Let's make Civ 5

OK, Civ IV was a dissappointment. The developers sold their test version to the world and now we're stuck with a crappy game. So let's look at what's wrong, and what has to be changed in Civ 5. The things that are good can of course also be said...

- First of all: 3D is nice to see, but if it slows everything down, then I don't need it. For me it is impossible to play on huge maps, because around 1600 the program crashes. So, if you implement 3D, give the users the choice of running the game in 2D too.

- Technologies: Personally, I want hundreds of techs. Every unit, every building, every civic, ... their own tech. It gives you the feeling that you progress quite fast (every couple of turns a tech (even on marathon speed), but you actually can do the same things.

- Buildings: I want more different buildings (also some hundreds). Now it's quite obvious what to build in each city, let's make real descissions.

- General city placing: I am wondering if it should be possible to have cities grow to other tiles, once they have 5 population. All tiles around all tiles covered by the city could be worked. That means that in the beginning you can work 8 tiles, but when the city grows, more tiles become available. Just a thought tough!

- Units: Again, I want hundreds of different units, more kinds of bombs/nukes, more non-combat units (like merchants that share food or other things between cities).

- Civics: I like the civic system, but we need more classes and more options per class.

- Future: We need future techs, units, buildings, cities on water, maybe lunar or mars colonization...

- Logics: That a mountain is impossible to climb around 4000 BC is quite logic, but that even in 2000 AD you can't climb it, that's unlogical. There are a lot of things like this, but I can't remember them for the moment.

There is a ton more to add, but I have to go now. I'll be back....


PS: I know that you can change most of these things but "the most customizable civ ever" is quite difficult to customize. Give us a good editor and I'll shut up.

An option to choose which era you can't advance past would be nice. So you don't have to worry about getting Modern if the tech ends at the end of the Renaissonce times. That'd make a good feature for people who want to keep the game medieval or those who want to stop at the age of cannons and all that stuff.

OK, Civ IV was a dissappointment. The developers sold their test version to the world and now we're stuck with a crappy game.

No, Civ 4 is a great game

Bevertje said:

OK, Civ IV was a dissappointment.

Click to expand...

Yeah. I don't find it a disappointment at all. What is disappointing is not having enough time to play.

I find what sucks is that every new game, you have to start over and over again. It gets quite obring having to go through the ancient times and also worry if the enemy is going to research all the religions before I do... get's boring and repetitive, however, I would like an era cap, and perhaps for the AI's too, like you put put your cap for the Modern Times ,but the rule is when putting a cap in for the AI's, the lowest the era can be is one below your era cap, so you can't have a civ game where you're in the modern times and the AI is stuck in the ancient times. That'd be a nice feature

Stylesrj said:

I find what sucks is that every new game, you have to start over and over again. It gets quite obring having to go through the ancient times and also worry if the enemy is going to research all the religions before I do... get's boring and repetitive, however, I would like an era cap, and perhaps for the AI's too, like you put put your cap for the Modern Times ,but the rule is when putting a cap in for the AI's, the lowest the era can be is one below your era cap, so you can't have a civ game where you're in the modern times and the AI is stuck in the ancient times. That'd be a nice feature

Click to expand...

If you set up a custom game you can pick which era you start at.

About improving the game, you seem to want to complicate it when there is no need. Why have an option for 10 buildings when you only need 3 buildings. There are only so many things a new building can do for you. Also, you have been playing the game for years but for a new player to the game its complicated enough, im sure K2 games dont want be be scaring off new gamers too much.

Stylesrj said:

I find what sucks is that every new game, you have to start over and over again. It gets quite obring having to go through the ancient times and also worry if the enemy is going to research all the religions before I do... get's boring and repetitive, however, I would like an era cap, and perhaps for the AI's too, like you put put your cap for the Modern Times ,but the rule is when putting a cap in for the AI's, the lowest the era can be is one below your era cap, so you can't have a civ game where you're in the modern times and the AI is stuck in the ancient times. That'd be a nice feature

Click to expand...

Would that not just make the game far too easy? All of the AI not being able to advance to the modern era, yet you can. If an era cap was to be introduced (which I wouldn't mind) it should be in place for ALL civs and should be at the same level.

What I mean is a sort of a balanced one. It would be too easy ot have an AI stuck in ancient times while you're in the modern time,s so I think that an era cap should be able to be given to the AI's but it can only be one era below yours, so a personi n Modern times, at the most has people in the Industrial Times as a threat. Of course, you could make the era cap for all civs, but you can also apply it to others. There is no limit to how high you can make the enemy, so if you wanna be a ancient person while you're enemies are kicking it up in Modern times, that would be fine

EDIT: It mostly happens to people on Diety, does it not? Good thing I play it safe with Settler, perhaps that's why my games are boring, too easy?

Playing on Settler and then complaining the game is boring? You just make yourself look stupid then.
Settler is for experimenting with some game-mechanics, not to play the game decently.
Play Noble and higher and you'll enjoy yourself much better.
And really, playing Deity you really won't be in ancient and the ai's in modern.

