View Full Version : Civ5 Wishlist


The Almighty dF
Feb 18, 2010, 06:52 PM
Put up your own wishlist for what you want in Civ5.

1. On top of the current two traits, one UU, one UB system, I want a Civ bonus kinda like Rhyes has.
2. I want Japan not to suck. I'm sorry but... Tokugawa is really hard to play as if you're not into Prince+ difficulty stuff or multiplayer.
3. More leaders. They've already announced that it won't have more civs than Civ4 did, so here's hoping it has more leaders than Civ4 did.
4. No MAF errors.
5. No MAF errors, okay?
6. Seriously Firaxis.
7. More balance than Civ4 has, IE each civ has relatively equal bonuses, the traits are all near equally good, etc. No trait has to referred to as "crap," "gimpy,", "useless against the AI," or "Protective."
8. No MAF errors.
9. More religions maybe? Shintoism, Shamanism, etc.
10. And most important... please don't let it be as dumbed down as Revolution was. I want a thinking game, just like Civ games usually are.

11. P.S. No MAF errors.

Opera
Feb 18, 2010, 06:57 PM
#10: according to the "Screenshot Analysis Thread", in which someone quoted a Danish magazine, religions are now out of the picture. So my wish is to have them back!

But overall my main wish is for it to be modder's paradise, so we can make the game how we want it to be ;)

Matt0088
Feb 18, 2010, 06:58 PM
We do have several of these threads in another subforum, but...I'd give anything for a good AI. Bad AI just ruins the game for me. Being able to easily mod Civ5 would be another important wish, not because I'm a mod, but because I'm the guy who downloads all of them for the added variety.:)

Edit: And keeping religions. They will be missed if they are left out.

EMT
Feb 18, 2010, 07:22 PM
I want some underepresented wonders, personally. Also, I hope that the Great Wall and (possibly) Hadrian's Wall only cover a certain amount of tiles from barbarian protection. The Great Wall didn't save China from Mongolia, as they just found ways around it. It'd make guarding a civ all the more interesting.

Anyway, wonders I hope to see in addition to what we have now:
-Hadrian's Wall (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hadrian%27s_wall)
-Petra (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petra)
-Porcelain tower of Nanjing (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Porcelain_Tower_of_Nanjing)
-Machu Picchu (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Machu_Picchu)
-Sacsahuaman (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sacsahuaman)=Maybe UBER defense for the city it's built in?
-Have the Great Barrier Reef randomly pop out somewhere on the map, but not necessarily in every game
-Same for the Grand Canyon, Niagara Falls, and any other super-terrain area in existence
-Nebuchadnezzer II of Babylon, Phoenicia, Assyr, Hattusa, Nubia/Kish, Poland/Hungary/Austria/Bulgaria, seriously, atleast one of these, preferably Hungary or Austria
-Alhambra (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alhambra)
-The Catacombs of Kom el Shoqafa (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catacombs_of_Kom_el_Shoqafa)
-Teotihuacan as an Aztec city and as a wonder (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teotihuac%C3%A1n[/url)

That's my big wish list to perfect civ for me. :p

Inverse Icarus
Feb 18, 2010, 07:26 PM
Things I really Want From Civ V:

An enhanced Pitboss server. Pitboss is a fantastic way to host/run civ games.
The continuation / expansion of the promotion system to make units specialized
a de-emphasis on culture as the way to define borders. I'd like ot be able to park some tanks on the French side of my border, and have my "squatting" change the border. France would have the option of declaring war, obviously.
More options in the diplomacy window.
An AI capable of HANDLING those new options
An updated trade system with on-the-map trade routes that can be pirated.

taillesskangaru
Feb 18, 2010, 07:36 PM
First and foremost, I want something like the Civ3 scenario editor. I hate the Civ4 Worldbuilder.

croxis
Feb 18, 2010, 07:37 PM
An easy way to install mods. There is nothing more annoying than people popping into chat and asking how to instlal mods which are nothing more than a leaderhead graphic texture.

If it could be as robust as the debian package system where sites can host repositories and an easy way to put files into pack files, I could just kiss you all.

Inverse Icarus
Feb 18, 2010, 08:11 PM
2. I want Japan not to suck. I'm sorry but... Tokugawa is really hard to play as if

Do you just dislike the military-based civilization? Surely, the game should have a few war-based civilizations, so why not Japan?

You can easily pick a Creative / Financial civ, or whatever combination you want, if you want to play a peaceful builder.

Why do you want specifically Japan to not be so warlike?

1morey
Feb 18, 2010, 08:40 PM
1. Add the leaders/civs from Civ 1-4 and include new ones.

2. Complete Ethnic Diversity

3. Bring back all scenarios from previous civ games.

4. Include parts of the series (1-4) the player liked best.

5. New rescources and bring back old ones. Same goes with promotions, traits, units, terrain, technologies, buildings, wonders, etc.

6. Bring back religions. And if they do include new ones.

7. Include random events. And make the events graphical. And the events that "upgraded" a unit, make the upgrade visible. For example: The event for Axemen getting tougher axeblades. Make the axeman have a new blade.

8. Include the UU and UB

9. Take out the national Wonders and make them instead Great Wonders.

10. Include the animal barbarian units. And make new ones

11. You can have diplomacy with the barbarians. Like a secret treaty that none of the other civs had or knew about. And for the Barbarians either make a leader for them or randomly select a leader that isn't used.

12. Vassal states, and new civs forming.

13. Animated Advisors.

14. Wars are named.

15. Make a new revamped Civilopedia.

16. Give the advisors and leaders different clothing styles based on the particular Era.

17. Include New Eras.

18. You can control a Civ on Alpha Centauri.

19. Make new map selections and bring back pre-existing ones.

20. Civilizations don't always start on the same continents.

21. In the Custom game option include the Any Leader with Any Civ option.

22. Be able to build 1 unit and 1 building/wonder in the queue. Makes it easier to defend a civ.

23. New ways of winning.

24. Make the Civ banner in the Industrial age+ A FLAG. And base the banner on the civ's real flag (If it is a country.)

25. Split up Native Americans.

26. Bring back Great people. Make them ethnically diverse too. And include new ones.

27. Create new scenarios.

28. Include Camera Flying.

And that's about it.

cybrxkhan
Feb 18, 2010, 08:46 PM
1. RELIGIONS. I want them in. In my opinoin they are what set Civ4 really different (and better) from the previous Civ3 games.

2. Random events

3. Multiple leaders per civ

4. RELIGION.

dexters
Feb 18, 2010, 08:48 PM
Really only three things I want to see

1. Improved Trade (bring the CivIII trade table back) No more 1-1 only trades. Let the AI value goods based on scarcity, put a price on it and let trades flow.
If AI wants to sell a tech, i want to pay for it by hacking together a package of goods for them (ie resources, gold per turn and a tech). I don't want to be told 'no' you can't do that. 1-1 only. It's bland and boring.

2. Bring back resource scarcity. Ok ultimately any resource is scare insofar as they are not unlimited spawns for them on the map. But there were so many of them in Civ4 and so many substitutes, the strategic shifts around iron/coal/saltpeter/rubber/oil no longer matter as much.

3. Maintain AI competency - AI must not gang up on human players. AI must understand all the features available (no human only features), AI must not cheat excessively and make an AI that is 'fun'


http://intrinsicalgorithm.com/IAonAI/2008/02/gdc-2008-soren-johnsons-lecture-on-civ.html

Human-blind diplomacy (Never checks “is human?”)
Information cheats (they DO have info cheats – most of them come down to limited dev. Resources… e.g. fog of war is very expensive)

Information cheats can really backfire on you. E.g. Amphibious Assault Judo using empty port cities in Civ 3. (solved by determining random time for updating the assault target, ignore temporary data such as nearby units.)

And for good measure, Soren Johnson's slide on Civ AI. (FUN AI is what we need)
http://www.intrinsicalgorithm.com/IAonAI/uploaded_images/Playing-to-Lose-2-701247.jpg

Tholish
Feb 18, 2010, 08:56 PM
Wishes that might be possible?

I'd like for leaders and civs to evolve over time. The simplest way to do this is assoicate leaders with civics (or whatever replaces them) so that when you get a more advanced government you also get a more modern leader. Are we going to have this Bismark and Jefferson leading the then non existent America and Germany civs in 4000 BC? Or will Bismark be the Republic leader for Germany, Charlemagne the Monarchy leader etc...

Since leaders will be highly elaborate for a really cool interface, this will probably not be the case, and in fact it will be hard to mod in (I haven't done it in Civ IV yet). But then again maybe once you have the basic leader it will be easy to reskin them, even with the Civ V equivalent of XML (like using a different kfm) rather than by the Civ V equivalent of doing it nifscope. Thus maybe you will be able to get an effect like the leaders in Civ 3 that update with era.

As for AI, making a really highly moddable AI (an AI editor?) would be a pretty unique feature.

Legionarius
Feb 18, 2010, 09:56 PM
Minor Things:
1. Return of the throne room/palace customizaton
2. Return of detailed city view

Major Things:
1. More uniquness among civs (basically expanding on the UU and UB they have already, as someone else said, a civ unique bonus(es) could be nice as long as it didn't horribly unbalance the game
2. More controllable combat system. The system in IV is pretty good, but it's basically a strength v. strength fight. With the expanded hexagonal map, they should implement more terrain bonuses based on direction. For instance units should be able to gain attack bonuses for attacking from behind or from the flanks. It would make cavalry a lot more useful

Trajan7
Feb 18, 2010, 10:00 PM
I would definitely love for religions to stay in the game. I also would like more leaders, and maybe even have more unique things per civ, to add flavor. I'd also like to see some more world wonders inspired by the roman empire.

Yosomono
Feb 18, 2010, 10:13 PM
I would really love it if they took a page from other styles of games and make a "character creator" style system for leaders. This would allow for randomly-generated leaders for randomly-generated civs, enable modders to create their own civs with custom leader, and make barbarian (and city state) leaders feasible as well. It'd by definition have to result in less-polished leaders than we're used to, but be far far more flexible.
Ultimately, the one thing I've wanted for some time is for the entire game to have the possibility to be randomly-generated. Have all civ traits, bonuses, leader-body-parts be in one gigantic pool, and you can either whip up your own custom civ or randomly generate one rather than use the standard ones.

Corvex
Feb 18, 2010, 10:34 PM
An in-game editor for new leaderheads would be nice. But in terms of gameplay, there are a few things I very much want to see.
First of all, quantitative resources: instead of a basic system (where you either have iron or your don't), mines should produce so many tons of iron per turn, and each individual swordsman unit should cost so many tons of iron to produce.
Second, related to the first, I want visible trade routes (preferably that can be plundered). I want you to lose money on trade routes the longer they are, and to lose money faster on overland trade routes than on oversea trade routes (to represent the relative ease of shipping by sea). Cities that have trade routes running through them should get a commerce bonues. This will have the added benefit of dramatically increasing the importance of navies (and also of cities like Constantinople).
And finally, I want diplomatic "conference calls"; or (since this seems ridiculously difficult), at least some mechanism of forming military and/or economical alliances between multiple partners.
I would also like some more flavour given to the different religions, but I don't see that happening any time soon.

Lord Parkin
Feb 19, 2010, 12:00 AM
Put up your own wishlist for what you want in Civ5.

1. On top of the current two traits, one UU, one UB system, I want a Civ bonus kinda like Rhyes has.
2. I want Japan not to suck. I'm sorry but... Tokugawa is really hard to play as if you're not into Prince+ difficulty stuff or multiplayer.
3. More leaders. They've already announced that it won't have more civs than Civ4 did, so here's hoping it has more leaders than Civ4 did.
4. No MAF errors.
5. No MAF errors, okay?
6. Seriously Firaxis.
7. More balance than Civ4 has, IE each civ has relatively equal bonuses, the traits are all near equally good, etc. No trait has to referred to as "crap," "gimpy,", "useless against the AI," or "Protective."
8. No MAF errors.
9. More religions maybe? Shintoism, Shamanism, etc.
10. And most important... please don't let it be as dumbed down as Revolution was. I want a thinking game, just like Civ games usually are.

11. P.S. No MAF errors.
Am I the only one who doesn't understand what MAF means? :blush:

Countmonte8242
Feb 19, 2010, 12:10 AM
1. Ensure that the modern era is fun, not a barrage of tedium like it is in Civ 4.

2. Zones of control. Also have troops of different civs unable to occupy the same space as in earlier games (for the ability to choke).

3. The return of some of my favorite old wonder's. Darwin's Voyage, Leo's Workshop.

Higher Game
Feb 19, 2010, 12:10 AM
#1. Elevation, to make sealevel rising from global warming more interesting, and to allow weather (western sides of mountains more rainy, etc).
#2. A unit design workshop.
#3. Sea cities.

Basically, make it more like Alpha Centauri. ;)

Windsor
Feb 19, 2010, 12:12 AM
Am I the only one who doesn't understand what MAF means? :blush:

My guess would be Memory Allocation Failure.

The Almighty dF
Feb 19, 2010, 12:21 AM
Do you just dislike the military-based civilization? Surely, the game should have a few war-based civilizations, so why not Japan?

You can easily pick a Creative / Financial civ, or whatever combination you want, if you want to play a peaceful builder.

Why do you want specifically Japan to not be so warlike?

Not at all, I just find that Japan isn't as good at being pure-war as say... Rome, the Celts, the Mongols, etc. are. They really need -something- that can help them maintain themselves a bit.

Am I the only one who doesn't understand what MAF means? :blush:

Memory Allocation Failure.
Civ4 has an issue with large mods. Basically, once your mod reaches a certain size... be prepared for random crashes. Especially if you're a fan of Large/Huge mods, or you reach the modern age.
Sadly, this can't really be fixed on your end, it's just a design flaw.
Then again, I guess when Civ4 was released, many of us probably didn't have as much RAM as we do by now, so I guess it was more of a lack of thinking ahead, or not expecting mods to become as large as many (such as Diplomacy and Extra) have become.

Atticus
Feb 19, 2010, 12:27 AM
1. Nomadic civs. I didn't play the Genghis Khan scenario of Warlords, but didn't it have moving camp? It could be used in this. (City states sounds very promising btw).

2. Different kinds of open borders. For military and nonmilitary units.

3. Remain emphasis on religion, economy and espionage. Corporations were fine, sadly the game is pretty much over when they step in, if you allow space chuttle that is.

4. Minor civs. Small countries that act little like barbarians, but are civs however. They could be handicapped with no leader traits, no unique units and so on.

5. More useless terrain. Rhye's mod for civ3 is good example of this: Make deserts and jungles uninhabitable and accessible by only for workers or by roads. This adds to the strategy. You can't settle or move anywhere you want, and on the other hand you can exploit terrain and natural borders.


1. Improved Trade
2. Bring back resource scarcity.

Agree.

fandamage
Feb 19, 2010, 12:36 AM
I really only have one single big wish for the game: make each civ's bonuses interesting and unique, like in Alpha Centauri (or CivRev). None of the mix-and-match system where every civ gets 2 types. It makes the civs sort of lose identity and leads to less interesting gameplay strategy/variety.

Yong
Feb 19, 2010, 12:42 AM
Remove "Worker" units:
- Tiles consume certain amount of "labor points" to be improved, based on different type of improvement.
- Base on population, city and tech level, let each civ have a numeric "labor pool" which limits the maximum number of labor points available each turn.
- Labor points are assigned from labor pool to tiles, with effect moderated by proximity to city, in/out of civ border, improvement, tech, civic, etc.
- The more points assigned, the sooner to finish an improvement.

Hopefully this design can reduce worker-micromanagement and eliminate early worker hunting war.

snoochems
Feb 19, 2010, 01:27 AM
Remove "Worker" units:
- Tiles consume certain amount of "labor points" to be improved, based on different type of improvement.
- Base on population, city and tech level, let each civ have a numeric "labor pool" which limits the maximum number of labor points available each turn.
- Labor points are assigned from labor pool to tiles, with effect moderated by proximity to city, in/out of civ border, improvement, tech, civic, etc.
- The more points assigned, the sooner to finish an improvement.

Hopefully this design can reduce worker-micromanagement and eliminate early worker hunting war.

You're talking about Civ CTP. Pretty crap game, but I did like that aspect of it.

CivGeneral
Feb 19, 2010, 01:27 AM
Mod Modules that are easy to install, similar to the way Fallout 3/Oblivian handles mods.

Second, usable on the most modern machines that are around 2-3 years old.

Remove the workers and implement a tile improvement feature found in Call to Power II.

Lord Parkin
Feb 19, 2010, 02:01 AM
Memory Allocation Failure.
Civ4 has an issue with large mods. Basically, once your mod reaches a certain size... be prepared for random crashes. Especially if you're a fan of Large/Huge mods, or you reach the modern age.
Sadly, this can't really be fixed on your end, it's just a design flaw.
Then again, I guess when Civ4 was released, many of us probably didn't have as much RAM as we do by now, so I guess it was more of a lack of thinking ahead, or not expecting mods to become as large as many (such as Diplomacy and Extra) have become.
Ah, right. Makes sense now. Yes, I've had that error quite frequently on some mods and maps, especially in the late game, and it's certainly a big irritation.

i_diavolorosso
Feb 19, 2010, 02:32 AM
Religion!!!!
Seriously!
They should fixed what was broken CIV IV Religion
And leave them out of the box, is not fixing

Complete diversity!
Both unit and the great people name should be unique for each civ

Revolution and barb civ as game option is a must!

Religion!(Did i already mention it? :p)

BobeBrown
Feb 19, 2010, 03:16 AM
Revolution inside your own civilization leading to a spin off civilization.

A pimped and beefed modern era because CIV4 really sucked there.

Weather I'd like it to have an influence on battles

Corporations I really hope they have made this better and not just thrown it out like religeons

Chat room Let it have a chat room to discuss tactics!

Future era I hope is not overly dramatic with walking mechs and invisible men

Ethnic city diversity Is a must

Ethnic unit diversity Is a must

But im guessing the last two they will leave for the modding community lol.

18civs? WEAK! They must be missing out on loads of good ones.

Visibly see promotions on units eg like better equipment.

Random Events I wanna it similar to civ4 but on steroids.

Trade I wana see ships sailing accross lands, I wana be able to control who i send my pack of bananas too and what city. And i wana attack someone sending a Oil tanker to my enemy.

Wodan
Feb 19, 2010, 04:10 AM
Most wishlists are thinking too small. The question shouldn't be the color of paint used in the house, it's what rooms there should be in the floorplan.

#1 wish is to get out of the Earth history model. Every single game shouldn't have to follow history as it happened. The whole point of replaying history is to create a civ how it could have happened. This basically amounts to breaking out of the tech tree model. Why does tech X follow tech Y? Unless there's some reason based in science, we have to ask if the answer boils down to "because that's how it happened in real life." That's probably the worst possible reason to do something, especially in a computer game. The game should be about allowing the possible, including real life, not mandating real life.

