What changes to Civ V would make the game more realistic?

City Wall building material also depended on available natural resources.
Weren't there City Walls made out of timber? Wooden Palisades?

Stone/Marble, and Timber (perhaps of different sort-like Oak or Teak) should be (continue to be) some of the strategic natural resources available in the game.

If I got 3 cities, all surrounded by forests but no stone to be quarried anywhere close to them, I'm going to build walls out of timber, not stone. Granted, inferior to stone walls, but still offering some additional protection to my cities.

There should be no, or very limited, automatic city defence. If You want to be able to defend your city from incoming attacks, beside building a wall you need to either maintain a city guard/defensive units (based in barracks), conscript (poorly trained) peasants/civilians, or/and build a fort or castle in near vicinity.

daft said:

City Wall building material also depended on available natural resources.
Weren't there City Walls made out of timber? Wooden Palisades?

Stone/Marble, and Timber (perhaps of different sort-like Oak or Teak) should be (continue to be) some of the strategic natural resources available in the game.

If I got 3 cities, all surrounded by forests but no stone to be quarried anywhere close to them, I'm going to build walls out of timber, not stone. Granted, inferior to stone walls, but still offering some additional protection to my cities.

Click to expand...

City walls originally could be anything from timber palisades to earth and timber walls (most Oppidum were of this type) to stone to brick to adobe - as long as you were physically keeping people out and providing a platform for your own missile troops, almost anything would work. Once you started getting hit with catapults, rams and other machinery, you needed something more substantial: stone, earth-backed stone, or brick, etc.

The problem in game terms is that virtually ANY stone could be used for walls: limestone, granite, sandstone, and if you didn't have or couldn't work huge quantities of large blocks of stone, you could make the wall of solid earth lined with smaller stones and still get a pretty good effect. And, of course, once you get into the Industrial Era and later, the materials are all 'artificial' - concrete and steel - so there are really no Natural resource requirements - just the industrial capacity to manufacture the 1000s of tons of concrete, rebar, and steel fittings (and artillery) required for the Forts.

I don't really think any resource requirement is arguable: wherever people built cities, there was some kind of natural material that could be used to defend them: timber and earth, brick, adobe, stone, combinations of the above... Remember, even most of the Chinese 'Great Wall' was built of Rammed Earth, and raw materials don't get much more basic than that!

daft said:

There should be no, or very limited, automatic city defence. If You want to be able to defend your city from incoming attacks, beside building a wall you need to either maintain a city guard/defensive units (based in barracks), conscript (poorly trained) peasants/civilians, or/and build a fort or castle in near vicinity.

Click to expand...

I suggest that, aside from regular Units, the internal City Defense Force would be minimal, but some buildings - a Barracks or Armory, for instance - would imply that a certain percentage of the citizens had some military training, so they would increase the 'intrinsic' city defense force. The Palace almost always has some kind of Palace Guard, so that should also add a few points to the defense. All of this would be marginal if no City Defenses (walls, towers, etc) were built,l but would give you something. By the time you get to the Bastioned Trace, Ring Forts and other more 'modern' fortifications, part of their maintenance is the Garrison (trained gunners for the artillery, if nothing else), so an additional 'civilian defense force' is less of a requirement...

Boris Gudenuf said:

Castles are not City Defenses, they are Country Defenses - they should be Improvements, like roads, that can be built in the same tile as other Food/Gold or Production improvements and stop an enemy unit from razing or entering that tile until the Castle is 'Reduced - which is not easy, because they are the equivalent in Defense and Ranged strength to a fortified City.

Click to expand...

This really depends on how one defines a castle. There isn't really a clear textbook explanation that easily describes the origins of castles - the term and concept maybe most appropriate to post-Carolingian Europe but its actually quite flexible.

The more modern conception of a castle though does indeed date back to the Roman period where Castles or Roman Forts would be built in border areas. These facilities doubled as a fort and an army base. They would have developed their own economy to service the soldiers living there.

