Civilization 5

[Freek1]

This is just a quick note with my civ5 wish list.
(In case 2k producers happen to have a spare week searching for suggestions ;-))


(1) More AI cooperation against strong nations (BIG IMPROVEMENT)
Computer players should be much more eager to (military) cooperate against a third nation when it grows too strong. (Of course also if that third nation is the human player.) Computer players are too carefull trying too survive but their decisions should reflect that surviving but not winning is just as bad as losing a war and being exterminated.

(2) Much more diplomatic options (BIG IMPROVEMENT)
For example:
* No restrictions on trading different types of favors. For example: technology for money, military assistance for converting religion, resources for map information, etc.
* More trading options. For example: food (at transportation costs), units, building improvements, adjust borders, permanent map information (also on moving units thereby turning off the fog of war), technology under the restriction that it is not traded to third parties, peace for the next 200 turns, not building cities in a specific area, stop working on a world wonder, etc. Well, just a lot more options!!
* Specific military coordination. For example: I attack city A with archer B in turn C if you put galley D on my fishing spot E for protection during F turns. (Ok, that's maybe a bit too complex, but something like that!)
* Making threats

(3) Better balance between number of cities and micromanagement (MEDIUM IMPROVEMENT)
Civilization has a lot of options to micromanage your cities. And if these options exist, I also want to use them (for example by checking each turn wether every city has still an optimal allocation of its citizens over the surrounding tiles). However, this becomes too much effort when you have more than 5-10 cities. (Therefore I always play on tiny maps). So I would like a better balance between the micromanagement possibilities and the number of cities.

(4) Better music (SMALL IMPROVEMENT)
There are only a few tracks I like (mostly Renaissance music, BrahmsHungarian1 and the game intro); I find a lot boring or even annoying. If it's too difficult to find a lot of nice tracks, just drop the restraint of era specific music. Rather a few good tracks than a lot of bad ones!

(5) Faster city screens (SMALL IMPROVEMENT)
In all recent civilizations, loading a city management screen takes up to several seconds. Surely, this could go faster.

(6) Better information when setting up a world (SMALL IMPROVEMENT)
In all recent Civilizations I have problems during game setup choosing the parameters for the land/sea proportions. Please more help information and bring back the sample world illustrating the effect of high seas or snaky continents.

And finally...
MARATHON SPEED IS PERFECT
(Please keep that one.)

 

[Terrance888]

1) Allow us to say "Cut deals off Blah Blah" like they do to us.

2) Change First strikes: They are like armour the way I intend to use them: Every unit will have at least 1 first strike, and barbs automatically have none to represent civilized advantage. Some UUs could have more First Strikes instead of increase armour: Preats can be Str 6 Swords with extra first strikes. Horse Archers can be low str with lots of first strikes.

3) Change Mounted Comabat: Have Horse Archer, Mounted Spearman and Mounted Swordsman, each have their uses. MSpear Anti-Melee, Msword Anti-Archer MA Anti Spearman. This would make me very happy. Also, let them dismount if they want: so they become regular units with a little extre first strike. FFH 2 Spells can be used here: Cast "Mount" and they are mounted, Cast "Demount" and they demount but bet defense bonuses.

 

[rysmiel]

And if these options exist, I also want to use them (for example by checking each turn wether every city has still an optimal allocation of its citizens over the surrounding tiles). However, this becomes too much effort when you have more than 5-10 cities. (Therefore I always play on tiny maps).

Only so long as those of us for whom most of the fun of the game is in doing that sort of management for fifty or a hundred cities every turn can still do that.

 

[Freek1]

Only so long as those of us for whom most of the fun of the game is in doing that sort of management for fifty or a hundred cities every turn can still do that.

Well, honestly..., I don't like micromanagement that much

But glad you recognize the issue.

 

[kidkhaos]

bring back the advisors of civ3 i loved them

 

[Camikaze]

Welcome to the forums, kidkhaos.
Many people want the same thing.

 

[Öjevind Lång]

One thing they should remove is the ability of two civilizations to attack each other in a third, nonbelligerent country which has an open borders agreement with both. That's simply silly. Right of passage to attack another civ - OK. Warfare would become almost impossible otherwise. But not the silly fighting each other on neutral territory.

 

[Camikaze]

One thing they should remove is the ability of two civilizations to attack each other in a third, nonbelligerent country which has an open borders agreement with both. That's simply silly. Right of passage to attack another civ - OK. Warfare would become almost impossible otherwise. But not the silly fighting each other on neutral territory.

I agree. This should be an aspect of a system of differing levels of opening borders agreement, ranging from open economical borders, to the use of one's territory for use in warfare.

 

[Öjevind Lång]

I agree. This should be an aspect of a system of differing levels of opening borders agreement, ranging from open economical borders, to the use of one's territory for use in warfare.

Yes. I approve of the refinement you suggest. In other respects too, Civ still needs better, more refined diplomacy. For example, it might be nice if an AI civ doesn't start to resent you because "You declared war on our friend!" when that "friend" was an obvious menace preparing to jump said civilization, or to jump a mutual friend of said civilization and the one which declared war. Perhaps a new minus is needed: "You have shown your aggressive tendencies", in cases where a player is clearly trying to divide and conquer, or attack and conquer one by one.

 

[Camikaze]

Yeah, that sounds pretty good, although it would be really hard to implement probably. I don't know how well AI can be programmed to see the intentions of another player. And then there would be times where you weren't trying to be aggressive, but the AI falsely falsely believed you were trying to be, or something. So, it's a good idea, but it might be pretty tricky to implement.

