CIV4 discussion points

brianshapiro · September 11, 2003, 14:53

critique my ideas, and add your own ideas.
some of mine might seem complicated at first, though i think it would boil down simply if it were to be implemented.

1. RESOURCES, INDUSTRY, AND TRADING SYSTEM

a. Have within any the city radius residences, industries, and commerce appear on the map like they do in Railroad Tycoon, so that factories, farms, housing, and city improvements are shown directly on the world map.
b. Have industries form on their own related to the geography, so that in grasslands farms form, in wooden areas, lumbering industries form over time. What industries grow not only depends on the geography but on the number of trade units per that city, so trade units work like the commercial alternative to shields. ie, light industry requires 10 commerce, heavy industry 20, etc.
c. The development of certain commodities require other commodities, like in Colonization. But to make this simple, the amount of a certain commodity produced is shown on the map next to the building, so say a silk factory has three silks shown next to it. When roads between cities are connected so that all the required resources are gained for the production of another commodity, then that industry starts cropping up. This all happens by itself, without input from the player.
d. What the player can do is build the infrastructure of roads, and also build city improvements that increase the amount of commerce generated, like marketplaces and banks.
e. Have the ability for enemy units to fortify on roads and block the flow of commerce and commodities (much like a naval blockade), have the ability to fortify on industries to shut them down entirely (or pillage them depending on the players wishes). Fortifying on roads should allow a chance of piracy per turn where the resources and commerce are deverted to the enemy civilization.

2. POOL OF FOOD, RESOURCES, AND SHIELDS

a. All cities connected with roads should have access to half the food, resources, and shields that are extra and available from all surrounding cities. This creates a tier system: say one city is surrounded by two, and has twelve extra food, each of those gets six extra food, and the original city six extra. Then say, each of those cities is surrounded by two, so each of those gets three extra food, ad the two original cities only three extra themselves. If I'm right, this works out in a way where distance factors in.
b. All cities connected with railroads should have access to all the food, resources, and shields. No tier system in place, this divides everything evenly between railroad connected cities.
c. Extra of course, means shields, food, and resources, not in use by the other cities, so any city can usurp priority of them if needed. So this doesnt mean that the original city that is producing is stuck with the low number equal division through railroad, any of the cities can usurp the extra shields if needed.

3. TRAITS CONNECTED TO PLAYER ACTIONS THROUGH SELECTIVE ADVANCE

a. Technology could be dependent on a queue of certain game factors. So, for instance, Mysticism gained when enough incense is gathered, Feudalism gained when a certain number of horsemen units are created, or city walls, etc.
b. This would tie the development of the culture of each civilization both to geographic starting locations (hey, its Marx's theory of production), and to player actions during the course of the game. So a civilization which focused on building/gathering that lead to military techs would develop militarily, etc.
c. Or, Alternatively, the civilization would gain its traits (expansionist, militaristic, etc) through in game actions like this. So if you meet a certain amount of production, you get a bonus; if you win a lot of battles, you get a battle bonus, etc. What traits a civilization has at the moment would be available on the diplomacy screen.

4. REVOLTS, CORRUPTION, AND CULTURAL COHESION

a. The corruption should depend on cultural influence by that city and surrounding cities, not specific improvements like Forbidden Palaces. So if a small city is under the cultural influence of a culturally powerful city like the capitol, it would have low corruption. The further cities would be away from the capital, the more corruption they would have, unless under the cultural influence of another high culture city. Under this design, the player can beeline culture and maintain order throughout the whole of his nation.
b. Have city revolts lead to the possibility of them joining a new, independent civilization, formed from the civilizations left out of the existing game; instead of only the option of joining an existing civilization. This will make the game more realistic.
c. When a cultural flip is about to occur , and there are garrisoned units, there is either a Massacre (death of population), or Revolt (damaging of garissoned units) rather than a straight away flip

Sheik · September 11, 2003, 18:28

We have had so many of these threads.

I think most of your ideas are to extreme. I really don't like 1.a

Section 3 has some interesting stuff in it.

Gufnork · September 12, 2003, 01:45

1. Unnecessary complexity. Makes the game more advanced yet brings in little gameplay, making the AI worse and bringing in extra code.

2. Add tech requirements and partial losses to it and it might work.

3. Could be interesting.

4a. Removes a part of the game.
b. Might be interesting.
c. I think something needs to be done about flips, anyway. I don't mind that a city flips, but when your entire army just disappears in thin air it's really annoying.

Paddy · September 15, 2003, 18:32

4c: yeah losing the armies is a pain, and seems wildly unrealistic...

TheArsenal · September 15, 2003, 18:54

4c.
Agreed. There needs to be a ratio of garrisoned units to city population where culture flips can no longer happen. Or at the very least, during a flip a certain number of units go back to the capitol. It ridiculous to lose huge stacks in the blink of an eye without so much as warning or a fight.

vmxa1 · September 15, 2003, 22:08

I don't mind the losses, but at least there should have been a battle and many citizens should have died.
So if it does flip and it si size 14 and you have 8 units, then they should have taken out some people.

jordie · September 17, 2003, 02:53

I disagree with Sheik. I like the idea of 1.a. I think that would make it so much more better then a crumby 1 square image, you could have a huge sprawling city which would be awesome.

