Civ Ideas & Suggestions Not-Worth-Their-Own-Thread

[Zaarin]

I think it would be nice to have an option to try to broker peace between two civs, just like we can now drag the entire world into war with alliance chains and joining joint wars. My last game I had an alliance with Jadwiga and Philip, but they were at war with each other. It would have been nice to have had the option to mediate a peace deal between them--and then sic them on Harald Hardrada, who was being a pain.

 

[Greywulf]

I think it would be nice to have an option to try to broker peace between two civs, just like we can now drag the entire world into war with alliance chains and joining joint wars. My last game I had an alliance with Jadwiga and Philip, but they were at war with each other. It would have been nice to have had the option to mediate a peace deal between them--and then sic them on Harald Hardrada, who was being a pain.

That's a great idea!

 

[Greywulf]

Another idea that has most likely been mentioned at some point, just don't know by who...Trenches. During both World Wars, trenches were a huge element along the front lines of battle. It's a significant part of history, and would make sense in this game.

 

[Greywulf]

I think it would be nice to have an option to try to broker peace between two civs, just like we can now drag the entire world into war with alliance chains and joining joint wars. My last game I had an alliance with Jadwiga and Philip, but they were at war with each other. It would have been nice to have had the option to mediate a peace deal between them--and then sic them on Harald Hardrada, who was being a pain.

You know what, I keep thinking about this idea, and actually I just had a game where it would have been useful...My ally was on another continent being destroyed by the other AI, and I didn't have any troops nearby to aid them, so it would have been nice to be able to do some diplomacy at that point, but instead I felt powerless.
I think this idea is worth its own thread. It's your idea, so did you want to do it, or would you rather I did it? (I'm not all that great at explaining things tho)

 

[Uberfrog]

Another idea that has most likely been mentioned at some point, just don't know by who...Trenches. During both World Wars, trenches were a huge element along the front lines of battle. It's a significant part of history, and would make sense in this game.

They were undeniably important in the World Wars, but I struggle to see a fun or interesting role they could serve in-game.

Abstractly, they just provide the same function as Fortification – it's not hard to imagine the current Machine Gun unit as representing an entrenched position when it is defending. Otherwise they could be a Modern Era version of a Fort, buildable by Infantry units. But lord knows no-one builds Forts as it is.

I'm not sure the game will be made more fun by making combat more static and intractable in later eras. The western front of World War One was famously a stalemate, after all.

 

[SupremacyKing2]

I'm not sure the game will be made more fun by making combat more static and intractable in later eras. The western front of World War One was famously a stalemate, after all.

I think it would be fun because it would change up how combat works. With trenches, combat would become much more defensive. And it would be temporary of course, just like in real life. Once players get tanks, trenches would become useless and combat would shift again to being more offensive rather than defensive.

 

[Uberfrog]

I think it would be fun because it would change up how combat works. With trenches, combat would become much more defensive. And it would be temporary of course, just like in real life. Once players get tanks, trenches would become useless and combat would shift again to being more offensive rather than defensive.

I think that is a very short window of utility for a Civ game.

 

[Zaarin]

You know what, I keep thinking about this idea, and actually I just had a game where it would have been useful...My ally was on another continent being destroyed by the other AI, and I didn't have any troops nearby to aid them, so it would have been nice to be able to do some diplomacy at that point, but instead I felt powerless.
I think this idea is worth its own thread. It's your idea, so did you want to do it, or would you rather I did it? (I'm not all that great at explaining things tho)

I can create it if you think it's worth discussing more.

 

[Greywulf]

I can create it if you think it's worth discussing more.

I think it deserves more attention. We want AI diplomacy improved upon after all, and this is an example of that.

 

[UncivilizedGuy]

Another idea that has most likely been mentioned at some point, just don't know by who...Trenches. During both World Wars, trenches were a huge element along the front lines of battle. It's a significant part of history, and would make sense in this game.

This could be an improvement built by support personnel outside your territory that is similar to the Great Wall. Seems very doable.

 

[darkace77450]

Since coastal tiles get beach resorts, I'd kinda like to see mountain-adjacent tiles get ski resorts. Not that they'd add much to the game, but aesthetically and thematically they'd make for a cool tile improvement.

 

[UncivilizedGuy]

Since coastal tiles get beach resorts, I'd kinda like to see mountain-adjacent tiles get ski resorts. Not that they'd add much to the game, but aesthetically and thematically they'd make for a cool tile improvement.

Since artwork isn’t really my thing how about +1 amenity to mountains after researching Professional Sports .

 

[Greywulf]

Since artwork isn’t really my thing how about +1 amenity to mountains after researching Professional Sports .

Very nice alternative! Would be great to get more use out of mountains in this game.

 

[Greywulf]

For score victory, allow the player to set how many turns it will be (usually it's 500 turns automatically). Would allow for faster or slower games, depending on the player's choice.

 

[Uberfrog]

For score victory, allow the player to set how many turns it will be (usually it's 500 turns automatically). Would allow for faster or slower games, depending on the player's choice.

You can already do this. Whatever you set as the turn limit at the start of the game is when a Score Victory, if enabled, is declared.

Frankly, I find it necessary to do so already: 500 turns is a lot on standard speed, and the game is generally all but decided around the 200 mark.

 

[Greywulf]

You can already do this. Whatever you set as the turn limit at the start of the game is when a Score Victory, if enabled, is declared.

Frankly, I find it necessary to do so already: 500 turns is a lot on standard speed, and the game is generally all but decided around the 200 mark.

Does it effect any other aspect of the game? Like the game speed.

 

[Uberfrog]

Does it effect any other aspect of the game? Like the game speed.

I’m not sure what you mean. The game is necessarily over quicker, but the tech pace and production times are whatever you set the game speed to be: online/quick/standard/epic/marathon.

Setting the Score Victory earlier just means that the game ends at turn 200, say, instead of 500.

 

[Greywulf]

I’m not sure what you mean. The game is necessarily over quicker, but the tech pace and production times are whatever you set the game speed to be: online/quick/standard/epic/marathon.

Setting the Score Victory earlier just means that the game ends at turn 200, say, instead of 500.

I was concerned you meant adjusting the speed of the game, as that changes more than just the number of turns it takes.

Well there you go...I'm still learning about this game.

 

[King Morius]

I was thinking in a feature resembling the enhanced diplomacy mod. The civs could change leaders along gameplay. This could happen in various reasons, such as revolts &revolutions, civs being conquered and, instead of being absorved, another leader favorable to the conqueror is instelled, and so many others cool reasons. Pretty much the latest total war games work. What do you thinking?

 

[ezzlar]

I would like a system where military units where "built" and then could be stowed away. Then during a crisis or war you could "build" your army out of "storage".

Just as a general idea. I dont like how you usually have a roughly same size standing army for the most part of the game. Armies should be so expensive that you would prefer to keep a small standing army but the option of quick a draft.