Civilization 5

Exhile you sound just like Chinese Propaganda. Wake up and smell the roses!!! Look at Tibet! If Tibet is not an example of China's goals I don't what is!!! Tibet is an example of China's policies: Cultural and Ethnic Genocide! China is destroying the monks slowly because it sees them as a threat. Why is that? Because Communism is one of those things that once you look behind it you see a hollow fascade that pays even worse lip service to the people than most other systems in the world. China has crushed those suggesting changes for the better to its system which would give people more of a voice in the system. Tinnamen Square, Anyone? No wonder they deny that ever happened because it would betray the truth even to their own people if they admitted it happened. Therefore deny it and hope enough of your citizens are gullible enough to believe your protestations of innocence.

Propaganda is effective. Tibet is temporary and an internal matter. There are monks inside Tibet who obide by Chinese policy and practice their religion. But majority of Chinese are atheist. Tiananmen was resolved in a way that was best 20 years ago.

Communism/Socialism is Government for the People by those that Know Best. It is a dictatorship by another name. China is one of those countries that still disappears people for non-violent protests against its policies. It is still happening recently. Just look up Amnesty Internationals list and you will find that a lot of those listed for China are really guilty of no crime except disagreeing with a dictatorship. I still don't think that China can be trusted...

The one party system are stable governments. Every country has a blacklist and a most wanted list one way or another.

The US in what you cite was doing jobs that needed to be done. These actions had been fully and fairly debated and set out on the table in an open and accountable house of Government. If those conflicts had been left we would have the same problems that led to WWI and WWII.

The attack on Iraq was a Bush family decision and not what you described.

The fact that China hasn't claimed to openly attack any country for the past 25 years isn't a sign that they aren't still planning something. What I am meaning is that a lot of the Chinese slogans you read talk about expanding China's borders and China will grow larger. No Exile, you are not listening. The Olympic Games was a cover, a ruse. There is a historical precedent for this: look up the Munich Olympic Games of 1936 and you will understand the parallels. You look peaceful while planning the dagger for the West. China still hates the West even it pretends not to. Those that see China as peaceful are dreaming. China is like a sleeping wolf: peaceful at the moment while asleep but beware its bite...

The Olympics were successful just as Athens and Sydney were.

You make a very bad mistake because all of this smells very much like Peace in Our Time and Appeasement. China in the past has shown signs of regional sabre rattling and it is doing it again, Exile. You can't say that China will be entirely peaceful towards its neighbours when it is doing its sabre rattling. China is a menace that will need to be stopped by actions rather than your swallowing of propaganda.

China shows signs of peaceful internal development & prosperity with dialogue amongst it's neighbors.
 
So... back on topic...

My first comment is something I've mentioned a bit once before that I think would be great. In ancient times, armies were arranged in a bit of a stack of doom configuration. But more recent times, roughly WW1 and on, armies engaged in conventional wars made up battle lines which typically spanned the entire length of the disputed area. My uneducated speculation would be that this was made possible with the invention of communications equipment that made command and control possible over large distances. But the question is, how can we implement this in a civilization game?

My suggestion would be to implement a flanking bonus that becomes available with the invention of a certain technology -- the telephone or electricity or something. This bonus has nothing to do with current flanking promotion or flanking damage that cavalry does to siege weapons. What it means is that once you research the required technology, your units gain a flanking bonus in combat any time you attack an opponent when you control a unit on more than one side. This bonus should be pretty powerful in order to reflect the significant tactical implications of breaking through the enemy's battle lines. I'd say maybe 50% if you have a unit on 2 sides of the enemy, 75% for 3 sides, and 100% if the unit is surrounded. Obviously tweaks would be made, and I don't know how diagonal tiles would work, but I'm sure you understand the concept. I think a system like this would effectively force you to string units out in a line in order to guard you flanks from an enemy attack or counter-attack.

Another gripe I have is regarding roads. I really think armies should be able to use enemy roads -- maybe not railroads, but definitely roads. For one thing, it's far more realistic that way. But more importantly, I think this sort of thing would make warfare a much more strategic endeavor than it currently is. At present, there's not much strategy involved in fighting a war aside from stack composition and some terrain usage; although the latter is usually as simple as moving your stack through wooded and hilly areas while it advances. But if the enemy could use your roads, it would allow you to create a bottleneck and drastically increase the usefulness of forts. The attacker would then have to decided if he is willing to try to overrun your fort in the name of speed or if he's willing to sacrifice a few turns of progress to avoid your fort.
 
