Civilization 5

[exhile]

I think there should be a few leader heads to represent Europe such as blond hair, green eyes, blue eyes, red hair, brown hair.....

The continents of Africa and East Asia are quite similar with the brown eyed, black hair trait. Though skin color really distinguishes those geographical regions.

 

[Öjevind Lång]

One thing I would really like to see in Civ 5 is an option to switch off all the leaderheads, civ-specific stuff, and Civ names, and just play with Red, Blue, Yellow, Green, Orange, Pink and Purple civilisations.

May I ask why? Where is the fun in that?

 

[Tank151]

Traits-
Militaristic- ½ military maintenance costs, no unit distant cost.
Insane- Random traits that change at random intervals
Expansive- Borders grow at double speed, lower city maintenance costs
intelligent-Research gets a 20% bonus without cost or effect on other sliders (which means even though you have a 20% in science, you can still have 100% in culture)
Charismatic- Extra 3 happiness in cities
Cunning- Plus 1 one on every roll (combat, random events, discoveries)
Creative- culture gets an automatic 20% bonus see intelligent
Practical- Wealth gets a plus 20% see intelligent and Creative
Diplomatic- + 1 trade route per city
Seafaring- Boats receive plus one to movement speed and combat roll
Industrial- Plus 2 production on any ores or stones
Patriotic- All units within their countries borders receive a plus 2 on rolls
Barbaric- barbarians are pleased toward you and barbarians will come to your aid in war.
Controlling- No war , Military units stationed in cities produce 1$
Kind- +3 dispo with AI
Inspiring- +1 happiness,+ 1 combat roll

I by no means think these are perfect or anything, but what do you guys think. I wanted a broader selection of traits because it seems to me like there is very few combinations to form different strategies, for example, if I am surrounded by Montezuma, Isabella, and Tokugawa, maybe I want to be patriotic for the defense bonus, or maybe I want to be kind to try to avoid war all together. With this many traits I think it would greatly improve the strategy and the way you play based off what trait you have. I would welcome any suggestions, thanks!

 

[rysmiel]

May I ask why? Where is the fun in that?

Developing your strategies on a perfectly level playing field, with no real differences or preconceptions of difference between the civilisations.

I would, though, far rather see AIs with different strategic priorities playing different civilisations than giving civilisations unique units etc; this is part of why I am so strongly for a number of modifications that seem to me to open more and more balanced different ways to win.

 

[flyingchicken]

One thing I would really like to see in Civ 5 is an option to switch off all the leaderheads, civ-specific stuff, and Civ names, and just play with Red, Blue, Yellow, Green, Orange, Pink and Purple civilisations.

That's taking away the Civilization from Civilization! The game should also chagne all the references in the Civilopedia (or should I say, "Game Manual"?) to "Flavorless 4X Game," all the units from "Warrior" and "Archer" to "Strength 1 Basic Unit" or "Strength 3 Offensive/Defensive Unit" and so on!

 

[rysmiel]

That's taking away the Civilization from Civilization! The game should also chagne all the references in the Civilopedia (or should I say, "Game Manual"?) to "Flavorless 4X Game," all the units from "Warrior" and "Archer" to "Strength 1 Basic Unit" or "Strength 3 Offensive/Defensive Unit" and so on!

I'm not proposing that, though I'd still be happy to play that.

I do not think a history-of-tech development 4X game has to be tied to realism at the level of what you call your civilisations, and really, when people say "flavour", it almost always seems to read to me as "here is a surface change without a functional one" and I just find that irritating.

Do please bear in mind I am asking for this as an option, not as a game default.

 

[Turquoiside]

I'm not proposing that, though I'd still be happy to play that.

I do not think a history-of-tech development 4X game has to be tied to realism at the level of what you call your civilisations, and really, when people say "flavour", it almost always seems to read to me as "here is a surface change without a functional one" and I just find that irritating.

Do please bear in mind I am asking for this as an option, not as a game default.

Even if I did want that, Firaxis would never take the Civ out of ciV(Or will it be CiV?). It would be more a heck of a lot more programming , though it seems simple on paper Plus UU and UB, traits, all would be gone, making no difference form Civ Blue and Yellow. Civ 3 had something like that, (a no trait of UU option) ,though I don't think you were aiming for that.

