Civilization 5 - Ideas and Views

Well I got to it the question probably on everbodies mind: WHEN IS CIV 5 COMING OUT? well I don't know but we might as well come up with some ideas before it comes out. Well I'll start. I want at least the following civ's / Leaders to be in Civ 5

USA - Lincoln/Washington/Roosevelt/Kennadey
Sioux - Sitting Bull/Geronimo
Aztec - Montezuma
Maya - Pacal II
Inca - Huyan Capac
England - Churchill/Elizabeth I/Victoria
France - De Gaule/Louis XIV/Napoleon
Spain - Issabela
Germany - Hitler/Bismark/Fredrick
Rome - Julius and Augustus Caesar/Nero
Celts - Brennus
Isreal - David (Biblical)
Arabia - Saladin/Sadam Husine
Persia - Cyrus
Egypt - Rameses/Cleopatra
Carthage - Hanibal
Mongolia - Gengis Khan
Russia - Stalin/Peter/Catereine
China - Mao Zedong/Qin Shi Haung
Japan - Tokugawa
Greece - Alexander

I also believe that the economic options such as incresed managemet of revenue and expense. I also believe in more millitary options DURING BATTLES! There should also be a religous victory: 95% of the world's cities worship your religion. And Finaly there should be an economic version of the UN. Maybe the europian buissiness union thing. And you could invite other civs to join. But those are just SOME of my crazy ideas.

Some of your leader choices are strange. Why Kennedy, Hitler, and Saddam Hussein? (especially the last one completely escapes me, Arabia has had a lot more influential and better leaders than Hussein)

Also, explain what you mean with the military options during battles.

Cato the Elder said:

Some of your leader choices are strange. Why Kennedy, Hitler, and Saddam Hussein? (especially the last one completely escapes me, Arabia has had a lot more influential and better leaders than Hussein)

Also, explain what you mean with the military options during battles.

Click to expand...

Okay, lets get started. I picked Kennadey because he was a VERY popular president and in fact that could be a trait: Popular. Also I chose Hitler because though tyranical and as far as I'm concered anti - christian, he almost took over the world and could make most of Germany follow him. Saddam Hussein. I guess I said him because he was hated by the world and would be a fun target when playing the game .

By Battle options I meant you could see how many troops you have and the ability to manuver your troops up or down hills, across plains, through rivers etc. This Could have a bigger effect on the outcome beyond the simple defense bonus. Sorry for the confusian

I'd like to see something like the panel of ministers that they have in Empire: Total War. Like you'd have a Treasury Minister, Security Minister, etc. that would give certain bonuses to their specific area, and the type of government (civics) that you're running determines how and when you could replace them with other people that give different bonuses. And if you're running a democracy then there are elections whereby your whole cabinet could get replaced against your will if your people are unhappy, etc.

Lincoln3457 said:

Also I chose Hitler because though tyranical and as far as I'm concered anti - christian, he almost took over the world and could make most of Germany follow him. Saddam Hussein. I guess I said him because he was hated by the world and would be a fun target when playing the game .

Click to expand...

There's no way in hell either of those two will ever make it into a Civ game. Hitler is far too controversial to be included and Saddam just wasn't a very good leader. There's far better ones throughout Arab history that can be added instead.

While we are mentioning impossable things to add to Civ...

lets add Vlad Dracula(killed a crap load of Turks),Jackson(killed all the indains in the South),Mussolini(Sent Italy on a suicide mission),Lenin(USSR started with Lenin and while hes not evil,he did give power to Stalin),Ho Chi Minh(Vietnam is evil"sarcastic"),The first empire of China he killed as many people as G.Khan.....

Hmmm, well, I would hate for the Civ 5 to get bogged down in controversy over additions like Hitler/Hussein, perhaps one could just rename a leader for one's own custom game.

One thing I would like to see in the custom games menu is more options like no corps, etc.

