Civilization 5

[rysmiel]

i think i no what your talking about but just to be sure... i think that if your in war and in battle, u should be able to be in the attack or defence of the battle and be the general and control your men.

I think the phrase I'm looking for here is "jumping the shark".

Civ is a game the fun of which for me is having time to think things through. Controlling units in any real-time battle situation would be a game-killer because my hand-eyye co-ordination is not up to it.

 

[Argetnyx]

Civ is a game the fun of which for me is having time to think things through. Controlling units in any real-time battle situation would be a game-killer because my hand-eyye co-ordination is not up to it.

Same here, it just wouldn't be fun.

 

[Camikaze]

General agreement of the day: Tactics in Civ is a no-no.

 

[Öjevind Lång]

I think the phrase I'm looking for here is "jumping the shark".

Civ is a game the fun of which for me is having time to think things through. Controlling units in any real-time battle situation would be a game-killer because my hand-eyye co-ordination is not up to it.

I emphatically agree. The day Civ becomes a real time game is the day I stop playing it.

 

[Soda7777777]

One thing about the battle system that should be changed is battles where you know the dudes with tanks are going to win against the dudes with arrows. It got better in civ4 but it spearman killing tank still did happen. There should also be a system for units to surrender if they know they're going to die.

 

[EmperorFool]

There should also be a system for units to surrender if they know they're going to die.

What would happen to them in the game?

 

[Soda7777777]

What would happen to them in the game?

They could be added to the cities population or they could just be disbanded.

 

[Camikaze]

There should also be a system for units to surrender if they know they're going to die.

You might be interested in this thread.

 

[V. Soma]

Same here, it just wouldn't be fun.

Civ is TBS. Must be so. Period.

 

[rysmiel]

One thing about the battle system that should be changed is battles where you know the dudes with tanks are going to win against the dudes with arrows. It got better in civ4 but it spearman killing tank still did happen. .

There should always be a chance of this happening, A very small chance maybe, but there should always be a chance.

 

[Hail]

There should always be a chance of this happening, A very small chance maybe, but there should always be a chance.

there should be a chance. and that chance should be zero.

 

[rysmiel]

there should be a chance. and that chance should be zero.

You really want to make tech leads impossible to overcome by other means ?

I think that would be a drastic and problematic shift in the game; I'm in favour of making the differences between tech levels much steeper myself, but impossible ? Never.

 

[Lux_93]

What about adding in the game migrations and pollution? The first could be caused by differences of wealth (that are also indirectly linked with difference of technological level) or by a natural disaster and could obviuosly produce a displacement of population and a diffusion of the culture of the country of origin. Pollution, instead, could be produced by industries or other human activities such as trasports and could lead to seriuos consequeneces for the population, the environment and the economy, such as desertification or global warming. But it could be contrasted by new technologies and new "greener" plants. Contrasting pollution could be linked to the United Nations or other projects like the Kyoto Protocol and the nations that produce more pollution could be punished, instead the "greenest" nations could be rewarded.

 

[Soda7777777]

Nice idea lux 93, while I hate to change the subject I think if firaxis hasen't choosen a devlopment team they should really give the boys at ffh a call.

 

[Mechanicalsalvation]

I would like to see some more strategic possibilities when you go to war. Not real time battles, CIV is not a RTS but perhaps formations, attack with mixed armies at once, use of terrain (not only the tile you are on should count but also the tiles next to it, like if you are inbetween two mountians you should be able to hold of a large armie with a smaller one much easier, because they wont be able to attack with their full strenght). The war in civ is way to much luck and numbers.

Other things could be that resources could drain, and that you need a larger supply of oil to build tanks in 20 cities instead of 10. I am not sure that it really will make the game more fun though...

Trading produced goods might be something for the modern era. A economical victory option would be cool too.

More "illigal" activites (like the privateer), perhaps support gurillas or rebels in a oponents country, if the rebells win the will defeat that player and become a vassal to you (or at least a strong allied)

Just some thoughts, I havent read all posts in this thread so everything I have said might have been said already

I like most of these; e.g. at the moment I cannot choose what unit I am going to attack or which one I am going to use for defense (I guess general unit could at least have that capacity).....it's next to no strategy involved

 

[Vandal Warlord]

I like the idea of guerrila operations, which could be a new subdivison under espionauge.