 

[Turquoiside]

Traits-
Militaristic- ½ military maintenance costs, no unit distant cost.
Insane- Random traits that change at random intervals
Expansive- Borders grow at double speed, lower city maintenance costs
intelligent-Research gets a 20% bonus without cost or effect on other sliders (which means even though you have a 20% in science, you can still have 100% in culture)
Charismatic- Extra 3 happiness in cities
Cunning- Plus 1 one on every roll (combat, random events, discoveries)
Creative- culture gets an automatic 20% bonus see intelligent
Practical- Wealth gets a plus 20% see intelligent and Creative
Diplomatic- + 1 trade route per city
Seafaring- Boats receive plus one to movement speed and combat roll
Industrial- Plus 2 production on any ores or stones
Patriotic- All units within their countries borders receive a plus 2 on rolls
Barbaric- barbarians are pleased toward you and barbarians will come to your aid in war.
Controlling- No war , Military units stationed in cities produce 1$
Kind- +3 dispo with AI
Inspiring- +1 happiness,+ 1 combat roll

I by no means think these are perfect or anything, but what do you guys think. I wanted a broader selection of traits because it seems to me like there is very few combinations to form different strategies, for example, if I am surrounded by Montezuma, Isabella, and Tokugawa, maybe I want to be patriotic for the defense bonus, or maybe I want to be kind to try to avoid war all together. With this many traits I think it would greatly improve the strategy and the way you play based off what trait you have. I would welcome any suggestions, thanks!

Those are pretty good start, but some are a little too much of a gain, and not really a traits. Like Kind, Controlling, or Barbaric.

Spoiler :

Spoiler :

Spoiler :

Spoiler :

Spoiler :

Spoiler :

Spoiler :

OH NOEZ A DOUBLE POST!

 

[flyingchicken]

It would be more a heck of a lot more programming

Ha. Ha. Ha.

C'mon, almost ALL the text is found in easy-to-edit files lying around and about. Having "flavorless Civ" whould just mean switching the files with versions that are infinitely more boring. For example a variable called UNIT_DESCRIPTION_ARCHER, instead of something like "The bow is a simple tool made of wood and, sometimes, bone. It was invented sometime during the Dinosaur Age, when men stalked the plains for velociraptors[...]" would have Munchkin-talk like "Combat Unit III is a 4 Strength unit. It has a 25% bonus on defense. It gets an additional 25% defense bonus if on top of a city" and a variable maybe called CIV_NAME_ROME would have "Team Dark Red" instead of "Rome."

A lot of writing, but not lot of coding if you ask me.

 

[rysmiel]

Even if I did want that, Firaxis would never take the Civ out of ciV(Or will it be CiV?). It would be more a heck of a lot more programming

Not that I can see. It would just involve including off-switches for a few things..

Plus UU and UB, traits, all would be gone, making no difference form Civ Blue and Yellow. Civ 3 had something like that, (a no trait of UU option) ,though I don't think you were aiming for that.

That is exactly what I was aiming for; I play Civ 3 more than anything else, and that's the way I play it.

 

[frallord]

But that may be fixable in a patch or by some extensive modding. I think the core of what could change in Civ5 is what was mentioned above: implementing revolutions, rebellions, political instability, propaganda, etc. into a whole new system.

I know it sounds radical, but maybe move away from the tile-based game and more into a fluid system, where your people scatter about the fields farming and such, and small towns build into mighty cities slowly. Or, perhaps a system where people abandon cities that happen to be in poor climate zones, for example, and relocate on their own. Maybe moving away from the concept of distinct units and instead using a combat system where you have some "real" number of soldiers of varying types fighting together against another "real"-numbered army...say you send 15,000 swordsmen and 8,000 archers and mixed light infantry along with 40 catapults to take a city.

There are a lot of ideas out there, and it's late so I only remembered a few of mine. But I think Civ4 can be expanded to no end right now (and SMAC2 or Colonization 2 would be welcomed--I grew up on those games!)...Civ5 would be distant...

I agree wit this guy, i like the system of non- turn based, but more time based game system, without tiles. i also think you should be able to upgrade weapons once you get the technology, instead of automatically getting that after you have reasearched ta technology, you have to upgrade after.EX: Stone sword to bronze sword to iron sword or Musket to Rifle to auto rifle to gauss rifle.

 

[UWHabs]

If you want to have it more generic, I'd say keep the Unique units, but don't assign them to individual civs. Then, once you discover a tech (say, Iron Working), you would either have to do something, or discover something, to "refine" your swordsmen into Praetorians. Or maybe have a "World Wonder", so you have to decide whether it's in your best interest to try to grab Praets, or to simply continue on with normal swordsmen.

You'd limit it somehow to make sure one civ doesn't grab every unique unit, but it'd add some thinking whether it was worth going for a unique unit, or simply accept the basic.

You could even add some randomness, so say you build a "refined axeman" building, you're not sure if you'll get your "unique unit" as Jaguars, or Phalanxes, or Dog Soldiers.

 

[Vandal Warlord]

What I would like to see, is individual Leader UU.

 

[Atomic771]

I think a CIV game with out having turn based play would be interesting.

