How would you go about implementing this? I mean, nukes are pretty powerful as they are, and yet there still seems to be little to no deterrence in using them. I can only really see nuclear deterrence making nukes really overpowered, albeit realistically.
Civ V Ideas & Suggestions Summary
- Thread starter Camikaze
- Start date
How would you go about implementing this? I mean, nukes are pretty powerful as they are, and yet there still seems to be little to no deterrence in using them. I can only really see nuclear deterrence making nukes really overpowered, albeit realistically.
I doubt the Selimiye mosque or Blue mosque will be in as they look a little too similar to the Hagia Sophia (though they will be easy enough to mod in) but Topkapi palace would be interesting, perhaps it could act to replace the palace.
I'm also not sure how earlier central Asian Turkic peoples could really be represented alongside the Turks once they were in Anatolia...
Well in Civ 4 the computer works out how "powerful" each civ is based on how many military units each civ has plus what those units are. How likely an enemy is to attack you depends partly on how powerful you and they are. If Civ 5 works in a similar way, perhaps just make it so each nuke adds an awful lot of "power points" to a civ. So an average-run-of-the-mill civ, which happens to be the first to get a nuclear weapon, suddenly shoots up the power rankings to become the most powerful civ in the game. Beforehand several other civs may have considered attacking it, but after only the crazy-Montezuma type would even consider it. If several other civs then got nuclear weapons as well though, they would then become as powerful and so at the point the deterrance thing would be lost again, hmm...
I would say that, first, a nuclear weapon can severely damage cities - as in wiping out over 75% of their population, all of their garrison and all of their buildings. Secondly, the AI is programmed to always if possible retaliate to a nuclear strike with nukes, but to be very cautious about using them otherwise since it would provoke crippling diplomatic penalties. Thirdly, the AI expects the player to act as an AI
Questions?
Questions?
Certainly proportionate second use wouldn't cause neutral or allied powers to look down on you, but allies of your enemy would be angry. Basically they need to get an old, grizzled staff officer, a salt-stained admiral, a special envoy to some government and an intelligence chief on board and talk politics and war. THAT would bring about a game I would buy!
frekk
Scourge of St. Lawrence
Well they had a fairly good mechanic for this in civ2 - if you nuked somebody, the entire world might gang up on you and nuke you back into the Stone Age. Not sure what restrained the AI, though. I noticed that they did have a certain degree of restraint, except for Montezuma and Shaka.
magicgunnar
Chieftain
In Civ 4, the default savefolder is not the one you have loaded a game from, it should be i Civ 5.
And when browsing games to load there should be much more informastion about the game, like all the settings and a thumbnailmap. All customizable ofcourse. So you can decide what should be shown in the browsing of samegames.
And when browsing games to load there should be much more informastion about the game, like all the settings and a thumbnailmap. All customizable ofcourse. So you can decide what should be shown in the browsing of samegames.
Hi,
I really enjoyed this feature of the single player game. It added an extra motivation for getting a high score.
This feature could really be enhanced with modern graphics, but I think what would really make it fun is to give the player, in addition to the usual choice between different classical columns, bushes, walls, etc, choice between different styles of servants, women for a harem, court jesters, etc.
These servants should be shown in 3-D interactive video. For example, when still at a primitive score, the player might get to choose from 3 different servants, who at low scores will provide very poor service and be more likely to mock the ruler than obey him. And of course the quality of women for the harem would have to improve with the score as well!
This could also be meshed with the advisor screen, so that your advisors would sit in your throne room (or throne cave as it may be...) and offer advice as you scroll over them.
Cheers
I really enjoyed this feature of the single player game. It added an extra motivation for getting a high score.
This feature could really be enhanced with modern graphics, but I think what would really make it fun is to give the player, in addition to the usual choice between different classical columns, bushes, walls, etc, choice between different styles of servants, women for a harem, court jesters, etc.
These servants should be shown in 3-D interactive video. For example, when still at a primitive score, the player might get to choose from 3 different servants, who at low scores will provide very poor service and be more likely to mock the ruler than obey him. And of course the quality of women for the harem would have to improve with the score as well!
