Civilization 5

[RulerOfDaPeople]

Ok, new idea, my friend came up with this...

Add a gallows that remove 1 every 10 turns! and it would also add a +1

He also came up with...

Increased ship transoprt speed ie, soldigers get on a transport one turn and get off the same turn. And bridge building over small coast squares (like Persians when they attacked Thermopoly!)

Julius Ceasar also did this to get to the Germanic Tribes around 50-40BC when Rome was just at the infancy stage of being the dominating power we knew it as. Prior to Ceasar, others had tried but couldn't get to those lands. Ceasar built a massive bridge to march his troops across, encountered no resistance, explored for some days, then took his legions back across the bridge home and tore it down.

 

[sangeli]

Being a fan of warfare mods, I think that the warfare needs to be improved. The makers need to find a way to incorporate LOC to make the game more interesting. If they did, then you could use different strategies, such as Blitzkrieg, to add another dimension to the game.

 

[Vandal Warlord]

Being a fan of warfare mods, I think that the warfare needs to be improved. The makers need to find a way to incorporate LOC to make the game more interesting. If they did, then you could use different strategies, such as Blitzkrieg, to add another dimension to the game.

War is a major impact on Civ and, even though im not very aggresive, there should be some added military dimensions

I like the idea of upgrading units like the Rise of Rome mod, and that every leader has a unique unit.
( for example, Brennus- unique unit Gallic Warrior, Boudica- Unique unit Celtic Chariot )

 

[Gwynnja]

I don't know if this is an original idea or not, but I think it would be freakin sweet if there was a world wonder that would allow cities to grow while building settlers and workers.

 

[ChazFox]

I had mentioned this on the Civ V wishlist, but gaining diplomacy points with a Capitulated Civ for liberating them from their Master, as long as the Vassal has negative standings towards their master, would be pretty cool.

 

[Vandal Warlord]

Civil War!
Why not add Civil Wars into the game? There were many Civil Wars throughout history and it would add alot of realism! Like they could add a new game dimension, stability, say if you are losing a war and your enemy conquerors your capital you lose X stability points. Or if you just expand to far you lose a large amount of stability points.

 

[Stuck in Pi]

No, it would really tick people off, and games should be for fun, not frustration.

 

[Emac78]

I think knights come too late in the game. There should be some kind of armored horsemen at or around Feudalism tech with maybe an 8 strength. Maybe have a Stirrup tech or something at or near Feudalism. The Romans, Byzantines, and Persians to name just a few all had a very powerful armored cavalry that could charge infantry well before guilds. Heck, they had powerful cavalry before the Dark Ages in Europe. When you research Feudalism, cavalry should rule the battlefield. I believe that cavalry was dominant for about 1,000 years. You still have to have access to horses and iron so I don't think it would be too overpowering and spearmen would still counter it at 50-50 which I think is about right for that era. Later, with engineering, pikemen will own this proposed cavalry or knight. As it is now, horse archers are mainly used to pillage but have limited tactical use beyond that. By the time we can build knights, it is practically already the Renaissance and the Gunpowder era.

Castles should be able to be built with Feudalism too if for no other reason than to make them relevant since they obsolete so fast. This is the era they were built in anyway but they should be more expensive to build and a better defensive deterent than they are currently. Also, get rid of longbowmen. Make longbowmen the UU for England and everybody else has crossbowmen. So we would have to wait until machinery to get crossbowmen, and England would get longbowmen as their UU at machinery replacing the crossbowmen. With walls and a castle, archers would be tough to beat if catapults were nerfed a bit.

There should also be limits to the amount of units per tile. I think 10 units would be good. There should also be garrison limits to a city. When cities are besieged, they should have to give up after a certain amount of turns as in real life a city would eventually be forced to surrender because of starvation. Obviously, a granary, wall, etc. would help a city hold out longer. All this would lead to more battles in the field in my opinion.

 

[Emac78]

Catapults should only be given the colateral damage attack when attacking cities but not in the field. I have a hard time believing catapults would have been able to cause that much damage in a field battle. They take a long time to load and they are not that accurate. If real battles were anything like the Total War series battles, then siege equipment was not all that useful in a field battle. If anything, the archers should have some small colateral damage attack in field battles. These are just ideas I'm throwing out there.

