Civilization 5

[Naokaukodem]

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.

[...]

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.

It's fun i came up with the same ideas:

War units should cost two food permanently.

Rice, Wheat, Corn, Pigs, Cows, should be all reprodutible in any square.

We should not build war troops anymore, just the equipement.

Each war units should cost one pop point.

To recruit troops, we should need barracks.

Food surplus shouls be nationalized.

When entering a ennemy square, troops would lost their food from nation.

We should have to create a supply line with troops in ennemy territory to take benefit from nation's food.

We could build food wagons to attach with armies.

We could create armies with several war troops, with in first line melee units, second line distant attack troops, and third line catapults. Armies would be much more powerfull than the same sum of units taken independantly.

We could pillage ennemy land in order to full up our food wagons.

 

[Naokaukodem]

Given that the distance between the centers of any two adjacent hexes is always the same, I don't understand your statement.

What about the distance between the centers of two hexes two hexes away of one?

 

[Magma_Dragoon]

I'd like to be able to get a galactic civilization going. Some really advanced techs like manipulating planets orbits, or smashing some wimpy planets together into a suitable terrestrial planet. Take Mercury, Venus, and Mars and smash them together into a ball of liquid rock and metal. Needs more water? Grab Europa and melt it. Sorta like in Spore, but not an over-hyped, over-simplified piece of . .. .. .. ..

There could be some way to zoom out and govern the planet as a whole rather than city by city to reduce intensive micro. But NOT like the final frontier mod, which sucks.
EDIT: never mind, I just found out about the Galactic Civ franchise.

 

[EmperorFool]

What about the distance between the centers of two hexes two hexes away of one?

Do you mean the distance between hexes X and Y which are both 2 away from A? The answer depends on the directions of X and Y in relation to A.

Here X is 2 away from Y:

 o X o o o
o o o o o
 Y o A o o

Here X is 4 away from Y:

 o o o o o
X o A o Y
 o o o o o

And here X is also 4 away from Y since you can only travel between adjacent hexes:

 o X o o o
o o o o o
 o o A o Y

Was this your question?

 

[Naokaukodem]

Yes it was my question, and it was rhetorical. In your last draw, you see Y away from X of 4, where this distance is nearly the same than 3 away from X in the strict right direction.

 

[EmperorFool]

In your last draw, you see Y away from X of 4, where this distance is nearly the same than 3 away from X in the strict right direction.

I don't understand. Are you saying that if you measure the distance by ruler X is approximately 3 hexes away from Y? If so, that doesn't matter because you cannot move as a crow flies. If not, can you explain what you meant?

Any tile-based system will have this issue, but allowing movement on the diagonal as Civ4 does makes the problem worse. At least with hexes, it's clear which tiles are adjacent as they share an edge.

 

[Naokaukodem]

I don't understand. Are you saying that if you measure the distance by ruler X is approximately 3 hexes away from Y? If so, that doesn't matter because you cannot move as a crow flies. If not, can you explain what you meant?

Any tile-based system will have this issue, but allowing movement on the diagonal as Civ4 does makes the problem worse. At least with hexes, it's clear which tiles are adjacent as they share an edge.

Let's consider this:

You can see that [AX] is longer than [AY], even if X and Y are 6 hex away from A.

 

[EmperorFool]

You can see that [AX] is longer than [AY], even if X and Y are 6 hex away from A.

Only if you are measuring flight distance, and the same problem arises with square tiles.

However, if you measure the actual moves a unit would make going from A to Y, they are equidistant. This same test doesn't apply to square tiles when diagonal moves are allowed.

You cannot get away from this when using tiles--square or hex.

 

[frekk]

Here's a few things I'd like to see in Civ 5.

Zones of Control. Bring back civ2's zocs, or, alternatively, some other zoc system (and not just opportunity fire, please).

Ministers. I would like to have advisors have a different role in the game. You should be able to choose from a list of different personalities, perhaps based on technologies and civics, who is going to be the Foreign Minister, the Economic Minister, and so forth. Each personality would have their own graphics and would have their own benefits and drawbacks.

Naval Intercept. Just like planes, and not just against people pillaging your fishing boats, but able to intercept any ship that moves within the radius.

