Civ V - One World Speculation Thread!

[Battlehelm043]

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.

Seems to me that you are having trouble with higher difficulties and certain civs. I do feel that samurai should remain iron dependent. If not then while you're at it remove the legion iron dependency or iron from the game entirely. I'm going out on a limb here an going to figure that you prefer a large empire Autocracy policy; so domination or space race victory and you have been burned several times. That's perfectly fine we all have on one or two occasions but this seems like certain particular civs and policies which I have heard very few complaints about are being targeted. Yes I agree turtling is a little over powered but still legitimate. Think Switzerland.... On another note the CV is fine because if you make it easier you'll have people popping cities without thinking about repercussions on their culture. Lastly if we are gonna start changing major values for civs why not nerf the French, their culture before steam power allows them to get too much land too fast with fewer cities. Is there room for improvement... always but these are seemingly for the most part a list of nerfs that favor one aspect of play. I for one based on the civ set a goal from the beginning and go for the VC I choose an that will determine how my empire will look in my minds eye.

 

[Babri]

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.

When we talk about Casus belli, it doesn't mean we want identical system to Paradox interactive games. Many posters including me have said that a mechanic should be based on casus belli system aka 'Justification of war' system NOT ditto copy of Paradox because Civilization is a different game.

You may still declare war randomly but then you can't complain that everyone ganged up against you & most of the civs refuse to trade with you. Currently other civs even gang up when u have a just cause like defending your CS ally against a bully which is stupid.

Sent from my One V using Tapatalk 2

 

[fufie]

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.

When playing aggressive om emp/imm and I take out the good parts of a civ and move on I can be sure that almost all the other civs declare war on the wounded/weak civ. Not unlike vultures and hyenas circling the prey to feed. We also know that if you have a weak military the others will bully and DoW you, so I think that the AI is indeed aggressive enough to "weak" civs.

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").

But not without a CB system - if you help out you're just warmongering anyway

8. Civ balance:
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).

Then you need to remove the barbarian xp cap as well I guess, which I think defaults to 30. A single camp now and the unit would have gotten all he could out of barbarian hunting.

Barbarian hunting for xp sounds more like a roman endeavour than a german activity though.

 

[sufficiency]

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.

I feel that regardless of the situation, if you want to go for domination victory, Order is actually better and more well-rounded. Police State only works if you annex cities instead of puppeting them, which really counteracts all the culture bonuses you get. Also the Autocracy finisher gives only a temporary bonus (WTH?) which is very unsatisfying to play with.

 

[sufficiency]

When playing aggressive om emp/imm and I take out the good parts of a civ and move on I can be sure that almost all the other civs declare war on the wounded/weak civ. Not unlike vultures and hyenas circling the prey to feed. We also know that if you have a weak military the others will bully and DoW you, so I think that the AI is indeed aggressive enough to "weak" civs.



But not without a CB system - if you help out you're just warmongering anyway



Then you need to remove the barbarian xp cap as well I guess, which I think defaults to 30. A single camp now and the unit would have gotten all he could out of barbarian hunting.

Barbarian hunting for xp sounds more like a roman endeavour than a german activity though.

I am well aware of the barbarian exp cap, but what I am proposing is that the German UA is not restricted by the exp cap. However, because it has diminishing returns, you can at best get a unit to 90 exp hunting barbarians (30 strictly from fighting barbs, then ~60 from clearing infinitely many camps).

Furthermore, since you can't realistically get 30 exp from a single barb camp, you will still hugely benefit from clearing the camps. This gives the same German flavour without tossing coins.

 

[fufie]

I am well aware of the barbarian exp cap, but what I am proposing is that the German UA is not restricted by the exp cap. However, because it has diminishing returns, you can at best get a unit to 90 exp hunting barbarians (30 strictly from fighting barbs, then ~60 from clearing infinitely many camps).

Furthermore, since you can't realistically get 30 exp from a single barb camp, you will still hugely benefit from clearing the camps. This gives the same German flavour without tossing coins.

Germany's UA as I see it mainly allow you to get more units early without producing/buying them, allowing you to field an army for early rush earlier. More powerful units (and keep promotions) with the xp bonus would also be helpful, but is different. Not that different is bad. The idea of a big raging germanic horde sweeping Rome off the map right away is nice though

And yes, coin toss frequently puts me off Germany just like it does with Spain. I like more predictable civ UAs

 

[sufficiency]

Germany's UA as I see it mainly allow you to get more units early without producing/buying them, allowing you to field an army for early rush earlier. More powerful units (and keep promotions) with the xp bonus would also be helpful, but is different. Not that different is bad. The idea of a big raging germanic horde sweeping Rome off the map right away is nice though

And yes, coin toss frequently puts me off Germany just like it does with Spain. I like more predictable civ UAs

Hence the RNG fix for Germany and Spain on my wishlist.

Now don't get me wrong, there is nothing wrong with randomness in a game. It makes the game more fun and replayable. One game I might get a 3 salts 2 stones start and crush everyone by turn 200, and one game I might border by Attila, Alex, and Rome and struggle to win from turn 1. That's fine and all, but...

