RADICAL IDEAS (ver1.1): Hosted by Rong

[MBrazier]

Ecce Homo says "One part of Civ that I regard as unreal is that everything in the world seems to be owned by the state! There are no private capitalist interests, which only would make sense in a communist society."

I must say I agree on this -- but I have a different idea for fixing it. Let's say you have an Economy scale, which runs from Totally Planned to Free Market Run Wild; civilizations would start out near the Planned end. Moving towards the Free Market end of the scale does two things:

1) Your tax revenues go down; and
2) City improvements cost less to maintain, and (at very high levels) build.

The concept here is that, as property rights expand, the city improvements separate from the government proper, and become self-supporting firms with their own revenue. As military units are always paid for and maintained out of taxes, going Free Market concentrates your tax revenue into the military -- thus producing, at the extreme, the Libertarian State in which the government concerns itself solely with policing and national defense.

[Ekmek]

The only somewhat radical idea I have is that units should have some logistical aspects. It can be advanced feature, but as far as reralism goes a tank or any unit can't live in Saharra forever and there is a reason why some civilizations only spread so far, have carvan or truck units that can ship food and production to units to sustain them may seem tedious but if you have an automated function like trade in CTP or a toggle at the begin as advanced play then it would be more challenging and realistic and provide another option of battle. Too many people, even in our government and army today, thinks that war is just sending people with guns to kill each other, its more complicated than that and I would like to see a game that had the challenge of doing that.

[ember]

There is quite a bit about resource pooling and regions in the "city interface", "city and region interface" threads. My ideas for it detailed in "<A HREF="http://apolyton.net/forums/Forum28/HTML/000048.html">A new civilization concept?</A>". I'd like to hear your comments on the ideas floating around there.


------------------
"Any technology, sufficiently advanced,
is indistinguishable from magic"
-Arthur C. Clark

[Darkstar]

Possibility - Actually, its you having the brain burp. My SUGGESTION went beyond your idea in a few ways... For instance, I don't see what the point is to keeping to the Civ2 City Radius. If I can transfer people from one square to the other, than it shouldn't MATTER how freaking close the tile is to the 'City Center'. Indeed, the City Centers would be the highest population tile in comparisons to its neighbors. You build COMMERCE centers which generate gold based on the population of its tile, and the surrounding tiles. It acts as an actractor to people, and so they migrate TOWARDS it (to pop livable). Yadda yadda yadda. Understand? The City is GONE. You have COMMERCE centers. If I want to move 2 units of people to extend my border, I move them. Whenever you move people PEACEFULLY, it costs. You can order Military to move people to an adjoining tile, not permit entry to the tile (slowing pop leaking into it), and escort/relocate X units of people to a particular tile. No cost, but causes unrest in high "Free Will" and "Citizen Empowered" societies. Yeah... I like that. Just let go of that city bounds idea. It would take a military of some kind to ENFORCE that will that they don't migrate OUT of the City if they don't want to be there. Or Into the City if its so attractive. A line on ruler's map don't mean much to people without someone to make it mean something. Putting up walls or fences would HELP, but not stop, the people's movement. So please, Possibility, get OVER that City attachment of yours. And let's continue the organic and natural growth of the NATION of the people.

Re: Companies - I *sort* of like this. But you couldn't be a Company until COMPANIES are discovered. You'd could "colonize" cities for cheap as it would allow you to build offices and shops and factories and whatnot inside the city. Otherwise, it would be a tremendous cost to found a new "Office" as you have to found the city as well. Of course, that raises other possibilities...
Before Corporations, you would have to be a Merchant House... And that means Tech - Trade. It would be a different game from Civ though... You would be battling for Economic Supremecy... not World Supremecy... If you want to see how you could play such things, Sierra did the computer version of the AD&D Bloodlines game, in which you could be a Ruler (Bloodline of Rulers) and trying to create/extend your empire. You could run as a Noble King, or just a Major Merchant Line...

