Civilization 5

[Metal_Casting]

Welcome to the posting side of things.

Thank you

I believe that the cost of this is represented through the cost of building workers to complete these projects. But you do have a reasonably valid point.

But workers do a lot of other things as well, plus by the time railroad comes along, a player would have all the worker he needs, so railroads are clearly free.

This is possible in the game, given the correct promotion. But if this was implemented as the norm, then the game would be horribly unbalanced. You could completely destroy before it even had a chance to counterattack.
See this thread for a more complete discussion on this idea.

This is were fewer roads would become useful. You are right that, with roads all across the empire (as it is currently), the idea would be disastrous for the defender, but if there is only one road connecting your border city to the heartland, then you could defend that road or destroy it yourself if you are not in a position to defend it.

 

[Vandal Warlord]

Hey, don't feel bad, I'm from Canada and we think you're radical right wing nazi . Libertarianism is the ideology of trolls and masochists .

I'm American too, but I with randomscrubX on this one.


I like the way Rise of Manind works for Civ4 BTS in terms of new civilizations appearing periodicly. However, IMO, if that would be added in Civ5, I would like to be more accurate. Like if I built a city called Babylon, the Babylonians would take over if I didn't keep them happy.

 

[Terrance888]

MaRoads should also give opponents the same movement points
A few years ago, I remember watching on TV, how the US tanks where racing to Baghdad through Iraqi highway, but in civ for some reason you can't use enemy roads, when attacking another Civilization.I can understand not being able to use railway networks,but why not roads. Building fewer roads along with giving enemy troops mobility would bring the strategic value of roads to a more accurate level. For example one could build fort on a jungle road to protect access to his main city.

This is possible in the game, given the correct promotion. But if this was implemented as the norm, then the game would be horribly unbalanced. You could completely destroy before it even had a chance to counterattack.
See this thread for a more complete discussion on this idea.

Maybe roads give half bonuses to opponets, but slowed down due to dissent. So Ancient road will be 1 move warrior, 3 move chariot. (+ 50% rounded down) (2/4 for defenders)

After Engineering, it would be 2 Move Macemen/4 Move Knights. (3/6 for defenders)

After Modern age it would be 3 Move Infantry/5 Move enemy tanks. (4/6 for defenders, 20 for railroads)

Enemy cannot use rail unless it captures it. (AKA Influence like the unfluence mod, 1 unit for 2 turns for each tile of rail to be captured. 1 turn for defenders to recapture.)

 

[Öjevind Lång]

Firstly, welcome to the forums.

I don't think we should simply limit research itself in the middle ages, to represent slower scientific progress. We should probably address and emulate the reasons for why there was slower research. For example, it is was because more money was spent on wars, then make wars more prevalent to accurately represent less research spending. If it was because religion demanded that scientific progress be limited, implement some sort of trade-off between scientific research and religious influence (although this could be controversial if approached the wrong way). My point being that it would probably be better to necessitate alternatives to research than to simply directly limit research itself.

Anyway, research *is* much slower in the Middle Ages, not to mention antiquity. We just don't notice it because the technologies are so cheap compared to those one researches from the Renaissance onwards.

Öjevind

 

[rysmiel]

Better implementation of the Infra structure
Building roads and railway networks are some of the costliest projects any nation could undertake, but in civ games its completely free. This leads to a proliferation of roads and railways all across the map.

But how big is a tile supposed to be ? Ten miles to a side, or a hundred ? You'd have difficulty finding many ten-mile squares in Europe that don't have rails in them; occupying every usable square with such is one of the rewards of the game, IMO.

 

[flashgordon]

Well, the thing about civilization as oppossed to hunter/gatherors is that agriculturalism creates a split of jobs - specialists; the rich and the poor; the poor get overworked and rebel alot. so, if you bring in this element, you can't expect to just overwork your populace. And, then there's outside hunter/gatheror invasions/natural disasters from volcanic eruptions, earthquakes/psunamis/even asteroid hits(there's some suggestive evidence that happened to Hammerabi back around 3000 B.C.), disease, early cultures tend to create hugh dictator civilizations like the Persians, Egyptians, and very military oriented cultures like the Spartans. I mean Civ tends to have 'barbarians' just sit there; no, they should be multiplying and roaming around at the start and throughout(there's still hunter/gatherors today!).