This could also be meshed with the advisor screen, so that your advisors would sit in your throne room (or throne cave as it may be...) and offer advice as you scroll over them.
Cheers
Geek113377
Human (Usually)
I just hope the AI in ciV are alot better than they were in cIV. like by noticing which victory conditions were enabled and going for those. i was once playing a game with only cultural enabled, always peace, and my AI teammate (a creative civ), was building military units instead of all the cultural (and research and commerce) buildings and wonders he could have been. i ended up having all three of the lengendary cities by the end of the game. while i was the member of our team with privateers blockading the other team. and i had a tundra city in the middle of nowhere build relatively late expand severay tiles to push back Alex's borders all the way to his city (several tiles away), and eventually completely surround it, gaining my team several wine resources, and completely cutting off his city from his others. (no open borders). as my borders slowly expanded towards Alex, he didn't even see it oming and try to build up cultural defences. by the end of the game, i think i had built all the wonders except like 2. BETTER AI PLEASE FIRAXIS!!!
Reme
Chieftain
I think we should be able to buy, sell, or trade land in Civ V.
Need money? Sell your unwanted land!
Need money? Sell your unwanted land!
There was one feature that I always enjoyed in Alpha Centauri, namely that you had bays, highlands/plateaus etc. named after a city close by. It would give the game some more dynamics in my eyes, that you could have "The great battle of the Madrid highlands". This is just an example of a bigger point I want to make.
I live in a small european country. Yet you see clear differences in terms of level of eduacation, economic power and political views. However, an example like USA you saw a distinctly different development of the country, which generated differences internally and ended in a civil war that defined the country. I would like to see some implementation of regional differences within a civ. Like perhaps if you have some big cities close to the capital generating a lot of commerce and with high education, you would get extra gold due to the level of education and amount of trade going on. However, the population there in general terms would perhaps be less happy going to war (as it can disrupt trade), thus you would get weaker units (maybe 10-20% weaker than standard). On the other hand, you would have smaller cities far away from the big metropolitan areas, where people are hard working farmers. These would not generate as much income and trade, but would be more inclined to accept war (often being more traditional and patriotic for a less of a better word) and be better soldiers, due to hard labour.
The above is grossly simplified and based on stereotypes. However, I would like the game to have some dynamic development of the civ you play. Like if you have an Athens and a Spartan city, they developed very differently, gaining different pros and cons.
I find it rather unrealistic that your country develops like a harmonious entity, rather than with unique traits in the cities/regions. And if you are not aware of these developments, you could end up with regions rising up in civil war, potentially splitting off to form their own civilization if you don't interact with them either with military or political power. I don't think there has been a bigger reason for civilizations falling apart than uneven political and economical development. I would very much have this reflected in a future Civ.
Hmm, the above wasn't really a very cohorent post.
I live in a small european country. Yet you see clear differences in terms of level of eduacation, economic power and political views. However, an example like USA you saw a distinctly different development of the country, which generated differences internally and ended in a civil war that defined the country. I would like to see some implementation of regional differences within a civ. Like perhaps if you have some big cities close to the capital generating a lot of commerce and with high education, you would get extra gold due to the level of education and amount of trade going on. However, the population there in general terms would perhaps be less happy going to war (as it can disrupt trade), thus you would get weaker units (maybe 10-20% weaker than standard). On the other hand, you would have smaller cities far away from the big metropolitan areas, where people are hard working farmers. These would not generate as much income and trade, but would be more inclined to accept war (often being more traditional and patriotic for a less of a better word) and be better soldiers, due to hard labour.
The above is grossly simplified and based on stereotypes. However, I would like the game to have some dynamic development of the civ you play. Like if you have an Athens and a Spartan city, they developed very differently, gaining different pros and cons.
I find it rather unrealistic that your country develops like a harmonious entity, rather than with unique traits in the cities/regions. And if you are not aware of these developments, you could end up with regions rising up in civil war, potentially splitting off to form their own civilization if you don't interact with them either with military or political power. I don't think there has been a bigger reason for civilizations falling apart than uneven political and economical development. I would very much have this reflected in a future Civ.