Road and Rail Sprawl. The idea that getting rid of the commerce and production bonuses for roads and rails would get rid of sprawl, was in error. That was never the reason for road and rail sprawl. It is because workers with free time are assigned to build roads in every tile because this will always maximize your movement efficiency. There are many ways in which road and rail sprawl could be ended, though. I will list a few that could be explored:
-assign a cost to building and/or maintaining r&r's other than a worker's time.
-make roads unbuildable. They just appear, linking cities whenever a new one is founded.
-make workers specialized. Ie, farmers, road crews, etc, instead of workers that can do all of the tasks.
I can think of many others. There is no reason why sprawl needs to continue.

Religion. Dump it. It was nice for civ4, but I'm tired of it. Too gimmicky. I'm getting tired of Aztec Jews and London as the holy city of Buddhism. Religion should just be an assumed part of national and regional culture, though perhaps, regional culture should have some sort of effect in the game. If you're European you might get diplomatic bonuses with other European cultures. Either that, or group civs according to religion rather than geography, ie England and France belong to the Christian category, Japan and China belong to the Buddhist category, Aztecs and Greeks in the Pagan category and so on.

Another option is just to expand civics a bit and add more than 1 for the religious aspect of things. Your religion is unnamed, but you could pick and choose different aspects of it, just like the government. For instance, you could have one category to detail how organized it is, another for how dogmatic it is, another for how aggressive it is. Or something like that.

Ranged bombard. Should not have to wait for Dale or whoever to mod this in, should be in the vanilla, like civ 3.

Attached support units. Would like to see a system whereby, in addition to independant tanks and artillery and all that, it would be possible to attach capabilities to a unit - kind of like a promotion but different. For instance, to attach some artillery support to an infantry unit, not as a separate unit but as part of that division. Not really crucial but it would be a nice touch if it could be worked out somehow.

Strategic movement. In modern era, a higher grade of movement should be available to redeploy forces over long distances. Instead of the current system of limited rail movement and airport capacities limited to a 1 per city per round basis, change the limitation to an overall one, ie you can airlift or use rail to strategically redeploy X number of units in a round, wherever you've got air or rail connections, dependant perhaps on technology and perhaps with a few wonder bonuses. The rest of your units can be moved normally, by road or ship.

Quantified resources. Maybe have a simple system (like it is now) and an advanced system. Under the advanced system, resources are quantified and you need to expend some units of iron or oil or whatever from your stockpile to build units and sometimes buildings.

Appropriate start locations. There should be some tendency for cultures to start in an appropriate climate. Vikings should appear in northern latitudes, Aztecs in a subtropical or tropical latitude, and so on. This has always bugged me alot.

 

[Naokaukodem]

Only if you are measuring flight distance, and the same problem arises with square tiles.

Yes and it the only problem available here if i'm right.

However, if you measure the actual moves a unit would make going from A to Y, they are equidistant. This same test doesn't apply to square tiles when diagonal moves are allowed.

Yes, I think it is, or one would have had some problems with the game.

You cannot get away from this when using tiles--square or hex.

Nop.

Here's a few things I'd like to see in Civ 5.

Zones of Control. Bring back civ2's zocs, or, alternatively, some other zoc system (and not just opportunity fire, please).

Not sure about this. One have to figure why ZOCs existed in the first place. IMO, they existed to induce some possibility of interception: the movements are turn based, and in real life it is possible that two armies to meet in a field, basing its movement on the enemy ones. Of course it is possible to make that without ZOCs, but at a different scale. Without ZOCs, there's not middle scale at a tile scale.

Now ZOCs could be reestablished, but i see them more like air or naval interception. All the question is do I want this unit that prevent me to move, which is fortified since 5 turns in a castle, have to virtually move and lost its bonus to intercept me, or do I want it to stay here and me not be able to go in one specific square? IMO, the second one is very frustrating: there is no reason to not be able to go in any unoccupied square, even if this dangerous.

Ministers. I would like to have advisors have a different role in the game. You should be able to choose from a list of different personalities, perhaps based on technologies and civics, who is going to be the Foreign Minister, the Economic Minister, and so forth. Each personality would have their own graphics and would have their own benefits and drawbacks.

IMO developpers should concentrate rather on rebellions and revolts rather than on things like that.

Naval Intercept. Just like planes, and not just against people pillaging your fishing boats, but able to intercept any ship that moves within the radius.

There's a problem here: do I want my cruiser to intercept this battleship? Nowadays, flight units are not differenciated when it comes to be intercepted. But when differents types of units with differents abilities meet, this becomes impossible, just like an intercept function would be with land units. The only thing we could make is to implement a new move near fortify/disband/pillage which would be "intercept".