Ultimately having a more open paradigm will dramatically broaden player options, increase replayability of the game, and add enjoyment.

whb
Feb 19, 2010, 04:33 AM
I'll say the same thing I said on Slashdot -- I'd like them to solve the problem that as the game goes on, the number of pieces in the game grows polynormially. Civ4 morphs from a snappy fun game into a slow grind as the modern era approaches -- not just taking extra time per move, but also removing risk (losing your only War Elephant to an archer and it matters; losing one of a dozen tanks doesn't matter).

I'd also like them to remove the "homeostatic" rules. At the moment, there are various rules to keep nations from growing too fast -- eg, corruption costs as your civilization grows. Unfortunately, this means that there's an optimal size to be at any stage of the game and games tend to follow a similar pattern. Use a different method to help overrun players catch-up and to challenge players who are doing too well -- something like the dynamic difficulty that racing games use (where if you spin out, your opponents myseteriously get a bit slower so it doesn't end your game, and if you are racing ahead they get faster). "Ooh, you're doing well -- I think we'll have stronger barbarian cities nearby." That way you can tune the game for the player so it's always fun, without making all games the same.

RedRalph
Feb 19, 2010, 04:41 AM
Borders that aren't determined by culture, at least not in the late game

Something that seriously slows down huge empire, stability or the likes

Spread of tech, so no one is conquering space while someone else is still in the iron age

dagriggstar
Feb 19, 2010, 04:49 AM
Alright...

1) - Improved trade. You should have a choice between builder/aggressor/trader types of gamestyle. There should be like a "major" trade route that evolves with time that gives cities that are located nearby bonuses (however, loose these bonuses when the route changes). You should be able to "raid" these trade routes as well (in a similar way that you can blockade ports in BTS)

2) - Initially, some civs startoff nomadic. They may remain like that for along period (Zulu) or are only nomadic for a short period of time (Germany).

3) - Revolutions

4) - Impassable terrain, or some terrains can only be passed by certain types of units.

5) - For me each civ should have a unique bonus, handled differently by different leaders (very difficult to balance, but if you have a weak bonus trait you get a strong UU/UB to balance out)

6) - Events

think that'll do for now...

CMKMStephens
Feb 19, 2010, 05:16 AM
The 'View city' screen.

In Civ IV the buildings and wonders you build quickly come to dominate the graphical representation of your city on the map, crowding out all the housing. It looks kinda crap.

I'd like to see the city screen back where you can get a more detailed image of your city with the wonders and buildings in amongst them. Preferably, a step up from its previous iterations by taking all the surrounding tiles into account. Or some sort of micro-zoom.

Lord Parkin
Feb 19, 2010, 05:20 AM
Most wishlists are thinking too small. The question shouldn't be the color of paint used in the house, it's what rooms there should be in the floorplan.

#1 wish is to get out of the Earth history model. Every single game shouldn't have to follow history as it happened. The whole point of replaying history is to create a civ how it could have happened. This basically amounts to breaking out of the tech tree model. Why does tech X follow tech Y? Unless there's some reason based in science, we have to ask if the answer boils down to "because that's how it happened in real life." That's probably the worst possible reason to do something, especially in a computer game. The game should be about allowing the possible, including real life, not mandating real life.

Ultimately having a more open paradigm will dramatically broaden player options, increase replayability of the game, and add enjoyment.
I can't really visualize how what you're proposing would work though. Can you give an example? There's got to be a certain amount of structure in a game, or else it all falls to pieces. What use is it researching Bronze Working if someone else can get Iron straight off the bat? Also, where are the lines drawn? Surely someone can't start researching Fission from the get-go?

I think your idea might have some potential, but it seems very vague and ill-defined at the moment. Unless you can propose a workable alternative system, I don't see the problem with sticking (roughly) with what we've got: a semi-linear progression from the stone age to the modern age.

I'll say the same thing I said on Slashdot -- I'd like them to solve the problem that as the game goes on, the number of pieces in the game grows polynormially. Civ4 morphs from a snappy fun game into a slow grind as the modern era approaches -- not just taking extra time per move, but also removing risk (losing your only War Elephant to an archer and it matters; losing one of a dozen tanks doesn't matter).
Sometimes those huge modern era battles can be quite fun and satisfying, though. And I don't see any way that you could limit the amount of units present in the later game, save for implementing a "population cap" of sorts. And I've never much liked those.

Use a different method to help overrun players catch-up and to challenge players who are doing too well -- something like the dynamic difficulty that racing games use (where if you spin out, your opponents myseteriously get a bit slower so it doesn't end your game, and if you are racing ahead they get faster). "Ooh, you're doing well -- I think we'll have stronger barbarian cities nearby." That way you can tune the game for the player so it's always fun, without making all games the same.
That could be neat. I've already seen similar things (variable difficulty with how your score compares to others' scores, for instance) implemented in some mods for Civ4. So I'm sure this would be feasible.

Lord Parkin
Feb 19, 2010, 06:31 AM
Something that's always grated on my nerves with Civ4 (and Civ3 too I think):

Please have the ability to SAVE certain favoured game settings, or at least use ALL the ones from the last game. Civ4 remembers a couple of things, but not everything by a long shot... and it's frustrating to have to open the right number of AI slots, pick all the civs, set up the map settings, etc, every time I want to start a new game identical to the last one.

Also:

Sure there's a "regenerate" button in single player, which is very handy, but there's no such option in multiplayer games. I'd like to at least have the option there in Hotseat and LAN, since I play quite frequently with my girlfriend, and it's annoying to have to manually quit and restart (see above) every time until we get starts that we both like. I'm aware that such an option might cause problems in online play with strangers, so perhaps in that case maybe limit the "regenerate" option to the host of the game, or just eliminate it entirely.

ese-aSH
Feb 19, 2010, 06:47 AM
1) take the existing, which is good, improve what you want, but keep the good at all cost; Do not deny a 20 years old background (WTF is wrong with these fu*** hexagons?? did you hire some Paradox guys ???)

2) Look to civ4 mods. Take the best, insert it in civ5. I want the stability concept from R&F and LoR (I remember it happening in civ1 : big empires splitting)

3) Do something around culture. Culture is not the way borders are drawned (this is easily compatible with the stability concept : owning tiles where a foreign culture dominates increase unstability). Two cultures should not be always exclusive.
Do something about culture diffusion : you share yor movies from holliwood to a civ ? this should bring some of your culture on their tiles.
And most important : some culture are close to each other, some are not. The religions were a way to simulate that in civ4 early to mid game : when two civ started close to each other, they have a good chance to get the same religion, and be 'friendly'.

4) Forget about predefined traits / UU / UB. A civilization builts itself over time. One has to do something to get bonuses. You want to get a promotion bonus on melee units (as the agg trait) ? build a certain number of melee unit and make them win a couple of fights.

5) More civics (or whatever they are called), that cover more areas of the game. Civics should lock/unlock certain part of the gameplay (the locked parts delegated to 'governors').

Luckystrike77
Feb 19, 2010, 07:46 AM
I'd love to see military units costing you population points. War should cost you blood too, not just money and production.

Wodan
Feb 19, 2010, 07:51 AM
I can't really visualize how what you're proposing would work though. Can you give an example?
Consider the Inca. They were quite advanced, agriculturally, as I understand, and also in medical fields. What would their civilization have changed into if the New World had not been discovered and "polluted" by European thinking and ideas?

Why not a culture that doesn't discover internal combustion (perhaps they have no oil) and as a result advanced steam technology and pneumatics to "modern" levels, despite other areas of their technology still being at 18th century levels?

Why do we have situations such as Paper having a prereq of Civil Service. :huh: There are dozens of similar situations in CIV.

There's got to be a certain amount of structure in a game, or else it all falls to pieces.
What's your basis for that conclusion?

And, who is to say what the "certain amount" is to be?

What use is it researching Bronze Working if someone else can get Iron straight off the bat? Also, where are the lines drawn? Surely someone can't start researching Fission from the get-go?
As I said, "unless there's some reason based in science".

Also we should be careful that we don't make assumptions. Why is IW "better" than BW? There are many applications where bronze or copper is a better choice than iron. And what if my civilization has Iron but not the metals to make Bronze? How would we "research" BW if we didn't have those metals at all? Wouldn't we jump straight to IW?

What if there was some "metallurgy" or "metal working" technology which is a prereq for both? Then, you could choose whether you go for IW or BW based upon strategic game decisions, instead of being forced to get BW before IW.

I think your idea might have some potential, but it seems very vague and ill-defined at the moment.
Well of course. That's why the game designers make the big bucks. We could define it here, and certainly I would be glad to explore it. I have put thought into it but we should understand that a well-designed game requires thousands of man hours, just in the concepting (before you even get to coding).

Unless you can propose a workable alternative system, I don't see the problem with sticking (roughly) with what we've got: a semi-linear progression from the stone age to the modern age.
Because it limits replayability, it limits enjoyability, it limits player creativity and strategy. It also limits profit, because those things directly impact sales.

Loose Nut
Feb 19, 2010, 08:15 AM
Well, I'm dreaming here, but something I would like to see in a Civ game: rotating leaders.

Like, for example, every time you advance an era, your leader changes, randomly (or not) – from say Augustus in the Classical Era to Constantine in the Medieval to Julius in the Renaissance. So your tactics might change depending on who takes the throne. You wouldn't necessarily have to have a leader for each age, but rotating from three or four or five might be cool.

The main drawback is, this may be more difficult with historically smaller/ shorter-lived/ sparser-historical-record civilizations.

You could also have (brief) dark ages this way, if each civilization has a disastrous leader. Caligula has seized the throne! Better not send out the praetorians for another hundred years. :lol:

And in a golden age, maybe you could choose a new leader (among whatever else). Or perhaps have a new category of Great Person – revolutionaries.

xienwolf
Feb 19, 2010, 08:26 AM
Support for Multiple Barbarian Factions.
Ability to modify the Game Setup menu (and all other aspects of the engine outside of the actual playable portion of the game, both before and after)
Well organized and optimized code base
Multi-Layer maps
Ability to add new graphical entities (like extra buildings or icons on tiles or other random locations)

xienwolf
Feb 19, 2010, 08:26 AM
Support for Multiple Barbarian Factions.
Ability to modify the Game Setup menu (and all other aspects of the engine outside of the actual playable portion of the game, both before and after)
Well organized and optimized code base
Multi-Layer maps
Ability to add new graphical entities (like extra buildings or icons on tiles or other random locations)

EDIT: Also, pipe dream here, the ability to select multiple units from different tiles and issue a communal order to them. (ie - select all my archers on the map, now tell them all to upgrade to longbowmen. And later, select my army on the Western Front and my Army on the Southern Front, and send each them back to the Northern Front)

Swissdictator
Feb 19, 2010, 09:45 AM
I'd rather have them, unlike Civ 4, be willing to skimp on the graphics a bit and focus more on gameplay. I don't want to have to upgrade my computer to play Civ 5. I might be getting a gig of ram soon as I could use it anyways... but I don't want to ugprade my video card.

Gameplay over Graphics!

At the very least have the options to set graphics to a quality similar to Civ IV's, in order to make the game run smoothly.

I also hated the mod/scenario creation of Civ IV. Civ III's was much better in my personal opinion, as it had its own editor outside of the game which was very nice... and less demanding on the computer as well. Plus it was really easy to go through the tabs and do basic editing. I gave up on trying to make major scenarios in the Civ IV world creator.

Plus an editor like Civ III's is very nice for map creation too.

The nice things about Civ IV can still be done, but make an easy to use editor like III had... that runs outside of the game. That's a big one, as it was very annoying how it was tied into the game.

I did like the colony concept to a degree, and some of the mods created in a similar vain. It would be interesting to see a new civilization pop up from distant territories of an empire, areas decimated by warfare, etc. Though I'd have that as an option, that could be turned off.


Also: keep using Nimoy to narrate :P

Wodan
Feb 19, 2010, 11:14 AM
forEDIT: Also, pipe dream here, the ability to select multiple units from different tiles and issue a communal order to them. (ie - select all my archers on the map, now tell them all to upgrade to longbowmen. And later, select my army on the Western Front and my Army on the Southern Front, and send each them back to the Northern Front)

I believe you can do that now, in CIV, xienwolf, using shift/ctrl/alt selections and custom hotkeys.

Princip
Feb 19, 2010, 11:15 AM
Languages could be introduced, spreading your language much like religion in Civ IV.

Windsor
Feb 19, 2010, 12:09 PM
I want relation factor and warmonger respect removed.

I don't have a problem with AIs earning some kind of "warmonger respect" throughout the game based on what the AIs do, I just don't want it to be a preset number.

Trajan7
Feb 19, 2010, 05:41 PM
My question is, whether or not the developers at Firaxis are listening to this thread?

robward5
Feb 19, 2010, 06:21 PM
I'd like to see better helicopters. In Civ 4, we have only the gunship, which, while having its uses, is not great. Plus, its the final upgrade for my cherished, (and usually highly propmoted) cavalry units. If they can't be upgraded further, perhaps they could be transferred to mech. inf. or similar?
1) Transport helicopters. Limited range, but operate like ships in that can carry land units a limited distance, but if destroyed, all units inside are killed. Ideally this would be a weak transport capacity, say only two infantry units(move 1 or less) or one mech. unit (move 2+)
2) Helicopters with limited operational range over the sea, say 5 squares. Real world choppers are used at sea more often than not.
3) Why no choppers operating from carriers? Modern warfare uses this extensively.

dirtyparrot
Feb 19, 2010, 06:38 PM
1) Please no more AI cheating

2) Better diplomacy and actually getting bribed to join wars instead of being asked and taking the diplo hit if you refuse.

3) Be able to combine different UU/UB from different civs, so you can have War chariots/Ger

4) A much better WB

5) A better thought process in the AI deciding to go into war

6) No more hidden modifiers

7) More options in creating a game and/or scenarios (e.g. being able to lock AI into war or create everyone at war, city-state challenge, etc)

8) You keep the UB's that you capture in the city if they survive the takeover.

Runo245
Feb 19, 2010, 06:59 PM
Well, I'm dreaming here, but something I would like to see in a Civ game: rotating leaders.

I've been thinking about this too! Transitions of power are some of the most defining moments of history for many empires, not only drastically changing policy (e.g., Caesar changing Rome from a republic to an empire), but also leading to entirely new nations (e.g., Lincoln leading to the Confederacy). This aspect of history seems like it really has been skipped over by Firaxis. It would be awesome if every 50-60 years (or age, like you said, but thats not an accurate lifetime) there would be a shift of power. It dosen't necessaily require a new leaderhead (that would be excessive...) but at least different bonuses, traits, and preferred civics? That would make for an interesting game. Also, popularity could play into the success of a leader, determing how long and how powerful he is.

And in a golden age, maybe you could choose a new leader (among whatever else). Or perhaps have a new category of Great Person – revolutionaries.

This sounds like a brilliant idea! Revolutionaries would be a great addition to the game- esspecially if you could use them in foreign empires as well. Can you imagine if you're at war with an incredibly popular and Militaristic leader- say Caesar- and you send in your revolutionary to his capitol to oust him from power, and you end up fighting Caligula instead :eek:? That would be fantastic.

j-d-s
Feb 19, 2010, 07:31 PM
Woe, if there's a maximum of one military unit per tile, woe!

Mathalamus
Feb 19, 2010, 07:36 PM
my wish is this: please do not bundle any mod. make it all optional.

if you MUST bundle a mod, use RFC, not Final frontier or Fall of heaven. both of those are just too massive.

jeffreyac
Feb 19, 2010, 07:52 PM
See, I'm hoping the opposite - that there WILL be a FFH type mod included.

...but, then, I'm on the other side of the fence on quite a few of these wishes... so I'm a little worried...

Randomness
Feb 19, 2010, 07:54 PM
Most wishlists are thinking too small. The question shouldn't be the color of paint used in the house, it's what rooms there should be in the floorplan.

#1 wish is to get out of the Earth history model. Every single game shouldn't have to follow history as it happened. The whole point of replaying history is to create a civ how it could have happened. This basically amounts to breaking out of the tech tree model. Why does tech X follow tech Y? Unless there's some reason based in science, we have to ask if the answer boils down to "because that's how it happened in real life." That's probably the worst possible reason to do something, especially in a computer game. The game should be about allowing the possible, including real life, not mandating real life.

Ultimately having a more open paradigm will dramatically broaden player options, increase replayability of the game, and add enjoyment.



I very much agree. As to how to do this, lots of OR gates for techs. I want to be able to get to the mediveal ages without getting sailing (I'm landlocked). Instead, I have advanced horemenship.

jeffreyac
Feb 19, 2010, 08:02 PM
Just had the fantastic realization that, whatever the form of Civ 5 takes (and if I like it or not) I'm certain that one of our fantastic modders will shape it into exactly what I'm hoping for... so I'm back to being excited about the release!

This community is fantastic - so if the game is still moddable, I think there's no way it can be disappointing! :p

xienwolf
Feb 19, 2010, 08:43 PM
for

I believe you can do that now, in CIV, xienwolf, using shift/ctrl/alt selections and custom hotkeys.

Pretty sure I have tried it, and it is impossible. You can use SHIFT/CRL/ALT to select multiple units only so long as all units you are selecting share a tile. You can select multiple cities, and obviously those aren't required to share a tile, but not multiple units on different tiles (and if you HAD a selection of units on one tile, and managed to move one off (he had an auto-move queued and just happened to stop on that tile for a turn or something) that would break the group (my example fails because the previous orders would have been deleted from the unit upon joining another group, but I can't think of any other method by which you can move a portion of a group easily)

villagelder
Feb 19, 2010, 08:54 PM
I want more in-game customization such as scaleable attack/defense numbers, or better use of promotions.

Camikaze
Feb 19, 2010, 09:00 PM
Put up your own wishlist for what you want in Civ5.

Everything I've been asking for for the last year and a bit.

But I had to choose, say, the top 5 areas of concern that need change, they would be:
AI. The AI needs to be smarter and more competitive.
Diplomacy. Diplomacy needs to have many more options and not be so one-dimensional and basic.
The economic side of Civ. It needs to be greatly expanded. Currently, it is a joke of a representation of an economy. It needs some sort of complication and some sort of realistic basis.
SoDs. They dominate warfare. They need to go. Military strategy needs to be able to diversify. However, I cannot stress enough how much Civ is not a tactical game, and so any change to warfare should not involve a move too far in the direction of Total War.
Navy. It's role is pretty pathetic in Civ 4. It needs expanding. This doesn't just involve military naval features, but other maritime things such as trade routes across waters.


It's good to see that, from what information we have so far, it seems that at least 1, 2 and 4 are going to be worked on.

Now, 5 specific ideas that I would really like to see?
My ideas in this (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=320825). Make resources quantified, and make them finite. This is a good step to improving economics in the game. Indications are that this type of thing will be adopted, although I'm sceptical about the limited details given so far.
My ideas in this (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=311933). The introduction of more complicated and visible trade routes. Particularly on oceans.
My ideas in this (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=323063). Supply lines/SoD penalties. Exponential penalties. Not arbitrary caps. EXPONENTIAL! Supply lines (not supply units) that are automatable (?) and fully customisable would help with this.
My ideas in this (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=342344). Siege made to be attachments, rather than stand alone units. Ranged bombardment removes much of the need for this, but I still think it would be better to make them as attachments.
My ideas in this (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=320885). Some form of mercenary trade, preferably with barbarians, allowing for economic specialisation, and more interactive barbarians. This could possibly be what we see in City States.


