Civ V Ideas & Suggestions Summary

[w2w2w]

Well, that misrepresents how EMPs work from the get go; I think it would work better for them to destroy power plants &c, across the area of a pulse, anything that needs electroncis.

Yeah I guess but a nuke launched at a city would really just destroy it. And in fact, if a nuke is launched in space it can mess with electronics. or something like that. Type Nuclear emps. Your idea is fine tho.

Assuming that people object to paying more tax if they are getting benefits from it is a parochial, dude.

lets just disband that idea

Nah, bring back Civ III bombardment.

I likes dis

This is too tactical.

I guess but I was always in favor of tactical combat, thats just me tho

I disagree entirely here; qualitiative resources allowing you to build the units at all is the way to go.

was just an idea

Trade should be by caravans, plain and simple.

unless caravans could be automated ( I know, but before you say anything, I only like complex warfare heh ) then this would be way to much to deal with; caravans being attacked x 15 cities x each having more than one carvan

This is too small-scale; a tile is ten or a hundred miles on a side. Every tile should be usable.

yeah you do have a point

 

[Camikaze]

Question: Civ III bombardment is Civ IV bombardment + bombardment of units, isn't it?

 

[rysmiel]

Question: Civ III bombardment is Civ IV bombardment + bombardment of units, isn't it?

Civ II bombardment is; unit has bombard strength, effectively makes an attack with that strength, but can't be injured in return. Most units do not have lethal bombard, so they can only reduce health before attacking with an actual unit. Most units only have a one-square range, some late-game units can bombard from two squares away. They can do some damage to improvements, IIRC, if you keep bombarding a city after reducing all its defenders to minimum health; and they don't get used up.

 

[PhillyPhanatic]

I'd love to see a war summary after a war is completed. Casualties, wounded, collateral damage, etc. I think it would be very easy to add in.

 

[Camikaze]

Civ II bombardment is; unit has bombard strength, effectively makes an attack with that strength, but can't be injured in return. Most units do not have lethal bombard, so they can only reduce health before attacking with an actual unit. Most units only have a one-square range, some late-game units can bombard from two squares away. They can do some damage to improvements, IIRC, if you keep bombarding a city after reducing all its defenders to minimum health; and they don't get used up.

Would this not result in siege being devastatingly overpowered?

I'd love to see a war summary after a war is completed. Casualties, wounded, collateral damage, etc. I think it would be very easy to add in.

Good idea.

 

[w2w2w]

Would this not result in siege being devastatingly overpowered?

well most seige weapons wouldnt be wouldnt be lethal meaning it wouldn't kill instantly. you know like a bomber? how you can damage a unit but not kill?

speaking of seige weapons, how come you have to wait till construction to get a seige weapon? Fire arrows (yes they are historical, just not used a lot) could burn primitive buildings down. the only problem is that I dont know when people first started using these.

 

[Camikaze]

well most seige weapons wouldnt be wouldnt be lethal meaning it wouldn't kill instantly. you know like a bomber? how you can damage a unit but not kill?

But if you allowed this from very early on in the game, given the low cost of siege, if would come to completely dominate the game. The results of all combat would be the product of whoever has the better siege; who can deplete the strength of the other stack best.

I should point out that I am a fan of allowing for siege bombardment of units, but I do think that it would need to be nerfed.

 

[yarp72]

I think when you reach the modern era, peaks and desert tiles should become useable for 4 gold each due to the fact that in real life there is a thing called tourism...
Also i think siege units should be able to kill more than 1 unit because of collateral damage per turn. I think it is a little annoying that your catapults for example bring the enemy down to .1 health, but then in the next turn, the unit gets a promotion and heals..
third i think ICBMs should get more powerful h]the longer you have had the knowledge of fission since in real life this is true going from regular nukes to hydrogen bombs to thermo-nuclear weapons.

 

[w2w2w]

But if you allowed this from very early on in the game, given the low cost of siege, if would come to completely dominate the game. The results of all combat would be the product of whoever has the better siege; who can deplete the strength of the other stack best.

I should point out that I am a fan of allowing for siege bombardment of units, but I do think that it would need to be nerfed.

right, so either get rid of this idea or increase the horse archers flanking ability, I vote get rid of this idea

 

[rysmiel]

But if you allowed this from very early on in the game, given the low cost of siege, if would come to completely dominate the game. The results of all combat would be the product of whoever has the better siege; who can deplete the strength of the other stack best.

I should point out that I am a fan of allowing for siege bombardment of units, but I do think that it would need to be nerfed.

