Civ V Ideas & Suggestions Summary

[Camikaze]

Thank you for your contribution, Nuvoloblu.

I particularly like the idea of military transit in your first post on the previous page. I think various types of open borders agreements are necessary in order to prevent what would seem to be ridiculous situations of a military wandering halfway across the world through neutral territory to wage war; sometimes within the neutral territory itself.

However, your final idea of that post, if I understand it correctly, seems to be placing too much importance on tactics, with the placement of units having effects on the abilities of other units within a particular zone. Just remember that Civ is a strategy game, not a tactics game, and any implementation of tactics distorts that focus.

 

[702]

A couple of points,

For real world resource placement (e.g. Arabs having oil, Mongols having horses, etc...) why not add a third option? Currently there is randomly distributed resources and evenly distributed resources, why not just add in real world resources to this?

Secondly, the idea of needing a second agreement in order for your military units to cross someone elses territory I like, the only quibble I have is that some have suggested perhaps one or two units could go across (with a settler) without needing an agreement. This seems to me to be open to abuse, you could send a small army across (albeit over many turns) and so just get around the point of the thing in the first place.

 

[TRoosevelt]

I particularly like the idea of military transit in your first post on the previous page. I think various types of open borders agreements are necessary in order to prevent what would seem to be ridiculous situations of a military wandering halfway across the world through neutral territory to wage war; sometimes within the neutral territory itself.

I think it is necessary also, and even if you allow military units to cross your borders, they should have to limit themselves to a road or rail network designated by you until they get across your nation. (Since when does any foreign military unit have carte blanche to do what it wants to on our soil?) And maybe in that regard, there could be transport vehicles or trains that could haul units across your land - no automatic movement across a large country anymore, or a small one for that matter. So, unless your ally's army is there to help you in your defense (and that could be one of the options), then it should remain at the border until suitable transportation can be made available. If the army's leader doesn't like it, then it can either find another way to their destination, or stop waging war halfway across the globe, and possibly reevaluate its friendship to you. Of course, the AI won't even take into consideration that maybe the war isn't worth fighting, and so it will gladly send every last unit it can spare to the far reaches of the globe, totally ignoring its own perilous defense at home, and bankrupting its economy if we had bankruptcy rules - that is, if there was a better financial model in the game.

That needs to be fixed. There should be a cost analysis factor weighed in by the AI when deciding to wage war, and it should not come up in favor of going to war over 20 gold - ever. How often did two widely separated countries ever fight each other anyway? It was always for a piece of land that both wanted, not because one won't fork over a meaningless amount of tribute to the other. Silly stupid wars for no reason other than the stupid AI has built too many units and now the program is telling it to go attack someone. And when the number of units get low enough, it wants to ask for peace. There's just no rationality to its actions. I think each AI leader should behave like someone in real life, ie. have a real personality and a real life goal, so at least you could then anticipate certain reactions by them.

 

[rysmiel]

Maybe reduce this to 3 levels...I see no reason why scouts should be able to enter but not settlers or workers.

Because they represent drastically different numbers of people ?

I am incliend to think that the default before you have contacted anyone should be that you can send scouts through their territory, but either you can't send other units without an agreement, or if you do they can be attacked without causing a war.

Perhaps with the middle level, you can have a certain number of military units enter at any one time. This would allow you to shift a few defenders to a distant city but still keep them from moving armies across your territory.

That would sound good to me.

 

[rysmiel]

I thank you for your answers, even if you often contradict me. Thus allow me to react on some points.

I can include/understand your reaction compared to the constraints which would impose a little more a “Realistic” and/or “Historical” simulation.
But I nevertheless make a point of underlining the direction of the word “Simulation”! When one makes or one practises a simulation's game, it is necessary to be able to simulate the subject correctly that one treats, is to represent something which is at least "credible" (It is thus also a question of “Culture”)… if not one does not believe in it, and then … that limits the interest considerably!!!

Of course I believe in it. I believe it's a game.

You cannot simulate six thousand years of history in a game you can play in a few hours without making abstractions. Lots of abstractions. Arguing about any given bit of Civ being "unrealistic" is quibbling over whether it is in fact 99.999998% or 99.999997% entirely unlike real history. It seems to me there are better things to put the development attention on.

Given that the level of abstraction in Civ is to simulate possible histories, with user-made choices of which civilisations start out and what the geography is like, and with which civilisations survive and thrive being entirely up to the player, shackling those possibilities by insisting the civilisation labelled "Vikings" gets the same circumstances as the historical Vikings is to my mind missing the point.

