Civ4: Omega Expansion

[LordShiva]

Originally posted by Will9
World 1946 AD: the Cold war. I have afew ideas for this. Religons are replaced with with governments. The Superpowers must work hard to stop the other government from spreading.

Apart from Capitalism/Democracy and Communism, there should be "Non Aligned Movement" founded in Delhi

[Dis]

and of course we need an epic ww2 scenario. But I am serious. I want a global one with less emphasis on large amounts of units (as desert war). In civ2 I actually prefered the one scenario (sorry I can't remember the name, it was like 2159 days of war or something like that ). I preferred that over Red Front which just had an ungodly number of units to micromanage, and it just wasn't fun.

[Dis]

oh, in case someone from firaxis is reading this, I'll repost what I posted in a thread in the warlords forum. These are my suggestions for improving modern naval combat.

in summary: Bring back cruise missiles, AEGIS cruisers, planes should sink ships, and units in the same tile as a carrier should have their strength rating increased. This is what should be in the next expansion.

another thing I forgot to mention was subs should have the option to target merchant ships. Yes I know they don't exists. But perhaps they could exist in an abstract way.

Or maybe subs could destroy trade routes with overseas partners (such as getting oil from a nation across the water). Or they could just target merchant shipping in general and cause the victim civ to lose gold and commerce.

Subs should not be attacking carriers and battleships!!. Not that I use them for that anyways, as their strength is too low. Yes there have been instances of subs doing this. But they had support from other naval units.

While I'm at it, bring back privateers. Give them the same options as subs above. Destroying trade routes and attacking merchant ships. The difference being that privateers get to keep the gold "pillaged" from merchant ships, where as subs do not.

[Brael]

Some more ideas:
10 new civics (2 per type). Make one an additional regular civic and one special world wonder only civic which is good but can only be run if you've built that wonder.

More monastary type buildings that let you build certain units.

[Forwarn45]

I skimmed the many posts here, so some of this is probably repetitious:

(1) Improve combat AI. I want to see the AI use variable tactics similar to what players use. In my last game, the AI came out of its city with 3 catapults, hit my stack with 1 of them and then moved the other 2 to a hill where I promptly killed it. I think the AI might have been able to well and truly ambush at least one of my stacks if it had used up all 3 catapults and then used some of its cities' reserves since its cities weren't seriously threatened yet. Or it could have waited until I got to its city and slammed a stack with the catapults and some follow-up units. It could have even held the catapults (and other units) a couple spaces away on a road where I couldn't see them and would have been surprised! There are just so many things the AI could be programmed to do based on what good players do on land -- and of course on air and sea (even worse AI right now)!

(2) Open borders should not allow most military units to access territories. There should be a new agreement allowing military access. It should be much tougher to get! The current way open borders is handled would have been the perfect solution for Belgium in WWI - just allow Germany AND France in to fight their war and stay friends with them both so you can keep trading with them. Oh wait, some Belgians actually live in the territory they would be fighting over.

(3) I kind of like new leaders although I know there's a split on this. But I definitely want to see the leaders change in appearance as their civilization progresses ala Civ 3. Just eye candy, but I miss it.

(4) Other stuff

[Prussia]

There is already a Crusades scenario, by the way...

[Will9]

Originally posted by Prussia
There is already a Crusades scenario, by the way...

Since when?

[Prussia]

It came with the original scenarios for Civ 4.

Well, actually, it is right AFTER the crusades, but it is a good 1000 AD Europe scenario, except for the tiny problem of it being sooooooo slow.

[Alexander I]

Originally posted by Will9

2) Byzantines, Isreal, Babylon, Austians, Portugese, Maya, and Dutch.

In my opinion, most likely Dutch, Babylon, Byzantines, Portuguese, Mayans, and Sioux. Though I prefer a very different list (Hebrews, Khmer, Mayans, Babylon, Dutch, Ethiopians).

And of course, Pericles, Meiji, Lincoln, and, oh, I don't know, some other worthless leader for Russia (shudder).