 

[Camikaze]

there should be a chance. and that chance should be zero.

You really want to make tech leads impossible to overcome by other means ?

I think that would be a drastic and problematic shift in the game; I'm in favour of making the differences between tech levels much steeper myself, but impossible ? Never.

This. To the greatest extent possible, nothing in civ should be impossible. It is more unrealistic to make something impossible than it is to give it a small chance of occurrence.

 

[Gamemaster77]

Other things could be that resources could drain, and that you need a larger supply of oil to build tanks in 20 cities instead of 10. I am not sure that it really will make the game more fun though...

Solution

Spoiler :

I've posted this twice before but here is a more detailed third time.

-----We all know it is not realistic for one source of any resource to fuel an infinite number of city's units. One solution could be to have a limit to the number of units a resource allows. Every resource icon could have a "Resource Point Value". For my example I will use 3 units and 1 building and 1 wonder. One of our "imaginary units" will be a Swordsman. A second will be a Knight. Lastly the third will be a Horseman. We only have three cities at this point in the game so we only have 2 iron sources. When we "mouse-over" them the first one says 5 iron points and the second, 10 iron points. There is also a horse source with 8 horse points. These would be shown on our new "resource overview". It would say we have 15 iron points and 8 horse points total.
-----Swordsman would cost 1 iron point, Horseman, 1 horse point. A Knight, 2 iron points (because of armor and swords) and 1 horse point (because it is most likely the same size as the horseman unit and still needs only 1 horse per person). With these values (experimental, should be changed be Firaxis), it would be possible to build:

• 8 Horseman|15 Swordsman
• 1 Knight|7 Horseman|13 Swordsman
• 2 Knights|6 Horseman|11 Swordsman
• 3 Knights|5 Horseman|9 Swordsman
• 4 Knights|4 Horseman|7 Swordsman
• 5 Knights|3 Horseman|5 Swordsman
• 6 Knights|2 Horseman|3 Swordsman
• 7 Knights|1 Horseman|1 Swordsman

This is assuming that you built the highest possible amount in each catagory. If you wanted to build this "Walls" improvement that takes up 3 iron points it would only be possible to build:

• 8 Horseman|12 Swordsman
• 1 Knight|7 Horseman|10 Swordsman
• 2 Knights|6 Horseman|8 Swordsman
• 3 Knights|5 Horseman|6 Swordsman
• 4 Knights|4 Horseman|4 Swordsman
• 5 Knights|3 Horseman|2 Swordsman
• 6 Knights|2 Horseman

-----This could always be changed if you sell the improvement. Our Wonder would have to be allowed to be sold (Mabye without getting money in return) like improvements are. The "double production speed with *****" would have to be ditched or revised.

This is the most advanced way I could put it.​

 

[Lux_93]

I think that this is very good idea but that we have to focus on the resource's use in parallel in the cities. So it could be used only in an X number of things in the same turn for resoures like iron or copper. It could be done assigning a pointage (as Gamemaster77 proposed) to each thing e.g. a wonder 10 a knight 4 a swordman 2 ect.
For other resources such as fodd resources they couls be used in an X number of cities. For other resources like petrolium and coal we could thing to the sum of all the unit builded ( always assigning a pointage to each one). And what about linking the quantity of oil or coal available to the number of fast-trasportation-ways that can be build?

 

[BulletBait]

1. Please add the Hebrew's / Israeli's. I don't know another long term cultural presence who has not been characterized in at least one Civ. Since you made the disticntion between ancient and religious Roman Empires (Great idea by the way), you could even represent both.

2. I have played Civ since "Civ 1." I also played "Called to Power 2" and loved the difference between the 2 however since "CtP" series hasn't had a play in a long time, might think of one of them instead of jumping straight to Civ5, since BtS and Colonizations are still fairly re-playable for now.