So... back on topic...

My first comment is something I've mentioned a bit once before that I think would be great. In ancient times, armies were arranged in a bit of a stack of doom configuration. But more recent times, roughly WW1 and on, armies engaged in conventional wars made up battle lines which typically spanned the entire length of the disputed area. My uneducated speculation would be that this was made possible with the invention of communications equipment that made command and control possible over large distances. But the question is, how can we implement this in a civilization game?

My suggestion would be to implement a flanking bonus that becomes available with the invention of a certain technology -- the telephone or electricity or something. This bonus has nothing to do with current flanking promotion or flanking damage that cavalry does to siege weapons. What it means is that once you research the required technology, your units gain a flanking bonus in combat any time you attack an opponent when you control a unit on more than one side. This bonus should be pretty powerful in order to reflect the significant tactical implications of breaking through the enemy's battle lines. I'd say maybe 50% if you have a unit on 2 sides of the enemy, 75% for 3 sides, and 100% if the unit is surrounded. Obviously tweaks would be made, and I don't know how diagonal tiles would work, but I'm sure you understand the concept. I think a system like this would effectively force you to string units out in a line in order to guard you flanks from an enemy attack or counter-attack.

It would have to be play tested, but yes it seems to be a good idea.

Another gripe I have is regarding roads. I really think armies should be able to use enemy roads -- maybe not railroads, but definitely roads. For one thing, it's far more realistic that way. But more importantly, I think this sort of thing would make warfare a much more strategic endeavor than it currently is. At present, there's not much strategy involved in fighting a war aside from stack composition and some terrain usage; although the latter is usually as simple as moving your stack through wooded and hilly areas while it advances. But if the enemy could use your roads, it would allow you to create a bottleneck and drastically increase the usefulness of forts. The attacker would then have to decided if he is willing to try to overrun your fort in the name of speed or if he's willing to sacrifice a few turns of progress to avoid your fort.

I wholeheartedly agree with the idea to make practicable the enemy roads. Add to this the ability to use the fat cross of any enemy city taken even in the middle of this enemy culture, and the ability to use units to give us tiles that would be the property of the enemy, for example if the fat cross of two cities (one of ours and one enemy city) overlap, and maybe the ability to trade this kind of tiles when making peace.

However, for the forts to be fully operationnal, we would need them to be build even on an improved tile. (for example, if you build a fort on a rice tile, the farm doesn't disappear), and give units into them a Zone of Control.
 
America - Lincoln, Washington, Roosevelt
Assyria - Shalmaneser I (Capital Assur)
Australia - Sir Robert Gordon Menzies (Capital Canberra)
Aztecs - Montezuma (Montezuma II)
Byzantium – Constantine, Justinian I
Carthage - Hannibal Barca
China - Mao Tse Tung, Qin Shi Huang,
Celtia- Brennus, Boudicca
Dutch - Willem Van Oranje
England-King Henry, Queen Victoria, Queen Elizabeth, PM Churchill (Capital London)
Ethiopia - Zara Yaqob
Egypt - Ramesses II, Cleopatra, Saladin (Capital Thebes, Cairo for Saladin)
France - Louis XIV, Napoleon, De Gaulle
Germany – Fredrick (Barbarossa), Bismarck, Adolf Hitler
Greece- Pericles
Hungary - Andrew I (Capital Budapest)
Holy Rome- Charlemagne, Otto I (Capital Aachen)
Inca - Huyana Capac
India - Asoka, Gandhi
Ireland- Queen Maeve (Capital Dublin)
Japan - Tokugawa
Kingdom of Jerusalem- King Richard the Lion heart (See Phillip the Chivalrous), King Guy (Capital Jerusalem)
Khmer - Suruyarvaman II
Korea - King Taejo Geon (Wang Kon)
Maya - Pacal II
Macedonia- Alexander the Great (Capital-----)
Mongolia - Genghis Khan (Tejumin) Kublai Khan
Native American- Sitting Bull
Olmecs - Can't find the names of any leaders or historical figures (Capital San Lorenzo (San Lorenzo Tenochtitlán)
Ottomans - Mehmed II, Suleiman the Magnificent
Turks-Nur al Din (Capital Adana)
Persia - Cyrus, Darius II
Phoenicia - Hiram I (Capital Tyre)
Portugal - Joao II
Principality of Antioch (Crusader State)- King Phillip the Chivalrous (Phillip comes from France, but leads this crusader state during the 3rd Crusade)(Capital Antioch)
Rome - Julius Caesar, Augustus Caesar, Marcus Aurelius
Russia - Stalin, Ivan the Terrible, Catherine the Great, Peter the Great
Scotland- William Wallace (Capital Perth)
Spain - Isabella, Phillip II
Sumeria - Gilgamesh
Venice- Doge Erico (Capital Venice)
Vikings - Ragnar
Zulu – Shaka



and also:

israel-David, salomon-Jerusalem
inuit/siberians-?-?
tibet-?-Lhasa
aborigens-?-?
Austria-?-Viena
Poland-?-Danzig
 
