Civ4 Suggestions

[Kuciwalker]

Fosse - it doesn't really make sense the way you proposed it. That's something like a processing plant, except you're producing "energy" (which seems to be represented somewhat like electrical power). I like Spiffor's idea.

[altF18]

On declaring war, this is a good concept.
instead of being able to run around executing battles at will for the sake of it, you must first declare war on your enemy nation. but first, you must consult the senate if your government is Republic or Democratic.
Yes, i support revival of the Senate. but not as a simple pop up. instead, in the menu with your Ministers, there also would be the Senate. here, the screen could look like a forum of a semi-circular auditorium, seated with vague senators. perhaps they could be animated to appear swaying or whatever. for sound, you could here an unintelligent babble of voices (representing the senators chatting)
anyway, beside that point , under this aethestic setting you would see your options with the senate.
these would be Acts & Bills, where you choose to enact or repeal them ( the senate gets the final say)
and Declaration of War. you must get permission to launch war from these guys before you declare war to the enemy (or not - like stated before, you need not declare war openly) most likely the senate would allow it, since that's the reason they we;re booted in the first place, but under certain circuimstances they'd veto your call. these would be if the civ is friendly with you, or perhaps a strong trade partner. or if war weariness is still in effect from say, a previous war.
Besides those two options, more can be added to this new Senate, but i'll leave that to speculation.

[Andropov]

A couple of quick ideas.

1) Make the UN a real political body with resolutions and peacekeeping ability. Maybe give the top two or three civs a veto ability.

2) With republics and democracies, have a few different parties that get elected to the governing body. Make them a generic reflection of what the people want. Have election cycles and maybe a way to influence the outcome and give the governing body some minor powers. Also, include a constitutional monarchy and fascism as choices.

3) Have an olympic city selected every four years based on different factors after 1896, maybe it will give the city owner some extra cash and diplomatic points with other countries.

4) ZOC for fortresses like in Civ 2.

5) Let air units destroy ground and naval units, I think Iraq, Kosovo, and other engagements have shown the power of air and artillery units.

6) Allow 'barbarians' to form minor one city nations in the modern era...they can be either peaceful or warlike.

[ahasverus]

3 ideas
1) What did always happen when a city could'n grow any bigger? If your saying that then the surplus people left to make a new city then youre right Suggestion every time a city has piled up some amount of food -free settler, now the beauty of this is that it stops as soon you get hospital or whatever you call it and that correspond fairly with the time in tech that at least western civs stopped building new cities other than suburbian.
2) Rebellion, you conquer a city now how does the inhabitants react well that depends on 4 things A) History have you before attacked them B) How closely are you related are you of the same group you know asian european american or middleeastern C) Do you have same religion/social engineering whatever and D) what techlevel does the conquerer have you know its easiere to maintain dominance with boomsticks than with oh another army with guns.
3) combatsystem like in Total War turnbased in civilian mode realtime in battlemode ofcourse just for us who really like to see our army roll up the weak enemy + no more spearman defeats tank unless youre very very bad at tactics.

[altF18]

Make the UN a real political body with resolutions and peacekeeping ability. Maybe give the top two or three civs a veto ability.

here's my (quite long) proposal for a new UN.