So it's good to see that a good portion of my wishlist is being fulfilled. :D

villagelder
Feb 19, 2010, 09:15 PM
Bring back entertainer/artist happiness! Also allow more customization within the city with laborers such as the usual engineers, scientists, merchants, artists, priests, spies, and add a few such as:

Entertainer +Happiness, ++Culture, +Commerce (or give artist happiness bonus)
Farmer ++Food, +Commerce
Doctor ++Health, +Production, +Beakers
Police ++Happiness, reduce corruption
Lord/Manager ++Production, +Commerce


The same functions are already done by building improvements, simply allow the buildings to hire specialists and convert some of the effects over to the actual specialists. For example, the granary could now gain a free farmer and convert two laborers to specialist farmers, granting more food. -OR- the priest could give +happiness instead of the temple.

fandamage
Feb 19, 2010, 09:30 PM
One more big wish for the game: make it easy to record games and then rewatch/share them. Being able to easily watch match replays would be great, and would help the knowledge base of strategy in the community grow much more quickly. It would help newer players develop their strategies for multiplayer, and expert players could more easily demonstrate/innovate. If this feature was better integrated in to the UI, it would be very useful.

lemonjelly
Feb 19, 2010, 11:03 PM
The only thing I really want is more things to be moddable. I think they should keep the exe/dll/python/XML system, but move a lot more stuff from the exe to the dll.

Bubonic
Feb 20, 2010, 12:30 AM
Apologies in advance for my rather long-winded response.

I think a great many of the above ideas have significant merit, but as a player who could never seem to get beyond Noble (my all time highest score was about 120k I think and I have NO idea how I managed that) I would like to see more tools to assist the mediocre players such as myself to improve.

I like Fandamage's idea in particular. Would probably be a devil to implement, but as far as "blank piece of paper" brainstorming goes, I like it.

In addition I've been thinking about User Interface features I would have found useful over the last several years of Civving:

1. A "push/pull" (as opposed to the current "push" only) system of tile improvement. ie, you would have the option to right-click on a tile and select an improvement. The next idle (or fortified, or programmed) worker would then perform the work. You could even implement a priority system (3 tiers would suffice) to tell the game to take workers off a low priority task (like building a non essential road) in order to mine that iron you just discovered.

(Did Civ III have something similar or did I just dream that it did?)

This could also (and maybe most usefully) allow you to manage tile improvements from the city screen.

2. Expand the "Alt-S" signage functionality to help draw dot-maps. At the moment, once I've explored an area, I'll go through and Alt-S the word "dot" on planned city sites, but I'm still left imagining the rest of the fat cross.

3. Programmable "alerts" similar to the end of build queue pop ups (with "Examine City" and "Ignore" buttons). So I could set a city to alert me when it reaches a certain size, or reaches its health or happiness cap, or when a certain building, unit or wonder becomes available, or when a tech has been researched. Or I could get all idle workers to become active when lumbermills are available. Etc.

This kind of thing may not be useful to everyone but I tend to get interrupted fairly frequently when civving which really disrupts my long term planning. This feature would certainly take some of the sting out of being dragged away.

4. Group build queue replacement. I would like to be able to replace every occurrence in a build queue of one unit with another. ie replace cats with trebuchets, archers with crossbows, etc without having to cycle through all my cities. Admittedly this is less important than the previous three suggestions. Just a "nice to have".


Then, on the subject of actual gameplay...

5. If, and only IF, they can get the balance right, I would like to see the return of food transportation. If memory serves, Civ II had this. So you can transport food from one city to another to combat starvation or feed growth.

6. Natural Wonders. Some people have suggested (either in this thread or one of the other similar threads) that another civ-specific bonus/benefit could be implemented. Now I haven't thought this one through all the way yet, but I'm sure that Natural Wonders could work. In fact, I haven't even considered what type of benefit you could attribute to them - I'm just throwing it out there. You can associate them with a civilisation, or with a plot (like a super-resource as suggested by EMT above). You could include everything ranging from land formations (The Great Barrier Reef, Uluru, The Grand Canyon, Mt Everest, etc) to jungle biodiversity and the Auroras (Australis and Borealis).

Anyway, that's what I'd like to see implemented in (or at least considered for) Civ V.

villagelder
Feb 20, 2010, 07:34 AM
Either bring back caravans that can carry production to another city or allow cities within a trade route to distribute production, food, or specialists. Weaker cities that cannot easily support themselves (but may be good strategically) can be propped up by their larger national cousins.

Also make unit production A LOT less in production cost, possibly allowing for multiple units to be created in the same turn. One unit every couple of turns, or 100years in early civilization seems too understated in military concept.

RPG
Feb 20, 2010, 07:42 AM
I'd love to see merchant ships.

jeffreyac
Feb 20, 2010, 07:48 AM
Also make unit production A LOT less in production cost, possibly allowing for multiple units to be created in the same turn. One unit every couple of turns, or 100years in early civilization seems too understated in military concept.

Oooh, can't back you on this one. One of the complaints voiced by some already is late game bloom of the number of units, resulting in game slowdown and huge management issues. Making it even easier than it already is to crank stuff out would not be a step in the right direction, in my mind. Also, kinda reinforces the stack of death style warfare (You've got 75 axes? Hmmm... I better bring along 125 of mine...) Especially if they implement a one-unit-per-tile deal, I think the target is fewer units, not more.

Admittedly, just my thought though. Others may agree with you... :)


(Just occured to me, I wonder how workers will work... if there is one-unit-per-tile in the works, maybe they a) aren't aunit, b)dont count, and can 'share' a tile with a unit while they work, or c) are gone and improvements are done in some other manner...)

villagelder
Feb 20, 2010, 07:55 AM
This would take some inginuity so it probably will not make it until Civ 7 or 8, but I would like to see a battle map, akin to Heroes of Might & Magic. The overall lack of battle strategy sucks in all of Civ's iterations. You stack them up and either choose to attack or defend and hope your mathematical bonuses work in your favor. The use of strategy with battle formations, timing, subterfuge, and movement is almost absent. These factors could be implemented in a battle map that cuts away from the overhead map during battle, possibly giving a desktop feel of the terrain your in - sandy deserts, coastline, highlands, etc...

As I said it would take an overhaul of the current battle system so I am not expecting miracles.

jeffreyac
Feb 20, 2010, 08:02 AM
Hmmm... again, this is the kind of change I'm scared of. To me, Civ has always been more Strategy than Tactics, and zooming to a battle map would be too tactical in feel for me.

I guess my one wish, more than anything - don't UnCiv my Civ! Don't change the game away from the core feel (but I realize that each of us has a different view of what that 'ideal core game feel' is supposed to be! :p )

croxis
Feb 20, 2010, 10:19 AM
villager, Sid has stated in past interviews that he prefers making one great game instead of two good games cobbled together. As long as he works on Civ chances are you will never see any kind of battle map. Civ is, at its heart, a board game. At the same time is is not just a war game. In a MP setting I also don't want to wait for my opponents to finish their battles when mine are all done.

taillesskangaru
Feb 20, 2010, 10:22 PM
Civil Wars!!!

The "rebels" would be represented as city-states.

Mathalamus
Feb 20, 2010, 10:46 PM
Civil Wars!!!

The "rebels" would be represented as city-states.

make it a mod then, not part of the game. i do not want to juggle any more than i really need to.

Fredric Drum
Feb 20, 2010, 11:02 PM
Not to rain any anyone's parade, but if the game is out 1st Sept 2010, it's far too late to suggest game features now. All major features are already set in stone, with only fine-tuning and bugfixing left.

Firaxis have probably read previous wishlists and implemented a tiny portion of them, but mostly following their own ideas. We'll just have to wait and see how it turns out.

Personally, I was disappointed with Civ IV. Sure, it's a good game that I play now and then, but I expected so much more and feel it was too simple and dumbed-down. I'm hoping for a much deeper game in Civ V! What little I've seen from Civ V looks promising, but of course I'm going to buy it no matter what :D

Mathalamus
Feb 20, 2010, 11:35 PM
Not to rain any anyone's parade, but if the game is out 1st Sept 2010, it's far too late to suggest game features now. All major features are already set in stone, with only fine-tuning and bugfixing left.

Firaxis have probably read previous wishlists and implemented a tiny portion of them, but mostly following their own ideas. We'll just have to wait and see how it turns out.

Personally, I was disappointed with Civ IV. Sure, it's a good game that I play now and then, but I expected so much more and feel it was too simple and dumbed-down. I'm hoping for a much deeper game in Civ V! What little I've seen from Civ V looks promising, but of course I'm going to buy it no matter what :D

itn was dumped down so that a wide audiance can play it with only minor problems.

to be honest i don't want it feature heavy as RoM. too much information at once. too much to learn at once.

civilization 5 should be an easy enough transition that current Deity experts will be able to play deity on CiV. with minor problems.

lostcause
Feb 21, 2010, 01:04 AM
1. A Supreme Allied Commander. Whenever I fight a war in Civ4, it seems like I do all the fighting while my allies sit on the sidelines out of fear of getting dirty (or waiting to capture a city that I had just assaulted). I think it would be nice that when allies go to war they create a unified assault force under the command of the player (or AI, if you're daring). You just select which units of yours you want to send, and they are placed under the command of the SAC.

2. A tactical deployment mode. If they do go to a 1 unit-per-tile mode, I know I would get a headache setting up my front lines if I didn't have some assistance in game. In this mode you would be able to select a group of units and a location for deployment, and then the game will show you a suggested order of battle. But while you are in tactical deployment mode you can rearrange what units will go where, and if you don't like the location, you can change it, all before moving any actual units and wasting a few turns adjusting the lines.

Camikaze
Feb 21, 2010, 04:54 AM
Civil Wars!!!

The "rebels" would be represented as city-states.

This is part of something important that is really needed in an empire management game; domestic instability. I would support this in terms of these (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=336520) two (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=335992) ideas, and I think it would make a fabulous addition to the empire management focus of the game.

Arakhor
Feb 21, 2010, 05:13 AM
I very much doubt that it will be by September. If anything, it will be a Christmas release.

RPG
Feb 21, 2010, 05:20 AM
I very much doubt that it will be by September. If anything, it will be a Christmas release.

Agreed.

sk065
Feb 21, 2010, 06:23 AM
Ability to create and customize your on civ completely - avatar, flag, polices etc etc

mitsho
Feb 21, 2010, 06:37 AM
My personal

1. Less Micromanagment needed, (but of course, if you want to, you still can do it, but i mean for example: less units to manage)

2. Better Balance between early and late game regarding variety, game speed and so on. (I said better, not that it has to be even)

3. More Variety in gameplay styles, for example it sucks to be Tokugawa in CivIV as he will most often do horrible and lag behind, while Mansa is a Powerhouse. I like the personalities, I just think they could spice them up a bit

4. More Leaders for each civs

5. STABILITY-SYSTEM, and other more complex, but behind-the-scenes features that counter the snowball effect. You shouldn't have to have a huge mega-empire to win in the late game. Incidentically, this could also even out the balance between the early and late gaming stages (e.g. you can have more features like atomic bombs, United nations and Corporations if the empire you have to handle is smaller).

Well, that's about it for now ;)

climat
Feb 21, 2010, 07:08 AM
1. Keep Health/Unhealth System. (Do not make us remove pollution in tiles again and again)
2. Solve MAF problem
3. Removing worker and reducing micromanagement ;)
4. New arid terrain type or making desert terrain more useful at least in later eras.
5. Bring back 'workable' mountain.
6. Quantified Resources
7. Improving trade and economy

Kissamies
Feb 21, 2010, 08:01 AM
1. Replace workers with something like CTP public works system. Less micro that way.
2. Bit more map resolution, a tile representing a smaller area than before.
3. More internal politics. Could lead to domestic instability or even civil wars with real bad luck or bad handling.
4. More diplomacy with multiple participants. UN/Apostolic Palace/Planetary Council was a start, but I'd like something more in vein of regular diplomacy.
5. Little more dynamic military unit tech advancement. No cannons on my ships before I discover the tech for cannons. Vehicles might even have design workshop like in SMAC.
6. A weather or climate system of some sort. For example, chopping a lot of trees on an area might affect the climate, as would global warming, obviously.
7. A simple orbital/satellites system, much like in SMAC.
8. Spherical world: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=354175
9. High Council: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=354150
10. Good wonder movies. IV's were too generic.
11. Religions! (And corporations)

mitsho
Feb 21, 2010, 09:12 AM
3. More internal politics. Could lead to domestic instability or even civil wars with real bad luck or bad handling.

Seconded, good one. Works together with expanded economy and trading, with religions and with so much more. Let civs not be a single Black stone anymore (no Realism theory like in international relations ;))

RPG
Feb 21, 2010, 09:14 AM
I wish EmperorFool & the rest of the BUG team was working on the interface for Civ V.

Jawa'sRevenge
Feb 21, 2010, 02:49 PM
I am confident in the team making CiV.

I do hope they have been taking notes over the years.

MrAdam
Feb 21, 2010, 02:59 PM
My main grief: It's stupid that if you're running a free market system with a president and universal suffrage that the president decides what every single city can build. It's like getting the advantages that a planned economy with a good leader has with none of the costs and its the complete opposite of what your civics should do. I think governors should have autonomy and that there should be a penalty for direct interference.

Tusked
Feb 21, 2010, 03:04 PM
My main grief: It's stupid that if you're running a free market system with a president and universal suffrage that the president decides what every single city can build. It's like getting the advantages that a planned economy with a good leader has with none of the costs and its the complete opposite of what your civics should do. I think governors should have autonomy and that there should be a penalty for direct interference.

Sometimes gameplay needs to take precedence over realism.

Voyhkah
Feb 21, 2010, 06:36 PM
1. Supply trains
2. RELIGION!
3. Ambushes and other advanced combat stuff.
4. What I call 'Guns, Germs, and Steel (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?p=8922641#post8922641)'
5. Random events.
6. Spherical World, like in the spore civilization stage, with realistic distances.
7. Hey, I like micromanagement and workers!
8. After a certain stage of city expanse, the cities start to spread to neboring tiles.
9. The ability to send food/production between connected cities.
10. A better climate system, vital for GGS.
11. Political parties, and more politics. Maybe people revolt or elect someone else if you do really badly.

Mathalamus
Feb 21, 2010, 06:59 PM
more of a silly wish but: i want the hot women leaders in CIV to stay hot.

the reverend
Feb 21, 2010, 08:14 PM
I can't really visualize how what you're proposing would work though.

I think it would work quite easily. You could make any tech available to research at the start, unless of course a tech required a prerequisite tech. Players would be kept from researching Fission right at the start because of its tremendous cost. Therefore, research would likely progress along set patterns anyway because of the importance of certain techs (like pottery), but it would also give players greater freedom to beeline techs for trading or military advantage. Anyways, I'm not saying I believe the idea is the best option for the game, but it does have interesting possibilities and would be easy to implement.

MrAdam
Feb 21, 2010, 08:27 PM
Sometimes gameplay needs to take precedence over realism.

But I imagine it would be easily enough to implement would be a natural progression towards a better 4x game/empire building game

My main grief: It's stupid that if you're running a free market system with a president and universal suffrage that the president decides what every single city can build. It's like getting the advantages that a planned economy with a good leader has with none of the costs and its the complete opposite of what your civics should do. I think governors should have autonomy and that there should be a penalty for direct interference.

Also to expand on my point, I think the same should be applied towards research. You should be able to research multiple things at the same time/'randomly' receive techs
For example, early on in the game, farmers could discover some ways to increase production. Or in the feudal age a weavers guild can discover better sewing techniques or a new kind of fabric or how to use cotton. Eventually this technologies would spread/be sold to other civilizations. (Random events/tech diffusion mod (I know at least RoM has this mod) have touched on this)
Later on, after you have a more centralized government you could research stuff via funding. Hire a research lab in the private sector to go for something specific, or fund a national science lab.

villagelder
Feb 21, 2010, 10:09 PM
Here are my wishes to see in Civ5:

1 - A few more government types like oligarchy, technocracy, popular democracy (different from representative democracy) and others.
2- No revolution in voluntarily changing civics. That, IMHO, was stupid. Revolution should only occur during high stress factors such as war weariness, high unhappiness (possibly caused by harsh civics), border sprawl, corruption, but not voluntarily.
3 - Add economic investments/takeovers in enemy borders.
4 - Spy system should be easier to utilize without decreasing other factors such as science or culture
5 - Decrease the war-bog effect - getting dragged into a war shouldn't decrease your resources to the point you can't do anything esle
6 - More opportunities to gain ground in tech race such as events, military conquering with a chance to gain an opposing tech (like it used to be).
7. Bring back other traits like agriculural and seafairing!
8 - video advisors

Mathalamus
Feb 21, 2010, 10:31 PM
1. ignore everyone who wants something in civ 3 or earlier back. this game must look to the future, not stuck in the past.

climat
Feb 22, 2010, 01:46 AM
more of a silly wish but: i want the hot women leaders in CIV to stay hot.

It's not that silly. Women's Suffrage! :rolleyes:

Cilpot
Feb 22, 2010, 04:14 AM
1. I want a stand-alone rules/map/scenario editor.
2. Food caravans (or something similar). I don't think the size of cities should be determined on the amount of available food in the immediately surrounding area. Especially not in industrial/modern times.

AlpsStranger
Feb 22, 2010, 05:14 AM
2. Food caravans (or something similar). I don't think the size of cities should be determined on the amount of available food in the immediately surrounding area. Especially not in industrial/modern times.

I've tossed this idea around in my own head for some time. I still can't entirely support it. I *like* the idea, but I think it might break the fundamentals of the game too severely.

Gedemo
Feb 22, 2010, 05:17 AM
I was a fan of the trade roads in Call to Power II with the little goods moving on the maps and which can be broken by pirates....
I ll' like to see them bringing back The silk Road or create a trade concept with it...
Like for example, define a "silk road" with different cities through different friendly countries...if one of them is captured by enemy the "silk road" is broken.

Gedemo
Feb 22, 2010, 05:27 AM
Perhaps the workers could dig canals between seas...or ships could follow rivers in order to explore or trade?

villagelder
Feb 22, 2010, 06:01 AM
Perhaps the workers could dig canals between seas...or ships could follow rivers in order to explore or trade?

I like the canal idea with a max of 1 or 2 spaces. I have wanted that idea for a long time - and rivers should be navigable too.

taillesskangaru
Feb 22, 2010, 06:04 AM
1. ignore everyone who wants something in civ 3 or earlier back. this game must look to the future, not stuck in the past.

One must look back to the past to plan for the future. Some features from Civ3 and earlier are worth including.

AlpsStranger
Feb 22, 2010, 06:24 AM
One must look back to the past to plan for the future. Some features from Civ3 and earlier are worth including.

This is absolutely true, but one must think critically about which features fall under this category. Each Civilization does *not* need to be a super set of all of its prequels. Cutting features is a natural part of making a healthy sequel.

trevort
Feb 22, 2010, 07:17 AM
I would like to see an easy to use system for naming units. For instance, if I make battle ships, I would like the option to use historically accurate battleship names/numbers that would be civ specific. As in first American battleship produced would be BB-1 USS Indiana. It doesn't necessarily have to be that but anything is better than the way it is now.

