Civilization 5

[Fraydom]

I agree about the religion thing. It is a hard decision by the devlopers how to base religions to avoid getting into a confrontation from groups to decide what religion is the best. I am an agnostic, more atheist than anything, but i dont belive in any god. I believe in an afterlife, but thats another forum. In Civ, it is the ruler (player) who decides, and besides if you are the type to rush for a specific religion everytime you yourself have already decided which is the best releigion.

As for tribal villiages into neutral nations, I like that idea. Kind of like they could evolve into city-states and if they continue to thrive into nations that are not playable. We have the generic nations we can choose, so those tribal evolved nations should be others that we cant play such as Polish, Vietnamise, Tasmanian, Columbian, Peruvian, so on so forth.

 

[Tomek]

we cant play such as Polish, Vietnamise, Tasmanian, Columbian, Peruvian, so on so forth.

yeah!
Polish XVI-XVII century cavalry rulez @ !

 

[Hexed]

You're talking about upgrading to units beyond your current tech?

Yes, beyond your current tech of that time. The idea is that the village had a warriors that (in some respect) were more advanced than those that bumped into them. Instead of getting an xp bonus, or the tech the villiage trained those that found them into a more effective force. Then if that group gets back to your civ they could sacrafice to help learn that tech.

 

[Skallagrimson]

We used to call them "goodie boxes" in Civ2. I remember it being a part of strategy to pop as many goodies as possible near an AI's cities, so that if you "unleash a horde of barbarians" as they called it in that version, the barbs would then swarm the AI's land, and sometimes wipe them out. It was an offensive strategy to sacrifice a warrior to do that.

 

[KaneOosty]

I would suggest, along with these other ideas ive read in this thread which I find brilliant to also add small touches which makes you feel like a real ruler.

• Bring back the High Council! That made suggestions much more fun! More interactivity
  
• Bring back era related clothing for Leaders! Yes adds 'realism' but it makes sense.
  
• BRING BACK THE THRONE ROOM! Why the hell not? Maybe thats where you can look out towards your city? Thats where you see your "Hail the Despot/President triumphs" or hear from Angry citizens. See your Police state in action or see how your Theocracy is shaping.
  
• Make units and cities look more to their culture Enough of the generic!

Little things that make little difference to how the game goes but something that made Civ2 that bit more interesting.

 

[Skallagrimson]

Uh-oh, Kane, you mentioned realism. That will arouse the wrath of the Firaxis gods!!!

 

[Mike.doc]

..the graphic interface, it's very funny !

 

[Kissa]

What about make the game go to a Sim nation like ?
http://simnation.i-punto.net/simnation.html

interconnected cities like sim city 4 :

night and day :
http://www.gamekult.com/images/ME0000665148/

realistic cities simulation : micro and macro cities gestion,
http://www.gamekult.com/images/ME0000665147/

colored enlight buildinds to easily distingish different buildings (church, market, library, etc.)
http://www.gamekult.com/images/ME0000665122/

realistic 3D cities :
http://www.gamekult.com/images/ME0000617083/

realistic water, energy, transport (land, air, sea), cities interconnections.

And (simplified but realistic) nations interconnection and interdependance, etc.

And Please, Please better scalled units-cities-buildings-maps !
Please.
Realistic like...

I want it in my civ 5.

 

[Pangur Bán]

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?

I often wish to have back the capacity to steamroller the AI by using battleships to defeat so many garrisons. Seriously though, they improved the AI and graphics for civ3 and civ4, but that game had so much that I miss (Alpine troops, Darwin's Workshop, the Adam Smith thing, etc). Often wondered why they didn't make more use of Alpha Centauri ... that game was way better that civ3. Whatever civ5 eventually has ... i hope there will be a meaningful expansion pack for the first time ever ... maybe an alpha centauri expansion?!

 

[NYHunter]

[*]Bring back era related clothing for Leaders! Yes adds 'realism' but it makes sense.

This is the one thing I can't stand. While, I think some people want civ to be too realistic, there does need to be a certain extent of realism. I can never stand looking at Roosevelt in the ancient era or Alexander during the modern era.

