Civ IV: The List v.2.0

[Mongoloid Cow]

Been doin' more thinking (Still on a roll)

REPLY TO POST:

Rasbelin, losts of people have had that idea!!! No one knows the first ever to suggest it!!!!!!!!!!!!



SCENARIO EDITOR:

With regards to this, there definately needs to be more options with it! It should be in Civ 3!!! You can't even place a city, or say where a civ starts. That's pretty bad.


RELIGION:

Religion could also play an integral part in diplomacy - two civs of the same state religion would like each other more than two civs with different state religions.


RESOURCES:

Got this one from a TV show (can't remember which!!!)
Roses = used to make dyes, perfumes, for decorations, flags in wars (War of the Roses), incense, chemistry, pH testing, art, sculpture, smbolises love; anyway they made Persia, Media and Elam extremely rich in ancient times, and were an expensive luxury well into the 17th Century.

[DarkCloud]

Updated all thru page 2- all is up except, page 3 ideas

Good work Spiffor
Thank you for the explanation, Narmox, I added the ideas.

I believe I'll submit this Dec 10th or the 20th... Any objections?

[DarkCloud]

XIV. Religion
I think different
religions could be implemented like any governmental
forms. It could have some kind of effect on the
cultural expansion and support certain governmental
forms. They would also replace the lack of fundamentalism
in the game.
-Rasbelin


General information

Every civ would have a state religion that would be practiced in all cities of that civ. The ruler of the civ could implement different religions that he would have the prequisites for. Each religion/ideology would have different effects and features. The ruler could also decide that there wouldn't be any state religion at all. The religions would also affect certain city improvements. The ruler wouldn't be able to adopt any religions/ideologies before inventing Ceremonial Burial. Before that there wouldn't be any common worship of higher powers. There wouldn't be any common religious city improvemnets like the Temple and Cathedral. Instead all religions would have their own ones. The Wonders of the World would still be the same as usual. Every religion/ideology would also have a specified attitude towards other religions/ideologies. That would give some benefits in decrease or increase of war weariness when having war against a civ with a certain religion. Example: If the Aztecs have Islam as their state religion, the war weariness would be slightly increased when fighting against the Islamistic Germans.

What new would be added?

- A new advisor, the Cleric Advisor. He would work as the spiritual matters and theology advisor of the player. Implementing state religions would be done in his screen, where you could also monitor the status of your empire's spiritual life.

- Different religions and ideologies reflecting the different eras. Each of them would have their own prequisites, features and city improvements.

- New RCIs (RCI=religious city improvement).

Example religion

Indigenious religion

Prequisites: Ceremonial Burial.
RCI: --
Effects: Additional luxuries in the capital city. Boosts any Despotic goverment by paying 1 unit's support in the capital. Decreases the overall science production per turn.
Attitude to other religions: Cautious.

Comments: Indigenious religions doesn't usually have any temples, so therefore they don't have any RCI. The effects in the capital reflects that the leader is often seen as a person comparable to the gods. Indigenious religions doesn't support science, so that's reflected in the drop of science production.
-Rasbelin

With regards to Rasbelin's idea of religion, maybe after certain technological achievements, different types of religion pops up with each better than the last.

For example: (needs work)

All citizens start of Animistic. With Ceremonial Burial, they can build a shrine/idolia/deific building
After researching Polytheism, Polytheic priests pop up. The shrines are upgraded to temples are more effective.
After researching Monotheism, larger and better forms of happiness/cultural are available, and a HOLY WAR can be declared where all nations with that religion as the state religion are invited to join in without reputation damage.
-Mongoloid Cow

Indigenous Religions- no temples; auto=temple effects.
Drop in Science rates.
-DarkCloud

religion should be like culture, in fact in abstract religion could be seen as part of civ3's culture simulation.
Religion can also influence and allow taking over of people like culture does.
Perhaps you need enough religious points (or culture) before you can install a State Religion. Religions could be banned, like roman catholicisism was in early protestant england(15-17th century at least).
-Admiral PJ

religion,like shogun, can make you friends and enemies.
like government changing.
it can cause revolts, immigration, new civs.
each religion has a rating that is how many citizens are that religion.
each citizen has its religion, like nationality
etc.
-tishco

