Civ4 Suggestions

[dexters]

Ack. The road building mechanism is actually one of the refined things that shouldn't be tinkered with.

The idea has stayed unchanged from Civ to Civ3 for good reason. As it stands, Civ is a 500+ turn game. I doubt Civ 4 would be any different. Players spend most of the game building roads and improvements around their cities. It is usually only until the last 50 turns or so that a decent player can expect to experience having TOO MANY workers around. And usually, pollution and conquest keeps those workers pretty busy doing new things.

If we go and introduce fibre optics, telephone lines and all this stuff, it adds nothing to the game, except force gamers to repeat the same process.

A possible improvement to the road model is to take the road upkeep idea suggested and couple it with improved worker efficiency. This means workers can do things faster. This would make them more valuable to have around, and at the same time reduce the need to have an army of 20 workers running around.

Anyways...
I do like the road improvement idea. But Civ isn't a road building game. Railroad and standard road is about as detailed as you really need to go. A third type of road may be feasable, but imagine each facet of the game being expanded by just 1 extra option. You'd get a game so large that it becomes unplayable.

I feel strongly that Civ 4 should avoid messing up things that work, or increasing the tedium of playing the game.

Civ 4 will reinforce things in Civ1, 2, and 3 that are fun to players.

And let's be honest here. Warfare is where it is at. We should get more UU's for each Civ. Maybe we should also get culture specific buildings.

And a new facet that has come to the forefront in Civ3 with our kind of computing power is the diplomacy aspect. I would expect a major improvement in that direction. More formal alliances may be possible. Something like NATO, where groupings of civilizations could enter into a comprehensive alliance.

Lastly, one thing we will likely see improvement or an ovhaul is the culture thing. I have a feeling Culture may be dropped for something more appropriate in Civ4. Sphere of influence is probably more appropriate. In this case, the border around each city could be affected by your culture buildings, military size, and overall cultural and economic rank of the Civ.

[Admiral PJ]

My game:
I can release screenshots soon, I jjust have to fix some errors in the code, but it was working before i got windows XP and Net compilers, so it won't take long.. the new directx9 is needing some new code, for compatibility with this nice new update.
I'm workingon a full website for the game Mantra:New Horizons.

I agree with the recent comments about diplomacy,
I think more needs to be done with this area, currently it seems too abstracted and needs to be more personal.
Its a shame things like cease fires were taken out, but the new stuff makes up for things mostly.

New diplo options: Neutrality - a country signs a neutrality pact with someone like germany, whereby they don't make wars on germanys allies or their enemies (though they could later become germanies ally).. only wars on germanies non allied etc aligned countries. This would be interesting if a country made a neutrality pact with 2 sides of a war and therefore would be safe for both sides to go through.. though warfare in the neutrals country should be banned(a problem in civ3).

BRIAN:
about your ideas, which appear very useful, I agree with your approach to a realistic world social/millitary simulator.
I've thought about some very similar ideas for my own games, I want to incorporate organisations like religions and industrial corporations that are AI controlled and independantly build and manage much of the civilisation.
Seeding is a sensible approach to allowing this organic development process to be player controlled, i'm still trying to work out the mechanics for this myself, but I intend to have laws and economic constraints which the player can use when he wants to limit or help certain companies, much as a real commercial state does.
It would have been interesting to see this corporation idea in civ3, they were going to do something similar i think but it never made it.. maybe civ4 will be the time.

I'm hoping to involve strategic situations with science research like you were talking about, with things like solar star research being possible when you make a star space observatory station near the sun.
Early ancient sciences were maybe more social and academic and didn't require as strict prerequisites.
I like your ideas about science and cultures developing in different ways, this could be used to make some interesting situations.. such as 1 nation becoming strong in naval technology, another in millitary technology, a bit like the civ3 way of not requiring some civs for era advancement.
civ3's tech tree was far too sparse for my liking, but the era idea was a good one i'd always argued for.. though there needs to be at least 6 eras, mid ages are abstracted and need to be spread over mediaval, rennaisance and enlightenment, and go into industrial more to steam power etc.

I find maps are good when done as archipelagos, but they're very limited by the landscape types.. I guess this wasn't a major area they focused on.
Allowing editable terrain types would be good, there aren't anywhere near enough, maybe resources should have defence and move bonuses as well.

What annoys me is rivers can be used to travel on, perhaps the map generator could make a river as a long line of lake going inland, make it another landscape type.. that could be bridged.

See my civ3 Mod Mantra Revolution coming soon (its not my main Mantra game which isn't to do with iciv3, its a commercial game designed and written from scratch by me)

governments should be improved .. just need a few more and they need to allow special units.

Civ3 was great and had lots of exciting new features, but it would be nice to see more depth in some areas and more refinement, but not to destract from a fast fun gaming experience.