Wodan
Feb 22, 2010, 07:22 AM
I would like to see an easy to use system for naming units. For instance, if I make battle ships, I would like the option to use historically accurate battleship names/numbers that would be civ specific. As in first American battleship produced would be BB-1 USS Indiana. It doesn't necessarily have to be that but anything is better than the way it is now.

You mean, such as a simple click on the name in the unit info window, and you can just type in whatever name you want? :crazyeye:

(Seriously, I think there are tons of tips and tricks in cIV that most people aren't aware of.)

trevort
Feb 22, 2010, 07:34 AM
I mean something that is automatic. Set it and forget it. Until the naming system runs out of names, that is. American battleships are named after states. So there would be 50 names. Once they've run run out then it's up to the player. It's been a long time, but if I remember correctly, Civ3 had a way you could assign a list of names to a unit that would be used by the game upon unit completion. I may be wrong about that though.:confused:

Gedemo
Feb 22, 2010, 08:03 AM
I would like to see an easy to use system for naming units. For instance, if I make battle ships, I would like the option to use historically accurate battleship names/numbers that would be civ specific. As in first American battleship produced would be BB-1 USS Indiana. It doesn't necessarily have to be that but anything is better than the way it is now.

I would like to be able to give a name to mountains, seas, rivers...and then have "the battle of Nil/Carpates/amazonia...leads to the victory of XX" something easier than alt+S of the worldbuilder

Ribannah
Feb 22, 2010, 08:07 AM
In no specific order:

1) More historic accuracy in civilizations, unique units, city names, leaders etc. (please don't offend the Amerinds again)
2) Programmable AI
3) True spherical map
4) Less micro-management (do we really need Workers?)
5) Land reclamation
6) Reduced luck factor (e.g. a nearly destroyed army should not magically heal back to full strength)

trevort
Feb 22, 2010, 08:18 AM
I would like to be able to give a name to mountains, seas, rivers...and then have "the battle of Nil/Carpates/amazonia...leads to the victory of XX" something easier than alt+S of the worldbuilder
That too sounds good. It would really be cool if you could then use those battle names for ship names as the US Navy does for some of it's ships.

culdeus
Feb 22, 2010, 08:18 AM
These threads crack me up in every gaming forum I am on.

If the release date range is announced what is actually in the game is in, period. There won't be anything added that isn't already there wrt gameplay. From here it's beta testing and debug work plus probably they haven't built the multiplay engine yet (maybe).

If there's one thing on the wishlist how about not release a game that is so bug ridden and exploit sensitive like CIV 1.0000. Took nearly 3 years to really get all the bugs out. Lets work on that, and the content can be modded in later.

catfish99
Feb 22, 2010, 08:23 AM
Mercenaries. Tons of civs have used them - Carthage, Rome. England, etc. etc.
We kind of get the effect with spending to rush a unit, but that's a late game strategy. I'd love to see units you could buy as soon as you advance out of despot status. Make them count as two units for maintenance costs, and have them at -10% strength to reflect their nature as outsiders to the civ.

trevort
Feb 22, 2010, 08:27 AM
These threads crack me up in every gaming forum I am on.

If the release date range is announced what is actually in the game is in, period. There won't be anything added that isn't already there wrt gameplay. From here it's beta testing and debug work plus probably they haven't built the multiplay engine yet (maybe).

If there's one thing on the wishlist how about not release a game that is so bug ridden and exploit sensitive like CIV 1.0000. Took nearly 3 years to really get all the bugs out. Lets work on that, and the content can be modded in later.
There's always patches and expansion packs that could have user inspired/requested content.

villagelder
Feb 22, 2010, 07:48 PM
"These threads crack me up in every gaming forum I am on." -culdeus

Wow! Aren't you the crowd silencer. Way to kill the enthusiasm. You don't think 99.9% of everyone who is posting right now doesn't know that every word they are saying isn't being added into the game as we speak. Thanks Captain Not-So-Obvious.

The conjecture and the ooooh... and ahhhh... is half the fun. RELAX. :lol: It's just like debating who is going to win the next Super Bowl and the draft hasn't even started yet.

Bring on the Hittites!

climat
Feb 22, 2010, 08:02 PM
These threads crack me up in every gaming forum I am on.

If the release date range is announced what is actually in the game is in, period. There won't be anything added that isn't already there wrt gameplay. From here it's beta testing and debug work plus probably they haven't built the multiplay engine yet (maybe).

If there's one thing on the wishlist how about not release a game that is so bug ridden and exploit sensitive like CIV 1.0000. Took nearly 3 years to really get all the bugs out. Lets work on that, and the content can be modded in later.

Don't be that severe. It's just wishes!
Personally, Complaining is fun :lol:

wabatt
Feb 22, 2010, 08:05 PM
Sigh... I don't see the point. Anything i could want from a game of Civ there is a mod for. After Rise of mankind and FF2 i really can't think of a way to make the game better. Don't get me wrong I am still going to buy the game first chance I get but I can't think of any reason too other then hexagons and no SoDs.

trevort
Feb 22, 2010, 08:39 PM
What?!:eek:No SoD. Who been telling that lie?:lol::lol:

wabatt
Feb 22, 2010, 08:47 PM
I would like to be able to give a name to mountains, seas, rivers...and then have "the battle of Nil/Carpates/amazonia...leads to the victory of XX" something easier than alt+S of the worldbuilder

Do you mean something like the console version Where if you "discover" a desert or a jungle you get to name it? I think that'd be a cool feature to have on the PC

Grimzag
Feb 22, 2010, 09:24 PM
1. Use the hex-grid to make a spherical, 3d world map. I want to be able to fly planes across the arctic circle!

2. Evolving civilization traits. I would like to see the decisions I make during the game slowly mold the culture of my civilization.

3. Revolutions/Minor Civs/Civil War. The late game in vanilla civ 4 gets very static, and happiness and unhealthiness were merely mild inconveniences rather than a real threat to my winning the game.

4. Multi-turn combats between units. In Civ 4 there were all these cool experience upgrades, but one bad battle and you lost everything. It would be nice of units wouldn't always die after one round of combat.

5. Advisor videos. The old videos from Civ 2 were highly entertaining, if cheesy. Bringing these back would add some flavor to the game.

6. Changing leader attire/background over time. In Civ 3, the leaders' apperance would change during different eras. In Civ 4, the music changed, but the background was always the same, which was jarring. It would be nice if their attire changed with the music.

7. Better music for the modern age. Minimalism is a relatively small musical movement from the 20th century. Some neo-classical or, heck, even some Jazz, would be nice, and much less distracting. The music in the modern era tended to make me zone out and lose focus.

8. Unique unit skins for each unit for each civ. This is the upgrade I most liked from the Legends of Revolutions mod. Having unique skins on a civ-by-civ basis made the civs feel more different, even though practically the units behaved the same.

9. More interesting economic and resources system. It would be nice to see an ability to turn resources into finished goods like in Colonization and then trade them. not as micro-level as Colonization, but it'd be cool to specialize economic production in cities beyond simply changing what abstract resources they provide (money, culture, science).

10. More detail in some time-periods that were glazed over. For example, the enlightenment era was sort of glazed over, when that was a major time of social upheaval. The enlightenment and industrial eras, at least in terms of combat, need to be fleshed out, especially since, from a military standpoint, the represented a major change in how combat was conducted.

11. Finally, bring back Leonardo's Workshop! :p

Nomnomnom
Feb 22, 2010, 10:49 PM
My biggest wish is for AI that is smart and does not act like a typical AI and is more humanlike in playstyle. The AI in Civ 4 did some awfully strange things which no human would ever do.

Quasar1011
Feb 23, 2010, 12:13 AM
In no specific order:
5) Land reclamation

You could do this in Civ 2. I have a mod where a ship called the terraformer, changes an ocean tile into a swamp tile. It was also programmable as an event, where you could have a whole (square or rectangular) chunk of ocean change to land tiles. Land reclamation was one of the extra techs you could insert.

I miss terraforming like Civ 2 had it. You could take any city, and eventually make it highly productive.

Gedemo
Feb 23, 2010, 01:59 AM
Do you mean something like the console version Where if you "discover" a desert or a jungle you get to name it? I think that'd be a cool feature to have on the PC

Exactely!


For example, if you are Russian, rivers in your neighborhood/cultural borders will be automatically (it could be manually changed) be called "Volga", "Lena", "Amour",...the mountains "Oural", "altaï",...
If you are egyptian, it would be the Nil...


Deserts will have some famous names: sahara, Gobi, kalahari, ... and ocean too: artic ocean, mediterranean sea, Aral sea...

mitsho
Feb 23, 2010, 02:00 AM
changing City Lists

The same city shouldn't be the second on the list all the time; capitals can be, but should be fixed by leader (f.e. Ramses has Thebes while Cleopatra has Alexandria), who also should influence city lists; name could change over time, but may change with conquest - a Lyon captured by Rome should become Lugdunum)

This variance could (and probably should) also be expanded as far as possible to other aspects like Leader Background, Music and Leader Personality (which could change in a minor way over the 5000 years).

Gedemo
Feb 23, 2010, 02:56 AM
changing City Lists

This variance could (and probably should) also be expanded as far as possible to other aspects like Leader Background, Music and Leader Personality (which could change in a minor way over the 5000 years).

Yes, in civ III, the leader 's clothes change in relation to era ancient, middle ages, modern....
It's avoided to have a Roosevelt or Bismark in stone age with modern clothes, and it was fun to see Mursilis or Hammurabi wearing modern clothes

Fredric Drum
Feb 23, 2010, 01:30 PM
Ohhh, there's one thing I really, really hope they'll get rid of: That utterly meaningless feature called "Cultural borders". Culture should not and must not control the borders. It leads to so many stupid situations.

For example, I played some pacific scenario the other day and NEEDED an oil source, so I somehow managed to conquer Saigon, which has an oil source in a square next to it. Then I just heard (or imagined) a SPROOOOING, and the oil source was suddenly on British territory due to the culture from Singapore. What the HECK!!!! I make the effort to grab a city, but the UK gets the best part of it without lifting a finger???! If they want oil, come fight for it like men!

That feature must go. Really fast. It's overdue for the scrapyard. I hope they come up with some brilliant way to determine borders... But maybe I'm too optimistic.

supersoulty
Feb 23, 2010, 02:56 PM
I posted a bunch of ideas I had on another forum... figured I would list them here, who knows, I might get some attention:

A few things I would like to see:

1) Start out with some of the more practical mods made by the expansion packs, and in some of the amateur mods, for that matter. The addition of levees alone makes the game alot better. But they could also add on some new resources, popular in the mods, like tea, coffee, tin. They could also add in a fleet of manufactured resources; one mod has beer (great!), but you could also have steel as a manufactured resource... any number of other things.

2) Religions actually mean something, as opposed to them simply coming into existence willy-nilly and people saying "well, I am Jewish, and you are Christian. It makes no difference, but we aren't allowed to like each other." They should be founded in different ways (not just from discovering a tech). They should have bonuses. Different spread rates would be nice, and they should spread in different ways (note, Christianity and Islam never become factors, because they are founded so late on the tech tree).

Edit: Sadly, I see that religions likely won't be a part of this game... that's the wrong way to go. Absolutely opposed.

3) No tech trading, or if you do have it, make it very expensive... or maybe even have "research trading" instead. Techs should simply spread naturally, once first discovered, like they do in real life.

You could have certain technologies (like stealth) have slow spread rates... or maybe even have those have to be traded (call them "state secret techs) while other technologies (like mass media) spread very quickly.

The spread rate of techs could depend on your own scientific research as well... the more you invest in technology, the more likely it is that you can benefit (quickly) from the spread.

Also, your relationship with another civ that has a tech you don't could effect whether it spreads to you.

4) Make the game more dynamic. I like how they added "events" in BtS. That's cool. But there should be more events and they should have far greater effects.

Actual climate change should be a factor in the game. Instead of just having their stupid "Global Warming has stuck near..." and changing one tile, the entire map should shift with the effects of climate. This could have a massive effect on the fortunes of civilizations.

5) In one of the expansions, they added "break away" areas... parts of your civilization that might, for one reason or another, decide to become independent. Great idea, but it never seemed to happen. This was, in part, because the controlling civ had to approve the break away. They should make it avoidable, but also unstoppable if nothing happens to change the situation.

If only seemed to happen when you were on one continent and area in question was on another. Make it capable of happening in any number of circumstances. For instance, on boarder cities all people usually either identify with one culture, or the other. Typically, however, what happens in these situations is a "Third Way" culture, that takes aspects from both. This should be treated as something different, and lead to a potential independence movement. Religious differences could also be used.

You would have a warning ie they would petition of independence first, in which case you would get a relationship bump if you grant it. You would be able to reconquer them, if they try to break away... but if you don't do something, it will happen.

6) Un-Nerf the Navy and air force. I liked it when bombers and battleship could do alot of destruction to on-land, stationary targets.

7) My idea for an entirely overhauled resource system would go something like this:

For each "resource" to have, ie one tile of coal, you get 10 "shares" of that resource. If you have two coal, you get 20 shares, and so on. Each share gives your entire civ a slight bonus, in production, in food, in whatever... or alternatively, for "production" resources, each one gives you the ability to support one kind of a building (so 1 share of coal supports one factory). Of course, beyond a certain point, it would be more beneficial for you to trade off a resource, than hold it, either to get money, or to exchange for another resource... thus facilitating trade. All trade would be conducted in "shares" as opposed to just one tile worth of a resource. So, I would trade 5 shares of coal (to support five factories, coal electrical plants, or whatever) in exchange for, say, 5 shares of wheat... each share of wheat giving a +1 food boost to every city in my empire.

Thus, if I had 3 tiles of coal, I would have 30 shares of coal to use or trade. I think that would be better and more realistic than the current system. It would also allow for the possibility of some resources being scarcer than others... so because there is no limit to benefits of, say, wheat then you could have 30 tiles of wheat on the map, for only 15 civs, and it would make sense. Alternatively, you wouldn't need 15 tiles of coal, since the effects are proportional, as opposed to being "one tile, all the benefits". The have and the have not is not nearly as black and white in this case.

8) Limits on "stacking":

I have seen that in other places, and I think its a great idea. 20 unit stacks are ridiculous, and unrealistic (at least for ground forces). They take away from the military strategic elements of the game. It is useful for its own reasons, however, so what I would propose would be to have "logistics" technologies, which would gradually allow you to create larger and larger stacks... the idea being that the ability to move mass, concentrated forces, got better as the ability to supply them got better (blitzkrieg being the final culmination of this, in some ways), not to mention health concerns. In the end, you could have, say, 10 units per stack.

supersoulty
Feb 23, 2010, 03:45 PM
Some other, albeit minor, ideas I have come up with:

9) Allow civs to nuke their own territory again. One of my favorite things to do in Civ III was to draw in a large enemy invasion force and then just nuke them. It's been so long, I can't remember if is had a diplomatic penalty, but it really shouldn't have much of one, since they are in your territory, and you aren't targeting civilians.

10) Negative diplomatic effects should dissipate after a while. Positive ones always seemed to, even if it took a while, but civilizations in real life usually aren't even enemies for a century, let alone a millennium. I always found it somewhat unrealistic that I could repair a relationship with another civ because "You raised my city!" 2,000 years ago.

11) Change "Versailles" to "The Winter Palace". Versailles is a whole 15 miles outside Paris. Big deal. Makes no sense, given the effect it has.

Auncien
Feb 23, 2010, 04:38 PM
I may be repeating the wishes of others in the thread. If so, not trying to steal your thunder, but here is my list:

1) Very long MARATHON MODE.
2) Larger maps.
3) More units (more specialized units for each age, particularly the modern and future eras).
4) AI that thinks and acts like a person.
5) Equal complexity to Beyond the Sword or increased complexity. By this I don't mean make the game more difficult to play, but if you're removing religions and other game systems and mechanics then those need to be replaced with something bigger and better. I don't want to ever play another game again after Civ V because it's so massive and fantastic and complex ;)
6) Globe.
7) More terrain / empire building features. I miss the radar towers from Civ III. I like making workers build lumbermills. I like building towns. I like micromanagement of the things happeneing inside my borders and feeling like I really do control a huge area of the world filled with things happening. I like forts. I like airfields. I like any kind of little doodad that I can build on the map that gives me customizability of the terrain.
8) Ability to plant forests / alter the landscape in the late game. I want to be able to combat all the global warming from my nuke happy neighbors!
9) UN and other victory condition dependant game systems present in core game, even if their corresponding conditions are disabled.
10) Overall more fun stuff like discovering the world is round or fighting animals or those random events that pop up. Make the world feel alive without making the game less complex.
11) Greater emphasis on economic and cultural paths to success. Civ IV made great strides in these areas. Don't give any ground here. Keep the military complexity. Guns are really fun but we need more butter too.
12) More technologies (the scenario tech trees are awesome... we want more of those specialized techs to choose from, maybe have each unlock a specific unit). In Civilization MORE IS BETTER.
13) More city improvements, wonders than Civ IV, more... more... MORE...

Thanks!

kivanc
Feb 25, 2010, 12:24 AM
i red some of the posts and not all in this thread. so i will comment on some and they list my wishes,

1) national wonder/world wonder seperation should be included. w/o national wonders, city specialization is nearly worthless.

2) good sceneries from earth. and please start all civs in their original regions! no chinese in america.

3) improve GP feature, make it even more flexible. let some civs have free GP points.

4) if u take religion out, then improve sth instead of it, for ex culture. let the culture be more important than just border pop and city defense. make it also a factor effecting diplomacies. but also remove cultural victory. it is nonsense.

5) please no more boosts about civics, don't force anyone for emancipation. make all "society policies" roughly equal in strength. religion civics were reasonable. each civic were strong in once case. pacifism for GP, theocracy for unit xp, free religion for happiness and beakers, org rel for buildings&wonders.

6) 18civs are less. so we want at least 30 "unique" leaders, don't we?

7) diversity of terrain improvements were fine in civ4.

8) ability to build unit & building at the same time

9) don't stop city growth while building settler, instead decrease pop when it is complete, the old civ way

10) remove workers and bring CTP style of terrain improvement

11) promotions in BTS were very fine. make it more important

12) decrease unit upgrade costs because when it is this much expensive, promotions become less important

and the most important

13) gameplay + fast running game >>>>>>>> gfx

Gedemo
Feb 25, 2010, 01:21 AM
Start in Stone Age with Mammoths and Caves....and finish in genetic era with cities under the sea?

Gedemo
Feb 25, 2010, 01:26 AM
Navigable rivers or canals?

Kissamies
Feb 25, 2010, 02:51 AM
Navigable rivers or canals?
That would require moving rivers back on tiles instead of tile edges, unless of course the naval units would be on different hexes that center on land hexes' edges somehow. In that case, how would they interact?

Mathalamus
Feb 25, 2010, 03:52 AM
That would require moving rivers back on tiles instead of tile edges, unless of course the naval units would be on different hexes that center on land hexes' edges somehow. In that case, how would they interact?

looks to me that the rivers are not on the edges of the hexagonal tiles.

climat
Feb 25, 2010, 05:36 AM
Navigable rivers or canals?

