Civ V Ideas & Suggestions Summary

[tritusIII]

How about an option to allow cities to retain their current cultural border when you capture them militarily. Often it doesn't make sense for another country's culture to completely overwhelm your newly taken cities.

And secondly, military units should have the ability to "take over" another civs cultural squares. In war time, this could be used for example to string a line of units together to control a rail line in foreign territory. In peace time, this could be used to take a strategic resource away from a competitor. This would surely impact relations and if the competitor doesn't like it, they are free to declare war of course.

When the UN is built there could be an method for assigning permanent borders that don't change from culture influence or redrawing borders for special situations.

 

[Aserjiek]

I'd rather see somewhat less permanent borders drawn at the discovery of paper. Units and a TON of culture could still modify them though.

 

[lymond]

I'm sure something to this effect has been suggested. I just want to mention it here since it's on my mind. I was surprised at the massive amount of input already on CIV5 - there's just too much to read through. Please point me to like suggestion if you can.

Besides the standard CIV game, provide options to play game entirely based on era or up to an era. I'm not much for the Modern era. i get through it but I really like the historical stuff - units, techs, etc. I'd like to see the option to play a game up to the end of say the Medieval era with its own specific tech tree. For instance, a tech tree ending before gunpowder. Techs such as astro, printing press and the like would be your final tech achievements. I assume CIV 5 will have an even more complex and deeper tech tree, so techs like astro may be further broken down in naval catagories through the ages. Units such as Knights, maces, crossbows, caravels or variations thereof would of would be the pinnacle achievements in warfare. Obviously certain victory conditions would need to be amended or removed too. I think it would be incredibly fun to kick back and play with ancient,classical and medieval units for the life of the game. Now, the only way to remotely achieve this is on marathon, scenarios (not really civ) or mods.

 

[capslock]

Get rid of the SEAL unit, bring back US Marines!

Its a shame and disgrace that there are no US Marines in Civilization.

 

[Flying Pig]

Put the SAS in, as well; just so we could test them against the spams

 

[Aserjiek]

Why not an independent commando unit?
It would be like a more aggressive spy because it would be able to damage units.
the British would get the SAS of course
Weird thought, What if each civ had 2 unique units?

 

[m1sn0m3r]

I'm a noob to this forum but I think there is an easy way to eliminate massive stacks a units. Make it so when you have a group of units you can form an army at anytime. This army would differ from the standard army available now In the following ways.

First, the units in the army would attack in a cohesive force not individually as they do now.

Second, they would use some sort of rudimentary tactic system where your archers would bombard the enemy, then foot soldiers would advance and engage the enemy and then your cavalry would try to outflank the enemy.

Third, you would be given bonus points based on how balanced your force was. If your attack with catapults, archers, swordsmen, and horsemen and your opponent only has a large force of swordsmen you will be given a large tactical advantage and vice versa.

I also think a form of attrition on armies that are in enemy territory would be good. i.e. locals attacking the invaders causing them to take small amounts of damage.

 

[Aserjiek]

I think a guerrilla unit with a high withdrawal chance would work better than automatic damage on a unit in enemy territory.
I do think however that terrain that is foreign to a unit would cause damage to it, unless the city the unit was built in had a small amount of that terrain in it.

 

[CommandoBob]

13. Rights of Passage
As the game stands at the moment, you can either freely move units through a foreign national's terrain - or you cannot. This should be reverted back to a previous edition of civilization when you could move units into another nation's terrain and if you were lucky you could sneak forces through to cut off cities. At least then you could issue a demand of something like "Remove your armies or declare war!" I would like the reversion to the previous way, only this time the nation's leader could issue one of several commands, they being:

a. Say and do nothing. Let the units continue.
b. Issue a general statement of protest. (This causes no real problems.)
c. Issue a strong declaration of condemnation, such as: "Remove your armies or declare war!" or "The positioning of your forces is putting a strain on our diplomatic status." (The player may reduce diplomatic ties by a point or two.)
d. Dispatch military units to arrest the offending units. (Offending unts that are captured can be released later after interrogation and being paraded on tv for propaganda purposes. Or the units can be escorted to the nearest border. Or the units may resist arrest and fight without a major war erupting).
e. We cannot tolerate your forces on our sovereign soil. Prepare for war!

