Civ V Ideas & Suggestions Summary

[rysmiel]

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.

Which does kind of throw a monkey wrench into figuring out city placement, no ?

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.

This is different from being able to trade cities in diplomacy Civ-3-without-expansions style how ?

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.

This was implemented in Civ 2.

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.

This is implemented in Civ 3 for fast units with enough movement left, which to some extent depends on damage IIRC.

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.

This is implemented by having separately varying attack/defence values pre-Civ 4.

Mines: Mines may not be built on grassland, flood plains, or prairie.
Irrigation: Renamed farms. Restricted to grassland and flood plains.

How does this benefit the game ? It reduces flexibility, that I can see.

 

[Aserjiek]

Does any body remember the advisers from civ 2? I'd like to have in game functional ones that as I explore and research, give me different advisers that grant bonuses. Like at the discovery of hunting, I might get an adviser option that lowers the cost of scouts from 22 to 18. Or once I discover bronze working I get an adviser option that lowers the cost of slavery by 15%. And in addition I'd like to do away with traits and do something like SMAC, though not as drastic as designing units, that gets really repetitive. Something like I get 5 points at the leader selection screen, and I can use a pre-made leader or make my own. I could use 2 points to get an always apparent +1 with every leader, 1 to get 50% faster barracks, 1 to get 50% faster dry docks, 1 to get 50% faster stables. Like SMAC, in a game where every leader is overpowered, no one is.

 

[mythusmage]

Which does kind of throw a monkey wrench into figuring out city placement, no ?

Makes you put more thought into it.

This is different from being able to trade cities in diplomacy Civ-3-without-expansions style how ?

Under occupation the player would be expected to return a city once a peace treaty is signed. He doesn't, keeping the city ruins his reputation, and gains support for the other party. Even worse, he loses victory points and culture.

This was implemented in Civ 2.

Be nice if they told us.

This is implemented in Civ 3 for fast units with enough movement left, which to some extent depends on damage IIRC.

For all units, not just the fast ones, and regardless of movement points left. (Terror motivates wonderfully. )

This is implemented by having separately varying attack/defence values pre-Civ 4.

Units still attack separately, in my scheme all available units, or those units assigned to the attack, attack at once. And please note that armies do not have their units attack at once, but separately. With an army you get each unit attacking sequentially without having to order them to.

How does this benefit the game ? It reduces flexibility, that I can see.

It keeps mines from being built in locations that would be better used as farm land later in the game. And since you got me thinking about it...

Farmland: Regardless of location, grassland or prairie, each tile developed as farmland adds 5% to overall food production under despotic regimes, 10% under monarchies and the like, and 25% under democracies and similar.

Addenda: Prior to the development of railroads whenever food production for a city that is of maximum size is 20% greater than that needed to sustain that city, farmland will revert to wilderness until food production is only 20% greater than what is necessary to sustain the population. Once railroads are developed, and link three or more cities, then if overall food production is greater than 20% of what is needed for the civilization as a whole, then farmland will be allowed to revert to wilderness. With this exception; if any city is below the maximum possible sans the discovery of hospitals and sanitation---that is, a population of 12 (or 10, or 15, or 25 depending on the mod or scenario)---then food production can rise above this limit.

Cities and Terrain: The maximum size of a city depends on government, technology, and location. A city located in a mountain tile under a despotism, for example, would be limited to a population of one. While a modern era city under a democracy on a flood plain could reach as high as a population of 25 even without hospitals and public sanitation. (It would just have a lot of epidemics.)

Emigration, Not Starvation: When a city cannot support its population, excess population will emigrate to another city instead of starving. Which city depending on each city's culture and and level of food production.

Tile Development: When a tile reverts to wilderness all improvements are lost unless that tile contains resources or luxuries. In which case only those improvements necessary to exploit that resource remain. In the case of roads, railroads, and airports, each player must decide whether he wishes an improvement to remain in a tile or not.