I'm skeptical about possibility of navigable rivers..
For realizing this idea fully, river should be a terrain like grassland/plain and that river tiles should be filled with water entirely because ships should be able to move along water of rivers. (I'm sure you won't wish to see ships on land in the game.) But it will make maps weird to see.
I just want to have a building like river port or harbor in riverside cities for compromise.

Wodan
Feb 25, 2010, 06:15 AM
Some scenarios do that... they just make the river a whole tile (up until the point way upstream where it's no longer deep enough to be navigable).

Other ways to do it would simply be to enable ships to occupy land tiles which border a coast or river.

Davor
Feb 25, 2010, 06:26 AM
Sorry havn't read all the threads, here so not shure if it was mentioned. I want the 4 Advisors back from Civ 2. Not like the ones that we got in Revolutions, but real video with humour in Civ 2. I just loved the Militrary advisor, and Elvis. That was just hilarious.

Also I would like the castle building aspect back as well when ever you advance. It just dosn't feel like a Civ game withot it.

climat
Feb 25, 2010, 06:27 AM
Other ways to do it would simply be to enable ships to occupy land tiles which border a coast or river.

That can be done. But some people will complain about that because of weirdness. (Not me ;))
For me, making river terrain is much better implement regarding this.

GoSkins
Feb 25, 2010, 07:00 AM
A lot of good suggestions that I wont rehash. Personally, I would like to see unit trading in diplomacy. That is, you can trade a backwards civ some advanced units to shift the balance of power for your allies. Also, enhanced air-to-air combat where fighters can provide air superiority for your bombers on bombing runs.

Mattastic
Feb 25, 2010, 07:03 AM
1) Make longer games more involved, not just the same as shorter games but with everything taking five times longer.

2) Less useless units. Good units should have specific functions, not be contemporary with better units, and able to last for pretty much an entire age before I have to replace my entire army. It needs to be streamlined and cut down.

3) Dynanic tech trees. Make research available based on the technology and resources I have available to me. Allow technological osmosis from my neighbours. And allow me to get by without researching key technologies for long amounts of time, like how the Chinese never really developed glass, or native Americans never had horseback riding, or the Egyptians never really needed the wheel. Imagine: finding new resources or trading with a new civilization might reveal whole new exciting avenues of technological research even in the late game.

4) More balanced civics and government options. In fact, my biggest problem with Civ4 civics is how they essentially encourage civilizations to aspire to "ascend" to American notioins of ideal liberty, forgetting that players should be able to form a civilization in any image they wish, and that many modern nations operate very differently. I live in a constitutional monarchy -- I notice how, from a civic-perspective, the UK is deemed less advanced than America.

5) Visual styles for civs or culture groups that persist even into the modern age. I always feel a hint of regret as soon as I enter the industrial age and everyone starts looking exactly the same.

6) Please stop leaders bugging me for tribute or help every five minutes. Sometimes I just want to run my civ, not theirs too.

trevort
Feb 25, 2010, 07:09 AM
That can be done. But some people will complain about that because of weirdness. (Not me ;))
For me, making river terrain is much better implement regarding this.
I think the weirdness factor would come from the scale of the ship on a river or lake. It's a cosmetic thing. That could be solved by the ship automatically changing size when it enters a river. Some ships could be limited to how far up river they can go. For instance, Viking long boats and Egyptian barges could go upriver quite far. Larger ships, like battle ships, couldn't go very far if at all. Now, how all that would be implemented is up to the programmers.

Now that I've thought about it a minute, some vessels, like Egyptian barges, should be limited to rivers only.

climat
Feb 25, 2010, 07:25 AM
I think the weirdness factor would come from the scale of the ship on a river or lake. It's a cosmetic thing. That could be solved by the ship automatically changing size when it enters a river. Some ships could be limited to how far up river they can go. For instance, Viking long boats and Egyptian barges could go upriver quite far. Larger ships, like battle ships, couldn't go very far if at all. Now, how all that would be implemented is up to the programmers.

Now that I've thought about it a minute, some vessels, like Egyptian barges, should be limited to rivers only.

Good idea for cosmetic issues and units.
I hope Firaxis implement this at any time. I don't expect navigable rivers will be in the CivV, though.

Kissamies
Feb 25, 2010, 07:51 AM
looks to me that the rivers are not on the edges of the hexagonal tiles.
I suggest you look more carefully at the river going directly east-west on the pictures with hexes shown. Looks like the edges to me. It's less obvious on NNW direction and especially on the bend because of rounding. If it was always exactly on edges, it would look wiggly and too regular.

Now a feature I forgot in my first list: Ability to put units on automated patrol. Not that necessary for land units, but I'd really like to make sea units patrol a certain route of waypoints. Either a circular route or back and forth. Likewise, I'd like to be able to make an air unit recon a certain tile automatically every round.

I remember being able to put ships on patrol in some version of Empire; or maybe it was Strategic Conquest. If those Civ precursors could do it, so shoud Civ.

kivanc
Feb 25, 2010, 08:14 AM
naval units in river is very reasonable. small rivers on earth are not suitable for ships but large ones have. we don't have short rivers in the game anyway. so it is ok. but for this, terrain should be changed a little bit. how they would implement the dynamics, I don't know.
In some sceneries as Wodan said, it may already be. I don't know but I assume, they should me small parts of Earth I think. So all rivers might be shown as sea tiles. I can't find any other solution. Making all rivers 1 tile-width seas would lose many tiles in the game. Then bridge building would also be more important.

Wodan
Feb 25, 2010, 09:29 AM
In some sceneries as Wodan said, it may already be.
I was specifically thinking of the China scenario that came with Warlords (I think).

Outlaw77
Feb 25, 2010, 09:39 AM
I'd like to see a more in depth UN. The UN plays a large role in our global society today and having it in the game as it is now is marginal at best. I'd love to see more options and more penalties for opposing these options.

Also refering to the AI concerning wars. I hate when other civs want me to declare war on a civ half a world away with no logically way for either of us to support such an endeavor.

climat
Feb 25, 2010, 10:22 AM
How about.. making resources like ivory and whale obsolete by UN decision, not by technology (if they are in, of course)?

Wodan
Feb 25, 2010, 10:59 AM
How about, getting a relations penalty from civs who have decided working ivory/whales are bad.

Compare: Japan still "works" whales today. It doesn't really hurt them, other than every now and then PETA stages a demonstration and they make the news.

trevort
Feb 25, 2010, 11:01 AM
I'd like to see a more in depth UN. The UN plays a large role in our global society today and having it in the game as it is now is marginal at best. I'd love to see more options and more penalties for opposing these options.

Also refering to the AI concerning wars. I hate when other civs want me to declare war on a civ half a world away with no logically way for either of us to support such an endeavor.
In the real world the UN is marginal at best. If the game were to model the real UN, it would have to include fraud, waste, corruption, indecision, meaningless resolutions and an unequal system of funding itself. Don't get me wrong. The UN has done some good, but not much.

climat
Feb 25, 2010, 11:09 AM
How about, getting a relations penalty from civs who have decided working ivory/whales are bad.

It seems reasonable.

Wodan
Feb 25, 2010, 11:43 AM
In the real world the UN is marginal at best. If the game were to model the real UN, it would have to include fraud, waste, corruption, indecision, meaningless resolutions and an unequal system of funding itself. Don't get me wrong. The UN has done some good, but not much.

I agree with all that.

But, strictly talking about the game and a wishlist, the current UN is horrible for the game. It's absolutely one of the worst things they could have done.

Let's see... let's make a game mechanic that discourages player creativity and forces the same "idealitic" civics down their throats. Even if the player wants to do something different, they might be forced to switch. Which means, taking a gamble on alternative and interesting civic combinations is double risky, because you might be forced into this mold, making all of your preparations till that point worthless. Instead, the wise and careful player will not take the risk, and will prepare for a late game strategy which uses the UN civics, thus resulting in an optimal late game with minimal risk.

In ciV, let's throw that in the crapper where it belongs, along with similar mechanics such as the Emancipation penalty. If we get a UN, let's make it totally different gameplay than cIV.

trevort
Feb 25, 2010, 12:04 PM
I agree with all that.

But, strictly talking about the game and a wishlist, the current UN is horrible for the game. It's absolutely one of the worst things they could have done.

Let's see... let's make a game mechanic that discourages player creativity and forces the same "idealitic" civics down their throats. Even if the player wants to do something different, they might be forced to switch. Which means, taking a gamble on alternative and interesting civic combinations is double risky, because you might be forced into this mold, making all of your preparations till that point worthless. Instead, the wise and careful player will not take the risk, and will prepare for a late game strategy which uses the UN civics, thus resulting in an optimal late game with minimal risk.

In ciV, let's throw that in the crapper where it belongs, along with similar mechanics such as the Emancipation penalty. If we get a UN, let's make it totally different gameplay than cIV.

Instead of a UN how about the UC. United Civilizations. Then it could be anything. We wouldnt have to worry about it matching a real world counterpart or disappointing some player who is expecting the Civ4 UN.

I like Kissamies idea of unit patrol routes. You could have destroyers or anti-sub planes patrolling your coast for enemy SSBN's. Fighters patrolling for German bombers over the English Channel. F-14's patrolling for Soviet Bear bombers and their Carrier killer cruise missiles. Lots of possibilities.

Kickbooti
Feb 25, 2010, 12:17 PM
I would love to see an increase in communications technology have an impact in lowering corruption. If you have a distant city that is cut off from the mainland in the days of sail, then the governor there would have lots of opportunity for graft. After radio, maybe less so as he is tied into the center of power. After airports someone from the Justice Department (or the secret police) is just a plane ride away.

Sinist4r
Feb 25, 2010, 12:49 PM
Space-faring! It could be included in a expansion pack or so. I just think that we have waited enough to see the civilizations conquer another planets.

duckstab
Feb 25, 2010, 12:56 PM
I absolutely hate the upgrade system in Civ IV. Too expensive and too much micromanagement. I hate that I always end up with tons of obsolete units because it's too costly to upgrade them but I can't afford to delete them because it'll take my power rating down too low. And when I do have enough cash to upgrade a unit or few I have to pick them out one at a time.

A few thoughts I had for Civ V:

1) Have another slider to dedicate a portion of the GNP to upgrades. Whenever funds were available, the game would automatically upgrade your most experienced unit(s) to the latest weaponry. Or you can set the slider to 0 and continue to do upgrades directly from your treasury.
2) Have increasing discounts for each successive upgrade of the same type. I.e., once I've trained one Archer unit to use Longbows the next one is significantly cheaper, and so on.
3) Automatically remove units that aren't upgraded within a certain number of turns (20?, 50?) after they become obsolete, selecting the least-experienced / weakest units first. For both the human and the AI.
4) Do away with the AI discounts on upgrades. Instead maybe adjust the threshold at which 3) applies to shorter or longer for the AI.

trevort
Feb 25, 2010, 01:18 PM
Instead of upgrading, for instance, Archer to Longbowman all the way up to Rifleman, Start with Archer but just buy new weapons as the technology becomes available. When you discover musketry the game would ask " You have discovered Musketry would you like to equip your Longbowmen with muskets for x amount." If yes then they would be unavailable for x amount of turns for retraining.

It could even be one choice to do it as funds become available or another choice could be to do a certain percentage of the unit in question at a time. A weapon rollout schedule. That way you would still have a large percentage available for action at any given time.

Kickbooti
Feb 25, 2010, 01:18 PM
1. A Supreme Allied Commander. Whenever I fight a war in Civ4, it seems like I do all the fighting while my allies sit on the sidelines out of fear of getting dirty (or waiting to capture a city that I had just assaulted). I think it would be nice that when allies go to war they create a unified assault force under the command of the player (or AI, if you're daring). You just select which units of yours you want to send, and they are placed under the command of the SAC.



I REALLY like this idea.

duckstab
Feb 25, 2010, 02:40 PM
Instead of upgrading, for instance, Archer to Longbowman all the way up to Rifleman, Start with Archer but just buy new weapons as the technology becomes available. When you discover musketry the game would ask " You have discovered Musketry would you like to equip your Longbowmen with muskets for x amount." If yes then they would be unavailable for x amount of turns for retraining.

It could even be one choice to do it as funds become available or another choice could be to do a certain percentage of the unit in question at a time. A weapon rollout schedule. That way you would still have a large percentage available for action at any given time.

I think something like that would work as well. Your idea of having the units unavailable for some time is intriguing. Maybe the more money you're willing/able to spend the shorter the time of unavailability?

Mango Elephant
Feb 25, 2010, 03:08 PM
I have one. Much like in Civ 3 when you capture your opponents city it doesn't just throw up its culture and become your culture but instead becomes steadily integrated into the new culture. An example would be this, the Chinese take over a Greek city, and the city graphics remain Greek but every few turns or so the city steadily turns Chinese. This is more a cosmetic touch, but empires feel a lot more imperial when there's a mesh of cultures.

trevort
Feb 25, 2010, 05:51 PM
I think something like that would work as well. Your idea of having the units unavailable for some time is intriguing. Maybe the more money you're willing/able to spend the shorter the time of unavailability?
I'm not so sure about more money should equal less time. The time the unit is unavailable is to simulate the weeks or months real troops need to learn a new weapon and the new tactics required/possible. There could be a tech, possibly called Advanced training or whatever, that would reduce the time unavailable for training. Or perhaps a Leader trait.
I do think that the first few, shall we say gunpowder units, produced should take longer to train than later ones. For instance, Arquebusiers should take longer to train than Rifleman because gunpowder has been around for centuries by then. This concept could apply across the board for most units.
Except for maybe ships. They were either scrapped or kept around while being incrementally upgraded. WW1 4 stack destroyers did not become WW2 Fletcher Class destroyers. To show the real world upgrading of ships they should be put in a Naval dry dock (CIV city building) for a period of time. When they emerge they should have a new or improved ability. For instance, US Navy WW2 battle ships started the war with pathetic anti-air defenses but over the course of the war more and better anti-air guns and radars were added. The British, if I remember correctly, added armor to their battleships as a result of battle experience during WW1. The ultimate example of this is the Iowa class battleships. They served from the 1940's to the 1990's. The basic structure of the ship stayed the same. A ww2 vet would feel at home on a Desert Storm Iowa class. Most of the weapons stayed the same. Obsolete weapons were removed and new added.
This photo is an example of what I am referring to.http://www.wolfsshipyard.mystarship.com/Misc/NeverWeres/South_Dakota.jpg
Notice the removals and additions made over time. Although all three aren't the same ship they are the same class and are representative of what I'm saying.
This article illustrates it even better. http://web.archive.org/web/20070624045508/www.battleship.org/html/Articles/Features/MysteryShip.htm
This would require a more complex upgrade path. More ship models to display the new additions or subtractions. It's "just" programming and art. Right?

captain_kickass
Feb 25, 2010, 06:00 PM
I would like to see The Sphinx as a world wonder.

duckstab
Feb 25, 2010, 09:17 PM
I have one. Much like in Civ 3 when you capture your opponents city it doesn't just throw up its culture and become your culture but instead becomes steadily integrated into the new culture. An example would be this, the Chinese take over a Greek city, and the city graphics remain Greek but every few turns or so the city steadily turns Chinese. This is more a cosmetic touch, but empires feel a lot more imperial when there's a mesh of cultures.

I like that idea - I play with the BAT mod most of the time and I like how each civ has its own building style, but it's kind of jarring when a city gets conquered and all the architecture changes at once.

One thing that might be nice, however, is if any UBs that survive a conquest retain at least their graphics, if not their effects. I once conquered a bunch of Ottoman cities and aqueducts miraculously appeared in place of the Hammams that were there.

Suspiria
Feb 25, 2010, 09:27 PM
If CivV gets battle right, it will put in zones of control for military units and have supply lines. Meaning you will still have your stacks but you will need units to guard your supply lines and flanks too.

Military zones of control would also take the battles out of the cities and put them on the battlefields where they should be. Civilizations would try and prevent further ingress of their territory and take the fight outside the cities.

City warfare could still play an important part of the game. I believe that invading forces should be able to cut off supply lines to the city and starve the citizens and defenders.

Forts should also have some zone of control in the game, especially against city states. Forts should be able to be upgradeable to Keeps, Castles, Star Forts, Military bases, etc.


Btw im back after a few years on announcement of this news Funny I was thinking today...hmmm look up Civ5...maybe theres news? And I see an official website link and view it, and now im here. Amazed to say the least. This has been a long time coming.

Things I hope are in the game...

- Military zones of control
- Supply Lines
- Greater more involved democracy
- Naval battles please! The game has never had a good sea warfare component. If they put more focus on sea trade and resources the naval warfare could ramp up considerably. I want to see great naval armada battles.
- Bring back Airfields, for strategic placing of air power.
- I have never been a fan of Civ4 click click promotion system...How about having a system where the units gain battle experience in certain types of warfare. Warrior sucessfully attacking a city gains 1+ city warfare experience. Gain 10-12 of these points overall among your forces and your military gains common knowledge, and from now on all new units start off with +1 city warfare experience. This can be balanced to prevent over pointing new units. Maybe also put in bonuses like free units, abilities, etc.
- I would like to see different representations for Naval and Airforce like seperate bases, academies, different representation on city screen (Military - Barracks, Navy - Naval Port, Airforce - Airfield.)
- Making units like archers and catapults not overly powerful units in and of themself, but hold their value as complimentary units to warfare. Please no shooting range of 2 tiles for archers and no suicidal siege engines.
- Keep in random events and quests. Loved it. Though should have more options to avoid bad disasters.
- Hated corporations and dont want to see it again.
- All for having religions back but want to see an exiciting new direction for the game. The way they focused on diplomacy was unbalanced and annoying. Sure they might factor in somewhat but theres no reason why two different religions automatically have to hate each other.
- Make the espionage system easier to control and manage. No more movable spy units. A simple click of the espionage button would revert the screen to "espionage mode" where you can easily assign points to different rival cities (or your own for counter espionage) and areas and carry out missions.
- Quantities for resources. 1 Gold mine should pump out 1 ton of gold every number of turns, and you can trade this in certain amounts to rivals. It should also factor in to how many units you can support. Eg. 1 horse resource supports only 10 horse units. This would make diplomacy and acquiring new land essential for growing an even larger and more supportive empire.


These are my hopes...

Suspiria
Feb 25, 2010, 10:43 PM
Also just to add to that...

- fully controllable puppet states/semi controllable vassal states

- ambushes/guerilla warfare, units should have the ability to hide in certain terrain. Eg, partisans and gaellic warriors in hills, most units in forest, solitary ships should be able to hide in the lagoons of islands to avoid armadas or pirates.

- Maybe we dont need worker units? Perhaps we can just click were we want to construct an improvement, or let it go by its self.

- Love the idea of a supreme allied commander. Should also be the option where if your vassal takes an enemy city it automatically goes to you...hate it when they claim a city you mostly attacked.

- Visible sea trading routes represented by tiny ships etc that can be attacked by pirates or rivals. Making a navy more than essential to protect them. Perhaps also you can assign the routes themselves. There should be more city states that pump out pirates/vikings to plunder ocean trade routes.