Road and Rail Sprawl. The idea that getting rid of the commerce and production bonuses for roads and rails would get rid of sprawl, was in error. That was never the reason for road and rail sprawl. It is because workers with free time are assigned to build roads in every tile because this will always maximize your movement efficiency. There are many ways in which road and rail sprawl could be ended, though. I will list a few that could be explored:
-assign a cost to building and/or maintaining r&r's other than a worker's time.
-make roads unbuildable. They just appear, linking cities whenever a new one is founded.
-make workers specialized. Ie, farmers, road crews, etc, instead of workers that can do all of the tasks.
I can think of many others. There is no reason why sprawl needs to continue.[/quote]

I see really no problem with road sprawl. One square represents much land, and road are everywhere nowadays, we can go anywhere with a car or a train. If it really pisses you, you can try to play Civ Rev, about what i heard of it.

Attached support units. Would like to see a system whereby, in addition to independant tanks and artillery and all that, it would be possible to attach capabilities to a unit - kind of like a promotion but different. For instance, to attach some artillery support to an infantry unit, not as a separate unit but as part of that division. Not really crucial but it would be a nice touch if it could be worked out somehow.

I have had this idea that i explained in some thread, to allow different types of units to go in a same "army". There would be 3 positions in an army: melee, ranged and artillery. The sum of all units in an army would be superior in strengh to the sum of all the same units not in armies. Exemple: you have three archers of 3 strenght each, 2 axemen of 5 strenght, and 1 catapult of 5 strenght in a same square. In another square, you have the same units in an army. Then the army would be strenght 8 or something.

Appropriate start locations. There should be some tendency for cultures to start in an appropriate climate. Vikings should appear in northern latitudes, Aztecs in a subtropical or tropical latitude, and so on. This has always bugged me alot.

I don't think appropriate locations is a good field for the developpers to work with.

As to quantifiable ressource, maybe.

 

[frekk]

Not sure about this. One have to figure why ZOCs existed in the first place. IMO, they existed to induce some possibility of interception

Nope. Well, sort of, but not exactly. ZOCs were borrowed from board wargaming, where they represent a really wide variety of factors. Tendency of forces to form into fronts and salients, control of supply routes, and so on. It's a huge simplification of very complex factors, but it does mirror the actual patterns of conventional warfare.

All the question is do I want this unit that prevent me to move, which is fortified since 5 turns in a castle, have to virtually move and lost its bonus to intercept me, or do I want it to stay here and me not be able to go in one specific square? IMO, the second one is very frustrating: there is no reason to not be able to go in any unoccupied square, even if this dangerous.

Yes, there is. The chief role of castles was to control the terrain all around (not just the immediate few hundred yards, but many miles). They did this because if you bypass the castle, they'll intercept your supplies after you move past. ZOCs represent this by forcing you to deal with the problem either by giving the castle a wide berth, or taking it. This is one reason why forts are so useless in civ, because the effect isn't really mirrored in any way.

There's a problem here: do I want my cruiser to intercept this battleship?

Easy, just have an aggressive intercept and a cautious intercept.

I see really no problem with road sprawl. One square represents much land, and road are everywhere nowadays, we can go anywhere with a car or a train.

True, but there aren't highways or trunk rail lines everywhere. I think rural roads and feeder lines should just be assumed anywhere you've got development. Major routes should be what you're building. Sprawl is ugly and annoying, and there's a huge and longstanding consensus on this.

 

[EmperorFool]

I think rural roads and feeder lines should just be assumed anywhere you've got development. Major routes should be what you're building. Sprawl is ugly and annoying, and there's a huge and longstanding consensus on this.

I wholeheartedly agree. Beyond looking ugly, there's no point to pillaging enemy roads while invading to cut off supplies as you have to pillage nearly the entire landscape to have any effect. I would like the option--especially in early warfare--to strategically destroy bridges and roads to make the enemy's resupply that much harder.

As for the forts and ZOC, I would also love to see this. Nothing more silly than a fort with several defenders on the border sitting idly by while my invasion force scoots right on past unimpeded to the cities.

 

[GoodGame]

1. An even more developed sense of tactics in combat, maybe almost to the level of having a quick minigame (think playing card quick), but not to the extreme of having a nested tactical game that takes like half-hour to play out a battled (i.e. not a miniatures game).

