Civilization 5

[NA00]

During WWI, Liberia declared war on Germany and Austria-Hungary in 1917 to please the Americans; the same thing happened in 1944. Those two events didn't exactly have many practical consequences either, but they show that diplomacy can have such effects.

Thats true. Maybe a country incited Mongolia to declare war on me - but I wasn't at war with anyone else at the time, my relations with other countries, those which I had contact with, were not that bad either. In the context of some games, it just still seems kind of strange.

 

[Öjevind Lång]

Thats true. Maybe a country incited Mongolia to declare war on me - but I wasn't at war with anyone else at the time, my relations with other countries, those which I had contact with, were not that bad either. In the context of some games, it just still seems kind of strange.

In Civ IV, past wars give a diplomacy minus forever. Perhaps that's why some rival of yours found it worthwile to get Mongolia to declare war on you. I agree that it is rather bizarre, and probably due to the AI trying to exploit the way diplomacy is set up in Civ IV.

 

[Camikaze]

I would think that phony wars are way overdone in Civ 4. I mean, sure they should have a place, in like, a global war, but it's too often the case that someone random will become involve in a minor stoush, or indeed that you will be asked to become involved in a minor stoush. Hopefully the new diplomacy system rectifies this.

 

[NA00]

In Civ IV, past wars give a diplomacy minus forever. Perhaps that's why some rival of yours found it worthwile to get Mongolia to declare war on you. I agree that it is rather bizarre, and probably due to the AI trying to exploit the way diplomacy is set up in Civ IV.

Yeah, that was probably the case. The funny thing is that Mongolia kept refusing to make peace even though there was absolutely no fighting between us - they being landlocked and me being stuck on an island with no navy yet. Centuries later - in game time - I eventually just paid the 10 gold they were demanding so we could be at peace.

 

[jsweeney]

heres a few diplomacy things I picked up on in my latest game:

Vassals: I don't see why there is a diplomatic hit if your vassal is their enemy. If anything, they (the non-vassal) should be neutral or happier. The vassal has no persuading power over your decisions, the vassal is prohibited from going to war, and the vassal is essentially powerless.

Civics: In the modern era game, I can't stand it when Isabella or Saladin are still bothering me to switch to theocracy. I don't bother them with civic choices, they shouldn't bother me. Especially after mass media, i feel like the populations of their countries would get made that the government is asking another government to change. It's like if America asked France to change their governmental structure, Americans and French alike would be up in arms.

City Trading If I play and most of my ally's cities are conquered by a rival of both of us, and if i have the military and motive to attack the rival,i will do so to liberate my ally. of course, i don't stop at the borders and i go deep into enemy territory. I grant my ally, which had gotten its military back on its feet, some of the cities close to them while I keep the in deep cities. I cannot stand it when my ally "liberates" the cities i granted him back to our rival for diplo points. I didn't waste 50-100 turns of the game fighting their war only to see them not advance from the war.

 

[ash56987]

i think the rulers should change over an "x" amount of years. becouse 1 ruler for thousands of years?

 

[Camikaze]

Welcome to CFC.

I understand that having one ruler for the whole stretch of history is completely unrealistic, but the game is played so that you as the player are the one ruler of an empire for the entirety of civilization. That's just as realistic as having the AI's leader stay the same for the whole time, so I see no problem with that particular unrealistic bit.

 

[Dero Zero]

The diplomacy, especially in multiplayer games, needs to be better. I like all the sneaky tactics and games you can play with just being diplomatic, a bit like in The wheel of time series, the "game of kings". I don't know the english name

And BTW I read an article about Civ5 and decided to come back here after a year break. I love the new hexagons.

 

[bestrfcplayer]

i think the rulers should change over an "x" amount of years. becouse 1 ruler for thousands of years?

Well, in RFC the leaders change (if more than one) over a period of time (historcial change). But, this is Civ, and it doesn't all have to be reality like EU3.

 

[Aesus]

Some more customization would be a nice addition. Civ 4 had the ability to edit info about your country (Official name, short form, ethnicity) however it was still the original civ you chose, just renamed. Perhaps a civ editor/creator could be included so that those of us who are not very good at modding can still work and create our own things. The Editor could have the options for the names and such like before, but also have things to choose the colour of your borders, a selection of units and buildings to choose from with some enhancements that you could name and make them unique to your civ, a number of flag designs to choose from, and then a bunch of leaderheads to choose from, naming it and choosing its traits. Once finished you could then save your civ and have the option to choose it for games.

