Some ideas for the expansion

[Generaldoktor]

Originally posted by Enigma_Nova
... who was the leader of Japan from 1950 to 1970 again?

They had parliamentary government, with, I thought, numerous prime ministers during that period, though one party dominated, similar to Mexico. Hirohito was the emperor of Japan from 1926 until his death in 1989, but the office was merely titular although he did influence important decisions, most notably the August, 1945 surrender to the Allies, over the objections of militarist diehards in the cabinet.

[Enigma_Nova]

So, no one leader managed japan while it had its economic boom.
Drats.

[Willem]

Originally posted by MadDjinn


except that history has shown us that newer religions incorporate the previous religions stuff to make sure that they stick. so inheritance can and will be needed...

Civilization is not meant to be a simulation, it's a strategy game. And having pluses and minuses with religions can add another element to a player's overall strategy. For instance, a religion might be founded that adds experience points for military units, but at a sacrifice to research. So if you were playing a war-monger game, it would be to your advantage to use that as your state religion.

but... if Firaxis starts getting into religions and 'making decisions' about them, then they'll be attacked for it...

That's why having the AI and the player determine the attributes of each religion ingame would avoid any controversy from the zealots. There'd be no intrinsic values for each religion except as they develop during a game. And those values would be different from game to game. Christianity might be peaceful one time, but warlike the next.

[troglodyte]

More suggestions for inclusions

I would like to see Firaxis doing something with the Heroic/National Epic.

In the first place why do we have both? To me they mean mostly the same thing? Obviously they have different effects in the game, but they could substitute something else for the National Epic (maybe National Museum and give it the same effect).

And I would like the Heroic Epic to actually be a Heroic Epic (and perhaps be part of the scoring system). By this I mean once the Epic is created, the game should include a scroll that records for "civilizational posterity" the dates of achievements being, well, achieved, like your Wonders, your Ages, battle victories, losses and somesuch. Allow our civilization to be proud of our achievements (or non-achievements in my case). And it would be able to record the achievements of those special units that engaged in combat and survived many ages, adding to the military reputation of your civilization (where would we be without the Recce's, 32 Batt, or the 82nd and 101st, 21 SAS or Merrill's Marauders?).

A good Epic (and here is a problem of definition and application, obviously) could provide slowly acculumulating culture points, and make it a greatly worthwhile wonder to have. Can you imagine the joy of being able to see in the Epic when the national calamity of a defeat in a battle is erased by the wiping out of their inglorious and verminous culture? It would also add to the quite entrtaining stories that are being recorded on the various fansites.

Having said this, thanks to Firaxis for a great game & I hope that we will see expansions, patches and mods galore for a super game!

[Cort Haus]

troglodyte, I think you're elevating romantic historical symbolism above gameplay there. The two Epics both have a role in one of Civ 4's most complelling features - city specialisation. In this case they are about specialising units and GPs. I think you should leave them alone and lobby instead for a new tab in the F8/F9 screens listing the historical record - or highlights of it.

Anyway, the in-game effects of the two Epics not only make good gameplay, but all those valuable extra GP's and Units you get is pretty heroic, is it not?

[Cort Haus]

OT : Actually I do have a funny story about the Epics.

My Holy City was set for a rockin' future. Coastal, 3 food specials, 3 hills, 3 grassland, shrine, Angkor Wat. National Epic with up to 6 double-hammer priests also churning out Great Prophets, which then add back in for more hammers & more gold. Just need Wall Street in there for a full-on Great Profits Monster.

Trouble is, when I came to build the Heroic Epic in a unit-city I couldn't. Nor could I build Wall Street in my Holy City. What I'd done was to confuse the names and accidently build the Heroic Epic and the National Epic in the Shrine City. Doh!

* Heroic Epic in a Priest 'n Prophet city can make a mean unit producer though.

[Enigma_Nova]

Time to reload a save and fix that mistake!
Or at least, remember what you've done and not make the same mistake.

[Cort Haus]

Originally posted by Enigma_Nova
Time to reload a save and fix that mistake!
Or at least, remember what you've done and not make the same mistake.

reload?

No, I rolled with it. I hired 3 merchants permanently in another city and built Wall Street there instead, feeding back the Great Merchant they eventually produced. A poor-mans shrine, but it worked.

In the city that had been earmarked for the Heroic Epic I built the Ironworks, then Kremlin, Space Elevator (cash-rushed) then the larger SS parts.

I beat Lizzie to the SS by 1 part for my first win at Monarch, and with a semi-isolated start and two Big Mistakes.

The second Big Mistake was the Epic tangle. The first was to not sail a galley round my isolated continent to discover the Mongols lurking down there off a sea-lane. The first I knew about them was when my barb-patrol ran into a Mongol City I dunno how much tech trading and commerce that contact delay cost me.

[troglodyte]

Originally posted by Cort Haus
troglodyte, I think you're elevating romantic historical symbolism above gameplay there. The two Epics both have a role in one of Civ 4's most complelling features - city specialisation. In this case they are about specialising units and GPs. I think you should leave them alone and lobby instead for a new tab in the F8/F9 screens listing the historical record - or highlights of it.

Anyway, the in-game effects of the two Epics not only make good gameplay, but all those valuable extra GP's and Units you get is pretty heroic, is it not?