So, I think the dynamic of the agricultural class society creating a rich/poor dynamic where overworking them and much else already said can make the game harder than just settling down and commanding everyone to just do research till your in the industrial age around 9500 B.C. or earlier! Not to mention, you should make it hard to get going scientifically just sitting there; you have to go around and explore; there should be exploration and experience points just to get researchers.

 

[Gamemaster77]

Welcome to the forums

Another idea for barbarians. In Civ4 they took out alot of the Civ3 barbarian strength. In Civ5 I think there should be 6-10.

I also think A more Civ3 like interface should be used. In Civ4 there are just too many check boxes in one place in stead of in catogories.

 

[Healz]

Also, bring back the barbarian Diplomat out of Civ 1 please?

 

[Naokaukodem]

But how big is a tile supposed to be ? Ten miles to a side, or a hundred ? You'd have difficulty finding many ten-mile squares in Europe that don't have rails in them; occupying every usable square with such is one of the rewards of the game, IMO.

No matter how big it is, the point is what about gameplay?

I would personnally want the use of enemy roads possible. Would lead to faster and less boring conquests.

CivRev manages this perfectly. You build roads (with gold) between your cities, and only between. When you reach the first enemy city, you can reach the others by their roads.

 

[chrissifniotis]

In all of the RTS games I've played (C&C, Red Alert, Age of Empires, Starcraft, etc) you build up cities by manually placing each building you build. I think this is what mindseye1220 was suggesting. Without zooming in on the map during battles--whether real-time or not--I don't know what effect this would have other than visual appeal.

I once had a thought for that in high school, TBS for main game play, RTS for city building and replaying battles, and FPS for battle scenes. At this stage I'll admit that FPS, while fun for gunpowder unit armies, it over the top, pretty unnecessary and weird when one weilds a sword or bow and arrow and so forth. I got the idea after my first play with Rome: Total War, since the idea, to a point already works. You're right though, without battle scenes, RTS is pointless.

 

[flashgordon]

Hello/thanx for the welcome,

I was thinking about the transition from hunter/gatheror to agriculturalism this morning and thought to post some quick thoughts about it.

The transition from hunter/gatheror to agriculturalism is a big step; you don't know how to run an agricultural civilization as a hunter/gatheror; it's a bit like jumprope; you have to know how to jump into it in rythm; you try a few times, and quite probably, your first time is not a success! I'm thinking there must be experience points that increases your chances of successfully settling down; if you try too early, your first efforts could either flicker out on its own, or environmental or nomadic invasions could destroy your first efforts. On the other hand, agriculturalism has its advantages; and those who get there first have certain advantages so long as they can make it stick.

Agriculturalism has its disadvantages as much as advantages; you need to explore to get research points(or should in some future civ!); agriculturalism can certainly create certain science and technologies; but, it can also get stuck with the same old technologies; basically, you need to send out explorers and colonists.

need to keep things short and run right now!

 

[flashgordon]

More ideas!

Reading around, micromanaging seems to be a problem with civ 4 and the other in depth civ games; i'm thinking we can turn this into a virtue! To settle will require convincing others to join in on this social experiment called agriculturalism; we should use this in the game where this person(and more as more people growth happens in your city(s) pretty much goes off and does what he/she wants to; you put your pitch in for what direction you think your society should go in; they either go with your suggestions and you win 'respectability' points and go along with your ideas more as the game goes along; or, your ideas don't pan out sometimes and your respectability points goes down; if it goes too low, you could be excommunicated or beheaded!lol! Also, it's sometimes good to allow your fellow people that joined you in your society to go off and do their own thing for creativity points; who knows what they dig up or find and think of on their own!?

Or, you could become by choice a king despot to micromanage; but, this could drive down the creativity of your people; you will have to make a national religion to keep them happy which means they're not so inclined to think on their own.

