Civ V Ideas & Suggestions Summary

[Kullervo]

O, definetely don't make them game changing. That would be quite annoying. But make some more that influence, say, resources, or enrich tiles.

Also, add in a few new civs. The Swedish empire would be an interesting choice. They were quite influential during the late middle ages. Separating Greece from MAcedonia would be a good move as well, since Alexander was actually the Macedonian king, not the Greek king. Again, here we run into the problem of defining greece. I would say that it would be all city states south of Macedonia and Illyria. And the Macedonian leaders could be Phillip and Alexander (Kingship is a family business, ).

 

[Barafranca]

Whatever happened to the City view that was in Civ III? I want it back, especially with updated graphics (but still with an artistic feel).

Spoiler :

 

[Silv Something]

If I could see a picture like that of each of my cities, I would be SO happy!

 

[Marcin388]

post deleted

 

[Webkahbit]

Definitely yes for me! Love this viewpoint.

 

[Camikaze]

Well in Civ 4 there is that type of thing, just not in quite as much detail. You can zoom your map in and get a reasonably good city view, but no, it isn't quite as detailed. More detail in the graphics would be, I assume, a given in a new Civ game.

 

[gonzaleslayer]

Gonna be lengthly, be patient I think there is a few good ones in here.

I mainly play civ 4 bts, starting in the industrial age, advanced start with extra cash. TThis is because I play hot seat and this allows games to go much quicked than early start. anyways here is a few ideas....

1) Whoever completes manahattan project should get at least a one turn or more advantage of building nukes. Totally makes sense historically and game play wise.

As it is now its backwards, you complete the manhattan project, and the other players have the ability to build nukes before you get back to your turn to have a chance to build a nuke one even though you did all the work on manhattan project. So it has happened where I build the manhattan project, the other guy then buys a nuke and then i get a chance to build/buy one but then get nuked on my ICBM city or uranium, rendering me on the brink of defeat.

2)Use of forts in neutral territory. You can build em but can't use them?? you can build roads and use them, why not forts??

3) Subs vs units that cant see them/ also stealth destroyers. I have tried to trap or redirect a transport by placing subs or stealth destroyers in the transports path, but the other players is able to move right through them and not only that, it even places your sub out of the way. If anything you move your transport onto a space with a sub on it, that should automatically destroy the transport, i.e. running into an ambush.

4) Forts as canals/ I know you can use them as canals two blocks wide but should be able to build fort-city-fort and go right through em, kinda weird you can't.

5) Fighter escorts. When you attack a city with a bomber and that city has a fighter/s defending you almost always lose your bomber. If you have a fighter/s in that city you should be able send as escort mission (or maybe upgrade) the fighter with the bomber.

Also seems that fighters have same defense anywhere in range, when this is not realistic. For instance enemy city three blocks north of my city with fighter defending, enemy units two blocks south of my city in my territory, I try to bomb enemy units with three bombers all three shot down by one defending fighter??? Also a gripe on fighter should onyl be able to defens so much, two at most defenses per turn.

6) Ability to airlift units into friendly cities. Maybe as a diplomacy option the a.i. has to accept. Perfectly feasible, specially in defensive pact scenario.

7)A.I. defensive stupidity.

-Not putting all units in to defend a city under attack. I have seen it countless times, landlocked city with no vulnerability has four units in it, the city under attack from seven units only has four units, why wouldn't the a.i. move at least three untis to bolster defense.

-Not using bombers or cruise missles to weaken units.

-Not drafting or using slaves etc.

-Refusing to talk even when under attack from soemone else, at least see what i got to help (maybe i'll give a tech or some units or a city to screw the other human)

8) Should be able to bomb/cruise missle or use a spy to destroy roads/railroads.

9) Artillery should be able to bombard from two blocks away

10) Airships and subs, really should you be able ot fly airships out late in the game and see subs??

11) Option to kill or capture worker units. If captured should be able to insert into cities as slave labour (extra production less food req.)

12) Ice breakers! or bomb to break ice.

13) Tanks should be able to act like artillery.



And...here is a few thoughts on general stuff.