While these disappeared in Western Europe after the fall of Rome in the Byzantine Eastern Empire Castles were built in strategic areas such as Dyrrachium to protect against barbarian invasions. Some of these were built as border defenses whilst others were placed in urban centres to protect a town and strengthen the administrative foothold of the Empire.
A late-antiquity Byzantine castle was probably a trade-off to a citywalls or at least an add-on to a wall structure. Walls take a lot more resources to build. You typically have a much larger area to protect and you have to factor in the geography - a wall is only as strong as it's weakest point.
A castle fort on the other hand sacrifices size for higher and thicker walls. It requires less soldiers to garrison effectively and arguably in many circumstances would be a more viable option then citywalls. So I guess in many cases there is a trade-off involved. The Byzantines had multiple wars on multiple frontiers so in many cases they had to rely on smaller fortresses if they didn't have the resources to commit a larger army to protect a territory.

In Western Europe castles sprung up after the splintering of Charlemagne's Empire. The Viking attacks hastened this process. As the vikings attacked from anywhere and everywhere it proved impossible for the centralised Carolingian military to be able to respond effectively. In response the local lords and barons took it upon themselves to build their own castles to protect their interests.

The consequence of this was Castles could protect the lord from external invasion but also create a social barrier between himself and the peasant - and also gave the lord more independence from the Emperor. Although it would also serve the interests of the people as they could use the Castle for protection during danger. But after the rise of Castles, Europe was too decentralised to be united under an Emperor again as the effort required to siege hundreds of castles to rebuild the Carolingian Empire would be too difficult.

So to answer your question. Castles could be in either cities or the countryside. Salzburg for instance has a beautiful castle with well engineered military designs.

A castle that was a country defense typically attracted population to settle around it for security - if the vikings come for instance people can hide inside. Thus over time the castle surroundings grew into a city. It just became the most logical place to live if you had a safe refuge nearby.

I think it's time to end the whole concept of: 4000 BC to 2000(odd) AD and finally divide the game into Eras.

The only way for me to really enjoy playing a game of Civilization (of the last 2 iterations) is to play on Huge maps (marathon games).

Otherwise everything is just too cluttered, other civs(and city states) start/appear way too close to my starting location. Tech research on Huge maps is more real-time accurate, you can build larger empires, even wars seem more realistic.

As, by nature, a peaceful imperialistic ruler, unless playing on Huge maps I have little chance at achieving my goal of building a grand empire.

I love exploring, especially other continents/islands, but in Civ V (unless playing on huge map) I feel limited in my ability to do so as well.

Erecting buildings in cities takes too many turns (years). Most units take too much time to construct/train.

I propose they move the date's back further, let the players start the game in (for example) 6000 BC every possible research historically necessary to grow should be made available but take less time to achieve. Units costing less resources to produce, same with buildings.

Let us fight real Wars in ancient and classical eras! not just breeze through them in an insane tech race while watching not to grow too wide! (what a nonsense!) and suffer political consequences.

Research should be based more on Categories, not a specified tech picking, that way you wouldn't know which of the available techs from the Category you picked you would be getting.

Make CIV VI an Ancient/Classical game exclusively, let us build mighty empires, not as the US or France (for example)- (their time would come in following iterations) but as Sumeria, Hittites or Egypt (among many others).

What say you?

(and for crying out loud: get rid of Embarkation! and 1UPT!-let us build Armies)

Everything you posted is true, but of all the variations of castle, fort, fortification, walls, etc, I suggest that Civ V picked 'City Bastion' or 'City Keep' as the ONLY one to represent by the Castle building, and that is a lousy choice.

The classic castle, both in Europe and in other places that had a feudal system (Japan, for instance) was the fortified seat of some 'aristocrat' who owed personal allegiance to the Ruler and as a result was required to provide military support in return for being allowed to run his own territory pretty much as he wished. This form in Europe did indeed grow up in the post-Carolingian period, but fortified Big Man residences have been excavated in 'Dark Age' (roughly, 1000 - 600 BCE) Greece, so it is by no means entirely a Post-Classical phenomena, it simply appears whenever Central Authority is not sufficient to keep invaders or neighbors from beating on you.