There is NOTHING wrong in having 5 Muskeeters popping up in Elpaso. They had a full year (to 20 years depending on time pass per turn) to be assembled by your nation and assembled there. I don't see why you can't move units as far or as fast as you want (teleport, practically) in NON-HOSTILE territory. At least, so long as you have a road. Naval units should be able to be sent around the globe to NEAR hostile territory within on turn. Its only if there is a HOSTILE (Or possibly Hostile) unit along the travel path that could interfere with that.

-Darkstar

[Asgeir]

I have here an outline for my general proposal on a tile-management system, as opposed to the current city-management system. In my system, cities would of course still exist and be important, and actually the net result of the game would be quite similar. The difference lies in flexibility, which I think will prove helpful to add many features to the game which players are asking for (excuse my megalomania ): minor civs; ethnicity; regions; rural populations; improved trading system; supply lines; borders; trading or ceding of land; non-urban regions; and some more. The general idea goes like this:

Tile Populations:
Each tile has a population-rate. A pop-rate of 1 is equivalent to sparse village-tribes, as in the Amazon or Northern Canada. When a given population rate, say 10, is reached, a city is created. It's important to note that one citizen in this system is "smaller" than in Civ2, i.e. you'd have more of them. This is so that it's easier to divide your population into various tasks and because I would ultimately like to see units use up people (which would be too extreme in the current system).
Ethnicity:
Each unit of population belongs to a 'super-tribe' and a 'sub-tribe'. Super-tribes are large collections of related sub-tribes.
Examples of super-tribes: Germans, Arabs, Celts, Amazon Indians, Eskimos, Vikings, Slavs.
Examples of sub-tribes: Scots, Sioux, Zulus, Danes, Poles, Punjabis, Sumatrans.
At the start of the game, you select a super-tribe and then a sub-tribe from within that super-tribe. During the game you will find it harder keep content citizens of different tribes, especially those from different super-tribes. Foreign subjects that are kept happy for a given amount of time may 'assimilate', i.e. change their ethnic identity to that of yours. Ethnicity also affects diplomatic relations.
Production:
Each tile can potentionally produce three resources: Food, Materials (not to be confused with 'Production') and a specific type of Trade Goods (not trade arrows). Not all tiles have Trade Goods available but a lot of them do. Trade Goods are basically various materials (gold, tobacco, hides, papyrus, etc) which are feasible for trading. 'Materials' are not 'shields' as in old Civ - they're simply raw materials that may be stored and are used to build improvements and equip units, both done by your workers (people assigned to the production job). Your population is allocated to producing these three basic resources (or to other more unconventional tasks, e.g. science or entertainment).
Interface:
The most important feature which can make the system playable is 'regionalizing'. As a management command, you are able to bundle any selection of tiles (that are connected to each other) together into a 'region'. The region serves no actual purpose except to make your management easier; you can name your region and manage all its tiles together. This is why the net result is the same: you could just make a region the size of a city-radius, so you'd be left with the same amount of micromanagement. Basically, the old city interface is replaced by a regional interface.
The regional interface itself would have a number of 'pools' which contain people or resources, which can be dragged between the pools (easy, simple interface, right? ):
MAIN POOLS
Population Pool (the inhabitants of the region that are ready for work)
Resource Production Pool (one for each of Food, Materials & Trade Goods)
Production Pool (people building improvements or equipping units)
Public Works Pool (put people here to improve your tiles)
Warehouse Pool (your regional storage of resources. Storage room would increase with Granaries, Warehouses, Refrigeration, etc)
Business Pool (the guys that trade the Trade Goods for you, i.e. make gold)
OTHER POOLS
Culture Pool (Entertainers. Alternatively, produce Culture Pts, if they're used)
Science Pool
OTHER COMMANDS
Build Improvement ('Change button' for improvements)
Produce Equipment (to make units)
Rename Region or City
Maximize Food, Materials, Trade or Science (some options for easy management)
Some additional commands may be available for dealing with ethnic groups, administration, cities, taxes, units, supply lines, defenses, etc.

