Civilization 5

[Scilly_guy]

Yes exactly but in the game we only see the mobile cannons and those on galleons, frigates and such ships. And castles become obsolete as soon as you get close to inventing cannons!

 

[buffalo6542]

Yes exactly but in the game we only see the mobile cannons and those on galleons, frigates and such ships. And castles become obsolete as soon as you get close to inventing cannons!

There should also be feudal lords when your in the mideival era. just like in history. the central power is falling and feudal lords are coming to power. then as the era progresses on. lords start to lose power and central goverment is restored

 

[bestbrian]

Idea:
Castles begin with Feudalism and obsolete with steel.
Modern Fortresses begin with steel and obsolete with Industrialism (defend against gunpowder units).
Coastal Fortresses begin with steel and obsolete with Flight (defend against naval units)

 

[Scilly_guy]

Perhaps Coastal Fortresses begin with Gunpowder, (whenever the cannon comes available) and obsoletes with advanced flight? Perhaps flight, I dunno, but then we need Anti Aircraft Flak guns, and fortresses. I like castles beginning with feudalism and obsolete with steel, actually shouldn't it be the state of the enemy that causes a castle to become obsolete, I mean if you are fighting guys with pointy poles, then even if you have a laser sighted automatic weapon wouldn't it be nice to be up in your castle! What causes you to leave a castle? Your technology, the enemies technology, both?

 

[bestbrian]

That's why I chose Steel, because that's when cannons become availible. I chose Industrialism because that opens up Infantry and Artillery and that seems to be the time at which fixed field fortifications for cities begin to become less relevant. Although, considering the how the Germans successfully utilized the harbor fortifications of France to deny harbors to the Allies, Advanced Flight might not be a bad place, either.

 

[wittydemocrat]

My ideas part two

Rivers and bodies of water,

Rivers should be different sizes and some should be navigable (this would be really cool.) You could send gun boats up the river to bombard a city or control traffic. Small rivers should be crossable anywhere (talking all movement points,) while large rivers would need a bridge or find a natural forge. There should be two kinds of transport ship, one large ocean going one that can only unload in a city with a port, this ship would carry a large number of ground and mechanized troops, it would also carry a few (2 or 3) “landing craft” the second type of transport, the landing craft could carry ground troops and small tanks to make amphibious landings. When invading overseas you would first used landing craft to land troops on the beach, then take a city (or invade the city directly), then you could bring in the large transports to unload your full army. This would add some realism and additional strategic thinking to the game.

Roads and railways

You should be able to use enemy roads without any promotions. There should be three classes of road, first is simple dirt road +2 movement, improved dirt +3 (think roman roads) finally paved road +4 or 5. Rail ways should act more like aircraft, each unit should have a move by rail button that will move that unit to any city or station (workers can build a rail depot improvement) connected to the rail network.


Combat

First bring back the differences in attack and defend values. Each unit should have an era class, and (ancient, bronze, medieval, feudal, gunpowder, Turn of the Century, modern) and a unit should get a huge bonus when fighting a lower era unit. Artillery and aircraft should fire in support of units under attack in their area (after invention of Radio.) There should be more specialized units, and units that can only attack one other class of units, think: torpedo bomber (only against ships) Siege Canon (only effective against fortifications) Recoilless rifle (against Armor units) ect. There should be combat engineers who can build roads pontoon bridges, and fortifications quickly in enemy territory but nothing else. Workers should be able to build bases (and airfields) around your land, a unit fortified in a base would gain experience points (1 point for every 3-5 turns.) Later in the game (with liberal civics) putting units in cities (except in times of war) would result in unhappiness as would keeping military bases too far from the cites (you must balance it)

End of section two

 

[rysmiel]

Roads and railways

You should be able to use enemy roads without any promotions. There should be three classes of road, first is simple dirt road +2 movement, improved dirt +3 (think roman roads) finally paved road +4 or 5. Rail ways should act more like aircraft, each unit should have a move by rail button that will move that unit to any city or station (workers can build a rail depot improvement) connected to the rail network.

I'm more in favour of a multiplier than an added bonus for roads/railways; I'm inclined to think x2 or x3 for roads and x5 for railways, with possibly that increasing to x10 with the appropriate Wonder. I hate teleporting airports, want to see them gone gone gone, and teleporting railroads would be almost as bad.

Combat
First bring back the differences in attack and defend values.

agreed entirely.

Each unit should have an era class, and (ancient, bronze, medieval, feudal, gunpowder, Turn of the Century, modern) and a unit should get a huge bonus when fighting a lower era unit.

