Civ4 Suggestions

[Fosse]

SPHERE OF INFLUENCE - Don't you hate it when you've settled your own little corner of the world.....except for this ONE little mountain strip that is just outside your borders when all of a sudden.... a British ship comes in with a settler and builds a new city right smack in your territory? Well, I do. I mean, take the early US for example, can you imagine a British explorer coming over to unsettled Kansas and claiming that land for England?

Great idea! It doesn't rule out the need to settle your own land, but it also means if you want to take those last few acres of what is clearly someone else's land, then you had better be ready for trouble!

I may have mentioned this, but I don't recall so:

I would like to see official declaration of war be a seperate thing than committing an act of war. This is one thing that MoO3 did pretty well (maybe earlier ones, I never played that series until 3)... if I attack another civs units it will surely piss them off, but it migh not cause a war. If a huge empire I share a giant unguarded border with takes over one tiny useless island that I own, maybe I don't want that to spark a huge war.

So when somebody attacks you or does something, you get a popup saying "the Incans' latest actions could be grounds for a declaration of war. Will we declare a state of war on the Incan nation?"

Easy to do, adds a bit of depth and realism. Also, imagine playing the odds... "I MIGHT be able to take out this settler without angering Rome's fifteen Legions..."

How about being able to swap the 'cabinet' members around a little? Maybe put the military guy in charge of culture:

[Pax]

Terrorist units- should be able to build terrorist units that act independently of your civ disrupting your enemies infastructure and helping to cause rebellion in cities that have your people.

[stonewall]

Originally posted by Fosse

I would like to see official declaration of war be a seperate thing than committing an act of war. This is one thing that MoO3 did pretty well (maybe earlier ones, I never played that series until 3)... if I attack another civs units it will surely piss them off, but it migh not cause a war. If a huge empire I share a giant unguarded border with takes over one tiny useless island that I own, maybe I don't want that to spark a huge war.

So when somebody attacks you or does something, you get a popup saying "the Incans' latest actions could be grounds for a declaration of war. Will we declare a state of war on the Incan nation?"

Easy to do, adds a bit of depth and realism. Also, imagine playing the odds... "I MIGHT be able to take out this settler without angering Rome's fifteen Legions..."

That is a great idea. So many times another civ has popped down "in my territory" but I didn't want to start a war with them to get rid of it. If I had the chance to take that city out and that action may not lead to war, that would be cool. I guess your reputation might take a hit and the other civ's likliehood of declaring war would depend its attitude towards you.

Neat idea

[mindragon73]

A few things I´d like to see:

1) IMPASSABLE MOUNTAINS. That is- until you discover how to build TUNNELS. Might add more depth as to where to build your cities.

2) BRIDGES. That can connect lands with one square of water between them.

3) CHANNELS. The "opposite" to bridges. Makes it possible for ships to pass through one square of land surrounded by water. Perhaps with a toll for everybody but the owner/builder.

[dexters]

I like Canals.

[Krasny]

the two things that annoy me most in CIVs 1-3 are:

1. crummy AI. It cant be that hard to make an AI that sometimes plays like a human being, eg massed attacks, massed arty, etc
2. foreign units moving in your teritory. the teritory of a civilisation should be regarded as inelligable for movement unless war is declared or a right of passage treaty is in force

[Krasny]

impassable mountains are a good idea - i did a small mod that implemented this - just make all ground units (except workers) wheeled and make a new unit (mountain infantry)

what would be nice is mountains that do damage to units that enter them (mountains killed more of hannibals men then the romans)

[Panag]

Originally posted by mindragon73
A few things I´d like to see:

1) IMPASSABLE MOUNTAINS. That is- until you discover how to build TUNNELS. Might add more depth as to where to build your cities.

2) BRIDGES. That can connect lands with one square of water between them.

3) CHANNELS. The "opposite" to bridges. Makes it possible for ships to pass through one square of land surrounded by water. Perhaps with a toll for everybody but the owner/builder.

hi ,

its always funny to see when you have flagged in the editor mountains as unpassable by wheeled units , .... and then they move over it , ......

same when you flag a terrain as "dont settle" , .....