Forts, if the graphic would change when you build them adjacent to each other, should represent the Limes or walls up to and including the Great Wall - that was just longer, but in most places no more elaborate than the Roman Hadrian and Antonine Walls, or for that matter Offa's 'Dike' fortification or the wooden palisades the Russian city states built against the Tatars. Fortresses should represent the individual fortifications covering 'choke points', passes, etc.

But the castle, is both a military and a Social installation, and I hate it that Civ V missed this completely.

Adopt, say, Tradition's Aristocracy and Landed Elite, and Honor's Warrior Code and Military Caste. This combination would trigger a Feudal Society.

With that, you can build Castles. A Castle is an Improvement which, like Roads, can be built In Addition To any other Improvement in a Tile. A Castle does three things:
1.)...It makes it impossible for any Hostile unit to enter the tile (except Aircraft) until the Castle is Reduced. A Castle has the same Defense factor as the City Walls plus terrain bonuses (higher if on hills, etc)
2.)...Upon Declaration of War by or on you, each castle spawns a Knight. This unit requires No Maintenance or resources, BUT it has the following limitations:
.....Any surviving Knights disappear at the end of the war. Any promotions they earned also disappear with them - newly spawned Knights always start without Promotions.
.....If the Castle that spawned the knight is Reduced, the Knight unit disbands (he goes home to try to ransom his family!)
3.)...Each Castle reduces each Yield from the tile on which it is constructed by -1 for each type of Yield from the tile. For Instance, a Castle on a tile producing, with Improvements, 3 Production, 2 Food, upon construction of the Castle would yield only 2 Production and 1 Food.

In other words, these 'free' Knights can actually cost you quite a bit, and if you build too many Castles, you will stifle the growth of your cities.

Once gunpowder Bombards are discovered, all Castles become obsolete as military structures. Depending on the Civilization, they may become Social or Cultural structures, however: many Chateaus, Manor Houses, Schlosses, and similar 'aristocratic' Stately Homes are converted from castle foundations. Castles not so converted, which become Ruins, also become Tourist Attractions providing Tourism Points during the (early) Industrial Era and later. Obvious;y, they could also become sources of Archeological Relics.

This use of the Castle would give Civ VI a neat representation of the Feudal Era and its effects on military, economic, and social factors all at once.

It's another discussion entirely, but the Monastery is another 'building' that should really be an Improvement built out and away from the city. A monastic institution within a city was generally part of a Temple or Cathedral complex - it was the monasteries built away from the 'madding crowd' that became centers for social, agricultural and other technology, cultural and even scientific (library-style) advances...

City walls was made of stone guys, and they were thick. Some city-walls was seen as unbreakable for centuries, there was no way you could enter these cities with just some bowmen like in this game.

Thet`s why I set defence to 40 for walls and then 20 for castles. They can still be taken but not by just a couple of archers.

I want to know what happens to the leaders of defeated civs. If you conquer the Aztecs, what happens to Monty? Is he just demoted to an ordinary civilian, placed in a dungeon, become governor of one of your cities, or does he flee to the wilderness or to another civ? I just want to know what happens to them when they are defeated. Idk if it necessarily makes the game more realistic, but it would be a nice touch.

unfairlane said:

City walls was made of stone guys, and they were thick. Some city-walls was seen as unbreakable for centuries, there was no way you could enter these cities with just some bowmen like in this game.

Click to expand...

Well that is sort of true. The thing is though that human imagination was pivotal in the conquest of many fortified cities.
There are countless examples of cities being starved out or inhabitants dying of thirst, attackers tunneling or entering via drains or sewers, scaling walls with ladders, using siege ramps, bluff, traitors giving information to the attackers, even fooling their enemies into opening the gates for them (the Varangrians actually conquered an Arab castle in Sicily this way) etc. Walls could even be weakened by earthquakes, civ doesn't take that into account.

