Civ V - One World Speculation Thread!

[Eagle Pursuit]

I'd prefer Vietnam over the Khmer or Indonesia myself. Maybe it's because they resisted French and American influence so effectively in the 20th century.

 

[Seabastian Civ]

I'd prefer Vietnam over the Khmer or Indonesia myself. Maybe it's because they resisted French and American influence so effectively in the 20th century.

Don't forget resisting China... for 2000 years. I agree Vietnam would be a great addition as a turtle civ.

 

[TheMarshmallowBear]

I hope, that in a nutshell, they add features that makes peace more fun and give something to do except selecting what you build in each city.

I can't help but feel that Civ 4 or even Civ 3 had features that made Peace phases a lot more "fun", but in Civ 5 all of that is gone, in fact, if you think about it, with the exception of Cultural Victory (which I think should be changed, so it doesn't promote small empires), you're rewared for being aggressive and expansive.

 

[Flyboy1972]

I was thinking of something similar, but I see it as a Free Trade Agreement. Whereby two civs that share open borders and have a declaration of friendship and a defensive pact would be able to sign a FTA. It would cause them to pool their luxury resources so that each lux held by either contributed to the happiness and WLtK Days of both signers. The AI would want compensation for signing it unless they had significantly fewer luxuries than the other signer.

I vote for this. Great idea.

 

[Menzies]

Distinct culture, dynastic history that contended with both China and the Khmer, gives SE Asia a bit more representation, and its relationship to Imperial France* could all be grounds for its inclusion.

(If its a colonial/revolution expansion)

But there are two key civs still not in the game from the region in Indonesia (or equivalent) and the Khmer.

 

[Battlehelm043]

I personally think that the culture victory is fine as it is, the way to circumvent a wide empire going for a culture win is already available... In the Liberty track I believe there is a policy that reduces the amount of culture added to your total for every city you gain, something like 33% less that what is normal. Now what I do think they should do is offer a separate government track that is separate from the policies similar to past civs. It could give a tiny buff to the empire but in the long run allow for you to switch governments instead of dumping certain policy tracks all at once which was suggested earlier in this thread.

 

[Pouakai]

I think the game needs to be made longer - Science, Time and Diplo are all late game, but Domination and culture can be won by the Medieval era. So Culture needs to be changed somehow (Not just increasing the ammount of Culture trees needed to build the Utopia project) and Domination needs to be a conquest victory (Holding x% of global land as well as all capitals)

 

[TheMarshmallowBear]

I think the game needs to be made longer - Science, Time and Diplo are all late game, but Domination and culture can be won by the Medieval era. So Culture needs to be changed somehow (Not just increasing the ammount of Culture trees needed to build the Utopia project) and Domination needs to be a conquest victory (Holding x% of global land as well as all capitals)

That's actually what is my problem with Cultural Victory, it can be achieved earlier than the other two victories, that's why I don't like it.

 

[Matthew.]

Domination and culture can be won by the Medieval era.

Yet going by turns science is consistently faster than culture. Here is what I think should be done:

- Universities only 1 GS slot, move the extra to research labs so it has 2.
- Reduce science output through Rationalism a bit (15% opener down to 10%, 1 science per specialist, remove 17% from uni's)
- Either a straight increase in GP cost, or an additional increase in the type of GP that was just finished (i.e., if a GS pops, the cost of the next GS would be higher than other GP)
- Freedom finisher only 50% great tile yield increase.

The changes are pretty straight forward. Science victories end quickly due to a combination of Rationalism and saving up GS's. If Rationalism was reduced and GS's were more difficult to accumulate in large numbers, it would put it closer in line with other victory types.

CV times are heavily reduced due to stacking GA's and finishing Freedom ASAP. If GA's, like GS's, were difficult to get in large numbers and the Freedom finisher halved, it would balance out the pacing so it would be impossible to get Utopia before you hit broadcast towers, cristo, etc.

As an additional note, the science on Mercantilism in Commerce is rather underwhelming. It should be something like 5% science per gold building along with the +1, which would then give three viable options (Order, Rationalism, Commerce) for a significant science boost so Rationalism doesn't become the default go-to tree.

 

[SnowKomodo]

I'd prefer Vietnam over the Khmer or Indonesia myself. Maybe it's because they resisted French and American influence so effectively in the 20th century.

I prefer Indonesia even for resisting. My favorite is when the Majapahit made Kublai Khan look like a fool and he was so discouraged that he ended his reign

 

[Pouakai]

The Science Victory can be made later by simply extending the Tech tree, which I'm expecting this to do - Enlightenment era perhaps? I don't think the specialist slots should be lessened in any way, doing any more would make a tall empire less and less appealing

 

[Crafty Bison]

Rationalism should be weaker, but leave freedom alone, the fastest science vc's use order anyway, and the freedom finisher is the best thing going for cultural, the slowest vc in the game (outside domination on a huge 22 civ map). Also, cultural games lean on GA's even more than science games lean on GS's, so I dunno what the proposed great person generation changes would achieve. Commerce science is weak, but the gold and naval/coastal benefits aren't, I don't want another science tree. Science should be weakened as opposed to lengthening the tech tree; the later eras fly by quickly enough already, I don't want to see yet another era of techs that take 3 turns to complete, most of which I don't care about, and am just plowing through because I get a spaceship/UN at the end.

