What would you put in an expansion?

[Saturnalia]

Limiting border traffic

I'm generally annoyed when an enemy nation on the other side of the continent is able to march entire armies through another nation without any recourse on my part. A diplomatic option to "demand closed/open borders" would be nice.

[Adagio]

Originally posted by Saturnalia
I'm generally annoyed when an enemy nation on the other side of the continent is able to march entire armies through another nation without any recourse on my part. A diplomatic option to "demand closed/open borders" would be nice.

That's what the 'open borders' is for, if you don't want them to walk through your lands, just don't sign an 'open border' agreement

[LordShiva]

Originally posted by Adagio
That's what the 'open borders' is for, if you don't want them to walk through your lands, just don't sign an 'open border' agreement

He means when your enemy has open borders with your neighbour.

[Adagio]

Ahhh...

[Leo-T]

I'd like to see a custom civ slot. The player would enter the ruler name, nation name, adjective, etc., and then choose the two starting characteristics. The program would then save this civ for use in other games (maybe even as one of the AI players?).

[nt1]

Can't you just do that by asking (bribing) your neighbour to cancel all agreements with the attacking civ?!

[Shaka II]

Re: What would you put in an expansion?

Originally posted by Simplicity
2) Add a new Seige Warfare tech which requires Engineering.

3) Add a new trebuchet seige unit. Strength 6 available from the Seige Warfare tech. City bombardment similar to catapult.

Justification: The catapult just doesn't cut it very well after a while. Longbowmen are just too good at defending cities, unless you want to sacrifice hordes of catapults.

I agree that the trebuchet should require engineering, but 6 is little better than 5 for the cat, considering that 12 (cannon) is the next step up. 8 should be the strength for the trebuchet.

My reasoning is that archers (strength 3) with 50% city defense are a strength of 4.5, which is balanced by a cat of strength 5. Longbowmen (strength 6) with a 25% city defense are a strength of 7.5, so a trebuchet strength of 8 adds the appropriate balance. Make sense?

Originally posted by Simplicity
4) A medieval infantry unit. Str 9. +20% vs. cities. +20% vs. archers. Also off the Seige Warfare tech.

That would be nice, sort of an upgrade of swordsmen. What would we call them? Is there a historical basis or is it mostly a game play issue?

Originally posted by Simplicity
8) The ability to defy the UN, although it would cause major diplomatic penalties.

Yes. That is required, but also the ability to change previous resolutions. In the highlands game I was playing, I'm the new UN secretary, but I can't change the previous resolutions passed to allow police state. Fighting wars in the modern era without police state is the pits.

[Blademun]

Regarding Trebuchets

I also think trebs would be a great idea (even if it does provoke more CIV4=AoE rants), however I think it should be implemented differently from other siege craft. Trebs should have a attack of 5. However!! They should have a city attacking bonus of 100%. That would effectively give them a attack of 10 against citys. Why? In the late middle ages Trebs were used with extremely good effect at breaking sieges. They could launch stones, firery coals, even diseased cows, over the walls into citys and castles. They had a long range and powerfull launching ability. However, they were utterly useless for any form of field combat, as they are not accurate at all.

This would make them less then effective in field combat, but would put them in just under cannons in terms of siege warfare.

[Loader2k]

- 'Real' pbem structure

- Some more automatisation options, ie "always recon" for
fighters to tell them they should always scout out some
region.
Also these worker options that have been proposed a while
ago where you just put (planned) improvements into the map
which will then be built by automated workers.

- Decent AI (ah well, just dreaming...)

[Destroyer]

which begs the questions to why they changed the artillery in Civ 4 from bombard with an attack of 0, to a proper attcking unit.

[Adagio]

Originally posted by Loader2k
- Decent AI (ah well, just dreaming...)

Well, soon you'll be able to program the AI yourself (wasn't it january the SDK was supposed to be released?)

[Loader2k]

Originally posted by Adagio


Well, soon you'll be able to program the AI yourself (wasn't it january the SDK was supposed to be released?)

Well, I somehow doubt that people would pay me for doing
that...

It's not a trivial thing to do, didnt want to express that. But
the AI is certainly not one of civ's stronger traits.

[Willem]

I'd like to see some buildings that require a resource in a city's radius. For instance, if you have Gold, Silver or Gems within your city area, you can build a Jeweller which would give you a couple of culture points and increase your gold by 10%. Or if you have any of the metals, you can build a Smelter boosting your Hammers by 10%, but would add 1 unhealthiness. It would allow you build local economies and add more variety in your cities.

[Willem]

Originally posted by Loader2k

It's not a trivial thing to do, didnt want to express that. But
the AI is certainly not one of civ's stronger traits.

It's certainly alot better than it was in Civ 2 or SMAC, especially when it comes to combat. It's actually surprised me a few times.

[Simplicity]

Re: Re: What would you put in an expansion?

That would be nice, sort of an upgrade of swordsmen. What would we call them? Is there a historical basis or is it mostly a game play issue?

Gameplay. It's just becomes too difficult to wage successful assaults during that period, and it other units seemed to have an upgrade path... The poor swordsman just goes nowhere.