Civilization 5

[Antilogic]

I am seeing a return of the supply crawler and all the craziness that ensued.

 

[rysmiel]

I am seeing a return of the supply crawler and all the craziness that ensued.

Only a problem if it's not better balanced, IMO, and ways of balancing it better are not difficult to see.

 

[Cipher_101]

I think Firaxis Games should create more leaderheads for the Eastern Asian Civilizations, i.e. China. there are many far-sighted, successful and wise leaders emerged during the history of China. Such as Tang Tai Tzung唐太宗, Han Wu Ti汉武帝, Cao Cao(Wei Wu Ti)曹操, Zhou Wu Wang周武王, Wu Ze Tian武则天, Tang Ming Huang唐明皇, Kang Xi 康熙, to name a few. I couldn't describe them one by one. But Those emperors are given a high esteem in Chinese history due to their profound technics and wise intellectual in developing Chinese Civilization.
For Japanese, as far as I concerned, should put emperor Meiji also as he is ascribed for the modernization of Japan.
And I really don't like Mao who is frequently picked as the leader in the CIV series, for he only brought destruction to Civilization of China by decimating people, introducing atheism, and demolizing the two pillars of modern Civilization, democracy and capitalism, by imposing communism and socialism.
By the way, I think CIV4 is good, but I strongly disagree with CIV4 that one of the oldest civilization(and the only ancient civilization which survived until now) in the earth has only 2 leaderheads, which is much less(or just equal to) than any of the European Nations.

 

[Lockesdonkey]

China could do with 3 leaderheads, it's true. But China has the annoying feature of having a land area and geographic diversity similar to Europe, but being a more-or-less unified people. The Europeans arose from about six disparate Indo-European groups (Greeks, Italics, Celts, Germans, Slavs, and Balts) plus a few Asiatic invaders (Finns, Estonians, Hungarians, Turks), plus a few random natives (e.g. the Basques). European geography was arranged such that each of these groups further sub-divided (the Greeks and early Italics had their small poleis; the post-Latin Italics divided up into Italians, French, Spanish, Portuguese, Romanians, etc.; the Germans split into the Goths, the Norse, and the West Germans, all of whom proceeded to further sub-divide and fight one another; the Slavs did much the same thing; even the Balts subdivided and became separate states). Uniting Europe is a very difficult proposition. On the other hand, a united China was more or less the norm throughout history, even though the linguistic distance between (for instance) Cantonese and Mandarin is greater than the distance between French and Spanish. With smaller countries, the European countries had more leaders, all of whom had a greater opportunity to be accounted "great" given the unique challenges of governing one small territory among many.

OR: Long story short, China's very greatness and stability condemns it to few leaderheads.

 

[Cipher_101]

OR: Long story short, China's very greatness and stability condemns it to few leaderheads.

Actually, stability is not the factor ascribed for the number of leaderheads. I guest your theory is that CIV4 should put the num of leaders in accordance to number of nations in an area; The Europe has many inunified nation thus it can has as many leaderheads as the number of nations permitted.
But IMO, the num of leaders does not affect the game stability, having above 10 leaders for china(And I think they should) won't let china be the most cheating civilization in CIV4, you still could only choose 1 leader for each game.

Besides, China has not been always stable, throughout the history China had been broken into several countries during many civil wars. And during those periods many great leaders appeared seeking to unify China. Thus saying in Chinese idiom " Great People emerged in a Time Of Chaos".

If some of the now-non-existed European Nations such as Holy Roman Empire , Byzantine, Greek, Rome, can be accepted as the playable civilization in CIV4. Then, why don't we put the preunified Zhou Dynasty, Shang Dynasty, the 7 Greater nations during the Warring State Periods as the playable civilization in CIV5. The culture i.e. writing system in those periods also largely different from the post-Unified China.

