Things you'd like to see in Civilization 4

Setzer · Post by **Setzer** » 2003-09-29 05:29am

First of all, in addition to the resistance feature in Civ-3, if the conquered city belongs to a particularly hostile nation, the citizens should perform guerilla warfare, causing minor damage to every unit each turn, until the resistance is quelled.

The terraforming system should be like Call to power 2, with improvements bought and placed on tiles.

Trade should be done like in Call to power 2, with trade route visible and capable of being pirated.

I don't want any futuristic units, like in CtP2. Nukes should have infinite range. It's ridiculous that a line of forts can stop one from passing. And no Zone of Control crap.

And different nations should have advantages with different types of units. For example, British tanks should be more durable than German tanks, but German tanks would be faster.

Enforcer Talen · Post by **Enforcer Talen** » 2003-09-29 07:19am

more flexible governments and less hands on trade, ala alpha centauri ^^

Brother-Captain Gaius · Post by **Brother-Captain Gaius** » 2003-09-29 12:05pm

Combat should be like Civ 2. End of story.

MKSheppard · Post by **MKSheppard** » 2003-09-29 12:12pm

JediNeophyte wrote:Combat should be like Civ 2. End of story.

FUCKING A

Post by **Ghost Rider** » 2003-09-29 12:39pm

Combat like Civ 2.

Also less pointless corruption...sorry when I can't maintain any sort of normalcy unless I go democratic dictatorship is stupid.

Stravo · Post by **Stravo** » 2003-09-29 12:45pm

GET RID OF CORRUPTION

I don't mind a SLIGHT penalty for having a sprawling empire, but when my seventh city is strating to become useless in terms of production whats the fucking point. I play Civ so that I can have an Empire that starts out on the European plain, spreads trhough Eurasia and Africa and by endgame allows me a foothold in Americas through the largest amphibious assualt in history. I don't play it to see my empire slowly become useless the larger it gets.

Why conquer other civs?

Combat needs to be fixed. I do not want to see tanks having trouble taking a city held by spearmen or worse killed by spearmen. Thats utterly insane. If my empire has WWII era tech and your still in the middle Ages you should be SLAUGHTERED, no questions asked.

Diplomacy needs more options. I want to be imersed in this world, make deals and arrangements that make sense.

phongn · Post by **phongn** » 2003-09-29 12:48pm

Nukes in Civ3 didn't care about LOC since they were a bombardment weapon, and nukes in Civ2 had infinate range anyways. IMHO, I'm not too partial to infinate range, seeing as modern nukes can't hit everywhere on the globe.

Typhonis 1 · Post by **Typhonis 1** » 2003-09-29 01:04pm

keep it simple no Master of Orion 3 crap PERIOD. Speed up how far units can move I mean two squaares takes 20 years to cross WTF? nd lastly maps like from CIV2 where you can actually fight over a part of the Earth if you wish

TrailerParkJawa · Post by **TrailerParkJawa** » 2003-09-29 01:12pm

Return the firepower system for combat. I saw an Swordmen kill my Sherman.
I saw a Bowman shoot down my cruise missile. Oh, that reminds me, cruise missiles should be air units and not land units. Combat is broken in Civ 3.

I would like to see a system where other nations would be friends with you in order to win an allied victory. I dont know if they could pull it off. But you would never see Canada or UK attacking the USA cause we are in first place. Yet, their help and trade is invaluable.

Stormbringer · Post by **Stormbringer** » 2003-09-29 01:32pm

Combat needs to be fixed. I do not want to see tanks having trouble taking a city held by spearmen or worse killed by spearmen. Thats utterly insane. If my empire has WWII era tech and your still in the middle Ages you should be SLAUGHTERED, no questions asked.

I've never had that problem. Since I upgraded mine I'm willing to bet that they went back and fixed some of the balance problems.

Personally, I'd like to see the visible trade routes option. Piracy and such was blast.

And I'd like to see more flexibility in terrian editing. Not necessarily SMAC way but something more flexible than the current system.

