Simple way to make CIV more "real"

[TomCB]

I would like to see areas of the map get named.
Such and such mountain range, jungle, ocean etc.
A diplomatic option could be made available to tell other powers that a given ara is claimed or not claimed, and may be defended.
I think this would add depth to the game on several levels.
How about major battle sites, such as where a great leader was created, getting a icon over it to show historical importance.

I would like the ability to make navel fleets, like armies on the high seas.

Other minor wonders could include things like military academies and massive war game training area along the lines of the several the US army maintains.

I will repeat the need for canals, that could be a Panama canal type of thing.
This would be best if it was actually shown on the map like roads are now.

I would like the ability to not allow other powers to tap into my irrigation without permission. Another diplomatic option?

And I would like the ability to refuse some squares that I have cultural control over, and insist on a neighbor surrender certain squares they control, perhaps offering a trade. This would help even out the borders.

How about a non-aggression pact, instead of only a mutual protection pact.

Maybe we can create a list of things that we all would like to see.

[swagled]

Because there are multiple AIs and only one "you", I think territorial boundaries would be to the detriment of the human. The map would "fill up" much faster and you'd feel like there's nowhere to grow. I have a feeling it would be another cumbersome thing to manage, and it would make the map cluttered. (If this was done, founding a city in land that is just "claimed" should be nothing more than a reputation hit, not grounds for war.)

I might like the ability to negotiate a "permenant border" with other civs, though. This would be something you can only do after establishing a peace treaty. And crossing a permenant border is an automatic declaration of war, and a *major* reputation hit.

You also could not extend your border into that civ, using cultural improvements or by building a city on your frontier. The whole point is "peace and security", like borders today. You're "satisifed" with your borders and want to be left alone. (None of this means that a city behind a permenent border can't "flip", though. But again, accepting a city behind a permenant border is an act of war.)

Historians will say that no borders are permenant. But some are more permenant than others...

[Panag]

hi ,

in oreder to make it more real we shall need several things , here are some ; a second UU or a UU for each era , canals like Panama or Bosphorus , bigger map , more buildings , a jail , fire house , etc , ...... more units , like a C-130 , a ship that can take a special type of heli , random events like fire's , flood's etc , ..... , terraforming , .....

and so on and on

but what is really needed is the option to create scenario's like in civilization II , ...... !

have a nice day

[bobbo008]

I agree with a lot of that. Rivers, in many cases, form borders, for example. Too often the borders just go back and forth in this game. I do, to some extent, agree with claiming territory. Just because you have a four square space in your territory shouldn't mean the AI instantly plants a city there.

[Panag]

Originally posted by bobbo008
I agree with a lot of that. Rivers, in many cases, form borders, for example. Too often the borders just go back and forth in this game. I do, to some extent, agree with claiming territory. Just because you have a four square space in your territory shouldn't mean the AI instantly plants a city there.

hi ,

it would be great for scenario's if you can draw some borders on the map , borders that would stay the same except if war would break out , .....

thats an option that would be worth it to be included , .....

have a nice day

[bobbo008]

Stupid cultural borders. They don't go back and forth based on culture. Would a small area of French want to join Germany? Not very likely.

About claiming territory, though. You should be able to claim some, and maybe some way for the AI to look at that... For example, if you claim an entire continent, the AI would think that that isn't a very legit claim, and ignores it basically. If you claim a small area outside your cultural borders based on maybe a river, or up to a range of mountains, it may be more willing to respect that claim.

edit:

Civs never really "bond". You can go from "gracious" to "annoyed" in several turns. There is no way to have relationships like in the real world, for example the U.S. and Canada/Mexico.

[Darkknight]

Most of what you say I agree with however some may be too cumbersome for the average player who doesn't want to get into the micromanagement of the game. This would be a benefit for those that are willing to micromanage which of course most people wont like :\

I really would like to see canals in the game. This was an early promise but along with many other early promises they were cut.

I'd be surprised if we saw any more major improvements such as what you're talking about in official patches tho. Even if there are any more patches for Civ3 original I'd be surprised if they contained any more then bug fixes.

