Civ V Ideas & Suggestions Summary

Secondly, we are assuming that players are going to appreciate what is essentially going to be a minigame in the midst of their play, a minigame that can alter results. It takes away from the planning aspect and shifts the skill set over to hand-eye coordination.

Which is a qualitative change, in ways most of the options suggested in this forum are not.

It does not seem to me that the answer to "I love Europa Universalis/Hearts of Iron/Total War gameplay" is any different from the answer to "I love PacMan, Zork, and Doom"; they are all games that have their strengths, they are none of them games that have Civ's strengths, and attempting to integrate them into Civ is at very best detracting from Civ's strengths and at worst making the game unplayable.

Note; that last is not "I don't like it" (though I don't). It's "requiring RTS-type reaction times would make it physically impossible for me to play the game."

And "optional" that means you can't do as well in the game with the option off as it is possible for you to do with the option on is not adding an option, it's restricting everything else.
 
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 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.

If its not default, then it would have to be an add-on or mod addition. If it exists in the core as an option, it is like giving someone a hat they don't have to wear. If they like wearing hats, they can wear it, but if they don't, its kind of extra. I would rather just buy the package and leave the hat out of it. Buy the hat separately.
 
Certainly, it could be an expansion... like BtS...
I think sales would be pretty good, worldwide... despite the objections of a few here.
 
Certainly, it could be an expansion... like BtS...
I think sales would be pretty good, worldwide... despite the objections of a few here.

It could be more than an expansion. It could be a re-imagined edition after Civ 5 Complete comes out.

Civilization 5: Complete Warrior Edition featuring real-time battle simulator, FPS spy missions, Level 50 cap for the new Great Leader unit and skill trees, 7.2 Surround Sound support, and one of four collectible action figures!
 
:lol:
But, I think we need to ditch the real time part...
Part of what I love about Civ is the turn basis... tactical combat is much more tactical on a turn basis...
 
:lol:
But, I think we need to ditch the real time part...
Part of what I love about Civ is the turn basis... tactical combat is much more tactical on a turn basis...

so... tactics a la Final Fantasy Tactics, Tactics Ogre, and Advance Wars?
 
so... tactics a la Final Fantasy Tactics, Tactics Ogre, and Advance Wars?

I was thinking more along the lines of the graphics of TW, but moving units was still done on a turn based scheme...
For example... a "unit" is generally composed of a formation of 3. Those three could represent the 3 subunits each unit has, that you would field. Subunits would need to stay somewhat near each other on the battlefield, but units could move wherever.

So, you could position your defense in very advantageous spots and brace for impact... or flank on the counterattack with your cavalry... etc etc...

I haven't played any of the 3 games you mention, so I am not sure how they operate.
 
And "optional" that means you can't do as well in the game with the option off as it is possible for you to do with the option on is not adding an option, it's restricting everything else.

One can make that argument about most options in the game in a certain way. For example if you know better than the AI how to use spies, then turning the option off means you can't do as well in the game as with the option on, etc

For single player, just let everyone choose wether they like it with or without.
For multiplayer, make it a veto option - if even one person 'votes' against, it's without.
I see no problems with it then.

Also, unit strength ratings in the 'normal/automatic' version could be based on a statistical test where the AI played out hundreds of tactical battles against itself using various units.
That way, it would ensure both modes are, in terms of winning chances, close to eachother.
 
Also, unit strength ratings in the 'normal/automatic' version could be based on a statistical test where the AI played out hundreds of tactical battles against itself using various units.
That way, it would ensure both modes are, in terms of winning chances, close to eachother.

I really hope Civ V stays in moddable python and xml. And if it does, your hundreds of tactical battles could be difficult to write.
 
I really hope Civ V stays in moddable python and xml. And if it does, your hundreds of tactical battles could be difficult to write.

I absolutely agree that moddability is about the most important thing in CIV.

