Civ4 Suggestions

[Jarvin]

Adding to Mad Bomber's amphibious assault point.

Marines need to do more damage, 8 isnt enough, especially when Mech Infantry comes along a few turns later.

[Adagio]

I'd just like to see:

Future techs... near future techs only... and different tech-trees for different playing styles

[pedrojedi]

Events, like natural disasters or revolts that are not quite barbarian but works almost the same way, IN your territory, mod-only (example: in an earth map, one could place a revolt in an area/city/government of Los Angeles like those that used to occur 10-20 years ago). Non-military units like in CtP would be so very cool, specially if they would also work with events.

More governments, and editable governing issues, like in EU. That would be so so so very cool.

I NEED FUTURE TECH TREES!

And more diplomatic options and a more functional UN.

[MotownDennis]

I believe this has been talked about before (maybe in the ideas for CivIII when it was being developed), but how about natural wonders? In other words, a unique terrain type that only exists in one tile on the map. Maybe a luxury wonder that makes two citizens in each city happy but can't be traded. Or maybe something like the Comstock Lode of iron where this one source of iron can be used for your civilization's needs but also could be traded to as many other civs as you wish. Another idea would be something like Niagara Falls which would give some kind of large commercial benefit (+20 trade?). The Mt. Everest natural wonder might give the city that has it within its borders 3x defense.
These natual wonders obviously could not be "built". They would appear randomly on the map. I would also think that not every natural wonder would appear in every game. This way, you'll never know at the beginning of the game which ones are available.
Just think of the epic military struggles that would take place when you find out that your neighbor has the one of these in their territory! Like the warmongers need another reason to go to war

[mrmitchell]

more functional UN? it wins you the game!!! that's not functional?

Also, resources might need to be rejiggered a little, i.e. one tile of oil can't provide oil for 60 cities. (Something like x tiles of oil supports x cities or something. However this would make trading more difficult ).

And yes, wonder movies please!!!

[pedrojedi]

Well, the UN just do that and nothing more... I'm thinking in something like SMAC.

The UN is a functional dead-end.

[Kuciwalker]

Hey, they got it to work like in real life (except maybe a bit more functional..)

[pedrojedi]

Sad, but true.

[peterfharris]

I would like to see :
- progressive improvement of terrain (as in Imperialism 2) so you can initially irrigate a square to get one extra food then later when you get more tech you may further improve that same square to yield another food and then improve yet again when you advance more.
- possible to set city buildings that give you a fixed quantity of food or gold or shields per turn (in Civ3 this is only possible for shields)
- ability to adjust the gold per turn to support a military unit before government support costs come into play (umh, I think modern armour should cost far more to support than a stone age warrior). This would also have the benefit of reducing the vast numbers of units around in the modern age and the consequent large amounts of time needed to move units about. Also the increased cost of support would require more judicious consideration of force size and composition rather than the current "more is better" approach.
- I like mrmitchell's suggestion that resources need to be rejigged. I have no clear idea on this but the Imperialism 2 method of stockpiles might be woirth considering.
- more peaceful diplomatic options
- restraint of the mad land grab in the beginning
- there is too much need to get the largest possible area. As things stand the number of squares controlled is too important. How you use what you have needs to be more important relative to the importance of how much land you have.
- a really good editor

[winwithwallace]

is Civ4 a confirmed go? people sure post like it is...

[Daz]

peter is reading my mind....

I would also like to have larger maps which would as a result limit how much of the land mass is actually inhabited/settled.

Not all of the land mass should be settled and resources showing up late game would make it more interesting.

Research time should be longer but that can already be modded.

More units of course. More CIV specific units. Now we have one. Why not have all civ specific?

my 2 cents...

[pedrojedi]

That would be complicated... to achieve that in an easy way, it would require a workshop like SMAC, and some serious creativity show by the AI.

[Spiffor]

I agree with most ideas here : expanded diplomacy, more flexible tech tree depending on your playstyle, better espionage (but don't bring back spies from Civ2 !), and a real editor is a must.

However, there is something important that has been missed util now :

Make the game 3d

Civ3 couldn't have been 3d, or it would have eaten up even more resources that it does, and wouldn't have worked on many computers of its time. But when Civ4 comes, the computers will be powerful enough to let it play in whole 3d. There are many advantages to 3d:

- realistic maps. The Earth or randomly generated planet will now be spheres, not cylinders. Flat maps can still be flat in a 3d environment.

- dynamic levels of zoom, from gazing at the nose of your soldier to looking at the whole world.