Team Games: A team of two or more players may cooperate in the running of a civilization, each taking on specific aspects of management. Where a team numbers three or more people, one player takes on the role of leader, directing his fellow players in their tasks.

Yes, these suggestions do change the tenor and feel of the game. Which is why I'm making them. Computer capability has improved, and will continue to improve; I just thought it would be nice to take advantage if these improvements beyond the eye candy level.

 

[mythusmage]

Settlers (Colonists, Pioneers, Migrants) and Cities

Each Settler unit costs as much population as the player wishes to include; up to the population of the city of origin. (In which case the city is effectively abandoned.) Naturally, the larger the Settler, the longer it takes to build.

A city's population determines how many tiles a city may exploit. With this important caveat, a city with a population of one can only exploit the tile it is on. If that tile does not provide sufficient food to maintain a population of one, then a city may not be built there. A city tile must be developed by workers just like any other tile. In order for development to extend beyond a city then that city must grow to a population of two or more.

Reason: Consider the scale of even huge, or larger, games. Pre modern cities rarely grew much beyond a square mile in size, which means even on a huge map a city tile is going to be mostly empty territory. Even in modern times the city represents more a collection of villages and towns (neighborhoods and communities) united under a single city government. As a matter of fact, communities in many cities have quasi official councils which act as autonomous agencies and as liaison between the community and the city they are a part of.

Consequences; This changes tons of things.

 

[rysmiel]

It keeps mines from being built in locations that would be better used as farm land later in the game.

This is exactly the point I'm objecting to. Ths situation where you mine a grassland square to get a little production fast, because you don't actually have time to mine the hills yet, and when you do you will then want to irrgate that grassland square, is something Civ should support.

Farmland: Regardless of location, grassland or prairie, each tile developed as farmland adds 5% to overall food production under despotic regimes, 10% under monarchies and the like, and 25% under democracies and similar.

I'd be inlined to make it exponential and give it more stages, in order to make changes of ogvernment more necessary to stay competitive.

Addenda: Prior to the development of railroads whenever food production for a city that is of maximum size is 20% greater than that needed to sustain that city, farmland will revert to wilderness until food production is only 20% greater than what is necessary to sustain the population.

You rule out storing this excess food, then ?

Cities and Terrain: The maximum size of a city depends on government, technology, and location. A city located in a mountain tile under a despotism, for example, would be limited to a population of one. While a modern era city under a democracy on a flood plain could reach as high as a population of 25 even without hospitals and public sanitation. (It would just have a lot of epidemics.)

I'm not sure I see benefits to this model above the Civ 3 one.

Computer capability has improved, and will continue to improve; I just thought it would be nice to take advantage if these improvements beyond the eye candy level.

I remain adamantly imposed to Civ 5 requiring me to buy a new computer; considering that right at the moment I can't afford a computer at minimum specs to play Civ 4, this is an issue that is rather important to me.

 

[rysmiel]

With this important caveat, a city with a population of one can only exploit the tile it is on. If that tile does not provide sufficient food to maintain a population of one, then a city may not be built there. A city tile must be developed by workers just like any other tile. In order for development to extend beyond a city then that city must grow to a population of two or more.

Reason: Consider the scale of even huge, or larger, games. Pre modern cities rarely grew much beyond a square mile in size, which means even on a huge map a city tile is going to be mostly empty territory. Even in modern times the city represents more a collection of villages and towns (neighborhoods and communities) united under a single city government. As a matter of fact, communities in many cities have quasi official councils which act as autonomous agencies and as liaison between the community and the city they are a part of.

Ah. It's realism again.

Unless it's fun, realism has no place in the game.

 

[Silv Something]

For some people, realism = fun.

 

[techathon]

My civ 4 broke recantly and I went back to civ 3. THis made me relise how stupid the modding is in civ4. I think that there should be something with worldbuilder and civ3edit mixed where you can change the rules, add unis governments, religions, and that all in one app. But it is an option on the main screen. There also should be a unit maker that ships with it too. It doesn't have to be too powerfull, Just something like the spore editor with weapons and you could add props by adding the files tor the props OR you could have a prop editor where you can draw out and make your own props or weapons. You then could drag motions and sound from other units.

