Tweet
2 radical ideas for Civ4
Here are two new game concepts that i think would make for a better civ game, Civ4:
Manpower: the civ line horribly undervalues the importance of population. The mongols are an important civ because they conquered many but they themselves never built much if anything- all their people were busy either fighting or herding- no time, or place really, to create large agricultural cities. I think that there should be a value called manpower, based on pop. To do ANYTHING, you would need a certain amount of manpower- to farm, to build, to run buildings. Thus, buildings not only need the money to be run, but the people to staff them. War would become more difficult since creating units would mean lowering the available manpower for other things- since your men are away at war. This concept could certainly be made more complex (diff. between skilled and unskilled labor, so forth) if anyone wanted- but the basic notion I think is sound and would make for a much deeper gaming experience.
Private property. In civ, all economic activity is centrally controlled all the time, from the beginning fo history to the end. Even a liberal democracy has a centralized economy with the gamer in control of every dime not lost to horribly overdone corruption. I say that there should be private economy- this would help make a bigger diff between govs. All economic activity begins private but over time the government gains the ability to control a greater and greater proportion of it- a modern government can, if it chooses, bring all economic production under its control- kings in medeival europe could not. The Tax rate would be just that, the amount of the total economy the gov uses for itself- the rest in the hands of private individuals. This would also finally make administrative techs key- since better bureacrcy would allow you to draw more money from the people, thus you can do more. Like manpower, this concept can be further refined, but again, i think it would make for a much deeper gaming experience.
Manpower: the civ line horribly undervalues the importance of population. The mongols are an important civ because they conquered many but they themselves never built much if anything- all their people were busy either fighting or herding- no time, or place really, to create large agricultural cities. I think that there should be a value called manpower, based on pop. To do ANYTHING, you would need a certain amount of manpower- to farm, to build, to run buildings. Thus, buildings not only need the money to be run, but the people to staff them. War would become more difficult since creating units would mean lowering the available manpower for other things- since your men are away at war. This concept could certainly be made more complex (diff. between skilled and unskilled labor, so forth) if anyone wanted- but the basic notion I think is sound and would make for a much deeper gaming experience.
Private property. In civ, all economic activity is centrally controlled all the time, from the beginning fo history to the end. Even a liberal democracy has a centralized economy with the gamer in control of every dime not lost to horribly overdone corruption. I say that there should be private economy- this would help make a bigger diff between govs. All economic activity begins private but over time the government gains the ability to control a greater and greater proportion of it- a modern government can, if it chooses, bring all economic production under its control- kings in medeival europe could not. The Tax rate would be just that, the amount of the total economy the gov uses for itself- the rest in the hands of private individuals. This would also finally make administrative techs key- since better bureacrcy would allow you to draw more money from the people, thus you can do more. Like manpower, this concept can be further refined, but again, i think it would make for a much deeper gaming experience.
--> 
--> 
Comment