AdmiralPJ
master of the C (seas.. C coding language.. gettit?)

[epics]

as for those acts&bills:
Feudalism-this "tech" created peasants which were working on nobels fields for free. They were very unhappy with that.
In civ maybe a citizen working on an irrigated tile would become unhappy or content (or maybe 3 citizens on that tile would creat one content/unhappy).

New ideas comming up soon...

[altF18]

Economic Model

feudalism is actuallly an economic system than a bill,
and thats another thing that could be implemented.
Government / Economic System
Governments would be the same, Despotism, Monarchy, Republic, Democracy, Communism, "Fundamentalism"
Economic Models could be Feudalism, Capitalism, Socialism, and what more.
Governments could choose what economy it has, though some are restricted.
For instance, a Democracy could have either of these Economic Systems: Capitalism, Socialism.
Communism could have Socialism, Nationalism maybe? where the state directly controls the economy? and later on, Capitalism as China is beginning to embrace today though they do not embrace freedom in Governemnt, or Democracy.
Monarchy starts with a Feudal economic system, though it could choose Socialism, or to be constitutional, Capitalism. (Britain would be a capitalistic democracy, not a monarchy though it has a queen - jordan is more the monarchy capitalist state)
Of course, there would be restraints on the economic system still based on government. Fundamentalist countries could be Nationalist like Iran, or Iraq was, or perhaps Socialist. They'd prevent Capitalism as it opens the doors to infidel corporations.
Despotisms are usually controlled, though through outside influence and pressure, they could choose to open up their doors to Capitalism, maintaining their dictatorship over the population, but allowing foreign investment in their resoucres. Like a bunch of states around the world, esp, in South America and Africa.
Nationalist and Socialist Communisms would be antagonist to the Capitalist system, as it would supress the factor of Free Enterprise, and Multinational investments. Capitalist societies would compete for the domination of the Free Market, like America almost does today. When you control the dominating Economic Empire, this could be a victory condition.
How you went avout achieving it is up to elaboration.
I think it would be neat and add more potential to the game, especially downplaying the need to conquer every city on the map, or the unrealistic victory of simply controlling most of the land. Instead of having a colonial empire, which would be hard to manage, this Economic Empire would be more ideal. And the military would still play a major part in the deal. afterall, America doesn't maintain its influence over the world without its military presence and overthowing of rogue states who fail to play the economic game.
All i need to perfect this model, if you guys agree on it, is a way for one to control the market. foreign investment in resources through corporations is the realistic way of doing it, but how would that be implemented in the game?
And how would your economic empire be determined?
if you like the idea, please elaborate on it.
if not, ah well. i think it would be neat, and a good change in the game. simply having new civ games without anything really new is a bummer. i think we could do more than add improvement - teach the old dog New tricks.
I look forward to your opinions on this.

[altF18]

Religion and Cultural Influence

I'm all for the State Religion concept. This is to the point and practical, wheras the other suggestion makes too much an issue out of Religion. though it played a major part in the growth of Civilizations, that stresses it waaay too much. By simply having a social tweaking State Religion, we get everything we need. Religion in the game, a way to emphasis certain cultural bonuses, a social structure that could determine things such as happiness, war weariness, etc. and even act as a diplomatic tool - same religion civs tend to be closer than different ones. Crusades or Jihads could be lauched, and a low costing unit (supported by the church) either a Crusader for Christianity or a Fanatic or Mameluke for Islam, could be built to wage war only against dif. religion civs.
And like mentioned, not everyone in a city has to adhere to the state religion. Like espionage, if you have a state religion, you could commision missionaries to certain cities, who in turn convert as many citizens as they can to your religion. this gives you more Cultural Influence on that city, and thus, on that Civ as a whole if you convert enough in enough cities.
As much as i like the Culture idea in civ3, i disagree with the fact that it determines your borders and can make citites join you. this is ridiculous IMO and should be removed. Instead, you still would accumulate Culture, which gives you points and bonueses (like happiness, perhaps) but your Cultural Influence will in no way expand your borders. But it still could be imposed on foreign civs if it is high enough, higher than there's if you are near their territory, or spread to their civs through means such as religious conversion, propaganda, and mass media. having a cultural influence on civs would not make you take their cities over. instead, it should make that civ more friendly to you, and something else - i cant think of what.
Perhaps a bonus of some sort.
If you agree with my ideas, perhaps it could be fine tuned.
if not, i appreciate constructive criticism.

-altF18 idea wight for a new civilization

[epics]

Yeah, good idea with those Government / Economic System. Now we have to think about pros and cons of those. Economic System would give happines/unhappines, increased/decreased speed of workers, benefits in shield/commerse output and maybe new, exceptional types of buildings.
This idea of beeing an Economic Empire would need implementin manufacturing goods, couse selling only resources wouldn't be very complicated and wouldn't bring enything to the game.

