Civ V - One World Speculation Thread!

[glider1]

CB is something in the mind of the AI that justifies war in it's mind and so it already exists it is just poorly implemented.

CB should not be an arbitrary game rule we make to constrain the AI's behavior. Improve the AI's mind and you will have the desired effect you are after. What you don't like, for example AI's that declare war on the other side of the planet are not problems with a lack of CB. It is just bad programming that needs to be fixed.

Cheers

 

[WChrisMullen]

I like:

-the Great Diplomat idea, also why not a Great Spy. I believe that was brought some a long time back.

-Jihad religion enhancement. Just sounds awesome and esp. the faith per kill.


I was wondering if the idea of making true "Alliances" has been floated yet. I'm talking about in the aspect of modern times NATO (military alliance), the EU & ASEAN (economic alliance). This new type of Alliance would do more than simply be a "pledge to DoW" + open borders. And the duration would be 90+ turns. This also fits in with the One World thing. Also this would imply at least a superficial option of "shared VC".

That would be good for multiplayer team games, but wouldn't it encourage mediocre players to just piggyback onto a runaway AI and let them do the dirty work in order to get the victory?

 

[civ54lyfe]

Well a single human player isn't eligible for anything other than pure "victory" meaning either you win the game under current conditions we have now, or, you are the leading score in the leading alliance at end of gametime. Maybe they can change the dom rules to "your alliance captures all other capitals" and you have to have the top Civ Score to acheive the solo victory, otherwise you lose the *solo victory* (which remains as the only victory type that really means anything amongst us).

All of this is a pipe dream anyway, we can't get the AI to act efficiently on their own devices, MUCH less with a game-changing Alliance mechanic. But I'd love the idealized version. I just keep forgetting the core gameplay structure and realistically expanding it.

 

[grandgeneralbob]

CB is something in the mind of the AI that justifies war in it's mind and so it already exists it is just poorly implemented.

CB should not be an arbitrary game rule we make to constrain the AI's behavior. Improve the AI's mind and you will have the desired effect you are after. What you don't like, for example AI's that declare war on the other side of the planet are not problems with a lack of CB. It is just bad programming that needs to be fixed.

Cheers

I agree/disagree with you. I think that the AI DOES need work, but the CB that we're talking about would have several effects.
-the first one being that if you have several CB's against someone, and you declare war on them or vice versa, then the rest of the world wont look at you as a warmonger. i've had several games where the ai declares war on me, and i "liberate" some of their land as a penalty, and they call me the warmonger. now i know that thats one of the things that needs to be fixed, but assuming the ai diplo was fully functional, the CB would add more depth intot he game. Having several CBs against someone, eg. theyre different religion, they denounced you, they DoW'ed a friends, contested borders etc., would give no "warmonger" penalty. It would make the game more realistic imo, and keep the "runaway civs" from getting to that point assuming it's functioning properly.
-the second thing,simply, is that it would add more depth to the game. many people who play ciV probably think that the game is "dumbed down", and i agree. more options in a game make it more fun......... most of the time.
-and finally it would help the diplo imo. if they could program the ai to not just declare war on someone because they're there, it would make much more sense in the game. one thing i dont like about ciV is you just get the feeling like ghandi or alexander just declared war on you because they skipped a dose of prozac. i do like the randomness of DoWs in ciV, but some of them make absolutely no sense. Maybe adding a CB would help the diplomacy, or lack thereof, but thats just my 2 cents.

 

[dagriggstar]

I think the real issue is that, you should somehow be able to justify your actions to the other leaders. Whether that be "I declared war on x because they spied on me", "I took x city, as payback for them declaring war on me" or whatever. Then, depending on what option you choose, the other leaders act differently, for example Elizabeth might react more positively to you, if you pick the spying reason rather than payback (Genghis for example, might be the other way around)

Basically, in my opinion it shouldn't be like a prerequisite to war, but justification for the war.

 

[Avatan]

I think that when you make a major diplomatic decision (dow, denouncing) you should be able to justify your actions.
You should be able to choose the reason between having caught a spy, the AI being untrue to its word, border contest, helping a friend, religion maybe, or just no reason (and others).

