Second. If this issue has already been adressed, just point me in the right direction, please.

Okay to the point. I've been playing civ since the beginning for god knows how many years but recently (while playing CtP2 and reading the list for Civ3 )I realized that theres a huge problem in civilization.
It is that the _only_ reason for any battles in civ is conquest (I mean like only to please your ego - I have conquered all) You never go to war because of the scarcity of resources, control over a particular fertile area (since maps are normally quite uniform).
This is not waht happened in history, it's totally wrong from the point of the reasons for human action.
Therefore I think that there should be.
1) Strategic resources.
When your civ area is very small and you dont have any mountains or hills you cannot discover metal working or stone working or whatever. Of course the maps shoud be totally reworked for that. Then you meet other civs. If they have that resource you can now research it _but_ to build any unit with that resource you pay gold to the civ (If you area at war - you get no resource)Of course Iron and copper should them be in nearly any hill/mountain tile or it will not work.
Same with everything up to uranium with only a few select locations for that one.
No mountain rivers in your tiles - no hydroelectric power, just oil (you may have to buy it, meaning the civ with oil field get some gold every turn from each of your cities with power plant)
Much fertile land - only where it's supposed to be. This will give all the steppe, desert civs the drive to conquer land. In this context the idea of city tiles would be great as cities would grow along rivers a.s.o...
2) more happiness/unhappiness.
I am not yet clear about this one so forgive me but it is something like this.
If you have a democratic society and other nations not you get unhappines in all cites (small one)(Your people want to free the others from despotic rule).
If the other nation and you have comon borders this modifier should be much greater so that you have a desire to go to war to remove this unhappiness.(Maybe the other way round _less_ democratic receive happines penalty.) If eveyone(you know) is monarchy and you republic you get bonus.. Anyway you get the idea! Different ideologies should result in severe problems that should lead to conflicts. Now in civ we decide on a government based only on our economic desires, that should be changed we should be able to force on others those governments that we'd like to see (for our own sake)
Another idea. If your neighbour's city is near a proposed natural wonder yor nearest city gets a happiness penalty.
Another one. If you control some landmark of military importance (e.g. Gibraltar Bosphorus or some mountain pass on the Silk way) you receive some economic or military bonuses.
In short I would like to be forced to go to war not just because I (or my neighbour) has many troops and want to get a bigger score or have delusions of grandeur, but because my people lack something, just like real history.

Thanks for your patience.

Point (2) I agree with to some extent. Differing ideologies should certainly generate tensions. Civ II already has some rather unrealistic happiness penalties HARDCODED (boo, hiss!) into the game if you are a Democracy or Rebublic. I think too much unhappiness spoils the game if all it means is that you need to build more Cathedrals etc. If it means political instability, that would be more interesting.

Holding special strategic locations will be its own reward, if they ARE truely strategic.

John

Altho it would make things completely complicated, how bout you only see SOME resources and others are presented when you do something, (mine, drill). AND that resource has a FINITE supply. So most or all mountains have some type of resource that would last a long time, but at some point disappear from mining so you wouldnt get such a production bonus out of it, and stuff like recycling centers would reduce the supply needed to maintain the same level of production, among other things.

a thought

If any of you have played MOO2, you should recognize this.

quote: Originally posted by Belart on 12-07-2000 03:51 AM First of all and since it's my first post here Hello to all CIV community.

Welcome, Belart

quote: Second. If this issue has already been adressed, just point me in the right direction, please.

There have been several related threads. Since you are new anyway, my advice would be to read ALL the old posts that have been kept. There's a lot if great stuff posted by many creative civvers!

quote: ... It is that the _only_ reason for any battles in civ is conquest (I mean like only to please your ego - I have conquered all) You never go to war because of the scarcity of resources, control over a particular fertile area (since maps are normally quite uniform).

I have played a few games that were different. And if you play on a young world, the maps won't be very uniform. Also, you can play a more peaceful game with no conquest in mind at all - and still be the first to land on Alpha Centauri.

quote: This is not what happened in history

Well, about all wars in human history have been about economic factors, but not very often about access to specific resources. One example that comes to mind is the attack on Pearl Harbor by Japan in WW II, after the USA shut down Japan's fuel supply.

quote: ... When your civ area is very small and you don't have any mountains or hills you cannot discover metal working or stone working or whatever. Of course the maps should be totally reworked for that.

You would have to make sure that every resource is available at least somewhere in every part of the world, or some tribes will remain very backward.

(1) If the prey moved every few years and the population of resources could be exhausted, but new resources could be discovered then, you could conquer cities and divert the resources to your larger cities, without resources and thus fight for resources.

I agree with your point on special resources. In fact I agree with it so much, it was one of the reasons I started designing a civ-type game. If you're interested, you can see my idea for how to implement your thoughts at this link.

In the Clash econ model we, like you, think it'll make the game more Fun if we simulate the effects of rare or important goods and products - e.g. that of coal in the industrial revolution. Special goods will give the player new possibilities for cooperation and competition with other civs: enabling important trade pacts, struggles for trade dominance, wars of conquest brought on by material shortages (Japan in WWII for example), and embargos. The strategic space in which the player acts would be much richer, as you want. But this needs to be done without need for micromanagement. If you read the link above you'll see how we handle that.

I agree with this, in civ2, everything is based around conquest. all throughout history, wars have been based on religion, resources, arguments (rather large arguments), etc.

quote: Originally posted by Diablo, Bro. of Mephisto on 12-09-2000 05:38 PM Sorry, had to add something, Ribbanahana, the attack on pearl harbor was not becuase we shut the japenese fuel line.

No need to be sorry, Diabolito!
However, the Japanese really saw it that way and since it was their decision to attack ....

Of course the fuel line was shut for a reason (Japanese invasion of Vietnam).