A New United Nations

first off, there's the 'Security Council' which would be made up of, of course, the builder of the UN, and four other civs currently friendly with it. instead of these civs being selected by the builder, they are automatically chosen on the bases of military power - the four military superpowers at the time,
on good terms with the builder take up the other seats of the Security Council.
this status is permanent, and regardless of stances taken later or even war - no civ can be booted off the council or their veto not count.
as for the rest of the world, in theory, they automatically join and become part of the UN. there is no choice on entrance, or even the choice to join or not. once the UN is built, all Civs could access its functions, with the SC residing over their requests. (afterall, IRL, only a few and minor states aren't in one
way or other part of the UN, and it would be too much, micromanagement to decide who joins or doesn't. )
so, now there would be a new screen to access under a World menu. This would the United Nations.
once you select it, you'd come to a screen featuring (before the UN symbol) the potraits of the Five SC members and their country names.
beneath that would be a list of options you could put before the UN. these would be things like, Request Sanctions (specify civ) Request Lift Sanctions,
Request Treaty (for a third civ to sign forcefully, the treaty would be any of the ones that could be made via Diplomacy - of course there being a few more, perhaps ala CtP2. )
Request Intervention (for a 'peacekeeping' mission, or war by all members on specified civ) Request Stop War (for weak nations to plea to the UN for bigger fries to stop attacking them).
i'd also suggest Request Condemnation of another Civ, but what consequences would that bring?
anyway, after any civ, even one of the SC, makes a request to the UN, the five members would vote on the request, to either Veto or pass it.
as it goes, one Veto would nullify the request. if it is passed, than the request would be awarded.
if a SC member makes a request, its vote is already a pass.
when the UN is summoned for by a nation to make a request, everyone is not engaged as in diplomacy. instead, only the requester would see the screen, make his request, and than wait for the vote outcome.
if only AI's vote, you will recieve one almost immediately. if you or other players are voting for an AI or other players request, and you are a SC member, one the request was made, a small box would pop up
(with the UN symbol) stating the terms of the request. beneath would be two options - Veto or pass.
after the vote, it would be annonced whether the action was Vetoed, or whatever new resolution was passed. non Security Council members do not get to vote, regardless of whatever little say they have in real life.
as i said before, everyone could access the options of the UN.

With republics and democracies, have a few different parties that get elected to the governing body. Make them a generic reflection of what the people want. Have election cycles and maybe a way to influence the outcome and give the governing body some minor powers. Also, include a constitutional monarchy and fascism as choices.

hmm, i thought of a Senate idea...
it's just a few posts up, but i'll re-post it here for convenience

The Senate

instead of being able to run around executing battles at will for the sake of it, you must first declare war on your enemy nation. but first, you must consult the senate if your government is Republic or Democratic.
Yes, i support revival of the Senate. but not as a simple pop up. instead, in the menu with your Ministers, there also would be the Senate. here, the screen could look like a forum of a semi-circular auditorium, seated with vague senators. perhaps they could be animated to appear swaying or whatever. for sound, you could here an unintelligent babble of voices (representing the senators chatting)
anyway, beside that point , under this aethestic setting you would see your options with the senate.
these would be Acts & Bills, where you choose to enact or repeal them ( the senate gets the final say)
and Declaration of War. you must get permission to launch war from these guys before you declare war to the enemy (or not - like stated before, you need not declare war openly) most likely the senate would allow it, since that's the reason they we;re booted in the first place, but under certain circuimstances they'd veto your call. these would be if the civ is friendly with you, or perhaps a strong trade partner. or if war weariness is still in effect from say, a previous war.
Besides those two options, more can be added to this new Senate, but i'll leave that to speculation.

[Panag]

hi ,

great ideas alf

we should see UN interventions , the un should not have cities , if they have any they should be taken over after a random choice by the AI , so that either the civ that took over the city or its orginal owner can hav eit back , ....

or they should not be able at all to take them over , ....

have a nice day

[Master Zen]

Someone PLEEEASE send this thread over to Firaxis



(BTW, I hope a new XP will be the rumored "big announcement" at the next E3)

[WarpStorm]

Why? They know it's here.

[alva]

Posted this in a other thread too, but this one seems to be the busier one.
-
Mainly an MP thingy;

Camouflage worker option:
In MP IMO it would be great to create dummy resources (both strategic and lux), they could 'evaporate' as soon as the enemy controls the tile.
Or just being able to camouflage the real ones would be a start.
-
'Nother worker action:
Sandbaggs to put on perimiters, not for defense bonusses, but to slow down units. The only other option we now have is building forests but they have a couple of drawbacks and weren't realy intended to be used as such.