For my suggestions, apart from the weakening of rationalism, I'd like to see some incentive to not attack cultural civs, as the culrtual weakness is a small low tech army. Doesn't need to be the CIV moving territory thing, but in sp some mechanism which gives you a bigger warmonger hit for attacking a heavy culture producer, or something that makes it beneficial for others civs to get DoF's/Defensive pacts with heavy culture civs. Maybe could take the form of cultural dissemination of some kind. One world etc.

 

[Villager720]

But there are two key civs still not in the game from the region in Indonesia (or equivalent) and the Khmer.

If I recall, there's been some debate whether Siam replaced the Khmer in this installation, much as the Songhai appear to have booted the Mali.
That said, I wasn't debating the merits of the others, just noting potential reasons forum-goers might show support for the inclusion of Vietnam.

 

[civ54lyfe]

For my suggestions, apart from the weakening of rationalism, I'd like to see some incentive to not attack cultural civs, as the culrtual weakness is a small low tech army. Doesn't need to be the CIV moving territory thing, but in sp some mechanism which gives you a bigger warmonger hit for attacking a heavy culture producer, or something that makes it beneficial for others civs to get DoF's/Defensive pacts with heavy culture civs. Maybe could take the form of cultural dissemination of some kind. One world etc.

I do see the logic, but, are cultural victories considered "too hard" as things generally stand at the moment? Also, if weakening Rationalism, then I hope they test out how the general AI science bursts sometimes happens and draw that on the graph (with Weakened Rationalism). Then chart out "average player performance taking Weakened Rationalism" and look at if the 2 lines are generally parallel (within some variation tolerance).

 

[grandgeneralbob]

i like the idea of the trade agreement, i would also like permanent alliances back since i play with alot of my friends.

 

[Lancor]

I would like to see pollution back in the game. Maybe "One World" refers to some of the ecological things going on with this name.
Also trade and the earlier eras could use some work.

For Civs I'd like to see some more ancient ones. Sumer/Assyr, Goths, Sioux for example.
Or maybe alternative leaders for the existing ones.

 

[Glassmage]

Vietnam and Indonesia plz

 

[JanghanHong]

I really like some of the ideas in this thread, especially splitting piety into religion and culture, and commerce into colonization and economy.

I also think the overall requirement for culture should be reduced so that many empires can take on about 4 partially completed branches by the game end, also, there would be two more branches to choose from.

I've been thinking on how Corporations might work if they are in One World. We don't even know what's in the X-pack, but I just feel like speculating.

I think that you would probably need a Great Merchant to found a corporation, and a civ could found more than one. I think that they will allow you to build new corporation-specific buildings. I don't think there will be a maintenance cost for corporations themselves, but the buildings would. You wouldn't need a guy with a briefcase to spread the corporations within your borders, and you would have to make a diplomatic deal with another civ to allow them to build the corporation buildings in their cities.

examples of possible corporations:

Electronics Corp (think Apple). produces science and gold in headquarters. allows you to build Electronics Stores yielding local happiness.

Automobile Corp (think GM). makes factory in HQ more productive. can build Dealerships which consume Oil and generate hammers and culture.

Oil Corp (think BP). oil wells around the HQ make more production and gold and 1 extra oil resource per tile. can build Gas Stations which generate gold (no maintenance).

Food Corp (think McDonalds). wheat and cattle tiles around HQ produce more food. can build Restaurants which make food and culture.

Military-Industrial Corp (think Raytheon). produces gold at HQ. can build Experimental Weapons Labs which generate science and reduce unit production costs (one might hope, lol).

and so on and so forth.

Very Yes, using great merchants to city-states for gold is conceptually odd in the industrial age and up. This ability should be replaced with founding a corporation in the industrial age and above.

Corporation could work as mini-religion in that you can choose the name, logo, and founder/follower traits, with your modificed commerce tree further acting on it.

I also would highly suggest America getting a free great merchant when they enter the industrial age so they can start the corporation early and fast. I think this would make America fun to play in this period before the bombers come.

 

[dagriggstar]

It's funny, what I basically DON'T WANT is for corporations to be included, basically as "religion part II" like they were in civ 4. Do you really want basically more of the same choices ? Or do you want to be making entirely different choices ? That's how I view anything that is seemingly going to be "found corporation - corporation spreads basically identically to religion - get bonuses similar to religion" etc

Oh yeah, could we also find better names than a policy tree called "culture" and "religion". "Piety" (Religion) and "Decadence" (More modern "celebrity" type or consumerism) perhaps ?

 

[Deggial]

It's funny, what I basically DON'T WANT is for corporations to be included, basically as "religion part II" like they were in civ 4. Do you really want basically more of the same choices ? Or do you want to be making entirely different choices ? That's how I view anything that is seemingly going to be "found corporation - corporation spreads basically identically to religion - get bonuses similar to religion" etc ...

No, I don't.

On the other hand: CiV gameplay is based on bonuses. So, somehow, ALL game mechanism have to be based on them to fit into the scheme.

Does this make a thinkable corporations concept undistinguishable from religion?
Not necessarily. Religion has a quite unique game mechanism in CiV (quite different than Civ 4's religion). I really think that it might be possible to develop something equally unique regarding corporations. (At least, I tried to do so. Follow my sig if you want to learn more about it. I really would have loved a more in depth discussion about this concept, but maybe it is to unappealing for most fans...)

By all means, corporations would give players something to do in peace-times later in the game. Even if they would be very close to religions in their (hypothetical) Firaxis interpretation.