Civ V - One World Speculation Thread!

[TheMarshmallowBear]

THey did.. Colonization.

About the Casus Belli or whatever

I think a nice mechanic for that would be a system in which each decleration of war balances out against others.

The more you DoW, the more you'll be disliliked, but this is countered by the AI declaring war, AS WELL, so if they declare war just as many times as you, ten there will be no penalty.

 

[Babri]

Rather than Casus Beli I think what this games needs is war justification options . You should be able to recklessly declare war whenever you want.

Check the meaning of casus belli on Internet. ;-)


Sent from my One V using Tapatalk 2

 

[nokmirt]

I'd bet money the tech tree will be expanded, but seriously, they should add future era units if theyre gonna have a future era.

They should just get rid of that last part of the tech tree and expand upon the modern era more. I rarely get far enough for GDRs anyway. If they want a futuristic version of civ they should make it separately. Or they could make it an optional DLC, one I wouldn't buy. Which would be the first time I haven't.

I am not sure about adding corporations, but if they do expand it more than they did with espionage. I seriously hope they work on religion more and expand espionage.

 

[phos_hilaron]

They should just get rid of that last part of the tech tree and expand upon the modern era more. I rarely get far enough for GDRs anyway. If they want a futuristic version of civ they should make it separately. Or they could make it an optional DLC, one I wouldn't buy. Which would be the first time I haven't.

I am not sure about adding corporations, but if they do expand it more than they did with espionage. I seriously hope they work on religion more and expand espionage.

What more do you want to see from religion in particular?

 

[bcaiko]

The name "One World" made me jump for joy, because the name touches on what I think needs to be improved the most in Civ5 right now: Peaceful play. (And that acknowledgment comes from a serial warmonger!)

We need positive incentives to play peacefully. Right now, there are precious few reasons to not be picking at your neighbors when there are plenty of reasons to just go steamroll them. With expanded trading options (say, a benefit to having trading routes to your neighbors, and opening borders for travel/immigration among your citizens), a peaceful game would be much more fun and viable.

If done correctly, I'd love UN/World League Diplomacy options, would be fun. I also heavily advocate for expanded treaty options - like the option to demand a nation demilitarize (focus on something else, Monty!). Spying and the demographics in game could be improved by allowing a player to put resources into studying the other players and get detailed information about them. Lots of little tweaks could be made to the system to emphasize the power of a strong nation in peace.

If an economic victory were added, as some have advocated, it shouldn't just be as simple as "get X amount of gold." Instead an economic victory should be something like forcing nations to accept yours as the world currency. The United States has won an economic victory because the world has accepted that the dollar is the standard on which value should be calculated...not just because it has more gold in Fort Knox than other countries have in their vaults. Plus, "get X amount of gold" would be boring.

EDITED TO ADD: Two words: multiplayer fixes. Wartime in multiplayer is a clickfest mess. While I'm no advocate for every player taking turns a la hotseat (multiplayer games take a long time as is), there needs to be some kind of turn-based overlay when war is declared among human players. I'd like to see "One World" make a stab at giving players a chance to see what's going on and think before they click.

 

[Eagle Pursuit]

If done correctly, I'd love UN/World League Diplomacy options, would be fun. I also heavily advocate for expanded treaty options - like the option to demand a nation demilitarize (focus on something else, Monty!). Lots of little tweaks could be made to the system to emphasize the power of a strong nation in peace.

That's an interesting idea. Civs could vote to have a certain civ "disarm". If they fail to delete X number of units within about 5 turns, then all civs get a negative diplomatic modifier. If that civ complies, then all civs get a positive diplomatic modifier plus they forget all warmonger modifers against the disarmed civ. That'd be pretty cool. The downside for disarming would of course be that they'd be vulnerable to the opportunistic civs who suddenly have a larger army than the one asked to disarm.

 

[Gort]

EDITED TO ADD: Two words: multiplayer fixes. Wartime in multiplayer is a clickfest mess. While I'm no advocate for every player taking turns a la hotseat (multiplayer games take a long time as is), there needs to be some kind of turn-based overlay when war is declared among human players. I'd like to see "One World" make a stab at giving players a chance to see what's going on and think before they click.

Emphasising this. I'd love to see the game go to sequential turns while two human players were at war.

 

[bcaiko]

The downside for disarming would of course be that they'd be vulnerable to the opportunistic civs who suddenly have a larger army than the one asked to disarm.

Yeah, I thought about this. Perhaps a demilitarization would come to an end if a third party DoWed and/or could be negotiated to require a Joint Protection Pact (a la the US and Japan). Or maybe a warmonger who's been beaten to the point that other nations demand demilitarization is just doomed and desitined to reap what they've sewn.

There should also be a treaty option to require open borders to opposing military units during peace time (you used to be able to do this before Open Borders required a Declaration of Friendship).