Agree with common ideas like requiring supply routes, ambush possiblities and upgraded spies as terrorists/geurillas, hidden natiuonality units.


Also would like more options on advanced start

- no nukes option
- gauranteed resources in each starting area. i.e. ensure oil for everyone
- choice of two or more leaders/civs upon start.
- ability to start with more than two military units per city.
- an option to raze your own cities upon retreat.
- adjust amount of random events.

 

[Silv Something]

Liked those options at the end.

 

[Argetnyx]

5) Fighter escorts. When you attack a city with a bomber and that city has a fighter/s defending you almost always lose your bomber. If you have a fighter/s in that city you should be able send as escort mission (or maybe upgrade) the fighter with the bomber.

Also seems that fighters have same defense anywhere in range, when this is not realistic. For instance enemy city three blocks north of my city with fighter defending, enemy units two blocks south of my city in my territory, I try to bomb enemy units with three bombers all three shot down by one defending fighter??? Also a gripe on fighter should onyl be able to defens so much, two at most defenses per turn.

This would fit in nicely with my new aircraft system.

 

[702]

1) Whoever completes manahattan project should get at least a one turn or more advantage of building nukes. Totally makes sense historically and game play wise.

As it is now its backwards, you complete the manhattan project, and the other players have the ability to build nukes before you get back to your turn to have a chance to build a nuke one even though you did all the work on manhattan project. So it has happened where I build the manhattan project, the other guy then buys a nuke and then i get a chance to build/buy one but then get nuked on my ICBM city or uranium, rendering me on the brink of defeat.

I'm not sure what to do about the tech-sharing thing going on, but if that weren't to change there could still be an advantage to researching the Manhattan Project, it could perhaps give you x free nukes.

 

[Camikaze]

2)Use of forts in neutral territory. You can build em but can't use them?? you can build roads and use them, why not forts??

Some nice ideas, firstly. I'll only address a few of them, though (because you had so many and because I'm rather lazy).

This particular idea would be too open to abuse. If you could use forts in neutral territory, you could simply park outside of an enemy's BFC and block them in, quite easily defusing any expansion that they could undertake, until their borders expanded.

4) Forts as canals/ I know you can use them as canals two blocks wide but should be able to build fort-city-fort and go right through em, kinda weird you can't.

I would much rather a canal improvement, or building (allowing a canal to a city from the nearest coast, or something), to be honest.

12) Ice breakers! or bomb to break ice.

I'm pretty sure you can already nuke ice.

 

[ramjam501]

What I would like to see is the distrubution of food to other cities. In all the current variants I have seen, each city is responsible for it's own food production. Shoud you desire to locate in a mountanious (sic)region for pure production purposes, the city couldn't sustain a large population due to lack of arable land.

A good real world example is that all the grain harvested in Kansas could never be shipped to Los Angeles. Is that realistic? Cities should have the ability to also send part of it's manufacturing to other cities as well. Two other cities should be able to help in the manufacture of wonders such as the pyramids or the Manhattan project.

A city should be given the option to send part of it's surplus to another city to foster growth or maintain a large population or assist in production.

Seriously, how many cities in America contributed to the Manhattan Project or even our own space program. One city can't do it all on it's own.

 

[Silv Something]

Good ideas, and welcome to the forums ramjam!

 

[Camikaze]

RE: Domestic food and production distribution. They are good ideas, but they need to be restricted, or city placement will become a non-issue, which would be even more unrealistic than the current system that allows for no trade of food and production.

There are a few threads that discuss this type of thing, if you wanted to take a look. This one, this one and this one (a little more complex).

 

[Silv Something]

Thanks for the links Camikaze. There's also this mod thing.

 

[dazedroyalty]

I haven't read all the comments posted by others, so forgive me if I'm being redundant, but after reading all the proposed changes, I was very disappointed. They mostly seem to rely on trying to make the game more realistic. That is, in the real world, this unit could do this specific action. Unfortunately, I think most of these changes sound like horrible gameplay changes. The last thing I want is for my ship to randomly disappear right before I circumnavigate or have a cities randomly riot for have too many religions (this sort of happens currently with the random event of slave uprising). If that happens once a game, OK, but I wouldn't want lots more random things hurting me. A good game obviously has a lot of chance involved, but the player shouldn't be hurting regularly for things that s/he can't do anything about.