In this system there should also be a mechanism for moving people around. Migration can both be naturally occurring and forced.
I'm sorry for the length but I must say that no good idea of such broad purpose could be explained in just three sentences, so have patience . I've got loads of more details on this system, if people like what I'm proposing.

[Spartan187]

I think that the tile population is a good idea and would make the game more realistic and more fun. I also like the AI corporations, but I do not think you should have the oppurtunity to play as one.
The only radical idea I can come up with has to dow with technology. I think that if the Earth started over now, it would be very unlikely that they would follow the same technological path. The game designers should come up with 2-4 different tech. paths and at the begining of each game randomly chose which path each civ. starts out with. The different paths wouldn't be neccessarily better or worse, just different. Each could have it's own strenghts and weaknesses. I'm not sure what the different paths would be, we can leave that up to the game designers.

[FrantzX]

Spies should be unable to be seen. The Chinese have had spies in us for years without us knowing so it should be the same in Civ3. Of course, spies of and equal or higher moral level should be able to see them.

Also you should not be informed if a spy does something to you. Spies try to get out WITHOUT someone knowing that he was there.

Infitraiting(??) datalinks NEVER should of been permanent!! Instead, why not five turns per moral level only in that city and cities in a ten square radius.

[paraclet]

I like your Idea FrantzX,and so only when you build or send a spy (acting as a counter spy) you then can catch foreign spies present inside your own cities...

[NotLikeTea]

Even this should be a probability, not a certainty... You think the US hasn't been trying to find these spies all this time? Still didn't work...

[MBD]

You want radical? I don't know if anybody's suggested this but...
First let me preface this by saying that any strategy game that attempts to simulate history needs to be able to simulate more people / personalities than the 7 leaders in a Civ game. The history of mankind is the story of people.
That said, at various times in the game you the player could be any person in the game -- maybe the ruler of a civ, maybe a general, maybe a religious leader, whatever. While you play you have a range of things you can do appropriate to your position. The AI takes care of the other jobs. When your character dies (after a normal lifespan, not 6000 years) you become some other character in the game. Sort of a Quantum Leap Civ.
How'd you like to spend years building up a military for an attack on a neighbor, only to have your character die and now you become that neighbor and have to fend off the attack you prepared?

I like the above idea in a less drastic version. What I mean is that ENEMY civs should have changes (you're always controlling yours) If the Greeks are pacifists and are being destroyed, then they might revolt and put an agressive leader into power (there was something like this in MOO2) Sometimes there might be a major change in government, and, even though you -had- an alliance, the new ruler refuses to honor it.If too many people are unhappy, the government will switch automatically, perhaps even in your civ.

[bab5tm]

I allways (since I first heard that there will be a Civ2) wanted a shpere-shaped-map. Something alike in popolus3.
So:

* Make a map like in popolus 3 !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

* Therefore, thrash the square-grid-system, make moving over the globe a thing of range-radius or something alike.

T_M

------------------
resistance is futile.
-worldrulership.inc-

[Possibility]

Darkstarr, we both been going at it for some time now hehe. I was the one who originally thought of the idea as people living in the squares, and you shot my idea down, now you are promoting it? Anyways, I dont have an effectuation with cities, I kinda like the idea of cities of not having a radius, that you just link a squares production directly to the city. But the city radius still has its merits, namely playability. As Brian Renyolds stated, if you have to choose between realism and fun, fun will win. Yah, you can just have the city square and then have all the other squares have people in them in a kind of fluid organic growth what have you, like in my previous proposals as the natives would, but it would be very cumberson to move people around near your city, to say moving a stack of people from the gold mine to the grasslands, which is really easy with the city radius, you don’t have to pay any money or anything. Also, in the city, the cities food is collected as a whole for the whole city, but with out the city, it would be impossible to have people working mountain squares, since each square is supported only by what food they can grow in that square, and you cant grow much of any food in a mountain square. Plus it would be a pain to have to direct every squares production on the map to a city. Imagine having to right click on all your squares around a city and then selecting “send resources too” to send the production to a city. Granted you probably only need to do that once, but its just an added pain. With the city radius, all squares automatically send their production, food and trade to the city.

