Two tech trees is an interesting idea. The major problem with it is that it promotes warfare even more in the game, making Civ a military focused game to an even greater extent, and wouldn't necessarily ensure that the player would have to strike a balance between military and science, as they currently do.
Civ V Ideas & Suggestions Summary
- Thread starter Camikaze
- Start date
No. Not remotely. Not even slightly.
Realism is a benefit if, and only if, it improves how the game actually plays. If you think more realism is always an improvement, contemplate what completely realistic management of a D-Day sized invasion would look like.
techathon
Member
I didn't mean right off the bat... and it IS realistic
You see all of the Go Army commercials that you see on the TV. They are on the TV because they work. In the American civil war, most of the solders were volunteers. The idea behind the recruiter is that it could be built in the middle ages, where serfs volunteered to fight for their lord, and could get better if you somehow build or research propaganda, possibly could be a % value like science, culture or esponage. I also think you should be able to see what the gold is that you are putting into one of those values a turn. Then techs like radio and television or building post offices or anything else that spreads ideas could add to the effictiveness of propaganda.Possibly only during wartime this could happen also.
ilduce349
(Financial, Philo)
The reason why i would like to increase military ideas is because it is the most fun way to win and it doesn't have to encourage offense
also other things i would like to add is
1. a 5 speed called REALISTIC, which is 10 Times slower then standard
2. The mayor idea from alpha centaria, where you can turn on a auto build in the city focusing on war, technology, culture or expansion
3. Your leader dies, every 30 turns you leader dies and you can choose to change either 1 of the 2 atrributes of you leader or switch to another leader of your civ, in exchange for 1 turn of anarchy
4. Taxes from cities, how come each city seems to make you loose money from city maintenance when in actuality taxes are normally able to pay it off
also other things i would like to add is
1. a 5 speed called REALISTIC, which is 10 Times slower then standard
2. The mayor idea from alpha centaria, where you can turn on a auto build in the city focusing on war, technology, culture or expansion
3. Your leader dies, every 30 turns you leader dies and you can choose to change either 1 of the 2 atrributes of you leader or switch to another leader of your civ, in exchange for 1 turn of anarchy
4. Taxes from cities, how come each city seems to make you loose money from city maintenance when in actuality taxes are normally able to pay it off
But just remember that Civ is not a war game. It is a strategy game centred around the prosperity of an empire. Realistically, this would include more economics than war, at least in the modern era, but seeing as that wouldn't be quite as fun, things are put more in balance. That balance, however, is a little on the military side, IMO, so I don't really think making the game more military oriented would be a good move, and it would certainly not rectify the imbalance.
ilduce349
(Financial, Philo)
In that case improve the economic centered part of the game as well, this should include more buildings, city expansions (the increase the Max population of a city by 5), Building expansions so the effects are slightly better and a tax rate, can raise taxes, yielding more science and gold for the cost of unhappiness in the city, include depressions when if your production rate in a city is 10+ higher and double of that of you total gold production you enter a depression unless your economic civic is State-Property, the affects of a depression is -30% production, food and Gold in your cities and make resource trading more important, that way you increase the economic part of the game as well
Well, sure, ultimately it would be best to drastically improve and increase both aspects of the game, but there is only finite capacity for game aspects within the next civ. So, IMO, it would be better to improve economic aspects over military ones.
ilduce349
(Financial, Philo)
i also like the propaganda idea, which could change culture (when you invade a city the cities culture is still mostly your enemies) in a city faster and influence enemy people to become your own
ilduce349
(Financial, Philo)
if you could increase both then the next civ will be the ultimate civ,
another suggestion is bribing barbarians to become you own units, i also like the mercenary idea from rhyse and fall, can we include that
another suggestion is bribing barbarians to become you own units, i also like the mercenary idea from rhyse and fall, can we include that
DevilsWing
Chieftain
- Joined
- Sep 15, 2009
- Messages
- 3
I do not know, if someone described this feature before, but i think it would be great to have special future techs. Not just these standard techs to increase health etc.
I thought about something similar to Rise of Nations. When you are at the end of the regular tech tree, you can choose between some great future techs. These should need a lot of time (even a mighty empire should need about 30 rounds or more) but give you a very important bonus, e.g. the ability to recultivate the land.