Also just because you sign an open borders deal with another nation should not mean that nation is free to trample across your land with military units. If a nation wants to move military units through your borders or even station troops there then it should ask if it may do so. Rights of passage should enable non-military units free passage.

In Civ3 the AI was notorious for being able to send units, armed or not, through your land with no consquence, while you could not do the same (unless you signed a Right of Passage with the AI and then it was okay, but only for that AI and only for 20 turns). In Civ4 the redress was Open Borders, which is a bit too open for me.

I would suggest doing away with Open Borders entirely and replace it with this idea:

Risky Borders
Any nation may freely tresspass any other nation without diplomatic issues. However, once a unit crosses a foreign border and is more than one tile away from that border (not just the border tile they entered from) and spends the IBT more than one tile away from the border, they can be attacked, killed or captured by the nation they are tresspassing, with no diplomatic issues involved.

That is, once the offending unit is past the one-tile limit and stays there during the IBT, it is fair game for target practice and unit promotions. As far as the sending nation knows, the units defected to the other civ. Or got lost and wandered around and died.

The offending unit(s) could only defend themselves, but it could do so normally. But if they did anything else, except move, they start a war and the offending civ gets slapped with a big diplomatic penalty of some sort. If the offended nation attacked units along and inside their border, they too suffer some international censure, but not as much as the first example.

This would allow a unit to trace a border around a nation from the inside, as long as they stayed adjacent to a border tile.

This would apply mostly to land units; I don't think it is an issue with boats and ships. And of course, diplomacy would affect this.

 

[TRoosevelt]

I am a proponet of TBS, over RTS, and think you could certainly play tactically with a TBS engine, and would prefer that myself.
Basically, just a more evolved combat option... which would not be the default.

I played a game like that with TBS tactics and really liked it. It was called, "Conquest of the New World". When you engaged in battle, your forces faced off against the AI's, and you maneuvered a number of your pieces based on the skill of your general. More often than not, the superior force won, but if you were tactically adept at using your units to the best of their ability, then you could pull out a victory even over a numerically superior force. I loved the way it worked, and that is the ONLY way I see it working for CIV. I wouldn't want the best TBS game there ever was turned into something it's was never created for, and that's RTS.

 

[TRoosevelt]

I'm a noob to this forum but I think there is an easy way to eliminate massive stacks a units. Make it so when you have a group of units you can form an army at anytime. This army would differ from the standard army available now In the following ways.

First, the units in the army would attack in a cohesive force not individually as they do now.

Second, they would use some sort of rudimentary tactic system where your archers would bombard the enemy, then foot soldiers would advance and engage the enemy and then your cavalry would try to outflank the enemy.

Third, you would be given bonus points based on how balanced your force was. If your attack with catapults, archers, swordsmen, and horsemen and your opponent only has a large force of swordsmen you will be given a large tactical advantage and vice versa.

That's how "Conquest of the New World" worked, except I think you needed a leader to form an army. The better the leader, the better the army was, and each individual unit that fought and survived the conflict gained experience points. (you moved and fought on a small chess-like board - no RTS movement involved!!) With enough experience, a unit could upgrade to the next level and become even more formidible in combat, making the army as a whole stronger, just like CIV armies behave now. Units could also be detached from armies as well, changed out altogether for something different. (which should be implemented in CIV) A leader in CIV shouldn't be stuck leading a bunch of swordsmen when cavalry is available.