[DrSpike]

Originally posted by Alexander01


In my opinion, most likely Dutch, Babylon, Byzantines, Portuguese, Mayans, and Sioux.

This sounds quite likely. Of course there is still a chance they might do more than just add more civs next time..............

[DirtyMartini]

Anyone else think adding a bunch more marginal civs -- portugese, dutch, mayans --- takes away more than it adds? I can't get very excited about crushing the fearsome portugese and their unique unit the...uh, portugese dude with an antique gun. Ditto the dutch and their fearsome wooden shoe throwers. (Yeah, yeah, William of Orange, I've read Quicksilver too). Personally, I'd probably eliminate the Americans as a civ if they weren't necessary for modern scenarios. Basically, I almost never play a civ that wasn't a real player in the RL ancient or classical ages. I'd be OK with a native american civ, babylon OK I guess, maya? eh.

I would like to see a few more leaders -- Pericles, some non-warlike Japanese leader, maybe someone else for the Spanish.

[LordShiva]

Originally posted by DirtyMartini
Anyone else think adding a bunch more marginal civs -- portugese, dutch, mayans --- takes away more than it adds?

Yes. But they'll do it anyway

[DrSpike]

And we'll buy it anyway.

[padillah]

This goes straight to the heart of "What's a worthy Civ?"

The Portugese, while not a fearsome race in international politics right now, did perfect astral navigation and, thus, trade routes to India and China. (Of course one of them also loused it up so badly he ran into South America and still thought it was India, but that's a different story)

And as you mention, the Dutch are not the most feared but there was Willem of Orange (not William BTW).

So what makes a "Good" civ?

This is yet another reason I don't think we need more civs: It's starting to feel like they just want to be fair and "let everybody play". Pretty soon we're gonna be gettin' civs like Puerto Rico and Guam and Malta and Monoco and Tavulu and Nauru...

Yeah, we get it. You can make wonderful looking leaderhaeds. That's no reason to trot out more and more obsucre civilisations. Improve something that needs improving.

Like the map generator, give us some real control. Let us paint our map rather than build it tile by tile. Give us some control over how much of what resource shows up. Let us control how much desert or grass or snow there is.

And I don't mean by editing the essoteric entries in the XML (Hey, there's a good xPack, I'll give you $20 just for a cross-reffed explanation of all the XML entries), I want sliders!

OR! Add a GUI interface that allows us to assign the traits to a leader that we want to give them. I realise there are some traits that are really powerful but maybe I want to try and beat the AI with those traits as a super difficulty level.

OR! Work on diplomacy. If the AI won't trade something even after I offer them everything I have then why isn't that option red? Also, give me a hint as to which trades may work and which may not.

There's plenty of stuff that could be improved or added that we don't need yet more civs for no other reason than there's more civs in the world we haven't gotten to yet.

Tom P.

[Will9]

Originally posted by DirtyMartini
Anyone else think adding a bunch more marginal civs -- portugese, dutch, mayans --- takes away more than it adds? I can't get very excited about crushing the fearsome portugese and their unique unit the...uh, portugese dude with an antique gun. Ditto the dutch and their fearsome wooden shoe throwers. (Yeah, yeah, William of Orange, I've read Quicksilver too). Personally, I'd probably eliminate the Americans as a civ if they weren't necessary for modern scenarios. Basically, I almost never play a civ that wasn't a real player in the RL ancient or classical ages. I'd be OK with a native american civ, babylon OK I guess, maya? eh.

I would like to see a few more leaders -- Pericles, some non-warlike Japanese leader, maybe someone else for the Spanish.

The Aztecs and Incans did much less than Americans in the same amount of time yet I don't see you insulting them. The Portugese played I large role in driving the moors out out of Spain, played a large role in the early colonization of the world, and played a major role in defeating Napoleon. The Dutch may seem like they have always been under of whatever major power was strongest in Europe, but they managed to defeat the combined armies of Spain and the Holy Roman Empire and then went on become a major player in the colonial stage and became very rich from their territory. I also belive there was one Dutch king who was also king of England. The Mayans were probably more advanced than most the players of the classical age you are talking about.