There is also countless examples of cities that took their own leadership into account and simply surrendered to their enemies regardless of the wishes of the State. Much of Byzantine Syria & Egypt was conquered by the Arabs in this manner. With no Byzantine army left in Syria or Palestine the city's usually surrendered under the threat that if they resist they'll get killed.

To go one further - consider the Great Wall of China. The construction of maintenance of the wall sent the Empire towards bankruptcy and civil unrest which turned to rebellion. Corruption further incited rebellion as the pay owed to the soldiers on the wall would be siphoned off by corrupt officials.
Eventually the armies revolted and in 1644 the last loyal general ended up choosing between the rebels or the barbarian manchurians. He ended up siding with the Manchurians and simply opened one of the gates in the Great Wall and let them in! So all that manpower and expense on the Great Wall of China just so the gates would be opened to an outside invasion!


So you could well increase the defense value of cities to the amount that you are talking about but few generals in history were foolish enough throw their army at a solid stone wall (well the British generals in WW1 were the exception - except replace walls with machine guns) without having used some level of imagination to overcome their opponents strength.

I would like to see the addition of more "invisible" units like Spies and Special Operations military units with the ability to travel inside the territories of enemy civs without permission.

Spy units could perform various additional actions such as sabotaging things under construction and damaging infrastructure tiles like roads or improvements as well as stealing technology. They could also perhaps steal Gold or perform an action which would generate unhappiness while stationed in the city...sort of like fermenting rebellion. Spies would be invisible except to other spies.

Special Forces units would be upgrades of scouts. They would be invisible as long as they are not adjacent to any enemy unit or city and would have a formidable ranged attack but be very weak on defense. Special forces are small units that rely on surprise and overwhelming firepower...their tiny unit size means if they are ever located they are wiped out pretty easy. Spec Ops would have two *One time use special abilities:

Signal Air Strike: If you possess a guided missile/nuclear missile and a special forces unit with this ability, the range of the missile is extended to the entire map. The Spec Ops unit must designate a target within its 2 tile attack range. One time use per Spec Ops unit.
Signal Med-evac: Automatically return itself AND/OR one adjacent friendly unit to the nearest friendly territory.

I would also, just in general, like to see diplomacy become a little more involved in this game. I like being a dirty backstabbing spymaster.

I was the guy who always played the Darloks in Master of Orion.

The single thing that would make Civ VI more 'realistic' would be to have the programmers look to historical examples to solve game problems before making up artificial solutions that simply add to the problematic portions of the game.

For instance, look at the real problems of Tall versus Wide instead of artificially handicapping large empires. Historically, large empires fell apart of their own weight: communication technology simply wasn't up to the demands of keeping widespread cities loyal and supportive of a far-away central government, so they split off. Small states lacked resources, but large states lacked the means to utilize all the resources they (theoretically) had.

Armies were never 'stacks of doom' in reality, because it was for most of history, absolutely impossible to feed a 'moving city'. And unfed armed men always had the option of either leaving or killing the idiot general that got them into this fix and then leaving. Add even semi-realistic supply rules, and most of the problems with Stacks of Doom disappear.

-And even a nodding acquaintance with history would avoid some of the Howlers that Civ V perpetrated:
The Great Library coming about 2000 years before it did, and not requiring Philosophy to use...

Pikemen coming before Knights, which they were developed to combat!

The Railroad coming long, long after Rifles and Industrialization, despite the steam railroad being one of the early manifestations of Industrialization, and -

Missing the massive changes in Supply and Communication brought on by the railroad which had major effects in cohesion of empires, growth of cities, and the railroads' requirements for massive amounts of steel and financing that affected production and financial techniques in fundamental ways.

Having Social and Religious Policies develop in complete isolation from military units, despite many units (Hoplites, Knights, Samurai, just for three) being the Results of specific combinations of Social Policies as much as they are of military technology.

Having Special and Rare units in historical armies/civilizations become the 'standard' unit for those civilizations: Berserkers, Immortals, Jaguar Knights were each a tiny fraction of the troops in any army their civilizations ever put together, not the Basic Unit for each army.