 

[Waterdrop]

I'd like to see an expansion for Civ5 that makes you able to go extremely far into the future.. not just as a mod, but as a whole sequel. It would also be a very creative challenge for the creators to see how far they can go with their imagination.
That was the only thing I really liked about Call to Power. The future technologies were very imaginative and the tech tree was something that could really logically happen in real life. Still it would be awesome if they went to the point where you hardly can imagine what could possibly be beyond.

Also, I'd like to see more unique videos for the Wonders, like seeing how they work and what goes on inside them; not just how they're being constructed.

What surprises me is that I only read suggestions on the rules you want to see in the next civ. I also read that most fans are radically against the idea of going far into the future. Why's that?

(to be honest, I've actually signed up because I'm really curious about the reasons for that and I haven't been able to find them anywhere)

 

[Camikaze]

Welcome to the forums, Waterdrop.

As far as I know, opposition to a futuristic game comes from the fact that Civilization is a historically based game, and, obviously, the future is not part of history. Having said that, however, I think it isn't a bad idea to include, so long as it doesn't take away from the importance of the remainder of the game (i.e. the historical bits). The only way to do this would be to have it as a mod, instead of as part of the main game itself, IMO.

 

[Waterdrop]

Thanks for the welcome!

And I do agree. I wouldn't want it to be part of the regular game (I'm pretty much addicted to the fact-based civilipedia), but future mods like next war and final frontier felt too limited to enjoy as a whole new and fun experience. Hence the idea to make it an expansion of Civ5. That would also give the player the choice to include the future experience or not.

 

[Tesla1886]

True, but definitely the disadvantage of Civ4 is that number of troops is independent from the number of the population. IMO the population of the cites should be more realistic then if you bulid a military unit you draw some of the population to become a soldiers. In the same way you change the status of the citizen into merchant/scientist/worker. Soldier is a kind of specialist and if its created it sholud decrease city ability to work on farms of in the factories. On the other hand: once military unit is killed the population of civ should be decreased. Of course in many small wars it shlould not be a significant factor, but several times in our history it happened that significant percantage of population was killed by war, by deasese or other means (cataclizm)

I disagree that the population should be decreased after building a military unit.

Just because a person joins the military does not mean he is no longer a citizen.

I might agree with decreasing the population if that unit is killed in battle, but that adds to much to keep track of.

 

[Naokaukodem]

It would also be a very creative challenge for the creators to see how far they can go with their imagination.

No need to use future techs in order to see developpers' imagination. A simple remake of History would do it.

 

[morahed18]

civ 5 wishlist:

1) much more powerful leader traits - the more powerful trait bonuses are, the more unique gameplay becomes from leader to leader, thereby improving the game's lifespan.

2) adjustable number of wonders/religions - these parts of the game are only fun when they are in short supply. if there's enough religions/wonders/corporations to go around, its pretty lame (i.e. small maps should have fewer religions available)

3) return of the culturally-linked starting positions (i.e. france and england start near each other)

4) more baba yetu - they really need to put those guys in a room together and have them do the whole soundtrack

5) civil war! why not have civil unrest potentially result in the defection of 1 or more cities to form an entirely new civ!

 

[rysmiel]

1) much more powerful leader traits - the more powerful trait bonuses are, the more unique gameplay becomes from leader to leader, thereby improving the game's lifespan.

I really think it works the other way around; the more unique leader traits are, the more you are locked into a certain strategy with a certain leader, the less flexibility you have, the less replayable the game is. I want leader traits gone.

2) adjustable number of wonders/religions - these parts of the game are only fun when they are in short supply.

I disagree here too; there's a big difference between "could buld a wonder" and "could build the wonder that best helps my current strategy."

3) return of the culturally-linked starting positions (i.e. france and england start near each other)

As an option, perhaps, but forcing that on the game is again reducing flexibility and thus replayability.

5) the ability for a revolt to spring the existence of a new civilization - why not have a city (or group of cities) be able to revolt to form a new civ, rather than simply have them join a neighboring civ?

I'm all for this one, though.

 

[morahed18]

I really think it works the other way around; the more unique leader traits are, the more you are locked into a certain strategy with a certain leader, the less flexibility you have, the less replayable the game is. I want leader traits gone.

That's the point - each time you start a game with a new leader, your strategy will be forced to change drastically. You could potentially allow many different strategies for each civ, just by increasing the number of available leaders. Something about complete polarization of competitors' strategies seems more fun to me.

(and of course, culturally linked starts as a option, not a mandate)

 

[rysmiel]

That's the point - each time you start a game with a new leader, your strategy will be forced to change drastically. You could potentially allow many different strategies for each civ, just by increasing the number of available leaders. Something about complete polarization of competitors' strategies seems more fun to me.

Whereas my point is, if the game forces you into a limited rage of strategies from the beginning, before you have seen what the map looks like, who else you are dealing with, and so on, where's the fun in that ? There's no way of telling you won't have ended up in a situation which is drastically unsuited to the leader pou picked. Give the AIs different distinct strategies if you like, but leave the human player free to adapt and stretch their abilities as well as possible to the challenge.

 

[morahed18]

Whereas my point is, if the game forces you into a limited rage of strategies from the beginning, before you have seen what the map looks like, who else you are dealing with, and so on, where's the fun in that ? There's no way of telling you won't have ended up in a situation which is drastically unsuited to the leader pou picked. Give the AIs different distinct strategies if you like, but leave the human player free to adapt and stretch their abilities as well as possible to the challenge.

That's a good point, which gives me an even better idea. How about this one - leaders start traitless. As you reach certain milestones (perhaps similar to the BTS "quests") you obtain bonuses (and perhaps drawbacks). Thus you start with a clean slate, but as you make your choices, you become more specialized. This would have an early game that is very flexible, and an end game that is increasingly unique.