 

[Newbunkle]

1. Remove the promotion system and make combat that's more fun.
2. Decent map editor included with the game.
3. Better Single Player features.

 

[Doctor Penguin]

Some things I would add:

Unit Leashes - Limit the distance units can travel from cities based upon current technologies and civics. If a unit goes beyond that distance, it stands a chance of going "Native" and becoming AI controlled. This would limit civilization expansion in the early game to more realistic levels. Some units, like the scout and explorer would have greater range than others.

Bigger maps - or the ability combine cities that are close together. I would like to play the game on a world map where England can have more than 3 cities on the home islands.

Civil Wars - were mentioned earlier. I think this could be either generated through civic/government change (anarchy) or through unhappiness. Civil wars should cause multiple cities to go into revolt. One thing I would offer though would be the ability to have the player pick which side of the revolt he wanted to be on.

"In Collapse" - Allow players in a single player game to declare their civilization to be "In collapse" for a penalty and take over one of the AI civilizations.

City State Government type and Intra-civilization Diplomacy - Allow a City State type government where the player would have direct control over a single city and its units. The other cities in this civilization would be AI controlled and would pay their own expenses. The player would have varying degrees of control over the other cities based uponCulture, Trade, Power and influence. It sounds complicated, but the idea would be that this would be simple to run, and cheaper in the short run. It would also encourage the player to develop culture and power within his city in order to influence the others.

Anyway, those are some of my ideas.

 

[Vael]

Uh-oh, Kane, you mentioned realism. That will arouse the wrath of the Firaxis gods!!!

Are you trying to get them to ignore your suggestions?

 

[Skallagrimson]

Are you trying to get them to ignore your suggestions?

I've heard it from the horse's mouth why they're ignoring them already, which is why I said what I said. Realism just isn't important to the game makers here, and they're okay with that, and they claim most players are okay with that.

Perhaps once day I'll have seed money to make a competing game where the realism isn't tossed aside as an obstacle to "playability", and then, may the best game-making philosophy win, on the open and free market.

 

[Vael]

I've heard it from the horse's mouth why they're ignoring them already, which is why I said what I said. Realism just isn't important to the game makers here, and they're okay with that, and they claim most players are okay with that.

Perhaps once day I'll have seed money to make a competing game where the realism isn't tossed aside as an obstacle to "playability", and then, may the best game-making philosophy win, on the open and free market.

Well, there's a reason for that... it's true. There have been games which try to get more complicated than Civ and they don't sell nearly as well. There are certainly people like yourself who prefer more depth. I do as well in many of my games. But Civ is "strategy for the masses", and as such, there are some things you'll have to accept about what is or is not possible, because more complexity does turn away new players. But I don't see how many of your comments help anyone. I know you disagree with their approach but I don't think the tone which you use in much of this thread will be productive. Rather than taking an antagonistic approach towards Firaxis why not dedicate your energy into proving that such a game can be successful. I'd certainly like to see what you might come up with.

 

[utberguy]

What about make the game go to a Sim nation like ?
http://simnation.i-punto.net/simnation.html

interconnected cities like sim city 4 :

night and day :
http://www.gamekult.com/images/ME0000665148/

realistic cities simulation : micro and macro cities gestion,
http://www.gamekult.com/images/ME0000665147/

colored enlight buildinds to easily distingish different buildings (church, market, library, etc.)
http://www.gamekult.com/images/ME0000665122/

realistic 3D cities :
http://www.gamekult.com/images/ME0000617083/

realistic water, energy, transport (land, air, sea), cities interconnections.

And (simplified but realistic) nations interconnection and interdependance, etc.

.

what is this game you just posted? looks fun!

 

[utberguy]

Some things I would add:



"In Collapse" - Allow players in a single player game to declare their civilization to be "In collapse" for a penalty and take over one of the AI civilizations.

I will then declare in collapse in 2049 and take over the top score... easy victory.
or keep taking over the top AI until you win.