Then I would like I see a pop up screen with the reaction of all known leader expressing their reaction. It could be positive if you help them/they hate him, neutral if they find it justified/just don't care about this particular conflict, or negative otherwise.

Could be a but cumbersome for large games, but it will give a better feel of the diplomacy and help immersion IMO.

 

[Deggial]

First of all I have to say, that I would like a CB-system. At least, in principle. I argued for it myself in another thread.

On the other hand: What will be the effects regarding game balance?

War and - in consequence - the domination victory is already the easiest way to go in CiV. Because 1) land is power and 2) an AI will never be able to compete with the HI in tactical warfare.
The "warmonger disgust"-mechanic was introduced to balance the game at least a little bit towards peaceful strategies.
Yes, it might be not very realistic that other leaders don't see any necessity and justness in some of our wars. Yes, it might be fun to "create" (at least the impression of) a CB.
And those who like the peaceful builder-game would be able to fight one or the other limited, "jusitfied" war without losing good relations to the other leaders. Nice!

But - and that's the main problem - for all of us (me explicitly included) who like especially the aggresive playstyles, the game would be lot easier!
A Casus Belli is easy to achieve, in CiV:
The AI settles cities despite other promisses? CB!
The AI sends missionaries and prophets despite other assertions? CB!
The AI spied on you? CB!
The AI declared war on you in previous times more than once? CB!
And all the rest of it...

Taking into account, that usually one or even two "unjustified" wars may be overlooked by the AI, you can easily clear the whole map without any negative diplo-modifiers towards the other leaders! No difficulties to trade for luxuries, willing partners for RAs, less danger of beeing attacked by annoyed neighbours,...
In consequence, domination victory would be even easier than it is already! Honestly, I wouldn't like this.

Conclusion: The warmonger penalty might be unrealistic sometimes in it's generalization, but it is very important to maintain the equality of different playstyles. It is important for game balance, exactly as it is now!

 

[filli_noctus]

Adding a CB system would give a greater depth to the war and diplomacy aspects of the game. It would require a retool of the AI personality types to seperate the warmonger hate characteristic into tolerance for the various CBs. To limit the "get CB -> conquer everything" issue mentioned above certain limitations could be built in. For example a "reconquest" CB might allow you to retake cities you founded but have since found their way into the other civs hands but anything beyond that and you start accruing warmonger hate. A broken promise may allow you to extract reparations but not conquer any cities (an "occupy" option on taking a city to indicate you intend to return it at the end of hostilities would be needed to let other leaders know).
Unlike EU3 I would say that all viable CBs should be applied when declaring war and a list of CBs and what they allow will be shown before confirming.

It would also be good to bring back nationality to allow for wars of revanchism, but that might not fit with the 'One World' theme.

 

[fufie]

A CB system as part of a wider overhaul of diplomacy would be very interesting, and would also add depth to different civilizations' personality traits. Historically we see that even in the classical era CB is important and every civilization/country has had to justify to the world and it's people (or ruling class to be more precise) why they go to war. The importance of CB only increase as we approach our time, and the last 50 years almost every intervention is discussed at length in the UN.

Of course a CB-system should not be a strait-jacket and could/should allow building phony CBs. And civilizations should be allowed to decide if they consider a CB real or not. Even Nazi-Germany "created" CB for their foreign actions. For the Gleiwitz incident/Operation Himmler there is a quote from Hitler: "I will provide a propagandistic casus belli. Its credibility doesn't matter. The victor will not be asked whether he told the truth." Operation Himmler failed with respect to convincing the international public and the second world war was a fact.

Another interesting example of CB is of course the Powell presentation at the UN of Iraqi WMD, which (for a time) convinced parts of the international public and the american public, and allowed a Coalition of the Willing. Today we know that the "facts" of the presentation were not real, but the CB was treated as very real.

 

[daveydave8]

Despite having no major achievements, i think Australia would be a nice civ to see. We already have a wonder of theirs plus Australia today is massive both geographically and culturally. So a culture based civ with special unit being The Bogan and Crocodile hunters??

