Civ V Ideas & Suggestions Summary

[Pterradon]

I Some what agree though to boost your stock pile some economic technologies can be researched like Wheel Barrow upgrades to Hand Cart and gives something like a plus1 for every resource to add to stock pile.

I like the Market and Monk ideas.
Ninjas some civilizations had superb Ninjas like Japan and Britian and some civilizations had superb Monks like Aztecs and Spanish.

These are mostly economic advisor aditions to help boost your economy and afford units and workers to boom your economy with stock piles.

I mean whats the point of having a trading post without a market to charge a small tax fee.

 

[Pterradon]

I have a few ideas, these are more for Civ 5 then adjusting civ 4


First of all Cities.
OK, take here I live as an example. Here in Adelaide Australia there is a fair bit of fertile land in a small area surrounding the city itself. And along the river land about to hours from the city. The state itself to which Adelaide is the capital is vast and arid but there are small towns dotted through it for mining and taking the vast mineral wealth out there. The state is by no means an circle around the capital, it has adjusted to take in the best of whats to offer.

The way civ portrays cities and the area of influence works well for the ancient and medieval eras where transport is an issue, but closer to modern eras it just doesn't sit right. The cities should be reclassified as states not cities. and the fat cross should be abolished. The area of influence in the state should be adjustable.

Think of this. the city/state controls its 3x3 it starts with and begins generating culture (oh god please re-name that). as it accumulates culture the player can go into the city screen and "buy" tiles for that city/state to work, provided it is connected to the rest of the city/states influence. Or you could allow the computer to do that for you.

The second issue I have is towns.
I like them, use them a lot, but there not realistic. Historically towns exist for several reasons. Either they arise at a cross road on a trade route to cash in on passing merchants, or they arise around a particular resource to house the workers and grow from there.

I'd like to take the current option of "Build a cottage" and replace it with;
-"Establish Mining Community" on a tile next to a mine, or several mines, increasing in value the more mines it controls as well as size.
-"Settle Farming Community" next to a farm/farms providing additional per farm, maybe also a bonus.
-Trade Towns should not be built, but appear on there own along trade routes. acting like normal towns do now they could also add to the value of trade routes.

Also depending on how much detail and complication you want to give it. These towns could eventually turn into cities if they are far enough from the capital. This could replace the settler function if done properly.

Some other ideas

• Bring Back Outposts
• Give units the ability to fortify and block terrain. (a mix between civ 4 and 3 there)
• Internal Trade routes need to be revisited. One source of gold does not satisfy a nation, trade routes should be setup, where portions could be allocated. And food trading. Seriously. Food exporting is a huge industry globally.
• More random events
• Listen to what the others have suggested with diplomacy
• New worker function of building solar panels late game in desert tiles.

Lastly, I want my civilization to keep going into the future. You cant expect me to believe that humans reach alpha centauri without moving into space around earth first. Let us establish space colonies, and underwater research stations. The oceans must be full of resources. Cities on platforms on the oceans would be incredible. Ocean Bridges (like 3 tiles) connecting nearby continents. The race for mars? I wouldn't mind a version that demands you survive Armageddon either. So much potential to continue into the future.

You people have some good points i think highlighted territories or states would be ideal to have to adjust the game as it unfolds with state or terrirtorial attachments technologies to upgrade to either A) make and support bigger and more population and armies create bigger faster or B) same as A).

Conscription is one technology
Perfusion and Anarchy is 2 more probably.

Lets say you have 25 cities and to crate a State or Territory would requires atleast 4 cities. Once you get to State and Terrirtory upgrades it is a whole nother technology tree to either help boost military production over all or B) help boost economic production just depends the civilizations and bonuses.

For every territory or state it creates a Capital so realistically you can upgrade from cities and capitals.



I don't know , but just ideas.

 

[techathon]

-Each Civilization now recieves new Unique Technology.

-Spies upgraded to Ninjas.