Hmm, the above wasn't really a very cohorent post.
Geek113377
Human (Usually)
Better Forts-
In civ4 forts provided a defensive bonus to units inside them, and in BTS your naval units could enter them too, allowing forts to act as canals (which doesn't happen in real life). In civ5, I want forts to provide a bonus (both defensive and offensive) to land and sea uits in adjacent tiles (a tile further if over water, and a tile further if on a hill and around it is flat (that'd be 3 tiles on a coastal hill). enemies would get a NEGATIVE combat bonus while in the fort's ZOC. Naval units should NOT be allowed to enter forts, because that doesn't happen in real life (i should know because i live in an area with a lot of forts). there is usually a fort on one or more sides of the harbor (next to your city in civ), but the boats don't actually go into the fort. forts should have a ranged attack, with the number of HP depending of when the fort was built (tech tree wise), and when it is now (as techs advance, you're gonna replaces those ballistae with cannons). when a land unit is in the fort, it receives an additional bonus for DEFENSE and RANGED attack, but not for standard attack (where your little sword guys have to come out of the fort to pwn the dudes with clubs).
In civ4 forts provided a defensive bonus to units inside them, and in BTS your naval units could enter them too, allowing forts to act as canals (which doesn't happen in real life). In civ5, I want forts to provide a bonus (both defensive and offensive) to land and sea uits in adjacent tiles (a tile further if over water, and a tile further if on a hill and around it is flat (that'd be 3 tiles on a coastal hill). enemies would get a NEGATIVE combat bonus while in the fort's ZOC. Naval units should NOT be allowed to enter forts, because that doesn't happen in real life (i should know because i live in an area with a lot of forts). there is usually a fort on one or more sides of the harbor (next to your city in civ), but the boats don't actually go into the fort. forts should have a ranged attack, with the number of HP depending of when the fort was built (tech tree wise), and when it is now (as techs advance, you're gonna replaces those ballistae with cannons). when a land unit is in the fort, it receives an additional bonus for DEFENSE and RANGED attack, but not for standard attack (where your little sword guys have to come out of the fort to pwn the dudes with clubs).
derflensburger
Chieftain
- Joined
- Sep 12, 2006
- Messages
- 73
That sounds fantastic. That is exactly the way forts work. Your ships could seek for cover near a fort.
In CIV 4 ships could enter forts, i.e. use them as canals but see it the other way: it was the only way to build canals... maybe too cheap though.
I would love to be able to build canals as well - of course at a decent cost!
jacyp
Winter Lover
Better army management.
The idea is very simple and isn't new at all, but I think it would fit the game graciously and add more realism to it: instead of make units, cities would product equipments, then you could take 1 pop of your city and equip that with the proper equipment, for the unit you want to create.
Yes, you saw that before: colonization.
I think this would be a fantastic feature, since Civ 5 apparently already implemented differences for the resources requirements for making units (they will use the resource stocked(?), or so I heard).
I also think it would fit perfectly the reality, without ruining the game experience: in real life, only countries that feels very threatened, or that have to pose as a major power, have huge standing armies. Most countries have a recruitment system, and can recruit more people in times of war. This also reflects the behavior of nations along the history as well: soldiers were mostly farmers, fishermen and the likes during peace times. When war comes, then people get on arms and go fight. Few historical empires were exceptions to that, and of course, that exception could be perfectly reflected in game, like ancient rome, who had standing armies across europe on borders of the empire.
So the system would be like you make equipment and stock these (with reduced upkeep, compared to a full equiped unit) until you equip it on a unit, wich comes from your pop. After all, it's weird that you pop grows while you make units, since the unit represent a large fighting force that comes from you pop.
When a equipment becomes obsolete, you can salvage it for a little hammer on making new equipment, while you can call your obsolete unit home and make them work. You can see that it matches reality completely, specially if you think about WW2 when the US army drafted a large force that was disbanded once the war was over. Those guys returned home to work, they didn't disappear.
