Civ4: Omega Expansion

[Alexander I]

Originally posted by DrSpike
Well, it is just a game. After all, hacking people to death with praetorians is frowned upon in real life as well.

True. I never really saw the difference, personally.

[johnmcd]

Originally posted by Alexander01


True. I never really saw the difference, personally.

The difference between games and real life? One is based on rigid rules and takes forever to play through the other is civ.

[Alexander I]

Originally posted by johnmcd


The difference between games and real life? One is based on rigid rules and takes forever to play through the other is civ.

No, silly!

The reason overt military killing is okay and covert espionage killing isn't.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by DrSpike
Not really no (it was balance), though there was a rumour Civ3 spies were altered because of potential reaction to what would be seen as engaging in terrorist activities.

I blame Bush

[korn469]

I'd like to see better spies in the next xp, here's my idea how they could implement that.

Basic espionage abilities should come earlier, with new options opening up as a civ discovers new techs. Spies operate in a way similar to workers, except instead of building tile improvements in your territory they build covert buildings in enemy cities. Spies could also carry out counter-intelligence ops where they basically pillage enemy covert ops buildings. Like workers, when more than one spy works together then the time it takes to construct a covert ops building decreases. You would have to build certain basic covert structures before building the most advanced covert ops buildings.

Spy ring -> Allows you to build other covert ops buildings, also you can then pay to see the city with a chance of losing your spy ring.
Embassy -> Allows you to see the city for free.
Safe House -> Lowers the chance that enemy spies will pillage your covert buildings.
Mole -> Allows you to steal military plans (locations of all enemy troops), and technology. As the number of enemy cities with moles goes up, your success rate also goes up, and the costs goes down.
Assassin -> Allows you to assassinate political leaders (one turn of anarchy), scientists (lose half of the research you've accumulated on current tech), civic leaders in a particular city (lose half of the culture you've accumulated towards the next level), or great leaders who have settled in a particular city. As the number of enemy cities with assassins goes up, your success rate also goes up, and the costs goes down.
Agent Provocateur -> These cause unhappiness throughout an enemy civ. As the number of enemy cities with Agent Provocateur's goes up so does unhappiness.
Resistance Movement -> Requires an Agent Provocateur, increases unhappiness in their city by 50%, and allows a player to have a chance of create resistance in that city.

Spies that see each other could engage in combat, but otherwise they wouldn't interact with any other units except transports.

[Alexander I]

So I discussed with someone recently that a 2nd expansion shouldn't include any more 3rd leaders for civs. I think there might be a few notable exceptions. He also mentioned that each civ with only one leader ought to have two. I think there also ought to be a few notable exceptions to this, as some civs will probably behave the same regardless of leaders. So here's my opinions on our current civs.

Americans - Lincoln [3rd]
Arabs - Abu Bakr/Harun al-Raschid
Aztecs - Cuauhtemoc
Carthaginians - [NN], Dido
Celts - Boudicca
Chinese - [A2]
Egyptians - [A2]
English - [A3]
French - [NN], Joan of Arc? [3rd]
Germans - Barbarossa [3rd]
Greeks - Pericles
Incans - [NN], Atahualpa/Pachacuti
Indians - [A2]
Japanese - Meiji
Koreans - [NN], Yi Sun-sin
Malinese - [NN], Sundiata Keita
Mongols - [A2]
Ottomans - [NN], Suleiman/Osman
Persians - Darius/Xerxes
Romans - [A2]
Russians - [A3]
Scandinavians - Cnut/Gustavus Adolphus
Spanish - Philip II
Zulus - [NN], Cetewayo

Abbreviations:
A2 - Already 2
A3 - Already 3
3rd - A Thrid Choice for Leader
NN - None Needed, but suggestions presented anyway

Not included the NN options, this comes to 10 new leaders. This was too large to put in the list at the front, so I've placed it here. Pardon to anyone not interested in leaders.

[Imran Siddiqui]

I think Carthage would be better served with Hamilcar as leader, though Dido would work if you wanted to include more female rulers in the game.

Though I strongly disagree with Joan D'Arc for France. She was never the ruler of France, simply a general (a warlord, if you will). She fought for the Dauphin, after all.

[Alexander I]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
I think Carthage would be better served with Hamilcar as leader, though Dido would work if you wanted to include more female rulers in the game.

I agree with you. Given Dido's legendary status, her inclusion would only serve to diversify leader gender in the game. But then again, I put down Carthage as an NN.

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Though I strongly disagree with Joan D'Arc for France. She was never the ruler of France, simply a general (a warlord, if you will). She fought for the Dauphin, after all.

Once again, I agree. I think France is okay as is. I only put in Joan because it would follow Civ's precedent. One could also include Charlemagne, but he's really ambiguous between France and Germany. Which would he go in?