- and on and on and on; but hopefully, from the examples you get my point: History is not only the basis of the game, it is the necessary part of the toolkit for solving problems with the game design.

Trade agreements that increase productive power.

Science being very slow and boosted only by specialists. On the game design aspect, a tech tree is a pacing tool, it doesn't have to be a strategic path in its own right; and the dominance of science whither any conscious choice at development time is well known to the Civ tradition, so why give a false choice?

On the realism side, investment in education is not acceleration of science; sometimes it merely keeps pace with technological shocks. In any case education =/= science is an obvious proposition. Libraries enabled research, and scholarship, in either universities or the court of the prince, is the ingredient for scientific advantage, before Science's invention. But the availability of resources doesn't mean just anyone will suddenly be more insightful, and scholarship is haphazard augmentation before the unifying Method. Thus I would have seen Libraries provide the first specialist slot and no other bonus, and the scholarly research multiplier be enabled by a Decision-type mechanism.

On reflection, the use of the Public School city improvement is a suitable compression of the change, created by science, in linking a kind of trainable competence to scholarship more mechanistically. The scientist slot in the Public School makes a kind of sense.... but I don't like translating the education itself into beakers, rather than some other stat.


I don't believe so much that the tech tree itself needs to be historical, or even believable. It is the game balance, and probably the AI's grasp of it, that matter more in this one respect.

I also find it sad that the spy network in Civ V can't even let you track what diplomacy the player is involved in. After taking that free scrying portal away in Civ IV.

I agree with having less control over jumps in science. At the very least it brings more interesting decisions rather than science vs. non-science, and as was said, false choice.

I like how EU does tech rate. I know the games aren't comparable, and I know some haven't played it so I will explain it very simply. There is a line where the game thinks you should be in tech. If you are a dominant super power and ahead of that line, you receive a massive penalty to tech to the point where you are better off investing into other things, like trade or military. If you are behind, you get a massive boost on the other side. So focusing on tech rate is still important, but you can't snowball out of control with it.

I think that alone adds a lot of realism. If someone invents rifles, it isn't kept a hidden "secret", everyone else has rifles shortly there after. A scenario where a nation uses spears against tanks just doesn't happen unless they are completely cut off from the rest of the world.

I have one primary wish and that the science advance depends on your play style, for instance if you are warmongering then next revelation is in that sector. Your option to choose may be in this war sector very high (beacons used to reveal are consequently lower). If you decide to reveal some pacifist knowledge, beacons charge will be a lot higher). I would implemented the rule that in start of each era you decide your ministers (for instance you will have 1-5 point war mongering minister, if decide 1 then you war efforts will be minimal in that era - off course you could change him but revolution would be possible and with that unhappiness).

berni19 said:

I have one primary wish and that the science advance depends on your play style, for instance if you are warmongering then next revelation is in that sector. Your option to choose may be in this war sector very high (beacons used to reveal are consequently lower). If you decide to reveal some pacifist knowledge, beacons charge will be a lot higher). I would implemented the rule that in start of each era you decide your ministers (for instance you will have 1-5 point war mongering minister, if decide 1 then you war efforts will be minimal in that era - off course you could change him but revolution would be possible and with that unhappiness).

Click to expand...

There needs to be a LOT more interaction between Playstyle, or In-Game Activities, and Tech, Social and Religious Policies. For instance:
.....How can you choose, and keep active, a bunch of 'Honor' Social Policies if you never fight a war?
.....How expensive will it be to research Sailing if your first three cities are all in the middle of a Pangaea continent?
and, conversely:
....How expensive will it be to research Sailing once you see someone else's Cargo Ship or Galley go sailing by on your coast?