2. More comprehensive diplomatic options. Trade more and more things, with unilateral options.

3. More resource choices. Trick is to have more while making pursuit of some resources largely optional and purely as a side strategy. So keep the core resources, but have tons more optional resources that present strategic benefits if one specializes in them. Would require some rebalancing of the happiness generated by owning multiple luxuries.

4. Automatic trade of resources, at least under certain civics. use to make certain cities a stockpile. Use worker to rush production in a city if supplied excess hammers by trade, without need to sacrifice population points.

5. More civics options. Civics are a great idea and more could be represented at all eras if a finer tooth definition for civics is applied.

6. More religions and more options with religions. Purge religions, merge religions, create schisms, etc..

7. Worker units need support to maintain, either gold or local excess happiness.

8. Add in the best facets of the Revolutions type mods.

9. Add one or two more eras, and more granularity per era (more civics, more units, more religions, etc...)

10. play around with the idea of giving great people more variety. Rather than each GS being a clone, maybe the second one could have the potential to have more reaching effects---in the same way that Civ4Col's FF's have a wide variety of effects per FF category.

11. play around with the idea of quantitative resources, supply, and quatitative logistics. Perhaps at least a partial quantitation of resources, with limits and bonuses resulting, including number of units of a specific type allowed. Require unit support to be more than just gold, but partially paid by specific resources, with a max threshold of support units being a multiplier of the number of relevant, duplicate resources that the civ owns.

12. play around with in-game modding. In game script editing, and possibly in-game model editing.

13. more & better music.

14. options for nicer graphics, an extreme view in battles

15. play around with in-city 'sims'. Not as micromanagement, but as a more detailed measuring stick of city happiness, sickness, etc... If possible, develop the idea of sickness, happiness to a little more detail. Avoid micromanagement, but make detail increases be something that master players could indirectly affect for strategic purposes.

16. play around with the idea of professions/factions a la Victoria and Colonization and GalCiv2. Again, not as micromanagement, but as something that could be indirectly manipulated for strategic game play effects.

17. Develop the economy some more. Have an option for economic wins, economic differentiation a la city/building specialization. Perhaps allow citizens to not just work tiles, but specific buildings a la Colonization?

In general, don't throw out the advances that Civ4 made over Civ3. Civ4 was a great redesign. Keep the core innovations of Civ4. Just improve them when they are too limiting or too artificial (e.g. frequent Spanish Buddhists, Monteczuma is a compulsive warmonger, etc...).

What do you think such a game need to improve from the previous one? Any ideas?

 

[rysmiel]

Zones of Control. Bring back civ2's zocs, or, alternatively, some other zoc system (and not just opportunity fire, please).

I'd like them to come in for battleships, or modern units, but not from the beginning.

Road and Rail Sprawl. The idea that getting rid of the commerce and production bonuses for roads and rails would get rid of sprawl, was in error. That was never the reason for road and rail sprawl. It is because workers with free time are assigned to build roads in every tile because this will always maximize your movement efficiency. There are many ways in which road and rail sprawl could be ended, though.

When I saw that header, there was one glorious moment of "at last, someone agrees with me, we need road-and-rail sprawl back the way it was before Civ 4".

-make workers specialized. Ie, farmers, road crews, etc, instead of workers that can do all of the tasks.

I do think this is a good idea, though.

Religion. Dump it. It was nice for civ4, but I'm tired of it. Too gimmicky. I'm getting tired of Aztec Jews and London as the holy city of Buddhism.

What is the actual nature of your problem with that ? I'm not seeing it.

Attached support units. Would like to see a system whereby, in addition to independant tanks and artillery and all that, it would be possible to attach capabilities to a unit - kind of like a promotion but different. For instance, to attach some artillery support to an infantry unit, not as a separate unit but as part of that division. Not really crucial but it would be a nice touch if it could be worked out somehow.

I am intrigued, but not seeing exactly how it should work out.

Appropriate start locations. There should be some tendency for cultures to start in an appropriate climate. Vikings should appear in northern latitudes, Aztecs in a subtropical or tropical latitude, and so on. This has always bugged me alot.

I very strongly disagree here; anything that ties cultures more closely to their real-world equivalents is reducing the range of possible alternatives the game can explore.

 

[rysmiel]

1. And even more developed sense of tactics in combat, maybe almost to the level of having a quick minigame (think playing card quick), but not to the extreme of having a nested tactical game that takes like half-hour to play out a battled (i.e. not a miniatures game).

I disagree. There's too much tactical-level thought in Civ 4 already; this is a misstep that should be reversed.

