Civilization 5

[Skallagrimson]

Some cities would may flourish even more if required. And IMO it should concern hammers as well. It should be possibility of internal import/export between the cities to some extent. Some cities may help to build the wonder or building in other city

What they could do is put this option into the build queue: "Assist City Production", and when you pick that, a screen pops up to give a drop-down list of all cities that have a route connection to the city in question, with what they're building in parentheses. Inefficiencies from transporting resources, etc., could be captured in the form of a distance penalty similar to the distance penalty used for city maintenance. Something ranging from 2% for a nearby city to 25% for a long-distant city.

 

[baboon]

If I look at the current Civ4 I would say the AI should build cities at the correct spot. Not just next to a fresh water tile, but on it, while still connecting to the resources.

Also, make them figure out the exact amount of food needed and then build cottages, not just only cottages like they seem to do now.

If you make the AI smarter at that, you can have higher difficulties where the AI doesn't even need a starting advantage. You have to outsmart them in diplomacy and warfare then.

 

[Sebiche]

Bring Civ2 back. 90% of what they did away with from that version, they should have kept.

"No paratroopers in modern combat"... WTH kind of "realistic" game rules are those?

rather than creating a paratrooper, I say bring transport helicopters both light and heavy.

light ones can carry infantry and one can tell it to unload untop of an enemy unit. there would be certain advantages and disadvantages (no fortify bonus, but penaltY) to paratrooping. then there would be a paratrooper promotion (like amphibious) to terminate the negative effects of paratroopers.

WHAT SAY YOU?

 

[Öjevind Lång]

I'd like cavalry to update to tanks instead of choppers. That's what happened to cavalry units everywhere except in the United States.

 

[Sebiche]

i agree. the modern cavalry is not choppers but armor

 

[Skallagrimson]

Cavalry went to both: armored cav for tanks; air cav for helicopters, although the helicopters were mainly to support the tanks. Cavs should be able to upgrade to both.

 

[50_dollar_bag]

I don't think cavalry should upgrade to anything. Chariots/horse archers/knights/cavalry all have something in common, horses and people. The weaponry changes but the core stays the same.
The same can't be said with tanks or choppers, how much of the exisitng unit can be used for the new one? The human.

 

[potatokiosk]

I don't think cavalry should upgrade to anything. Chariots/horse archers/knights/cavalry all have something in common, horses and people. The weaponry changes but the core stays the same.
The same can't be said with tanks or choppers, how much of the exisitng unit can be used for the new one? The human.

The speed of tanks and helicopters still gives them a similar purpose, and the AI might never get rid of its cavalry if it can't upgrade them.

Besides, by the same token a maceman shouldn't upgrade to a rifleman. They have little in common in terms of weaponry. A catapult couldn't be transformed into a cannon, you would have to throw it away and build something new. Upgrades in the game are generally a total replacement of the old equipment and new training for the soldiers, so I can't see anything wrong with retraining cavalry units to play a similar role in a mechanised fashion.

 

[Lord Sandwich]

It seems like "free religion" was supposed to reflect that, but it reminds me of another issue: when was there ever a religious-based war started up by Buddhists? Or Taoists? It's really only Christianity, Judaism, and Islam who have that in their resume, and it seems that "holy war zeal" wears off over time.

It's pretty hard to see a Buddhist Montezuma out on a religious crusade, without smirking and wondering what these Firaxis people were on when they programmed this.

I suspect you could make a very solid argument that the Japanese involvement in the WWII carried significant religious overtones with their prevalent form of Buddhism. Lots of racial, economic, ideological, and cultural stuff mixed up in there as well of course. Anyway, I'm sure there are other examples. Pick any religion thats been around for a while(amish excluded), and we could probably point out some sort of religious strife initiated by its followers.

