What do you want to see in Civilization 5?

For me-

Nuclear subs! (Cos they're cool)
Assasinations
Civil wars (might be in this game, haven't seen one tho)
The ability to create rebellions and insurgancies

minor nations
an improved and more interactive UN
increased importance of economy
multinational corporations with enough influence to affect politics
borders that are actually affected by treaty and politics

Naval combat that matters, more approprate balancing of arms of different categories (land, artillery, sea, air), and basically a more plausible combat model (suicide-attacking artillery no), and AI that conducts its military more plausibly.

A return to Civ3 tweaks on cultural borders, where a higher partiality is given to squares in a city's fat cross, and an even higher partiality is given to a city's 8box. This would stop border silliness where my cultural borders give me conrol of 4 suares that I cant work in any of my cities but I cont conrtrol 4 squares that I could work, meanwhile the four squares I took from you you could work and the four you took from me you cannot. This would also stop you from losing the last cities you conquered to an uninvolved third party who's culture now engulfs yours (on land they never owned before). When a city is taken, surrounding cities' culture should remain where it was pre-war, and only expand into war-territiory if that city's culture hits an expansion point anyway, not just becuse of the lack of local resisting culture.

Some way to distribute food between cities so that a breadbasket city can supply commerce or production cities with food to keep them growing.

A more appropriate Diplomacy engine where you dont get negative modifiers for refusing an AI's request to do something that if you requested that of the AI you'd get a negative modifier yourself for.

Palantir30 said:

Some way to distribute food between cities so that a breadbasket city can supply commerce or production cities with food to keep them growing.

Click to expand...

And perhaps production as well. I'd divide production into raw materials and work. A city surrounded by mined hills might have a lot of raw material, but not enough work force to utilize it all, while a high population city on plains might have it the other way around.

Since Civ1 I have wanted some sort of internal politics. For example, the country could be divided into provinces that might demand autonomy or break off completely if not kept happy. Implementation is the problem with this idea, I think. Bringing back civil war would be a good start.

More "world council" diplomacy. There needs to be this kind of diplomacy long before UN. When someone makes contact will all the civs on the map. The proto-UN wouldn't be as powerful, of course. Then the UN could be improved a lot. Also, 3 way deals.

No "What do you want to see in Civilization 6" threads...

-civil wars
-even more thing from the UN
-armed organisations...like NATO where not only 2 but lets say 3-4 nations are together in a pact
-computer more ready to give cities to stop a war that she'll lost if she does not sign a peace treaty...

Palantir30 said:

Some way to distribute food between cities so that a breadbasket city can supply commerce or production cities with food to keep them growing.

Click to expand...

This is an excellent idea. It would enhance the notion of city specialization that they seem to prefer in Civ 4 even more. If you can trade your resources like wheat, corn, rice, etc with foreign coutries, why can't you share your food supply within your own country.

More flexible/smarter ai. As in will make fair trades. Will offer something in return for asking for help etc.

Total elimination of the UN. In reality the UN is as corrupt as it is impotent. If I'm even close to pulling off a UN win I'll quit just out of principle.

Better AI, better navies, lower (relative) system requirements, get rid of 5 part govt options.

1. Citys=mini-Civs
The player doesn't 'own' cities he has agreements with them (about how much they give him and what they let him do 'also known as Civics' from Civ 4 and 'Governments' from previous civs). The cities are little 'mini civs' that have their own wants and desires (they are not trying to Win though so that part of their AI is unnecessary)
The more of these you start with the better

2. Dynamic Scale
early in the game start out with tiles that are much smaller, as time goes on, merge the tiles into each other

3. Range not Speed for units
allow units to defend an area of more than one tile, allow scouts to do 'missions' of recon where if they make it back reveal what they found... longer range, greater risk.

Krikkitone said:

1. Citys=mini-Civs
The player doesn't 'own' cities he has agreements with them (about how much they give him and what they let him do 'also known as Civics' from Civ 4 and 'Governments' from previous civs). The cities are little 'mini civs' that have their own wants and desires (they are not trying to Win though so that part of their AI is unnecessary)
The more of these you start with the better

Click to expand...

You mean initially or for the entire game? Initially could be fun (start out with city-states, move on up), but the long run would be unrealistic. Cities aren't independent states, only major cities and the surrounding province.

Or did you mean have the player play the "federal" government while the cities are controlled with separate AI to represent local governors? In that case, I'd have to disagree for a different reason: It'd be too random and complex. I've seen the player more as the player for the civilization as a whole, rather than as an overlord with little dukes quarrelling beneath him.