I do believe the NATION should be the center of focus though. That military unit support should not come from the cities they were built, but rather from the nations taxes. You make 50 gold a turn and then have to spend 10 gold a turn to support your troops.


Asgeir, I like your ideas on Ethnicity, I also had the same ideas but never braught it up.


Possibility
May the possibilities remain infinite.

[Possibility]

*RESEARCH FACILITIES AND SPYING*

One thing I think cities should be able to do is make special laboratories, Like Los Alamos. You make a facility in the city and the research will be conducted there.

Research would be divided up like in Master of Orion, or in smac when you have blind research turned on, you divided up your total research into the categories.

So making these special facilities would create a new category for you to divide up your total empire’s research into. For example, you discover nuclear fission, but in order to make nuclear weapons, you have to make a Los Alamos type facility and then a new category titled “Nuclear Weapons Research” will open up for you. With out the facility, you could still continue other research but just not that particular branch. You could also build more than one of these facilities, if you built 2 of them, for example, and a city that one of them was in was taken over, you would lose half your accumulated research points in that field.

These facilities could range from the barracks built in ancient BC times to research upgrades to legions. To Naval Yards that let you research iron clads and more advance battle ships and submarines. You could also make an Area51 facility to allow research on advanced military aircraft and stealth features. And a Cape Canaveral to research and make spy satellites.

These facilities would thus be the target of attacks, but I think they should be programmed so that they are hidden from the other players. Someone who has an alliance with you still won’t see the top secret research facilities even when he looks inside your cities. He would have to use a spy. The spy would have an option like: “Search for top secret research facilities” and this would have a very low percentage of success, like only 20%.

Once one of these facilities is found however, spies could steal secrets from them. For example, you don’t have a Los Alamos facility yet, but the Russians used a spy and found the American’s facility and you (the Chinese) bought that knowledge from them. Now you know where the Americans secret base is so you send a spy to the city and select from one of the options: “Steal tech specific to research facility” or “Sabotage research progress” or “prolonged spying”. With the last option being: sending in your infiltrator permanently, where he would each turn add points to your scientific research. This last option would only be available if you also had that research facility. Like you have a Los Alamos and they have a Los Alamos. They have allocated 100 research points a turn towards their current research in nuclear weapons technology, but your spy copies maybe 20% of that research and sends it to your empire, so you get an extra 20 research points a turn for what ever you are researching for that same research category (the ones you stole it from don’t lose any research points, the research is just copied, not taken).

The enemy spies, the one who your copying research from would have like a 5% chance a turn of detecting you. The more spies that you have infiltrated them with, the more likely they will detect you. Also, your government choice with decide what percentage of their research you will copy each turn and their government choice will decide how likely they are to detect your spies each turn. Maybe 5% chance a turn for a democracy and 10% chance a turn for communists.

I believe this could be a lot of fun, let me know what you think.

Possibility
May the possibilities remain infinite.

[Flavor Dave]

How about this for a victory condition--have more people and more money than all other nations combined, and no AI civ has a tech that you don't have. You'd then have to find a "3rd way" between militarism and advancement.

[Darkstar]

Flavor Dave - I like the idea of multiple victory conditions. But yours sounds like a Conquest victory would meet its conditions. Especially in the Civ tradition of capturing a tech whenever you take a city.

