Hungary: Religious
Isabella of Spain: Seafaring
-Brent
7.18.0 Advanced Civ Trait System Idea
*This would probably have to be a Civ5 idea if anyhting, but...
I guess each civ should have 20 points to divide among the Traits.
World powers always group their points in groups of 4 or 5. They could assign more than one group of 4 or more than one group of 5 to the same Trait. Maybe the groups would be grouped by 10 even, and maybe it wouldn't be allowed to put all 20 points in the same Trait.
So the most powerful or "important" civs, maybe the most famous ancient civs too, would be restricted to groups of maybe 20, and there would be a second rank at 10, and so on. You could start at 20, 10, 5, or 4. 20 probably wouldn't be interesting enough for the best known civs, and I like the idea of starting with 5 and having the next rank being only slightly lower at 4. There's also a good argument for starting at 4 so each rank is easily divisible into the higher one. Les powerful or famous civs would assign their Traits based on a more powerful or famous one that they're related to, but slightly tweaked. Say the Russians assign ten points to Trait A and ten to Trait B. The Polish could assign ten to trait A, 5 to trait B, and 5 to trait C. Or it could work so that the Polish have 11A and 9B. Or the Polish could have 12A and 8B, and the Czechs could have 13A and 7B, being on the next most obscure level. The most obscure civs would be the most interesting. But I can see the problem with related civs automatically having similar Traits. You could also have ten points assigned the same way for an entire culture group and ten more assigned independently for each civ. The Civs restricted to the largest blocks of points, the most powerful or famous ones, there might be exactly one of these per culture group, possibly per culture group per era. If there are three ranks, like 4, 2, and 1, maybe there would be five in the middle rank per culture group and ten of the most obscure rank per culture group.
-Brent
8.0.0 Civ Placement
*I like the idea of Civs being more at home in a specific terrain. They should tend to start in a particulat terrain and be able to use that terrain better than other civs can. I want some civs to be at home on the coasts of continents, some on islands.
-Brent
9.0.0 Unique Units
9.1.0 Unique Traits For ALL The Units of a Civ
*I'd like a lot more unit based differentiation (not UU's).
Things like maybe the inca units travel along mountains as if they were grasslands.
It still costs as much to climb a mountain or come down, but moving from one mountain to the next is just like grasslands.
-wrylachlan
10.0.0 Other
10.1.0 Corruption and Golden Ages
I think the effects of corruption need to be seriously downplayed (I'll get to how this connects to the topic in a moment). While corruption would still be there, it would be a LOT weaker, and each civilization would have an "instability number". The higher the number, the more unstable. If the number passes a critical threshold, the civ breaks into several smaller civs. The threshhold is effected by two main factors - research rate and civ size. A large civ cannot afford much research, because it would break up. Thus, large empire will eventually either a) break into pieces (though retaining its core) or b) be overrun by smaller empires that have more advanced militaries from their faster research. Those two could even be sort of combined - make significant military losses increase instability.
This would not result in the destruction of the previously large civilization, though. As the civ retains its core, it now becomes another small civilization. In addition, we could have it so that when a civ loses cities it gains some of the research of the conquering civ (this would speed up the collapse). Thus, we get a true "rise and fall of empires".
A few other things about this - first, you wouldn't get much instability from having a large nation, but rather a large empire (the difference being that the latter is formed through the conquest of other states). So having people of other cultures (and even more so people of other culture groups) would add more to your instability than people of other cultures. Second, the government you are in could modify the effects of research and size and cultures on your instability number.
Oh, and finally, Golden Ages would work differently under this. A golden age would be brought on by certain conditions in your empire, such as a powerful economy and such, and would vastly increase the critical point for the instability number (so that it's pretty difficult to collapse during a golden age). However, when it ends you've got to watch out - if you've expanded beyond the point where the critical point normally is, the end of a golden age will result in the collapse of your empire. However, golden ages don't have a fixed time (like 20 turns)
-skywalker
Conclusion
Well, I guess that about does it. The general consensus on Civilizations seems to be for Firaxis to either give players more Civilizations or for Firaxis to let people modify their civilizations more... Along with a substantial lobby for 'Dynamic-Civilizations' that develop based upon starting position and what the player tends to utilize most in his/her game.
For example, the English wouldn't have been good 'natural' seafarers if they were stranded inland.
Therefore, players hope that civilizations develop skills based upon what they tend to use- much like how characters in RolePlaying games such as Arcanum (for the computer) and White Wolf/Vampire:The Masquerade (for pen and paper) evolve based upon player decisions and preferences.
In addition, the general trend on the wishlist is for more customizability and modability... Generally more 'player-friendliness'
Personally, I would be happy if the company kept the Civ-List at 32, or even if it downscaled it to 24... but only if the dynamic option for civilization growth and the modification option for civilization growth were implemented.
Also, there seems to be a good-sized lobby to bring back the dual-gendered rulers for graphical rendered images.
Immigration/Emigration was an intriguing system that should be looked at.
And Minor Civs were also quite popular as were the Civil Wars and Civilization-Splitting.
The suggestion of Nomadic Civs by Spiffor was an intriguing one that could perhaps be added in part. The general consensus on the Nomadic Civilizations idea was that although many would "prefer the developers to spend their time making the overall game richer than adding an extra bit to the start." (Plotinus), that they did actually enjoy the concept of nomadic civs.
Indeed, perhaps some of the nomadic traits and ideas could be adapted into Barbarian Civilizations. Who knows?
Also, the idea of Colonies could be used to combat ICS (Infinite-City-Sprawl) problems. If the colonies, for example, contributed toward corruption costs but couldn't grow beyond certain sizes or produce certain items, and yet proved useful to the player in harvesting resources in certain areas, then they would fit a nice civ-game niche.
There were also a few innovative ideas for the functioning of rulers.
Thank you for taking the time out of your busy schedules to consider this humble list.
Respectfully Compiled: DarkCloud