On the serious side one thing they must do is revise the demand system, giving the ability to issue ultimatives, which would usher in Gun boat diplomacy.

Also corporations such as in Civ IV would be nice.

Territory wise you should be able to allow easement rights for waterway passages you control, basically tax temporary passage through small designated parts of your territory.

ANd why in the world did they make great scientists useless when researching tech????? 20 turns?? thats terrible

 

[GoodSarmatian]

I just thought of something...
If they add a new mechanic like trade they should rework policies or add a new tree or two, and if they add new trees they'd need to remove old ones to not mess with the screen.
I was thinking of a new Imperialism tree that replaces Honor and gives bonuses for puppet states and managing conquered cities, but does not in fact help warfare. A new Autonomy or Autarky tree could replace Autocracy and give economic bonuses for civs who rely more on an independent economy while Commerce focuses on foreign trade (if foreign trade is implemented). Autarky could for example have the resource quantity bonus and give extra happiness for surplus luxuries that you didn't trade away.

So what about policies that help your military directly like the Discipline bonus or the Honor opener ?
They could fall under Doctrines which work basically the same as combat policies but are earned with exp instead of culture. You would gain experience towards doctrines from the Palace, Citadels and military buildings, so peaceful civs could adopt some of them without actively fighting, but warlike civs would gain them much faster. Policy effects from other trees could be outsourced too (city damage bonus from oligarchy, United Front...) and replaced with new policies. Naval Tradition for example would be part of a new Naval Warfare Doctrine tree and the Commerce policy would boost naval trade instead.

 

[Pouakai]

Alternatively they could add a scrollbar....

 

[MARDUK80]

http://videogameslive.co/civilization-five-one-world-expansion-arises-in-steam-database/

Is this a new image? Doesn't look familiar to me...

 

[Dr. D]

That's the artwork for the Kremlin

 

[Eagle Pursuit]

http://videogameslive.co/civilization-five-one-world-expansion-arises-in-steam-database/

Is this a new image? Doesn't look familiar to me...

It looks like it's from Vanilla. The title isn't appended by any sort of subtitle like 'Gods & Kings' or 'One World'. It also appears to be a photo of a screen because the colors are washed out, as if someone took a picture of a monitor. I'd say it's some sort of loading screen. I haven't played Vanilla since G&K, so I don't know what the Vanilla loading screens look like.

 

[Dragonflow]

Spoiler :

http://videogameslive.co/civilization-five-one-world-expansion-arises-in-steam-database/

Is this a new image? Doesn't look familiar to me...

It's the Kremlin in Moscow. You can see Lenin's Mausoleum and the Kremlin behind it.
Here's the wonder splash screen:

Spoiler :

 

[RedFuneral]

That's nothing new, I used to always get that splash screen back in Vanilla.

 

[nokmirt]

I don't know if Firaxis/2K sells Civ V in China, but if they do or ever want to, they have to toe the line with China's ruling party and their "official" history. Things like this shouldn't be, but this is the real world, so they are.

On the other hand, China frequently edits movies and censors the internet to prevent their citizens from seeing things that don't conform with the party line. If Firaxis put a Tibet civ in the game, and tried to sell it in China, China might ask them to omit Tibet, but sell it otherwise intact. One World would simply have X-1 civs in China to our X.

Good point. The other thing they could do is give China an extra civ in place of Tibet that we can get as well at some point later on. Did Tibet ever beat China in a war? Does anyone know? It seems I have to study more Tibetan history. The only thing I really know about is Lhasa Apso dogs and their history.

Will they add CB to the game? I hope so. I agree it would enhance war and diplomacy greatly.

 

[jozef57]

i do hope it will be full expansionpack, but looking back to how 5 was marketed it could also be a small dlc type of thing. that would be disapointing , but it seems also very likely

 

[anandus]

i do hope it will be full expansionpack, but looking back to how 5 was marketed it could also be a small dlc type of thing. that would be disapointing , but it seems also very likely

No, it's an expansion. It says so