ALL Techs should have a 'diffusion index' to indicate how easy it is for them to spread: see a Wheel in use, start making and using Wheels: real easy to copy that one. On the other hand, see a Musket... hummm ... you need to know how to forge metal, make gunpowder - not so easy to copy unless you have all or most of the Required Technologies.
And, as the technologies get more complicated, the copying gets harder and the numbers of Required Technologies and industrial plant get more difficult: see a computerized solid-state personal cell phone, and it might as well be a Magic Wand if you don't already have some understanding of Electronics, Solid-State Circuitry, Computers, and access to or the ability to build Satellites or Communications Towers. Oh, and don't forget advanced metal-working, Rare Earth mining (for the solid0state components), and basic electricity, digital communications, etc etc.
In other words, Very Hard to copy or pick up.

And some Technologies may be copyable, but their application may be beyond you: see a Kalashnikov assault rifle, and a village blacksmith may be able to copy it, but your nation may not have the ability or resources to build the factory complexes required to manufacture them in quantities required to equip an army. Even if you know steel-making, armor plate, big guns, steam propulsion, et al, you may not have the massive industrial ship-building base required to build Battleships (historically, only about 7 countries in the Entire World were able to build them before they became obsolete!)

The speed with which you access Technologies should be variable, dependent on your surroundings (What price Irrigation to cities in the Desert?), your activities (Trade partners, war, peace, large empty lands to settle...) and even your Social Policies should interact with how fast certain technologies are available.

Likewise, ALL technologies are subject to 'spread'. Some faster than others (see above), but between the increasing complexity of the technologies (Bow versus Musket versus Railroad versus Atomic Bomb?) and the increasing speed of information diffusion (writing, printing press, telegraph, internet, etc.), there is nothing that cannot eventually be 'discovered' from your neighbors and copied with varying degrees of difficulty.

Adding this to Civ VI would solve several problems: runaway technological superiority, nations adjacent to each other at wildly differing Era-levels, and dull End Game where you already have such a superiority in tech and getting to Wonders and Projects first that the game becomes dull. All real problems now in Civ V.

Countries may not have had the practical means to produce a Kalashnikov, but it didn't stop it from being spread around the world. The movement of firearms, or any goods really, isn't represented in Civ. The game assumes when you train a group of riflemen, you are also creating the rifle yourself.

Bigger, more technical and expensive projects are different of course. Aircraft carriers are very limited outside of the USA, despite other modern nations having the capability to create them. Nukes, for other reasons, such as countries actively trying to prevent the spread.

Things like battle tanks, military heli's and other aircraft? Plenty of nations have those, a lot of which were probably purchased and modified rather than built from scratch.

Perhaps it could be added in as an additional diplomacy option. As long as you stay allied to your bigger brother, you get x number of advanced military toys. If Civ 6 attempts something like ideologies, it could be based on that, since a lot of the world's military tech has spread specifically to help arm "allies".

Regardless, the tech disparity tends to break any immersion for me. Not just military techs. I don't care how backwards and undeveloped your nation is, you aren't pushing around trebuchets in the modern era.

On that same point, Civ 5 CS's tend to have the exact other problem with being over developed for their supposed global power. If there is a rival nation not quite keeping up with science, but has great war infantry and artillery guns and a stable, established nation... they shouldn't be getting wrecked by modern infantry and machine guns from city states just because the tech leader is that far ahead. It is even more hilarious when considering you opt to "protect" city-states because of their supposed weakness, yet they are often better equipped and defended than most of the major factions in the game.

On that last point, if CS's do make a return, I would like to see them weaker just to give actual incentive to protect them. As they stand now, they give bonuses AND probably the best defensive option in the game, which is letting AI-controlled CS's protect your borders while enemy AI sacrifice themselves on their walls, while you cruise ahead on in science and culture.

It is kind of an interesting idea or strategy, but again, it just doesn't happen like that. Perhaps it could be an option if you gift them the military units. You create them, they pay the unit upkeep. But not just magically have the best military body guards in the game while you have a total of 3 composite bows sitting neglected at home.

Matthew. said:

Bigger, more technical and expensive projects are different of course. Aircraft carriers are very limited outside of the USA, despite other modern nations having the capability to create them. Nukes, for other reasons, such as countries actively trying to prevent the spread.

