Civ V - One World Speculation Thread!

[grandgeneralbob]

First off, I would like more diplo options. ie. instead of just "i hate you, i love your, or meh" more types of feeling from ai civs as well as more types of agreements.
In my opinion, they could make iron important late game by adding in a steel mill which would increase production or something and consume one iron. You could also make horses useful by building a happiness building for them, or a glue factory .
As far as one thing i do know, if there is an expansion pack, there WILL be more civs. please no more european civs. something different to play with would be nice, massai, sumeria, zulu, bantu, native americans, anything but more euros.
UN seems kinda blah, and i never hear anyone say much about it, so imo it needs revamping.
Two more policy trees would add some spice to the game.
As we all know, with new xpacs comes new units. The main thing i dont like about ciV is the lack luster combat choices. In the beginning u get warriors. Then spear guys which turn into pike guys, or if u have iron sword guys, which turn into guys with longer swords etc. etc. For a game with so much content, seems kinda bland. I like in civ4 its basically axe beats spear beats horsie guy beats axe etc. Im not saying copy it, but make a system of choices for us so we dont just end up spamming 3ish types of units. Also I like the WWI and II additions, but the late game just ends with mech inf., stealth bomber, modern armor, gdr etc. a handful of new "future era" units would be nice to play with too.
With diplo,unit,tech, new additions plus fixes for mp ai etc., i think this game could be on par with civ4, but we all have our own opinions...... except north kor........nm. : )

 

[civ54lyfe]

moar lux !!!1!!!11

For some reason everytime I play, I mentally conjure images of people wearing fur, eating oranges, or w/e my city has.

 

[Ghonasiflaids]

Obviously has to do with expanding diplomacy. I wouldn't be surprised if it included colonization mechanics, and things like vassals and revolutions. It would also be cool if it had a 'Rhyes and fall of civilization' style scenario.

 

[bkn42]

Maybe they will release it in conjunction with the NWO conspiracy theory finally coming true, and this is how we can sample what the future will be like.



Oh, and the game will be sponsored by American Airlines, where we can build an airline up and then see it fall into bankruptcy. Then, in random events you get a pesky startup competitor corporation named "Promiscuous" founded by "Rikard Branston", and you have to decide whether to spread false rumors about them, improve your corporation, or do nothing. Despite having the ability to pick any of the three options, you are always rerouted to option 1.

 

[civ54lyfe]

^Well, without getting all crazy like NWO stuff while yet highlighting the trend in societies that impose modern societal controls, they could release UB's to social policies like Autocracy. An example would be "surveillance grid" or cameras for a city. Another would be a "extradition site" which would be a like quasi-legal prison where you could kill enemy spies or hinder them. It would be like an extra anti-spy building.


Ed: Oh, there could also be unique Techs for social policies like "Biometrics" for Autocracy- "eliminates all spying activities in your cities" or something.

Freedom branch social policies could maybe allow "Designer Babies" - "citizens eat less food/make more hammers or w/e"

 

[Cedbird]

Maybe ' One World ' indicates world wars . As in WW1 and WW2 Allies vs Axis etc . Also as hinted more intergated trade pacts and religion

 

[Xiao Xiong]

There is only one thing I want:

Unit move order sanity. If I have a bunch of units within a few tiles of each other let me move them one after another without junping to units half way around the world.

A distant second would more sensible auto move. Do not an for directions because the destination tile 15 hexes away temporarily had a unit on it.

Just fix the basics!

 

[member66170]

More modern civs with modern UU and UB.

My theory is that the modern game is boring because there are close to no UUs and UBs or civs that shine then. A players strategy (or the part that changes game to game) usually revolves around the unique stuff there civ has. This, more often than not, falls between the classical and renaissance, thus thats the most exciting part of the game for the player as thats when their grand strategy comes into play.

For example, I wanted a game where I would go tall at the start, and then start a blitz domination war once modern warfare comes around. There are no Civs to do this. The only ones with Modern UUs (France, Germany, Japan, USA), also have early UUs and have UAs tuned to early military and going wide.

Imagine a civ with factories that provide double the production boost and a landship UU. They would have no advatange at the start of the game but, if they can survive, would be a massive threat. Would make the modern eras less predictable and more fun!

 

[Matthew.]

More modern civs with modern UU and UB.

My theory is that the modern game is boring because there are close to no UUs and UBs or civs that shine then.

I've considered something similar, although not with Civs and UU/UB. If you are not war mongering, then late game does get boring. G&K gave us religion, which has most impact early in game (late game religion is really just buying GP with faith), and I think we will see systems that focus on late game now instead. Perhaps, as others have mentioned, things to do with corporations, enhanced trading/diplomacy options, etc.

But modern Civs? Who would they add that is not already in the game? Canada and their unique unit, the Canadian Mountie?

 

[mitsho]

Australia (new continent, new flavour) and Brazil are the most popular suggestions. You could also go for South Africa over Zulu or Indonesia over a more ancient version if they want to, but that does seem a bit strange I agree. Israel or Morocco are other possibilities.

But of course the best way would be to offer a more modern variant of Russia, America, England, France, India, China and Persia. How that would work in game I'm not sure though

It also depends on your definition of modern btw.. I'd guess the idea is "later than Industrial Era". This makes it very hard to balance (outside of Advanced Starts) since early bonuses are worth much more (a gold more in the ancient era can translate too much more yields by the late game than a bonus there). So to make these civs interesting, these bonuses would need to be very strong and thus pose a balance problem.

