Civ V - One World Speculation Thread!

[Battlehelm043]

I for one hope that they throw us some trade mechanics as well as the actual ability to force an embargo like it says you can do on both websites for Civ 5 and G+K. In addition I'm thinking if they expand the UN they need resolutions but not only the suggestions by Ajuga. UN denouncements against members an non-members, actual resolutions for intervention etc. Although a full scale UN vs non-allinged member states might be too restrictive. Remember the UN body doesn't always enforce things it resolves to do, States can chose to ignore resolutions. If you make resolutions too strict the AI can potentially use it against you. So resolutions cant be too OP...

 

[The_J]

Copy cats

Sure , but shows us the overall interest.

With ANYTHING involving Civ, if you don't link back here, you aren't doing your job. I'm not a moron.

But no news on the civFanatics front page.

Rumors, just rumors .

 

[darkedone02]

First thought that came into mind is a huge diplomacy boost, considering "one world" must mean "one world order", better diplomacy? corporations returns? who knows.

 

[justinianI]

and now gameinformer has it

 

[Browd]

Story's spreading like a religion with Itinerant Preachers.

Of course, they're all just repeating the same story (no new reporting going on there). Also, no reason to believe that 2K/Firaxis are going to accelerate any announcement time frame just because the same story is whipping its way around the game blogs and forums.

 

[snoochems]

Really hoping for another expac. I was worried there that firaxis had finished with the game. Which was mildly depressing as the game gets better with each patch, dlc, and expansion.

 

[Buccaneer]

I'm sure there is already quite a bit done. Dev teams don't just sit around after a prior release, twiddling their thumbs; they get to work on the next project right away. Even subtracting a month due to post-release/Xmas time-off, that is still ~7 solid months of work. No doubt they are preparing for the press-release part of development.

I think it is more than quite a bit done. It's always humorous to read a thread like this thinking the some fan's radical or wishful thinking ideas should now be added to the game. I trust the dev team and the two-tier test teams.

 

[Princeofnigeria]

Story's spreading like a religion with Itinerant Preachers.

Of course, they're all just repeating the same story (no new reporting going on there). Also, no reason to believe that 2K/Firaxis are going to accelerate any announcement time frame just because the same story is whipping its way around the game blogs and forums.

Ha. But I'm pretty sure they're using religious texts...

 

[Browd]

Ah, Printing Press strikes again.

 

[TheMarshmallowBear]

I don't know why, but I want animals back..... it's a wonder I even have Barbarians on anyway.

 

[anandus]

I'd love to see something like the Civ3-style colonies in a new expansion.
And international trade instead of just domestic trade.

Edit:
For the people that haven't played Civ3:

Colony:
* A colony can be thought of as a Pop 1 city. If anyone walks into it, it just folds like a cheap suit and is essentially lost. Other civs cannot access resources in your colonies, however. So you're going to want to put a strong defensive unit or two in a colony and maybe even build a fort there, then fortify for assault. That way if they want your resources, they've got to be willing to fight for it.
* A worker creates a colony in the same way a settler creates a city. Once a colony is created, say goodbye to your worker. If the colony is swallowed up into your borders, you don't get the worker back. This really forces you to think about where you want to put colonies: if you build a colony close to a city you know will thrive, you're essentially wasting a pop point because you know eventually that resource will be inside your borders.
* Why would you build a colony instead of a city? First of all, because colonies are created by workers, it costs only 1 population point to build a colony, instead of 2 population points like a city. Second, unlike cities, you don't need to keep colonies happy; you simply build them and you get your resources. Third, you can build them in locations that are unfavorable for city-building, like jungle tiles. Finally, colonies don't require upkeep and maintenance the way that cities do. So, colonies can be a quick and inexpensive way to stake a claim on a resource, or a temporary measure used to insure the supply of resources until your empire's borders expand to surround them.
* Colonies do not have any inherent defenses; while it is considered an act of war to attack any nation's colony, if a unit is not guarding that colony, it will be destroyed.

 

[TheMarshmallowBear]

That would be nice, I'd also suggest the following

- Instead of a worker building a colony, have a Colonist unit instead.
- Colonies would have culture surrounding them (so they would act as secondary cities in a way), but would be very limited in what they can build, and how fast they grow (for one, they would grow EXTREMLY slowly, and would expand just as slow).

 

[Barathor]

I haven't seen it mentioned yet, but...

What if "One World" is an expansion focused on a more refined and better functioning multiplayer? Perhaps even social networking elements will be thrown into it; maybe we'll see a new Facebook icon on the top bar. cry

The meaning behind One World could be that, right now, many (perhaps "most") players play their own singleplayer games a majority of the time -- their own little worlds. Expanding multiplayer and polishing it up would open up many more players to it as groups play in "one" world.

Though, along with this could still probably be some new civs, buildings, etc. But, no new game-changing elements on a scale similar to religion brought by Gods & Kings.

Perhaps the Pitboss some people have been waiting for will finally be introduced as well.

There's seems to be something a little bit "off" about the title. It's not as... I don't know, epic or elegant... especially for a game like Civ. Though, we "have" had simple titles in the past like "Conquests" or "Warlords". I just think if there's a chance that it entails new trade mechanics, colonization, discovery etc., more elegant and creative titles could've been thought up. Perhaps it's just me, though.