Verto · September 17, 2003, 08:44

Quote:

Originally posted by vmxa1
I don't mind the losses, but at least there should have been a battle and many citizens should have died.
So if it does flip and it si size 14 and you have 8 units, then they should have taken out some people.

I like this idea. Instead of an automatic culture flip, there would be a rebellion - using some kind of formula, the revolt would either be put down by the garrisoned units at the cost of city/population size, etc. or the city would flip.

Lewsir · September 19, 2003, 16:41

There's only one thing we need: better AI. Keep CIV IV just like CIV III but increase the complexity and uncertainty of interactions with other leaders. Maybe not possible? I don't know, it just seem so lame (mind you I haven't played the expansions at all, I'm just tuning back in after about 9 months since giving up CIV III at about 1.18. )

There's so much out there on game theory (i.e. economic/political game theory), how leaders game situations, that must be possible to code into a game...

Topcatuk · September 19, 2003, 17:41

Unique civs would be a lot of work, but very rewarding. At the moment the only thing telling the Civs apart is colour and how the city looks.

Unique units across the board for every civ, probably not in their relative strengths, it'd be too confusing, but certainly graphically.

Solomwi · September 19, 2003, 21:01

One idea I haven't fleshed out very far, but am intrigued by, is being able to draw provincial borders within your empire, and set up a provincial capital in each to help with corruption. Optimally, there would be some tradeoff to make the option between a lot of small provinces and a few large provinces a strategic choice rather than self-evident. Maybe a set cost per provicial seat deducted from the treasury or something. I'm not advocating making a bunch of Forbidden Palace analogs available, either. Designating a provincial seat would either require building a much cheaper improvement that acted as a weak Palace, or nothing at all.

Plus, I think it'd be cool to look at a map of the empire and see province/state names like "Greek Enclave", "Arabian Territory", "Land So Many Egyptians Died So Futilely For", "Xerxes is My B*tch", etc.

Solomwi · September 19, 2003, 21:03

Quote:

Unique units across the board for every civ, probably not in their relative strengths, it'd be too confusing, but certainly graphically.

Oh, the flurry of right-clicking in the first several games every time one encounters an enemy unit.

Topcatuk · September 20, 2003, 09:02

Just like in real life...

Oerdin · September 20, 2003, 12:59

The design team should be locked in a room with copies of CTP2 just so they can see how much better the interface can be.

CiverDan · September 21, 2003, 11:12

Too many of these suggestions would make the game too complex. I see this problem time and again with such suggestions. Some things i would like to see:

Resources:

No more "I lost my horses". Once you find horses, you shouldn't lose them because you lost a city. Funny how I lose my horses, yet I can still ride the ones I have into battle :P.

Remove rubber as a requirement after WWII era tech, as sythetic rubber was developed around this time.

Cities:

eliminate shield waste that occurs when an imrovement/unit is built. Also allow 2+ units to be built in a city/turn if there is enough production. Allow cities to actually "work" squares outside their radius via a form of colony. Should only be allowed for size 25+ cities with an airport. Would give an incentive for larger cities.

vmxa1 · September 21, 2003, 12:26

Quote:

Originally posted by CiverDan
Too many of these suggestions would make the game too complex. I see this problem time and again with such suggestions. Some things i would like to see:

Resources:

No more "I lost my horses". Once you find horses, you shouldn't lose them because you lost a city. Funny how I lose my horses, yet I can still ride the ones I have into battle :P.

Remove rubber as a requirement after WWII era tech, as sythetic rubber was developed around this time.

Cities:

eliminate shield waste that occurs when an imrovement/unit is built. Also allow 2+ units to be built in a city/turn if there is enough production. Allow cities to actually "work" squares outside their radius via a form of colony. Should only be allowed for size 25+ cities with an airport. Would give an incentive for larger cities.

I tend to agree with your points. Just for the record Horses never run out, but we get the point.

zorbop · September 21, 2003, 21:06

#'s 1 and 2 sound like a turn based version of RoN.

I like #3, but it could create problems... for instanse, what if i have no horses, so i cannot build horsemen? then can i not get fuedalism? this idea would have to be implimented very, very, carfully.

now, my view on what to change about the game: rework the corruption model. corruption should also have more to do with how happy the people are. currently happiness only infuluences corruption with riots and WLTKD. happiness should have more of an influence. this would also mean military police would have an influence on corruption in monarchs, despots and communisms.

