Make the map live!

[Naokaukodem]

Nothing more boring to create a crappy city with corruption so we can't use it, just set for the score.

Corruption should disappear from Civ4.
But after this, the free space would be the main factor to a civilization success, so it would be too random from the start, to lucky.

So we have to implement another system.
Let's say that the brake for expansion would be a living map, with inhabitants in every tiles and free tiles also. So they would slow down our expansion, and we should have to play the game in order to expense more.

The gameplay would be more intense. We should make efforts in order to convert, fight autochtones from the start.

Population should expand without the waitting of settlers, with a civ expansion number, food excedent and maybe also culture. The expansion mode would be constant in spite of the direction.

In this way it would let the exact same chances of expansion for a peninsulean or a continentalean.

Anyway Settlers could be used, but they would be attacked if they settle in a too hostile country.

However new cities could be created automatically from the ground a be within our civilizatoin.

Also new independant cities could pop up also as entirely new civilizations.

We could try to convert them, and they could rejoin us if they feel in danger.

Finally it would be a quite realistic model of civilization creation and evolution.

This is the simpliest way i can explain this idea.

PS: i would want the "outside" population to live and influence each others too. So the challenge of such a game would be to manage the smaller set of people. They could also ally like classical civilizatoins and declare war to us instead of (or with) Civ3 barbarians uprisings. I think this system would be perfectly comparable to Colonization one, and even better. Barbarians, civilizations, goody huts, rebel states, alliances and unions would be like that set up in one system only.

[Kataphraktoi]

sounds way to complicated and unfun

[realpolitic]

Sound like the computer would have too much arbitary control over boundries. I don't see how this could be an improvement.

[alva]

Corruption should disappear from Civ4.

..then what? the civ that has the best and largest territory should - and will -run away completely???

[dannubis]

in any case, corruption has to be a function of global and local culture.

the more local culture the less corruption there should be.

[Naokaukodem]

Originally posted by Cataphract887
sounds way to complicated and unfun

Complicated it is, at least to program, not to play. (shouldn't be)

Unfun i don't know, given the fact it would allow new ways to play and constant small scale strategy with fewer units needed and various smaller scales strategies. Plus I think smaller scale battles are funnier in civ.
It would allow more ways to conquer, what i see as funnier as i play civ for long.

It would balance civs as expansion would be the exact same, fitting to land, i mean expansion would be stronger on a side for peninsulas, because people can't swim (unless they go on boat... I know). (well after there are mountains -which are famous for being natural frontiers and obstacle of civ expansions- but heh, i'm not God after all! LOL ask Firaxis or Sid Meier)

Once the tech lead, one would not win automatically the game, many events could happen like the burst of your way-too-big empire.

Civ is as simple as that to play, especially for long players, that we could add easily some more elements and avoid complexity from gameplay point of view.

Civ fun is also a part of "doing like history", so some realistic "exploits" could occur even if real History large scale civilization events aren't that known by most of people. (what's a civ by the way, what's Ecology, what's an Evolution game simulation)

Events, a far more complex DIPLOMACY* (which is very simple in Civ3 IMO) could lead to interesting history/geography - like situations.

To say all I don't think how Sid Meier's Civilization simulations could avoid this kind of evolution.

*no constant diplomacy, no vertical but horizontal, time related i mean here. RULING is vertical, like Citizen Mood for example, you have to care about every time. Diplomacy here should be more one-shot events, with a definitive-like effect.

[10BRAVO]

Make it 3D first person and the map live!

[Naokaukodem]

Originally posted by 10BRAVO
Make it 3D first person and the map live!

Make the map live means that population is managed in every single tile.

However i do not doubt that we will ne able to look at it "first person", but without moving, unless the turn per turn is replaced by real time. Could be interesting too. Maybe we could effectively play first person and kill every units under cover, and in multiplayer one would be the orders giver to other players impersonnating your own soldiers so that they would have their general first person shooter multiplayer objectives. You would reward them and keep the better players under your commandement. Maybe you could go yourself to the front. The better rewarded officiers would have be given the commandement of a part of you lands. Ah ah ah.

[10BRAVO]

absolutely real time first person 3D massive multi-player
enviornment!

options would be available in your office/hq/palance to get overhead view (maps) from what your scouts/explorer/spies/terrorist have learned.

the leader would take control by popular vote/coups/appointment/whatever depending on the form of government.

[Naokaukodem]

best jokes are shorter ones

[Brent]

Now that this thread has caught my attention, I like its original idea. It doesn't sound too complicater or unfun at all to me.

It would be cool if once you build a boat, your people automatically board it and find a place to expand overseas.