[Panag]

Originally posted by alva
Posted this in a other thread too, but this one seems to be the busier one.
-
Mainly an MP thingy;

Camouflage worker option:
In MP IMO it would be great to create dummy resources (both strategic and lux), they could 'evaporate' as soon as the enemy controls the tile.
Or just being able to camouflage the real ones would be a start.
-
'Nother worker action:
Sandbaggs to put on perimiters, not for defense bonusses, but to slow down units. The only other option we now have is building forests but they have a couple of drawbacks and weren't realy intended to be used as such.

hi ,


, great , but only during war or so , ....

and this should be not only for workers , you can buy those blow tanks after a new tech or so , ....

"camouflage" should also be worked into the game , ....

have a nice day

[altF18]

A New Economic, Trade and Resource Model - and Victory

Here's my proposal for a new Economic/Resource Model plus a Globalization Victory.
It's up in another thread but i thought i should move it here, since discussion dies down easily in other civ 4 idea threads, whereas this one is, well, sortof official.

anyway, here is my Economic Concept for Civ 4
(quite long)

A New Economic Model and Globalization Victory

the victory would take place when your Economic influence on all other nations is powerful enough to keep them under your will. Their countries, though remaining sovereign, would be markets for goods you control, and so you would be the dominant power of Globalization. Making a certain lump sum of cash does not determine your victory.
You must establish yourself as the worlds economic superpower by eliminating competition in trade and supplying a good deal of the world demand.
Of course, you still might need a strong military to maintain security and influence over rogue-minded states. And sometimes you could flex your military muscle to crush other aspiring economic powers…
And you may require strong cultural influence (this is not flipping) over other civs to get recognition and appreciation from the people of your market states. This would make them friendlier to you and more apt to want to purchase your goods (other than an opponents – perhaps even regarless of price)
All of what I mention is impossible in civ 3, so of course I’m talking civ 4…

as for the big major changes that may be required for a sophisticated yet simple Economic system...

- the Resource model would be upgraded completely
they would follow Spiffor’s per turn concept (in civ 4 sugg.) and yield designated amounts. For example, one silk resource would give your city 4 silks. (on the display, you would see the silk icon and beneath it, the amount your city is receiving – SILK (4) )
Luxury goods would be based upon a new system called Supply and Demand.
With this system, every luxury good you know of will be demanded by your citizens, in varying quantities.
So your city might be demanding 3 silk. If provided. these would in turn make 3 citizens happy (or content) and also generate you, say, 30 gold per turn. Excess silk (not demanded) would have no effect and bring in only 1 gold each. So if you had one silk good and were collecting four silks in the city, 3 of these would be benefiting you. One would be unnecessary and therefore ideal for, either sending to one of your cities that demand silk, or, a new concept, putting it up on the international market (similar to Call to Power’s) for other civs to consider buying.
Trade would be its own thing and not an aspect of diplomacy.
So, after putting the good up on the market, its value would be 20 gold, or any other automatically determined price. You have the choice of taxing, or putting a tariff on it of any amount up to an extra 5 gold.
If you had multiple of the same good on the market, its value would decrease. So where one silk was worth 20 gold (plus your taxes), having two available would bring the price down to 18, and every other would also decrease the value in a set amount. For my example, the price drops by two, so 5 silks on the market would make their value 12 gold. Though this makes it less valuable to you, the AI would usually go after cheaper prices. So having a wide range of product would give you a higher advantage of being bought. And also, you could cover multiple markets and thus have multiple income. So selling two silks for 18 gold would bring you 36 gold, but four for 14 would allocate 56. And there’s always taxes to jack up the price.
The force behind the market is that there will hardly be enough resources in your own territory to supply your civ with all the required luxuries (emphasized more so with Demand) strategic, and energy resources.
So as an alternative to forcefully acquiring these goods by war, you could conduct trade on the international market. Of course, strengthening your own market capacity is a necessity to succeed in having a trade empire, since you’ll need a broad supply of goods. This can be achieved through Imperialism – setting up colonial empires all over the world by conquering Minor Tribes and rival civs and directly controlling resources – or by re-trade, you buy mass quantities from suppliers and in turn sell them, at a higher price, to demanders. Another option, which motivates the title of the victory, is Globalization. Coming with the modern era and the so-named Tech, you gain the ability to invest in resources around the world. (if you want to look at it through a Realistic POV, instead of thinking CEO, rather assume you simply appoint the investment, and Corporations and contractors set up their branches there. You collect the taxes )
This means you have the ability to ‘own’ goods in foreign territory without ruling the area. You’ll need a connected network since the goods would be sent to your own city.
Investments could only be made in free market states – Communist and strict despotic governments disallow foreign investment. (and maybe limit purchases of foreign luxuries?)
To invest in a region, you would need a stronger economic influence – a nation like France would not be able to invest in America, to use a RW example. (hmm, could anyone invest in American territory?)
Since you’ll be depriving the owner civ of a potentially valuable commodity, there would have to be at least a semi-fair price. Lump sums or per turn payments would be negotiated. Since its free enterprise, the host civ would be obliged to accept an investment. (as long as it thinks the price is right)
This would be a major peaceful benefiting factor for the Economically minded. A strong transnational income would be a plus for your market – and you could in turn sell these goods on the market.
To achieve the Globalization victory, you would need to control at least 60% of the Globalized market – resources from foreign investments, and have a dominant standing on the International market so that all nations would be on the life-support of your monopolies. Instead of just having a strong economy, you’d need a strong economic hold on your rivals. Instead of conquering their cities, you would have to control 60% of their imports, making them dependent on your economy. And that’s to every civ on the map. You need to establish your market presence worldwide. (make sure every country has its golden arches )
Your dominant market presence.
And thus I call it a Globalization victory instead of simply an Economic one.
An alternative to bloodlust, a solution for small civs (establish investments) and an emphasis on an important, but always left out factor.
For those who prefer war and don’t want to bother with trade or economy, you don’t necessarily have to. Afterall, conquering your neighbors brings about relatively the same thing.
So there’s no new level of needed micromanagement, and you wont be forced to build a dominant, or even strong, market presence.