Vendetta · Post by **Vendetta** » 2003-09-29 02:19pm

I want SMAC's terrain system. Because lumpy planets are more interesting than flat ones. And because it means that you can have hilltop sentries, and all sorts of terrain based combat modifier goodness, as well as the funky rainfall system.

And I wouldn't mind something akin to it's combat system either. I remember having many stacked mechanised infantry in one of my towns fending off wave after wave of suicide elephants, and actually doiing rather badly, despite my obvious posession of gun technologies, and my foe's complete lack of them..

BlkbrryTheGreat · Post by **BlkbrryTheGreat** » 2003-09-29 05:35pm

A overall better ststem for movement is required; the "tile" system is in serious need of an overhaul or better yet outright replacement. Hitting an arrow key 50 times to get a ship to where it needs to be is not my idea of fun.

Post by **Sea Skimmer** » 2003-09-29 06:25pm

phongn wrote:Nukes in Civ3 didn't care about LOC since they were a bombardment weapon, and nukes in Civ2 had infinate range anyways. IMHO, I'm not too partial to infinate range, seeing as modern nukes can't hit everywhere on the globe.

No they didn't, Civ2 nuclear missiles had a movement of 16 after which they crashed. And along with a decent combat system I'd want a detailed empire customization system.

Enigma · Post by **Enigma** » 2003-09-29 06:25pm

Setzer wrote:<snip>I don't want any futuristic units, like in CtP2. Nukes should have infinite range. It's ridiculous that a line of forts can stop one from passing. And no Zone of Control crap.

<snip>

That is what ICBMs are for. It has an unlimited range. It can attack anywhere on the map.

Anarchist Bunny · Post by **Anarchist Bunny** » 2003-09-29 06:58pm

Slow it down, if I remember correctly once you got out of B.C. time gaps got shorter, and around the 1800's a year equalled a turn, I played the game(first time playing a Civ in a while) I just entered the third age when I was forced to quit. I'm play the game for an hour BAM I'm at 1600s. I've yet to do a really offensive campain(although partly due to being always stranded on an island with no connection to the outer world, although my german civ is about to become that, I just fought off and razed two civs cities that appeared on my island, cause they were in the middle of the jungle and I avoid Jungle areas unless I need resources)

Thats another thing, I like the idea of resources, but more often than not it just screws me from getting any good army units. I once had a map with just 2, fucking TWO saltpeter resource squares. Now I secured both of them that basicly put a giant sign on my diplomats forehead saying FUCK OFF! but still, I rarely ever get horses, iron on occasion, sometimes saltpeter, I think instead of unlimited supply from a few key sources, you should get units of that resource from each tile of it you control, and store it, so a large nation could still be limited by a lack of saltpeter only able to start construction of one musket man a turn, but their not completely fucked.

phongn · Post by **phongn** » 2003-09-29 09:05pm

Sea Skimmer wrote:
phongn wrote:Nukes in Civ3 didn't care about LOC since they were a bombardment weapon, and nukes in Civ2 had infinate range anyways. IMHO, I'm not too partial to infinate range, seeing as modern nukes can't hit everywhere on the globe.
No they didn't, Civ2 nuclear missiles had a movement of 16 after which they crashed. And along with a decent combat system I'd want a detailed empire customization system.

Nevermind, you're right. I forgot that by that point in the game everyone covered the map in railways for the trade bonus.

phongn · Post by **phongn** » 2003-09-29 09:07pm

anarchistbunny wrote:Thats another thing, I like the idea of resources, but more often than not it just screws me from getting any good army units. I once had a map with just 2, fucking TWO saltpeter resource squares. Now I secured both of them that basicly put a giant sign on my diplomats forehead saying FUCK OFF! but still, I rarely ever get horses, iron on occasion, sometimes saltpeter, I think instead of unlimited supply from a few key sources, you should get units of that resource from each tile of it you control, and store it, so a large nation could still be limited by a lack of saltpeter only able to start construction of one musket man a turn, but their not completely fucked.

While it could be annoying, I thought it was quite interesting. Not a few wars in my Civ3 games were started over the lack of critical resources - I once staged a massive two-front assault on an enemy that had uranium (the only uranium, as far as I could tell). A huge amphibious assault distracted them while I massed land forces over the one railway through.