 

[chrissifniotis]

Some more customization would be a nice addition. Civ 4 had the ability to edit info about your country (Official name, short form, ethnicity) however it was still the original civ you chose, just renamed. Perhaps a civ editor/creator could be included so that those of us who are not very good at modding can still work and create our own things. The Editor could have the options for the names and such like before, but also have things to choose the colour of your borders, a selection of units and buildings to choose from with some enhancements that you could name and make them unique to your civ, a number of flag designs to choose from, and then a bunch of leaderheads to choose from, naming it and choosing its traits. Once finished you could then save your civ and have the option to choose it for games.

That would be a fun idea, it would make civilization modding a lot easier.

 

[boneys26]

I would like to see improvements in warfare (on top of the diplomacy that is already been announced)

I would like to see air combat mission improvements (look at dales combat mod) when diplomacy fails or i want to hit hard the first call is air units, I take out every thing I can mines, farms etc but in civ4 its limited I cant take out roads or rail to slow reinforcements, the bombing missions could be improved so i can pick targets to bomb in cities (for advanced flight/bombs). AI needs to understand that a air force is really needed in the game not just a few fighters here and there it needs to learn to defend the skies.

Naval war, I would like to see the AI use this better, ie make some battle group's with transports and carriers in the mix (loaded) ready to take the fight to the enemy.

Land based war with the AI still lacks but is fun when it attacks with no warning, just needs to know what units are better for the fight not just throw eveything it has at you and hope,

 

[monkeyboots7]

I think wars should be more realistic. In Civ 4 wars can be from 10-1000 years long and this is pritty unrealistic. Most wars never get passed 10 years long in modern day history (1500AD+) If you could make peace faster tht would be pritty sweet. Also, when making a peace treaty, both sides should be able to offer things instead of just one side.

 

[Dumanios]

100 years war says hi.

 

[Ahriman]

The 100 years' war isn't a constant war. Its a series of separate wars that are linked together thematically (many of which had their own peace treaties), but by no means are they a constant conflict in the sense of other wars.

 

[civy71]

i was thinking : why doesn't civ 5 play in months instead of years then the length span would be more realistic and why not put in different weather changes and so on wouldnt that be more realistic? also it would be good if you could create your own government or religion? since i am fed up of having people say that "you have gone too deeply into your silly/outrageous religion" and even if i am mixed they justs say i am too spread out( normally ganhdi who say it)

 

[meznaric]

It would be really nice to have not just alliances, but actual blocks of countries. For instance something like the Warsaw pact or NATO could be actual blocks, negotiated in summits rather than bilateral negotiations. A possibility to change a block to become a single country should also be possible (think of EU, which has been transformed from an economic single market to a political union).

 

[KrikkitTwo]

In Civ4 the main reason people rebel is because a foreign city nearby has culture and some great artist did something nice. What rubbish.

In reality people rebel primarily when economic conditions are poor, or if there's been harsh repression, and while that is reflected in the game, though "frowny faces", it should also give a percentage chance of an uprising.

And when there IS a revolt, it should produce "barbarian" units who are doing the rebelling, and if you don't successfully defeat those barbarian units, you lose the city to them.

Not just for balance, but this would add some DESPERATELY needed realism back into the game.

Well Foreign Culture should lead to the same thing.... High French culture in your cities... your cities produce French "Partisans" that can't move outside the city Radius. More are produced if you are at war w France, or are unhappy.

 

[B-29 Bomber]

Welcome to CFC.

I understand that having one ruler for the whole stretch of history is completely unrealistic, but the game is played so that you as the player are the one ruler of an empire for the entirety of civilization. That's just as realistic as having the AI's leader stay the same for the whole time, so I see no problem with that particular unrealistic bit.

Maybe have it that each civ has a group of leaders and each ruler has different traits that makes the civ change slightly.

 

[Komori]

Civics: In the modern era game, I can't stand it when Isabella or Saladin are still bothering me to switch to theocracy. I don't bother them with civic choices, they shouldn't bother me. Especially after mass media, i feel like the populations of their countries would get made that the government is asking another government to change. It's like if America asked France to change their governmental structure, Americans and French alike would be up in arms.

free Tibet? America's embargo with both Cuba and Iran? America's execution of a foreigner head of state? Europe's and america's requirements of government structure and laws in order to provide financial help to broken african economies?

Are you really that naive? If anything, mass media but helps such pressures by giving propaganda tools much more effective, such as creating computer games were democracies have uncanny economical bonuses and is shown as the final and most perfect system in the tech line. America won't apply the same pressures on france because they are aligned politically and economically, even if not in all the issues. Also, France has enough diplomatic strenght to react to any such demand, were it to be made.