 

[battleaxe]

The only way I could see Civ not being turned-based and yet still allow people to micro-manage their cities in the middle of an intense war is if there was a "time stand still" (pause) button where players could work through their city orders and then resume managing their units. I think the developers should do a significant amount of research on forums such as these (a poll) before making a decision on this. It's such a change of game style I think they'd be better off with a separate brand of game in addition to Civ turn-based.

Again, excuse my ignorance of Civ4 (I'm a Civ3 player), but some ideas:

- I'd like to see the map contain a higher-resolution of tiles (i.e. support much larger maps)

- Cities that grow in tile space.

- A map that is more of a 'living' environment, which has weather patterns, etc that impact on how your units and city improvements operate. I.e. big defensive bonuses and movement penalties in the snow, storms that damage you cities, drought/flood that impacts on food production

- armies should be of unlimited size. As they do now, they should move according to the slowest unit. However, new land transport units should be able to be added to the army to increase the speed of x foot units. That is, combined transport unit capacity in the army offsets the number of foot and artillary units in the army.
E.g. foot units travel at 1 tile per turn (tpt), mounted units and land transport units travel at 2 tpt, air units (including air transport units) travel at 3 tpt. If I have an army containing 3 foot units and a land transport unit capable of carrying 3 or more foot units, I can move that army at 2 tpt. Artillary units should consume >1 foot units places in any transport.

- assuming the AI would use the above armies better than they do current armies, far better battle sequences could be achieved where once 2 armies engage the game view zooms in to the battle terrain where the players arrange their armies to suit. Upon hitting the 'fight' button the battle is fought in real time where you can see archers sending waves of arrows, keep the pikemen holding steadfast in front of them, time when you send your cavalry charge (do you get caught standing back by the enemy's archers, or do you charge too early before your own archers have weakened the enemy's defense, or do you see snow and decide to direct the cavalry well behind your defense out of range?)

 

[flyingchicken]

I think a CIV game with out having turn based play would be interesting.

Europa Universalis, Victoria: An Empire Under the Sun, Hearts of Iron II.

 

[rysmiel]

If you want to have it more generic, I'd say keep the Unique units, but don't assign them to individual civs. Then, once you discover a tech (say, Iron Working), you would either have to do something, or discover something, to "refine" your swordsmen into Praetorians. Or maybe have a "World Wonder", so you have to decide whether it's in your best interest to try to grab Praets, or to simply continue on with normal swordsmen.

That's pretty much what I was thinking.

You'd limit it somehow to make sure one civ doesn't grab every unique unit, but it'd add some thinking whether it was worth going for a unique unit, or simply accept the basic.

Oh, you're thinking that any civ can get a "unique" unit but once one civ gets one no other civ can get that one ?

I'm inclined to disagree here, I still prefer everyone being able to build everything. But if you did want to have things work that ways, assigning the unique units to optional techs that don't lead anywhere or do anything else, might work; so that every time you went for a unique unit you would be reducing your tech lead so that other civs would be more likely to be able to compete for subsequent unique units.

You could even add some randomness, so say you build a "refined axeman" building, you're not sure if you'll get your "unique unit" as Jaguars, or Phalanxes, or Dog Soldiers.

If you like randomness, sure.

 

[Öjevind Lång]

I think a CIV game with out having turn based play would be interesting.

I disagree. There are plenty of strategy games of that kind already.

 

[redifederal]

My vision......

First the ability to plant wheat, corn, wine, rice, etc after you have acquired that resource. No idea why we cant do this now....

Along with the crops we should be able to add cows, pigs, horses, sheep, etc as well. Again no idea why we cant do this now.

I would also like to see customization of buildings. I would like to be able to build bigger and badder versions of buildings when compared to other civs. There should be different choices for each building. A simple version that gives you some benefits, A more advanced version that gives you more, etc.

Land based units with the exception of seige equipment should consume food up until the Industrial age. There has to be some kind of penalty for being a warmongerer. Which brings me to my next point and that is slaving units needs to be changed or eliminated. The idea that a slaved unit is as good as a built unit is insane! i wont go into detail but in reality slaved fighters never fought as well as trained military personell.

I would like to see Multiplayer teams games to have a massive makeover. Teams should only consist of one civ each. Then there could be one person in charge of who does what and this could be changed by vote etc. You could put two players in charge of the military aspect one in charge of building up the infanstructure and lastly a guy who does nothing but choose what is built and who they do or dont go to war with. Now this is the only scenario where I could see Civ ever going to a non turn based game because I dont think its possible to do all of the work alone. Only in a team game where everyone is on the same team could you go to a non-turn based game.

I have more but now I really gotta go.

 

[Öjevind Lång]

I'd like to see horses as a resource which only exists on certain tiles, as now. However, after a given number of turns, those who import horses will get them as a permanent resource themselves. Aso, there should be an option to steal horses, and after a certain amount of horses stolen you get a permenant paddock of your own. Or simply a horse resource in one of your cities, tied to the central ciy tile.