 

[AbsintheRed]

Brazil is popular, yes
But based on the civ polls that appeared since the release of Civ V, there is no real fanbase for Australia (apart from the Australians of course)

 

[Menzies]

Brazil is popular, yes
But based on the civ polls that appeared since the release of Civ V, there is no real fanbase for Australia (apart from the Australians of course)

As an Australia, I do not like the idea of Australia being included. We still have the Queen as our head of state and the Union Jack in the canton of our flag, I mean, we aren't all that distinct from Great Britain even now. The United States is very different in that they have had a very long time since their independence (and they are truly independent) to forge their own history and identity, and we are still in the process of building ours.

As for Civs, consider who we had for the last expansion pack, which was based around religion and the various time periods were religion played a huge role:

Austria - Leader from 18th century
Byzantium - Leader from 6th century
Carthage - Leader from... not entirely sure, if I recall she was supposed to be the founder of Carthage, which would make it around the 8th century BCE
The Celts - Leader from 1st century
Ethiopia - Leader from 20th century
The Huns - Leader from 5th century
The Mayans - Leader from the 7th century
Netherlands - Leader from 16th century (if I recall correctly)
Spain - Leader from 15th century
Sweden - Leader from 17th century

So there is a flavour towards some religious leaders and civilizations, but ultimately there is a lot of wiggle room in that seemingly. I think we'll see some Civilizations that are based around the "One World" concept, which I'd guess is to do with the modern age, colonisation and globalisation (please, please fix diplomatic Victories!), but ultimately there will always be a few surprises.

In terms of the concept though, the Zulu will almost certainly be in. Along side colonisation is the what went on with local groups, and the Zulu are the perfect one for them. You can pretty much pen that one in already.

I also doubt that they'd go for too many "modern nations" as it just doesn't really fit. Brazil is a maybe, but ultimately in Civilization games they generally don't put modern nations in unless they are of the likes of the United States. In terms of colonisation though I'd expect Indonesia to also be in. Personally I'd think they'd put in Sumeria as well, and would like to see the Moors and a return of the Khmer, but they all move away from that concept of "One World" seemingly. Phoenicians might be a shout due to their colonisation of various areas, but I doubt that one.

Based on Gods & Kings I think we can expect about 9 new civilizations and one other included, one which is currently DLC that would fit with Colonisation or the modern age. Maybe Polynesia?

We'll also probably see a second native North American group in the game, although I'm not a fan of over representing the region simply because of the origin of the game, but hey... that's what's likely to happen. To me at least, the Olmec and Zapotec would make more interesting and more relevant inclusions if you were to go down the path of more Native civilizations from the Americas, but the groups of what is now the US and Canada generally get more representation and it will likely be the Sioux based on previous inclusions. Nothing wrong with that of course.

So long story short, I'd expect to see:

The Zulu
The Sioux
Portugal

I think it's likely we'll see:

Indonesia or equivalent

...and there's a good chance there will be:

Sumeria
Phoenicia

I'd also love to see:

The Khmer
The Moors
Mali - yes I know that some will say that we already have the Songhai, but they are different

Whilst others have suggested:

Poland
Kongo
Brazil

There will most likely be 10 civs with one already as a DLC, I'd guess Polynesia, but it's just as likely that it'd be the Inca, although I get the feeling that they gave people Spain so the more concern with completeness would still need to buy that DLC, but maybe I'm just cynical.

As for announcement and release date, as I've been saying for a while now, it'll most likely be announced on a Thursday based on previous announcements, at a guess the 14th or 21st of February, with the 21st more likely as I doubt that they'd announce it on Valentine's day, although you never know. If it is indeed a mid to late February announcement I'd expect it to be released in June, if it's announced in March instead, it would be for a July release.

 

[Human Crouton]

As an Australia, I do not like the idea of Australia being included. We still have the Queen as our head of state and the Union Jack in the canton of our flag, I mean, we aren't all that distinct from Great Britain even now. The United States is very different in that they have had a very long time since their independence (and they are truly independent) to forge their own history and identity, and we are still in the process of building ours.

I was for the inclusion of Australia, but you make a good point. You guys need to hurry up and fight Great Britain so that you can be in a civ game.

 

[WChrisMullen]

I would like to see named Great Prophets. People like Moses, Buddha, Confucius, Jesus, etc.

 

[Eagle Pursuit]

I would like to see named Great Prophets. People like Moses, Buddha, Confucius, Jesus, etc.

In one of the interviews leading up to G&K they said they decided not to name GPs because they wanted people to come up with their own religions and not get hung up on real world ones, AKA they were being politically correct. Don't expect that to change.

 

[mitsho]

There's a mod that does just that though. Easy to use if you want it

 

[Verified_Confection_Being]

There's a mod that does just that though. Easy to use if you want it

Not in multiplayer...

 

[TheMarshmallowBear]

Not in multiplayer...

Not to de-rail the thread, but the names are such a small useless aspect (hell, I wouldn't even mind if all Great People were nameless)

Back to the topic,

I would bet that the EP would have something to do with Renaissance onwards, so Colonization, Corporations etc. would make a lot of sense.

 

[smallfish]

Colonies would be GREAT, especially if there was an expanded Frontier map script for more continents, wider expanses etc.

 

[grandgeneralbob]

I know its been said alot, but why do archers fire as far as cannons, but shoot further than machine guns etc.

IMO archer-comp. archer-crossb.men-gat. cannon-machine gun-mini/chain gun........is a great chain of chioces for units that can attack 1 tile away
for melee- warrior-spear/axemen-sword/pikemen-longsword/macemen-musket/other early gunpower unit-rifle/grendier-great war inf./mortar-infantry/"better" mortar-mech inf./????-something for the future era???? all of which attack adjacent tiles
tanks/horsies have a nice chain, just add something in the future era
arty is nice, but once again, something after the mobile rockets would be nice, but not necesarry

I also like the setup in civ4 cottage-hamlet etc......i'm not saying copy it, im just saying alot of people like it and it'll be hard to beat. i do think they should make something simliar to them though imo.