[zeace]

korn - I like the idea of creating something in my opponents cities. I think that it should probably consume the spy to build more advanced stuff, although taking some time to set it up would be nice too. I also think there should be some maintenance costs associated with these buildings, as well as the ability to shut them down. This way you could only afford to build a full espionage setup in a few capitals or other big cities. But you could still build simple spying stuff for cities near your border to give you a warning of impending attack.

I think that something like "poison water supply" should be an option in a city that has the full spy network built, but it should require a special unit be built and smuggled into the city. Maybe combine this with the idea of each spy being only for a single civ. When you build a spy it would ask what do you want:
1. Spy against Germans
2. Spy against Egyptians
3. Specialist assassin
4. Infrastructure destroyer
5. Nuclear weapon smuggler

As you gain more techs, there are more and more options for building spies, although some take longer than others. A spy could be upgraded or transfered (for the right cost of course) so you could keep them useful.

I think a great spy-building would be a research espionage building. It should slowly acquire a few beakers towards any tech you don't know. The number of beakers should be dependant on the number of beakers the city produces. So now you want to get a full spy network set up in your opponents oxford city.


But counter-espinoage needs to be improved too. You should be able to send a spy of your own to any city you own and have him investigate. She would have some probability of detecting any spy-building there, and then you should be able to either use diplomacy to close the building, or counter-espionage units of your own.

[zeace]

Just had another idea... What if the jail helped prevent espionage. Wow, I might actually build one....

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Alexander01
One could also include Charlemagne, but he's really ambiguous between France and Germany. Which would he go in?

BOTH!

[MasterDave]

I would pay cash money for a Civ Scenario that was an update of Colonization. That game had a simply awesome economic model, and committing piracy against neutral shipping with the privateers was really fun.

I would definitely like to see privateers included in the new unit spam of a second expansion. Hopefully privateers would be somewhere in strength between a galleon and a frigate (perhaps 5 or 6), also they should be able to take "prizes" where if they win a battle, their controller should get either some cash (perhaps the same amount you get from a hut), or you can take a "prize" and turn your victim into another privateer, as in Civ 3. The only problem I had with Civ3 privateers was that they were so weak. With an increase in strength, they could be a very fun way for a player at peace to see some action on the high seas.

Perhaps the privateers could also be crewed by kevlar-armored, lasergun-wielding super praetorians or something...

[LordShiva]

Originally posted by MasterDave
I would pay cash money for a Civ Scenario that was an update of Colonization. That game had a simply awesome economic model, and committing piracy against neutral shipping with the privateers was really fun.

Colonization I would pay credit card money for it

Re: Adding leaders to civs with only one: Like Alexander01, I'm against it. Adding leaders just for the sake of it is a silly reason. Think Civ2, with the ludicrous options like Shakala and Scherezade. I'll say it again: Stop leader spam

But India should get a third leader

Ashoka is 4th-3rd century BCE, and Gandhi was 20th century CE. We should get once somewhere in between, maybe Akbar or Prithviraj Chauhan.

[Alexander I]

Originally posted by LordShiva
Colonization I would pay credit card money for it

Me too.

Originally posted by LordShiva
Re: Adding leaders to civs with only one: Like Alexander01, I'm against it. Adding leaders just for the sake of it is a silly reason. Think Civ2, with the ludicrous options like Shakala and Scherezade.

Seriously. How would Sundiata Keita act any differently from Mansa Musa? Would Cetewayo behave differently from Shaka? Or Cuauhtemoc from Montezuma? If new leaders are to be added, I want them to enrich playing experience. In example, I think Pericles of Greece (with either Ind/Phi or Fin/Phi) would be a great counterbalance to the overly aggressive egotistical Alexander the Great. A more moderate, Cha/Cre Meiji would be much less hostile than the xenophobic Tokugawa. Both of these examples reflect different stages in their civilizations' history, and the game would benefit from their addition. This can be contrasted to the slew of less beneficial options presented above under "NN."

[Thedrin]

On the whole adding leaders thing - I would like to see an alternative. Keep the Random Personalities option as it is but introduce two new features; Random Traits and Random Uniques.

Random Traits: Every leader chosen in the game (including the human player) is given a new set of traits, not just taken from the combinations that already exist but from all possible combinations.

Random Uniques: Each leader is assigned a new unique building and unit taken from those that already exist. The pairings would not be consistent; the Forum could come with the Skirmisher instead of the Praetorian.

Combined or individually, these features could lead to weak and strong characteristics - the human player could get a very easy game or one tough challenge. It leads to the possibility of the AI civs being not as efficient as they could be, however the Random Personalities option already does this so that wouldn't be a reason not to introduce it.