Civ5 Wishlist

[Wodan]

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.

So actually, someone could have developed iron working first. Consider a planet without any tin deposits at all. Wouldn't they have to go straight to iron working?

It sounds to me as though Bronze is easier to work, and that's why people in history adopted it first. Yet, it is not a true prerequisite and there's no reason a civ could not have gone straight to Iron.

Part of the problem is doing a justification after the fact. Somebody somewhere mixed tin and copper and made this good alloy. Then everybody copied that guy. So it's convenient to presume that way is the only way things could have happened.

 

[Ukilamiback]

My wishlist:

- Watter supply. I cannot wrap my head around the fact that the most important resource ever in the history of mankind is always getting neglected on the Civilization series. Make water, and its access one of the main factors when developing a city.

And how. And Fresh Water.

It is so important, especially coming from a city that sits on one of the largest fresh water lakes in the world, Chicago. While I've been in the schools(Elgin College and UofIillinois-Chicago University), in all the history and political science classes, and one Geography class, about 50 credits worth. There has always been talk of the importance of Lake Michigan to Chicago. I'm sure its the same with all of the cities on the Great Lakes. The Great Lakes are one of the most valuable resources that America has.

I'll take it one step further and say [in-the-voice of Leonard Nimoy] one word, just one word, Canals.

 

[nody]

My only wish is they put all the features (optional) of Rhye's and Fall of Civilization in the game and a scenario like it.

Features like:

- Civs spawns on a predetermined date instead of all the civs at start.
- Mercenaries
- Congresses, where cities can be exchanged
- Unique historical victories and unique powers, like Spain has the power of discovery, which means their ships have 2 movement bonuses.
- Minor civs, like native cities and independent cities.
- The option to take control of another civ during the game.
- Leaderheads according to era, one leaderhead for each era, for example, like Russia begins with Peter, then goes to Catherina, then Stalin.

I also would like all the civs included from Civ IV, Warlords and BTS and their respective leaders. And a couple of new civs, like:

- Austria
- Poland
- Indonesia
- Vietnam
- Ireland

 

[jeffreyac]

- Civs spawns on a predetermined date instead of all the civs at start.

I have trouble wrapping my mind around how this would work. So, for example, if you played the Americans, you'd be sidelined until the 1800's?

For that matter, the game start has been 4000BC in the past (though I realize there is no reason this couldn't be changed...) Not too many of the civs we recognize were around then. I dunno, it'd seem to be a balance nightmare to give latecoming civs a real chance - heck, to go back to the American example, most of the world is settled in my game by the 1800's. If you start that late, what land do you get?

So, I dunno.... Interesting idea, though - I just can't see it working in practice.

 

[Danger Bird]

I have trouble wrapping my mind around how this would work. So, for example, if you played the Americans, you'd be sidelined until the 1800's?

For that matter, the game start has been 4000BC in the past (though I realize there is no reason this couldn't be changed...) Not too many of the civs we recognize were around then. I dunno, it'd seem to be a balance nightmare to give latecoming civs a real chance - heck, to go back to the American example, most of the world is settled in my game by the 1800's. If you start that late, what land do you get?

So, I dunno.... Interesting idea, though - I just can't see it working in practice.

It's in a mod, Rhye's and Fall of Civilization. Late-starting civs get more techs, cities that start with basic improvements, etc. Plus they flip some cities of nearby civs (who can declare war to prevent it, of course).

 

[jeffreyac]

Ah, OK. I've heard of Rhye's mod before, and the concept, but didn't realize that's how it was implemented. Sounds like the balance issues aren't nearly as bad as I thought, then (or, at least, that our spectacular modders here were up to the task!)

EDIT: you've got me interested now, so looks like I need to try out a new mod!