2. Dynamic Scale
early in the game start out with tiles that are much smaller, as time goes on, merge the tiles into each other

Click to expand...

That'd be difficult to pull off, particularly if two players had different scales (unless it's universal, in which case it would seem to force the players to follow the timeline). Imagine if your well-placed cities suddenly turned into two poorly-placed ones. Or are you meant to place cities twenty tiles apart in the early game so they'll line up in the late game?

3. Range not Speed for units
allow units to defend an area of more than one tile, allow scouts to do 'missions' of recon where if they make it back reveal what they found... longer range, greater risk.

Click to expand...

That'd certainly hurt early-game scouting (though scouting the entire continent is a touch unrealistic, I'll admit). Don't you need speed for positioning units in the first place, though? Beyond that, it sounds similar to the earlier "zones of control" in previous Civs.

If I've misread anything, please correct me. Also, sorry if this sounds like I'm trying to crush your dreams; I've sorta picked this up from Ideas & Suggestions. Most of what I say is meant to really see if the idea could be made feasible (ie Devil's Advocate).

Mewtarthio said:

You mean initially or for the entire game? Initially could be fun (start out with city-states, move on up), but the long run would be unrealistic. Cities aren't independent states, only major cities and the surrounding province.

Or did you mean have the player play the "federal" government while the cities are controlled with separate AI to represent local governors? In that case, I'd have to disagree for a different reason: It'd be too random and complex. I've seen the player more as the player for the civilization as a whole, rather than as an overlord with little dukes quarrelling beneath him.

Click to expand...

Well there would be general degrees of local control... you could have a True Feudalism, where each city had some of its own military that used to attack other cities, and you could only command some of them or for some of the time. Or you could have a centrally regulated development plan, where 'economic planning' is coordinated nationwide (maybe not necessarily by "the government" but society as a whole operates on a intercity principle).

As your cities grew more intertwined the more they would probably more want to be the same.... Leading to Civil Wars because the Cities with Emancipation don't want you to have cities with Slavery and Vice Versa. This would mean Most of the time you would have one central 'group of civics' that applies to almost all your cities

The fact is you could totally take over a city once your troops were there... but sometimes, like with Vassals in Warlords, you might go for a looser concept. (Cities as 'Client states'/'Feudal Lords'/Protectorates'/'European type colonies' depending on the Era... you could even model China's exploitation by having a city give differeing 'agreements' to multiple players.)

This would also partially be a way of including civil war + potentially more interesting 'revolution' mechanism. Essentially civil war would be like a vassal breaking away, a city or more deciding, "we don't want to continue this relationship any more"

Mewtarthio said:

That'd be difficult to pull off, particularly if two players had different scales (unless it's universal, in which case it would seem to force the players to follow the timeline). Imagine if your well-placed cities suddenly turned into two poorly-placed ones. Or are you meant to place cities twenty tiles apart in the early game so they'll line up in the late game?

Click to expand...

Well for simplicity this would probably require the scale to be universal, and would definitely have to involve Cities merging too (so your entire 2000 BC empire ends up as a Single 'City')......This would probably be the most complex of the ideas
Also the 'characteristics of the tiles would have to sum.. so that 4 grassland tiles (each of which took 1 move to cross) would merge into one grassland tile that took 2 move to cross

Part of this is a desire to actually simplify the game while extending the fun. at any point in time, you would have between 1 and 10 "cities"... more would be rare.

The biggest problem I can think of for this one is the fact that you would start off with maps inherently bigger. Although you could possibly simplify it by having 'Black' parts of the map minimally defined, until they were explored, at which point detail gets added.

Mewtarthio said:

That'd certainly hurt early-game scouting (though scouting the entire continent is a touch unrealistic, I'll admit). Don't you need speed for positioning units in the first place, though? Beyond that, it sounds similar to the earlier "zones of control" in previous Civs.

Click to expand...

Well this would tie in a bit to the previous idea... if you can found/capture 10 cities in the Early game and only control 3% of the continent, then scouting becomes a continuous event.

You would probably need speed for Moving the unit, but I would consider it basically taking the Air combat model, and Heavily modifying it and applying it to All units (although then 'range' would have to include different movement over different terrain) so a Chariot might have 2 movement [how far it can 'rebase'] but say 4 Range... how far away it can respond to a battle. (on 'Fortify' it has a smaller range, higher strength, on 'Patrol' it has a wider range lower strength)

This could definitely be complicated, but would work best with a simultaneous combat design... I put my units in place and give them their Targets/orders (probably giving them a range display like a settler gets when it is about to settle).