2. More comprehensive diplomatic options. Trade more and more things, with unilateral options.

Strongly agreed.

3. More resource choices. Trick is to have more while making pursuit of some resources largely optional and purely as a side strategy. So keep the core resources, but have tons more optional resources that present strategic benefits if one specializes in them. Would require some rebalancing of the happiness generated by owning multiple luxuries.

Strongly strongly agreed.

5. More civics options. Civics are a great idea and more could be represented at all eras if a finer tooth definition for civics is applied.

No, bring back fixed governments. A couple of dozen fixed governments, sure, but fixed governments with strengths and compensatory weaknesses.

9. Add one or two more eras, and more granularity per era (more civics, more units, more religions, etc...)

Strongly agreed.

12. play around with in-game modding. In game script editing, and possibly in-game model editing.

So long as I can switch it off once and never have to worry about it again.

14. options for nicer graphics, an extreme view in battles

So long as it doesn't slow the game down too much. I would far rather have a quick game with Civ 3 graphics than a game wasting time and energy on more advanced graphics.

15. play around with in-city 'sims'. Not as micromanagement, but as a more detailed measuring stick of city happiness, sickness, etc... If possible, develop the idea of sickness, happiness to a little more detail. Avoid micromanagement, but make detail increases be something that master players could indirectly affect for strategic purposes.

16. play around with the idea of professions/factions a la Victoria and Colonization and GalCiv2. Again, not as micromanagement, but as something that could be indirectly manipulated for strategic game play effects.

17. Develop the economy some more. Have an option for economic wins, economic differentiation a la city/building specialization. Perhaps allow citizens to not just work tiles, but specific buildings a la Colonization?

I agree in general as ideas worth exploring , except for the "not micromanagement" bit.

In general, don't throw out the advances that Civ4 made over Civ3. Civ4 was a great redesign. Keep the core innovations of Civ4.

Well, I disagree pretty much entirely; there are only a few innovations in Civ 4 that do not strike me as mistakes. (Religion is most of it, though I like the ideas of some of the BtS things I've played very little of.) But then there are a number of mechanics in Civ 3 I would revert back to Civ 2 if it were entirely mine to design.

Just improve them when they are too limiting or too artificial (e.g. frequent Spanish Buddhists, Monteczuma is a compulsive warmonger, etc...).

You change a civilisation's surroundings, its sensible priorities are different, it will come out feeling different. Forcing Spaniards in every possible world to be Christian because real-world Spaniards were Christians seems a lot more artificial to me than letting the Spanish assess possibilities and develop in whatever way makes most sense given their surroundings, and artifical in a game-weakening way.

 

[frekk]

What is the actual nature of your problem with that ? I'm not seeing it.

Basically I just don't like London or Paris or whatever being the birthplace of Hinduism or Buddhism or what have you. I have a hard time even imagining that, and I like to be able to imagine things. It just breaks my suspension of disbelief.

Another fix I thought for it, is just to make religions work the same way they do now, but somehow make them generic. You found a religion, the default name might be based on your civ like the Roman Religion but, like a city, when it's founded a box comes up and you can type in whatever you like. Perhaps have a drop-down for the symbol. If you wanted to play as the Aztec Jews, with a Star of David, you could still do that, you just wouldn't be forced to pick a historical religion. You could do that, but you'd have expanded options so you could also call your Aztec religion "Nixtamalism" and pick out some unique logo for it. Without having to write a mod just to do that.

I very strongly disagree here; anything that ties cultures more closely to their real-world equivalents is reducing the range of possible alternatives the game can explore.

Perhaps, but suspension of disbelief can also be wrecked by going too far. I don't really see any advantage in having Aztecs start in the subarctic, even in terms of exploring historical alternatives, because it's just not a historical alternative: it never would have happened. They're a subtropical culture and if I wanted to play a subarctic culture, I would've picked a subarctic culture.

It ruins my imaginative experience. I want to play a subtropical culture, in a subtropical location, (or subarctic, or temperate, or whatever) but to do so I either have to fiddle around in the worldbuilder or start and restart until I get what I want.

There's no reason you'd be forced to use climate appropriate start locations; just an option, a tick in a box, like raging barbarians, for those who want it.

 

[rysmiel]

Another fix I thought for it, is just to make religions work the same way they do now, but somehow make them generic. You found a religion, the default name might be based on your civ like the Roman Religion but, like a city, when it's founded a box comes up and you can type in whatever you like. Perhaps have a drop-down for the symbol. If you wanted to play as the Aztec Jews, with a Star of David, you could still do that, you just wouldn't be forced to pick a historical religion.