 

[rysmiel]

For some people, realism = fun.

Goi away, do an exactly realisitic implementation of logistical planning for a D-Day scale invasion, run one, and come back and tell me that again. If you can completel playing it through in one lifetime, that is.

A game that's remotely playable has to make compromises with realism; the only question is where those compromises go.

 

[Gooblah]

Well, I have a few more suggestions for Firaxis. I'm perfectly fine with keeping the same Civilizations and Leaders from Civ4 (maybe add the Hittites, or another African civ, or the Danes instead of the Vikings). I like the mechanics of the resources and improvements. A lot of my suggestions are purely gameplay oriented, and less about specific features.

1) Improved In-Game Editor. Let's face it: Worldbuilder SUCKS. I mean, come on. If I create a Mountain in the ocean, it's too small. If I reduce a Mountain to Ocean, the colors and textures are messed up. Beyond that, adding Civilizations and Leaders to the game to create a scenario (existing, not new ones) requires rooting through Notepad. It's not particularly difficult, just time-consuming and it could be implemented in a much better way. The Notepad functionality isn't bad at all IMO, just augment it with similar features in-game. Allow the player to open up the editor from the Main Menu - specify height, width, Civilizations and Leaders to be included, Game Options, etc from one point, instead of entering a game, entering Worldbuilder, saving the Worldbuilder as a Worldbuilder file, exiting, entering Custom Scenario, setting all the leaders, etc, etc. Having Excel-style type response would be cool: If I started to type O-T-T...the game would fill in Ottomans. The map that would be created would be a blank Ocean Map.

Allow the user to enter a city screen and fiddle around with it in-editor: I want to be able to customize Specialists, buildings, tiles being worked, name, GPP ppints, etc, from within an interface similar to the one in-game. If I click on the Barracks button, it appears in the city's building list; if I SHIFT-click, it appears in the build queue. Something like that.

When the user is in Player Mode, s/he should be able to edit Civics, Civilization, Espionage Distribution, Leader, etc.

2)Better AI. Is it too difficult to construct an AI-simulator for your game before release, and use it to improve the AI? Admittedly, the AI in Civ4 wasn't THAT bad, but it could have been a lot better. Maybe catching things like AI workers switching improvements on a tile every time one is finished? Or various bugs that had to be caught by a member of the community, patched unofficially, patched officially, then patched unofficially AGAIN due to a poor patch by Firaxis?

 

[techathon]

1) Improved In-Game Editor. Let's face it: Worldbuilder SUCKS. I mean, come on. If I create a Mountain in the ocean, it's too small. If I reduce a Mountain to Ocean, the colors and textures are messed up. Beyond that, adding Civilizations and Leaders to the game to create a scenario (existing, not new ones) requires rooting through Notepad. It's not particularly difficult, just time-consuming and it could be implemented in a much better way. The Notepad functionality isn't bad at all IMO, just augment it with similar features in-game. Allow the player to open up the editor from the Main Menu - specify height, width, Civilizations and Leaders to be included, Game Options, etc from one point, instead of entering a game, entering Worldbuilder, saving the Worldbuilder as a Worldbuilder file, exiting, entering Custom Scenario, setting all the leaders, etc, etc. Having Excel-style type response would be cool: If I started to type O-T-T...the game would fill in Ottomans. The map that would be created would be a blank Ocean Map.

Allow the user to enter a city screen and fiddle around with it in-editor: I want to be able to customize Specialists, buildings, tiles being worked, name, GPP ppints, etc, from within an interface similar to the one in-game. If I click on the Barracks button, it appears in the city's building list; if I SHIFT-click, it appears in the build queue. Something like that.

Yeah, but you should be able to mess w/ the rules, add techs, governments, units all of THAT w/ worldbulider like in civ3edit.