Possibility - You are correct again. I originally was against your people per tile idea... until I really thought about how neat it could be. We both agree that its micromanagement that would be the problem. I think that the people would NATURALLY send things to the population or commerce center. You could have those mountain tiles trading with their neighbors for food. Those nearby hill tiles would then trade with their farm heavy grassland neighbors for food. That would handle how things get around without using a "city" as your center. But if those same farmers sent all but what they needed to sustain them to the Commerce center, and that food went to those miners in the hills and mountains (by what is closest gets few first) it still takes care of itself automatically. The only problem would be when a new MARKET crops up! Then, the farmers might be closer to the new Market (commerce center) and so send their food to their instead. That may be futher from those hill and mountains changing who gets feed automatically... You, being the Eternal Emporer, could direct New Market to send its excess food to Old Market, where its once again available to those Miners. Only, now you have another layer that gold changes hands, creating a higher economy.

I don't see a problem with having goods (whether food, minerals, energy, whatever) sent to the nearest commerce centers. When a tile is equally distant between two centers, it can get what it needs from either. You settler/outpost makers/whatever then set up a commerce center. you can move your people to work the important tiles around it, and let things happen organically after that, until a major problem arises.

-Darkstar

[BigBopper]

About the spy discusion.

I think spying should be based on tech level and how aggresive the spy try's to get a new tech. Obviously if you try to grab a brand spanking new tech in one turn the chances are your spy will be caught and killed. However if you chose to infiltrate a city (your spy would disapear for several turns) and go for a tech that the enemy civ has had for a long time chances would be very good that you would get the tech. This would represent the fact that the longer a civ has a tech the more wide spread its use and the looser it is with it's control's. Look at China, it got a lot of our military tech by buying de-milled military hardware that was sold as scrap. (funny all those broken up airplane parts that were auctioned off as scrap metal sold for far higher than their scrap value)

I had an idea, but hadnt posted it in a proper topic to be sent to Firaxis.

The idea of having an affair, just as Ceasar and Cleopatra did seems to bring up a fair bit of emotions, which I think is quite an interactive feature.

Heres where Its talked about:

http://apolyton.net/forums/Forum28/HTML/000101.html


Thanks...

<font size=1 color=444444>[This message has been edited by Icedan (edited June 07, 1999).]</font>

[Daniel Bistman]

I wanna talk about a leaders sistem that manages many aspects of the empire.

meowser and BigBopper posted about this on May,24 and May,25.

I think that leaders must be absolutely customizable on their personality(as in Space Empires3), but not with bonuses(as in MOO). If leaders have bonuses, you will want to change them of place some times (from one city to another if one riots etc.) instead of that, there must be a Military minister (for example), with a personality customized that take care of ALL the armies you want to let him manage. The same with cities (a city minister), fleets, etc.

[Flavor Dave]

Darkstar--yeah, but what I'm suggesting would give you an incentive to try to get a "preemptive" win, win early before another civ got cranking. You'd be overextending yourself.

Of course, that factor is theoretical unless the AI gets alot better. The way it is now, the longer the game goes on, the bigger your edge over it, both in military planning and in city management.

2nd, having this 3rd victory condition would force perfectionist/isolationists to get more involved in the world. Wouldn't it be awful in 1720 to get the message: "Romans achieve world domination. Game over."

On 2nd thought, the science condition shouldn't apply.

[EnochF]

Oddly enough, I agree. Sometimes I'd rather just build up my civilization without dealing with the malformed juggernauts the computer calls "civilizations."

I wouldn't have brought it up myself. I mean, this is the "radical ideas" thread and all, but this is simply too radical.

Sometimes I'd rather just create a history, create a geography, create a culture. Sometimes competition is nice; I wouldn't want to cut it out of the game or anything. Playing against AI civs or via the internet with other players will always be important. Sometimes, though, I'd much rather play as if I was the entire human species rather than just a single tribe. I'd rather try to achieve space travel as fast as possible without destroying the ecosystem. I'd rather colonize the world while optimizing for resources, rather than having to conquer ill-placed enemy cities. Just sometimes.