-Workers can build Castles, Forts, Walls, Gates outside cities and technology can provide them garrison attack bonuses same with Towers requires so many Stone resources for Castles, Forts to be built in the stock pile inside the market; Stone and Wood for Towers; Stone and Gold for Bombard Towers.

How about ninjas to spies, as ninjas are more ancient?

I like this 2nd idea as in real life armies weren't usually in cites while defending them. Roman armies wern't allowed into the city of rome itself... so mabie there could be a tower bonous and a city penalty... The towers could possibly give the stationing of units more real.

 

[Camikaze]

-Each Civilization now recieves new Unique Technology.

Personally, I don't think is a good idea. See here for more discussion.

-More Ages with free economic technologies (Boost Economy).

What exactly do you mean by this? That entrance into a particular age will result in an automatic boost to your economy? Perhaps a simpler and more realistic way of achieving the same thing would be through improving the benefits of new technologies in regards to economics.

-Added new Monk units.
[...]
-Monks can imprison Spies after Jail is built and provide commerce or Spies can be traded off for extra resources to another civilization; imprisoned spies generate extra comerce the more imprisoned the more commerce; Monks can be created at Monastries and is taxed similar to Units though the tax goes down after you build a Temple; Spies can only be imprisoned after Monks conveted them to your own civilization; Provides espinage defense to your civilization; Monks can also heal units and convert enemy units with range every so many turns.

What realistic connection is there between monks and the imprisonment of spies, and the subsequent accumulation of wealth due to this?

-Relics generate Gold or Commerce which ever one you prefer.
[...]
-Relics provide gold after so many turns; the more relics the more Gold; Only monks and spies can move them from one monastry to another.

Where would these relics come from? This is a solid idea, as an addition to the Holy City idea, but where would they come from, how would they be generated, and what restrictions would be placed on them?

-Spies upgraded to Ninjas.
[...]
-Ninjas can steal Relics from unguarded Cities; but must be careful about being converted by Monks; Ninja has additional Stealth.

I think spies are sufficient. And I don't think the historical basis for ninjas is quite good enough for entrance into the game...

-Markets can trade stockpiled resources for additional Tax benifits taxed to other civilizations and requires Trading post to build; based on the abundance of total stock pile for every resource available and a window should appear when you click Market; additional barracks, archery ranges and stables can be built based on Wood availability from the stock pile for better tactical strategy. This is based on the availability of the total stock piled resources from the Market saved up after somany turns and it keeps saving and saving untill you spend what is needed or traded away for a small tax fee to another civilization. Provides a mathmatical economic adjustment for your economy.

This is a decent idea, but would require the valuation of resources (which, BTW, is something that I personally support), which would be a reasonably major change to the game. But that isn't a problem. The problem may be that creating an individual trade market within each city's market could be time consuming and annoyingly tedious, and would require much micromanagement. See here for discussion on the valuation of resources.

-Workers can build Castles, Forts, Walls, Gates outside cities and technology can provide them garrison attack bonuses same with Towers requires so many Stone resources for Castles, Forts to be built in the stock pile inside the market; Stone and Wood for Towers; Stone and Gold for Bombard Towers.

IMO, the current system suffices, although there is certainly room for improvement with the function of forts, castles and walls. But the way they are built seems fine to me.

-Only certain civilizations can build Bombard Towers after a certain age. (Spanish, Byzantines, Ottomans, Koreans etc; Towers and Castles can upgrade based on the Age your in and Outpost upgrades to Watch Tower and this upgrades to Guard Tower and this upgrades to Keep; Not all civilizations can upgrade beyond Guard Tower; Castles can upgrade to Forts automatically based on the age.

Differentiating different civs in such a blatantly disadvantageous way is not a good thing, as it advantages some civs over others too much. UUs, UBs and traits are fine, as they are applied to all civs, so even if they aren't of equal strength for all, they partially compensate for each other. But having something that would simply deny the right of some civs to do certain things would not provide for any partial compensation, but would be sheerly disadvantaging them. And I don't really see any reason to do so, anyway.