Cort, I didn't mean change their effects (they are great, provided one builds them in the right place) just change the name from National Epic to National Musuem or whatever.

[Cort Haus]

Originally posted by troglodyte
Cort, I didn't mean change their effects (they are great, provided one builds them in the right place) just change the name from National Epic to National Musuem or whatever.

I see - sorry. Well that might stop people like me getting the Epics mixed up. It wouild play havoc with the historical documentation though - including these forums.

[Silver14]

I'd like to see a smarter, more manipulative AI. As it is now after recently playing some games of CivNet and Colonization on my laptop I realize that the AI is still the same in how it regards the player diplomacy wise. AKA - "We demand XYZ from you." seems to be the only thing they know how to do.

In my recent game the Romans kept making arrogant demands - true they had a stronger military but I was on another continent and had Astronomy which the Romans lacked. Most of the Romans capital food source came from 3 clam resources which I sacked and blockaded with Galleons and soon Frigates which I pounded their defenses with. I also bribed the Americans who were on their landmass to go to war with them.

Now if the Romans had waited until they had astronomy to make their demands and they could actually attack my colonies maybe I would have given in to their demands. The AI knew the Romans had more military might then I did at the time but didn't take into consideration that it had no means of getting units to my part of the world while I had the means to get to theirs. At least on a couple of occasions the Romans offered peace with me if I gave them Astronomy...not happening. Due to the war weariness, the blockades and loss of all sea resources the Romans fell far behind in the tech race and over time fell in the score chart to the bottom. I wiped them out at my leisure with Redcoats and Cannons. Things would have gone differently if they weren’t so arrogant too soon. Because they jumped the gun I built up a powerful navy which I wouldn't have done other wise and it would have been easier for them as well as other AIs to attack me. As it stood the other two AI's who hated me who were left received the same treatment. The Incas had Caravels and Triremes in their ports but never came out to attack my Frigate(s) who were blocking their ports. I only used one Frigate per sea square that was right up against their costal cities.

Also it seems like the player always has to 'give in' to the AI's to make friends and the AI will never give to the player to try and do the same. Although later if the relationship is 'good enough' you can ask for a freebie but this is usually only after you've kissed enough butt earlier on with them and even then they may refuse.

The AI will never come to the player and offer something for nothing and will always ask or demand the player give something for nothing. All the AI seem arrogant from the start, either demanding something or asking for something and not giving anything in return even if they are able. Sometimes you will get asked to trade tech x for tech y but other times they'll just beg or demand tech x and never cough up tech y - meaning they don't really need it that badly.

It just seems that the AI has the arrogant part programmed in fairly well in demanding or begging for items but they don't have arse kissing in at all. If the AI would give to the player then later ask the player for something the player may be more likely to do it. I guess its easier to make an AI that constantly demands things from the player then it is to make an AI that will manipulate the player.

Also I've never had the AI offer anything when asking the player to go to war. In Civ3 I think I recall the AI sometimes offering a tech or money to the player if they agree to war with another civ yet I've never seen this in Civ4. True there is nothing to stop the player from going to peace with that Civ once they'll speak to the player again but the same can be said for the AI. During my war with the Romans I made the Americans go to war with the Romans three times as they would eventually declare peace with each other.

I guess I'm rambling now but I guess what I'd like to see is the AI give some brownie points to the player, for the hopes that the player will give what the AI asks for later or to catch the player off guard a few turns before going to war with them.

I guess the thing is I know what the AI is going to do, and its the same thing it did in Civ, Civ2, Colonization act. The AI will demand or beg for a tech, money or resources and possibly go to war with the player if the player says no and that’s all they know to do to the player. The only difference in Civ4 is that they at least seem more competent at invading and attacking you, usually.

[Lambiorix_be]

Turn the Spy unit in a real spy with more options like killing of specialists, causing unrest, destroying buildings (not just halt production). Also if a civ captures a spy it should at least in some way or another.

I wouldn't object to a unit or feature that would act as some defence against such spy acts. In case it needed for reasons of balance...

[Hot Mustard]

Merchant Unit (Trade Missionary) - send unit to a city to establish a better trade route (2 or 3 times normal income?). Limit # like religious missionaries and of course require Open Borders for foreign routes.

[Badtz Maru]

The AI will never come to the player and offer something for nothing and will always ask or demand the player give something for nothing. All the AI seem arrogant from the start, either demanding something or asking for something and not giving anything in return even if they are able. Sometimes you will get asked to trade tech x for tech y but other times they'll just beg or demand tech x and never cough up tech y - meaning they don't really need it that badly.

Well, part of it is the AI is hardcoded to not give up certain techs under certain circumstances, i.e. if they are building a wonder that is based on that tech. But I have had the AI offer me gifts unsolicited many times, and I have a lot of success asking for help, whether technology or war-related, without offering anything in return, but it depends heavily on not only your relationship but the personality of the AI and how much you've given them in the past.

[Willem]

It would be really handy if, when selecting units to build, I could have a keyboard shortcut that allowed me to select a certain number of them to be built. I tend to do things in groups of 5, and it would be nice if instead of Shift-clicking 5 Knights for example, I could Ctrl/Alt-click on a unit and have a menu option pop up that would allow me to put in the exact number that I wanted.