If some barbaric war-mongering tribes such as Celt ( sorry I don't mean the same to the now Scottish and Welsh) who fought naked can still be accepted as "civilization", then We may also accept Malays Kingdom in CIV5. if some failed general such as Hannibal could be esteemed as leader, then, a lot of Chinese Generals (Yue Fei, Zu Ge Liang, Zheng Cheng Gong....) as long as Japanese Warlord(Nobunaga) could also be accepted as playable leaders(with ten folds of qualification).

I don't mean that Europe does not qualified to have many leaders, actually I admire the Europeans of their creativity and their contributions to the modern Civilization, technologies, philosophies, Science and Democracy (in the light of CHRISTIANITY) in the latter age. But just mumbling about the leaderheads of China.

By the way, I would totally satisfied if They just replaced the leaderhead of Mao Ze Dong with Dr Sun Yat-Sen, who was the founding father of democracy and modernity in China.

 

[Antilogic]

The Celts and Gauls really weren't as "barbaric" as the Roman propaganda of the time made them out to be. Although the thing about fighting nude and covered in paint is kind of strange, several world cultures have done similar things.

7 Nations for China strikes me as too much. I don't see the majority of the people on this forum abandoning their deep love of a few recent decades in the 20th century, so the chances we will see Firaxis take the step and break down China (and India) are pretty small. As much as people complain about them ignoring us, you can't tell say they don't pay attention. After all, Charlemagne was one of the most-requested leaders on their little poll for new stuff in expansion packs.

I would settle for three different Chinese emperors from three different dynasties, all of whom are considered "successful". The Qin emperor we have now is a start in that direction, but we really need to drop the fascination with Mao and pick some other leaders, such as Taizong.



Although, I have to take severe exception to your characterization of Hannibal as a "failed general". He is arguably the most successful military commander of his day, winning brilliant campaign after campaign and surviving for over a decade in Roman territory with little to no logistical support from Carthage (because Hanno, the strong man in Carthage at the time, hated the Barca family). The reason why Hannibal couldn't defeat Rome was because his country simply could not support him. It's through no fault of his own.

Also, after the Second Punic War, Hannibal returns to Carthage as a beloved hero and becomes a member of the oligarchy; Carthage was ruled not by a monarch or by a "republic" like Rome, but rather a small handful of wealthy nobles. As one of the oligarchs, he pushes through political and financial reforms that are so successful the indemnity is paid off in record time, much to Rome's dismay. What was supposed to be a crippling economic blow for Carthage was healed, and Hannibal started investing in the fleets again, building up Carthage's strength. This was enough to cause the Senate to demand his permanent exile, where he later acted as an advisor in the far East, etc.

I admit, I haven't heard of some of the generals you have listed, but I have reason to doubt they have a tenfold qualification if you see Hannibal as "just a failed general".

 

[Cipher_101]

Yup, totally agree. Maybe "ten fold " is a little over and exaggerated, I have no doubt that Hannibal is a Great General. He indeed was the Greatest General in ancient Europe besides Alexander. Nevertheless, he still "failed" to achieve his ambitions, he "failed" to overthrow Roman Empire despite several military successes, he "failed" to maintain most of his conquered area within 10 years and he "failed" to become the Political ruler of the Carthaginian Empire. By the way, everyone has his own "successes" and "failures", no one is perfect, though.

Okay the main point is, he definitely could be one of the controllable Great General in the game just like Sun Tzu. But choosing a Great General like him as the Leader of a civilization like Carthage seemed a little weird to me,as he was regarded as a military ruler not a political ruler(although he once was one of the member of the oligarchy as you just said, but it doesn't mean that he was holding the real authority as the political ruler)..

By the way, game is just a game, maybe choosing Hannibal as the Leader is due to his high popularity in Western Culture and many western fans like him.