- A patrol option for units should be absolutely necessary, especially for ships to guard the above option.

- Certain food resources should be pooled nationwide, so you no longer get starving cities on your main land base. This could also work at an intercontinental level with supply routes.

- Units should be cheaper and easier to upgrade, or you can take them back to city barracks and upgrade them by spending money/resources, losing a percentage of their battle experience in the process (an axeman upgrading to a Maceman shouldnt be able to perfectly keep their previous experience). Upgrading a last generation unit should still be cheaper then building a new unit altogether.

- Technology trickle...3rd generation techs should trickle down to neighbouring civs dependings on their economy/science infrastructure/military victories. For instance when you have modern mech infantry theres no reason why most of the world shouldnt already have rifles equating to Infantry. With some exceptions you still might have a few distant isolated native tribes. There would simply be no more phalanx vs tank scenarios. Hell maybe you should even be able to trade weapons to lower tech civs...

kivanc
Feb 26, 2010, 12:52 AM
I'd like to see a more in depth UN. The UN plays a large role in our global society today and having it in the game as it is now is marginal at best. I'd love to see more options and more penalties for opposing these options.

Also refering to the AI concerning wars. I hate when other civs want me to declare war on a civ half a world away with no logically way for either of us to support such an endeavor.
i hate UN in civ4. forcing for civics suck.
And the emancipation anger
and the "the world consider you a villain"

corp feature is a nerf for SP.
emancipation anger is a nerf for caste system.
both are non-reasonable. is SP, the state have its own corps. so there are still corps called cooperatives.
anyway, i generally ignore all corps. it generally doesn't suit my style. it is a waste of hammers and GPs. you waste hammers for executives and you waste GPs.

How about, getting a relations penalty from civs who have decided working ivory/whales are bad.

Compare: Japan still "works" whales today. It doesn't really hurt them, other than every now and then PETA stages a demonstration and they make the news.
hmm they are absolute in late game. fur plots are generally very south/north. so in some games, i just ignore them and don't settle. you'll loose the happiness extra in late game anyway. and in early game, there is HR.

Dachs
Feb 26, 2010, 01:28 AM
I REALLY like this idea.
It's a horrifying anachronism for most of human history.

Berick
Feb 26, 2010, 01:57 AM
Type of terrain depends on temperature (latitude) and percipitation like in Holdridge life zones system.

Gedemo
Feb 26, 2010, 04:20 AM
And if on some specific terrain we could found some little bonus civilizations:

ex:

Inuits/yupiks/koryaks/(vikings?) in toundra or ice
Tupi/guarani/papuan in jungle
Polynesian/sulawesi/rapanui in little archipelago
Tuaregs/aborigene in the deserts
Tibetan/altaïc/(incan?) in high mountains

Wodan
Feb 26, 2010, 05:14 AM
i hate UN in civ4. forcing for civics suck.
And the emancipation anger
and the "the world consider you a villain"

corp feature is a nerf for SP.
emancipation anger is a nerf for caste system.
both are non-reasonable.
Agree 100%

hmm they are absolute in late game. fur plots are generally very south/north. so in some games, i just ignore them and don't settle. you'll loose the happiness extra in late game anyway. and in early game, there is HR.
What's this got to do with ideas for civ 5?

Camikaze
Feb 26, 2010, 05:25 AM
Space-faring! It could be included in a expansion pack or so. I just think that we have waited enough to see the civilizations conquer another planets.

Welcome to the forums. :wavey:

The problem I have with extending Civ into the future is that it's meant to be a game about history, and a recreation/resimulation of it. The future isn't history, so whilst in an empire building game not involving history, it may be a good idea, in Civ, it shouldn't really have an extensive place.

Gamemaster77
Feb 26, 2010, 05:30 AM
One major change I would want is no more open/closed borders. You should be able to go into enemy territory withoutdeclaring war. Ships have even been blown up by enemy countries without war being declared. Also if you tell an enemy civilization to get out of your territory say, twice in a row (So that Civs could could just pass through if they want however this should not be an option if they are close to a city), if they don't leave you should be able to attack them in their territory. If you are in enemy territory and they ask you to leave your units should just 'poof' out (Like Civ3).

Camikaze
Feb 26, 2010, 05:34 AM
One major change I would want is no more open/closed borders. You should be able to go into enemy territory withoutdeclaring war. Ships have even been blown up by enemy countries without war being declared. Also if you tell an enemy civilization to get out of your territory say, twice in a row (So that Civs could could just pass through if they want however this should not be an option if they are close to a city), if they don't leave you should be able to attack them in their territory. If you are in enemy territory and they ask you to leave your units should just 'poof' out (Like Civ3).

That's rather open to abuse, especially in a turn based system, I would think. Assuming the Civ 4 system, you could move your units into position outside cities of 'friendly' civs and then easily take them. Having friends who wouldn't declare war if you intruded (you could find an easy realistic pretense for traversing a friendly Civ with many units) would be way too easy to exploit. And it would completely break the idea of defensive pacts.

Gamemaster77
Feb 26, 2010, 05:38 AM
That's rather open to abuse, especially in a turn based system, I would think. Assuming the Civ 4 system, you could move your units into position outside cities of 'friendly' civs and then easily take them. Having friends who wouldn't declare war if you intruded (you could find an easy realistic prettense for traversing a friendly Civ with many units) would be way too easy to exploit. And it would completely break the idea of defensive pacts.

It's not perect, it would obviously be able to have improvements. Mabye there could be some sort of unit cap thats allowed to be in peacefully before war is automaticaly declared. I definitly do not like opened/closed borders. If they could find some way to take it away i will like it.

kivanc
Feb 26, 2010, 05:40 AM
It's a horrifying anachronism for most of human history.
who is that girl in your avatar?

Camikaze
Feb 26, 2010, 05:43 AM
It's not perect, it would obviously be able to have improvements. Mabye there could be some sort of unit cap thats allowed to be in peacefully before war is automaticaly declared. I definitly do not like opened/closed borders. If they could find some way to take it away i will like it.

I reckon it could be okay for one unit, max. One unit would be kinda neat to allow in without an official DOW, and the chance of a mere diplomatic incident, but allowing more than that opens it up for exploitation.

who is that girl in your avatar?

Michelle Branch.

Ikael
Feb 26, 2010, 05:44 AM
My wishlist:

- Trade routes being way more important. They should provide production, food and culture as they did on reality. The strategic placement of a city in relation with trade routes have been proved to be way more relevant to the development of a city than the agricultural and mining resources of its inmediate surroundings.

- Naval forces that are useful. Sorry, but naval forces have been just a mean for carring trops from point A to point B. Let them be decisive in supporting land units and taking coastatal cities.

- Attack bonus against surrounded units. Pretty much self explanatory, It seems quite probable that it will make it into the final game, seeing how it now revolves around the "one unit per tile".

- Watter supply. I cannot wrap my head around the fact that the most important resource ever in the history of mankind is always getting neglected on the Civilization series. Make water, and its access one of the main factors when developing a city.

- Differenciate culture into different aspects. Say, instead of having a general "culture" value, divide it into its different aspects: language, religion, art and lifestyle. Say, one civ language and lifestyle could be extremely dominant, while being of little influence when it comes to religion (like the US).

- UN customization. Make the player that builds the UN be able to tailor the UN into whatever they want, from a useless token bureucracy organism (as it is right now) to a proto - world goverment.

-Inmigration. Yet another crucial factor that hasn't been addressed by the Civ saga yet.

- Warfare evolving from one era to another. I don't want to see battlefront tactics and bombardement in the ancient times with spearman and catapults, then battlefront tactics in the modern age with rifleman and cannons. Military technologies should be "game changing" not only in the sense of "bigger and better units". Each era should be played differently.

Gamemaster77
Feb 26, 2010, 05:46 AM
I reckon it could be okay for one unit, max. One unit would be kinda neat to allow in without an official DOW, and the chance of a mere diplomatic incident, but allowing more than that opens it up for exploitation.

The main purpuse I would want this is for situations similar to when a continent has one tile seperating from another. Isn't really stupid that you cant go to the other continent with a boat just because one civ owns that one tile?

Camikaze
Feb 26, 2010, 05:54 AM
The main purpuse I would want this is for situations similar to when a continent has one tile seperating from another. Isn't really stupid that you cant go to the other continent with a boat just because one civ owns that one tile?

Not really stupid. It just shows what the value of holding choke points is.

kivanc
Feb 26, 2010, 06:30 AM
trade route: hard to make a realistic implementation.
the cities along the roads connecting 2 civilizations to eachother would have high trade commerce, is it ok? but how.
well, we build road to every city. so which city would be more important for trade? in late game, nearly all plots in the landmass have road.

immigration cannot be handled.
naval forces should be more useful yes. but i don't like naval forces anyway. why? i don't like maps with many landmasses. they suck in ways of resources.

Attack bonus against surrounded units: this is cool but in which directions should they be surrounded? all6?
water supply exists only as a +2health in civ4. i agree it should be more important.

Differenciate culture into different aspects and Warfare evolving from one era to another: those would exploit the game a lot.

Gamemaster77
Feb 26, 2010, 06:38 AM
Not really stupid. It just shows what the value of holding choke points is.

In real life you wouldn't hold that land by owning it, you would hold it by having military units in the land.

trevort
Feb 26, 2010, 06:46 AM
It's a horrifying anachronism for most of human history.

It's nonsensical use of jibberjabber.

kivanc
Feb 26, 2010, 07:00 AM
i would like to see vassal feature improved. it was not a very important factor in civ4, however in world history it was.

Mathalamus
Feb 26, 2010, 07:49 AM
hey i have an idea: i wish that the human themselves can capitulate or be vassals to a stronger civ.

kivanc
Feb 26, 2010, 08:20 AM
hey i have an idea: i wish that the human themselves can capitulate or be vassals to a stronger civ.
it could be useful for peacemongers on deity. yet, i'd like to see more advantages especially from capitulizing AIs, rather being vassals to them.

King Flevance
Feb 26, 2010, 08:24 AM
Remove workers as they are tedium that really boggles things down.

Increase the value of having trade routes with a fellow civ to the AI and player. A 1000 year trade agreement should be more valuable than it currently is and should be more and more unattractive to cancel deals as time goes by. Not simply, "Well, there goes my +2 and maybe a -1 added on. It should be something that offers both diplomatic and economical impact.

Let helicopters be able to fly over a mountain or a lake.

Let me be able to pillage my own roads as well as the enemies.

If you are not going to have a "cancel build settlement" option, then let me know how much placing a new city on that spot will cost.

Make culture do something else (happiness maybe?) and bring in a new kind of way to influence borders.

Naval warfare have a bigger role. Playing on island maps sucks because of this where everyone just chills on their island until astronomy and chemistry.

Bring seas back. Although in the screenshots it looks as if something like this is coming back as is. Kudos.

Global warming, if it is going to be in - make it at least more sensible.

Nuclear plant. Make me see as an option at least. As is in 4, I would never suggest someone build one. There was a meltdown to that degree once in human history. There have been plenty of cases where that did not happen. In civ that happens every few years if enough nuclear plants are built.

I would ask that economy be based more off of trade and external things than land control so that empire size does not influence economy as much as it does in all previous versions of civ. Civ 4 was a step in the right direction but still only a small step. Land = money = power still in Civ 4. This could also open a door to an economic victory.

As stated above a balanced vassal feature would offer both the ability to gift a new feature to the player and be handled better by the AI.

Terrain elevations - see mod planetfall for an idea.

I also echo these:
- UN customization. Make the player that builds the UN be able to tailor the UN into whatever they want, from a useless token bureucracy organism (as it is right now) to a proto - world goverment.

-Inmigration. Yet another crucial factor that hasn't been addressed by the Civ saga yet.

And I really loved this one:
- Warfare evolving from one era to another. I don't want to see battlefront tactics and bombardement in the ancient times with spearman and catapults, then battlefront tactics in the modern age with rifleman and cannons. Military technologies should be "game changing" not only in the sense of "bigger and better units". Each era should be played differently.

Aspe4
Feb 26, 2010, 10:27 AM
I'll begin by saying I hope the Civ 5 team examines the most popular mods for Civ 4 and takes examples of those and applies them to Civ 5.
Here's my wishlist:

1. Unique and More varied units. In Civ 4 vanilla, all nations had the same looking units which were simply distinguished by a color-coded stripe on them. I like playing with units that are unique to the civilization. I also would like a larger variety of airplanes in the modern era warfare. For example, Soviet-supplied nations should have a variety of MIG or Sukhoi fighters and Soviet bombers that have certain strengths against certain units. NATO countries should have this as well. For example, an A-10 Thunderbolt should be stronger against tanks and other ground units than an F-117 stealth fighter or F-4 phantom. I would also like to see other ground attack planes like the A-6 intruder. I would also like to see the B-52 bomber and C-130 cargo plane. France should have Tornado fighters and Britain and the U.S. should have the Harrier.

2. Military Build-up and Diplomatic Crisis. I wish there was a way for the game to sense a military build up. I've played games where I've been sneak attacked by stacks of carries and transports aimed for my country. If only there was a way for the game to detect a build-up of this, have a military advisor alert you, and then have you attempt to diplomatically diffuse the situation. For example, if the diplomacy were more in-depth, you could be prompted to ask why the AI forces are stacked and aiming for your country. The AI or a human player could respond (and possibly lie) in the following ways: 1. We are conducting military exercises, there is no need to be alarmed or, 2. We declare war on you or, 3 We have no official response at this time.Then you could prompt the other nations to condemn any acts of aggression and the possible loss in diplomatic points could cause you or the AI, whoever is the aggressor, to back down. I realize this sounds very complicated and deep but you programming folks are a clever bunch! :)

3. Mass Media Narrative. Everyone loves a good dramatic story. At some point in the industrial era, there should an option for a player to click on a button that opens a newspaper, Civilization Times,to see what's going on in the world. This would be similar to the current events that already pop up on the screen. Except the news would be more in-depth. Example: Suppose the AI Japan refuses to give over a technology to the AI Korea. The headline may read: Japan Rebufs Korea, War May be Imminent! Then the story may give a few sentences about what Korea the technology Korea wanted and why this rebuf may cause a war due to other factors that cause bad relations i.e. they share a border and are different religions. Also, the Civilization Times could report on the above-mentioned example of an military crisis and report the status if no country has backed down or it could report how much of the world condemns the military build-up. The newspaper would also have softer stories about what world wonders were built the last turn and tell how exactly they help the country or tell what great people were born. It could also report tragedies around the world like airline crashes, tornadoes, and princesses getting jilted at the altar! :lol: Providing an interactive and dynamic narrative is a way to add some more fun to the game rather than just clicking and moving the mouse around while we wait for turns.

4. War Time Economic Aid. Have you ever been asked to join a war but didn't want to? Ever wanted another way to help without having to shed your peoples' blood? It would be neat to be able to give gold to another country you sympathize with so that they can instantly have military units to help fight their war. A civ would ask you in a diplomatic prompt to give 500 gold so that they can instantly produce 3 tanks, for example. The economic aid needs to be meaningful and something that could actually affect the tide of the war. If you don't want their enemy or the media to find out you can pay a higher premium for that luxury. If you fail to pay the premium, the enemy will know costing you diplomatic points and the mass media will report your donation to the world.

In summary, I want a deeper game that is more like the current world we live in. A Sim Earth, if you will. I have more ideas but need to flesh them out more.

Dachs
Feb 26, 2010, 11:36 AM
It's nonsensical use of jibberjabber.
Hey, I'm just sayin' that the concept of a "supreme allied commander" isn't really plausible even in the Second World War sense that the user in question is trying to convey.

Danielos
Feb 26, 2010, 12:42 PM
We need some dangers on the sea:

* Kraken (only oceanic, very rare but very strong)
* Great sea serpent
* Great White shark (may attack fishing boats)

NBAfan
Feb 26, 2010, 12:47 PM
Revolutions should be in the game.

trevort
Feb 26, 2010, 12:47 PM
Hey, I'm just sayin' that the concept of a "supreme allied commander" isn't really plausible even in the Second World War sense that the user in question is trying to convey.
How is a Supreme Allied Commander a "horrifying anachronism for most of human history."

OK lets take your first sentence apart and define the words. We'll leave the one, two and three letter words alone.

"It's a horrifying anachronism for most of human history."

horrifying [ˈhɒrɪˌfaɪɪŋ]
adj
1. causing feelings of horror in; awful; terrifying;
2. dismaying or greatly shocking; dreadful
horrifyingly adv

a·nach·ro·nism (-nkr-nzm)
n.
1. The representation of someone as existing or something as happening in other than chronological, proper, or historical order.
2. One that is out of its proper or chronological order, especially a person or practice that belongs to an earlier time

most (mst)
adj. Superlative of many, much.
1.
a. Greatest in number: won the most votes.
b. Greatest in amount, extent, or degree: has the most compassion.
2. In the greatest number of instances: Most fish have fins

human I think we all know that one

his·to·ry (hst-r)
n. pl. his·to·ries
1.
a. A usually chronological record of events, as of the life or development of a people or institution, often including an explanation of or commentary on those events: a history of the Vikings.

What's horrifying about the Supreme Allied Commander?

What makes it an anachronism?

Now lets look at the history of Supreme Allied Commander here:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supreme_Allied_Commander
As you can see, the position of Supreme Allied Commander (SAC) didn't even exist until World War Two. Hardly "for most of human history." From what I understand of WW 2 history, the position of SAC was created to coordinate military strategy amongst the Allied forces and consult with Allied civilian leadership. This was in response to the disaster that resulted during WW1 from not having a SAC. What lostcause was saying is he would like to have the ability in game to act as a SAC during times of war when there are allies fighting a common enemy.

Given all of the above I find your statement to be illogical and false.
Personally I believe you were just using big words (horrifying and anachronism) to use big words. Why use complicated language when it's not needed.

As far is it being plausible:
plau·si·ble (plôz-bl)
adj.
1. Seemingly or apparently valid, likely, or acceptable; credible: a plausible excuse.

How is it not plausible? Historically it's valid and acceptable. I don't know how much you know about military operations, but effective leadership is the key to success. At all levels of command. Without leadership, a successful outcome is highly unlikely. lostcause would like the game to simulate one more level of command.

hrman
Feb 26, 2010, 01:06 PM
First post with the group...be nice to me! :) Sorry for the length, but reading everyone else's ideas got me thinking!

Before I get into specific minor improvements I'd like to see, here are two overriding things that MUST be right with Civ 5.

1) First and foremost - don't destroy the fundamental balance and style of gameplay. I've seen too many great game franchises destroyed when concerns such as graphics and ease of play for newcomers become more important than the gameplay itself.
2) Be sure the product is ready when released - this means a fairly bug-free product, as well as one that does not leave out things we've had in past versions for the sake of putting them in expansions. For example, I don't want to go back to 12 civilizations and have to buy expansions to get back to what we have now.