2)Better AI. Is it too difficult to construct an AI-simulator for your game before release, and use it to improve the AI? Admittedly, the AI in Civ4 wasn't THAT bad, but it could have been a lot better. Maybe catching things like AI workers switching improvements on a tile every time one is finished? Or various bugs that had to be caught by a member of the community, patched unofficially, patched officially, then patched unofficially AGAIN due to a poor patch by Firaxis?

That goes w/o saying. The AI improved bigly betwwen civs 3 and 4 so it will do that again.

 

[Gooblah]

Yeah, but you should be able to mess w/ the rules, add techs, governments, units all of THAT w/ worldbulider like in civ3edit.

That goes w/o saying. The AI improved bigly betwwen civs 3 and 4 so it will do that again.

The problem with the new Techs, Civics, and Units idea is that their addition extends beyond simple one-file additions, but includes various art files, xml, and - in the case of civics - SDK knowledge. It would be a major timesink for something that would probably take as much time in-game as it does without the game running. If you do want to add these things, then the choices would be limited mostly by art; it couldn't be TOO difficult to add a straight editor-to-.txt file option.

 

[Silv Something]

techathon, one your poll website one of the polls is "should there be hexagon tiles?"
Anyone care to discuss this?

P.S. I would like to point out that the squares in Civ IV are equivalent to an octagon because a unit can move in eight directions.

P.P.S. Wait, then there would be gaps between tiles. Oh well.

 

[techathon]

The problem with the new Techs, Civics, and Units idea is that their addition extends beyond simple one-file additions, but includes various art files, xml, and - in the case of civics - SDK knowledge. It would be a major timesink for something that would probably take as much time in-game as it does without the game running. If you do want to add these things, then the choices would be limited mostly by art; it couldn't be TOO difficult to add a straight editor-to-.txt file option.

Have you ever used civ3edit? all you need a a root file w/ your art in it and it reads the art and gives you the graphic for it to add it to the mod. You can edit the strengths weaknesses and such of a unit. For example, I edited a para-worker and a para settler. It took me about 39 seconds each to make them. Granted, I didn't make the graphics 4 their parashoots, but that only takes a little to select a folder.

Granted also. It wasn't in the actual game, there is a civ3edit.exe file that does that.

techathon, one your poll website one of the polls is "should there be hexagon tiles?"
Anyone care to discuss this?

P.S. I would like to point out that the squares in Civ IV are equivalent to an octagon because a unit can move in eight directions.

P.P.S. Wait, then there would be gaps between tiles. Oh well.

There are fourms about this. this is what I mean.
This fourm
This one
This poll (hexagons are winning)
And I just went thru pg. 1-2.

 

[Aserjiek]

You know what would be cool? If you could upload photos of your family and yourself onto the game and then dress them up in a bunch of different clothes from different cultures. Then you could give them unique stats, and Ta-Da! Instant, and a bit funny, leaders.

(by the way, the upload photo idea wasn't mine, you can do it on Tony Hawk's Underground)

 

[swingcadillac]

Seperate the weapons from the soldiers, Yea you can upgrade units but you should also be able to Pillage enemys weapons, if 3 axemen kill 1 mace men, wouldnt they pick up the maces and armor and start using them? bring back the caravan and ship new weapons to the front lines or weapons from the front lines back.

What about supporting units with food and ammo? In world war 2, whole brigades surrenderd because they where isolated and starved into submission. this would end the wooded hilltop campers. isolated units should lose strength.

Limit how many units you can have in a square, you can only grow 2 food on a plain but you can some how stack 50 cats 50 elephants, 500 maces on it plus a city of 50,000.

Make citys grow in size of land, where as it grows it takes up more squares. and just like berlin or juerewsalum, you can control half a city if you occupie it. or that city goes into anarcy when its partly occupied. or that square turns to ruins automaticly when a battle takes place there, but rebuilds itself when as citizens return. the cottage system, is dumb. they should just be part of the city that builds itself.

How about giving us the option to turn off huts, casting from hut ruins a multiplayer.