If all you want is to simulate the actual history of the Earth, that ceases to be a game one actually plays; at best it becomes a movie one watches.

Example : A game which claims to simulate Cycle races should not represent the bicycles with square wheels, nor the road of the stage like a circuit of F1!

Why on Earth not, if it's a fun game ?

By your agument chess can't possibly be any good, because it's a lot further removed from a realistic sumulation of war than Civ.

However, certain deficiencies of historical references (tolerable in some limiting) and of realism do not simulate -in my opinion- that one lack of will (commercial, or other/or a technical incapacity) to better do!

Why do you think it's a lack of will to do something, rather than an active choice that that thing is not worth doing ?

In my suggestion, this would be represented only by capacities similar to the promotion's bonus of the troops,

Yes, and the promotion bonus of the troop is too tactical an element that was a mistake to introduce in Civ 4 and that I hope to see removed in Civ 5.

In connection with the Planes, I do not see how the possibility of a better simulation of their specific activity could unbalance the play… since the damage which they can cause (as for artillery) is rather judiciously reached a maximum!

Which to my mind is a case of doing one thing wrong and then putting another counterbalancing wrong thing in to counter it.

 

[rysmiel]

For real world resource placement (e.g. Arabs having oil, Mongols having horses, etc...) why not add a third option? Currently there is randomly distributed resources and evenly distributed resources, why not just add in real world resources to this?

What context have you in mind ?

If what you want to play is an Earth map, there are lots of those, some very good indeed, with resource distributions realistic on that level.

If you are playing any other geography, the idea of real-world dstribution does not make any sense to me at all.

Earth maps are a special case; they are a highly constrained subset of what Civ simulates. I am strongly opposed to any reduction in the variety of the options available in order to make them more Earthlike, on the whole.

Secondly, the idea of needing a second agreement in order for your military units to cross someone elses territory I like, the only quibble I have is that some have suggested perhaps one or two units could go across (with a settler) without needing an agreement.

No, I was suggesting an agreement which allowed a small number of units at a time. Without an agreement I would suggest that the only units that should be capable of crossing enemy territory would be invisible or hidden-nationality units; scouts, spies, diplomats - maybe missionaries or corprorate executives, come to think of it

This seems to me to be open to abuse, you could send a small army across (albeit over many turns) and so just get around the point of the thing in the first place.

If you can only send 3 units across at a time, say, and it takes them at minimum five turns and most likely lots more to get across the other civ's territory, how long is that going to take you to build up an army worth having, and do we think the AI would be too stupid to notice if the army on the other side was looking threatening and call you on revoking the agreement ? Or, indeed, is the AI not going to have all those turns to build up its own forces to counter you doing that ?

 

[bob rulz]

Because they represent drastically different numbers of people ?

I don't get what you're saying. Scouts are just 1 unit, as are settlers and workers. Settlers and workers pose no military threat to a computer, just as scouts do not.

I am incliend to think that the default before you have contacted anyone should be that you can send scouts through their territory, but either you can't send other units without an agreement, or if you do they can be attacked without causing a war.

I've always wondered how such a system (attack without necessarily causing war) could be implemented and it's certainly an interesting idea to explore.

If you can only send 3 units across at a time, say, and it takes them at minimum five turns and most likely lots more to get across the other civ's territory, how long is that going to take you to build up an army worth having, and do we think the AI would be too stupid to notice if the army on the other side was looking threatening and call you on revoking the agreement ? Or, indeed, is the AI not going to have all those turns to build up its own forces to counter you doing that ?

Yes, this. If you're only allowed to send a certain number of units, it would take an extraordinary amount of time to build a worthwhile army on the other side. It's not as if you can send 3 units in PER TURN. A unit must completely leave their territory before another can enter.

I would also love to see the AI actually able to have a sense of when you're building up a major army to attack them (wouldn't building up massive numbers of troops on the border be a sign?), and also know if you're abusing right of passage agreements (such as using a right of passage with 1 civ to attack another civilization that that AI is friendly towards).