XV. City Improvements
Superhighways
Stock exchanges
-EnochF

More improvements and worker abilities to boost demographic growth : modern farmland (which positive effect is cumulative with railroad), industrial fishing harbours, which produce three food per water tile instead of two. Agro-industrial complex as a city improvement which raises the food output by 25% or 50% in the city. A very modern agriculture feeds more than 200 people for one peasant after all.
-Spiffor

Some projects would need not only industrial production to be built, but also money and science. I think about wonders particularly : to build the SETI program, you would use the normal shield production (say, it needs 200 shields), but also the scientific output (600) and and some money directly (200, these figures are just examples), since SETI programs dosn't need ultra big buildings but ultra big research
-Spiffor

XVI. The Map

3D landscape ala SMAC or even better
-John Paul Jones

Railroad tycoon's elevated landscape w/transparent oceans.
-John Paul Jones

A 'Spinnable' Spherical view of the globe.
-John Paul Jones

I would like to play on a world which is actually shaped like a sphere. This would mean abandoning the square grid, as a square grid can't fit on a sphere. This would affect how cities fit on the grid and would affect the game at every level.
-Wombat

XVII. Civilizations

Growth oriented civs, with following bonuses : Extra food in town / city / metropolis. Growth oriented improvements twice cheaper.
-Spiffor

Every civ could have two different rulers available for being chosen as the civ's leader. Example: Americans - George Washington and Woodrow Wilson.
-Rasbelin

Barbarians, through capturing cities, could become civilizations themselves, over time. Thus we start with 8-10 civs on the map at the beginning and can end with 16 simultaneous civilizations.
In addition, some civilizations (ex: USSR) can split apart, through a peaceful coup, or a civil war.
-narmox

Close allies should be able to join each others civilization if the civs are much alike (examples: USSR)
-DarkCloud

[Powerslave]

Great ideas and here is another one...

[QUOTE] Originally posted by narmox
oh yeah, something else.. "Dynamic Civilizations"

currently, all Civs are static. 4000 BC, you've got a bunch of nations, and provided none of them get conquered, you'll have the same 6000 years later. Totally unlike history.


Why couldn't the player/ai just represant a culture and at some points he could form nations. I would like to see the globe litered with cultures from start. First you only can form tribes but later on full fledge empires.

[cassembler]

the SMAC 3d terrain... That would look SOOO good with earth-like graphics.

[rid102]

Have you guys noticed anything odd about this thread:

a) There were similar threads about "What We Want in Civ3" and basically most (nearly all AFAIK) ideas were ignored by Firaxis (who just did their own thing).

b) Why do people sit down and write a load of really useful and imaginative suggestions even though they know that their ideas are highly unlikely to even be paid attention to by Firaxis let alone become part of a release product?

c) If you really have a desire to further the genre then why don't you join one of the (many) freeware Civilization clone projects that are going on around the 'net (see "Alternative Civilizations") and be part of turning your ideas into a game?

Anyone who doesn't realise nor can provide sensible answers for the points above, should realise that any ideas posted here - no matter how good - are just a waste of fantasists' time.

[DarkCloud]

rid- Firaxis posts here and has posted here before; they look at the dieas and consider them...

anyways, alt.civs do come here and raid ideas periodically.

I have all the new ideas added but did not update because It would only have been about 3 new ones.

Thank you for the submissions.

Powerslave- I already believe that IS the system.

[Mongoloid Cow]

Hmmm.... Interesting...


Firaxis doe pay attention to what the fans have to say; it's just that the fans' ideas go through one ear easily, and out the other even easier. But they know whats best for a game - they have "experience".

[Adagio]

rid: I don't know about the others, but I like to talk about ideas for games even knowing the chances for them to get into the game is small, it's still somehow fun to talk about them

[tishco]

we cant code more than game maker

[Icewine]

If we are really talking about a new Civilization game, let’s start at the beginning.

I have always found it odd that the world in the beginning is essentially empty. My warriors and scouts can roam for many centuries and encounter nothing (huge map). Sure it’s easy and safe but it is not as fun and unpredictable and dangerous as it could be. I think that the world should be fully inhabited, right at the beginning. The world should be full of proto-civilisations just teetering on the edge of becoming sedentary and civilised. Very few of them have the capacity to collect a food surplus, or engage in trade and research. A few will be able to produce military units, perhaps one in 20. A select few (the players and the computer opponents) will be able to collect food, to trade, to research, and to grow empires. Maybe in time, more of the proto-civilisations will be able to become more civilised.