Now for the little stuff I've always wished was different in Civ 4 that I'd love to see in Civ 5 (some of which have already been mentioned):

1) Diplomacy Issues. This is a major area for improvement. I'd love to see the opportunity to claim undeveloped land and be able to buy, trade for, or negotiate to have others recognize your rights to it. Imagine being able to trade gold, technologies, or resources to someone in exchange for the rights to expand your borders around an undeveloped area of a continent. As others have mentioned, I'd also like to see the permanent penalties for refusing to help/provide tribute to another civ removed. They're just not realistic.
2) Open Border Issues - "Open Border" agreements need to be replaced with separate agreements for trade and military cooperation. For example, a regular open border agreement should allow trade between the countries, and non-military units only (scouts, missionaries, etc.) to enter their territory. A separate agreement should be required to allow military units access to territory.
3) Improvement on the handling of naval units. I've seen this mentioned by others, so I won't go into a lot of detail, except to say that the interaction between sea units and land units and cities has to become more realistic. For example, having an entire fleet next to a stack of units (not in a city) and not being able to do anything to them is just not right.
4) There needs to be some way to gain resources without having to build a city next to it. One of the most frustrating things about Civ 4 happens when you have to build a useless city just to take advantage of a resources. This is especially true if the resource is in the middle of useless tiles such as ice or desert. The Civ 3 model (I believe they were called colonies or outposts) worked for this, and I don't know why it was changed.
5) Finally, as others have said, unit upgrades need to be easier. It's frustrating to have warriors running around next to rifleman, and be forced to spend a large amount of gold to upgrade them. Instead of being forced to pay for upgrades, why can't you simply disband a unit in a city and get the hammers from it applied towards making it's upgrade? This would be an accurate way of expressing the fact that production is needed to supply the unit with it's new needs.

leswt
Feb 26, 2010, 01:28 PM
I would like to see more complexity in diplomacy. One specific idea is allowing you to make threats.

The option list would include things like "threaten war" and "threaten to nuke". When a threat is made, all of the unavailable options (red things like cities or vassal or capitulation) become available. If the contacted civ refuses the deal, then you can either carry out the threat or not (a bluff).

Implementation might involve assigning a negative value to the threat were an offer has positive value. Bluffing or not should effect credibility later

trevort
Feb 26, 2010, 05:06 PM
@hrman

1) Preach it Brother:rockon:

2) Firaxis, do you hear and understand what the man is saying?:think:

1) I agree with all that and would like to add permanent borders. Drawn on a map kind. Not based on Culture. How to implement permanent borders is above my pay grade.

2) You're cooking with gas

3) Man you hit the nail on the head. More naval units with more options to equip them. See this post (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=8937092&postcount=154) for more of my thoughts concerning naval units.

4) This is strait from the CIV 3 Info Center
# Using Resources:

* To access any resource, you need to build a road to that resource. That resource must also be connected to your capitol in some way, be it by road, harbor, or airport.
* If the resource in question lies outside of your borders, you will need to build a colony on that square to use it.
* Resources and luxuries can be shared between cities via your trade network. For example, if there is an iron tile anywhere within your borders, all of your cities that are connected to that tile via road will have access to iron.
o One resource square is enough for your whole empire, as long as the road network from the square to your capitol is intact.

5)Great points.

Camikaze
Feb 26, 2010, 05:25 PM
In real life you wouldn't hold that land by owning it, you would hold it by having military units in the land.

Well you would hold it by owning it, unless someone wanted to take it from you, in which case they would declare war. Now, I guess there will be a move towards capturing individual tiles instead of having to take cities, so you probably will have more scope to take that one chockpoint tile. :dunno:

mrt144
Feb 26, 2010, 05:32 PM
Now that religion is out, schisms and sects were on my wishlist. Make this game fun and interesting, not an also ran wargame.

lostcause
Feb 26, 2010, 05:50 PM
Wow, I don't read this thread for a couple days and one of my ideas becomes a major point of contention. trevort, you nailed it. I'll admit, the concept of a SAC is a modern concept, but many times in history military powers have worked together to achieve a single goal. The name Supreme Allied Commander might be anachronistic in 1000 BC, but the concept isn't. Besides, since when has Civ been a bastion of historical accuracy?

mrt144
Feb 26, 2010, 05:53 PM
Wow, I don't read this thread for a couple days and one of my ideas becomes a major point of contention. trevort, you nailed it. I'll admit, the concept of a SAC is a modern concept, but many times in history military powers have worked together to achieve a single goal. The name Supreme Allied Commander might be anachronistic in 1000 BC, but the concept isn't. Besides, since when has Civ been a bastion of historical accuracy?

Thats exactly the point. You're not playing, well most the time, you're not playing a historic simulation, you're playing a game of "What if this civilization and leader were in this situation? What if Ghandi was bloodthirsty?"

trevort
Feb 26, 2010, 06:30 PM
Wow, I don't read this thread for a couple days and one of my ideas becomes a major point of contention. trevort, you nailed it. I'll admit, the concept of a SAC is a modern concept, but many times in history military powers have worked together to achieve a single goal. The name Supreme Allied Commander might be anachronistic in 1000 BC, but the concept isn't. Besides, since when has Civ been a bastion of historical accuracy?

Perhaps it could be called "Supreme Military Commander". Sounds pretty era generic to me.

I didn't mean for it to become a point of contention. I just can't tolerate know it all smartalecs that spit out ill-considered, illogical statements that don't help the discussion.

Main Entry: smart al·eck
Variant(s): also smart al·ec \ˈsmärt-ˌa-lik, -ˌe-\
Function: noun
Etymology: Aleck, nickname for Alexander
Date: 1865
: an obnoxiously conceited and self-assertive person with pretensions to smartness or cleverness

Suspiria
Feb 26, 2010, 07:09 PM
For the last time, there is no confirmation to religion being out of the game or one unit per tile. it's just not confirmed people so dont take it for granted.

trevort
Feb 26, 2010, 07:23 PM
For the last time, there is no confirmation to religion being out of the game or one unit per tile. it's just not confirmed people so dont take it for granted.
I think the one unit per tile thing is like it was in Civ 3. Only units from one nation per tile.

lostcause
Feb 26, 2010, 07:42 PM
I think the one unit per tile thing is like it was in Civ 3. Only units from one nation per tile.

According to the summary of the Danish article that has driven most of the argument on the one unit per tile is that unit stacking (the SOD) is out. What all that entails is still up in the air until we have more details.

The Almighty dF
Feb 26, 2010, 07:44 PM
According to the summary of the Danish article that has driven most of the argument on the one unit per tile is that unit stacking (the SOD) is out. What all that entails is still up in the air until we have more details.

Though the danish article is still very questionable, and last I checked could very well just be some crap someone made up.
Until the info actually comes out, assume the source (the original person that made claims about the allleged leaked contents of the alleged article) is lying.

lostcause
Feb 26, 2010, 08:04 PM
Though the danish article is still very questionable, and last I checked could very well just be some crap someone made up.
Until the info actually comes out, assume the source (the original person that made claims about the allleged leaked contents of the alleged article) is lying.

When the April GamePro edition hits stands in just over a week, then we will have concrete information, hopefully about more than just OUPT.

Perhaps it could be called "Supreme Military Commander". Sounds pretty era generic to me.

Works for me! :)

Ikael
Feb 26, 2010, 09:31 PM
Yay, great to see some of you guys liking my ideas :)

trade route: hard to make a realistic implementation.
the cities along the roads connecting 2 civilizations to eachother would have high trade commerce, is it ok? but how. well, we build road to every city. so which city would be more important for trade? in late game, nearly all plots in the landmass have road.
I think of the following model: You can stablish trade routes between cities only within a fixed radious of movement of a caravan, say, a unit with 4 moves. Depending on the tech development (compass, corporations, etc), civilization traits, buildings (marketplace, airport, etc) communications (roads) and natural communications (rivers, sea, etc), said "traderoute radious" can be expanded. Of course, things like closed borders and wars and civics reduce this ratio. You can stablish trade routes in the same way that you build roads in civ revolutions, you choose the citie (or cities) you want it to go to, and the further it is, the higher is the cost. Once the route is stablished, the benefits apply following these factors: time (the more ancient is the route, the more benefitial it is, for it has been consolidated), number of cities involved (the more direct and less intermediaries there are, the bigger are the benefits), distance (the further you stablish it, the more benefits you obtain) and interdependance (if the destination city lacks a resource the source city has or viceversa, the bonuses are multiplied). There you have it, a comprensible, realistic traderoute model.

immigration cannot be handled.
I think that not only it can be handled, but that it is, in fact, being handled in this new civ 5. I readed on a Spanish magazine that friendly civ could not only cross your frontiers, but also settle on them O_o

naval forces should be more useful yes. but i don't like naval forces anyway. why? i don't like maps with many landmasses. they suck in ways of resources.
It can be solved trought a more efficient resource distribution system.

Attack bonus against surrounded units: this is cool but in which directions should they be surrounded? all6?
I think of something like this: you get bonuses if you are attacking a unit surrounded by more of your units, but it also gets nullified if surrounded by friendly units. Example:

Unit surrounded by 3 friendly units and 3 hostile units: No bonus (they nullify each other).
Unit surrounded by 3 foes and 1 friendly unit: -50% defense (the enemy gets a +25% attack for each surrounding unit that it is not nullified).


differenciate culture into different aspects and Warfare evolving from one era to another: those would exploit the game a lot.
It is not as hard as it looks, it is just a game designing philosophy that hasn't been exploited yet. I made a mod for civ 3 (back when you didn't need to know how to program in order to change minor things) that addressed the evolution of warfare, even if it was just in small dettail: you did not get units with a bombardement radious bigger than one tile till the arrival of the gunpowder, calvary were the only ancient units able to move more than one square and tanks were made the first unit able to attack multiple times, thus enabling the blitzkrieg.

The differenciated culture aspects is not something impossible, I think of something like this:

Language:
Expanded trought: Trade routes and demography
Benefits: Cities with your same language have lowered manteinance costs. Incidentally, if some civ is able to expand their language into your borders that will cause you manteinance problems too, due to the increased bureaucracy needed in order to adminstrate the city into several languages

Religion:
Expanded trought: Same method as civ 4
Benefits: Civic bonuses, line of vision

Lifestyle:
Expanded trought: Happiness buildings, technology (once your civ is the first to research a technology, the adoption of said technology is considered to be the adoption of your lifestyle)
Benefits: Happiness penalty for entering in war against you, happiness bonus for being allied / supporting you in a war, easier assimilation of inmigrants

Arts:
Expanded trought: Theaters, cathedrals, great people
Benefits: Your luxury and food products have a bigger effect in another civs, making them more valuable to trade with

Once a foreign city have adopted all these 4 factors, that isyour art, religion, lifestyle and language, yep, you can claim it as rightfully yours. Also, that could lead to a very interesting specialization in culture aspects depending on the civilization: Americans would excell at spreading their lifestyle, Arabs at spreading their religion, the French at spreading their art and Spanish at spreading their language. It would be quite awesome, me thinks.

surplanter
Feb 27, 2010, 02:18 AM
i would like to see plant and animal resources that are more dynamic. where once a civ has control of say corn, corn could be planted anywhere in the empire provided it is the correct climate zones. or maybe horses and cows could be traded from one civ and could be bred all over like it was with the americas. it never made much sense to me that horses or food could be traded and once the deal was over you were back to starving and rickshaws.

it would also be be pretty cool if the world was more influential on the civs. how is a civ going to develop iron working if they dont have any iron in their nation? or horseback riding with no horses? until they conquered a neighbor or traded some resources they would be stuck in the dark.

Danielos
Feb 27, 2010, 03:57 AM
Just a little thing that I missed in Civ 4:

* Leaders, their clothes and their backgrounds should change depending on era of that civ and their government

* If you visit a leader, the background would be of the foreign leader. If the leader visit you, the background would be yours.

Roller123
Feb 27, 2010, 04:27 AM
I would like to see more nuclear warfare. Both in offensive(nuking Japan) and defensive(the cold war) roles. Nuclear power plays a paramount role in shaping worlds borders since XX and what do we see in Civ4? nothing of it short of some comedic value.

fireflames
Feb 27, 2010, 08:25 AM
3. Mass Media Narrative. Everyone loves a good dramatic story. At some point in the industrial era, there should an option for a player to click on a button that opens a newspaper, Civilization Times,to see what's going on in the world. This would be similar to the current events that already pop up on the screen. Except the news would be more in-depth. Example: Suppose the AI Japan refuses to give over a technology to the AI Korea. The headline may read: Japan Rebufs Korea, War May be Imminent! Then the story may give a few sentences about what Korea the technology Korea wanted and why this rebuf may cause a war due to other factors that cause bad relations i.e. they share a border and are different religions. Also, the Civilization Times could report on the above-mentioned example of an military crisis and report the status if no country has backed down or it could report how much of the world condemns the military build-up. The newspaper would also have softer stories about what world wonders were built the last turn and tell how exactly they help the country or tell what great people were born. It could also report tragedies around the world like airline crashes, tornadoes, and princesses getting jilted at the altar! :lol: Providing an interactive and dynamic narrative is a way to add some more fun to the game rather than just clicking and moving the mouse around while we wait for turns.


:yup:

Mathalamus
Feb 27, 2010, 08:54 AM
i wish that Nimoy would be hired for something...like tech quotes or even a leader voice or 20. (obviously since that most of the leaders aren't alive)

trevort
Feb 27, 2010, 08:58 AM
3. Mass Media Narrative. Everyone loves a good dramatic story. At some point in the industrial era, there should an option for a player to click on a button that opens a newspaper, Civilization Times,to see what's going on in the world. This would be similar to the current events that already pop up on the screen. Except the news would be more in-depth. Example: Suppose the AI Japan refuses to give over a technology to the AI Korea. The headline may read: Japan Rebufs Korea, War May be Imminent! Then the story may give a few sentences about what Korea the technology Korea wanted and why this rebuf may cause a war due to other factors that cause bad relations i.e. they share a border and are different religions. Also, the Civilization Times could report on the above-mentioned example of an military crisis and report the status if no country has backed down or it could report how much of the world condemns the military build-up. The newspaper would also have softer stories about what world wonders were built the last turn and tell how exactly they help the country or tell what great people were born. It could also report tragedies around the world like airline crashes, tornadoes, and princesses getting jilted at the altar! Providing an interactive and dynamic narrative is a way to add some more fun to the game rather than just clicking and moving the mouse around while we wait for turns.
SimCity had something like that. It was interesting.

The Almighty dF
Feb 27, 2010, 03:43 PM
i wish that Nimoy would be hired for something...like tech quotes or even a leader voice or 20. (obviously since that most of the leaders aren't alive)

I'm hoping for Keith David, since he voiced the first quote in Civ5's trailer.
Aka Goliath, aka one of the only two survivors of The Thing, aka The Arbiter from Halo 2/3.

trevort
Feb 27, 2010, 05:20 PM
I'm hoping for Keith David, since he voiced the first quote in Civ5's trailer.
Aka Goliath, aka one of the only two survivors of The Thing, aka The Arbiter from Halo 2/3.

James Earl Jones or Gary Sinise.

The Almighty dF
Feb 27, 2010, 05:25 PM
James Earl Jones or Gary Sinise.

Gary Busey.



http://www.somethingyoushouldread.com/images/randoms/gary_busey.jpg
"The best argument against democracy is FIVE MINUTES WITH THE AVERAGE VOTER!"

trevort
Feb 27, 2010, 05:36 PM
You know who James Earl Jones voiced?
http://threekidcircus.com/threekidcircus/darth-vader.jpg
And Gary Sinise is doing US Army commercial voice overs.

BuckyRea
Feb 27, 2010, 06:00 PM
What about a feature to show the impact of cultural diffusion.

One way this would work, if I'm trading with a neighboring civ and I come up with chivalry or chemistry, wouldn't they at some point (not immediately) just pick up on my techs whether they research them or not? Mere contact with civs ought to carry some technology across cultural borders whether I'm willing to trade with them or not. That way I'm not able to just turboboost my research through the game for an automatic advantage.

If my guys start using gunpowder weapons, then sooner or later the civs who I go to war with will pick up on that idea within a century or so. Technology should have a way of being more transferable (maybe the improved diplomacy features will allow for this).


Another way to highlight cultural influences could br simply to simply graphically represent the impact of certain cultural exchanges. If I buy calendars off the Aztecs, let my calendars look like Aztec calendars (even use their numbering system?) or if I get alphabet off of Egypt, have my interface screens use a font that looks like heiroglyphics.

This wouldn't impact gameplay at any level, but it could really diversify the flavor of hte playing experience--seeing what mixtures of cultural influences my own civ ends up with. I could have little symbols representing either Bablyonian or Arabic mathmatics, either Greek or Chinese philosophy, either German or Celtic engineering, or even Zulu vs Aztec manorialism.

The Almighty dF
Feb 27, 2010, 06:06 PM
You know who James Earl Jones voiced?
http://threekidcircus.com/threekidcircus/darth-vader.jpg
And Gary Sinise is doing US Army commercial voice overs.

I kinda feel bad, I can't see Sinise without calling him Lt Dan.
Forrest Gump ruined me. It's the movie I quote more than anything else. BUT YOU AINT GOT NO LEGS, LT DAN!

Also, a thought.
They had Spock for Civ4, how about Sulu for Civ5?

"All warfare is based on deception, ahahaha."

Or, for humor's sake, Gilbert Gottfried and Bobcat Goldthwait taking turns reading quotes.

Neptun1976
Feb 28, 2010, 09:06 AM
To the Civ5 team:

The reason I stick with Civ3 instead of Civ4 is that in Civ4, you don't realize you are under attach until - some times - several turns into the battle :(

Please let us know what the enemy is doing to us between turns in Civ5!

The Almighty dF
Feb 28, 2010, 12:23 PM
To the Civ5 team:

The reason I stick with Civ3 instead of Civ4 is that in Civ4, you don't realize you are under attach until - some times - several turns into the battle :(

Please let us know what the enemy is doing to us between turns in Civ5!

I've.... never had this issue. Ever.

trevort
Feb 28, 2010, 12:35 PM
To the Civ5 team:

The reason I stick with Civ3 instead of Civ4 is that in Civ4, you don't realize you are under attach until - some times - several turns into the battle :(

Please let us know what the enemy is doing to us between turns in Civ5!
I think what neptun is experiencing is when the AI declares war between human player turns and the human suffers several attacks on different targets. Then the AI leader pops up declaring war. Then it's your turn again.
I've experienced that while playing RoM2. It really sucks when the AI uses nukes.

SamuraiProgramr
Feb 28, 2010, 12:54 PM
2. Food caravans (or something similar). I don't think the size of cities should be determined on the amount of available food in the immediately surrounding area. Especially not in industrial/modern times.

I agree with this request.

zeggy
Feb 28, 2010, 02:10 PM
No more ctds please!!!!