Anybody remember "Play the World"?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civilization_III:_Play_the_World

Perhaps, we can expect things like that -- not only a refined multiplayer, but all kinds of new little game modes like capture the flag and regicide (kill the king/queen), etc.

Maybe it'll turn multiplayer more RTS'ish with real time play. Tech will be researched like how you "tech" upgrades in games like Starcraft, as-in a constantly filled progress bar depending on your science; instead of income and yields "per turn" it's "per x seconds". Okay... yeah... that's probably a bit much and I'm getting carried away, lol. All of those types of changes would be on a level similar to releasing a new game, not an expansion.

Also, I'm not sure when it changed, but does anybody remember how Firaxis was looking for some type of multiplayer programmer on their Careers page? I just checked and it's not there anymore.

I hope many here aren't setting themselves up for massive disappointment. Personally, I would much rather have a traditional type of expansion like Gods & Kings too. But for some, I'm sure a multiplayer-focused expansion would be thrilling news. Which they're certainly due for. I'll still gobble it up and buy it of course, heck, maybe I'd start playing multiplayer whenever I play Civ too.

Again, this is all just some more wild speculation to add to the mix. We'll all just have to wait and see what this expansion brings to the table. My younger cousin is probably going to PAX again, so I can release some juicy bits of news here again for details and things that aren't included in the expansion's announcement. (http://forums.2kgames.com/showthread.php?119093-Civ-V-Gods-amp-Kings-at-PAX)

 

[Heinage]

I'm already yearning for more information... actually scratch that "more" because we pretty much haven't had any.

It's gonna be a long 6 months again...hopefully.

 

[Heinage]

It'd be nice if we could say the same things to the AI as they can say to us:

- what are your troops doing along our borders?
- you're getting too friendly with that city-state, didn't you know they're in my sphere of influence?
- we demand you stop the aggression against [insert city-state name]
- I can hear your people wailing
- your army looks to be a bit on the weak side
- did you forget to expand your borders?

Along with:

- get that missionary/prophet the hell out of my country
- we demand you stop the aggression against [insert civ name]

Some of these would result in diplo modifiers whilst others prompt the AI to make a decision.

Have I forgotten any?

 

[Pouakai]

I'd like a Total War esque ability to spend gold on a gift for another empire, resulting in a diplo boost. Also, I think that the Demand button should change to request when you have a DoF with someone and they'll be more willing to give you something

 

[TheMarshmallowBear]

For those intrested I made a thread on how the diplo could be improved for both Single and Multiplayer games.

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=484893

 

[subanark]

Well "One World" could refer to how the world is smaller due to communication being much easier than in the old days. So, maybe a further expanded information era?

Maybe a science victory that isn't space race? Making progression of one victory lead into the others would be nice instead of simply you build it, then you win, but only conquest really makes you more powerful.

Personally, here is hoping to civs with randomized UU and abilities, or even a randomized tech tree (guess what you get bombers in the classic era, but archery units don't come until industrial era).

Also, hoping for unlimited border expansion.

 

[Matthew.]

I think it is more than quite a bit done. It's always humorous to read a thread like this thinking the some fan's radical or wishful thinking ideas should now be added to the game. I trust the dev team and the two-tier test teams.

Oh it's all in fun. Like Christmas! Let's just hope that we get something close to what we wish for, and not socks/underwear

 

[shocky27]

I love these kind of threads!

We all have Civs we want to be in the game, but I'm going to give my best at an impartial assessment of what I think the creators of the game will do...

First, lets start with the base of at least 9 civs (same as G+K). However, I believe there will be 10 (I will explain this later)

Throughout the Civ franchise, the developers have been incredibly Euro-centric. We have an incredible amount of European Civs compared to other continents. Why? Europeans play this game more than Africans and Asians to put it bluntly. Americans are more connected to Europeans as well, as taught much more about European history than Africa etc. Why would we expect the creators of this game to change the Euro-centric model?

Using this argument, Civ will undoubtedly appeal to European and American interests by adding these Civs (IMO):

At LEAST 3 from Europe:

Portugal (no brainer)
Belgium (a legitimate choice, would fit a scramble for Africa scenario)
Poland-Lithuania (Polish people love this game, lots of Polish-Americans)

At LEAST 2 from the Americas:

One of Sioux/Comanche/Cherokee/Inuit (Popular/famous Natives, Inuits more interesting and diverse gameplay options; if I had to guess its either Sioux or Cherokee)

One of Gran Colombia/Brazil or some more modern Latin American Civ (Mexico?)

This leaves 4 or 5 more Civs... Here the devs will think about player demand, diversity, previous civ franchises, etc.

3 I believe will come from this are:
Zulu (no brainer, need more Africa, previous installment, fan support, everything)
Majaphit (LONGTIME civ fanbase demand, needed representation)
Moors (kinda African, but still maintains eurocentrism, so makes a lot of sense)

Now this is why I believe there can be 10...

One of Sumerians/Hittites/Phoenicians (from previous civ games, adds variety in expansion with ancient civ addition)
One of Khmer/Vietnam/some southeast asian civ (severely lacking southeast asian civs, Khmer in previous civ game)


I suppose Either the Moors or the Brazil/Gran Colombia theory could be wrong, then we could end up with just 9 Civs.


All that said, my wishlist is:

Portugal
Zulu
Majaphit
Moors
Inuit
Vietnam
Kongo (or some central african civ)
Sioux
Sumeria