That’s my proposal for a “new” economic system and victory.
What does everyone think?

[altF18]

Minor Tribes, Barbarians and Potential Nations...

resurectting another old idea of mine to keep alive...

like the one above ^

Potential Nations and Minor Tribes, Barbarians

also think a new concept could be added here.
instead of just being barbarian nations, they could be potential nations. that is, camps belong to potential nations, such as Australia, but while they're barbarians, the name of Australia doesn't even exist. instead, camps are nameless, and are indentified as in civ 3. Aborigine Encampment would be for potential Australia, or Sioux Encampment if the potential nation is America. Some nations can have more than one tribal names. For instance, potential Canada could have Haida, Inuit and Cree encampments.
All of these tribes would simply be names for the Barbarian nations, and they would share the same border.
You could conduct primitive diplomacy with the tribes, trade, declare war against enemies and everything else Spiffor said, or you could conquer the natives. Of course they will put up a defense, but you should usually win since their units would never be up-to-date as the real civs.
Now Spiffor suggested you name the cities yourself, but I think perhaps, when you conquer a camp and occupy it (instead of raze) and it becomes a city, a name would already be suggested, based upon the potential civ of the barbarians. The reasoning would be, like I suggested, that the city name was selected based on the local land and people. Now I know the settlers bring their own cultures and stuff, but, this would give colonized lands a distinct feel and also reduce the name reuse and those horrible “City 2’s”
So if you conquer a barbaric French camp, it would suggest a name like Paris.

Besides non-playing civ barbarians, which may be an option, there would also be unique barbarian potential civs. These could be places like Peru, who’s camps would be called Incan, Indonesia, Afghanistan, Pakistan even, just to get it in the game though that would be historically inaccurate, and etc.
Thus a good amount of nations ‘may’ enter later on in the game. These non-civ nations wouldn’t be able to build settlers so not to clutter the world, but everything else would work accordingly. That’s why I suggested the riddance of leaderheads. But I agree with everything you said about involvement and all that – and though I personally think civ 3’s leaders are too cartoonish, I guess they are a necessary part of the game.
(Though, to make them more versatile, they could go be static again – and thus male and female…
Or your own picture…).
For the non-civ nations, perhaps the United Nations symbol would be present.