 

[Nuvoloblu]

Hello Fan,
Excuse me for this grouped answer, but several speakers reacted successively to common questions previously raised and… as I cannot make a “quote” gathering several…

TRoosevelt
Silly stupid wars for no reason other than the stupid AI has built too many units and now the program is telling it to go attack someone. Silly stupid wars for no reason other than the stupid AI has built too many units and now the program is telling it to go attack someone. And when the number of units gets low enough, it wants to ask for peace. There's just no rationality to its actions.​

I am well of agreement! Also, it me be able more some once to me make cunningly attack by a “favourable” Civilization with what a I have make some gift, etc.!

Camikaze
However, your final idea of that post, if I understand it correctly, seems to be placing too much importance on tactics, with the placement of units having effects on the abilities of other units within a particular zone.

rysmiel
Yes, and the promotion bonus of the troop is too tactical an element that was a mistake to introduce in Civ 4 and that I hope to see removed in Civ 5.​

OK… the bonus with the troops is inadequate, but -if it is removed- I persist in believing (please excuse my obstinacy…) that its replacement by something of similar to Generals and Admirals would enrich the play !

rysmiel
Given that the level of abstraction in Civ is to simulate "possible" histories…
- - - - - - - - -
… shackling those possibilities by insisting the civilisation labelled "Vikings" gets the same circumstances as the historical Vikings is to my mind missing the point.​

Afflicted, but Vikings without Drakkar and/or Knorr -thus that Byzantines without Dromon- do not make for me “possible” histories, but “fantastic” histories!

Why do you think it's a lack of will to do something, rather than an active choice that that thing is not worth doing?​

I was most probably mistaken on nature in the project. It seems to appear here that my sensitivity of the subject and my exigent level -by ratio with that- do not correspond to the strategic direction desired by the majority… (…)

(about Planes) Which to my mind is a case of doing one thing wrong and then putting another counterbalancing wrong thing in to counter it?​

I fear that this subject is too complex to develop so that can really discuss it in English and this context. I all the same will test… although I suppose in advance that you will treat my matter of inadequate desire of “realism”.

As everyone knows, the specificity of Aviation is not only to move by disregarding difficulty of ground. Contrary to the other Forces, the planes of attack and the bombers seldom completely destroy their objective (except naval), but they have faculty sufficiently to damage their target to make it non-operational a certain time (=stylisation).
But another “essential characteristic” of this aviation is its capacity to be reached “quickly” and “several times” its target -or to change some, if necessary- within times enormously faster than the forces of surface can it. Thus, the presence of an air unit has coherence and of interest -even and especially from the strategic point- of view only if it is able to do that! It is this which it is necessary to be able to simulate, if not… named as much the planes “flying carpet”!!!

rysmiel
Maybe reduce this to 3 levels...I see no reason why scouts should be able to enter but not settlers or workers. The others I generally agree with.

Perhaps with the middle level, you can have a certain number of military units enter at any one time. This would allow you to shift a few defenders to a distant city but still keep them from moving armies across your territory.

702
Secondly, the idea of needing a second agreement in order for your military units to cross someone elses territory I like, the only quibble I have is that some have suggested perhaps one or two units could go across (with a settler) without needing an agreement.​

Your approach is interesting, but there is all the same a detail which shocks me: the possibility of passage of the “Settler”, because it has a capacity of strategic skirting (or peaceful invasion). There are still currently in the world several Countries which, to avoid that, set up walls along their borders…
As for the “Scout”, I will prefer personally that he is regarded as a military unit. After -such which it is here- isn't all the ancestor of the Recognition's unit?
I preferred my initial idea of the “Tourist” (one can name it differently) on whom anybody did not react…

 

[bob rulz]

I personally think the idea of an admiral or general is a pretty good one.

 

[Nuvoloblu]

The terrain that a civilization has surrounding them is one of the primary factors to how powerful a civilization has become. This is already reflected pretty well in the game, but I still think more could be done.

For example, mountains have been significant barriers to travel, exploration, and settlement for all of human history, especially before the industrialization of the world. More could be done to accurately reflect this (such as what I said about there being 2 or even 3 different "levels" of mountains, seeing as not all mountains are made the same).

I am of agreement on the importance of this, but perhaps would be enough it to create only (between the hill and the insuperable mountain) a type of “passable mountain” which would have especially the effect to slow down all the movements and to increase the capacities of defense considerably, in particular for the lightest or specialized infantries (one could finally play the troops of mountain suitably!).

Another thought comes me on this subject… is the fact that certain Units have a road closure to certain types of ground: this could also apply for this type of mountain.
But then… one is likely to run up against the fact that the IA does not admit the capacity of the Roads to allow the transit of grounds thus insuperable…
And this is a true problem is which I believe would deserve a true debate!!!