Which brings me to my suggestions for CivV:
Religions:
1. There would be several religious techs. The first Civ to gain the tech picks up an appropriate religion. For example if the Greeks snag polytheism, they get the greek pantheon, if the Indians hit it they get Hinduism and so forth. The 2nd Civ to get the tech creates a schism. The schism is a branch of the original religion founded by the the 1st Civ. So if your 1st to theology you get Catholicism, the next guy to hit theology gets Orthodoxy. This will complicate diplomacy, and will also keep 1 player from founding all the religions. Civs on different side of the split would be able to get along unless one of the two or both had theocracy, at which point its time to kill some heretics.
2. I'd find a place for a military column in civics.

 

[Yakk]

We need both minor and major religeons, and schisms within major religeons.

We need religious death.

 

[Skallagrimson]

I suspect you could make a very solid argument that the Japanese involvement in the WWII carried significant religious overtones with their prevalent form of Buddhism.

Japan has a unique mix of martial spirit, a hold-over from Shintoism, and delicate pacifist appreciation for beauty and gentle things, an influence from Buddhism. The balance of the two is Zen. Wars initiated by Japanese leaders have nearly always been on political or economic motivation, though, not religious.

Lots of racial, economic, ideological, and cultural stuff mixed up in there as well of course. Anyway, I'm sure there are other examples. Pick any religion thats been around for a while(amish excluded), and we could probably point out some sort of religious strife initiated by its followers.

Which brings me to my suggestions for CivV:
Religions:
1. There would be several religious techs. The first Civ to gain the tech picks up an appropriate religion. For example if the Greeks snag polytheism, they get the greek pantheon, if the Indians hit it they get Hinduism and so forth. The 2nd Civ to get the tech creates a schism. The schism is a branch of the original religion founded by the the 1st Civ. So if your 1st to theology you get Catholicism, the next guy to hit theology gets Orthodoxy. This will complicate diplomacy, and will also keep 1 player from founding all the religions. Civs on different side of the split would be able to get along unless one of the two or both had theocracy, at which point its time to kill some heretics.

I like the concept of national unique historically-accurate religions. Some ideas:

Brennus: Druidry
Ragnar: Asatru
Elizabeth and Churchill: Church of England
Julius and Augustus: Roman Paganism (early) and Roman Catholicism (late)
Alexander: Greek Paganism (early) and Greek Orthodox (late)
Hatshepsut and Ramesses II: Egyptian Paganism (early) and Gnostic Christianity (late)
Saladin: Arab Paganism (early) and Islam (late)
Catherine, Peter, and Stalin: Slavic Paganism (early), Russian Orthodox (late)
...and so on.

To balance out the influence of multiple religions, when a later shrine is founded, it should obsolete the earlier shrine.

For Stalin, I know his regime was State Atheism, but that should be a religion civic, currently absent in the game: it's not "free religion" because no religion was allowed, and it's not "paganism" either. A State Atheism civic should add +1 hammer to workshops and mines, +1 food to farms, nullify any shrine gold revenue, nullify the happy effects of religious buildings, but also at the same time convert any unhappy citizens to basic "citizen" specialists, of just 1 hammer and no GPP. High upkeep (due to having to infuse the population with propaganda, keep the Secret Police busy arresting underground religious groups, etc.)

For the American leaders, let the early religion be "Folk Traditions" and the late religion be "Televangelism". It would be an abstraction of what religion essentially was and is, in America, rather than a specifically historic single religion.

Most early religion discoveries should happen with "Polytheism". Most late religion discoveries should happen with "Theology".

2. I'd find a place for a military column in civics.

I drive myself crazy every time I try to think of a way to improve how civics line up. The dimensions to civics in the present civ4 don't seem "quite right", but then neither have been any of the ideas I've come up with. At some point one dimension always has effects on another that can seem to get properly captured.