 

[Skallagrimson]

Catapults should only be given the colateral damage attack when attacking cities but not in the field. I have a hard time believing catapults would have been able to cause that much damage in a field battle. They take a long time to load and they are not that accurate. If real battles were anything like the Total War series battles, then siege equipment was not all that useful in a field battle. If anything, the archers should have some small colateral damage attack in field battles. These are just ideas I'm throwing out there.

Worthy ideas, to be sure, but perhaps they can be improved upon a bit.

The origin of the name "catapult" is the Greek, "kata-peltes", which means "shield-piercer", indicating field use actually over siege use. These engines were primarily designed to break up slow-advancing infantry formations, especially an enemy phalanx, so as to disrupt their order and make them easier prey for either a light infantry or cavalry charge. Siege use was not unheard-of but it was more of an afterthought.

In Total War the issue with catapults is overcome when you group them tightly together and form them as a rear echelon of a defensive formation on a hill. What they become then is a sort of "extended archery" unit, and can be quite effective at lowering the morale and discipline of advancing enemy infantry, especially if it's slow and heavily armored. Since cavalry is the bane of catapults, you'd want to defend them closely with spearmen.

What I'd really like to see in Civ5 is catapult behavior that is closer to the way air units work: they get a percentage chance of doing a percentage damage to their target, and OF THEMSELVES they suffer no damage and no risk of annihilation when they are attacking. The defense against catapults should be a cavalry charge during the defender's turn, with perhaps an increased power of the "flanking damage" score, for balance (and perhaps an increased withdrawal chance for cavalry when attacking siege engines!)

I think collateral damage could be reformed by affecting different units differently when out in the field: Infantry should get the biggest collateral damage hit (large formations that are slow moving); then a lighter portion to enemy artillery (small formations that don't move at all); and then negligible damage to cavalry units (small formations that are highly mobile--if you can hit a cavalry unit with a catapult, you probably benefited from divine intervention!) In garrison like a fort or a city, leave it as it is, as all the defenders are pretty much immobile and sitting ducks.

Nothing it more frustrating, though, than to see some axeman hiding behind a wall, causing a catapult to spontaneously explode killing all its crew. I don't mind a few *MINOR* deviations from the laws of physics and the space-time continuum, but what dimension are these Firaxis programmers from? Are they Hellraiser cenobites using Civ as a game-player torture device?

 

[Scilly_guy]

Aye, I would like to see city walls play a bigger role, and castles too. WHY OH WHY does gun powder obsolete them? Every fortification I have visited has cannons! Perhaps a Keep could be an earlier form of castle, or prerequisite, it might have reduced defence against against gunpowder but it shouldn't be obsolete. I would like to see City walls that you can upgrade, at first just a palisade, then a stone wall (both of which would decrease the enemies attack, much more so for cavalry less for archers). Then crenellations which would provide increased defence for ranged units (archers, musket men, etc), then you could add cauldrons (not sure what bonus these should provide, perhaps just decrease enemies attack), drum towers (which would increase defence for catapults, ballistas, etc).

I would also like to see Castles which can be upgraded to have moats, perhaps this should only be possible if the castle is on plains (ie flat land near water), maybe it is purely graphical and means that castles provide the same defence wherever they are. Although on the flat in the desert a castle would be weaker than on a hill/cliff or with a moat. Archers should get huge bonuses for defending castles and cavalry should get a bonus for attacking from them. Of course if morale is implemented then castles would be much stronger.

 

[Teddy Bear]

FOR PEOPLE THAT ARE CAUTIOUS AND BELOW FOR REPUTATION:

New idea for diplomacy, and this will REALLY cause people to consider a bit more. When you are confronted and asked for tribute, if a person ABOVE you in score asks for it, and you give it to them, everybody loses a point of reputation for you, because of "You are a bit of a pushover", and you get +1 with them. If you don't give it to them, people whom are worst enemies with that person AND/OR are friendly with you will get a +1 saying "You told (civ guy's name) off!", and the -1 from the demanding civ.

If a person BELOW you in score asks for it, and you give it to them, then you lose 2 points of reputation for same reason, and they give you +2. If you don't give it, people whom are worst enemies with him AND/OR are friendly will NOT give you ANY reputation points, and they -1 with you.