 

[Eagle Pursuit]

Yeah, I thought about this. Perhaps a demilitarization would come to an end if a third party DoWed and/or could be negotiated to require a Joint Protection Pact (a la the US and Japan). Or maybe a warmonger who's been beaten to the point that other nations demand demilitarization is just doomed and desitined to reap what they've sewn.

No, no. I like the element of risk involved. You have to decide if you want to be safe but hated or loved but vulnerable. Besides, not maintaining as many units means your economy goes up, and you can rush buy replacements if some one starts massing troops on your doorstep. And you'd have to be an idiot to delete your best units, so it's not like your completely vulnerable. You just trim the fat, so to speak.

 

[Pizzaspy]

Check the meaning of casus belli on Internet. ;-)

Sent from my One V using Tapatalk 2

Congrats on your gotcha. I am speaking more about mechanics than anything.

In paradox games, the casus beli mechanic actually stops you from being able to declare war entirely. I'm talking about declaring war whenever you want, but having a system to explain yourself and gauge all the rival civs point of view on it before committing.

Very different.

 

[Menzies]

Congrats on your gotcha. I am speaking more about mechanics than anything.

In paradox games, the casus beli mechanic actually stops you from being able to declare war entirely. I'm talking about declaring war whenever you want, but having a system to explain yourself and gauge all the rival civs point of view on it before committing.

Very different.

I think you miss the point still. People aren't suggesting that they copy paradox's system by the same name. Rather, people want a casus belli system in place to prevent ridiculous warmonger hate for liberation, self defence and other cases of national protection. Just because paradox games has a system in their games that goes by the name casus belli, doesn't mean that's what people are talking about. It would completely defeat the purpose of such a system if you (or the AI) couldn't just be a prick, as any good Civ game should allow and to an extent embrace.

 

[Ozymandias9891]

Here's what I think we'll see.

- New Civs is a definite. As to what they will be, here's what I think/would like: Zulu, Portugal, Mycenaean, Minoan (really big on this one), Canada, Inuit, Sumeria, Australian Aboroginal
- Colony feature, very much like in Civ 4, where they can gain their independence and be part of some sort of Commonwealth
- Improved trade and diplomacy
- Improvements to espionage
- Improvements to tile yields, addition of more resources
- Improvements to city-state relations, creation of city-state leagues
- Random events due to natural causes AND human causes
- New technologies, buildings, units, wonders, etc...
- Modern day barbarians (i.e. pirates) for post-industrial era

 

[tmacdec]

Haven't heard this in a while but I doubt the expansion will involve religion or spys due to the fact that if it did you would need to have gods and kings for any of those aspects to be relivent. That's why I don't see any of the new civs being religion based. For any new religion based civs it would have to be through dlc. Can you imagine not having gods and kings and buying one world only to find out that you have less content because you don't have gods and kings. That would be a stupid business decision on their part

 

[seasnake]

Likely One World will include religion and espionage mechanics even if you don't have Gods and Kings. That's how Civ IV handled it: You could buy BTS and access features released as parts of Warlords (vassal states, Great Generals, etc.) but you didn't have the civs that came with Warlords.

 

[EulerMcE]

Likely One World will include religion and espionage mechanics even if you don't have Gods and Kings. That's how Civ IV handled it: You could buy BTS and access features released as parts of Warlords (vassal states, Great Generals, etc.) but you didn't have the civs that came with Warlords.

BTS includes* Warlords Civs but not the scenarios. Still I imagine this expansion probably won't include G&K Civs given the lack of DLCs included in G&K.

*The Steam version does at least, I imagine the original did because Celts were added in Warlords and Boudicca in BTS.

 

[grandgeneralbob]

Congrats on your gotcha. I am speaking more about mechanics than anything.

In paradox games, the casus beli mechanic actually stops you from being able to declare war entirely. I'm talking about declaring war whenever you want, but having a system to explain yourself and gauge all the rival civs point of view on it before committing.

Very different.

I'm an avid eu3 player, ive been playing it for.........hours. seriously, CB's dont stop you from declaring war, but if you dont have one, the stability of your country suffers and people dont like you, which is realistic imo.

 

[grandgeneralbob]

Check the meaning of casus belli on Internet. ;-)


Sent from my One V using Tapatalk 2

lol, in YOUR face!!!


i dont know how to combine the posts...........im my face :/

 

[sufficiency]

First post here. Here's my wishlist:


1. Rebalance AI so they don't get bribed as easily, and they are more aggressive to civs with fewer cities and less aggressive to civs with more cities. Currently, turtling is too strong on higher difficulties (at least on immortal) while playing aggressive is way too hard.
2. Allow AIs to "cry for help" if they are being wiped out by another civ; also allow Ais to bribe the player or another AI to go to war (but in the form of "if you capture that city and give it to me, I give you XXX").
3. AIs only surrender with tributes after suffering actual damage.
4. Make cultural victory slightly easier to achieve. Currently, cultural victory does not snowball like the other paths (e.g. the more science you get, the easier it is for you to get science and defend yourself, hence the snowball effect). Right now with CV, after unlocking 4 branches, you basically just sit and wait to unlock another branch which does not really help you much (because you already have tradition, freedom, piety, and patronage; you most likely will just be skipping every turn until you have finish your Liberty/Honor while they do not add any real bonuses to you). I am thinking:
a) After unlocking X branches of SP, every extra policy gives you some extra bonuses beyond what the SP itself gives (think Eiffel Tower's effect without the need to build a wonder);
b) After unlocking X branches of SP or unlocking a particular policy, allows you to activate conflicting policies (e.g. Freedom + Order) at the same time.
c) Nerf Rationalism so even if someone goes for Piety he can still get reasonable amount of science.
5. Social policy balance:
a) Nerf Patronage's Ascetics + Pledge to Protect.
b) Buff Autocracy.
c) Nerf Rationalism opener (see above).
6. Science balance:
a) Gunpowder slightly deeper so you don't almost immediately get it after Steel (makes Longswordsman more useful).
b) Great War Infantry and Infantry are too close in tech.
c) Spaceship tech (Nanotechnology and Partical Physics) should be at least twice as expensive so the player has to think more carefully if he should spend the time to go toward science victory or get some more military units to defend himself)
7. Religion balance:
a) You receive your first great prophet as soon as you get 200 faith, instead of having a chance to receive one after 200 faith.
b) Ceremonial Burial gives +1 happiness for each city following this religion with 3+ followers.
c) Reliquary, in addition to +50 faith when a GP is expended, also gives an extra 50 faith per each era beyond the medieval era (e.g. renaissance era +100 faith, industrial +150 faith, etc.).
d) Religious Unity, instead of spreading to friendly CS at double rate, spreads to friendly CS at double range.
8. Civ balance:
a) (Japan) Samurais do not require Iron
b) (Byzantium) Dromon is Galleass replacement instead of Trireme, but becomes available with Sailing.
c) (Sweden) Sweden receives 15% boost to GP generation for each DoF, up from 10%.
d) (Germany RNG fix) instead of 25% chance of getting a barbarian unit, when a military units clears a barbarian camp, the unit gains 30 exp (exp halved for every subsequent camp cleared by the same unit).
e) (Spain RNG fix) instead of getting 500 gold as first finder of natural wonder and 100 gold otherwise, gains a flat 250 gold after finding a natural wonder regardless if Spain found it first.
f) (Maya) Pyramids give +1 science, down from +2 science.
g) (Ethiopia) Steles give +1 faith, down from +2 faith.
h) (Celts) Each unimproved forest adjacent to a city gives +1 faith, up to +3 faith per city.
i) (Austria) Diplomatic Marriage costs an extra 200 gold per city for each era beyond the medieval era.

 

[Matthew.]

b) Great War Infantry and Infantry are too close in tech.

Agreed. For some reason the jump from Longswords ~> Muskets doesn't bother me, but the jump from Great War ~> Infantry does. I think the difference is opportunity cost. If you make the jump from Lsword to Muskets, you are bypassing Universities and Theaters to do so. There is a sacrifice. The jump from Great War is straight on the way to Research Labs. No penalty, no reason not to make the jump.

Also agreed on toning down Rationalism a bit, since it is easily the best policy tree. Piety could use a boost, but mainly just the opener. I don't mind the rest of the tree, but if you are pushing faith/religion which the tree implies, you will have already built shrines/temples before the opener.

In what way should Autocracy be buffed? Other than the fact that faster games are over before you fully finish any of the Industrial trees, I don't find the tree to be that bad. The one complaint I usually see is the half build time on courthouses (at that stage in the game they are usually rush purchased, so half build is useless). The rest of the policies seem all right though.

 

[Menzies]

Here's what I think we'll see.

- New Civs is a definite. As to what they will be, here's what I think/would like: Zulu, Portugal, Mycenaean, Minoan (really big on this one), Canada, Inuit, Sumeria, Australian Aboroginal
- Colony feature, very much like in Civ 4, where they can gain their independence and be part of some sort of Commonwealth
- Improved trade and diplomacy
- Improvements to espionage
- Improvements to tile yields, addition of more resources
- Improvements to city-state relations, creation of city-state leagues
- Random events due to natural causes AND human causes
- New technologies, buildings, units, wonders, etc...
- Modern day barbarians (i.e. pirates) for post-industrial era

If that were the Civ list, I wouldn't even bother buying the game. May as well throw Sparta, Macedon and every other Aegean civilization in with them, ignore the rest of the world... oh wait, no, how about an irrelevant former colony of limited international significance and some native groups that struggle to even fill the definition of "civilization" as seen in the game. Amazing, interesting cultures yes (although having an "Australian Aborigines" civilization would be like having the "Native American" Civilization again), civilizations for the game? I don't really see why when there are huge numbers of better choices.

Random events as well? Really? Why not bring back corporations and everything else that was wrong with the "full" version of Civ IV?!

There are also modern day barbarians in the game already.