I like Settler because it's easy. I play on Epic game speeds because that's good for a long Settler game. I like to try different methods of play on Settler. It's easier than Cheiftan difficulty. I tried my first Warlords Difficulty game on Warlords, in like ever (I tried Prince on Civ I when I was a little kid, I lost badly, Phalanx VS Armor, not too well, at least I beat one. Once a Settler beat an artillery!) and my Warlords game was ruined by the slow tech rate (I wanna be Industrial in the 18th century, not 19th) and the fact I had Isabella AND Montezuma at my borders (oh boy, Isabella was Christian, wasn't spread to any of my confusionist city and to top it off, Isabella became a Theocracy) so I gave up my Warlords Difficulty game after a large war which would result in a bad economy for me

With Noble, the chances of me getting most of the wonders and all of the religions is as much as Montezuma not demanding tribute off you. I find that quite bad for me. Perhaps I should at least try Cheiftan before moving up to Warlord, then after that, Noble. I advance too slowly in difficulty in Civ, so I'm always the lowest difficulty player throughout, from Civ II, to III to IV

1. You are not supposed to get all wonders and all religions etc.
2. It sounds to me you give up when you can't win with the greatest ease.
3. Playing on a higher difficulty and losing, that doens't matter, at least you learn something, playing Settler (and on Epic which makes it even easier) is just no fun at all. The game is fun because it can be challenging.

isnt that boring?

I tried the Mongolian Scenario. I usually play regular games with a new random seed. With my Mongolian Hordes, I had 30% chance to win battles and about 70% of those 30% battles were won by me. So even when I can't win easily, I still pursued the attack and won. Since scenarios have not heard of New Random Seed on reload, I only reloaded when I lost important units and waited the next turn to try again with the battles. It was on Settler though I gotta try something higher and when playing a regular game, make sure to avoid Montezuma and Isabella in my map

I'll try playing the game on Cheiftan when I try out this new Genetic Age Mod I'm downloading. I'll have to test the mod on Settler to see how it goes.

On my Warlords difficulty game, I did my best to get all the wonders and it did well. Religion was another story, but you CAN get all the wonders in CiV if you try hard enough and forget certain infrastructure and if you get a worker from a goodie hut to link up the needed resources....

The ability to make several things in a city at the same time would be good, IMHO.

So, You think there should be more buildings, wonders and tecs because your tired of getting all the wonders, religions and tecs before the AI on the easiest level? Why not just download a few saved games that have all ready been won and save some time?
Better yet,,, just go into the world builder and give your self nukes at 4000 BC and nuke all the AI settlers before they can start there civs? That's where the funs at.

Bevertje said:

- First of all: 3D is nice to see, but if it slows everything down, then I don't need it. For me it is impossible to play on huge maps, because around 1600 the program crashes. So, if you implement 3D, give the users the choice of running the game in 2D too.

Click to expand...

Excellant idea, im surprised someone hasn't made a mod for that already, unless its to hard, but a great idea all the same.

Bevertje said:

- Technologies: Personally, I want hundreds of techs. Every unit, every building, every civic, ... their own tech. It gives you the feeling that you progress quite fast (every couple of turns a tech (even on marathon speed), but you actually can do the same things.

- Buildings: I want more different buildings (also some hundreds). Now it's quite obvious what to build in each city, let's make real descissions.

Click to expand...

More is not always better if they are pointless and confuse the game to much, I really don't think they would add anything. A few more that add to the game would be nice, but hundreds would ruin it imo.

Bevertje said:

- General city placing: I am wondering if it should be possible to have cities grow to other tiles, once they have 5 population. All tiles around all tiles covered by the city could be worked. That means that in the beginning you can work 8 tiles, but when the city grows, more tiles become available. Just a thought tough!

Click to expand...

Interesting concept, yes I think it would work ok and then you could spread out your cities knowing that eventually they will grow into the tiles.

Bevertje said:

- Units: Again, I want hundreds of different units, more kinds of bombs/nukes, more non-combat units (like merchants that share food or other things between cities).

- Civics: I like the civic system, but we need more classes and more options per class.

Click to expand...

Yip a few more would be great as well, as long as they don't just put them there for no reason.

Bevertje said:

- Future: We need future techs, units, buildings, cities on water, maybe lunar or mars colonization...

Click to expand...

That would add to the game as well, has been suggested a few times, maybe one day they will go with it, I guess it would take so much longer to programme and write with a new era added on.

Bevertje said:

- Logics: That a mountain is impossible to climb around 4000 BC is quite logic, but that even in 2000 AD you can't climb it, that's unlogical. There are a lot of things like this, but I can't remember them for the moment.

Click to expand...

Agree with that one as well.

My idea when?

At least have a cap for how big cities can grow
Fx.
you can't have a city larger than size 3 without granary
you can't have a city larger than size 5 without aqueduct (/hammam)
you can't have a city larger than size 6 until Industrial age

Because as we know the population of Earth only started to grow on the Industrial age of each and every country!

Otherwise, Civ IV wasn't a disappointment

We had such city size caps in previous civ games. I personaly like it better as it is in civ4.

Rome had a population of about a million in its imperial prime. I think it's too generalizing to restrict all cities because most of them started to grow in the industrial age.

Oh, and about civ4: I wasn't dissapointed in the slightest. Of course I rarely play on large planets and never on huge, but I'd find it too time-consuming anyway (with all the cities and units there would be).

SkippyT said:

Because as we know the population of Earth only started to grow on the Industrial age of each and every country!

Click to expand...

Actually, that's not true. Populations started growing way before the industrial age (although more slowly). There were ancient Roman cities of a million+ inhabitants (at least Rome itself). Middle ages Arabian cities were quite large (I'm thinking of Damas and Baghdad in particular). Chinese cities were also quite large. Perhaps not exactly healthy, but pretty crowded nonetheless.

Population in Europe started growing again after the demise of the Roman empire (and the subsequent dark ages), during its middle ages. There was an agricultural revolution back then which accelerated demography to a point. The reason for the eventual stagnation of pre-industrial era was the fact that most of the wooded lands had been claimed for farming, and the various black plagues that culled the popations by more than half at one point. Many major historical invasions found their sources in overpopulation somewhere, and therefore a need for new lands (usually at someone else's expense).