My latest flawed attempt has been:

1) Governmental Succession
a. Interpersonal Combat
b. Factional Struggle
c. Inheritance
d. Republican Appointment
e. Representative Election
f. Direct Election

2) Domestic Security Policy
a. Kill dissidents (Despotism)
b. Imprison dissidents (Police State)
c. Harrass dissidents (Propaganda)
d. Tolerate dissidents (Free Speech)
e. Encourage dissidents (Sensationalist Journalism)

3) Domestic Economic Policy
a. Personal command labor
b. Specialized labor (allows slave-whipping, specialists)
c. Caste System
d. Capitalism
e. Unionization
f. Central Planning
g. Syndicalism

4) Trade Policy
a. Ad hoc trades
b. Trade by treaty
c. Merchant explorers
d. Mercantilism
e. Protected markets
f. Free markets

5) Religious Policy
a. Shamanism (no state religion)
b. Priestcraft (organized religion)
c. Theocracy
d. State Atheism (described up above)
e. Religious tolerance

6) Military Policy
a. Random Warriors
b. Warrior Caste (+2 XP)
c. Professional Voluntary Soldiery (+25% unit production)
d. National Service (can draft)

Changes to trade policy should never spark "anarchy". That's ridiculous, and never was there such in history. The others should be a percentage chance of anarchy, modified lower for spiritual leaders, but never impossible.

I toss these around too often to really stand behind them 100% though. It's frustrating.

 

[Tomek]

I really don't think it's accurate to disparage Chinese chemistry as "not being high level" when they did in fact pioneer Gunpowder. [...] It's really western arrogance that looks down upon all things not based on what the Greeks were up to.

Agree. I didn't want to depreciate the Chinese achievements but just propose another approach for the science and inventions. With a great respect for the Chinese impressive achievements I am not really sure if they understood the chemical processes that take place in fireworks and explosives. So I am in favour of leveling general civ education in different science areas and separate detailed invention tree that corresponds with it. It may happen that science may stay behind a bit comparing to inventions - but thats life 7 reality...

This reminds me of another issue. I have never read in any history book anywhere, or in the news in today's current events, any sort of a diplomatic negotiation where the main focus was on an exchange of *technology*, and where relations between states hinged upon it. [...]

that's what I meant! So... I hope that idea of automatic tech trade is a need. Generally saying: civilisations may boost their research but it should give only short-term but significant advantage (until this tech spreads automaticly). In ancient times tech may spread slower. nowadays when you're 5-10 years ahead in warfare you have crucial advantage on battlefield

One thing I miss about Civ2 is that you used to be able to build a "hammers" caravan, and transport that caravan to another city, where you could apply those "hammers" (shields in that version), to production in the target city. You could also build a food caravan and transport food from a breadbasket city to a starving city. Even if the "hammers" caravan approach isn't 100% realistic, a FOOD caravan if anything would improve the realism (which is perhaps why Civ won't implement it: we can't have *realism* now, that would spoil the cartoony fantasy nonsense!!!)

True. My point of view is a option in the city screen that allows transfer between the cities. I.e city one has 40 hammers and 5 surplus of food - you just assign the city and number of hammers and food to be transfered. Of course when you want to transfer 20 hammers and 4 food maybe 1/4 of it sholud be lost during transport conditions, costs, and/or corruption. the longer trade routes the bigger lost shlould be expected. And in modrn times losts should be significantly reduced comparing to ancient times.

In a sense this could be achieved by having a base class of weapon, for example "a rifle", with a base combat strength it affords a unit of n size in battle. To design an "improved rifle", you could add strength bonuses to the rifle through a concept of engineering longer range, greater rate of fire, durability, etc., to the rifle, which would be captured in a weapons build screen as taking more hammers to produce that improved rifle. If you want a larger volume of cheaper rifles, you could design a cheaper mass-production model which would have some strength deficits in combat. Same concept could apply for a tank, or a bomber, etc.

Exactly

 

[Tomek]

I don't think cavalry should upgrade to anything. Chariots/horse archers/knights/cavalry all have something in common, horses and people. The weaponry changes but the core stays the same.
The same can't be said with tanks or choppers, how much of the exisitng unit can be used for the new one? The human.

