Your Top Requested Change

[TM Moot]

Originally Posted by nokmirt

What I think they should do is change this.....But when it takes losses and you do not have the required resource, then it cannot replenish until you do have that resource.

Yep, makes sense.

Also, I reckon resources, and the availibility of resources is too critical under the current arrangement.

If you miss out on a key strategic resource dropping on your part of the map then you're stuffed. It might just be me, but I find the (too aggressive) AI not willing to trade far too often, even if you offer stupid amounts of gold/cities etc..

What would be good is a short of Black Market trade option, where you can buy resources independent of another Civ. This should be priced accordingly, and perhaps techs and buildings could be required to enable this too happen or to reduce costs.

[Buccaneer]

*Other

Have the AI do better at winning games. That would mean 1) using the gold to buy CS and keep them until the vote; 2) actually assembling the spaceship parts; 3) aggressively use the advantage in production to conquer civs and specifically take out human players if they are close to winning; 4) defend capital better (and have the AI target enemy capitals more specifically); and 5) simply don't step aside and let the human player walk away with a cheesy victory.

[nokmirt]

Originally Posted by TM Moot

Yep, makes sense.

What would be good is a short of Black Market trade option, where you can buy resources independent of another Civ. This should be priced accordingly, and perhaps techs and buildings could be required to enable this too happen or to reduce costs.

Yes indeed, that certainly could be worked into an interesting system to get what your missing. The ability to buy from an independent merchant (or some independent third party commerce source. "Black Market" sounds good to me. LOL!) after a certain tech or building is reasearched/built and then you build your business up as time goes on.

For example, if you need horses. The first closed deal gets them for you for a price (?), say for 10 ten turns. For the second closed deal it improves to say, so much gold for 15 turns, and etc. You know as time goes on your business trust builds up with that third party. The other thing that is interesting is that different resources would be available at different times, based on a system of supply and demand. This would really be interesting. Great idea TM Moot!

Civs could also send in their own merchants to break up these little deals and take over the business for themselves. This is an idea that worked pretty well from Medieval 2 Total War. Developers could organize a system that fits kind of like this that works for CiV.

Another idea...

Working in espionage they should have rakes or thieves that are hired by the government behind the scenes. What these guys do is have a percentage chance of stealing resources or techs. (For example, horse thieves) And as they increase in experience their chances improve when trying to accomplish missions. This would add some intrigue. I mean all governments are dishonest. Thats why they say good guys finish last!

Of course the defense for this would be the ability to hire law men or sheriffs to catch the bad guys, who gain experience as well.

[Man vs Civ AI]

I voted other: add chemical and biological weapons, and a penalty if they are used, similar to nuclear weapons.

[KillingMeSoftly]

From the list I picked SDI, because we need a defense of some kind against nukes. It's not been mentioned at all yet in any of the previews so it worries me a little. My other concerns have at least been mentioned.

[BranjoHello]

Voted for "other".
I hope they will fix archery units after Crossbowman, so that we won't lose all those precious upgrades. We had seen Machine Gun (which is ranged) so they are probably working on this issue.
Better friendly diplomacy (like less backstabbing) would be nice too.

[Auren]

Originally Posted by KillingMeSoftly

From the list I picked SDI, because we need a defense of some kind against nukes. It's not been mentioned at all yet in any of the previews so it worries me a little. My other concerns have at least been mentioned.

Shouldn't the optimal strategy against nukes just be MAD? If you're worried about enemy nukes, be prepared to launch first. I hated Civ 4 when after the SDI became built nukes became almost useless.

[CivilizedPlayer]

Originally Posted by Auren

Shouldn't the optimal strategy against nukes just be MAD? If you're worried about enemy nukes, be prepared to launch first. I hated Civ 4 when after the SDI became built nukes became almost useless.

MAD works in real life because in real life all nuclear-armed nations maintain a stockpile of, at the bare minimum, several hundred nukes. No nation would attack a nation like that, because it would mean complete annihililation. Furthermore, nukes/atomic bombs in reality don't merely wipe out half of a city's pop, they obliterate the area.

To cut to the chase: MAD doesn't work in civ because
1) You aren't going to have enough nukes
2) The nukes don't do as much damage
The closest you can come to MAD in-game is heavy diplo penalties for nuking a civ, but diplo penalties are often more frustrating than they are effective. (Just ask us warmongerers!) So I would still recommend a method for stopping nukes (SDI or something of that variety) instead of MAD. (Do you really trust the AI to grasp the concept of mutually assured destruction anyway? They don't even understand the concept of a boat yet...)
I'm with you that stopping nukes should have some drawback, so that nukes are still useful. My suggestion would be to make it take a long time to build, and a lot to maintain.

[Louis XXIV]

I tend to think when nukes or launched they shouldn't land until the next turn and an announcement should be made that the nukes have been launched. This would give the other side an opportunity to launch retaliatory nukes to even things out. It would be a bit uncomfortable with a turn-based game like this, but it'll represent MAD a bit better instead.

