Civ5 Wishlist

[kivanc]

the importance of forts should be improved. in civ4, they were nerfed because enemy units moved as they like, w/o even a penalty. that is, i mean;

in old civs, units were not able to move between enemies. attached is an excel doc for clarification. so the old rule should come back with some changes. ok, just give them permission to move as they like but they should get a penalty because during a war, it is dangerous to move your unit paralel to the enemy. even in frp games, there is penalty for such paralel movements and retreats. i hope civ5 brings something about this.

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

OK, my really, *really* big wish for Civ V is the introduction of the concept of Internal Stability/Instability. Rhye has managed to do it for CivIV, which is what makes his mod rock so much !
Everyone rightly complains that, after a certain point, a civ becomes a juggernaut which nobody can beat-but we know in history that larger empires have a nasty habit of breaking apart. Things which could increase instability would be: long & unpopular wars abroad, a sizable ethnic or religious minority, an overly centralized government, excessive taxation, unhappiness, unhealthiness, your reaction to certain random events & the actions of foreign agents.
Things which could increase stability would be: getting invaded, ethnic/religious "purity", a decentralized government, low taxes, a happy & healthy population, your reaction to certain events & the actions of your own agents.
Anyway, just a thought!

Aussie.

 

[kivanc]

OK, my really, *really* big wish for Civ V is the introduction of the concept of Internal Stability/Instability. Rhye has managed to do it for CivIV, which is what makes his mod rock so much !
Everyone rightly complains that, after a certain point, a civ becomes a juggernaut which nobody can beat-but we know in history that larger empires have a nasty habit of breaking apart. Things which could increase instability would be: long & unpopular wars abroad, a sizable ethnic or religious minority, an overly centralized government, excessive taxation, unhappiness, unhealthiness, your reaction to certain random events & the actions of foreign agents.
Things which could increase stability would be: getting invaded, ethnic/religious "purity", a decentralized government, low taxes, a happy & healthy population, your reaction to certain events & the actions of your own agents.
Anyway, just a thought!

Aussie.

increased maintenance already does that. you cannot build as many cities as you did in old civs, can you? but i also do believe firaxis increased maintenance in civ4 not because of stability issues but because of game crashing issues. i think, they didn't want users to play on large worlds because the game worked so slow.

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

Increased maintenance doesn't come anywhere near simulating the collapse of empires, though it did go a long way to curbing infinite city sleaze-which was good in & of itself. Also that whole "game lagging on large maps" thing was just a furphy. I play on the largest maps available, & always have games with scores of cities & units without any slowness issues-just as long as you have a half-way decent computer!

Aussie.

 

[kivanc]

Increased maintenance doesn't come anywhere near simulating the collapse of empires, though it did go a long way to curbing infinite city sleaze-which was good in & of itself. Also that whole "game lagging on large maps" thing was just a furphy. I play on the largest maps available, & always have games with scores of cities & units without any slowness issues-just as long as you have a half-way decent computer!

Aussie.

i assume you have never played SMAC. you could load in 2secs. the only issue was to browse the save file and then you started the game suddenly.

 

[Neptun1976]

Originally Posted by Neptun1976 View Post
To the Civ5 team:

The reason I stick with Civ3 instead of Civ4 is that in Civ4, you don't realize you are under attach until - some times - several turns into the battle

Please let us know what the enemy is doing to us between turns in Civ5!

I've.... never had this issue. Ever.

What I mean is that in Civ3, you can watch what the AI is doing between turns, but you don't get this in Civ4. In Civ4, there is only a long list of text coming instead.

 

[Camikaze]

You can watch what the AI do by going to 'options' and turning on 'show friendly moves' to see everyone's moves, or turning on 'show enemy moves' to show the AI's moves if they are at war with you.

 

[Raider]

What would be really cool is if unit advancement was taken a bit further into the future. Right now, the only aspect of the future is the spaceship to Alfa Centauri. I would really like it if modern technologies that are needed to get there also yielded some more powerful and cool units. As it stands now in Civ4, at least half of the modern era techs add nothing outside of more spaceship parts. It would be cool if they also added new units and new capabilities. Going a bit further into the sci-fi territory would be cool as well.