A lot of truth there - the upgrade from cavarly to tanks or helicopters is too big. Generally this is totally different warfare. The same is with airfighters and bombers - nothing upgrades to it as it is different kind of army. Is this sth like milestone in warfare - maybe a several turning points should be implemented i.e. 1. when gunpowder and rifeling is invented 2. when mechanized army appears (tanks, mech inf) 3. air units 4. other future warfare...
each time it happenes you'll need to disband units gradually as you produce new one one by one.

but on other hand - an upgrade is the simplification of disbanding and producing new units process. So I ask - mayby it should be an approach that allows upgrade anything to anything depending on costs of course - and there would be no controversy and disputation on it

 

[Skallagrimson]

On unit upgrades, I know that historically units did do gradual conversions, e.g., from horse-oriented cavalry to more armor-oriented units in World War 1, in some cases, and there had been a recent "signal" type unit for scouting and intelligence with the advent of military balloons in the 19th century, which converted to heavier-than-air craft in WW1 as well. Sometimes some new units ARE an entirely new class, like the balloon units, and probably no units should be able to upgrade to them; but armor historically was an "upgrade" (conversion) from horse cavalry.

 

[Sebiche]

I drive myself crazy every time I try to think of a way to improve how civics line up. The dimensions to civics in the present civ4 don't seem "quite right", but then neither have been any of the ideas I've come up with. At some point one dimension always has effects on another that can seem to get properly captured.

My latest flawed attempt has been:

1) Governmental Succession
a. Interpersonal Combat
b. Factional Struggle
c. Inheritance
d. Republican Appointment
e. Representative Election
f. Direct Election

2) Domestic Security Policy
a. Kill dissidents (Despotism)
b. Imprison dissidents (Police State)
c. Harrass dissidents (Propaganda)
d. Tolerate dissidents (Free Speech)
e. Encourage dissidents (Sensationalist Journalism)

3) Domestic Economic Policy
a. Personal command labor
b. Specialized labor (allows slave-whipping, specialists)
c. Caste System
d. Capitalism
e. Unionization
f. Central Planning
g. Syndicalism

4) Trade Policy
a. Ad hoc trades
b. Trade by treaty
c. Merchant explorers
d. Mercantilism
e. Protected markets
f. Free markets

5) Religious Policy
a. Shamanism (no state religion)
b. Priestcraft (organized religion)
c. Theocracy
d. State Atheism (described up above)
e. Religious tolerance

6) Military Policy
a. Random Warriors
b. Warrior Caste (+2 XP)
c. Professional Voluntary Soldiery (+25% unit production)
d. National Service (can draft)

Changes to trade policy should never spark "anarchy". That's ridiculous, and never was there such in history. The others should be a percentage chance of anarchy, modified lower for spiritual leaders, but never impossible.

I toss these around too often to really stand behind them 100% though. It's frustrating.

yeah that is pretty flawed.

the cure isn't to open more options in a single collumn, but to create more variety and different collumns.

First of all, I think they should get their facts straight. Vassalage? system of loyalty, not a legal system.

in fact, none of the legal systems ARE ACTUAL LEGAL SYSTEMS

then the ones available just scratch the surface.

i say collumns should be:

-Election: how a leader is elected (ie: hereditary rule, suffrage)

-Power: the power a government holds (ie: totalitarian, democratic)

-Freedoms: the freedoms the people are awarded (ie: nationalism, free speech)

-Legal system: the way the nation's courts fuction (judge trial, jury of peers, constitution)

-Military: how soldiers are elected in the nation (ie: draft, voluntary)

-Public Benefit: the things the government provides (ie: public education, social security)

-Labor: the worker's rights (slavery, emmancipation, syndicalist)

-Organization: the way your nation is organized (Federation, Centralised)