Things just haven't cooled down enough to allow Hitler or Saddam to be in the game without causing controversy. Maybe in Civilization XXXVI

Try a mod... You can already simulate an expansion pack, for free no less. There are some great mods out there.

Anyway I have to laugh at all the Civ 5 ideas threads. It seems everyone who starts one wants Civ 5 to be like an expansion for Civ 4, rather then be it's own new game. This was how Civ III felt, and it was terrible, so I hope with Civ 5 they don't take the advice from these forums. For the most part these ideas thread show a serious lack of creativity. All these suggestions can be accomplished by mods for civ 4, so why create a new game for it?

You couldnt have used the 5+ other threads about civ5?

King Kalmah said:

While we are mentioning impossable things to add to Civ...

lets add Vlad Dracula(killed a crap load of Turks),Jackson(killed all the indains in the South),Mussolini(Sent Italy on a suicide mission),Lenin(USSR started with Lenin and while hes not evil,he did give power to Stalin),Ho Chi Minh(Vietnam is evil"sarcastic"),The first empire of China he killed as many people as G.Khan.....

Click to expand...

That was my first response too.

Stella said:

Things just haven't cooled down enough to allow Hitler or Saddam to be in the game without causing controversy. Maybe in Civilization XXXVI

Click to expand...

The question still remains whether or not Saddam will ever qualify to be on the same level as Alexander, Caesar, and Napoleon. My guess is never. Hitler is also questionable in that regard, but more likely to get in with time.

phungus420 said:

Try a mod... You can already simulate an expansion pack, for free no less. There are some great mods out there.

Anyway I have to laugh at all the Civ 5 ideas threads. It seems everyone who starts one wants Civ 5 to be like an expansion for Civ 4, rather then be it's own new game. This was how Civ III felt, and it was terrible, so I hope with Civ 5 they don't take the advice from these forums. For the most part these ideas thread show a serious lack of creativity. All these suggestions can be accomplished by mods for civ 4, so why create a new game for it?

Click to expand...

There are a handful interesting ideas here, but for every golden nugget there's a metric ton of pyrite. I'd like to see a revamped diplomatic system, which has remained very similar since Civ3 introduced cultural borders with respect to access treaties and very similar to the original Civ with regards to everything else. Rhye's stability is also an interesting game addition, but I don't know if it would work well in the base game.

I'm not saying they should ditch the good parts of Civ4, though. Keep the religions, civics, UUs, UBs, multiple leaders per civ, and that stuff. But, if that I&S forum writes the new Civ5, I'll stick with 4.

I would like to see more of an effect with barbarians.In Civ 3 they attack and dissappear,but also attack in huge numbers.Ultimately I'd like to see smarter barbs.For instance if they can beat your civ they camp outside of it and demand tribute once every five turns or demand a population point for their camp/Soldier or something.

That way it would be historically correct.Romans had to deal with the Huns at their gate aswell as the Gauls and Hannibal miles away.Civ 4 sims the Gaul situation pretty good,but I'd like more interaction.

The mongols made Eastern Europe the way it is.Zenophobic and always defense minded.No offence,but every nationalty used to fight with one and another it was only after WW2 this kinda started to fade a little....

Also I'm sure Civ 5 could have raiders and caravans like in Civ2.I personally would like to choose the trade routes so I can best gaurd the cities and also it'd be easier to design your civs econmony.I mean the Malinese and Egyptians were great with caravans and Civ 5 could even have a Silk Road type of trade route.Like imagine you set up a trade route and then four or five other Civs use that very route.IE the most popular route would also mean more money for your Civ....

King Kalmah said:

I would like to see more of an effect with barbarians.In Civ 3 they attack and dissappear,but also attack in huge numbers.Ultimately I'd like to see smarter barbs.For instance if they can't beat your civ they camp outside of it and demand tribute once every five turns or demand a population point for their camp/Soldier or something.

That way it would be historically correct.Romans had to deal with the Huns at their gate aswell as the Gauls and Hannibal miles away.Civ 4 sims the Gaul situation pretty good,but I'd like more interaction.