But if there is a tactical engine included, it could be something like a world builder, but for the tactical part.
Say you created a unit X, you put it there in the map and click a button "find strength", and it could automatically resolve a couple of hundred battles against various other units. If it isn't rendered to the screen, just a progress bar or something, these would play out really fast, and afterwards you would be given a strategic strength number, like we have right now.
If the engine is there and the AI is written, it's not that difficult to include an autoplay option.

I just suggested it so that the 'strategic/normal' battle resolving wouldn't produce much different results from a 'tactical' one, within a small statistical margin, so gameplay wouldn't be affected by playing with or without that option.
Even right now the unit strengths we have are also statistical approximations in the end.
 
Right!

And also, not to mention... in a tactical match up... no amount of maneuvering is going to enable a spearman to beat a tank :lol:
 
Atolls, a la waterworld. Offshore Landfill Islands. ANYTHING to make the ocean less boring. Cruise liners? Naval is altogether mostly very soporific. In the end, if I have the hammers, I just post destroyers from north to south so I can spot any subs or other ships moving in the ocean. At one point, the AI appears to give up naval exploration. Barbarian Galleons/Caravels?
 
Yeah, how about artaficial islands, they do exist, they are both an alternativre to landfills, (-unhelthiness) and you can turn ocian squares to land for an expensive price... or cruse liners that are like great merciants (only less money) and can be raided by pirates or your privateers. You could have the option to upgrade a unit to hidden nationality (after strength 2?) that could attack them. Or of course when ur at war.
 
I don't know if these ideas have been presented before. If they have, consider this my support for what previous writers have said in favor of them. That said, let's start with...

City Radius: A city may make use of all tiles within its radius, not just a certain maximum number. With this caveat, only those tiles actually under a city's control. Which tiles are under a city's control depending on the city's culture. So if a city has a five tile radius, then that city would be able to exploit tiles 5 deep.

Conquest: A player may choose to occupy a captured city instead of annexing it. If occupied it is to be returned to its original owner upon agreeing to a peace treaty.

Peace Treaties: War ceases when an armistice is declared or imposed. Combatants may then engage in treaty talks, working out adjustments of borders, allocation of resources, and payment of reparations along with any thing else the participants can think of.

Technology: Once a discovery has been made, a technology invented, it tends to spread. Thus, for every civilization that knows a technology other civilizations can gain a bonus when researching that tech. Thus if the bonus is set at 5% of available science production, three civilizations knowing the secret of a particular tech would mean any other civilization researching that technology would gain a 15% bonus to the science production dedicated to the task of researching it. In short, the more people know of and about a bit of knowledge the easier it becomes for others to learn about it.

Retreats: An unit, fast or slow, being defeated in battle may choose to retreat. The chance of successful retreat depending on unit speed, comparative technology, and how damaged the victorious unit is.

Combined Arms: Two or more units may combine their strengths, with different types of units having a synergistic effect. So that musket and pike together, for instance, would have an advantage over enemy units they would not have alone.

Resources and Unit Costs: Units requiring certain resources would cost more the further from the resource they are. So a swordsman (iron) built in a city say 5 movement points from a source of iron could be built quicker than one built in a city 25 movement points away from that source.

Mines: Mines may not be built on grassland, flood plains, or prairie.

Irrigation: Renamed farms. Restricted to grassland and flood plains.

Ranches: Available only with the development of the right tech. What the right tech might be I haven't the foggiest idea. Restricted to prairie. Prior to the tech being developed a civilization may establish minor tribes on the prairie herding animals on its behalf. But such tribes will have a tendency to rebel and go marauding.

Civil War: During times of drought, war, and social upheaval civilizations will have a tendency to break up into factional fighting. Most likely in despotic regimes. Chance of a city joining the rebellion depends on happiness, distance from the capital, and the presence of certain factions antagonistic to the government.

Don't ask me for any ideas on how to implement these, for I haven't the slightest idea on how to do it. All this is is a list of things I think would be fun to include. Discuss amongst yourselves.
 
Back
Top Bottom