I'd actually increase the strength of nukes, but allow you to build nuclear fallout shelters to reduce their impact. They'd still be bad, causing fallout, reducing population and city health, killing units, etc., but it'll mitigate that. I do think diplomatic penalties are necessary as well. Finally, as part of Future Tech, SDI makes sense. However, once you get that, you can launch your nukes without fear of nuclear retaliation (not that the game matters by that point).

[CivilizedPlayer]

Good idea. I like the fallout shelter a lot, it would be a good way to balance the pop loss.
And I'm not saying diplo penalties are bad, but they are annoying if they're too strong (the US was still a respected nation after annihilating two Japanese cities). However I will agree that it's a bit odd that no other nations are bothered when I nuke the living @%#$ out of some poor soul.

[Louis XXIV]

I don't think the US's actions are the appropriate model. First, no one really knew the full effect of nuclear weapons. Second, Japan was essentially a pariah by that point - the equivalent of a civ in permanent war with all city-states and denounced by everyone. I think it's more fruitful to ask what the reaction would be today.

Still, I think a compromise can be reached. If you nuke a civ, all civs with a declaration of friendship with that civ will immediately hate you. If they are neutral, they'll become guarded but probably won't declare war. If they denounced the civ, they'll probably be indifferent. I would suggest CS should be similar. Non-allied CS will start hating you, but won't declare war.

Speaking of CS, I would like the option to Pledge Nuclear Protection. Not only would you pledge to defend a city state, but you would promise to use nuclear weapons if they are attacked. I'd suggest putting an artificial limit for the number of CS you can do this to and only if you're allied to them, but, essentially, it'll dramatically reduce the likelihood of the AI to attack the city unless they're prepared for essentially a war that'll wipe out both sides (and they have more nukes).

[Tabarnak]

RAs. Insta-beakers are OP. An SDI tech should be interesting too.

Also others : Make multiplayer games possible between 8+ players. We don't need animations it slows down the game. And also multi AI for those who team against the AI.

[Gucumatz]

So true, it is so frustrating being unable to play games on multiplayer if there are more than 8 players!

And even then, games with 8 players have a higher chance of failing via lag or freezing than a game with 6 players.

[Venger]

OTHER - 2 or 3 UPT. Please, kill the unit movement tedium...

[Gucumatz]

Originally Posted by Venger

OTHER - 2 or 3 UPT. Please, kill the unit movement tedium...

No offense, but there are still people out there that want more UPT? 1 UPT is a genius and much more fun way to play. 2-3 UPT? Thats like asking for mini stacks of doom because you could have units to balance each other out.

[Louis XXIV]

It would also still have movement tedium because your units would still have to spread out. Now you'd have to figure out if you have only 2 units in a stack or 3.

[Gucumatz]

Originally Posted by Louis XXIV

I tend to think when nukes or launched they shouldn't land until the next turn and an announcement should be made that the nukes have been launched. This would give the other side an opportunity to launch retaliatory nukes to even things out. It would be a bit uncomfortable with a turn-based game like this, but it'll represent MAD a bit better instead.

I'd actually increase the strength of nukes, but allow you to build nuclear fallout shelters to reduce their impact. They'd still be bad, causing fallout, reducing population and city health, killing units, etc., but it'll mitigate that. I do think diplomatic penalties are necessary as well. Finally, as part of Future Tech, SDI makes sense. However, once you get that, you can launch your nukes without fear of nuclear retaliation (not that the game matters by that point).

Just read this and this is a great idea! The problem is on multiplayer though, a player could wait until the last seconds before the end of his turn before launching his/her nukes so someone couldn't retaliate. But still doesnt change the fact whoever gets nukes first in multiplayer always uses them.

[Louis XXIV]

Well, turn issues in multiplayer are fubared. A compromise would be to impose a full turn clock requirement before nukes land. For example, if your turns last 5 minutes, the nukes will take 5 minutes to land no matter what.

[Buccaneer]

Originally Posted by Gucumatz

No offense, but there are still people out there that want more UPT? 1 UPT is a genius and much more fun way to play. 2-3 UPT? Thats like asking for mini stacks of doom because you could have units to balance each other out.

That blows my mind. 2+ combat units per hex would ruin the game by itself (in SP). Trying to figure out how move and place 6 units when you would 3 safe hexes is a lot more fun than the dumb-downed putting all 6 units on one hex.

[shaglio]

Originally Posted by Gucumatz

No offense, but there are still people out there that want more UPT? 1 UPT is a genius and much more fun way to play. 2-3 UPT? Thats like asking for mini stacks of doom because you could have units to balance each other out.

I wouldn't mind seeing them get rid of 1UPT for non-combat units. What's the harm in stacking several workers in the same tile to build an improvement faster? Or houseing a GE and a GS in the same city for future use?