Typhonis 1 · Post by **Typhonis 1** » 2003-09-30 02:13am

keep the national unit supply where you can support a number of units based on how many, and what sized ,and what technology you had,for the cities

Post by **The Yosemite Bear** » 2003-09-30 03:30am

I want to be able to do horrible things to my enemy's people when I capture their cities, like say loot it, and move on (Temunjin Style)

Thunderfire · Post by **Thunderfire** » 2003-09-30 04:03am

MOM style combat would be best. Spearmen would have no chance
against a tank under this system.

Anarchist Bunny · Post by **Anarchist Bunny** » 2003-09-30 05:00pm

The Yosemite Bear wrote:I want to be able to do horrible things to my enemy's people when I capture their cities, like say loot it, and move on (Temunjin Style)

You can raze it and get some workers

Vendetta · Post by **Vendetta** » 2003-09-30 05:17pm

Thunderfire wrote:MOM style combat would be best. Spearmen would have no chance
against a tank under this system.

Yes.

And it's hugely fun to watch as well...

Post by **Sea Skimmer** » 2003-09-30 05:41pm

phongn wrote: While it could be annoying, I thought it was quite interesting. Not a few wars in my Civ3 games were started over the lack of critical resources - I once staged a massive two-front assault on an enemy that had uranium (the only uranium, as far as I could tell). A huge amphibious assault distracted them while I massed land forces over the one railway through.

Which is pretty stupid really. Even in the late 1930's when the world had little use for Uranium the world had several active mines.

Stravo · Post by **Stravo** » 2003-09-30 05:50pm

Sea Skimmer wrote:
phongn wrote: While it could be annoying, I thought it was quite interesting. Not a few wars in my Civ3 games were started over the lack of critical resources - I once staged a massive two-front assault on an enemy that had uranium (the only uranium, as far as I could tell). A huge amphibious assault distracted them while I massed land forces over the one railway through.
Which is pretty stupid really. Even in the late 1930's when the world had little use for Uranium the world had several active mines.

While I could see the purpose of that system I was always annoyed by the distribution of the resources. There have been many occaisons where my continent did not have a single iron deposit. The same goes for coal and oil. Thats absolutely absurd. For instance my French Empire once spanned TWO continents and when the time came for oil to appear, all the oil was clustred in the third contininet controlled by my enemy power....ALL THE FUCKING OIL IN THE WORLD. That is absolutely ridiculous.

If you play the Earth map created to realistically reflect real world resource distribution I never run into this problem. This shows that the system is just unrealistic and broken.

Setzer · Post by **Setzer** » 2003-09-30 05:52pm

What's MOM?

Another neat feature would be better unit customization. Somewhat Like SMAC, each vehicle design has a number of weapons hardpoints. Only in Civ4, (ideally) each chassis would have a preset space, and you could add weapons (machine guns for infantry type units, cannon for armored units, more efficient engines that could be developed by continuing to research technology, more on this later) you could also add space by making the unit bigger, ut this would increase the price, say adding 4 turns to build time for each space added to a unit.

Now on that whole "continuing research". When the Wright brothers took of at Kitty Hawk, they didn't fly an F-22. Naturally, technology imporves itself over time. So when the science screen comes up, you could have two options, "Research new tech" or "Refine current tech", which would improve unit attributes. Attributes would consist of movement, attack strength, defensive strength, and cost.
For example, refining flight technology would lead to greater range ( better engines) greater attacking power (increased payload) or a longer flight time (better fuel efficiency). The trick would be learning to time your technological advances. For example, when you start out developing tanks, would the lumbering Behemoths of WW1 really lead to a faster army? They'd increase your firepower, to be sure, but a cannon could provide cheaper firepower. So don't devote all your available resources to building tanks, but wait, improve the technology, and turn it into something workable. Same thing with airplanes. When they started out their armament was limited to a plot's sidearm, steadily progressing to the nuclear armed bombers of today. You should not be able to crank out P-38s when you discovered flight just last year.

StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Things you'd like to see in Civilization 4

Things you'd like to see in Civilization 4

Re: Things you'd like to see in Civilization 4