High culture could influence diplomat abilities: they see we are cultural and stuff, they like us more, they give more money/luxuries/resources

altf18
if you have a state religion, you could commision missionaries to certain cities, who in turn convert as many citizens as they can to your religion. this gives you more Cultural Influence on that city, and thus, on that Civ as a whole if you convert enough in enough cities

too complicated. maybe religious buldings would influence ours and foreign citizens thus changing thier religion.

[WarpStorm]

There are serious marketing issues with implementing religion in a high profile game (I like EU and how it did it, but it ain't a high profile game; Civ4 would be). You have to be real careful how you present it, especially if you show any modern religion in a bad light. Lawsuits suck.

[Azeem]

I added "Religion" as advances in my "Some Mod Ideas" thread in the "Creation" section of the Apolyton CivIII forums. "Religions" were generally techs that allowed you to build certain things that would give you bonuses and were divided into certain research paths, thus you would have to choose which path of "Religion" to research. I didn't include "Mujahadin" and "Jihad" or "Crusaders" and "Inquisition" since those could offend Muslims and Christians.

[Fosse]

Religion could be more abstracted.... add a social engineering choice, not where you choose a religion, but instead whether or not your state recognizes one religion as official, accepts or persecutes others, is completely secular, etc.

Official religion that persecutes others could increase military police limit, decrease research rate, and discourage immigration. Official religion that does not persecute others could discourage immigration, and increase the effects of religious buildings. Secular countries would get a research bonus, reduced effect of religious structures, and increased immigration.

Something along those lines. Some restrictions according to tech levels and other social choices are needed. Obviously, a Theocratic government can't be secular.

[WarpStorm]

Originally posted by Fosse
Secular countries would get a research bonus, reduced effect of religious structures, and increased immigration.

Obviously you come from a country that is secular. Your bias is showing through.

[Master Zen]

Originally posted by WarpStorm


Obviously you come from a country that is secular. Your bias is showing through.

I agree, even though I'm not religious, I admit it has absolutely nothing to do with either happiness or science. Secular countries can be just as happy as religious ones, and religious countries could be just as scientific too.

Look at the middle ages. Western Europe, in the height of the Catholic Church's power hardly advanced in science. On the other hand, another highly-religious empire: the Arabs, were extremely scientific and gave us most of the major discoveries of the day.

[Fosse]

Well, I'm trying to make things translate into a workable model for Civ 3 so I might contribute to the topic at hand, not make social commentary or show my bias.

The ideas for effects of various religious choices were off the top of my head, and were intended to show how my idea would work in a Civ-like game.

Anyway... my point was that religion could work in a Civ game if we look not at what the religion of our citizens is, but instead at how we treat religion in general as a Civ.

What is everybody's reaction to the IDEA? We can discuss bonuses/penalties of the choices further if we like, but if we'd rather have messiah units or something else then it's a moot point.

[Spiffor]

I think the idea is sound Fosse. However, I should read a bit more of Stefu's idea of religion, which seems to be more ambitious, but maybe more complicated as well, before deciding which of the two is better.

[altF18]

stefus idea is neat, but its too ambitious, and too complicated for a civ game. it stresses a bit much on religion, and thats something not as important as the other aspects of the game save as a social tool.
i mean, i know religion plays a part in a civ, but stefus idea plays too much with religion. it should be as important or appearent as he would like.
i mean, i know religion played a role in the shaping of nations, such as the expansion of arab/turkish territories, and the crusades, and other areas, but its role is not as major in that it could and should never enable a 'victory' condition, and has little role in foreign and international affairs and policy. (realistically and would be gamewise )
as i said, it should only be a social tool, and perhaps have an influence on culture.
fosse's idea also sounds neat, but having religions as independent institutions, again emphasizes too much on this area. and i dont fully understand it either.
please explain some more.
would you have to choose your stance on all religions?

still, i prefer you either choose a state religion, or have freedom of worship.
opinions?

[Fosse]

Actually, the idea I'm advocating completely ignores religion as a seperate institution, which is why I like it. It addresses the existence of religion, and the role of religion in history, without adding an extra sub-game.

I see religion being implemented as a social engineering (we have to come up with a better name for a Civ atmoshere) choice in which you choose how your civ deals with religion in general.

Thus, you won't be setting your policy towards each possible religion. Instead there will simply be one policy that changes your civ's ratings, like choosing "Police State" or "Fundamentalist" in SMAC.

There would be pluses and minuses to having a state religion, being secular, disallowing religion in your country, having no policy, etc.

Under this plan, individual religions wouldn't exist at all, except in the player's mind.

Does that clear things up F18?