This is exactly what Civ IV did do to Civ III bombardment. I cannot see this as, on the whole, a good idea.

I don;t generally favour nerfing one aspect when the alternative is better balance through other means.

 

[w2w2w]

thermo-nuclear weapons.

that gave me a bad idea! future weapons, nuclear guns!

 

[marxman2]

I'm not sure if there is already a suggestion for this, but I think there should not only be a way to liberate a city for a friendly civ, but you should also be able to forcefully liberate a friendly civ from an unwanted vassalage (i.e. capitulation). For example, I was recently playing a game where I was on friendly terms with France for most of the game and yada yada yada at some point they went to war with china, lost miserably (I was unable to help as I was on another continent and in a war myself) and were forced to capitulate. Unfortunately, I was on bad terms with China and when they eventually declared war on me, France (of course) had to do so also.

Now, what I think would be a great idea is to be able to declare war on China to liberate France from an unwanted vassalage (even after they capitulated they were always annoyed/furious with their master China), or to even give France the option to go along with the war/resist the Chinese depending on your relationship with them. I mean if you think about it, there are many real world instances why a nation would do so i.e. liberating mainland Europe from the Nazis, freeing Tibet from China, defending the Native Americans from the United States. There are plenty of other examples in history where something like this happened, and I think It'd be a good way to resolve the somewhat strange issue of a former ally so willingly to go to war with you just because the civ they lost to in a war said so. I mean, is it really plausible to think that France would have simply gone to war with Britain/USA after surrendering to Hitler?

This would definitely add a solid layer to the somewhat lacking diplomatic aspect of this game. It could also act as another way to boost relations with another nation if you are able to regain their territory.

 

[yarp72]

well, you can always capture the city and then give it back to the original owner in a trade. the civ you returned the city to will be very grateful in the form of +3 for "our trade relations have been fair and forthright" or in the form of "we are thankful to our long time trading partners" which develops long after the first form i mentioned.

 

[Camikaze]

right, so either get rid of this idea or increase the horse archers flanking ability, I vote get rid of this idea

Or raise the cost of siege. Or reduce the cost of other units. Or reduce the damage done by each bombardment. Or a combination of those and other possible ways of reducing an overpowered siege. I don't think not having tile bombardment is the best option.

 

[Kullervo]

I know I'm probably in the minority for this, but...

WAY more random events. They're just so fun and unpredictable.

Also, I would like it if there were a few more resources. Potatoes, for one. It is a very important food staple in most cultures (or at least was, until the 19th century and even after continues to be important.) It could have... say, plus 1 food regular bonus, and +2F +1C with a farm. (Potato chips: +1, +1) Tin would be a good one as well (+2H +1C with mine). I know there's already a random event for tin, but making it a resource just makes things more challenging.

Also, I would relax resource restrictions. Make it so that there can be stone and marble on grasslands, deer on grasslands (deer on grass seems common sense. I don't know why they would restrict it only to tundra). Floodplains on plains and grasslands (in limited amounts.) several resources can be next to one another, like in the Earth scenarios.

 

[yarp72]

i agree with you about potatoes and tin. about the deer on grassland, it already does happen. to get steel though, you should need iron and copper. maybe add some more metal to the map. maybe there can be a tech maybe resources could spread. maybe you could spread resources once you discover railroad since you can raise sheep and cow in places besides where they are native to. the purposeful moving of recsurces though could maybe entail that the new resources only provide a food/commerce/production bonus and not the happiness/health bonus. and also to compensate, the resource could only be moved 2 times, and there must be a railroad to the tile of the new resource.

 

[yarp72]

also, to make things more challenging, maybe wonders could go obsolete when ANY civ discovers the obsolete tech.

 

[yarp72]

that gave me a bad idea! future weapons, nuclear guns!

speaking of nuclear guns, you reminded me that at one point they started to test snall scale nuclear weapons to be used on the field. it did not work. because the radiation from the weapon after it exploded went further than the person could go to escape the blast. so to sum it up, whoever fired this weapon, suffered from the blast themselves. and of tactical nuclear weapons. anyone ever heard of the electron bomb? too powerful to test. just a theory that may never be tested.

 

[Camikaze]

I know I'm probably in the minority for this, but...

WAY more random events. They're just so fun and unpredictable.

I agree with this. BUT. Only so long as these many more random events do not result in whether you win or not being the result of chance. The game should not be severely effected by random events, although they are nice to have.

 

[Silv Something]

Events are fun, but shouldn't be game-changing.

Said the guy who has never played BtS or Warlords.