-Economics: the economic systems (Free Trade, which is capitalism, State owned property, which is socialism)

-National Policy: the way a nations acts to trouble (interventionalist, I'm talking to you USA, Nationalist, Pacifist, isolationalist)

-Religion: what kind of religious systems do you have (paganism, free religion, antidisestablishmentarianism)

ps: antidisestablishmentarianism is the longest word in the english language, following the technical term (not an actual term) pneumono*ultra*micro*scopic*silico*volcano*coniosis

 

[Skallagrimson]

Governmental power bleeds into "freedoms", as an example of the problem here. It wouldn't make sense for there to be a government that is totalitarian and yet has "free speech".

Back to the drawing board.

 

[Sebiche]

why not? the government can control everything, everything (as seen in a totalitarian regime) and yet all free speech (its a posibility!)

the point is to create a custom government no?

then why not a single leader in charge of all the state but not the voice of the people? I'm not saying it happens, but it isn't impossible or incomprehensible.

Back to the drawing board.

no thank you. maybe if you opened your mind to posibility.

a totalitarian (well, maybe semi-totalitarian is more appropriate term) regime that allows free speech is perfectly possible!!!! its as if fidel castro decided to allow his people free speech (it could happen, it just won't)

get my drift?

 

[Lord Sandwich]

Sebiche, those are interesting ideas, rather than columns having many either/or choices. I think having one more column might be more manageable and would force people to make harder choices(a good thing in my opinion).
Anyway, my 6 columns o' civics are as follows:
*New civics will list effects, ones with the same name have same effect
Head of State(How he's chosen):
Despotism
Hereditary Rule
Oligarchy +1 per city, -1 maintenance per city
Representation
Universal Suffrage

Legal
Barbarism
Aristocracy +1 per city, -25% cost on religious buildings
Bureaucracy
Absolutism +1 per barracks, +25% GPP
Free Speech

Labor
Same as in game

Economics
Same as in game

Religion
Same as in game

Military
Unorganized - No Benefits
Citizen Soldiers - Free City Defender I promotion for appropriate units, may draft 1 unit per turn for each 3 cities(only 1 per city per turn)
Feudalism - -50% war weariness, may draft 1 unit per turn for each 2 cities(only 1 per city per turn)
Conscription - may draft 1 unit per turn for each city(only 1 per city per turn), -25% unit maintenance costs
Volunteer Military - +2 experience per new unit, -25% war weariness

Also, every Civ will be able to sell units to other Civs. This will represent mercenaries and arms sales. You'll be able to request units for purchase from friendly civs(no sale of UUs).

Here's an explanation of my new civic's boni:
Oligarchy: Your cronies will be happy, and will reduce maintenance by stealing $$$ from the populace rather than the national treasury
Aristocracy: The nobility will be happy that they aren't smelly peasants, and through history they've typically sent sons into the priesthood.
Absolutism: The happiness represents the ruler's security establishment keeping order, the culture bonus represents the rulers patronage.
Unorganized: You never get boni from the starting civic!
Citizen Soldiers: The citizenry is generally motivated to defend their homes, but indisposed toward foreign campaigns
Feudalism: The nobles desire for glory overrides the suffering of their serfs, as lords of the manors they can call up large numbers of peasants to serve
Conscription: Self-explanatory
Volunteer Military: Volunteer's are by definition motivated, the general population isn't furious over the draft thus reducing war weariness

 

[Jerrymander]

Thank you for replying. I think Humanism should be some kind of religion.
Imagine that you get another religion late in the game!

Scientology.
"Tom Cruise (Horrible Artist) has been born in Hollywood!"

 

[Lord Sandwich]

Scientology.
"Tom Cruise (Horrible Artist) has been born in Hollywood!"

If you're going to have an "American" religion, it would have to be Mormonism.
I like the Tom Cruise idea, it would reduce your culture instead of increasing it.
On a serious gameplay note, cults would be an interesting idea.