America - Lincoln, Washington, Roosevelt
Assyria - Shalmaneser I (Capital Assur)
Australia - Sir Robert Gordon Menzies (Capital Canberra)
Aztecs - Montezuma (Montezuma II)
Byzantium – Constantine, Justinian I
Carthage - Hannibal Barca
China - Mao Tse Tung, Qin Shi Huang,
Celtia- Brennus, Boudicca
Dutch - Willem Van Oranje
England-King Henry, Queen Victoria, Queen Elizabeth, PM Churchill (Capital London)
Ethiopia - Zara Yaqob
Egypt - Ramesses II, Cleopatra, Saladin (Capital Thebes, Cairo for Saladin)
France - Louis XIV, Napoleon, De Gaulle
Germany – Fredrick (Barbarossa), Bismarck, Adolf Hitler
Greece- Pericles
Hungary - Andrew I (Capital Budapest)
Holy Rome- Charlemagne, Otto I (Capital Aachen)
Inca - Huyana Capac
India - Asoka, Gandhi
Ireland- Queen Maeve (Capital Dublin)
Japan - Tokugawa
Kingdom of Jerusalem- King Richard the Lion heart (See Phillip the Chivalrous), King Guy (Capital Jerusalem)
Khmer - Suruyarvaman II
Korea - King Taejo Geon (Wang Kon)
Maya - Pacal II
Macedonia- Alexander the Great (Capital-----)
Mongolia - Genghis Khan (Tejumin) Kublai Khan
Native American- Sitting Bull
Olmecs - Can't find the names of any leaders or historical figures (Capital San Lorenzo (San Lorenzo Tenochtitlán)
Ottomans - Mehmed II, Suleiman the Magnificent
Turks-Nur al Din (Capital Adana)
Persia - Cyrus, Darius II
Phoenicia - Hiram I (Capital Tyre)
Portugal - Joao II
Principality of Antioch (Crusader State)- King Phillip the Chivalrous (Phillip comes from France, but leads this crusader state during the 3rd Crusade)(Capital Antioch)
Rome - Julius Caesar, Augustus Caesar, Marcus Aurelius
Russia - Stalin, Ivan the Terrible, Catherine the Great, Peter the Great
Scotland- William Wallace (Capital Perth)
Spain - Isabella, Phillip II
Sumeria - Gilgamesh
Venice- Doge Erico (Capital Venice)
Vikings - Ragnar
Zulu – Shaka



and also:

israel-David, salomon-Jerusalem
inuit/siberians-?-?
tibet-?-Lhasa
aborigens-?-?
Austria-?-Viena
Poland-?-Danzig

For Antioch and Venice, what other cities would there be?
 
I think that it is time for SMAC 2 which must be an improvement over CIV4.
Leave CIV5 to another 5-6 years before it is published.
It's the right moment for a new game in the SMAC series!
no its a terrible moment for SMAC, Cross your fingers and hope nothing else ever gets released with the Civ 4 engine again.
 
Macedonia - King Perdiccas I, Philip II of Macedonia, Alexander III The Great, Tsar Samuil, Yane Sandanski, Goce Delchev (Capital - Pella)

C. 653 B.C.
Ancient Macedonia has been divided as Up and Down Macedonia. King Perdiccas I establishes the Macedonian Kingdom. Ancient Macedonian kings from Perdicca I to Perdicca III .

I want to say that all of this people have a great influence in the history of Macedonia.... and i think that they should be part of this great game.
 
How about to change a combat. When you engage the combat you get (optional) real time battle with hundreds/thousands units - just like in Rome Total War.

A option to enter the city would be nice. Full 3D view of the city, with unique (random) placement of the buildings, people going around, etc.
 
How about to change a combat. When you engage the combat you get (optional) real time battle with hundreds/thousands units - just like in Rome Total War.

A option to enter the city would be nice. Full 3D view of the city, with unique (random) placement of the buildings, people going around, etc.