Now for how tribes, as I will call them, become nations or civilizations, well, like civs, when you take their cities, they will have citizens of their nationality (or the nationality of the potential civ) the concept would be the same, these guys would have the chance to revolt unless you subdue them enough, or keep them happy. If they revolt, the new nation would take on the name of the potential civ of the barbarians.


So if you annoy the people of a city that was once an Ainu encampment, they would revolt and become the Japanese.
What do you think? Once again, I look forward to input and opinions.

[Fosse]

Alt...
I really enjoy your ideas, and I think that most of them would make for a great Civ game.
Keep up the good work.


Speaking of victory conditions...

I've lately decided that one thing that sort of spoils a good civ game is the notion of "victory." When you think about it, real nations seldom go about their business with a plan to eventually "win" the world (the exception being nations who decide to conquer the known world). Instead, all of a nation's actions are done in the nation's self interest in order to preserve it and secure the best possible future for itself.

Adding "victory" to the game results in highly unrealistic behavior that can sometimes spoil the game. If another country is about to launch a space ship, does a weaker, less advanced country ever send its entire military to their capital in a kamikazee effort to destroy its spaceship? No, because that would equal suicide for the little country, and the big country would destroy it in the immediate future. But it Civ, doing such a thing isn't sensless, because you might deny someone else the win.


I would love to see the Civ series (or similar games) evolve out of the habit of including victories, and move more toward the sandbox game style... where the player sets his or her own goals in any given game, and the game continues indefinatly.

The game would be functionally over in certain situations, of course. When you conquer every other nation on the planet, when you "globalize" the world (a great idea, by the way), or when you bring about a lasting world peace through diplomacy. There could be certain conditions that would trigger a "Congratulations, you conquered the world" message, but these wouldn't mean you "win."

Instead, there would be no winning... each Civ would try to sculpt itself to its own best advantage in the game world.

A sort of SimCity feel... where there are other cities out there that you can either compete against or work with. Except in Civ 4, those other players might invade you!


I think that the game would benefit more from getting rid of the idea of victory conditions altogether than adding new ones or refining old ones. Give me Civ with a sandbox feel, and I'll feel a desire to keep playing games that are already "in the bag," or "unwinnable." Because I'll be working to provide the best for my nation in a self-sustaining world full of nations that aren't trying to amass 100,000 culture or 2/3 of the world's population just for the sake of a score.

[The diplomat]

Originally posted by Fosse
I've lately decided that one thing that sort of spoils a good civ game is the notion of "victory."

I have been thinking the same thing but did not dare speak up. I completely agree.

Here is one way of maybe doing it:

At the beginning of the game, each player would have to choose a goal from a random set. When they accomplish the goal, they would get a new set to choose from. The goals should be fairly difficult so that they require 50-100 turns to accomplish. Each time the player accomplishes a goal, they would get points based on how difficult the goal was. The player with the most points at the end (2050) would win.

This would do several things:
- It would simulate national interests and make civ behavior more realistic as each civ would behave based on what goal they are trying to acheive.

- Espionage would be more important because the goals of other civs would be secret, and could only be discovered through very expensive espionage.

- It would add strategy. Do I go for lots of easy goals, or do I try to acheive a few big super difficult goals that awards lots of points.

-It would balance war/peace strategies. Civs would no longer have to have a "conquer the world" mentality in order to win. The peaceful builder civ could still win by choosing builder goals like constructing a particualr wonder. Also, wars would result more from conflict of interests like in the real world. For ex, civ A has a goal that conflicts with civ B's goal. Do they try to reach a peaceful compromise that allows both to accomplish their goals or do they fight it out?

[Kuciwalker]

I want, not so much a destruction of "victory", but mechanics that make such a victory virtually impossible. An ebb and flow sort of thing.