 

[trevort]

What would be really cool is if unit advancement was taken a bit further into the future. Right now, the only aspect of the future is the spaceship to Alfa Centauri. I would really like it if modern technologies that are needed to get there also yielded some more powerful and cool units. As it stands now in Civ4, at least half of the modern era techs add nothing outside of more spaceship parts. It would be cool if they also added new units and new capabilities. Going a bit further into the sci-fi territory would be cool as well.

You should check out Rise of Mankind 2 and the ROM2 modmod Rise of Mankind 2:A New Dawn. They take is pretty far into the future.

 

[CivX]

I wish my asus laptop which is nearly 1.5 years old will be able to handle civ V.
And i wish civ V would come out tomorrow......

is that too much too ask for? = )

 

[babbittlane]

i want sea colonization as in CTP...

 

[Lord Parkin]

What I mean is that in Civ3, you can watch what the AI is doing between turns, but you don't get this in Civ4. In Civ4, there is only a long list of text coming instead.

A little late, but...

You do realise you can click the "pad and pencil" button in the top left corner of the screen, then click on the text and it centres the screen on where the event/combat took place? Handy little feature.

 

[Voyhkah]

I want one thing more than anything else: FIGHTER ESCORTS!

I have only played cIV, but there is no ability to send fighters to escort your bombers and fight off any intercepters! Grrrrrrr! I want escorts in ciV!

 

[Kissamies]

Well yeah, the fighters should have an "air superiority" mission where they attack the interceptors. Easier to do than escort.

 

[Steve the Noble]

1. Improved status screens (military info, city info, foreign relations info etc.) In Civ IV, it seemed like it took a few patches before these screens became easy-to-use and helpful. And in some cases, it took some user mods to really make the info screens an essential part of gameplay.


2. An interesting end-game replay feature. After playing for several weeks, watching a VCR-style replay of changing map colours is anti-climatic.


3. An improved hall-of-fame. I wish I could view/sort my past games according to measures such as military victories, research score, population etc.

 

[civeye]

Once the game reaches the industrial age, I would love to be able to have workers bridge, tunnel, or link via causeway landmasses or islands across water hexes. I imagine a limit of two or three hexes would be the limit, however. These improvements could be plundered just like any others.

 

[Zhahz]

We do have several of these threads in another subforum, but...I'd give anything for a good AI. Bad AI just ruins the game for me. Being able to easily mod Civ5 would be another important wish, not because I'm a mod, but because I'm the guy who downloads all of them for the added variety.

Edit: And keeping religions. They will be missed if they are left out.

My #1 wish is for strong AI too.

I like religion in Civ IV too. I'd rather see it tweaked if firaxis thinks it didn't work as planned rather than scrapped.

 

[Ukilamiback]

OK, my really, *really* big wish for Civ V is the introduction of the concept of Internal Stability/Instability. Rhye has managed to do it for CivIV, which is what makes his mod rock so much !

Everyone rightly complains that, after a certain point, a civ becomes a juggernaut which nobody can beat-but we know in history that larger empires have a nasty habit of breaking apart. Things which could increase instability would be: long & unpopular wars abroad, a sizable ethnic or religious minority, an overly centralized government, excessive taxation, unhappiness, unhealthiness, your reaction to certain random events & the actions of foreign agents.

Things which could increase stability would be: getting invaded, ethnic/religious "purity", a decentralized government, low taxes, a happy & healthy population, your reaction to certain events & the actions of your own agents.
Anyway, just a thought!

Aussie.

I second this!! And fully support this idea. Very well put and explained. I've always thought of this feature of large nations eventually falling apart. Great!!

I'd like to add a few things to this idea of stability and instability. The way you would keep your civilization stable is also a way to hold diplomatic relations with other nations. Essentially the way your Civ keeps diplomatic relations is usually based upon the Civics chosen for that certain Civilization. Which leads to to relate Civics with Stability issues for the civ. And when a civ starts to experience instability because of....