By the way, I think the global warming should proceed much slower. Even if I always used recycling, regenerative energy and public transport, I have a lot of desertification in my empire and that should not be. But that is not the topic.^^
On top of the recultivation there could be other military techs etc. so you have to choose the right techs based on your own position (e.g. an empire in a desert region should use the recultivation first), situation and play style.
Alongside these special techs you can also choose the normal future techs to increase health and satisfaction in your empire.
But with that your modern empire is able to react to future problems. In my opinion it is absurd that the most progressive and mightiest empire is not able to do anything against desertification or other problems in the "future time" of Civ.
On top of that it introduces a late game strategic decision. Should I take this military tech to be able to conquer and expand or should I concentrate on my empire and it's development? Because of the long tech times this decision could be very important and it decides a game.
What do you think about that?
I thought about something similar to Rise of Nations. When you are at the end of the regular tech tree, you can choose between some great future techs. These should need a lot of time (even a mighty empire should need about 30 rounds or more) but give you a very important bonus, e.g. the ability to recultivate the land.
By the way, I think the global warming should proceed much slower. Even if I always used recycling, regenerative energy and public transport, I have a lot of desertification in my empire and that should not be. But that is not the topic.^^
On top of the recultivation there could be other military techs etc. so you have to choose the right techs based on your own position (e.g. an empire in a desert region should use the recultivation first), situation and play style.
Alongside these special techs you can also choose the normal future techs to increase health and satisfaction in your empire.
But with that your modern empire is able to react to future problems. In my opinion it is absurd that the most progressive and mightiest empire is not able to do anything against desertification or other problems in the "future time" of Civ.
On top of that it introduces a late game strategic decision. Should I take this military tech to be able to conquer and expand or should I concentrate on my empire and it's development? Because of the long tech times this decision could be very important and it decides a game.
What do you think about that?
ilduce349
(Financial, Philo)
Their is a mod with good realistic future techs, if we could add them into the game i think it would be better, also instead of adjusting by 1%, be aloud complete adjustment so if you have 150 gold you can choose 79 for science and 71 for gold
I suppose multifarious generic future techs are a good idea (i.e. military future tech, health future tech, happiness future tech) but I wouldn't want the whole game to be overrun by them. Civ is a re-enactment and re-creation of the history of society, not a simulator of the future.
ilduce349
(Financial, Philo)
the scenario next war has 50 future techs, borrow those and put it in every game
Classenemy
Chieftain
- Joined
- Nov 3, 2008
- Messages
- 7
Well, let me tell you first what a D-Day type invasion looks like right now (from the Allied viewpoint): you spend anywhere between 50 and 100 turns to build a sizable army--with planes, ships, infantry, etc (by the way, in what reality do cities that have a population of 2 milion produce less than cities of 400,000?--In civ, because a small town with iron and coal in the city radius produces more than one in the plains). Then you send the ships to clear up the coast of any possible enemy ships. You can even send aiplanes to weaken the fortified defenses. Afterwards, you send your transporters loaded with soldiers to the coast and point the click of the mouse at the fortified soldiers. The computer calculates the chances of victory and then you contemplate how the soldiers piled up one above the other in your transport either die or win. You migh fortify some positions and then pile up the soldiers again and start to pillage or attack other cities. That's it! Minimum strategy involved. The game as it currently stands does not allow ships to bombard fortifications and developments outside the city; the terrain plays a minimum role (it matters only of you are on a plain or hill). No elements of strategic infiltration, airdrop, bridge holding, river crossing, supply provision, infrastructure securing/ destruction (I don't understand why airplanes or ships cannot destroy roads or railroads), no village and town street fights, etc. One should be able to access hundreds of units in the battlefield, not a symbolic icon over which you have no control one you "clicked". I know such an invasion might require hours to complete, but it's better to spend that time in action than clicking end-of-turns to get the number of desired units.
DragonTempest
Chieftain
has the idea of multiple maps ever been talked about. I remember it being somewhat simplfied in civ2 test of time, where you had specific square that would take you to different maps. I like how Call to power did the space and underwater maps.. of course you can also make local maps like in ghengis khan where you conquered the surraounding tribes before you went to the world map. then you could also do a map for moon, mars, alpha centauri colonizations.etc. the possibilities are endless. oh here is another one.. where you hace two human player play the same civilization.. one in control of military the onther in control of domestics.. just a few thoughts
Silv Something
Pi(e) Loving Maniac
Hmmm. Sounds cool. The only problem I have with it is is it easy too switch from one map to another? 2 maps might be confusing too.
Similar threads