[brianshapiro]

why didnt firaxis have it so sometimes if theres a large amount of cities in disorder they revolt to a new civ , instead of just joining another culture.

bobo , yes a small area of france would have flipped to germany ,etc in the 10th century maybe when cultural borders were looser. cultural flips to nonnative cultures are a lot harder later in the game anyway for built cities with large culture points ie after nationalism. still today one can imagine regions of some nations revolting most wouldnt join an existing nation though , except maybe cases like british columbia and other conservative regions of canada where some want to join the US. but in the game , a size 20 city with many monuments has a low chance of switching from the original culture then a high chance of switching back from an invading force.

but cultural flipping isnt unrealistic for reasons above. its very messy as a historical model but its a stupid abstraction for godsakes . there arent ever 7 set monolithic civilizations start from there

[Panag]

Originally posted by brianshapiro
why didnt firaxis have it so sometimes if theres a large amount of cities in disorder they revolt to a new civ , instead of just joining another culture.

bobo , yes a small area of france would have flipped to germany ,etc in the 10th century maybe when cultural borders were looser. cultural flips to nonnative cultures are a lot harder later in the game anyway for built cities with large culture points ie after nationalism. still today one can imagine regions of some nations revolting most wouldnt join an existing nation though , except maybe cases like british columbia and other conservative regions of canada where some want to join the US. but in the game , a size 20 city with many monuments has a low chance of switching from the original culture then a high chance of switching back from an invading force.

but cultural flipping isnt unrealistic for reasons above. its very messy as a historical model but its a stupid abstraction for godsakes . there arent ever 7 set monolithic civilizations start from there

hi ,

and then to say that in civII its possible to have revolutions with even new civ's emerging , ...... , this should have been included in civIII , .....

have a nice day

[swagled]

Culture flips have happened in the real world. "New Amsterdam" became "New York" quite willingly. But then there are counter-examples like Gibraltar where people just refuse to give in.

I'd say what culture flipping is really trying to emulate is immigration. People don't usually revolt in their own city to join another country. They usually just leave. It would probably be less obtrusive and "realistic" to have a game option for cities to simply "leak population" rather than flip.

[bobbo008]

"yes a small area of france would have flipped to germany ,etc in the 10th century maybe when cultural borders were looser"

...umm... how about NO? Let's look at an example favorable to you: During the Napoleonic era, France was arguably the most powerful nation on Earth. Any nation under French control, including parts of Germany, weren't exactly happy about it, even with French cultural/military superiority

[TomCB]

Cultural COnversions

If memory serves, Napoleon was around in the 18th century, when nations were more "concrete" or established than they were in the 10th century.

Think more of Rome, where conqurered peoples soon welcomed the benefits of being Roman, at least for a time.

Even the various nations which were "graced" with British rule have benefited in one way or another from it, at least from a western point of view.

I guess I can buy culteral conversions until say around 1500 AD Earth standard.

After that, I think it would take the form of either natural alliance or hatred.
Form of government should take a far greater role in the whole affair as well.

Another thing.
Religion, if properly implimented, could play a dynamic role in CIV IV.
Afterall, religion has had some "small" role in Earth history.

[elcapjtk]

Yes, new Civilizations sprouting up from a civil war was always entertaining.

Haha I took your capitol... and half of your cities just declared independance!

[Mark_Everson]

Evolving cultural/civ characteristics would add another dimension to the game.

Something reasonable with cultures that evolve could make a decent mini-game so long as the player only needs to nudge it every 30 turns or so. One of the biggest cultural impacts IMO is corruption (real-world, not civ type). If corruption gets too big a foothold then its almost impossible to advace reasonably well. Despotisms could evolve toward more corruption naturally. Of course despotism sucks anyway, so maybe this isn't needed.

[bobbo008]

The Celtic people or people of Scotland, to my knowledge, never wanted to join ANYBODY, including the Romans and the English through the thousand or so years of contact. Remember, most of the Roman territories were conquered, and at first, the conquered peoples were given full citizenship, which is why Rome was so successful.