Then I press end turn and hope my "Interceptors" can stop any one that decided to attack

The combat program would definitely be challenging to write and be sensible and not allowing silly exploits, but could allow more strategic, as opposed to tactical focus

Mewtarthio said:

If I've misread anything, please correct me. Also, sorry if this sounds like I'm trying to crush your dreams; I've sorta picked this up from Ideas & Suggestions. Most of what I say is meant to really see if the idea could be made feasible (ie Devil's Advocate).

Click to expand...

Yeah I know a lot of them are fairly big changes, and would probably require a lot of work to be practical (May be looking at Civ 6 or Civ 12 here). Criticism is always good.

i was reading about a game called galactic civilizations 2 a couple of months ago (in case you dont know or cant work out from the name its not that dis-similar from civilization 4) apparently when you increase the difficulty level the ai does NOT cheat. it is just tactically better and uses better strategies. this would be a great addition to civ 5 because the ai is truly awful even at higher levels.

Minor civilizations (similar to galactic civs 2)
A more realistic UN.
Multi-civ defensive pacts and permenant alliances.
Terrorism.
Espionage back (I guess the spy unit is so less that necessary in the espionage field)
A more controllable economic system (the hardest effort I do to control my economy was building cottages early in game play and building markets and banks later on in cities),I must really be able to manage my economy in a simple but realistic way.
Unique civ city graphics,and unit graphics.
Colonizations,pirates and some organized barbarian invasions similar to mongols and huns.

Slightly more units (for example rocket artillery and early [WW 1] Tanks)

Combat system that really uses combined arms (just like the combat system, of Call to Power)

More intelligent AI (ideally one which, even without getting any advantages [just like noble level on Civ IV] is very hard to beat even for seasoned players)

Something like the monument in SMAC where you could see the major archivements of Civilizations throughout history

Having a less restrictive resource system (i.e. ways to build units without the necessary ressources so that civilizations that have the resource in their territory have still advantages in building units that require the resource, but civilizations without the resource might also build the unit, but at a much slower pace) (could also accomplished with something like a "world market" for ressources where civs might sell their resources every turn to the highest bidder)

Having zones of control for fortresses or alternatively, havving a system of supply routes for units moving within enemy territory, so that fortresses or enemy units might cut off your units from the supply routes, leading to a steady degradation in combat strength for these units (even if they´re not involved in combat)

Maybe a tech system that goes more into the future (like Call to Power)

Maybe options to use chemical/biological/nuclear tactical warfare in a battle, giving the player who uses it an advantage, but also leading to disadvantages [tiles getting barren, diplomatic penalties, drastic reductions in population if the battle is about the control of a city and so on] which would also lead to the UN getting the option to ban any of these nonconventional kinds of warfare.
Could be implemented like, for example the system in MOO3, where you have checkboxes to check/uncheck nuclear, biological and chemical warfare for the battle.

I'd like to see the combat focused more in the field, than having huge city battles all the time.

It'd be nice if they made more of the 3d engine as well. Maybe by giving terrain different elevations, instead of just mountains hill tiles.

manwiththehands said:

Total elimination of the UN. In reality the UN is as corrupt as it is impotent. If I'm even close to pulling off a UN win I'll quit just out of principle.

Click to expand...

Good for you!

nour3001 said:

Minor civilizations (similar to galactic civs 2)
A more realistic UN.
Multi-civ defensive pacts and permenant alliances.
Terrorism.
Espionage back (I guess the spy unit is so less that necessary in the espionage field)
A more controllable economic system (the hardest effort I do to control my economy was building cottages early in game play and building markets and banks later on in cities),I must really be able to manage my economy in a simple but realistic way.
Unique civ city graphics,and unit graphics.
Colonizations,pirates and some organized barbarian invasions similar to mongols and huns.

Click to expand...

I don't understand the point of minor races, at all. Why waste room with something unplayable? Why not just make more playable races instead of putting in these virtually meaningless races that take up space but don't really add much? Otherwise, I agree...

This is an excellent idea. It would enhance the notion of city specialization that they seem to prefer in Civ 4 even more. If you can trade your resources like wheat, corn, rice, etc with foreign coutries, why can't you share your food supply within your own country.

Click to expand...

I believe you can cant you with caravan units or the civ 4 equivelent of the caravan if that item is required in the recieving city !