Suspiria
Feb 28, 2010, 06:51 PM
3. Mass Media Narrative. Everyone loves a good dramatic story. At some point in the industrial era, there should an option for a player to click on a button that opens a newspaper, Civilization Times,to see what's going on in the world. This would be similar to the current events that already pop up on the screen. Except the news would be more in-depth. Example: Suppose the AI Japan refuses to give over a technology to the AI Korea. The headline may read: Japan Rebufs Korea, War May be Imminent! Then the story may give a few sentences about what Korea the technology Korea wanted and why this rebuf may cause a war due to other factors that cause bad relations i.e. they share a border and are different religions. Also, the Civilization Times could report on the above-mentioned example of an military crisis and report the status if no country has backed down or it could report how much of the world condemns the military build-up. The newspaper would also have softer stories about what world wonders were built the last turn and tell how exactly they help the country or tell what great people were born. It could also report tragedies around the world like airline crashes, tornadoes, and princesses getting jilted at the altar! :lol: Providing an interactive and dynamic narrative is a way to add some more fun to the game rather than just clicking and moving the mouse around while we wait for turns.

Ive suggested a similar thing ages ago on here, and i think it would be a great idea to immerse yourself more into the game. It should appear earlier than the Industrial age however, when you obtain the writing technology.

Danielos
Mar 01, 2010, 12:15 AM
Could we PLEASE get back the nasty pirates of Civ 1-2? You know, the ones that made shore invasions and raided, plundered and conquered your coastal cities? The ones that built frigates and galleons? They have been conspicuosly missing in Civ 3-4, making the ocean a very dull and uneventful place.

Mathalamus
Mar 01, 2010, 12:39 AM
if you want pirates, just worldbuild in 600 frigates or something...

Suspiria
Mar 01, 2010, 01:22 AM
Aggressive city states could send out plenty of those pirates to come and plunder your lands....making a navy essential

kivanc
Mar 01, 2010, 02:29 AM
To the Civ5 team:

The reason I stick with Civ3 instead of Civ4 is that in Civ4, you don't realize you are under attach until - some times - several turns into the battle :(

Please let us know what the enemy is doing to us between turns in Civ5!

i disagree completely. it is much better as it is in civ4, and much more realistic.
if u're into leader mechanics, you might know that each leader has personalities.
so their habits are different. some favor expanding, some are turtles, some like asking for tributes, some attack even when he's friendly towards you and there are also some that doesn't inform "vendetta upon you" and you just understand that it's a war when he is in your borders. he just says "i assume you guess it's a war".

well this is very realistic. you, the player, should know each leader a bit and also be ready for any surprises.

kivanc
Mar 01, 2010, 03:11 AM
the importance of forts should be improved. in civ4, they were nerfed because enemy units moved as they like, w/o even a penalty. that is, i mean;

in old civs, units were not able to move between enemies. attached is an excel doc for clarification. so the old rule should come back with some changes. ok, just give them permission to move as they like but they should get a penalty because during a war, it is dangerous to move your unit paralel to the enemy. even in frp games, there is penalty for such paralel movements and retreats. i hope civ5 brings something about this.

Aussie_Lurker
Mar 01, 2010, 04:24 AM
OK, my really, *really* big wish for Civ V is the introduction of the concept of Internal Stability/Instability. Rhye has managed to do it for CivIV, which is what makes his mod rock so much ;)!
Everyone rightly complains that, after a certain point, a civ becomes a juggernaut which nobody can beat-but we know in history that larger empires have a nasty habit of breaking apart. Things which could increase instability would be: long & unpopular wars abroad, a sizable ethnic or religious minority, an overly centralized government, excessive taxation, unhappiness, unhealthiness, your reaction to certain random events & the actions of foreign agents.
Things which could increase stability would be: getting invaded, ethnic/religious "purity", a decentralized government, low taxes, a happy & healthy population, your reaction to certain events & the actions of your own agents.
Anyway, just a thought!

Aussie.

kivanc
Mar 01, 2010, 04:38 AM
OK, my really, *really* big wish for Civ V is the introduction of the concept of Internal Stability/Instability. Rhye has managed to do it for CivIV, which is what makes his mod rock so much ;)!
Everyone rightly complains that, after a certain point, a civ becomes a juggernaut which nobody can beat-but we know in history that larger empires have a nasty habit of breaking apart. Things which could increase instability would be: long & unpopular wars abroad, a sizable ethnic or religious minority, an overly centralized government, excessive taxation, unhappiness, unhealthiness, your reaction to certain random events & the actions of foreign agents.
Things which could increase stability would be: getting invaded, ethnic/religious "purity", a decentralized government, low taxes, a happy & healthy population, your reaction to certain events & the actions of your own agents.
Anyway, just a thought!

Aussie.
increased maintenance already does that. you cannot build as many cities as you did in old civs, can you? but i also do believe firaxis increased maintenance in civ4 not because of stability issues but because of game crashing issues. i think, they didn't want users to play on large worlds because the game worked so slow.

Aussie_Lurker
Mar 01, 2010, 04:41 AM
Increased maintenance doesn't come anywhere near simulating the collapse of empires, though it did go a long way to curbing infinite city sleaze-which was good in & of itself. Also that whole "game lagging on large maps" thing was just a furphy. I play on the largest maps available, & always have games with scores of cities & units without any slowness issues-just as long as you have a half-way decent computer!

Aussie.

kivanc
Mar 01, 2010, 04:54 AM
Increased maintenance doesn't come anywhere near simulating the collapse of empires, though it did go a long way to curbing infinite city sleaze-which was good in & of itself. Also that whole "game lagging on large maps" thing was just a furphy. I play on the largest maps available, & always have games with scores of cities & units without any slowness issues-just as long as you have a half-way decent computer!

Aussie.
i assume you have never played SMAC. you could load in 2secs. the only issue was to browse the save file and then you started the game suddenly.

Neptun1976
Mar 03, 2010, 01:49 PM
Originally Posted by Neptun1976 View Post
To the Civ5 team:

The reason I stick with Civ3 instead of Civ4 is that in Civ4, you don't realize you are under attach until - some times - several turns into the battle

Please let us know what the enemy is doing to us between turns in Civ5!

I've.... never had this issue. Ever.

What I mean is that in Civ3, you can watch what the AI is doing between turns, but you don't get this in Civ4. In Civ4, there is only a long list of text coming instead.

Camikaze
Mar 03, 2010, 07:05 PM
You can watch what the AI do by going to 'options' and turning on 'show friendly moves' to see everyone's moves, or turning on 'show enemy moves' to show the AI's moves if they are at war with you.

Raider
Mar 03, 2010, 08:22 PM
What would be really cool is if unit advancement was taken a bit further into the future. Right now, the only aspect of the future is the spaceship to Alfa Centauri. I would really like it if modern technologies that are needed to get there also yielded some more powerful and cool units. As it stands now in Civ4, at least half of the modern era techs add nothing outside of more spaceship parts. It would be cool if they also added new units and new capabilities. Going a bit further into the sci-fi territory would be cool as well.

trevort
Mar 03, 2010, 08:59 PM
What would be really cool is if unit advancement was taken a bit further into the future. Right now, the only aspect of the future is the spaceship to Alfa Centauri. I would really like it if modern technologies that are needed to get there also yielded some more powerful and cool units. As it stands now in Civ4, at least half of the modern era techs add nothing outside of more spaceship parts. It would be cool if they also added new units and new capabilities. Going a bit further into the sci-fi territory would be cool as well.
You should check out Rise of Mankind 2 and the ROM2 modmod Rise of Mankind 2:A New Dawn. They take is pretty far into the future.

CivX
Mar 04, 2010, 09:17 AM
I wish my asus laptop which is nearly 1.5 years old will be able to handle civ V.
And i wish civ V would come out tomorrow......

is that too much too ask for? = )

babbittlane
Mar 05, 2010, 08:41 AM
i want sea colonization as in CTP...

Lord Parkin
Mar 20, 2010, 04:16 AM
What I mean is that in Civ3, you can watch what the AI is doing between turns, but you don't get this in Civ4. In Civ4, there is only a long list of text coming instead.
A little late, but...

You do realise you can click the "pad and pencil" button in the top left corner of the screen, then click on the text and it centres the screen on where the event/combat took place? Handy little feature. :)

Voyhkah
Mar 21, 2010, 08:26 AM
I want one thing more than anything else: FIGHTER ESCORTS!

I have only played cIV, but there is no ability to send fighters to escort your bombers and fight off any intercepters! Grrrrrrr! I want escorts in ciV!

Kissamies
Mar 22, 2010, 03:22 PM
Well yeah, the fighters should have an "air superiority" mission where they attack the interceptors. Easier to do than escort.

Steve the Noble
Mar 25, 2010, 11:25 AM
1. Improved status screens (military info, city info, foreign relations info etc.) In Civ IV, it seemed like it took a few patches before these screens became easy-to-use and helpful. And in some cases, it took some user mods to really make the info screens an essential part of gameplay.


2. An interesting end-game replay feature. After playing for several weeks, watching a VCR-style replay of changing map colours is anti-climatic.


3. An improved hall-of-fame. I wish I could view/sort my past games according to measures such as military victories, research score, population etc.

civeye
Mar 25, 2010, 01:06 PM
Once the game reaches the industrial age, I would love to be able to have workers bridge, tunnel, or link via causeway landmasses or islands across water hexes. I imagine a limit of two or three hexes would be the limit, however. These improvements could be plundered just like any others.

Zhahz
Mar 25, 2010, 01:07 PM
We do have several of these threads in another subforum, but...I'd give anything for a good AI. Bad AI just ruins the game for me. Being able to easily mod Civ5 would be another important wish, not because I'm a mod, but because I'm the guy who downloads all of them for the added variety.:)

Edit: And keeping religions. They will be missed if they are left out.

My #1 wish is for strong AI too.

I like religion in Civ IV too. I'd rather see it tweaked if firaxis thinks it didn't work as planned rather than scrapped.

Ukilamiback
Mar 25, 2010, 04:14 PM
OK, my really, *really* big wish for Civ V is the introduction of the concept of Internal Stability/Instability. Rhye has managed to do it for CivIV, which is what makes his mod rock so much ;)!

Everyone rightly complains that, after a certain point, a civ becomes a juggernaut which nobody can beat-but we know in history that larger empires have a nasty habit of breaking apart. Things which could increase instability would be: long & unpopular wars abroad, a sizable ethnic or religious minority, an overly centralized government, excessive taxation, unhappiness, unhealthiness, your reaction to certain random events & the actions of foreign agents.

Things which could increase stability would be: getting invaded, ethnic/religious "purity", a decentralized government, low taxes, a happy & healthy population, your reaction to certain events & the actions of your own agents.
Anyway, just a thought!

Aussie.
I second this!! And fully support this idea. Very well put and explained. I've always thought of this feature of large nations eventually falling apart. Great!!

I'd like to add a few things to this idea of stability and instability. The way you would keep your civilization stable is also a way to hold diplomatic relations with other nations. Essentially the way your Civ keeps diplomatic relations is usually based upon the Civics chosen for that certain Civilization. Which leads to to relate Civics with Stability issues for the civ. And when a civ starts to experience instability because of.... ...long & unpopular wars abroad, a sizable ethnic or religious minority, an overly centralized government, excessive taxation, unhappiness, unhealthiness, your reaction to certain random events & the actions of foreign agents. The civ then is 'forced' into changing Civics and at which point instability occurs.

Changing of civics is another thing I'd like to be done a little differently. Instead of Anarchy and losing x amount of turns out of the window. Having a relationship between Stability and Civic changes. The more stable the more productive the nation is. The less stable a nation is the less production is. And instead of losing x amount of turns to anarchy of a Civic change have a change of rate of stability. And changes in Civics produce different instability issues, i.e. jumping from Slavery to Universal Suffrage is a long time of instability versus Caste System to Universal Suffrage, because of Equality issues that reside within the civ.

frekk
Mar 27, 2010, 10:17 PM
Why not a culture that doesn't discover internal combustion (perhaps they have no oil) and as a result advanced steam technology and pneumatics to "modern" levels, despite other areas of their technology still being at 18th century levels?

Steam technology simply cannot replicate what can be done with oil. It's just impossible. If you had a steam-powered automobile, it would have to have a big boiler and carry a coal car around behind it to achieve the same speeds and range of a gasoline-powered car. Steam has some limitations; it requires so much heat to produce so much pressure, and those are fixed limits that impose certain things on it. Technology isn't magic. It can't bend the rules of physics. It can achieve alot of things, but often, it does so by changing the actual basis of the technology (ie coal-fired power plants to nuclear power plants).

Why do we have situations such as Paper having a prereq of Civil Service.

That one is admittedly nutty. There are a few others like that.

Also we should be careful that we don't make assumptions. Why is IW "better" than BW? There are many applications where bronze or copper is a better choice than iron. And what if my civilization has Iron but not the metals to make Bronze? How would we "research" BW if we didn't have those metals at all? Wouldn't we jump straight to IW?

What if there was some "metallurgy" or "metal working" technology which is a prereq for both? Then, you could choose whether you go for IW or BW based upon strategic game decisions, instead of being forced to get BW before IW.

Well, because bronze working really was a prerequisite for iron working. Pretty much everybody had iron; it's common. Only a few people had tin, and you needed tin to make bronze. The tin trade was of huge importance during the bronze age. Despite the fact everybody had loads of iron, nobody was making iron tools for quite some time after bronze metallurgy had become ubiquitous. The reason was that to smelt and forge iron, you needed much higher temperatures. Ovens that could do this weren't developed right off the bat, they happened as a result of centuries of bronzeworking.

Iron itself wasn't superior, initially. Early iron implements were both soft and brittle compared to bronze (plus, they rusted). It took lots of refinement before iron became the superior material. The reason some people adopted iron was because they couldn't afford or were cut off from tin, so they couldn't make bronze anymore. It was a cheap substitute, at first. In Europe it appeared in the backwaters of the time - mostly up around Austria and in the 'barbarian' fringes north of Rome and Greece.

Wodan
Mar 28, 2010, 03:42 AM
Steam technology simply cannot replicate what can be done with oil. It's just impossible.
So, you're saying a steampunk civ is impossible. I'm sure all the science fiction authors would appreciate the worlds they create flatly cannot exist.

If you had a steam-powered automobile, it would have to have a big boiler and carry a coal car around behind it to achieve the same speeds and range of a gasoline-powered car.
You're saying that automobiles are required for technological progress? Nonsense.

Steam has some limitations
Well of course. So does oil.

Technology isn't magic. It can't bend the rules of physics. It can achieve alot of things, but often, it does so by changing the actual basis of the technology (ie coal-fired power plants to nuclear power plants).
Nothing you've said has indicated that a steampunk civ could not exist, and might not have advantages over an oil-powered civ.

But that's just an example. My whole argument is that the exact technological state of the world today is not inevitable and is not the ONLY technology that could exist. It would be the height of hubris to presume that mankind has discovered the only path that is possible.

Wodan
Mar 28, 2010, 03:52 AM
Well, because bronze working really was a prerequisite for iron working. Pretty much everybody had iron; it's common. Only a few people had tin, and you needed tin to make bronze. The tin trade was of huge importance during the bronze age. Despite the fact everybody had loads of iron, nobody was making iron tools for quite some time after bronze metallurgy had become ubiquitous. The reason was that to smelt and forge iron, you needed much higher temperatures. Ovens that could do this weren't developed right off the bat, they happened as a result of centuries of bronzeworking.

Iron itself wasn't superior, initially. Early iron implements were both soft and brittle compared to bronze (plus, they rusted). It took lots of refinement before iron became the superior material. The reason some people adopted iron was because they couldn't afford or were cut off from tin, so they couldn't make bronze anymore. It was a cheap substitute, at first. In Europe it appeared in the backwaters of the time - mostly up around Austria and in the 'barbarian' fringes north of Rome and Greece.

So actually, someone could have developed iron working first. Consider a planet without any tin deposits at all. Wouldn't they have to go straight to iron working?

It sounds to me as though Bronze is easier to work, and that's why people in history adopted it first. Yet, it is not a true prerequisite and there's no reason a civ could not have gone straight to Iron.

Part of the problem is doing a justification after the fact. Somebody somewhere mixed tin and copper and made this good alloy. Then everybody copied that guy. So it's convenient to presume that way is the only way things could have happened.

Ukilamiback
Apr 01, 2010, 07:18 PM
My wishlist:

- Watter supply. I cannot wrap my head around the fact that the most important resource ever in the history of mankind is always getting neglected on the Civilization series. Make water, and its access one of the main factors when developing a city.


And how. And Fresh Water.

It is so important, especially coming from a city that sits on one of the largest fresh water lakes in the world, Chicago. While I've been in the schools(Elgin College and UofIillinois-Chicago University), in all the history and political science classes, and one Geography class, about 50 credits worth. There has always been talk of the importance of Lake Michigan to Chicago. I'm sure its the same with all of the cities on the Great Lakes. The Great Lakes are one of the most valuable resources that America has.

I'll take it one step further and say [I]one word, just one word, Canals.

nody
Apr 02, 2010, 07:34 PM
My only wish is they put all the features (optional) of Rhye's and Fall of Civilization in the game and a scenario like it.

Features like:

- Civs spawns on a predetermined date instead of all the civs at start.
- Mercenaries
- Congresses, where cities can be exchanged
- Unique historical victories and unique powers, like Spain has the power of discovery, which means their ships have 2 movement bonuses.
- Minor civs, like native cities and independent cities.
- The option to take control of another civ during the game.
- Leaderheads according to era, one leaderhead for each era, for example, like Russia begins with Peter, then goes to Catherina, then Stalin.

I also would like all the civs included from Civ IV, Warlords and BTS and their respective leaders. And a couple of new civs, like:

- Austria
- Poland
- Indonesia
- Vietnam
- Ireland

jeffreyac
Apr 03, 2010, 08:41 AM
- Civs spawns on a predetermined date instead of all the civs at start.


I have trouble wrapping my mind around how this would work. So, for example, if you played the Americans, you'd be sidelined until the 1800's?

For that matter, the game start has been 4000BC in the past (though I realize there is no reason this couldn't be changed...) Not too many of the civs we recognize were around then. I dunno, it'd seem to be a balance nightmare to give latecoming civs a real chance - heck, to go back to the American example, most of the world is settled in my game by the 1800's. If you start that late, what land do you get?

So, I dunno.... Interesting idea, though - I just can't see it working in practice.

Danger Bird
Apr 03, 2010, 09:41 AM
I have trouble wrapping my mind around how this would work. So, for example, if you played the Americans, you'd be sidelined until the 1800's?

For that matter, the game start has been 4000BC in the past (though I realize there is no reason this couldn't be changed...) Not too many of the civs we recognize were around then. I dunno, it'd seem to be a balance nightmare to give latecoming civs a real chance - heck, to go back to the American example, most of the world is settled in my game by the 1800's. If you start that late, what land do you get?

So, I dunno.... Interesting idea, though - I just can't see it working in practice.

It's in a mod, Rhye's and Fall of Civilization (http://forums.civfanatics.com/forumdisplay.php?f=204). Late-starting civs get more techs, cities that start with basic improvements, etc. Plus they flip some cities of nearby civs (who can declare war to prevent it, of course).

jeffreyac
Apr 03, 2010, 11:52 AM
Ah, OK. I've heard of Rhye's mod before, and the concept, but didn't realize that's how it was implemented. Sounds like the balance issues aren't nearly as bad as I thought, then (or, at least, that our spectacular modders here were up to the task!)

EDIT: you've got me interested now, so looks like I need to try out a new mod!