The mongols made Eastern Europe the way it is.Zenophobic and always defense minded.No offence,but every nationalty used to fight with one and another it was only after WW2 this kinda started to fade a little....

Also I'm sure Civ 5 could have raiders and caravans like in Civ2.I personally would like to choose the trade routes so I can best gaurd the cities and also it'd be easier to design your civs econmony.I mean the Malinese and Egyptians were great with caravans and Civ 5 could even have a Silk Road type of trade route.Like imagine you set up a trade route and then four or five other Civs use that very route.IE the most popular route would also mean more money for your Civ....

Click to expand...

I hope these seems like good ideas

I didn't mean to imply that Saddam would be important enough to include at the expense of more interesting historical leaders, even if he wasn't a douchebag.

I'd also like to see a greater variation between the civs. I don't want the variation to be so great that it pigeonholes civs into one particular strategy, though. I think each civ could have 2-3 UU and UB instead of one, make traits a bit stronger, hav 4-5 starting techs, etc.

As for those suggestions sounding more like an expansion or mod than a new game, I'd argue that that has always been the case. The main changes in civ have always been graphical up to now, with relatively little changing with regards to the mechanics of gameplay.

Stella said:

Things just haven't cooled down enough to allow Hitler or Saddam to be in the game without causing controversy. Maybe in Civilization XXXVI

Click to expand...

Alright, that's quite enough. I know he'll never be in the game but it would be funny. I didn't even want saddam and you all start making fun of me! Gosh!

Stella said:

I'd like to see something like the panel of ministers that they have in Empire: Total War. Like you'd have a Treasury Minister, Security Minister, etc. that would give certain bonuses to their specific area, and the type of government (civics) that you're running determines how and when you could replace them with other people that give different bonuses. And if you're running a democracy then there are elections whereby your whole cabinet could get replaced against your will if your people are unhappy, etc.

Click to expand...

Awsome idea

Stella said:

I didn't mean to imply that Saddam would be important enough to include at the expense of more interesting historical leaders, even if he wasn't a douchebag.

I'd also like to see a greater variation between the civs. I don't want the variation to be so great that it pigeonholes civs into one particular strategy, though. I think each civ could have 2-3 UU and UB instead of one, make traits a bit stronger, hav 4-5 starting techs, etc.

As for those suggestions sounding more like an expansion or mod than a new game, I'd argue that that has always been the case. The main changes in civ have always been graphical up to now, with relatively little changing with regards to the mechanics of gameplay.

Click to expand...

I think that Stella's idea works. I want each leader to have 3 traits. Each civ should have 2 uu's and 2 ubs.

I hope they use the Civ platform to create an updated Master of Magic, just like they used it to update Colonization.

I'd like to see the game a little bit longer during the early period. Perhaps a greater variety of techs in the early game. Some instability could be designed in so that if one civ becomes disproportianately large it will disintegrate if the leader makes a bad job of running the empire. something like the emergence of a global superpower then slow collapse e.g. Roman empire should be possible.

I like the two traits and the one uu and ub, but it would be nice to have two other traits or some other other uu or ub that you acquire by developing certain techs first, or by using great people (you would only be allowed two traits and one extra uu and ub, so you'd have to be careful which ones you choose) A unique national wonder would also be good. It sucks when you don't have iron and can't build certain units. It would be good if tech options allowed you to play for your situation (it's one of the things that's good with corporations). This would be true of real life, people would naturally make the best of their situation.

Buildings that you can only build and are only active when you adopt certain civics would be good. Party offices for nationhood. Secret police office for police state. Centre for religious tolerance for free religion. Slave quarters for slavery. You get the idea. I would like the possibility of a gradual development and or a entrenchment within a particular civic, so that you can in time change from one civic to another without anarchy if you're a good player, or be seriously penalised trying to change if you've allowed yourself to become too locked into one system of government.