That would work for me, I suppose.

Perhaps, but suspension of disbelief can also be wrecked by going too far. I don't really see any advantage in having Aztecs start in the subarctic, even in terms of exploring historical alternatives, because it's just not a historical alternative: it never would have happened. They're a subtropical culture and if I wanted to play a subarctic culture, I would've picked a subarctic culture.
It ruins my imaginative experience. I want to play a subtropical culture, in a subtropical location, (or subarctic, or temperate, or whatever) but to do so I either have to fiddle around in the worldbuilder or start and restart until I get what I want.

OK, I see your point, and fine if it's an option. What you are asking for breaks my suspension of disbelief in a different way, because if the Aztecs start in the subarctic it does not work for me for them to be forced to develop as a subtropical culture, but then in general over the course of the Civ series the more difference there is between cultures the less I like them.

 

[Naokaukodem]

Nope. Well, sort of, but not exactly. ZOCs were borrowed from board wargaming, where they represent a really wide variety of factors. Tendency of forces to form into fronts and salients, control of supply routes, and so on. It's a huge simplification of very complex factors, but it does mirror the actual patterns of conventional warfare.

Yes, there is. The chief role of castles was to control the terrain all around (not just the immediate few hundred yards, but many miles). They did this because if you bypass the castle, they'll intercept your supplies after you move past. ZOCs represent this by forcing you to deal with the problem either by giving the castle a wide berth, or taking it. This is one reason why forts are so useless in civ, because the effect isn't really mirrored in any way.

Well is this move:
ooo
oXo
YAo

Y to A cuts our supply lines? No. But it would still be forbidden with ZOCs.

Easy, just have an aggressive intercept and a cautious intercept.

Just have an intercept at all, if this is to push a button.

True, but there aren't highways or trunk rail lines everywhere. I think rural roads and feeder lines should just be assumed anywhere you've got development. Major routes should be what you're building. Sprawl is ugly and annoying, and there's a huge and longstanding consensus on this.

I feel road sprawl pretty realistic. The only thing i find not realistic is the fact that we can't use enemy roads at some extense. this goes with the culture complaint where culture is a nasty thing. I would like to see culture totally removed from Civ5, the way it is treated in Civ3 and Civ4 that is. Culture should still exist, but in a way more subtil way. Culture should be able to expand through ennemy territory, and remain on conquered lands at a favor of some factor. Eastern Roman Empire was greek culturally. china part of mongol empire was chinese, and never converted to the mongol culture (was too strong). Chinese people rebelled and made the chinese mongolian empire to fall. I think this way to treat culture would bring a lot to the game but please, do not make it determinant anymore for the design of our frontiers.

 

[GoodGame]

I wasn't calling for strict realism, just that the way the civ preferences work, certain 'random' patterns are actually quite common. Spain beelines an early religion---usually buddhism. Monte warmongers beyond common sense.
The AI options are nice, but probably what I'm really getting at is that the AI should be more dynamic to it's situation, and less scripted/running blanket preferences.

You change a civilisation's surroundings, its sensible priorities are different, it will come out feeling different. Forcing Spaniards in every possible world to be Christian because real-world Spaniards were Christians seems a lot more artificial to me than letting the Spanish assess possibilities and develop in whatever way makes most sense given their surroundings, and artifical in a game-weakening way.

 

[frekk]

Well is this move:
ooo
oXo
YAo

Y to A cuts our supply lines? No. But it would still be forbidden with ZOCs.

Once you moved to A, supplies through Y would be cut - but yes, you might get them in from some other vector. It's not a perfect representation of the effect, its a simplification for game purposes.

The only thing i find not realistic is the fact that we can't use enemy roads at some extense. this goes with the culture complaint where culture is a nasty thing. I would like to see culture totally removed from Civ5, the way it is treated in Civ3 and Civ4 that is.

A very easy way to do this would be to go back to the civ2 format, which allowed you to use enemy roads but also featured ZOCs for a blocking effect. Having simple free movement anywhere you want is too unbalancing and certainly doesn't resemble real world patterns - even the fastest advances in modern times (say, the blitzkrieg against France, or the invasion of Iraq) averaged only 20-30 miles per day. In friendly territories, forces can be redeployed 100s of miles in a single day (once they're on the move, which can take a while) without even using airlifts.