[Flavor Dave]

You know, it should be pretty easy to program the following scenario:

1. You're the only Civ.
2. The ONLY wonder is the Apollo Program.
3. Barb level is superduper hordes. There are barb cities scattered around the world.
4. If you have even ONE bit of pollution, you lose the game. Alternatively, make global warming a much much bigger problem.
5. Make it to AC by X.

This would also be a good tutorial for warmongers who want to change to perfectionists.

At the same time, you could somewhat less easily build the reverse scenario, incorporating alot of the other ideas of how to make minor improvements to the ancient units. It's 500 BC. You start with like 10 techs. You can "improve" your archers and legions, etc. in workshops, with the achievement of certain techs. Each turn would be 1 year, and you have until 1 AD to create the Roman Empire. You'll know what I'm talking about if you've read the other threads.

[wheathin]

Why have a "win" at all? There are goals, to be sure, but as far as many players are concerned, they are of the take-it-or-leave-it variety. How many players actually play the game to the bitter end, even though they have had it in the bag since the Rennaissance? If your roughest rival has only discovered invention when you are industrializing, will you still wait until you can get to space and build your starship before you start a new game?

Sure, when I played SMAC, I tried to get each of the victory conditions at least once, but after that I just wanted to build. It is the playing that makes Civ great, not the winning. All of the various win scenarios are just icing on the cake.

Note that in one of the best game franchises ever, one which bears a strong resemblance to Civ, there is no victory at all: SimCity.

wheathin

[NotLikeTea]

I agree entirely, and I posted a similar comment under Game Atmosphere, I believe.

Having a thriving civilization should be a victory in itself. Points should not be everything. SimCiv, if you like.

At the msot extreme, it should be possible to play a satisfying game without any competition. Just you and the world (with babarians, internal strife, etc..)

[Darkstar]

Hey, you can always keep playing after you are scored. I did that in Civ and sometimes Civ2.

The option you want (and I do too) is to be able to select the number of competing Civs, from 0 to 6 (or greater). And that is something I would like to have as well. Sometimes, only SimCiv will do.

-Darkstar

[yin26]

-=*MOVING THREAD UP*=-

I would like to suggest an additional combat option. This one may not be popular and would greatly change the game. So I put it in this thread.
The idea is to use deterministic combat instead of random combat result. A strong attacker will always win but will always suffer a certain amount of damage determined by combat odds. This has the effect of turning Civ to more chess-like. Personally I am satisfied with random combat but this may appeal to some TRUE strategists.

[Picker]

How's that, good strategy can defeat a stronger opponent, unless we're talking tanks against pikemen sort of thing.

------------------
The Notorious P.I.K.
"Natives who beat drums to drive off evil spirits are objects of scorn to smart Americans who blow horns to break up traffic jams."

[Bigcivfan]

I have a new idea that everyone can help expand on (or kill). From reading posts from various threads I could see that many players desire more to cultural identity then just what civ the city belongs to. My idea is that there be a whole new menu called the "Culture" menu. In the culture menu the are various sub-menu's that deal with things important to culture.
1. Race- Perhaps we should give are civs a definable race. Not "European" or "Chinese" but just "Green" or "Purple".(Just to eliminate any hassles.) Now each "race" is, at first, native to a certain area of the map. Your civ will have, at first, only one race, but "races" move, and over time and empire expansion you will have an empire composed of "Greens" and "Purples" and "Blues" all interacting. Different effects of the game and the Culture menu will affect these "races" and they will affect the game. (eg. A democratic government will not be able to persecute "Blues", a Facist or Fundamentalist government will have trouble controlling the minority "Blues" who they dislike.) Any ideas to expand on this....
2. Religion- Another important section of the "Culture" Menu is religion. Again, all religions are ficticious to avoid hassle(maybe a naming option is desired.) Religions will start in areas or cities and will grow from there. Religion is seperate from race, as you can have "Blue Zoobites" and "Purple Zoobites". Different religions make up a percentage of your empires population and you have to deal with this. (For example, "Zoobitism" might be intolerant of "Pontyism", which is also popular in your empire.) The religion will affect social engineering. (A civ that decides to become a "Pontyist" fundamentalism will have a tough time controlling the unrest from the shunned "Zoobists") Different religions might give you certain penalties and benifits. ("Pontism" is firm in donating a day to the city, givng you production bonuses, while "Zoobists" are paranoid, giving a military bonus.) Any ideas to expand on this....
The "Culture" menu could be used for manipulating these aspects of your empire, such as persecuting "Zoobists" or putting more "Purples" in the city to work so there is less unrest in the country. It is possible that the Governement/Social Engineering menu can be placed in the "Culture" menu.
These are just two of the ideas for a "Culture" menu that were on my mind. I think that adding this element of multiculturalism, we can have new quirks to the game that make it more enjoyable. (or perhaps more tedious???) I would like to hear any suggestions/comments on this idea.