Firaxis this needs to be fixed , .....

have a nice day

[Mad Bomber]

Originally posted by lameduck998
impassable mountains are a good idea - i did a small mod that implemented this - just make all ground units (except workers) wheeled and make a new unit (mountain infantry)

what would be nice is mountains that do damage to units that enter them (mountains killed more of hannibals men then the romans)

Impassable mountains are not realistic. As you pointed out Hannabal crossed the Alps; they hindered him but did not STOP him. Although Hannibal lost many men in the crossing he still remained a viable threat to the romans even after losing a third of his forces (which he made up after spring of recruitment in the Po river valley) Also many other forces have used mountain trails or bases in times of war (tora bora was a mountain base)

Having mountains impassible would not be realistic and would hinder or drastically change the gameplay, and IMO is not necessary.

PS. The battle of Zama caused far more casulties to Hannibal than the crossing of the Alps


Stonewall: I like your act of war idea very much and it would add more depth and reality to the game, provided that safeguards are used to prevent exploits (I don't want the AI to ignore Pearl Harbour type assaults) and a little work would be needed to adequately balance the force needed to declare war (should be tied to race's aggression level)

[Azeem]

Maybe, if possible, they should make crossing mountains (especially the snow-capped mountains) cause 1 HP of damage to units.

[Panag]

hi ,

an nuclear weapons and stealth reducing treaty like start would be nice , ....

and icbm's should go into a silo

have a nice day

[Krasny]

PS. The battle of Zama caused far more casulties to Hannibal than the crossing of the Alps


i was refering to hannibals italian campaigns

but point taken

but mountains still irk

[Dr. A. Cula]

I'd really love to see the idea of playing several maps at once reintroduced and expanded. I loved it in ToT. Changes the game completely.

[mindragon73]

Well, I didn´t mean that ALL mountains should be impassable, just some. There could be different kinds of mountains. Then, for instance, if you placed a city in a spot where it´s almost surrounded by impassable mountains, it would be harder for the enemy to invade.

Another thing which I find a bit funny is the railroad. Doesn´t it make travelling almost like teleportation?

[Mad Bomber]

The RR movement is another issue in which I like as is. Yes, it does seem at times to be like a transporter rather than RR, but if you actually look at the change in transportation cost and speed that actually took place then it doesn't seem to be terribly out of line when compared to real life.

Lets look at a real life example

* a person walking can travel aprox 10-30 miles in a day depending on the persons physical fitness.

* A person using a horse can travel approx 50-75 miles in a day if the horse is relitively healthy (and usually a day of rest would be needed afterwards).

* The average RR could travel 25-35 miles per hour and could travel over 500 miles in a single day.

So the actual increase in speed per day with RR is between 425-490 miles per day, and up to a 5000% increase in efficiency.

So if a road allowed a movement of 3 and increased that by 5000% would mean that you would have a unit move 150/1 over RR. It was simply more practical to allow for infiite movement over RR's

[Rhothaerill]

Originally posted by Mad Bomber
The RR movement is another issue in which I like as is. Yes, it does seem at times to be like a transporter rather than RR, but if you actually look at the change in transportation cost and speed that actually took place then it doesn't seem to be terribly out of line when compared to real life.

Lets look at a real life example

* a person walking can travel aprox 10-30 miles in a day depending on the persons physical fitness.

* A person using a horse can travel approx 50-75 miles in a day if the horse is relitively healthy (and usually a day of rest would be needed afterwards).

* The average RR could travel 25-35 miles per hour and could travel over 500 miles in a single day.

So the actual increase in speed per day with RR is between 425-490 miles per day, and up to a 5000% increase in efficiency.

So if a road allowed a movement of 3 and increased that by 5000% would mean that you would have a unit move 150/1 over RR. It was simply more practical to allow for infiite movement over RR's

Never thought about it that way before. Thanks MB. Until I read this post I thought that the way CTP did railroads was more realistic. Now I'll have to rethink my whole thought process (or something like that ).

[The_Aussie_Lurker]

Hey there M_B,

You do make some good points, but I'd like to make some counter-points if I may .

1) Though Infinite RR movement is "realistic". I personally feel that it doen't make for good gameplay! Of course, that is only my opinion, but things like RR movement should, at the least, be open to editing. In fact, I believe that an ability to add/edit all terrain improvements would make an excellent addition to the existing editor!!

