Civ4: Omega Expansion

[Badtz Maru]

Originally posted by Qwertqwert


As far as I can tell, the Messianic Jew one would be a Jewish Christian (unless every Jewish charaistic skipped over him, then he'd just be Christian).

And the other guy would just be Jewish, and not a Jew.

I'm just going by the definitions to get this, but I'll stop posting about it.

"Messianic Jews" commonly refers to Jews who believe that Jesus was the Messiah, but there are other Jews who believed others to be the Messiah...there are literally dozens that have been believed by some to be the Messiah.

The Jewish concept of the Messiah is very different from that of Christians and Messianic Jews (who are not considered by most Jews to be true Jews). According to mainstream belief, there will be no question when the Messiah has come, because nobody in the world in the end times will deny it...either because the world has come to a state of total peace and goodness, or the world has become so corrupt and evil nobody at all cares enough to deny him. The coming of the Messiah is an indicator that the world has come to an end, not a cause of the end. The idea that Jesus was the messiah is seen as ridiculous, because many people deny he was the messiah and the world did not end.

[Guynemer]

Flesh out the UN some more, SMAC-like. More possible resolutions--in fact, make it possible to nominate any civic as a Global Civic. Give the option to sanction nations through the UN. Make it possible to defy the UN. Make trading for UN votes a diplomatic option. Give the whole thing just a little more personality, like SMAC, instead of a little yes/no box.

[Smellycowsquid]

[Willem]

Yes, me too. The UN currently is rather boring. I'd like to see the option of setting up embargoes and perhaps police actions against certain civs. And the option of going against resolutions, with a major diplomatic hit and the possibility of the above occuring. Especially regarding the civics options. It seems rather ludicrous to introduce all these government choices into the game, just to take them all away at the end. If there were instead resolutions condemning certain civics, like Slavery or Police State, it would make the game much more interesting.

Another thing I want to see, which perhaps already is in Warlords, is a separate option for border states. If my friend and neighbour is allowing an enemy to pass through his/her territory, I should be able to request/demand that they close the borders to my foe. This should be an independant option instead of just lumping it in with trading in general.

[wardhali]

My need for a new XP

Overhaul Diplomacy!

as it is, the AI controls it entirely and you are often confined to damage control. such as your "friend" ruining your relationship by repededly asking for something ludicris!

at best i want a more diplomatically aware AI, and at least give me all the options that the AI has, such as "red out, and the ability to set a diplomacy modifier towards them, such as be able to say -2 you made an arrogent demand to the AI, AND HAVE THEM REACT TO THIS


i am very annoyed at how broken diplo is in this game

[Alexander I]

Originally posted by Guynemer
Flesh out the UN some more, SMAC-like. More possible resolutions--in fact, make it possible to nominate any civic as a Global Civic. Give the option to sanction nations through the UN. Make it possible to defy the UN. Make trading for UN votes a diplomatic option. Give the whole thing just a little more personality, like SMAC, instead of a little yes/no box.

I think that's a great idea!
I'd love to see all the angry animated faces of my rivals sitting in council as I diplomatically rock them. Use your diplomatic clout to force them into decisions they hate and they'll shake their fists. Where's the political intrigue?

[Lambiorix_be]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
I have a 'trade' idea. A new trade screen, showing you what private businesses are importing and exporting (based on what resources you have in your borders). And also it lists the prices of those. You would have the option for a "state monopoly" whereupon you'd get all the value of an increased price multiplied by all the export goods, at the cost of one (or more) unhappy citizen per city.

The problem would be to create an economic model that would model these prices and account for supply and demand (if someone else you discover has a good in their markets, then the price for that good drops in yours because of the increased supply).

This would also allow you to sink another Civ's monopoly by 'subsidizing' your merchants to produce more goods, increasing supply.

You should also be able to put tariffs on goods (different levels for each good) to raise money or drive a monopoly value up (and unhappiness up as well!).

This may be WAAAY too ambitious, though.

This gave me the idea about changing the resource management. Now it is too binary, you have iron or don't have it and if you have more then one you can trade it.

I think that resources should also incorporate a value per location so that the size/advance of your civ dictates how much resources you need.

Example. you have 20 cities and you have iron on your border with a value of 1000 "units'. If you are only in the middle ages a city needs 10 "units" so there is no shortage (200/1000), instead you have 800 "units" to trade. The more advanced the civ becomes the more it needs iron (factories, tanks, al kind of buildiongs etc).