 

[Kullervo]

Well, that's kind of what makes Civ IV fun. When you play on a higher difficulty level, you have to overcome unfair challenges. And do you know what real countries go through on a regular basis? Look at Russia for the last hundred years or so... in Civ, I have never had more than 10 revolutions, rebellions, wars, starvations, etc. go on within 500 years (on average, that's about 100 turns, I think), let alone 100.

You bring up a good point about the improvements making the game realistic. Where I think you're wrong is that these changes are horrible from the gameplay point of view. I personally disagree. They present more challenges, more options, I can play a game 20 more ways because of one change.

Just a thought.

2 things jumped out at me from suggestions. One was the sub thing. First of all, if you're sending out unguarded transports when they might be sunk by subs, the simple solution would be to have destroyers or other subs. But also, if your opponent is using transports, I think that a penalty should be installed, such as subs getting +50% defense against transports, or transports getting -50% attack vs. subs. The second was the fighters traveling with the bombers. I agree that that should be possible, but I also think that there should be a pretty harsh penalty for each such attack, with the accompanying fighter losing as much as 3/4 of it's strength. Or something like that.

 

[Silv Something]

I haven't read all the comments posted by others, so forgive me if I'm being redundant, but after reading all the proposed changes, I was very disappointed. They mostly seem to rely on trying to make the game more realistic. That is, in the real world, this unit could do this specific action. Unfortunately, I think most of these changes sound like horrible gameplay changes. The last thing I want is for my ship to randomly disappear right before I circumnavigate or have a cities randomly riot for have too many religions (this sort of happens currently with the random event of slave uprising). If that happens once a game, OK, but I wouldn't want lots more random things hurting me. A good game obviously has a lot of chance involved, but the player shouldn't be hurting regularly for things that s/he can't do anything about.

You can talk to Camikaze about that.

 

[Camikaze]

I haven't read all the comments posted by others, so forgive me if I'm being redundant, but after reading all the proposed changes, I was very disappointed. They mostly seem to rely on trying to make the game more realistic. That is, in the real world, this unit could do this specific action. Unfortunately, I think most of these changes sound like horrible gameplay changes. The last thing I want is for my ship to randomly disappear right before I circumnavigate or have a cities randomly riot for have too many religions (this sort of happens currently with the random event of slave uprising). If that happens once a game, OK, but I wouldn't want lots more random things hurting me. A good game obviously has a lot of chance involved, but the player shouldn't be hurting regularly for things that s/he can't do anything about.

First, I'll link to this thread for some interesting discussion on whether or not realism does come before gameplay.

Personally, I think it's fairly obvious that gameplay should be the first and foremost concern when making the game (and, of course, when suggesting ideas). However, one really important thing to keep in mind is that realism is not the antithesis of good gameplay. In fact, for the most part, realism enhances gameplay. Of course, not unbridled realism, but realism for the most part.

If we accept the definition of good gameplay as being 'stuff that enhances the experience of playing the game', then surely such suggestions as implementing a Civ instability system would be good for gameplay, whilst simultaneously being good for realistic purposes. Sure, that's a personal opinion, but I would think the general opinion is that more realistic features mean a better gameplay experience. Of course, this is within reason; to borrow an analogy from rysmiel, you don't want to have to fully plan an invasion of the scale of D-Day as much as you would have to in real life. But most suggestions with a realistic footing do not suggest such tedious elements be added to the game.

You speak of randomness, but I don't really see how that is connected to realism. A city rioting because of having too many religions (I assume this would be part of some Civ instability system as I outlined in the first paragraph) would be well within your control. I don't think anyone is actually saying that that type of thing should be outside of the players control. If they are, then I too think that it is a bad idea. But randomness has no real connection to realism. So I don't quite understand this point of complaint.

 

[Silv Something]

See, what did I tell you?

And Camikaze, I agree that gameplay should come before realism.

Also, are you updating the posts at the beginning? I can't tell.