Forming balanced army units that combined the best attributes of each individual unit into a cohesive fighting (or defending) force might be a good solution both to appease tactical gamers desires of a more detailed combat and stop the silliness of a "Risk"-style mode of fighting with 50+ units stacked together on one square. PLEASE!!! That needs to be fixed, with a three to five unit stack rule per square. Then all front lines would look like they're suppose to, with lines of forces stretching from border to border. If CIV is supposed to be based on realism, then all oddities like this needs to be changed. I have more ideas floating around, and have read about a lot of great ideas I never even gave thought to. I hope before CIV5 comes to light that a lot of these thoughts and ideas will be studied and used, because with this many people feeling so compassionate about something they love, someone should listen.

 

[rysmiel]

A leader in CIV shouldn't be stuck leading a bunch of swordsmen when cavalry is available.

I am far from convinced leaders are the right scale for Civ at all, though whatever army system is implemented, flexibility at that scale would definitely be a good thing.

Forming balanced army units that combined the best attributes of each individual unit into a cohesive fighting (or defending) force might be a good solution both to appease tactical gamers desires of a more detailed combat

What about appeasing those of us who would fight tooth and nail to keep tactical-scale stuff out of our nice logistics/grand strategy game ?

and stop the silliness of a "Risk"-style mode of fighting with 50+ units stacked together on one square. PLEASE!!! That needs to be fixed, with a three to five unit stack rule per square. Then all front lines would look like they're suppose to, with lines of forces stretching from border to border. If CIV is supposed to be based on realism, then all oddities like this needs to be changed.

Insert standard rant about realism being a good thing only insofar as it enhances gameplay here.

Even on realism grounds, though, with squares that are tens of miles on a side, a limit to how many units can fit on a square is ridiculous. I don't want a game that people can win by being good at tactical battles; I want a game where you win as a consequence building a better empire, translating directly into having more (and more advanced) units.

 

[Flying Pig]

Remember - we're not designing the most awesome game in the world here, we're suggesting improvements to a civ game. While a civ game with total-war style field battles and the ability to lead the troops like call of duty would be awesome, it would also not be a civ game - the emphasis is on empire building; to put too much emphasis on combat would destroy the flavour

 

[mythusmage]

Here, for the heck of it, I present a radical proposal.

Now, I must admit I haven't seen all that many screenshots of Civ IV games. Those that I have seen impress me in one area above all others, the processing power it takes to produce them. C-IV may not be as graphics intense as a typical FPS, but it's still graphics intense.

What's my point? Just that the sort of processing power and memory needed to handle graphics like that could also be used to produce larger maps, and so larger games. In short, instead of being restricted to so many tiles, the field of play can be enlarged greatly.

But for something really radical, try this...

Each map size handles a distinct portion of a world instead of the world as a whole. The various sizes, from largest to smallest, being...

Gargantuan: The world as a whole. If possible the world is rendered as a globe instead of a flat sheet. (May require a bit of cheating to pull off.)

Enormous: Large continent, Asia or North America for example.

Huge: Continent.

Large: Small continent (think Australia), sub-continent, or region.

Regular: Nation or region

Small: State or province.

Tiny: County, shire, district, or whatever the equivalent is in your parts.

The purpose here is to allow play at various scales of civilization development; ranging from a 4 player game where villages vie for control of a river valley or the slope of a mountain, to a 50 player game (might as well dream big ) where different cultures contend for leading role on an entire world. Under this scheme, regardless of the size of the game, the area represented by a tile remains the same. So a tile represents as much land in a county domination game as one in a world domination game.

And that is my suggestion.

 

[TRoosevelt]

Even on realism grounds, though, with squares that are tens of miles on a side, a limit to how many units can fit on a square is ridiculous.

How less ridiculous is it to see the AI's frontline barren of any kind of defense except for one humongous stack of units on one square? Regardless of whether they could fit in an area (square), it's just so out of place realistically. No leader in their right mind would leave their whole border unguarded against an adjacent enemy and bunch up his whole army together like that. One well-placed nuke and that huge army is history, but the dumb AI doesn't know that. It just needs to think smarter, that's all.

