Civilization 5

[chrissifniotis]

And this mistake needs to be simply reversed. Building-based-maintenance plus corruption equals a vastly more flexible underlying system.

I have to agree with this point, I find the maintainance system to be stifling very quickly into the game, especially in the FfH2 mod. I'd like the building maintainance and corruption back just to compare to city maintainance and civic upkeep.

 

[EmperorFool]

I only played Civ3 a short time before Civ4 came out (though I played Civ2 long before that), and I found it really stupid that I'd found a colony 10-15 tiles away from my capital--but on another continent yes--and lose 7 out of 8 . That is just really, really dumb, especially since I like the exploration and expansion part of the game.

I'm fine with doing a new mechanic, but the corruption style where a city simply will never produce anything was lame, especially since you had to build a Harbor just to connect the resources you settled the city for in the first place.

 

[Terrance888]

Compared to a 1 population city, how many people would your "settlements" have?

The reason I said "uh", is because there is already something much like what you are referring too, the fort. It doesn't expand your cultural borders, but it does serve the purpose you seem to want.

You can have up to 9 dudes in it to cover a very inconvient hole in your empire: I hate 4 tile holes with Dye X 4 on them!

 

[SpArKpLuG]

I want to see the feature in Civ III where you can actually view the city (Like look at it) it's not really important, but it's still cool.

 

[jsweeney]

I would like, instead of granting independence to overseas colonies, that you can choose the leader, nation, name, and civics of the country, so its not completely random, and you have control over who you put in power. also you should be able to let them go on their own so they join you as an ally, not a subject.

 

[Camikaze]

I think there should be a mixture of building based and distance based city maintenance. A city should have a lower maintenance cost, just for being a city, dependent upon distance from your palace, but there should be additional maintenance according to some function of the number of buildings and distance.

 

[rysmiel]

I'm fine with doing a new mechanic, but the corruption style where a city simply will never produce anything was lame, especially since you had to build a Harbor just to connect the resources you settled the city for in the first place.

That's an implementation issue, not a philosophy issue.

Corruption with better ways of fighting it - such as for example a wider range of governments, with the corruption mechanic balanced so that you have to change government to make more than a certain number of cities productive, as you expand over time, would work for me.

Besides, all those small cities are useful for supporting specialists, and late game you can get uncorrupted production out of those specialists anyway with civil engineers or police.

 

[SpArKpLuG]

There should be an olympics event, if you're the host nation you could get a +2 realtions boost with the competing nations (Have to be on trade network) and +15 culture in the host city, also the IOC could be like another Apolistic Palace.

 

[Öjevind Lång]

There should be an olympics event, if you're the host nation you could get a +2 realtions boost with the competing nations (Have to be on trade network) and +15 culture in the host city, also the IOC could be like another Apolistic Palace.

Why not a bribery event? You are offered a bribe by some other civ to do soemthign or other - vote for them in an Apostolic election or whatever. There might be positive and/or negative repercussions, attitudewise and so on, in addition to a nice lump of money.

Also, there should be other kinds of alliances in addition to the purely defensive one in Civ IV. And why not nonaggression pacts? Only to be broken at a huge cost to your reputation.

 

[SpArKpLuG]

Why not a bribery event? You are offered a bribe by some other civ to do soemthign or other - vote for them in an Apostolic election or whatever. There might be positive and/or negative repercussions, attitudewise and so on, in addition to a nice lump of money.
.

I have often thought that would bring something cool to the game

 

[rysmiel]

Why not a bribery event? You are offered a bribe by some other civ to do soemthign or other - vote for them in an Apostolic election or whatever. There might be positive and/or negative repercussions, attitudewise and so on, in addition to a nice lump of money.

Why make it an event rather than a diplomatic option ?

 

[trickofthehand]

Diplomacy needs major improvements. Currently it boils down to:

Attack this guy with me!
Give me this for this!
Give me this or else!
Don't trade with that guy!

Would enjoy much more depth to diplomacy.

 

[Vandal Warlord]

Diplomacy needs major improvements. Currently it boils down to:

Attack this guy with me!
Give me this for this!
Give me this or else!
Don't trade with that guy!

Would enjoy much more depth to diplomacy.

Amen.

 

[Camikaze]

I think it's fair to say that if there is one thing in the game that needs to be improved, it is diplomacy. Whilst there are many game aspects that are lacking, diplomacy is severely lacking. It is horribly basic (accentuated by such things as not having quantifiable resources).'

There have been a few good threads on diplomacy over the last while, if anyone's interested.

 

[sleepingbear]

Not sure if this was in earlier versions of Civ. But why can't I ship excess food from one city to another? Would be nice to see something like this added.

 

[Healz]

It wasn't in Civilization, however, this was in Colonization I. I refuse to consider Civilization IV: Colonization as Colonization II because it never was and never shall be. Colonization had the ability to shift goods around from one city to another. I think that would be a good addition, to be able to control the flow of grain from one city to another. Also you could control the flow of resources to a degree if you wanted to. The mines seem to be inexhaustible in Civ IV whereas Colonization had exhaustible mines.
Healz.

 

[J-War]

I think that there should be markets for resources and we should be able to buy and sell our resources. Supply could be determined by factors including the number of the given resource on the trade route, and demand could be determined by global population, production, and the amount currently being bought by other civs. This would provide a more realistic picture of trade and also give a greater incentive to seize more than just one scarce resource. Also, a monopoly on a given resource would be very profitable in this regard. Multiple civs could even form cartels, similar to OPEC, and control the supply of a resource to maximize revenue. Then we could start to see some game theory/prisoners dilemma stuff going on with choices in output! (some of this might be too complicated, but it would be cool)

 

[Vandal Warlord]

I think, depending on the size of the river, ships should be able to travel on them.

 

[jsweeney]

I think, depending on the size of the river, ships should be able to travel on them.

EXACTLY!!!! I mean, think of how the mississippi control helped the US. or how the panama canal was mainly a rive or magellan's strait.

 

[Gaga1111]

I agree that diplomacy is completly...uhm..well too simple (simple like trickofthehand said not i'm being friends with everybody simple),but there is an even bigger problem which in my opinion is warfare inteligence the AI mostly sits in his cities with his troops and just waits for my colateral dmg and troops to kill them just like that and they never expand(settlers) or attack with units from ships (at least in my exp).