 

[Camikaze]

I think it is necessary also, and even if you allow military units to cross your borders, they should have to limit themselves to a road or rail network designated by you until they get across your nation. (Since when does any foreign military unit have carte blanche to do what it wants to on our soil?) And maybe in that regard, there could be transport vehicles or trains that could haul units across your land - no automatic movement across a large country anymore, or a small one for that matter. So, unless your ally's army is there to help you in your defense (and that could be one of the options), then it should remain at the border until suitable transportation can be made available. If the army's leader doesn't like it, then it can either find another way to their destination, or stop waging war halfway across the globe, and possibly reevaluate its friendship to you. Of course, the AI won't even take into consideration that maybe the war isn't worth fighting, and so it will gladly send every last unit it can spare to the far reaches of the globe, totally ignoring its own perilous defense at home, and bankrupting its economy if we had bankruptcy rules - that is, if there was a better financial model in the game.

The idea of transport units is an interesting one, but I think that it is assumed that they are part of a 'unit', which is why those units are capable of utilising roads and railways. Adding transportation units would have no perceptible advantage, but would only result in annoyance with a greater number of units to manage.

 

[Silv Something]

Do you know what this game needs? It's so obvious, it's probably already been said.
Anyway, we need a land-ship. Trucks, or something, that could bring units anywhere (or maybe only city to city) faster. Maybe only one faster for earlier units, but in the modern era more.

Should these units have the commando promo?

 

[Zenon_pt]

There should have an ecological religion or an early state issus to be green!

 

[Camikaze]

Do you know what this game needs? It's so obvious, it's probably already been said.
Anyway, we need a land-ship. Trucks, or something, that could bring units anywhere (or maybe only city to city) faster. Maybe only one faster for earlier units, but in the modern era more.

Should these units have the commando promo?

But as I said, transportation is an assumed part of a unit. That's why Marines, for example, move faster on roads and railways. It is because they can utilise their in-built transportation. So there isn't really any need to have a land transport unit, and in fact it would only meant that normal movement on roads and railways is unrealistic. Why can a Marine move faster on roads when they don't have transport?

 

[Silv Something]

Roads . . . Railways . . . ohhhhhhhhhhh

 

[rysmiel]

I don't get what you're saying. Scouts are just 1 unit, as are settlers and workers. Settlers and workers pose no military threat to a computer, just as scouts do not.

Scoutes are purely passive; they gather information and that's it. Workers and settlers can actively change what they find. They seem tome to be qualitiatively different. The threat a settler poses is of planting a city on a resource the computer wants, for example.

I've always wondered how such a system (attack without necessarily causing war) could be implemented and it's certainly an interesting idea to explore.

I like the notion that anyone on your territory in contravention of whatever your current status of agreement is fair game to be attacked.

 

[rysmiel]

rysmiel
Given that the level of abstraction in Civ is to simulate "possible" histories…
- - - - - - - - -
… shackling those possibilities by insisting the civilisation labelled "Vikings" gets the same circumstances as the historical Vikings is to my mind missing the point.​

Afflicted, but Vikings without Drakkar and/or Knorr -thus that Byzantines without Dromon- do not make for me “possible” histories, but “fantastic” histories!

"Vikings" and "Byzantines" are labels. If you called them the Red civilisation and the Purple civilisation instead it would make no difference at all to the game.

And even if you think of "realism" as a good thing, how it is "realistic" for Byzantines who start off landlocked in the middle of a huge continent to get Dromons when they don;t see the sea until the Middle Ages is beyond me.

But another “essential characteristic” of this aviation is its capacity to be reached “quickly” and “several times” its target -or to change some, if necessary- within times enormously faster than the forces of surface can it.

No, it's not "essential". It's like any other notion of "realism": to be considered on whether or not it improves the game.

 

[Camikaze]

I don't think that realism is a consideration so much as fun, when it comes to having civilizations labelled, as you say. It's much more fun to control the Vikings than to control the purplish civilization.

 

[rysmiel]

I don't think that realism is a consideration so much as fun, when it comes to having civilizations labelled, as you say. It's much more fun to control the Vikings than to control the purplish civilization.

Not if it means that you can't turn around without people saying "but they're not enough like the real Vikings" or arguing about whether Vikings is an appropriate name for a civilisation in the first place, it's not.

 

[Flying Pig]

Most people don't care - it's only us sad gits on CFC