DEMANDERS THAT ARE POLITE AND/OR FRIENDLY TO YOU:

If a friendly or polite civ asks you and is above in score, and you give it to them, people that are polite with him AND you or are friendly to one and polite to the other will give you a +1 as "We are glad to see two of our friends getting along". If they are friendly to both, you get a +2, and your enquirer will also gain a +1 no matter what. If not, you don't lose ANY REPUTATION POINTS FROM ANYBODY aside from the person asking for help, just -1 from that person.

If a friendly or polite civ asks you and is below in score, and you help them, you don't get any reputation points up from anybody except for the person that asked, and you get a +2. If you don't help them, then they -1 from you, and nothing else happens.

I realize how complicated this seems, and if anybody has any questions they could reply to this or PM me, if anybody will lol. I think this would really had a huge twist on diplomacy demands, and people will actually have to think much harder. Would love to see this implemented .

-Teddy

 

[Emac78]

I agree with better map generators. I have generated 5 Terra maps in a row and checked the world builder to see what they looked like, and the enetire new world pretty much looked exactly the same in all 5 of them. Likewise I have never seen more than 2 continents in a Continents map and I play on maximun number of civilizations.

I'd like to see more earth realistic styled maps (and earth itself playable by all leaders for that matter) with many continents and land masses like Austrialia and the Philipines resemble, along with other masses like Greenland, Iceland, Ireland, Hawaii etc. All of the multiple divers land masses that make up the world.

I'd rather have that instead of just 2 simple continents all the time. And the custom continents where you get to choose the number of them are nothing more than squares (with exception to an odd numbered continent) evenly spaced out which is not realistic at all, nor very exciting IMHO.

Have you tried Custom Continents with random number of continents. It could be a Pangea, two continents, three, six, any random number and some islands. But it is totally random so you never know what you will get. But if you're playing with that many civs, then it's unlikely to find land that has not been settled by another civ like Greenland or Australia.

Nevermind, I forgot to read your last paragraph. DUH

 

[Scilly_guy]

I've had a couple recently which have looked quite different, and a few where I have started (along with everyone else) in the new world (as it is in real life)

 

[rysmiel]

I realize how complicated this seems, and if anybody has any questions they could reply to this or PM me, if anybody will lol. I think this would really had a huge twist on diplomacy demands, and people will actually have to think much harder. Would love to see this implemented .

I like it, but it's not near complicated enough; the way Civilisation A reacts to you, playing Civilisation B, interacting with Civilisation C should depend a lot on who A and C are. Consider; if you are assertive in dealing with some random neighbour of about your strength, Tokugawa is liable to gain in respect for you because of that, and Gandhi to think less of you. Genghis Khan's respect for you should increase based on how successfully you go about conquering, regardless of your methods; Churchill, on the other hand, should respect you more if you fight thorough and successful wars against people who attacked you, and less if you start wars of aggression - except maybe if you were starting a war of aggression against a bloodthirsty maniac like Montezuma.

 

[RulerOfDaPeople]

Regarding diplomacy, I also don't think that civs should hate you just because you trade with another civ that they have no relationship with. I often get demands to cancel trades and open borders when that civ making the demand actually has a +1 total at the end of the equation with the modifer to the civ they are demanding I stop trading with.

Farther more, I find it quite irritating that the AI has been asking me nearly every other turn to go to war with some one. The frequency of demands and requests by the AI has put a major crutch on diplmomatic affairs. This is simply not realistic. We do not see a World War happening every single year of life in the real world, nor do you see the US attacking other countries like France or Germany just because those countries don't declare war when they want them to. In Civ 4 this has become a problem where the AI will constantly demand you to go to war for them, and if you don't, later in the game they will turn their attention to declaring war on you for not having helped them when they asked you to. In future Civ games, this must be addressed and fixed. I think maybe a fix for this is that some of the modifers needs to go away within a certain time period. The AI should not still be holding a grudge and hate me in the year 2000 for me not being able to go to war for them or trading with a THEN enemy (yet a modern era ally) from the year 2000BC. The AI should not be hating you for something minor and petty that took place four thousand years earlier.

