Civ 4

[WarpStorm]

vmxa1, do most of the RTS games in the past 2 years give you motion sickness?

[Wittlich]

Originally posted by vmxa1
Wittlich you left out Elvis.

No I didn't - Elvis is one of the Advisors.

[Kuciwalker]

2) Events for scenarios. Make it simple like in Civ2 but trust me, they make scenarios far more interesting and complex. I dare to say that events alone have caused Civ2 to have the staying power it has. It is likely that Civ3 will be long forgotten after Civ4, but Civ2 did manage to outlive its successor (and if Civ4 doesn't have events, Civ2 might outlive it also).

mostly, but I disagree that Civ2 has outlived Civ3. Unless you were talking about SMAC.

[vmxa1]

Originally posted by WarpStorm
vmxa1, do most of the RTS games in the past 2 years give you motion sickness?

Very mildly (WC3/Generals), it is mostly RPG's and for sure FP.

[vmxa1]

BTW I don't see that Civ2 outlived Civ3, it is pretty much dead to me. I may some day play a game for nostalgia, not much else.

[ravagon]

Re: Scale-able Maps

Originally posted by JesseSmith
Not to mention the possibilities this would allow for modders. IE: After battling for dominance of the post-apocalyptic caverns you emerge with the desire to rebuild humanity with your vision! Multiple scenarios/ mission based Conquests all on the same Map File! The possibilities are truly endless...

Just as long as one can script events along with it.

[Master Zen]

Originally posted by vmxa1
BTW I don't see that Civ2 outlived Civ3, it is pretty much dead to me. I may some day play a game for nostalgia, not much else.

are you kidding? There's a HUGE amount of people who still play Civ2 because of the scenarios. There's even been two major scenario-based Civ2 demo games here at poly in the last 6 months.

[vmxa1]

Like I said it is dead to me, I can see no reason to play it. I do play several games that are older than Civ2, though.
I play some other games where I like the previous version fine, but Civ2 (a game I loved) just won't work after CivIII.

[Rasputin]

dam n civ4 and me not got c3c yet !!!

[CerberusIV]

Nice to see everyone thinking so hard.

My wish list.

Combined units - Combat units should work together. Even if they can't attack/defend as stacks (the CTP system is too strong) it would be nice if units like aircraft and artillery could be ordered to provide combat support to an attacking or defending unit, thus boosting its stats. If you have two infantry units one could attack and the other support rather than both attack. Only one unit could actually attack but it would do so more strongly.

Resources - You should be able to choose how resources are allocated. For example if you have 1 ivory it is now build SoZ and keep citizens happy. You should have to choose unless you have more than 1 ivory. A bigger empire would need more sources of resources to get the effects. Also it should be more difficult, if not impossible, to complete a build if you lose a required resource (perhaps it can't be completed unless you are at least halfway there). As has been suggested, maybe one iron source to support building 2 factories or 6 units and if you want to build more then you need more sources. The possibility of piracy or corruption disrupting supply and having to allocate resources to suppress the problem would add a challenge.

Diplomacy - could do better. Being able to intervene diplomatically in wars between AI's and broker peace deals would be nice. A variable form of government rather than abrupt changes would be good. So if you have a lot of military you get more free military support and less WW but less commerce and more unhappy citizens. Less military and more trading links gives less unit support but more commerce and fewer unhappy citizens. As the profile of your civ changes, the government effect changes.

[dannubis]

perhaps one could include a resuply unit into an attacking stack. Otherwise the unit in enemy territory should suffer attrition damage (1HP per turn). Much like it is done in RON

[Andydog]

New Economic Model

I would like to see the economy developed into an important strategic game element. I hate the current system of gold being generated by roads and railroads sprawled all over the map. Roads/Railroads should only be used to link cities, resources, other civs, and to transport troops. (Imagine how much better your map would look!)

Gold is now generated via taxes. Taxes come from Tourism, Citizens, and from Resources traded with other Civs.[list=1][*]Tourism taxes are generated by connecting your civ to other civs. They are calculated for each city and depend on the city's culture, tourism improvements, natural terrain features (eg highest mountains, waterfalls, lakes, wild animals etc), wonders, and the pollution generated by the city.

Cities receive a bonus to tourism if it has a harbour - the bonus increases as sea travel becomes more widely used throughout history. Further bonuses are applied when cities are connected eventually with railroads and later have airports in them.

Tourism taxes are then adjusted in line with other civs attitudes towards you (good tourism from a civ that likes you, zero tourism from a civ that you're at war with). In addition you can set your attitude toward a civ knowing its effects on the tourism they will recieve from your civ (if you decide to hate a civ though they will probably hate you back!).
[*]Citizen taxes are generated from your citizen population. The tax rate can be adjusted and will have an effect on happiness.
[*]Taxes from Resources are generated by trading luxuries and strategic resources - a bonus is received if you have a monopoly of resources. (Luxs and Stratetgic resources are still required for happiness and military units).

You must design a trade route between civs (perhaps the player draws a CTP style line on their map running from their city containing the recourse to any connected city of the civ you're trading with). You should protect that route against piracy from other civs. If you declare war against a civ who you're trading with, the trade route is cancelled. (Imagine the diplomacy involved with protecting trade routes! Two trading civs threatening war against anyone who pirates their trade goods!)[/list=1]

How about that then! As you can see this model would promote much more diplomacy between civs.

I would also like to see Pollution become much more damaging. More production and population = more pollution, and pollution affects city happiness, tourism, can damage city tiles, and will cause global warming which will eventually raise sea levels with catastrophic effects. (Imagine the diplomacy required to control world pollution!)

I would also like the CTP style combat model; it is vastly superior to the current Civ3 system imho.

[Tattila the Hun]

I've been rolling an idea of population based army. You could build the equipment for the troops, but your population (and the persentage of able 16-45 year olds. This could be varied, based on the quality of life in your nation. Better quality, more kids per couple, more manpower) would determine, how many actual units you could muster in times of conflict to defend your nation. Also, the adjustable amount of spent gold to their training would define the ultimate stats of the units, along with the tech level. Perhaps even the persentage of certain troops trained could be adjusted. For the equipment itself, it could be nice to, instead of "research armoured warfare, get tanks", the generic 16/10/2 unit, you could further use up your gold/research to ad points to the features of the unit.

Now, this force pool of, say, 500000 men, would then decrease as battles would rage on, and increase as further generations would reach that certain age. Units would only "heal", if would have enough reserves of the same type of trained men. If a unit is defeated, some of those troops could still make their way back. An example: A city has three defending units, 1000 men per unit. One is attacked, sustains casualties of 500 men, dead, wounded, routed, but fights the attacker back. Next, the fresh 1000 unit gets into the fray. Results may be roughly the same. And again. Now we have 3x 500 men units. When the next attack, on the same turn, hits the city, the two 500 man units merge, perhaps with some penalties, depending on the command structure. It's reduced to 250 men. Next time, the last 750 men get blown away, and the city is taken.
Other factors could include fatique, the "will" to fight, and availability of supplies.

Clear as a crystal, and so easy to implement, eh?

If this wouldn't work, then something like in the panzer general games.

[Vince278]

Originally posted by vmxa1
Slax in addition to staying TBS, I would want it to not be 3D.

Ditto.

[Dis]

3D is okay- as long as it is done well. Civ3 is 3D isn't it?