 

[jsweeney]

The importance of the economy to a nations success needs to be revamped. India and China had the worlds largest economies in the 1700s-1800s and major economic crashes in those countries made them very weak. Economy needs to have its own stability system, like resources bring stability up and rarity of resources increase while trade routes add stability to the system.

I am still an ardent supporter of a territory system. I seriously do see the need. We can make it so if your troops cover a 3x3 area, and a fort stationed by troops cover a total of 21 tiles in any direction, but must be connected. You describe the territory with a name and define it as economic zone, military zone, or colonial zone.
Economic Zone:
Provides access to resources allows unlimited domestic units but only 15 military units can be in it. Can be traded during war terms or peaceful times, with a blow to land economic stability.
Military Zone:
Allows unlimited military units but only 10 domestic units. only provides access to 2 resources within the territory. During war enemy soldiers take the tile they are on.
Colonial Zone:
Allows unlimited military and domestic units but lowers economic land stability until colony becomes productive. can cover sea tiles to control sea trade routes. if on overseas landmass cities on that landmass become significantly unhappy.

 

[Gamemaster77]

Territory that is made by anything other than culture ia very hard to grasp. Especially during the age of expolations.

 

[rysmiel]

Welcome to the forums

Another idea for barbarians. In Civ4 they took out alot of the Civ3 barbarian strength. In Civ5 I think there should be 6-10.

This is one of the places where I think Civ 2 actually got it right; "barbarians" that improve over time to end up being effectively terrorists in the modern age.

 

[Camikaze]

Perhaps a way of resurrecting this function of barbarians would be through what was one of my favourite ideas that I've discussed, this.

 

[Öjevind Lång]

To build on something suggest by others before: One could have an option to play as a nomad for 1,000 or 2,000 years before the foundation year of 4,000 B. C. Dring those years you can't build a city, obviously, and you start without knowing anything about any the technologies in the game. You are a crowd of gatherers who club animals on the head if they come too close, nothing more. However, due to the experiences during those years, and your gaming style, and perhaps also goody huts and the nature of the terrain, you may actually pick up technologies. You may also get some rather hardened warriors, and for obvious reasons, your tribe would have to grow a bit over those years so that there is more than one of those, plus, the ability, if you play it right, to create a worker on the first turn after building a city.

Just a thought.

 

[Camikaze]

I reckon there would have to be more advantages than the possibility of goody huts, though, it that was to be a successful idea.

 

[Naokaukodem]

To build on something suggest by others before: One could have an option to play as a nomad for 1,000 or 2,000 years before the foundation year of 4,000 B. C. Dring those years you can't build a city, obviously, and you start without knowing anything about any the technologies in the game. You are a crowd of gatherers who club animals on the head if they come too close, nothing more. However, due to the experiences during those years, and your gaming style, and perhaps also goody huts and the nature of the terrain, you may actually pick up technologies. You may also get some rather hardened warriors, and for obvious reasons, your tribe would have to grow a bit over those years so that there is more than one of those, plus, the ability, if you play it right, to create a worker on the first turn after building a city.

Just a thought.

That would make a great scenario, especially with wandering creatures you have to hunt, and depleting ressources (fruits) like if you pillage them, you earn gold, then they become smallest like pillaged cottages.
Animals would work the same way: each time you successfully hunt them, they decrease. Maybe the more you kill them, the slower they increase back. You would have to let them live and not kill them entirely.
So, with ressources decreasing when hunted/gathered, the player would have to move around the world in order to let the "pillaged" ressource to grow up again.
Maybe also the player would have to take care of the other tribes, particularly the AI ones, because this one may exploit the ressources to their death and kill them forever.

However, I can't think of a system to unite this kind of scenario and the normal game.

 

[NewWaver]

Perhaps a (sort of) "Holy War" option could be added to the next Civ? I'll explain:

Let's say you plan on building up your empire and you wish to have only 1 religion present in your cities (which is your state religion). If you have a religion that isn't your state's choice in any of your cities, perhaps you could make attempts to drive it out (like the resistence in a city after capturing it)? Perhaps unsuccessful attempts at driving the other religions out could eventually lead to certain circumstances.

Might be some interesting gameplay in this...