I would also like the option to offer a civilization I have decent relations with, to go to war and provide them assistance. As a result, this would gain a HUGE boost in diplomatic + modifiers. I also think that techs should be tradable to the civ offering assistance in war time. And this is with out the AI Civ having to demand or ask you for help. So because of that I think there should be a huge boost in relations between your civ and theirs.

 

[wittydemocrat]

Howdy all, this is to be a rather long post, in fact a rather long several posts. I have thought quite a lot about how to improve CIV 4. I would really like to see these improvements made for the next CIV 5. If there is as big a drop in playability and playability from 4 to 5 as there was from 3 to 4, I may give up on the series that I have played since the original.

Territory and borders

In history borders have always been determined by a nation’s power rather than its culture. A city state send out military units to pacify the lands just beyond its borders and in a few years that land is settled, borders expand and process begins again. Each square should have an owner counter which works as follows. Unclaimed land has a 0 count, and to expand into unclaimed territory you must put a unit on that square and “occupy” it. Each turn you occupy that square it you get one ownership point. After 5 turns (+5,) during which the unit is fortified, it becomes your claimed land and the unit can move, if your unit moves or is killed before 5 turns then the land is still unclaimed. Each turn that land unclaimed any ownership points are reduced by 1 (-1) for all players. Once land is claimed you get 5 (+5) additional ownership points, then 1 (+1) point for each additional 10 or 20 turns. If the tile is claimed by another player and you occupy it then his points are reduced 1 each turn until the land becomes yours, or they destroy your units. Occupying another players land doesn’t cause war to be declared but can cause a border skirmish (see section on declaration of war.) Example: I am playing as the French and my neighbors the Germans are more powerful than me. They occupy a few tiles on my border, do I fight back and risk a full-scale war which I will probably lose, or bide my time till I am more powerful and can win? This would add another strategic dimension to the game.

Borders should be crossable without declaring war or having an open borders agreement. Crossing into a neighbor’s border with combat troops, without an open borders agreement will result in a warning and being told to leave and a -1 in relations. There should be different levels of open borders, 1st level is basic open borders for trade and non-combat units (missionaries, workers, ect.) the 2nd for combat units to pass through the land but not remain in cities or build bases (see bases), 3rd a basing agreement where you can station units in a foreign city and build military bases.

Declarations of War

Throughout history many battle have been fought without a formal declaration of war. CIV 5 should be the same; you should have the ability to fight without one. This would allow border skirmishes and onetime battles over resources or long term low level combat. Fighting without a declaration of war would cause disadvantages such higher costs (declaration of war reduces troop cost,) inability to draft units, more unhappiness, ect.) There should be no minimum turn limit on wars. One side can declare war while the other doesn’t. If you have a vassal sate, you can tell them not to get involved if you can handle the war alone; you would get a good relations bonus with them and their friends. When in a war you should be able to ask your allies to give you money units and other non-direct support.

Land and Resources

All tiles in your territory should be workable, one a plot is connected to your transport network, and a farm built you should be able to send that food to any city you control that is also connected. Each natural resource should have a finite amount (different for each deposit) and it should be used up, and more discovered, at a faster rate.

More to come later.....

 

[rysmiel]

Aye, I would like to see city walls play a bigger role, and castles too. WHY OH WHY does gun powder obsolete them? Every fortification I have visited has cannons!

I think the game should have some way of upgrading from a city wall to the kind of earthworks that actually provided some defence against cannon in the seventeenth and eighteenth century, but your basic stone walls are ultimately useless gainst cannon, in much the same way that defensive earthworks are useless against artillery that can be accurately aimed over the defences.

 

[Scilly_guy]

So are you saying that all the fortifications that I have seen with cannons on are pointless? Are you saying all the towers built to defend English harbours from the Spanish are pointless?

Ok this is a game, it is not real life, but Castles should perhaps get cannons before mobile artillery is available. And ships should get them somewhere in between.

 

[buffalo6542]

So are you saying that all the fortifications that I have seen with cannons on are pointless? Are you saying all the towers built to defend English harbours from the Spanish are pointless?

Ok this is a game, it is not real life, but Castles should perhaps get cannons before mobile artillery is available. And ships should get them somewhere in between.

castles had the first cannons because they were to heavy to move. next ships started to be armed with cannons. then generals started to see how they could be used as siege weapons.