I think that mechanic is needlessly complicated; just double or triple the attack and defence strengths with every new age, and the desired behaviour falls out without need for a separate "era class".

There should be more specialized units, and units that can only attack one other class of units, think: torpedo bomber (only against ships) Siege Canon (only effective against fortifications) Recoilless rifle (against Armor units) ect.

More specialised units, maybe; I am very strongly opposed to the Civ IV notion of playing rock/paper/scissors in your choice of units, and units that can attack only one other class risks going that way. I remain to be convinced that the best way of representing siege units isn't just as units with particularly high attack and low defence values, and perhaps also the ability to ignore city walls or whatever defence bonus a unit gets for being in a city.

There should be combat engineers who can build roads pontoon bridges, and fortifications quickly in enemy territory but nothing else.

I do like the notion of more specialised workers.

Later in the game (with liberal civics) putting units in cities (except in times of war) would result in unhappiness as would keeping military bases too far from the cites (you must balance it)

I am inclined to think happiness needs a more radical revamp, myself, but I've yet to figure out how best I'd like it to work.

 

[Vandal Warlord]

Ok, on the note of Fortresses and Navys....

Navys

Alright, navys are ok in the game but... they could use a serious improvement, like adding a Longboat, or an early caravel. For better gameplay options in the sailing tech. Also I have proposition for two new great people' the Great Admiral, and the Great Explorer. The Great Admiral would provide as a great general in the sea. Then the Great Explorer could be a unit able to give whatever boat the unit is on a +2 movement bonus and the ability to go out to sea and when attached to the ship it can produce settlers and explorer units every several turns.

 

[Skallagrimson]

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.

Yes, contrary to the paradigm at Firaxis, and the strangely-colored glasses they wear when looking at the world, a musket ball can NOT penetrate STONE. City walls were entirely effective against early musketry, at least as much so as against archery or anything short of siege weaponry. Cannons did not *immediately* make city walls and castles obsolete in their early stages, but rather upped the ante on the construction of defenses, requiring thicker berms and bulwarks, a different shape to the construction to be more cannon-resistant, etc.

Even in the American War for Independence, WOOD fortresses were common, which weren't very effective against cannon, but could still stop a musket ball, and as such had tactical defensive value to a point. The stronger, more cannon-resistant fortifications were called "redoubts", and became very common in the later stages of the war. Just prior to the British surrender at Yorktown they were holed up in a series of such redoubts, with American cannoneers trying to attrite their numbers little by little with constant bombardment and not really making much headway (the cutoff of the British supply line by the French navy was what really made the British defense untenable!)

The biggest reason why cities of the 19th century started to do away with the concept of building defensive networks around their perimeter had nothing to do with the futility of defending against artillery, and everything to do with the need for them to begin with. No war, no walls. No budget for it. By contrast, after World War I the French built the Maginot Line, which defended not just a single city, but an entire region, and not just against artillery but tanks as well.

Even today the U.S. Army has a mobile composite kit for rapid construction of a defensive berm around a base camp, which basically creates a form and container for an earthen berm--effective against mortar attacks and non-direct hits of bombs lighter than about 500 lbs. Around cities with high-risk of attack, the modern approach is "city walls" of sandbags and dry levees, and no, "rifling" didn't make those obsolete either.

It's true that the Turks pounded Constantinople's city walls into dust with their cannon units. But it's also true that they had weeks to do so, and the Byzantines pretty much just hunkered down in the false notion that the noisy contraptions would never break the walls down. After that incident everything changed: kingdoms started building *STRONGER* city walls, and spent their last bit of gold to try to get cannons of their own, to fire back at the invaders from atop said walls. But still the walls were there, with varying degrees of protection.

 

[rysmiel]

There should also be feudal lords when your in the mideival era. just like in history. the central power is falling and feudal lords are coming to power. then as the era progresses on. lords start to lose power and central goverment is restored

How would this benefit gameplay ? It might be more realistic - if we are only concerned with the progress of history in Eurocentric terms - but I'm not sure I see a way of applying it that makes the game more fun, and in that case to my mind, realism can get stuffed.

 

[RulerOfDaPeople]

I love the discussion of ideas.