So at a certain number of turns later your empire grew with 10 cities but now the you need 40 "units" so from an abundance of resources you now have a shortfall. Since you need now 1200 "units" you need to find someone who will trade you this extra 200 "units".

This way a new system is in place to manage the growth of a civ. Also the shortfall makes more strategic choices possible.

Suppose nobody wants to trade you iron, then you could decide to destroy/recycle some buildings/railroads so that you are back below the treshold and replace them with military units so that you can start a resource war.

Also think about the choices you can make for your energy plants (depending on where you want to use your strategic resource for)

I used the term "unit" but that is probably a bad name for the value is a timeless indicator. Its only pupose is to quantify demand and supply at any time.

[fani]

No dont make the game any better...we wont have any time left to spend living our lives!!!...

Seriously though adding some depth(as mentioned in the above posts) in the UN resolutions is IMHO something that is really a must

Especially allow voting to enforce any civic....allow civs to ignore resolutions...Give a -2 hit in diplomatic relations to civs that ignore resolutions and a +1 to civs that respect the decisions...

[Thedrin]

Originally posted by fani
Especially allow voting to enforce any civic....allow civs to ignore resolutions...Give a -2 hit in diplomatic relations to civs that ignore resolutions and a +1 to civs that respect the decisions...

I'd prefer it if the diplomatic rewards and penalties depended not just on whether or not a civ goes with the UN.

As an example of the way modifiers could be distributed: say a resolution for a world civic is passed but the Mongols and the Egyptians refuse to adopt the civic. The Germans voted against the civic but agreed to adopt it. The Celts and the Japanease are two of the civs that vote for and adopt the civic.

The Mongols gain a positive diplomatic modifier from the Egyptians.

The Mongols get no diplomatic modifier from the Germans.

The Mongols get a negative diplomatic modifier from everyone else.

The Celts do not recieve a diplomatic modifier from the Japanease.

Optional:

The Germans recieve a positive diplomatic modifier from the Celts and Japanease.

The Germans recieve a negative diplomatic modifier from the Mongols and the Egyptians.

[johnmcd]

Yeah, something like that would work, the simple model of it above doesn't really work. On the other hand, does that model not really just end up grouping the voting blocks? You'd surely start with everyone participating but as each decision is made more and more civs would ignore a UN decision until everyone loathed each other and the only thing the UN had managed to deliver was global distrust and tension?

[Thedrin]

Only if civs vote and adopt based on how whether their allies vote for and adopt.

I imagine that as things are civs vote based on whether or not they think the proposed change is immeadiately good for their empire. - not whether or not it is immediately good for their allies.

That would mean the case of the Germans above is unlikely to happen unless a third type of decision is introduced - not fond of the change but not very opposed.

[johnmcd]

Originally posted by Thedrin
Only if civs vote and adopt based on how whether their allies vote for and adopt.

I imagine that as things are civs vote based on whether or not they think the proposed change is immeadiately good for their empire. - not whether or not it is immediately good for their allies.

That would mean the case of the Germans above is unlikely to happen unless a third type of decision is introduced - not fond of the change but not very opposed.

My point is though that they probably don't do as their allies do, because up until now that sort of thing hasn't been what's caused alliances to form and emnities to form.

The current big political cracks in the game are caused by religion, but this would create a new fracture for each resolution until the whole thing was a mess. If you make the positive modifiers stronger than the negative then the feuds that gameplay demands will quickly be papered over.

If political idealogy is to drive the game then a driver for that ideaology has to exist. It could be traits, it could be religion but it can't just emerge when the UN is built.

[Thedrin]

In order for a civic to be adopted by the UN most civs have to vote for it. So any enmity that will result from civs refusing to adopt the UN chosen civic will be (especially if the German case above is added into the game) very slight.

Secondly, by the time the UN has been built religeous differences are less important than they were in the early and mid game periods since a number of civs usually switch over to free religion without prompting. Introducing the UN would replace some lost tension. Also, by this stage in the game civs have a lot of history governing their relationships. Past wars and resultant trade blocks are more likely to have an effect on international relations than any ideological difference which may have started the wars.

[Alexander I]

You know, when Civ4 first came out, I was actually expecting the UN to function like it did in SMAC. I was surprised when it didn't.

[Lambiorix_be]

I see most post relate to the UN. But that comes into being only when the game is almost finished. So what would be the practical gain?

I'd like to focus on something that has an effect throughout the whole game.