[Francis]

Not sure if this is the right place or if it mimics ideas put forth by others, but here goes.

There seems to be a tension on all threads between those who want levels of complexity added and those who think complexity will overwhelm the fun. Why not program those levels, but make them turn-offable? For the beginning player, or someone looking for a quick game, a streamilined game is possible. For a more experienced gamer, or someone with particular interests, the more complex levels can be switched on. The following are not to suggest exactly how to do it, but to show that a multilayered game is possible and fun.

Examples:

Military. Basic combat takes place in a modified Civ II sort of way; Advanced combat involves, perhaps, a separate "tactical" micro-map on which soldiers/units can be more precisely deployed and employed.

Units. Basic game involves the pre-made units. Advanced involves use of a robust units workshop to create custom units.

Civil/Government/Happines and unhappiness. Basic game involves the same type of population control as currently. Advanced makes you deal with, in Demo/Repub for example, individuals in the Senate. (Maybe these would be priests under fundamentalism, nobles under monarchy, etc.) Without getting into too much detail, there would always be say 5 minimum Senators (or whatever), +1 for each city under 12, +2 for each city over 12. And you must masssage your Senate to get your way. The moderate Senator Jones from a high-trade interior city wants a river widened into a navigable canal in return for his support of your war. Or, Senator Smith from a plains city warns that his people are unhappy and may revolt--how about a Grain Elevator to help them endure seasonal fluctuations in wheat prices? Whereas Senator Thompson always supports you, Senator Wainwright is always a hawk and against science except for military research, and Senator Gallo is always a dove. Perhaps in fundy war would always be okay, science would always make most of them restive, and building science improvements would cause unhappiness, to be ameliorated by more religion improvements. Maybe you can tell that I like this idea a lot.

Trade. Basic works as in Civ II; more advanced may involve Merchant units that can actually enter other cities (perhaps only allies) and increase trade in their home city. You can use them as spies, but risk discovery and problems in the alliance. Also, if they're in a city when it's attacked they might be lost and drag you into war. How about repeated trade? I think the AI will only send what you demand, but wouldn't it be more profitable to turn your hides surplus from a size 3 foreign city into a hides freight bound for a mighty city? What about tariff levels--you can set them high for current income off each arriving unit, but they make caravan/freights less likely to come to your cities, and reduce the long-term arrow bonus.

Production: Basic as in Civ II, advanced means that, perhaps, different cities produce different things, and a shortage of steel from Buffalo can slow tank production in Detroit.

Science: Basic as in Civ II. Advanced--you can divide efforts among more than one advance. Finer branches of the tech tree--many/most dicoveries would have "blind alleys" that don't lead to other advances, but enable you to more effectively utilize what you've already got. For example, after mobile warfare you can also research, I don't know, panzer grenadier or something, giving your tanks more attack strength.

I welcome some reaction to this and other ideas for adding optional levels of complexity. Thanks for your attention.

Francis