I would take this one further: if you conquer a city, why not a "plunder mode" phase where you basically get to run wild in it, not unlike Grand Theft Auto but with era-appropriate look and feel? After all, you just spent an hour and a half besieging Rome, and when you finally take it, what, you get a few shouts? There needs to be more payoff.

Other wish list items:

1) Bring back Civ2's tile transform ability for modern workers. Israel used to be a desert but it's not today. That's how it's done.

2) Siege units should NOT be "suicide troops" in game play. That was never how they were used in any real battles in history. Their attack should be similar to how air unit attacks are done, just with a 1 tile range. They should NOT take any damage when attacking, but of course they can't obliterate their target on bombardment either. And the current rules about flanking damage would of course still apply to them.

3) More medieval siege units:

a. Battering Ram. Much cheaper than catapult, but can only wear down city defenses, cannot attack units. Requires Bronze Working.

b. Siege Tower. Each one allows 1 other unit to attack ignoring the effect of city walls/castles. Requires Engineering.

c. Change to trebuchets: attack +50% vs. FORTIFIED units, regardless of whether they're within a city, a fort, or just hunkering down in a forest. Should require Machinery.

d. Scorpion: somewhat cheaper than catapults, cannot bombard city walls. Requires Construction (same as cats).

e. Bombard: early cannon. Base strength 8, similar in bonuses and vulnerabilities as cannon. Requires Gunpowder.

f. Petard: gunpowder bomb, used for wearing down city defenses. Bombardment consumes unit (similar to guided missile). Should be cheap. Requires Gunpowder.

4) More UUs, preferably 1 for each age for each civ.

5) 1 unique wonder per civ.

6) More "canned" earth scenarios, and earth map related options.

7) Leaderheads per era (e.g., show Montezuma in a suit if he is still around in modern times!)

8) More resources, e.g., tobacco, cotton, etc.

9) Basically take a look at what people are MODDING and get a CLUE from it: they're modding what people want, so glean ideas from it for Civ5.
 
1) I know aliens will never be part of the normal game, but maybe it could be added as a scenario, it would be very nice to see.

2) Perhaps a new combat system, where it's split, so that it acounts for ranged combat, as well as melee. For example, if you attacked a city with archers, it's unlikel;y that warriors would storm out and route the archers, more likely archers or artillery would return fire from range. Perhaps make the combat more interactive if someone attacks your city with an archer you'll have the recommended action of firing back with your own archers, or attempting to flank them with your horsemen, or rush out with your shielded warriors.

3) Slider Researching, You divide up your funds going into science into percentages between the different types (eco, mil, etc) so taht you can have multiple techs researched at the same time, with your preference on what sorts of techs are more important.

4) Definetly no jibberish speaking advisors.

5) Keep the epic gameplay.

6) Cartoony, realistic, whatever long as it looks good. (definetly no 2d option, throw your 1GB hardrive comp in the bin and get into the 21st century.)

7) Oh nearly forgot, others have mentioned a fully spherical woprld with hexagonalblahblah, (more tiles around the centre one). That sounds nice, like to see that tried out in civ 5.
 

I think it’s about time the Civ serious introduces Real Time battles just like in Total War (as an option).


Don’t you guys think that would be great?

I am a Total War fan for many years now and I have to say that these real time battles are a lot of fun.
You basically have two games in one.

I also think that Civ 5 should give us more things to do with our cash reserves.
Upgrading units in Civ 4 is way to expensive, and other than that there is noting we can do with the extra cash.

I would therefore like to suggest adding special city upgrades, building upgrades, and tile upgrades that can be purchased with our extra cash.
Maybe even buying food in the open market (with our cash) to feed our starving population. ;)
 
How about to change a combat. When you engage the combat you get (optional) real time battle with hundreds/thousands units - just like in Rome Total War.

A option to enter the city would be nice. Full 3D view of the city, with unique (random) placement of the buildings, people going around, etc.


I think it’s about time the Civ serious introduces Real Time battles just like in Total War (as an option).


Don’t you guys think that would be great?

I am a Total War fan for many years now and I have to say that these real time battles are a lot of fun.
You basically have two games in one.

I also think that Civ 5 should give us more things to do with our cash reserves.
Upgrading units in Civ 4 is way to expensive, and other than that there is noting we can do with the extra cash.