Things like battle tanks, military heli's and other aircraft? Plenty of nations have those, a lot of which were probably purchased and modified rather than built from scratch.

Click to expand...

In fact, since the middle of the 19th century buying weapons instead of building them yourself got increasingly common. The repeating breechloading rifle was the first major example: since both Colt and Remington Arms companies were located in Hartford, Connecticut and both the Russian and Turkish Armies bought rifles from them, the Prussian-Turkish War of 1877-78 is sometimes called 'The Hartford War'!

Since the beginning of the 20th century, certain weapons and weapons systems have gotten so complex and expensive to develop that they are routinely purchased by most countries: as I mentioned earlier, only 8 countries built Battleships, but several South American countries had battleships built for them in Britain. Aircraft Carriers were even more restricted: before the end of WWII, only 3 countries had actually completed and put into service an aircraft carrier; and of course, the modern Super Carrier has only been built by one country, the USA.

Modern trans-sonic jets and modern Main Battle Tanks are other examples: only a half-dozen countries have built either type of weapon, but even modern 'City States' have bought them from the original designers/manufacturers. In fact, Armaments and Weapons are a major source of trade revenue for several modern states.

Matthew. said:

Perhaps it could be added in as an additional diplomacy option. As long as you stay allied to your bigger brother, you get x number of advanced military toys. If Civ 6 attempts something like ideologies, it could be based on that, since a lot of the world's military tech has spread specifically to help arm "allies".

Click to expand...

It shouldn't be automatic, but the player or AI should have the option of selling or giving (Lend Lease, anyone?) weapons to an allied civilization or City State. The units so created would still count against the owner of the unit for unit totals, reflecting the fact that their own people are being recruited to use the weapons. (Gifting or 'selling' an entire unit should also be possible, as mercenaries or the (in)famous 'Hessian' troops of the 18th century)

Not automatic, no, but it still needs to make sense in game terms. At the very least it needs to benefit the nation (player) to go out of there way to supply a weaker neighbor. Yes, getting gpt, but with Civ 5's almost non-existent diplomacy, nobody is going to supply a neighbor AI just to have it turn around and declare war for whatever arbitrary reason.

What the game really needs is additional coding so that instead of "losing" nations turning into whiny jealous babies, they realize they are way behind and latch on to a bigger neighbor to support them. I'm all for vassal states, but besides that this topic is another example. After a certain point in the game, military alliances should be a more reliable thing. The transfer of military technology alongside it.

Matthew. said:

... but with Civ 5's almost non-existent diplomacy, nobody is going to supply a neighbor AI just to have it turn around and declare war for whatever arbitrary reason.

What the game really needs is additional coding so that instead of "losing" nations turning into whiny jealous babies, they realize they are way behind and latch on to a bigger neighbor to support them. I'm all for vassal states, but besides that this topic is another example. After a certain point in the game, military alliances should be a more reliable thing. The transfer of military technology alongside it.

Click to expand...

Agreed. And one possibility is to bring back governments: in the early period with God-Kings/Pharaohs and Absolute Monarchs, Diplomacy could be very arbitrary and changeable: the classic example being Russia's complete change of policy when Catherine I died and her son the Prussianophile took over: he not only made peace with Prussia, he repudiated his alliance with France and Austria! Later, with 'popular' monarchies and Democracies, it is much harder to change the entire (or majority of the) population's attitude towards another state and do such an 'bout face' - this would automatically make later Diplomatic maneuvers more stable.

Another possibility would be more affiliation among states and city states sharing Ideologies. This would mimic the 'Cold War' situation historically, in which virtually all Communist nations bought or received their tanks and jets from the Soviet Union, while 'Democracies' (not all of which really were) got tanks and aircraft from the USA, France, or Britain. And 'non-aligned' (third-party Ideologies?) got equipment from everybody: at one time, Pakistan and India each had aircraft from the USSR, USA, France and Britain flying at the same time!