- Terrains will be defined by two elements rather than one : in the current 2d environment, a hill is a hill, no matter if it is in Siberia, in Sahara, or in Normandy. With 3d terrain, elevation will be separated from climate, and both will be able to define the terrain. It would allow a hill in a desert no to bring any more food than the desert itself.

- much flexibility in the display of cities : A 3d Civ4 could use individual graphics of dwellings and big improvements, and gather them to create the display of a city. This way, no city will look strictly like another.

- It makes it easier to display the Great Wall on the map.

- much flexibility in the animation of units. It also gives modders the possibility to create skins (for various uniforms of the same unit for example). It would be nice if modders could modify the models or add those of their own.

- it graphically allows combined arms : if I put a pikeman, a longbowman and a knight on the same tile, such a group can be represented as a whole on the tile (by shrinking their individual size for example). If a combined arms system à la CTP is present in Civ4, 3d will be the best way to peresent it.

---

Really, I do not see any problem in making Civ4 to 3d. The CPUresources problem will be lifted by the time Civ4 exists, and the transformation doesn't force any radical change in the existing gameplay. 3d doesn't mean to get rid of tiles (and of the city radius / tile improvements / unit moves) as we know them. 3d will not get confusing, because the map will look pretty much flat when you'll zoom at it. And 3d shouldn't alientate graphic modders, if they can make skins, or if they can access and modify the existing models.
In Civ games, the depth of the game is much more important than eye candy. But I think the change to 3d is much more than eye candy : it allows many elements of gameplay to be added without the game requiring more abstract symbols to display them.

[vmxa1]

One problem with going 3D is that there are a lot of people that can not play 3d games, due to motion sickness.
Games that must met the audiences demand such as the shooters and the lastest RPG games have to do and some RTS as well. TBS fans do not require it, so why give away those sales, you will not add anyone with that feature, so no gain.

I would like to see them have a modified RoP. One that you can offer as a one way deal. I want to let you cross my lands and you do not have to let me.
Lots of times you do not want to have an ROP and the AI may not want to make one, but if we are both at war with the same Civ, I want you to be able to use my road/rails to get there quicker. So I give you the one way RoP. Maybe it could be for a shorter time, say 10 turns.

[Adagio]

I have yet to see a strategy-game, that looks better in 3D than it could have looked in 2D, while at the same time has a good user-friendly userface...

...I'm tired of this "Everthing has to be 3D now-a-days" thingy... not everything fits to be 3D...

Originally posted by vmxa1
Maybe it could be for a shorter time, say 10 turns.

...and make the time-limit for deals, changeable...

[Spiffor]

Actually, I too was a diehard opponent of the "everything has to be 3d" thingy until very recently, when I understood the biggest advantage of 3d : graphic flexibility. I have put some thought in putting Civ4 into 3d, and I really didn't see the drawbacks of such a thing :

- putting the graphics in 3d doesn't force any drastic gameplay changes. There is no need to change the way cities are selected, or units are moved : for example, there is no need to set an altitude to your planes. The game still mostly reasons in 2d.
- however, it allows a proper display for such gameplay changes (like terrain defined both by elevation and climate)
- at a normal zoom level, a 3d Civ map barely looks "round", but rather looks about as flat as a 2d map would be. There is no more need for fast and furious camera moves in a 3d environment than for fast and furious scrolling speed in a 2d environment.
- I think an aerial view of the map, like the one we have now, is the best view we can have in a TBS. 3d doesn't hinder us to have such a view, even though it offers the possibility to explore new ones.
- The 3d translation would be botched if it forced the player to change the camera angle to select a city / unit, or to get some info.

In short, a good 3d translation would make possible many new possibilities. A bad one would force them. It is a strong feeling that Civ3would have no interface change, should it be 3d. ADG, do you think 3d would have forced changes to Civ3 interface, had Civ3 been 3d ?

[The Mad Monk]

-bring back wonder movies
-bring back the council
-bring back the multimap feature ToT had
-bring back rush building
-more as I think of them

[Adagio]

Originally posted by Spiffor
In short, a good 3d translation would make possible many new possibilities. A bad one would force them. It is a strong feeling that Civ3would have no interface change, should it be 3d. ADG, do you think 3d would have forced changes to Civ3 interface, had Civ3 been 3d ?

What I believe is: It takes more resources to make a game 3D, and since I prefer gameplay over graphics, I'd say they should spend those resources on making the game playable/without bugs

* ADG takes a look at Civ3

[pedrojedi]

And still, for me, 3d environment, for all arguments Spiffor "Legoman" said, would still be a dispensable plus... None of those reasons really make it more than "eye-candy" (I liked this expression ), at least for me.