2) Whether you agree or disagree with the concept of infinite RR movement, I'm sure that most people HATE the RR sprawl which so often afflicts the game!! Thus I would suggest that RR's, and possibly other terrain improvements, should carry some kind of maintainence cost-which would be paid for out of your treasury each turn (based on a #/tile basis). Some improvements and/or wonders should help to decrease this maintainence cost!!

Anyway, those are two improvements which I would LOVE to see !!

Yours,
The_Aussie_Lurker.

[Solomwi]

I'm sure that most people HATE the RR sprawl

If we're voting, I may be in the minority, but I LOVE the RR sprawl. Looking over my empire and knowing I can get to any remote corner of it in a snap just gives me the satisfaction of a job finished, and makes me feel all-powerful . Of course, I also think of it on scale... no that mountain isn't covered in railroads, but there is a line going through it that allows access, and lots of pretty scenery to view as you go across.

[Quasar1011]

Originally posted by Fosse
Great idea! It doesn't rule out the need to settle your own land, but it also means if you want to take those last few acres of what is clearly someone else's land, then you had better be ready for trouble!

Hmm, in that case, that gives me an idea There could be "land claims" in Civ 4. The first Civ to reach a square can legally lay claim to it, even if the square is not within its cultural boundaries. Maybe make building a fortress or an outpost as strengthening a civ's claim to a tract of land. Parcels of claimed land could then be negotiated diplomatically. But they would also trigger a casus belli , or legal cause for war, if another civ builds a city in a claimed tract of land.

Also, there should be 2 types of pollution: the current sludge we all know and love , but also nuclear contamination . To implement this, you could make any units traversing irradiated squares lose a hit point per turn, or something like that. Ban city-building from such squares too. Cleaning up this type of pollution should be much more expensive and time consuming... or make it not even possible.

[Panag]

Originally posted by Mad Bomber
The RR movement is another issue in which I like as is. Yes, it does seem at times to be like a transporter rather than RR, but if you actually look at the change in transportation cost and speed that actually took place then it doesn't seem to be terribly out of line when compared to real life.

Lets look at a real life example

* a person walking can travel aprox 10-30 miles in a day depending on the persons physical fitness.

* A person using a horse can travel approx 50-75 miles in a day if the horse is relitively healthy (and usually a day of rest would be needed afterwards).

* The average RR could travel 25-35 miles per hour and could travel over 500 miles in a single day.

So the actual increase in speed per day with RR is between 425-490 miles per day, and up to a 5000% increase in efficiency.

So if a road allowed a movement of 3 and increased that by 5000% would mean that you would have a unit move 150/1 over RR. It was simply more practical to allow for infiite movement over RR's

hi ,

there aint a single train who runs 500 miles in just one day , .....

if we want realism in the game we should think also about loading the units on the train and unloading them , ...... signals , track problems , strikes , weather , shiftchanges , etc , ..... all of that makes that it just aint realistic , here should be a max of ten spaces on the rr in one turn , ........

have a nice day

[Solomwi]

there aint a single train who runs 500 miles in just one day , .....

You're kidding, right? Just for one example, try Amtrak's Crescent run, which goes from New York to New Orleans (1300 miles) in 29-30 hours. Below is a link to the schedule.

http://www.transitinfo.org/Amtrak/Scheds/e_cres.html

[Quasar1011]

Originally posted by panag


hi ,

there aint a single train who runs 500 miles in just one day , .....

I haven't traveled Amtrak since 1983, but we did Atlanta to Philadelphia in 18 hours. That's over 500 miles.

[Azeem]

How about a little addition to contacting other civs?

This might be interesting:
When you first contact another civilization, both your empires get a nice little boost in gold per turn to represent trade with that empire. That gold bonus becomes disabled only when you declare an embargo. But there's a downside to contacting another civilization - both of you have the chance of contracting their diseases, causing plague in your empire and theirs.

In the times of the Age of Colonization, the Aztecs suffered from plague when the Spanish arrived because they did not have any exposure to European diseases and in return, the Spanish contracted syphilis and brought it back to Europe.