...long & unpopular wars abroad, a sizable ethnic or religious minority, an overly centralized government, excessive taxation, unhappiness, unhealthiness, your reaction to certain random events & the actions of foreign agents.

The civ then is 'forced' into changing Civics and at which point instability occurs.

Changing of civics is another thing I'd like to be done a little differently. Instead of Anarchy and losing x amount of turns out of the window. Having a relationship between Stability and Civic changes. The more stable the more productive the nation is. The less stable a nation is the less production is. And instead of losing x amount of turns to anarchy of a Civic change have a change of rate of stability. And changes in Civics produce different instability issues, i.e. jumping from Slavery to Universal Suffrage is a long time of instability versus Caste System to Universal Suffrage, because of Equality issues that reside within the civ.

 

[frekk]

Why not a culture that doesn't discover internal combustion (perhaps they have no oil) and as a result advanced steam technology and pneumatics to "modern" levels, despite other areas of their technology still being at 18th century levels?

Steam technology simply cannot replicate what can be done with oil. It's just impossible. If you had a steam-powered automobile, it would have to have a big boiler and carry a coal car around behind it to achieve the same speeds and range of a gasoline-powered car. Steam has some limitations; it requires so much heat to produce so much pressure, and those are fixed limits that impose certain things on it. Technology isn't magic. It can't bend the rules of physics. It can achieve alot of things, but often, it does so by changing the actual basis of the technology (ie coal-fired power plants to nuclear power plants).

Why do we have situations such as Paper having a prereq of Civil Service.

That one is admittedly nutty. There are a few others like that.

Also we should be careful that we don't make assumptions. Why is IW "better" than BW? There are many applications where bronze or copper is a better choice than iron. And what if my civilization has Iron but not the metals to make Bronze? How would we "research" BW if we didn't have those metals at all? Wouldn't we jump straight to IW?

What if there was some "metallurgy" or "metal working" technology which is a prereq for both? Then, you could choose whether you go for IW or BW based upon strategic game decisions, instead of being forced to get BW before IW.

Well, because bronze working really was a prerequisite for iron working. Pretty much everybody had iron; it's common. Only a few people had tin, and you needed tin to make bronze. The tin trade was of huge importance during the bronze age. Despite the fact everybody had loads of iron, nobody was making iron tools for quite some time after bronze metallurgy had become ubiquitous. The reason was that to smelt and forge iron, you needed much higher temperatures. Ovens that could do this weren't developed right off the bat, they happened as a result of centuries of bronzeworking.

Iron itself wasn't superior, initially. Early iron implements were both soft and brittle compared to bronze (plus, they rusted). It took lots of refinement before iron became the superior material. The reason some people adopted iron was because they couldn't afford or were cut off from tin, so they couldn't make bronze anymore. It was a cheap substitute, at first. In Europe it appeared in the backwaters of the time - mostly up around Austria and in the 'barbarian' fringes north of Rome and Greece.

 

[Wodan]

Steam technology simply cannot replicate what can be done with oil. It's just impossible.

So, you're saying a steampunk civ is impossible. I'm sure all the science fiction authors would appreciate the worlds they create flatly cannot exist.

If you had a steam-powered automobile, it would have to have a big boiler and carry a coal car around behind it to achieve the same speeds and range of a gasoline-powered car.

You're saying that automobiles are required for technological progress? Nonsense.

Steam has some limitations

Well of course. So does oil.

Technology isn't magic. It can't bend the rules of physics. It can achieve alot of things, but often, it does so by changing the actual basis of the technology (ie coal-fired power plants to nuclear power plants).

Nothing you've said has indicated that a steampunk civ could not exist, and might not have advantages over an oil-powered civ.

But that's just an example. My whole argument is that the exact technological state of the world today is not inevitable and is not the ONLY technology that could exist. It would be the height of hubris to presume that mankind has discovered the only path that is possible.