I would therefore like to suggest adding special city upgrades, building upgrades, and tile upgrades that can be purchased with our extra cash.
Maybe even buying food in the open market (with our cash) to feed our starving population. ;)

Don't expect real-time battles anytime soon - that would violate Sid Meier's Covert Action Rule. Basically, the Covert Action Rule is to not pack too much stuff into one game, as that can detract from the game. I'm of the opinion he's been following that too much with Civ4, taking away too many of the good options from Civ3, but I doubt they'll swing entirely the other way for Civ5.

Not that I don't like Total War - those are great, fun games. But I don't think that's what they're aiming for in Civ.

Now a "City View" thing might happen. I wouldn't expect amazingly complex graphics and tons of stuff going on - you don't want it to take a long time to load just to look at a city! - but they do have a City View in Civ3, so there's certainly precedent for it. The Civ3 one isn't quite realistic - it shows all the Wonders and improvements, but there's nowhere near enough housing - but they could probably improve it decently and still keep it nice and fast. Civ3 also has a Palace screen, and Civ2 has a Throne Room.
 

I think it’s about time the Civ serious introduces Real Time battles just like in Total War (as an option).


Don’t you guys think that would be great?

No. I think it would be horrible. I hate real-time with a passion like unto a million exploding nuns.

You basically have two games in one.

Some of us only want one game.
 
I would take this one further: if you conquer a city, why not a "plunder mode" phase where you basically get to run wild in it, not unlike Grand Theft Auto but with era-appropriate look and feel? After all, you just spent an hour and a half besieging Rome, and when you finally take it, what, you get a few shouts? There needs to be more payoff.

I disagree entirely here too. The payoff is, you just conquered Rome. Any more bells and whistles is resources tha goofd have gone into better gameplay.

1) Bring back Civ2's tile transform ability for modern workers. Israel used to be a desert but it's not today. That's how it's done.

Agreed emphatically.

2) Siege units should NOT be "suicide troops" in game play. That was never how they were used in any real battles in history.

I'm not happy with either Civ 3 or Civ 4's take on siege units; I think ranged bombard with a high attack and a negligible defence is the way to go, and stacks-of-doom being limited by numbers. (So that if you want to stack 8 catapults, you need to have at least 8 pikemen on the same square if you want an attacker to hit the pikemen rather than the catapults.)

3) More medieval siege units:

Right with this as a notion, though I'd probably redo all the effects.

4) More UUs, preferably 1 for each age for each civ.
5) 1 unique wonder per civ.

No no no no no no. Everyone should be able to get all units and wonders if they want; we just need hundreds more units on hundreds more tech branches, so that who actually does get them depends on the strategic considerations of the moment
 
6) Cartoony, realistic, whatever long as it looks good. (definetly no 2d option, throw your 1GB hardrive comp in the bin and get into the 21st century.)

Dude, unless you're offering to let me bill you for a new desktop when Civ 5 comes along, I'm going to keep agitating for a Civ 1 graphics option, because feeding my family is actually kind of more important than upgrading my games machine.
 
3) Slider Researching, You divide up your funds going into science into percentages between the different types (eco, mil, etc) so taht you can have multiple techs researched at the same time, with your preference on what sorts of techs are more important.

This would be a waste. If you did this, the most effective way is to have one slider pegged to the max and all the rest to the min. Anything else slows down your tech progression.
 
Don't expect real-time battles anytime soon - that would violate Sid Meier's Covert Action Rule. Basically, the Covert Action Rule is to not pack too much stuff into one game, as that can detract from the game.

That would be a shame.

Like I said, I am a big fun of the Total War serious mainly because it combines the turn base campaign with real time battles.
Total War implemented both games really well.

Even if I fight a real time battle for 30 minutes, I can still go back to the campaign map and remember what I was doing.
In fact the real time battles are refreshing and it makes the game more realistic where you can actually see your huge army in action in a real battlefield.

I think that the Civ series will have to implement real time battles at some point because the Total War serious is catching on with it.
The upcoming Empire: Total War is going to have more advanced campaign game play (Civ style) and it is starting to become a real competitor.

As much as I like Civ 4 I would probably move on to Empire: Total War when it comes out just because of the real time battles.
 
That would be a shame.

Like I said, I am a big fun of the Total War serious mainly because it combines the turn base campaign with real time battles.
Total War implemented both games really well.

I agree. On the other hand, wouldn't be possible to have this as a option in the custom game, so player could choose two different ways of combat?
Ofcourse, "total war" option wuld probably make harder to introduce new units (and the abillity to change the game was a big plus for Civ), but this would still be possible for the "traditional civ combat" option.
 
Back
Top Bottom