-No need for more civilizations as the civilizations can research all the same technolgies. This should give you a better option to play and a choice to develpe your civilization as the game unfolds based on what the map looks like and the enemy instead of what technologies you recieve from the beginning. Kinda like AoC where home cities can research any technology then discard the unwanted technologies through the game as the game unfolds and this can provide strategy to speed the game up.

Currently, although there are different civs with different uniques, most differentiation comes from aesthetics. You can follow any strategy you like, regardless of those uniques, so there is no real point in not adding more civs, seeing as it would only hinder the experience of the game, which is really the only thing it aims to fulfil anyway.

 

[rysmiel]

I can see this working with layers, as in, a sea layer, a land layer, an air layer and a space layer, but how would such a system function in terms of gameplay? Would it really be any different to putting multiple layers on the one map, like is currently in the game?

The thing about multiple layers on one map is that it seems to me to possess more potential for getting visually confusing, unless we did something like fading out all the layers except the one you are currently in.

 

[rysmiel]

-Each Civilization now recieves new Unique Technology.

No; that chokes strategic flexibility.

-Markets can trade stockpiled resources for additional Tax benifits taxed to other civilizations and requires Trading post to build; based on the abundance of total stock pile for every resource available and a window should appear when you click Market; additional barracks, archery ranges and stables can be built based on Wood availability from the stock pile for better tactical strategy. This is based on the availability of the total stock piled resources from the Market saved up after somany turns and it keeps saving and saving untill you spend what is needed or traded away for a small tax fee to another civilization. Provides a mathmatical economic adjustment for your economy.

If I'm reading this right, it's another iteration of "quantitative resources", yes ? In which case, I agree in principle.

-Only certain civilizations can build Bombard Towers after a certain age.

No: that chokes strategic flexibility. (I should just put that on a hot key, I think.)

-No need for more civilizations as the civilizations can research all the same technolgies.

This contradicts your first point; what am I misreading ?

 

[Camikaze]

The thing about multiple layers on one map is that it seems to me to possess more potential for getting visually confusing, unless we did something like fading out all the layers except the one you are currently in.

Well, they all could be simultaneously displayed, assuming that the only difference between them would be altitude, and not tile size. The air layer would be transparent, and would just be directly on top of the land layer, and the sea layer would only exist where the land layer does not, and vise versa. If there were separate trade routes in different layers (so you could control the air but not the land trade routes, for example), then this could be represented in some interface simply through different coloured arrows, if trade routes were to be shown on a display.

 

[BryanAJParry]

I can not read everything. But whatever is done religion stinks in the current setup. What is the purpose of it? Make people happy and change diplomacy. Oh ya they added the Apostolic Palace. All I can say dumb.

The issue was left so to avoid controversy, but national stereotypes are ok.

<snip>

The thing you have to realise is that, whether fairly or unfairly, some people believe that offending certain religions could result in their heads being chopped off or their offices blown up. As I say, whether this is a fair judgement or not, it is a concern that a lot of companies and individuals seem to have. Unfortunate, really, cos I would love to see a "Religion Tycoon" game (which I talked about on my YT channel), but it just ain't gonna happen.

 

[techathon]

Yea, thats also the reason Isreal isn't in the game, It would anger people in the middle east.

 

[BryanAJParry]

Yea, thats also the reason Isreal isn't in the game, It would anger people in the middle east.

Don't these clowns all round the world realise what their age-old disputes are doing to our gaming!?!?

 

[Camikaze]

The thing you have to realise is that, whether fairly or unfairly, some people believe that offending certain religions could result in their heads being chopped off or their offices blown up. As I say, whether this is a fair judgement or not, it is a concern that a lot of companies and individuals seem to have. Unfortunate, really, cos I would love to see a "Religion Tycoon" game (which I talked about on my YT channel), but it just ain't gonna happen.