Also let us turn off Or let us build unlimited world wonders, (like national wonders, every civ can build even if others have done first). no reason every civ cant have pyrimids.

Aggressive civs shouldnt start with veteran bonus, special units like skirms or quecha ok, but just to say they automaticly build all units stronger?

have seperate attacking and defending strengths.
Archers and cats are ranged units, they attack from behind lines of melee units, why would they die when attacking? they should have a seperate attacking and defending strengths. spears might have a better defending strength too. but units take damage as a percentage, affecting both the attacking and defending strength.

Build forts anywhere you want not just in territory boundries.

 

[Aserjiek]

Seperate the weapons from the soldiers, Yea you can upgrade units but you should also be able to Pillage enemys weapons, if 3 axemen kill 1 mace men, wouldnt they pick up the maces and armor and start using them? bring back the caravan and ship new weapons to the front lines or weapons from the front lines back.

I don't know. It seems like it would be an odd feature to me. Though you might enjoy colonization, if an Indian beats you, they grab the muskets and become a lot more dangerous.

What about supporting units with food and ammo? In world war 2, whole brigades surrenderd because they where isolated and starved into submission. this would end the wooded hilltop campers. isolated units should lose strength.

I agree with this, It would take a lot of the frustration away from having an unhappy alexander on your border.

.

Limit how many units you can have in a square, you can only grow 2 food on a plain but you can some how stack 50 cats 50 elephants, 500 maces on it plus a city of 50,000.

Yes! it would kill the stack of death and actually make terrain more important to the combat of the game.

Make citys grow in size of land, where as it grows it takes up more squares. and just like berlin or juerewsalum, you can control half a city if you occupie it. or that city goes into anarcy when its partly occupied. or that square turns to ruins automaticly when a battle takes place there, but rebuilds itself when as citizens return. the cottage system, is dumb. they should just be part of the city that builds itself.

But then you would have giant metropolises that do nothing but take up space.

How about giving us the option to turn off huts, casting from hut ruins a multiplayer.

I thought you could do that. Is it just a BTS feature?

Also let us turn off Or let us build unlimited world wonders, (like national wonders, every civ can build even if others have done first). no reason every civ cant have pyrimids.

If you want to. But the fact that only one of each can be built is one of the main strengths of the Industrious trait.

Aggressive civs shouldnt start with veteran bonus, special units like skirms or quecha ok, but just to say they automaticly build all units stronger?

Yes they do. The combat one promotion doesn't mean better weapons, it means better training. And it isn't all units, the majority yes, but not all.

have seperate attacking and defending strengths.
Archers and cats are ranged units, they attack from behind lines of melee units, why would they die when attacking? they should have a seperate attacking and defending strengths. spears might have a better defending strength too. but units take damage as a percentage, affecting both the attacking and defending strength.

Yeah, the rock paper scissors effect kinda limits the historical purpose of units like archers to just defending cities. I'm all for knocking out a little realism for the sake of the games fun, but not all of it.

Build forts anywhere you want not just in territory boundries.

That's also a BTS feature. Though forts still stink. I'd suggest a combat engineer unit that can build a fort in 4 turn on normal speed. Combine that with tile limits and Ta-Da! WW1.

 

[Thoughtful Thug]

have seperate attacking and defending strengths.
Archers and cats are ranged units, they attack from behind lines of melee units, why would they die when attacking? they should have a seperate attacking and defending strengths. spears might have a better defending strength too. but units take damage as a percentage, affecting both the attacking and defending strength.

Build forts anywhere you want not just in territory boundries.

I like the fact that in Civ 3, catapults have to be defended by another unit with one defense point or it will be taken or destroyed by another unit from a opposing civ that has at least one attack point. Destroyed=the reason for that they have no knowledge on how to use it.

 

[Horizons]

The one and only thing I don't like about Civ4 is the kamikaze artillery system. Yes, like the poster above me says, the Civ3 artillery system was superior.

 

[techathon]

Using spies to cause a revolt was much worthwhile than siege units. I only used seige my first few games.