...

[A Black Falcon]

Threads usually go off topic but atleast its Sid Meier related!

As for the thread title! Why not have mystery on a occasion!

The only way you could have any taste of pirates is if you owned a commondore 64 at one time.

Actually, Pirates! was also released on PC later. Pirates! Gold certainly was on PC.

And yes, there's nothing wrong with a mystery or going off-topic, especially when the topic is quite similar.

Now that you mention it , I think it was CiVII and not I , Because I do remeber the cheesy Elvis luxury advisor.

Cheesy but funny... but as I said his practical use is limited. Still, worth having him for the humor quotient. :) The Roman Elvis is probably funniest...

They could do that , Have animated heads instead of video recordings, I can imagine if you had a inteligence advisor he might accuse the other advisors of being traitors and spies for not agreeing with him.

They could make more useful if you had the military or defense advisor tell you off for attacking or getting involved with a dangerous more powerful enemy or cheer you on for teaching them a lesson. Their behavor changes pending what goverment type you have.If you were a faucist they all start off with "Hail"! All of them will be more evil and power hungry.

Yes, exactly. I recognize that FMV is dead, but CG isn't, and that would be great... having the different councillors actually interact with eachother is great.

And yes, having some more variety and detail in what they say would be good too. It might be easier as all they'd have to have is a talking head (some might require unique animations, but not all of the time) and a voiceover instead of a full person... and having more detail/variety could be good, though it's not that bad in Civ II. Maybe the voices could be more general for some things but they could have a text summation that would give more details (like specifics of certain enemies)? I don't know, I'm sure that if they tried they could get it to work well. Oh, and having them change behavior for government type as well as for age you are in is a great idea.

1. Real history? A ship to alpha centauri and a cure for cancer! Two fictional non history ideas tossed in, Plus some of the races never historically become advance on their own untill they were conquered and assimulated , the Irroqiois and the Zulu for example, They were thousands of years behind technologically but in CiV you can see them in the middle ages and up and even become top dog.

A futuristic age wouldnt be like alpha centauri , for one its not on alpha centauri. The Futuristic age would be our near future, We know nanotech is coming we know cloning is coming because it exists already , genetic egineering isnt that far off. The futuristic age would not start to become sci fi untill near the end of it, There is tech that exist now but wont be common untill 10 years like Fly bywire missles or stealth boats , Alot of knew types of guns and weapons. Clean energy sources like cold fusion and hydrogen fuel cells stuff thats in the works but isnt far off.

This could be exspansion material.

Original Civ II was historical, except for the spaceship (we can cure a lot of kinds of cancer now you know). The first expansion, Conflicts in Civilization, was mostly historical though it had a couple of fictional ones (World War 1979 (global thermonuclear war! Fun for the whole family! (I love this scenario... instant action with every possible weapon... :))) and Alien Invasion). The second expansion, however, Fantastic Worlds, was all invented -- The World of Jules Verne, Mars, Midgard, some based on classic Microprose games (X-Com, Master of Orion Jr., Master of Magic Jr.), etc. Each scenario genearally uses the same unit and building templates as the main game, but it renames them and adds new pictures. This is why FW doesn't have the herald or wonder movies on the disk -- they would not fit these scenarios.

When Civ III didn't have any scenarios I was dissapointed. Not totally so, as I remembered that original Civ II only had two scenarios and they were not well thought out (technology acquisation speed or names or anything was not changed so you could have guns by the end of the Rise of Rome scenario), but somewhat. The fact that the expansions add some is one reason to get them, I'd say. Oh, how many get added? Civ II had a total of 20 official scenarios included in the two expansions and they also included 16 fan-made ones (8 per pack).

Anyway, I think that they should stick with things we can do now. You are right that Civ II's spaceship isn't currently possible; perhaps that's why the Civ III one isn't so specific about going to Alpha Centauri and you win when it LAUNCHES instead of when it arrives?

That is to say, no futuristic age in the basic game. For that either make a futuristic-based expansion or a Alpha Centauri II (for far future). While it could be fun, it's somewhat against the idea of the game of Civilization.

1.
Barbarian villages are just easter eggs , You walk on them you either fight or collect somthing. My idea is just a step up from that, They wouldnt be a your opponents, (etc)

True, as it is barbarian villages are just things that spawn enemies. But my point is that with the sizes of most of the maps in Civ, you can only really support so many nations. How do you differentiate these from your seven main opponents? I don't really see a point to adding new "half-nations" to the game.

Another idea to go with it is that if one of your or opponents cities become to unhappy after a amount of time they might revolt kill any units you have inside the town and declare independance and become a neutral town only if their isnt a neighboring opponent with a high influeincial culture to join with. If that happens your just send troops to recapture it or try to undo the damage by treating it like the above neutral barbarians.

This is a good idea, for extremely unhappy or conquered cities (cities should remember who their nationality is -- if they weren't conquered too long ago they should definitely try this if there are issues or the other nation is close to retaking it).

2. Whats different is that before you might make a allie with two groups , The Incas and the aztec , They both like you but hate each other , So you might have your allies or freindly neighbor fight amongst themselves. The Coalition bassically convinces them to join forces together as a group instead of just individual relationships with yourself but not each other.

They way it is in CiV3 you make a "military alliance agiast another group" but it only last a certain of time , once your mutual protections pack runs out your no longer together and they become rivals, The Coalition is a more perminant establishment. There is a saying "The enemy of my enemy is still an enemy", Your allie my just be a lesser evil you teamed up with to defeat a worser one it doesnt mean your gonna stay freinds once its over, Kind of like the soviet union in WW2 as soon the nazis were beaten they turned agaist us.

But Civ isn't a never-ending thing like the real world, and only one player can win. So permanant alliances might actually work against you as you want some kind of method to get out of them and win the game without killing your diplomatic rating with everyone at once... between that and the fact that this just doesn't seem THAT different from a normal alliance, I'd say no. (as for the Soviets in WWII, I'd say that that would fit within a normal treaty... an alliance that served its purpose and then ended.)