It's not a matter of fear, it's a matter of just not wanting to offend people, and the want to get good sales. If the game was seen to offend people, there would be less sales, and the brand name would be dragged through the mud as discriminatory.

 

[kochman]

What about an option to micromanage, completely, combat... a la Total War?
It could still be turn based, or real time (like TW)...
Each "unit" you have, for turn based, could be broken down into subunits, which disappear as you take damage during the battle...
Instead of 3 spearman making up a unit, you could zoom into the battle, and that would actually represent 3 companies of spearmen...

 

[Camikaze]

Okay, well that might be a nice idea for some, making the game more enjoyable for a few people, it epitomises exactly what the majority of players do not want. It is expressly what Civ is not, encapsulating what is the essence of other games, at the cost of what is Civ. Civ is a strategy game, not a tactical game. Whilst it may improve the game for some, there are other games that fulfil that purpose, such as Total War. If people want to micromanage battles, they can play Total War. If they want to play an TBS, they play Civ. It would just be a complete departure from what Civ is to fulfil something that is already fulfilled by other games.

 

[kochman]

Okay, well that might be a nice idea for some, making the game more enjoyable for a few people, it epitomises exactly what the majority of players do not want. It is expressly what Civ is not, encapsulating what is the essence of other games, at the cost of what is Civ. Civ is a strategy game, not a tactical game. Whilst it may improve the game for some, there are other games that fulfil that purpose, such as Total War. If people want to micromanage battles, they can play Total War. If they want to play an TBS, they play Civ. It would just be a complete departure from what Civ is to fulfil something that is already fulfilled by other games.

Nice rant. But somewhat off...
In TW, you have the option to let the computer do a random regeneration of the victory, exactly as you do in Civ. Obviously, we wouldn't exclude this ability because we added the other.
Also, the micromanaged combat could be made turn based still.
Stay flexible here Camikaze.

Personally, I think this would make SoD battles WAY more interesting... combat in general is kind of lame.

Giving the option to add depth to this game that we all adore the depth of would probably be a good thing. Again, the option.

 

[Camikaze]

The problem with many tactical things in the game is that even if they are an option, they discriminate between those who are good at using them and do so, those who are bad at using them but use them anyway, and those that automate. The system would be redundant if the automation gave the optimal result, and it would be too tactical for the game if it meant that you could a far better result out of micromanaging a battle yourself than you could out of automating it. And the fact that the people who are good at using tactics and do so have an advantage over those that automate, in a strategy game, is a bad thing, seeing as advantages in the game should be decided on strategic skills, instead of tactical ones.

 

[kochman]

The problem with many tactical things in the game is that even if they are an option, they discriminate between those who are good at using them and do so, those who are bad at using them but use them anyway, and those that automate.

Strategy also discriminates against those who are good or bad at using them properly. That is why some people can whip the game on diety... but most can't, and some never will.

It wouldn't be redundant, if nothing more, you could use your own skills (which is what gaming is about, right?)... and more over, the graphics for such a thing would be awesome, as they are in TW, making the game more enjoyable...
IF you choose to take that option.

Also, just as in automated combat, you could still, even with great skills/odds in your favor, loose a battle you wouldn't suspect you would loose. It has happened to anyone who has played TW...

Anyhow, I don't really understand arguing against having an option for greater depth, but different strokes for different folks I guess.

 

[Camikaze]

Strategy also discriminates against those who are good or bad at using them properly. That is why some people can whip the game on diety... but most can't, and some never will.

But it's a strategy game, so that's fair enough. Giving advantages based on tactical skill is like winning a game of tennis because you're the best at kicking the ball.

It wouldn't be redundant, if nothing more, you could use your own skills (which is what gaming is about, right?)