[Spiffor]

- More buildings
"More" doesn't always mean "better", but Civ3 suffers from the lack of buildings : once your empire has solid production capabilities, it can build all buildings in all cities before the next tech is discovered. It forces even hardcore builders to build massive armies for lack of more peaceful options.
From mid-game on, there is no drawback of a builder strategy, because it doesn't hinder the player to build troops. At this time, the choice between military and economy (the big rift of Civ3) is no more, because the player can afford both.
It hurts the complexity of the game, and this is bad.

- More (optional) techs
- More techs whose very discovery create a direct effect. Like Economics doubles the effect of wealth, we could have techs whose very discovery trigger a reduction of corruption, create culture, decrease the effect of cathedrals, increases the moves of boats and so on...

- completely change commerce (I'm not talking about trade between Civs).
Make it directly dependant from the population of the city, its trade connections, and its internal infrastructure (marketplace, banks, "trading posts", "supermarkets" and whatnot), not from the roaded tile around the city.
It is absurd that commerce, and the creation of wealth and research that go along, comes from the amount of peasants working on roaded tiles. It forces all tiles of the empire to be roaded. This is ugly, especially for newbies, and it is tedious for those who manage their workers.
In terms of fun, the separation of commerce and roads would make the game more simple and accessible without dumbing it down : commerce would still exist, there would still be ways to improve it, but tedious micromanagement and ugliness would be over. Besides, highly populated cities will now be attractive.

- Make it possible to have allied units on the same tile as your units. It would make allied warfare much more interesting, as you would be able to defend a failing ally's cities without them being taken by the enemy, and allied troops wouldn't block you the way.
- By the same token, please please please include unit trading. It would bring a tantamount of diplomatic / macchiavellian fun (many more details in the link).

[Spiffor]

BTW, a comprehensive list of ideas has been assembled by DarkCloud late 2001. They were for Civ3 once it was out, but many ideas are still valid. You can see it here

[Elok]

I agree that the game needs to be much more modifiable than it is.
Screw 3d; I want a game that suffers a minimum of slowdown, doesn't hog memory, and puts most of its effort into gameplay and the balance thereof.
Fundamentalism should be rebalanced, but it needs to come back. I wanna be an Ayatollah.
I'd also like a fascist government that's great at suppressing happiness among its own and has the option of exterminating foreigners in your cities at the price of making the rest of the world hate you. Probably won't be integrated because it sounds barbaric, but as long as we're dreaming, I'd use it.
That "your whole city decides it wants to turn to the neighboring country" thing must go. What a load of crap!
The Arabs were the dominant civilization of the Western world for most of a milennium. They need representation a lot more than, say, the Iroqouis. I guess the Arabs would be scientific expansionists led by Saladin or some such.
It'd be nice if there was something to reflect growing standards of medicine and hygeine. The knowledge that you need to wash your hands before delivering an infant caused a population explosion, but none of the Civs to date really include anything like it.
That's all I can think of right now.

[Manya]

events

[Tiberius]

Originally posted by badams52
(1) make fortresses have ZOCs like civ II.
(4) ability to mediate peace between rival civs.

I like these.

Also alternative tech trees, a better trade model, more diplomatic options. And one more: make the UN useful !!!

[vmxa1]

Originally posted by Manya
events

Please no events. Anyway we have one, global warming.
I hate events that you have no control over them, they just happen.

[epics]

Have any one mentioned this before?:
add new specialist citizen which will provide shields, lets call it carpanter/enineer

[Stefu]

Say, does any of the old hands still have The List around? Or the Essential List? If you know why I've capitalized the words, you know what I'm talking about. Many (most?) of the (good) suggestions in The List weren't put to use, and I'm convinced they could still be utilized for Civ4.

[Tiberius]

Essential civ3 list

There were 2 categories, new ideas and fixes. Obviously today, with the new features, rules, etc of civ3, the list is outdated, but an interesting reading nevertheless.

The "new idea" that received the fewest votes (namely Tourism) was mine but I'm still proud of it

Unfortunately I wasn't able to find the older, original, complete list. I had it on my hdd, it was a document with over 100 pages ... or was it 400? I don't really remember exactly, it was a long time ago and back then I was only a newbie on 'Poly

[Adagio]

Originally posted by Tiberius
The "new idea" that received the fewest votes (namely Tourism) was mine but I'm still proud of it

Sad... I liked that idea... I actually sugested it myself, before I knew about this list...

[mrmitchell]

Another happiness improvement in the Ind/Mod ages. (Wait...is there one? Sorry if there is )

Electronics makes a lot of people happy, all the late Modern makes a lot of people happy... also, Hospitals could double with a happiness benefit, because your loved ones not dieing away should be good.