I actually think there is too much war going on in CIV games, and I think that the reason is because units are too cheap to build and maintain. The cost scale needs to be a lot larger for big units, and the more complex units should cost even more. A unit should not necessarily take a year to build (battleship - yes, riflemen - no), but might cost a year's worth of revenue or more. And once a unit is built, it should cost so much to maintain it (food, supplies, munitions, oil for motorized units) based on its complexity, otherwise it slowly decays in fighting strength. A swordsman should not cost as much to maintain as infantry, and definitely less than a battleship.

I think improvements could be made everywhere, and would prefer to play CIV without so much war. Yet with the proliferation of units the AI keeps building, I have to follow suit just to keep myself from getting overrun by hordes of AI armies. Conducting wars and maintaining massive armies are costly enterprises in reality, and CIV needs to reflect that somehow.

 

[rysmiel]

Remember - we're not designing the most awesome game in the world here, we're suggesting improvements to a civ game. While a civ game with total-war style field battles and the ability to lead the troops like call of duty would be awesome, it would also not be a civ game - the emphasis is on empire building; to put too much emphasis on combat would destroy the flavour

Well put, and more temperately than I have amnaged to express my feelings in this direction; thank you.

 

[rysmiel]

I actually think there is too much war going on in CIV games,

Agreed entirely.

I think improvements could be made everywhere, and would prefer to play CIV without so much war. Yet with the proliferation of units the AI keeps building, I have to follow suit just to keep myself from getting overrun by hordes of AI armies. Conducting wars and maintaining massive armies are costly enterprises in reality, and CIV needs to reflect that somehow.

Making the military more expensive only addresses half of that, though. I think other aspects need to be strengthened to make building units proportionally less use - like making the gaps between units at different tech levels greater so that a scientific lead is proportionally stronger against a larger army, or making cultural conversions stronger and having them affect enemy units on your land.

 

[Emperor Giulio]

Climate change as opposed to global warming, this may be a touchy subject. Never the less, the world has experienced little ice ages, and such. They should incorporate that into the next Civilization game. It can make for interesting game play in terms of resource availability. For example during the little ice age, Northern Europe had moved to making more beers and ales instead of wines, because their climate was no longer ideal for producing enough grapes.

 

[CarlXVIGustaf]

Prophets should belong to a specific religion. Priest specialists from a jewish temple spawn a great prophet. That prophet builds a muslim shrine? Nah, don't think so.

What he does though, is go around preaching for the masses and eventually gains a following. This following later became the christians. So, prophets should be able to start offshoots of the big religions. Theese new religions should function just like the regular ones.

 

[Silv Something]

Here, for the heck of it, I present a radical proposal.

Now, I must admit I haven't seen all that many screenshots of Civ IV games. Those that I have seen impress me in one area above all others, the processing power it takes to produce them. C-IV may not be as graphics intense as a typical FPS, but it's still graphics intense.

What's my point? Just that the sort of processing power and memory needed to handle graphics like that could also be used to produce larger maps, and so larger games. In short, instead of being restricted to so many tiles, the field of play can be enlarged greatly.

But for something really radical, try this...

Each map size handles a distinct portion of a world instead of the world as a whole. The various sizes, from largest to smallest, being...

Gargantuan: The world as a whole. If possible the world is rendered as a globe instead of a flat sheet. (May require a bit of cheating to pull off.)

Enormous: Large continent, Asia or North America for example.

Huge: Continent.

Large: Small continent (think Australia), sub-continent, or region.

Regular: Nation or region

Small: State or province.

Tiny: County, shire, district, or whatever the equivalent is in your parts.

The purpose here is to allow play at various scales of civilization development; ranging from a 4 player game where villages vie for control of a river valley or the slope of a mountain, to a 50 player game (might as well dream big ) where different cultures contend for leading role on an entire world. Under this scheme, regardless of the size of the game, the area represented by a tile remains the same. So a tile represents as much land in a county domination game as one in a world domination game.

And that is my suggestion.

I like that idea, but I also like playing on smaller worlds that are round. Or a pangea map, or a wheel map, or something like that. I don't like to play the "regional" (not round) maps as much.

Not to say I wouldn't like a 50 civ game .