But the skills used would be tactical skills, not strategy skills. So, in order to make it so that greater tactical skills (in a strategy game) resulted in much better game performance, the alternative to using tactics (automation) would have to be as good as what could be achieved through the best possible application of tactics.

and more over, the graphics for such a thing would be awesome, as they are in TW, making the game more enjoyable...
IF you choose to take that option.

Yeah, I wouldn't mind the graphics, but not in any way that your interaction with them would effect the outcome.

Also, just as in automated combat, you could still, even with great skills/odds in your favor, loose a battle you wouldn't suspect you would loose. It has happened to anyone who has played TW...

But those losses would be less based upon RNG (what a large part of what Civ is based upon) than on tactical skill.

Anyhow, I don't really understand arguing against having an option for greater depth, but different strokes for different folks I guess.

I suppose I don't mind the option, so long as you cannot be advantaged through its use. But that would make it redundant, with no benefit being derived from its use that couldn't be derived from actually playing Total War, i.e. a gameplay one.

 

[Hsinchu]

Easiest way to subscribe to a thread is to post to it.

Anyways: Added victory conditions is a GREAT idea. I particularly like the Industrial and economic victories.

From a strategic point of view, a dominating player can easily outstrip all of his opponents in these departments, but in HOF Gauntlets we are constantly challenged to get a victory at the expense of reaching other victories first which I believe is perfect. With a cap to production, which usually determines military outcomes anyway, or a cap to commerce, which usually determines technological/space victory anyway, you create both new goals for the player and new goals to avoid.

In light of that, I have always been in favor of a "storied mode" availability and pointed victory conditions and tutorials on how to achieve are big plusses in my book.

 

[Thoughtful Thug]

What about an option to micromanage, completely, combat... a la Total War?
It could still be turn based, or real time (like TW)...
Each "unit" you have, for turn based, could be broken down into subunits, which disappear as you take damage during the battle...
Instead of 3 spearman making up a unit, you could zoom into the battle, and that would actually represent 3 companies of spearmen...

That would be awesome to have in the game. I would love to have where the battle between units suddenly zoom in a real time fashion, and play the game not entirely different like Rome Total War. Of course there should be an easy interface where you can place the war in automatic while looking elsewhere on the map for other battles to manage, or do other things that requires you to do in the regular Civ fashion: like managing production and moving other units on the turn based tile world.

I don't see it hard to have multiple picture picture screens to monitor all the battles taking place in the many terrains that your units is on.

I am sure I am not alone to say that I am tired of less detail battles, and lack of tactics during unit battles.

 

[Hsinchu]

That would be awesome to have in the game. I would love to have where the battle between units suddenly zoom in a real time fashion, and play the game not entirely different like Rome Total War. Of course there should be an easy interface where you can place the war in automatic while looking elsewhere on the map for other battles to manage, or do other things that requires you to do in the regular Civ fashion: like managing production and moving other units on the turn based tile world.

I don't see it hard to have multiple picture picture screens to monitor all the battles taking place in the many terrains that your units is on.

I am sure I am not alone to say that I am tired of less detail battles, and lack of tactics during unit battles.

I guess it would be awesome if you play Civ for the combat.

TBH, I play Civ for the math. You can literally calculate your likelihood of victory, quantify your combat success rates, and most of your victory is based on your ability to plan, rather than your ability to engage. If I wanted to play RTS, Starcraft is still on my shelf and Warcraft III box is right next to Civ IV.

I think the P-i-P screens would be a greater burden on an already processor burdening game. Really, I would prefer a graphics upgrade over a new "combat" feature. The implications for an AI that can out maneuver you when you have the odds are just staggering. The AI already cheats, they already get the micromanage advantage, and this is just one more tool in the toolbox that can ruin a perfectly victory condition because the AI launches a surprise attack and I really don't enjoy the idea of managing a real-time battle punctuating a long periods of planning.

The current military in Civ IV is intended as a tool, a means to an end, rather than an activity. The activity is winning the game. Military units are there to make sure that happens (or does not happen).