Germany and Spain are just bad designs. It is OK to design a UA that encourages the player to kill barbs or explore a lot (e.g. Askia's triple gold from barb camps is fine imo), but it's not OK for the reward of such actions to be randomized (25% for Germany, and a pretty random chance for Spain to find it first and get 500g instead of 100g). That's like making the rocket for science victory have a 50% chance of failure and not make you win - you can't randomize rewards when you can only complete these tasks no more than a few times in a game.

 

[Matthew.]

It is 50% chance to convert Barbarians. Yes, it is RNG, but I don't think it is as bad as you are making it sound. As long as you are aggressive with clearing camps, 8-10+ clears in early game is more than possible. Ignoring the extremely rare outliers, you are looking at 3+ free units minimum which is the equivalent of 600 gold minimum. Of course, RNG can swing the other way just as often and end up with a crap ton of free units. My last game with Germany I ended up with 7 free units before T70.

Either way much more reliable than Spain's.

 

[shaglio]

2. Allow AIs to "cry for help" if they are being wiped out by another civ

This idea I like a lot. In my games it seems that, when Civ A comes to me and asks me to declare war on Civ B, Civ A is always the stronger one who doesn’t even need my help and Civ B is the weaker one who is barely clinging on to life. It’s never Civ B that comes to me and asks me to help them save their bacon (mmmm, bacon . . . /drool) because they’re getting pummeled.

The weaker Civs seem to have this glum attitude of, “Gee, it looks like I’m about to be wiped off the face of the earth. Oh well, what can you do?”

 

[BobDole]

This idea I like a lot. In my games it seems that, when Civ A comes to me and asks me to declare war on Civ B, Civ A is always the stronger one who doesn’t even need my help and Civ B is the weaker one who is barely clinging on to life. It’s never Civ B that comes to me and asks me to help them save their bacon (mmmm, bacon . . . /drool) because they’re getting pummeled.

The weaker Civs seem to have this glum attitude of, “Gee, it looks like I’m about to be wiped off the face of the earth. Oh well, what can you do?”

Yeah, I would like to see Civs tempt me into going to war by unloading all their gold in an effort to hire another me to try and save their life, or simply ask for help if they're friends with my civ. It is amusing that oftentimes the runaway civ tends to be the one declaring everyone else a "menace to the world" or whatever and asking for my assistance even though they can singlehandedly wipe anyone out.

 

[bcaiko]

A lot of people here are requesting small adjustments to the Civs, ect., which would be handled by a patch - not by an expansion. An expansion is about systemic change: the addition of new systems and large overhauls such as the HP change. If folks want to debate Japan not requiring Iron, they really ought to go to a different thread.

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

I wouldn't mind if random disaster events (floods, hurricanes, ect.) were made available as an option, so long as you could build things to mitigate them (i.e., floodgates) and players could turn them off. After all, such things had an undeniable impact on world history.

 

[tetley]

I wouldn't mind if random disaster events (floods, hurricanes, ect.) were made available as an option, so long as you could build things to mitigate them (i.e., floodgates) and players could turn them off. After all, such things had an undeniable impact on world history.

The way they did this in the patched Civ4, I was happy with it. In G&K I think they can even go further and reward civs with high faith. Faith is just a little bit UP right now; I think optional random events with a bias toward pious civilizations would be really cool.

 

[Battlehelm043]

My question is what do people think is going to be in this expansion..... not just peoples wish lists... lol

 

[TheMarshmallowBear]

I think that was answered in the begining, colonization.

 

[Liex]

My question is what do people think is going to be in this expansion..... not just peoples wish lists... lol

I think that was answered in the begining, colonization.

And globalization (trade, diplomacy, environment interaction etc.), and improved multiplayer. This may be vague and sound like a wish list, but it's all we can assume from an unconfirmed title.

 

[Gort]

And globalization (trade, diplomacy, environment interaction etc.), and improved multiplayer. This may be vague and sound like a wish list, but it's all we can assume from an unconfirmed title.

Ohpleaseohpleaseohplease

 

[nokmirt]

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

I am going to start a new thread about this. This would be an interesting topic for discussion. I will post your question it is straight to the point.

 

[ryan39]

I feel that it is safe to say that we will see many more victory types.


There is no way that anyone can win Domination Victory on Multiplayer. (Almost Impossible)

There is a decent possibility to win Culture-Wise on Multiplayer. (Challenging.)

There is a great possibility to win Science Victory on Multiplayer. (Most Common.)

There is a slim chance to win Diplomatically on Multiplayer. (I hope you have alot of gold and spies, and manage to maintain decent science.)

There is NO chance to win Time-Victory on Multiplayer. (There is no point to even talk about this.)


So, where does this leave us?

With 2 decent options to win the game.

How about these victories?

[Economy Victory] - Earn $75,000 and purchase the Golden Economy building to trigger the Economy Victory. (Building can only be built if in the Modern Era)

[Religious Victory] - Earn 50,000 and purchase a Grand Priest to trigger the Religious Victory. (Must be in the Modern Era in order to trigger the victory.)


[Production Victory] - Honestly not too sure about this one, but I am sure there is a way to make this a victory.

 

[seasnake]

Regicide was my favorite mode in Civ III. Wish that was back as an option.

 

[Gucumatz]

Ryan - There is plenty a way to win domination on Multiplayer - I wouldn't say its near impossible at all