An Interesting Idea

[Azeem]

Whoa Brian, that's asking A LOT.

I think Mad Bomber and my suggestions are more reasonable for the Firaxis team, as they still remain within the boundaries of the CIV series.

[mjmacy]

I agree with Azeem. We need more control over our gov. I think the Idea of ordinances/edicts Is great, and I think that they shouldn't be too hard to impliment, because they could be used just like improvements, albeit very costly ones.

[Inverse Icarus]

Originally posted by WarpStorm
Brian, make a game that implements these ideas.

Firaxis is bound by 'tradition'. They have to be. If theyrelease a game that totally turns Civ upside-down, they will have more complaints than cheers. It will seem like they are forgetting their roots. There was a huge uproar because they added culture and resources to Civ3. Being in the franchise business is tricky like that.

Having said that, anybody but them can make a Civ-like game and change the whole thing around till it no longer seems like Civ. Heck, as long as they didn't sell it as part of the Civ franchise Firaxis could do it.

Always remember what Brian Reynolds said, ideas for games and improvements to an existing game are cheap, everyone's got them. What's hard is implementation. Until you actually build it, your idea is worth not much more than the paper it's written on.

So, Brian, if you want to see big changes in the genre go forth and build it. If you build it, they will come.

exactly. i thought of that many a time.

i have idea for civ, but they're so "un-civ" that they won't make it in

[Falconius]

Originally posted by Mad Bomber
This should not be hard. Just incorporate a slider

This reminds me of the system used by Europa Universalis II. There are ten sliders to adjust, but you may only adjust one every ten years in game time. There are also random events that will adjust them, and sometimes those random events give you several choices.

Sliders that come to mind are: serfdom vs freedmen, centralization vs. decentralization, quantity vs. quality in your armed forces, Land doctrine vs. sea doctrine, aristocracy vs. plutocracy, etc.

What you end up with are varying degrees in types of government, rather than a handful of hard-coded types (a la Civ III).

[Falconius]

Originally posted by brianshapiro
i previously posted a message asking if anybody wanted to work to create a new game with me, nobody seriously responded so far.

I recently graduated from programming school. What are your ideas? (I'll show you mine if you show me yours!) Feel free to email me.

[Killazer]

I would just love it if they could streamline the game more and make gameplay in the later ages go nearly as fast as the gameplay in the ancient age. More automation features; like a real auto-bombard option or giving ships general missions to carry out like 'go to this area and bombard improvements', making waypoints faster/easier to use, etc. Thats what I want the most. The rest is pretty good and id like improvements and tweaks but not wholesale overhauls.

[10lire]

Originally posted by mjmacy
I agree with Azeem. We need more control over our gov. I think the Idea of ordinances/edicts Is great, and I think that they shouldn't be too hard to impliment, because they could be used just like improvements, albeit very costly ones.

Hi everyone,
I absolutely agree! We need more customization over govs. I remember SMAC/X: There was an excellent idea! For Civ4 I think about a "grid" of options: a monarchy can be "absolute" (despotic) or "constitutional" (democratic), a democracy can be more security focused or more personal freedoms focused, a despotism can be fascism-style, communism-style or fundamentalism-style... players can try to find also new strange government's types, like a fundamentalist democracy or a communist monarchy!!!!!!!!! i think this can be really funny!
sorry for my english...
bye

[Yahweh Sabaoth]

I think the direction this thread is going in is wonderful, and I wanted to add a few thoughts. These thoughts are largely construed along the lines of the current Civ, so would not be difficult for Firaxis, or one of you pimp programmers, to add.

1. Democracy. Democracy is utterly unrealistic in this game. In a democracy, you cannot simply set the tax rate to whatever you see fit! You need to compete with various interests. Of course, this is true in other forms of government, but it is especially lacking in Democracy and Republic. There must be competition from within the government, and without it. War weariness is good, and I think well-represented in PTW. But what about economy-weariness?

2. Special Interests. Special interests are totally unrepresented in Civ except through corruption. Strangely, only under Communism is corruption ever a problem in the capital city, defying almost all the history of mankind! Special interests can dictate the course of a nation's history, and they do so by excersizing influence on the leader(s). Which leads me to believe that

3. a personal element should be added to the game. Sure, as the "leader" your overall goal is to bring your empire to greatness. But what if you got points for taking advantage of the perks of the job along the way? The natural temptation of power is not represented in Civ, and should be.

4. Religion. This is a big one. It's nice that nationality is reflected, finally, in Civ3. But that religion is utterly skimmed over is ludicrous. Religions could function like governments, effecting industriousness, happiness, militancy, etc. I don't have any set ideas: perhaps civs should not be able to alter their religion, it being part of their "traits". Or perhaps it should evolve, as it has in man's history. But the fact that's hardly touched upon at all, and that all religions are treated as just happiness advancements, is a shoddy treatment of perhaps the most important factor in the history of mankind.