Mad Bomber · September 23, 2003, 21:12

Another one of these threads? I wouldn't mind it so much if there was a genuinely new idea in the bunch, but there have been at least 10 different threads that have proposed these ideas! I am shocked that limited railroad movement didn't make it. Having revolts in particular has been on my wish list since the 1.14f patch of CIV 3. Personally I would like to be able tio evaluate the changes in C3C before starting or commenting on yet another thread for a game that might not ever exist.

Paddy · September 24, 2003, 09:45

Quote:

Originally posted by Solomwi
One idea I haven't fleshed out very far, but am intrigued by, is being able to draw provincial borders within your empire, and set up a provincial capital in each to help with corruption. Optimally, there would be some tradeoff to make the option between a lot of small provinces and a few large provinces a strategic choice rather than self-evident. Maybe a set cost per provicial seat deducted from the treasury or something. I'm not advocating making a bunch of Forbidden Palace analogs available, either. Designating a provincial seat would either require building a much cheaper improvement that acted as a weak Palace, or nothing at all.

Plus, I think it'd be cool to look at a map of the empire and see province/state names like "Greek Enclave", "Arabian Territory", "Land So Many Egyptians Died So Futilely For", "Xerxes is My B*tch", etc.

Well this looks like a great idea...

"the state of natural frustration when they release games full of bugs..."

Elias · September 24, 2003, 23:47

I agree with all your ideas execpt for 3. otherwise i wish there
was a civ4. the U.S dosent go around building industries the
people do. A 3d city would also allow for bombers to target
specific things not just droping random bombs hoping they hit
somthing important.

Brent · September 25, 2003, 19:36

I want Civ4 to include about a hundred tribes to choose from, but I don't care if many can be in the same game. I want all the native tribes from Colonization, all the tribes available in the main game as of Conquests, possibly all the minor tribes available in Civ3, specifically the Inuit; the Australian Aborigines, the Maori, the Hmong, the Hebrews; I want there to be tribes such as Inuit and Hawaiians which can thrive in special environments such as the Arctic and Oceania. I want a balance of other cultures to complement the ones I specifically want.

I would say do away with special leader heads for each tribe. Definitely include the special bonuses system in the current game. Possibly expand the system. Let other tribal features also affect human players, at least have your governors tend to build what your tribe likes when you let them.

I want alien terrain types built into the editor, such as what you'd find on the Moon or Mars. I want more specific pregame customization of the world.

Tassadar500 · September 25, 2003, 19:39

Brent that is one crazy request. I really don't agree with that idea.

Elias · September 28, 2003, 22:35

Yeah that is crazy who would want to be anyone of these people anyway what special ability would they get that could be any good anyway? Besides it would be way to many people to keep track of.However I would like to be able to group units like you could in ctp so you could have massive battles not just a whole bunch of little ones.

MyOlde · September 29, 2003, 11:49

What is the point of these wish threads? I suggest that with Conquest you're looking at Civ4. I doubt there'll be anything new on the Civ front for a long time after that debuts. Probably a patch or even two. But no new game.

When you read the latest info at civ3.com it indicates that they've put a supermarket full of stuff in Conquests. They'll get it out at the end of October and sit back and enjoy the benefits (they hope) of what must be a lot of hard work.

Maybe I'm wrong, but why don't we just get on with playing and talking about PTW until Conquests arrives -- and then discuss its merits.

Elias · September 29, 2003, 21:45

PTW was full of bugs and had very little new usefull material(exclude unit stacking)That is why every one wants a new game we feel like we were cheated with PTW.There is also so many things to Improve on that maby there should be a civ4.I doubt we will see it in the near future but in four or five years when inforgrames needs a new clasic game they will start work on civ4.by then though I will have a job and be in college so I wont have time to play poor me

Hagbart · September 30, 2003, 10:43

Quote:

Originally posted by Gufnork

c. I think something needs to be done about flips, anyway. I don't mind that a city flips, but when your entire army just disappears in thin air it's really annoying.

You can turn off the city flips in PTW.

Paddy · September 30, 2003, 18:40

leave em on....

MoonWolf · October 1, 2003, 15:55

I agree in having a resource pool, especially in food and shields. It should be possible to trade food internally (and with others) as it's being done in real life (and civ 1 + 2). Shields also should be possible to transfer boosting e.g. a battleship, but maybe with a little loss simulating the delay cause of transport.

Also, I'd like to see the build-up of shields from Master of Orion 2 but with the possibility to pump out more than 1 unit if the additional shields allowed it (if your super-city yields 180 shields, you should be allowed to produce 2 infantry)

At last I miss the several worlds from Civ2 Test of time. Specially in a Fantasy or sci-fi scenario this was great.

I have actually a lot ideas for civ4, but I think they will drown anyway in this or the other threads...

Lord_Davinator · October 1, 2003, 19:13

will there be a civ4?

Paddy · October 2, 2003, 03:59

I hope so.....

For by that time they should have civ 3 bug free

hahahahhahahaha

I often wonder how games that go out for PlayStation 2 go out as a finished product, yet those for the PC are riddled with bugs, need expansion packs and downloads....