Very simple, I think the only thing that would have a drastic change would be, of course, the AI, that would have to be all reworked.
This system would give a lot of military strategy choices for all nations, no matter the size or type of game they prefer.
That's my idea
Please share your thoughts about it.
Cheers.
The idea is very simple and isn't new at all, but I think it would fit the game graciously and add more realism to it: instead of make units, cities would product equipments, then you could take 1 pop of your city and equip that with the proper equipment, for the unit you want to create.
Yes, you saw that before: colonization.
I think this would be a fantastic feature, since Civ 5 apparently already implemented differences for the resources requirements for making units (they will use the resource stocked(?), or so I heard).
I also think it would fit perfectly the reality, without ruining the game experience: in real life, only countries that feels very threatened, or that have to pose as a major power, have huge standing armies. Most countries have a recruitment system, and can recruit more people in times of war. This also reflects the behavior of nations along the history as well: soldiers were mostly farmers, fishermen and the likes during peace times. When war comes, then people get on arms and go fight. Few historical empires were exceptions to that, and of course, that exception could be perfectly reflected in game, like ancient rome, who had standing armies across europe on borders of the empire.
So the system would be like you make equipment and stock these (with reduced upkeep, compared to a full equiped unit) until you equip it on a unit, wich comes from your pop. After all, it's weird that you pop grows while you make units, since the unit represent a large fighting force that comes from you pop.
When a equipment becomes obsolete, you can salvage it for a little hammer on making new equipment, while you can call your obsolete unit home and make them work. You can see that it matches reality completely, specially if you think about WW2 when the US army drafted a large force that was disbanded once the war was over. Those guys returned home to work, they didn't disappear.
Very simple, I think the only thing that would have a drastic change would be, of course, the AI, that would have to be all reworked.
This system would give a lot of military strategy choices for all nations, no matter the size or type of game they prefer.
That's my idea
Please share your thoughts about it.
Cheers.
Capped units per tile.
Ok, let's just say that there's a lot of number between the Stack of Doom problem and the One Unit per Tile problem. I dont know how many times this was already suggested, but what abou hard capped units per tile.
About the same "one unit per tile" issue, what about those workers? Ok, this was vastly discussed in this forum, but I find the idea of infinite stack of workers per tile awesome (even if the excess workers couldnt, you know, work).
And finally. Return of the cottages system (MUCH better than trading posts).
Ok, let's just say that there's a lot of number between the Stack of Doom problem and the One Unit per Tile problem. I dont know how many times this was already suggested, but what abou hard capped units per tile.
About the same "one unit per tile" issue, what about those workers? Ok, this was vastly discussed in this forum, but I find the idea of infinite stack of workers per tile awesome (even if the excess workers couldnt, you know, work).
And finally. Return of the cottages system (MUCH better than trading posts).
No, not an arbitrary hard cap! 
Sorry, but I just really don't like the idea of having a hard cap on the number of units per tile, when there are better and other options available. Luckily 1 unit per tile is the least arbitrary hard cap they could've implemented, what with being at the extreme, but hard caps as a general rule are not a good solution to a problem.
Sorry, but I just really don't like the idea of having a hard cap on the number of units per tile, when there are better and other options available. Luckily 1 unit per tile is the least arbitrary hard cap they could've implemented, what with being at the extreme, but hard caps as a general rule are not a good solution to a problem.
This is good. But it's really powerful ! I guess forts will be used massivly (too much?) in multiplayer and something need to be added to limit the number and/or make them harder to build.
As upkeep costs don't really follow the design of Civ V (upkeep costs are only in cities), i guess one of the best way is to give to great generals the capacity to create a fort (like great scientifics become academies).
As an idea it sucks cold potato soup through a straw.
The solution to the Stack of Doom problem is a) separate attack and defence strengths, combined with b) attacker getting the choice of which unit to attack if there are not enough defenders. On a sliding scale of "enough defenders" so that the bigger the stack the higher the proportion of defence units you need to avoid the enemy cavalry just picking off your artillery and attack units.
Similar threads