[Agathon]

I don't know if anyone has suggested this, but more sabotage (I love sabotage). Having special forces units that can hide and interdict tiles would be good.

Also letting aircraft interdict units or stacks (like in Red Storm Rising) would be excellent.

*edit* Duh! I suggested these about a month ago. No wonder I thought they were good ideas.

How about better city screens - there's something that annoys me. All the cities look the same.

[djafrot]

OK I know people have said this, but I'm repeating it so the powers that be understand.

Air power needs to be fixed. Bombing should be able to destroy ships, and bombers should be able to have escorts (I have a zillion f-15's, but no way of helping my bombers from getting slaughtered).

Why are ships so damn slow? I can take a railway across the continent in one year, but it takes me twenty years to get a ship to Australia? Uh, no.

I was thinking that geography should affect happiness. Who do you think is happier due to thier weather, Californians or Swedes? Russians or Greeks?

The AI needs to be fixed so that it's not just trying to constantly screw the player, and is more realistic in it's own gains. Everytime I play 16 teams everyone else just sits on their ass and trades with each other, then freezes me out. WTF? If the game needs to be hard then there are other ways of doing it.

The UN needs to be expanded. I know we're not big fans of it right now but it is a VERY important piece of the international political world.

After all this though, I LOVE Civ3. It's my favourite game by far.

[Panag]

Originally posted by Quasar1011


I haven't traveled Amtrak since 1983, but we did Atlanta to Philadelphia in 18 hours. That's over 500 miles.

hi ,

if it keeps going the way its like now , ...... its going to be 180 hours soon , ....

no , but look at cargo trains , troop movements etc , ....

in Israel we are able to build a tank that puts no restrictions on its design cause we dont need to move them over long distances by train like for example the French one , most limits on tanks and apc's for example are due to weight and size for transport by railroad and flight , .....

but follow a cargotrain from port to port , lets say from galveston to san diego , .....

cargo trains must give priority to passenger trains , there could be snow blocking the tracks in the mountains , there could be a small accident , a crew that works the tracks and the train needs to slow down , the sharp inclines in mountains or hills , ....

refuelling , etc , ......

there should be put a limit on it , the best would be if we where to be able as players to change this under the general preferences in the editor , .....

the base settings should be 15 rr tiles , .....

Firaxis , ....

have a nice day

[Panag]

Originally posted by djafrot
OK I know people have said this, but I'm repeating it so the powers that be understand.

Air power needs to be fixed. Bombing should be able to destroy ships, and bombers should be able to have escorts (I have a zillion f-15's, but no way of helping my bombers from getting slaughtered).

Why are ships so damn slow? I can take a railway across the continent in one year, but it takes me twenty years to get a ship to Australia? Uh, no.

I was thinking that geography should affect happiness. Who do you think is happier due to thier weather, Californians or Swedes? Russians or Greeks?

The AI needs to be fixed so that it's not just trying to constantly screw the player, and is more realistic in it's own gains. Everytime I play 16 teams everyone else just sits on their ass and trades with each other, then freezes me out. WTF? If the game needs to be hard then there are other ways of doing it.

The UN needs to be expanded. I know we're not big fans of it right now but it is a VERY important piece of the international political world.

After all this though, I LOVE Civ3. It's my favourite game by far.

hi ,

the option " control the skies " on your F-15's clearly reflects the protection of your bombers , .....

have a nice day

[Solomwi]

Originally posted by panag
but follow a cargotrain from port to port , lets say from galveston to san diego , .....

cargo trains must give priority to passenger trains , there could be snow blocking the tracks in the mountains , there could be a small accident , a crew that works the tracks and the train needs to slow down , the sharp inclines in mountains or hills , ....

refuelling , etc , ......

And despite all of that, the cargo train will get across the country in a matter of days, a few weeks at most. So how is expanding the time to get across a large country to, say, two or three years make it more realistic?

[Mad Bomber]

Panag:

I just checked Amtrak's schedule, There is a train departing Boston, MA on 6/23 and arrives early 6/26 with a 4 hr layover in Chicago. This trip would be longer than 3,000 miles and will be completed in less than 72 hrs.

To confirm this info you would only need to contact this site

www.amtrak.com

- Have a nice day

[Mad Bomber]

deleted. dp