I like the idea of a size 0 city, if it were unable to get slaves, to get access to resources. This would be nice, if not necessary, once it's possible to have strategic resources like Civ3 (I'm being optimistic
)
AFAIK this is already true, I recall one game I played long ago w/ an old version of Med Mod, and I had to let my garrison out of my capital to attack a barbarian or something, and the next turn, a slave revolt captures the city. True, the slaves used Triremes against this landlocked city, but it was still unexpected and kinda nice. But I agree that this should be more common, and I think that slaves should try to revolt even if there is a sufficient garrison from time to time.
One thing I liked in Alpha Centauri that woefully wasn't in Civ3 was that if you were at war with a civ and it was losing, and there was no way it would make it, it would offer to ally with you and pledge allegience to you. You could make outrageous demands of them, and they'd just do as you wished it was great, like having my own personal Vichy regime. Is there any way that this could be done? It would also give impetus to the human to not completely conquer everyone.
Along with this, in my head at least, is the ability to send units to an underdeveloped civ. I also always try to do this, since I really wouldn't care to get myself involved completely in a war on the other side of the world, but it'd be nice to have a proxy war through a small civ and help it conquer another one, or even fend off an aggressor. This would add a much more deep and fun AND even realistic level to play if it was possible. Sending techs just isn't sufficient. I know this was mentioned earlier, but I think it's a great idea.
)
3. Higher garrison requirements for slave cities.
One thing I liked in Alpha Centauri that woefully wasn't in Civ3 was that if you were at war with a civ and it was losing, and there was no way it would make it, it would offer to ally with you and pledge allegience to you. You could make outrageous demands of them, and they'd just do as you wished it was great, like having my own personal Vichy regime. Is there any way that this could be done? It would also give impetus to the human to not completely conquer everyone.
Along with this, in my head at least, is the ability to send units to an underdeveloped civ. I also always try to do this, since I really wouldn't care to get myself involved completely in a war on the other side of the world, but it'd be nice to have a proxy war through a small civ and help it conquer another one, or even fend off an aggressor. This would add a much more deep and fun AND even realistic level to play if it was possible. Sending techs just isn't sufficient. I know this was mentioned earlier, but I think it's a great idea.
, and little in the way of public facilities would lose people over time? In another thread it became apparent that we all squeeze the life out of citizens! This should have additional consequences, not just through the world sliders where you can chuck more food at them to keep them sweet. Force the player to care a bit more. Would the AI need to do the same?(could it do the same?). Maybe the more advanced your civ becomes the more pronounced this effect should become? So in the early stage of a civ it’s easier to keep people happy with less, but as they advance and become more educated, they are harder to please and the human drift to the better cities becomes more apparent? This should never be too great a number or it could allow the top civ to really run away. Just enough to make it worth while?
Comment