In game terms, this would be reflected by having proto-cities spaced every 2 to 5 tiles apart (depending on terrain, few in deserts and mountains, lots of flood plains). In other words, the world is full of people and minor cities. To survive, you must convince them to join your civilisation. When one of your units enters the proto-city, instead of the automatic and random results of Civs 1 to 3, a diplomacy screen should open. The results of the diplomatic action would range from open hostility (combat) to fear (giving tribute) to cultural acceptance (founding a new city). But the results of your diplomatic action would not be random. Rather they would be based primarily on your civilisation’s cultural rating and the distance to your capital and your nearest city. If you say the right things and your civilisation’s culture is high enough then the proto-city will join your empire. If you are too far away from your capital, then the proto-city has never heard of you, and will reject your overtures. If you have a reputation for destroying other proto-cities, you may find a hostile reception.

You may also send out settlers, but some of the same conditions apply. If they are too far away from the capital, they will revert to a proto-city state, as they are too far away from your control. (This provides an easy and logical control for ICS.) So your empire can only grow as your culture grows. Remember Alexander? He established a vast empire. And (in game terms) it reverted quite quickly.

As a result, the most important thing that a new civilisation must do is to establish a strong culture. With a strong culture, its citizens have purpose, the cities thrive and the empire will grow. Probably spontaneously. With a weak culture, your citizens don’t feel a part of anything worthwhile and you lose control of your own cities.

I have few more similar ideas, and I should reread this, but I am at work

[Marko Polo]

Domestic Advisor

I'd like "Domestic Advisor" screen tweaked as follows:

- the advisor should start her reports from the most serious ones:

1. "city is revolting"
2. "city is unhappy" (will revolt next turn)
3. "city is not growing"
4. The city is content/happy

Right now these reports comes in random order.

- when advisor says "Rheims is unhappy", the city name should be underlined and if I click on it I should get the city screen.

- I can sort the cities by various columns (food, production etc.) but the effect only lasts a few seconds and then the city list reverts to the default order. The effect of sorting should stay until I sort it otherways.

- the revolting/unhappy cities should be red in the list

Another nice thing would be see the total of rebelling/unhappy cities in the lower right status box. I wouldn't end my turn knowing that my cities will revolt next turn.

[DarkCloud]

Originally posted by Icewine
If we are really talking about a new Civilization game, let’s start at the beginning.

I have always found it odd that the world in the beginning is essentially empty. My warriors and scouts can roam for many centuries and encounter nothing (huge map). Sure it’s easy and safe but it is not as fun and unpredictable and dangerous as it could be. I think that the world should be fully inhabited, right at the beginning. The world should be full of proto-civilisations just teetering on the edge of becoming sedentary and civilised. Very few of them have the capacity to collect a food surplus, or engage in trade and research. A few will be able to produce military units, perhaps one in 20. A select few (the players and the computer opponents) will be able to collect food, to trade, to research, and to grow empires. Maybe in time, more of the proto-civilisations will be able to become more civilised.

But Icewine- the game starts from 2000-5000 BC... In that time there were few empires and almost no civilizations and few tribes.

The ideas seem good for a different game from Civilization, except for this one: which I will gladly add to the list:

You may also send out settlers, but some of the same conditions apply. If they are too far away from the capital, they will revert to a proto-city state, as they are too far away from your control. (This provides an easy and logical control for ICS.) So your empire can only grow as your culture grows. Remember Alexander? He established a vast empire. And (in game terms) it reverted quite quickly.

As a result, the most important thing that a new civilisation must do is to establish a strong culture. With a strong culture, its citizens have purpose, the cities thrive and the empire will grow. Probably spontaneously. With a weak culture, your citizens don’t feel a part of anything worthwhile and you lose control of your own cities.

Marko- thank you!

[DarkCloud]

Next week I will most likely not be able to post at all- however, the week following, I will put up the final list- and if someone wishes to, (s)he can go through the list and look for spelling errors, etc... what ever they wish to fix, then they can tell me what to correct and I shall-

Thank you all.

[HolyWarrior]

One thing I would like to see is that if a sea square is explored, it is considered a link, and your civ could move along them like a railroad. 20 years to circumnavigate the world is too unrealistic. Even Magellan only took 3!

Social engineering a la SMAC.

Political--Monarchy, Republic, Democratic
Economic--Capitalist, Communist, Fascist
Religious--Polytheism, Monotheism, Existentialism
Scientific--Philosophy, Scientific Method, another to be named