 

[Swedishguy]

I want that "Mastery" win condition.

 

[Skallagrimson]

Well, there's a reason for that... it's true. There have been games which try to get more complicated than Civ and they don't sell nearly as well. There are certainly people like yourself who prefer more depth. I do as well in many of my games. But Civ is "strategy for the masses", and as such, there are some things you'll have to accept about what is or is not possible, because more complexity does turn away new players. But I don't see how many of your comments help anyone. I know you disagree with their approach but I don't think the tone which you use in much of this thread will be productive. Rather than taking an antagonistic approach towards Firaxis why not dedicate your energy into proving that such a game can be successful. I'd certainly like to see what you might come up with.

The proof that realism can sell is in the realm of first-person shooters, where the games there do not tend to sell well if the characters are Mickey Mouse and Donald Duck throwing magic pink bananas at each other and miscellaneous other fantasy crap. They go for blood that looks like blood; guns that look like guns; action that looks like it might if it were real.

"Complicated" is a word often used to try to shout down ideas for improving realism, but the "complication" that would exist in a more realistic game lies predominantly in the core programming: there would be more factors to consider, thus, more complex routines for determining such things as battle results, or how an AI would react to various diplomatic or military stimuli. Realism is sometimes more complicated than a game fantasy, and sometimes, far far simpler. But the resolution of complexity levels in game play is by a method Civ already uses: auto features. You can, for example, leave off determining what workers will do to improve the terrain, and simply let the game engine make the decisions. Or you can be more micromanaging and give direct orders yourself. If all "complication" were bad, auto would be the only setting for workers, but I'm sure that if the ability to micromanage workers got taken away, there'd be a near-universal wave of disapproval from the game's mainstream of players at any level but the most absolutely basic. That's just one case in point, among many.

For most who play any sort of a computerized game, the whole point of it is to escape from this reality and into an alternate one, and that the alternate one provides more fun, more action, more challenge of mental skills, than what is typically faced in the 3d mundane world. The effect that realism has in certain of these games is that it makes the escape more complete, because those corners of the mind which would laugh and say "this can't possibly be real, look at that, SPEARMAN BEATS A BLUDDY TANK!", would have far, far less to laugh at. The goal is to take that down to zero. Any game that has a central goal contrary to that, is also contrary to what any reasonable person could consider "visionary" in the field.

 

[Commander Bello]

The proof that realism can sell is in the realm of first-person shooters, where the games there do not tend to sell well if the characters are Mickey Mouse and Donald Duck throwing magic pink bananas at each other and miscellaneous other fantasy crap. They go for blood that looks like blood; guns that look like guns; action that looks like it might if it were real.

"Complicated" is a word often used to try to shout down ideas for improving realism, but the "complication" that would exist in a more realistic game lies predominantly in the core programming: there would be more factors to consider, thus, more complex routines for determining such things as battle results, or how an AI would react to various diplomatic or military stimuli. Realism is sometimes more complicated than a game fantasy, and sometimes, far far simpler. But the resolution of complexity levels in game play is by a method Civ already uses: auto features. You can, for example, leave off determining what workers will do to improve the terrain, and simply let the game engine make the decisions. Or you can be more micromanaging and give direct orders yourself. If all "complication" were bad, auto would be the only setting for workers, but I'm sure that if the ability to micromanage workers got taken away, there'd be a near-universal wave of disapproval from the game's mainstream of players at any level but the most absolutely basic. That's just one case in point, among many.

For most who play any sort of a computerized game, the whole point of it is to escape from this reality and into an alternate one, and that the alternate one provides more fun, more action, more challenge of mental skills, than what is typically faced in the 3d mundane world. The effect that realism has in certain of these games is that it makes the escape more complete, because those corners of the mind which would laugh and say "this can't possibly be real, look at that, SPEARMAN BEATS A BLUDDY TANK!", would have far, far less to laugh at. The goal is to take that down to zero. Any game that has a central goal contrary to that, is also contrary to what any reasonable person could consider "visionary" in the field.

Well said!