 

[wittydemocrat]

Part Three

Customizable units this is my most “radical” and, in my opinion, best idea for CIV 5

Non combat units (workers, settlers, missionaries , etc.) would be standard for everyone, but other combat units would be customizable, There would be a basic unit; for example infantry, it would have an attack value of 15, defense value of 20, 1 movement, and 0 experience at a certain cost in hammers, if that works for you build it. But say you want more less but more powerful infantry, well you could increase their attack/defense/movement/experience values, but it would cost more hammers, say 20 hammers for +1 attack or defense and 50 -100 hammers for +1 movement, 30 – 40 hammers for +1 experience. You would also be able to reduce the values for a unit to reduce build time. Do you want 100 weak infantry units (Soviet Army style) or 30 powerful ones (like the U.S.) your choice; mix them up, some weak, some powerful. This would apply to land units, navy, air. After adjusting the values to your liking you would save the template and could build it in any city, have as many templates as you like for each unit. A person could build Infantry with 100 attack and defense, 30 movement points, but it should take forever to do so.

What do you all think of this idea?

End of part three

 

[warpstorm]

Yes, contrary to the paradigm at Firaxis, and the strangely-colored glasses they wear when looking at the world, a musket ball can NOT penetrate STONE.

Why are historical facts are mandatory for game play decisions? They factor into them admittedly, but the game play must always come first and many ahistorical decisions have been intensionally made in the series because the designer thought that made for a better game.

Having said that, I agree that walls and forts should still have an impact in the late game.

 

[RulerOfDaPeople]

I don't like that Castles come so close to gunpowder and yet they are obsolete (or don't work) with gunpowder.

 

[rysmiel]

Part Three

Customizable units this is my most “radical” and, in my opinion, best idea for CIV 5

Non combat units (workers, settlers, missionaries , etc.) would be standard for everyone, but other combat units would be customizable, There would be a basic unit; for example infantry, it would have an attack value of 15, defense value of 20, 1 movement, and 0 experience at a certain cost in hammers, if that works for you build it. But say you want more less but more powerful infantry, well you could increase their attack/defense/movement/experience values, but it would cost more hammers, say 20 hammers for +1 attack or defense and 50 -100 hammers for +1 movement, 30 – 40 hammers for +1 experience. You would also be able to reduce the values for a unit to reduce build time. Do you want 100 weak infantry units (Soviet Army style) or 30 powerful ones (like the U.S.) your choice; mix them up, some weak, some powerful. This would apply to land units, navy, air. After adjusting the values to your liking you would save the template and could build it in any city, have as many templates as you like for each unit. A person could build Infantry with 100 attack and defense, 30 movement points, but it should take forever to do so.

What do you all think of this idea?

That it sucks cold potato soup through a straw.

It replaces a set of things for which there are already tested and workable mechanics [ if you want to make veteran units, build a barracks; if you want a horde of cheap weak units build warriors; if you want a small set of powerful units build elephants; if you want more variety of units, have a greater range of units to begin with ] with a whole extra layer of complexity in the interface. And how are you supposed to tell these units apart ? Remember them all in your head ? Little flags all over the main interface with the stats for each unit on them, getting in the way ? Have to mouse over to check everyone ? Or make them look different enough that they might as well be different units to begin with ?

I think the additional flexibility here is in directions that are too far removed from the normal flow of a Civ game; with the number of units you need to build for any sort of military victory, does going through a unit-design screen for every single one really seem like it will continue to be interesting ? Or if you are only going to want a handful of fixed templates, what benefit does this give over just having fixed units that fit those templates in the first place ? Whereas a broader range of units, and unit upgrade paths, plug in very straightforwardly to mechancics that have already been shown to work.

 

[bestbrian]

How would this benefit gameplay ? It might be more realistic - if we are only concerned with the progress of history in Eurocentric terms - but I'm not sure I see a way of applying it that makes the game more fun, and in that case to my mind, realism can get stuffed.

10 chars

 

[neondeon30101]

Simple... add some of the game features from SimCity into the game. Wait before you say I'm nuts. I'm thinking about background action. As a city grows, things like people walking the streets, cars, trucks, trains traveling from one city to the next. Imported goods can have their own shops, turn some of your land into vaction spots and charge other countries citizens mony to vist. Let the united nations be on it's own. Bring war mongering players to the UN and state their case for war.

P.S I don't spellcheck or grammer check cuzz I don't give a $h*%.

 

[RulerOfDaPeople]

^
I like those ideas. By civ 5, the cpu should certainly be able to handle that too as graphics/power would progress alot by then.

 

[Vandal Warlord]

Ok, I've been thinking about this for a while and now I've decided to post it... What ever happened to Greek, Roman, and Egyptian polytheism? They were three religions BEFORE Islam, Christianity, and Jeudism. So... in my opinion there should be three techs after polythesim and required for Monotheism, Greek Mythology, Roman Mythology, and Egyptian Mythology.

 

[Scilly_guy]

So are you just going to ignore the Norse Gods?