 

[Lockesdonkey]

Carthage didn't ever have a single leader (or even pair of leaders, like the Roman consul). For some reason, premodern Semitic republics (the Carthaginians were Semites, descended from Phoenicians) were always headless; the Senate/council was the highest body of state, with the most powerful family "leading" the state. At the time of the Punic Wars, the most powerful family was the Barcids, of which the most important member was Hannibal. Hannibal was probably the most important person in the Carthaginian state at the time, but he was faced with a Rome that was better-equipped to handle a long war. There really is no other option for a leader of Carthage, especially given that the height of Carthage was during the Punic Wars.

 

[SpArKpLuG]

I think they should bring back building the palace when the people love you. It was unneccesary, but fun.

 

[Healz]

I would like to see the idea of some negative modifers in Civ V as I have said. It would make the game interesting and should be something that could be turned off if people didn't want it in their games...

 

[CripesAmighty]

Sorry if this has been talked about before, but i figured i should add my two cents.

Multi-tile Cities: This seems to be the only reasonable way to represent the megalopolises that are present in many places of the world. Each tile of that city should have separate production, but the buildings that are in the city should be shared by all tiles. That way, buildings and units can be constructed at the same time, but you would not have to go through the hassle of reconstructing each building every time you expanded your city.

Land Conquering: I think that the idea of borders should be shifted from the culture aspect to the military aspect. I'm not saying that the culture side of it should be eliminated altogether. In fact, the culture side should be used when determining borders with unclaimed lands. When two borders meet they should hold their position as they are. It doesn't make sense that a civilization gains land simply because they have nice music or a better sense of fashion. Instead, military actions should determine the borders. When war is declared and units are moved into enemy territory that territory should be 'conquered' and taken control of if the unit holds position for a certain number of turns. This way you can enter a war and gain something without taking entire cities. There should also be the option in the diplomacy screen to 'Retain Conquered Territories' or something like that.

Army Supply: I know this has been mentioned before, but i'm coupling this with the above suggestion. When units are in friendly territory they should be considered to be in supply. When they are in enemy territory they should be considered to not be in supply. This way an army can enter and conquer enemy territory, but could possibly be cut off if an enemy unit retakes the land behind the army and cuts it off from supply. When an army is considered to be out of supply they suffer a disadvantage in combat and can be dealt with more easily.

Further Colonization: I always wanted Civilization to go a little further by aiming towards the future. It would be nice to have the tech tree go a little further. While there is the space race, it would be cooler to have this go even further in that you could possibly establish space stations or even colonize a/the moon with colonies. This could benefit those civilizations that are smaller, but just as technologically advanced as the larger civs. There could be special resources that are found only on the moon or some other benefit.

 

[CaesarLord45]

You know what I loved from Civ 3? The ability to zoom in to a city... I know you can see the buildings in Civ 4, but maybe you could incorporate both into the new Civ 5. Also, "real" numbers of soldiers would be nice.

 

[CaesarLord45]

Yeah, that was also pretty fun.

 

[CaesarLord45]

Another aspect: Maybe (you could probably toggle this on or off) the civilization that actually built a great wonder in real life could build the wonder in half the time. Example: China can build the Great Wall in half the time it takes the Americans (excluding resource bonuses).

 

[CaesarLord45]

The Celts and Gauls really weren't as "barbaric" as the Roman propaganda of the time made them out to be. Although the thing about fighting nude and covered in paint is kind of strange, several world cultures have done similar things.

7 Nations for China strikes me as too much. I don't see the majority of the people on this forum abandoning their deep love of a few recent decades in the 20th century, so the chances we will see Firaxis take the step and break down China (and India) are pretty small. As much as people complain about them ignoring us, you can't tell say they don't pay attention. After all, Charlemagne was one of the most-requested leaders on their little poll for new stuff in expansion packs.

I would settle for three different Chinese emperors from three different dynasties, all of whom are considered "successful". The Qin emperor we have now is a start in that direction, but we really need to drop the fascination with Mao and pick some other leaders, such as Taizong.



Although, I have to take severe exception to your characterization of Hannibal as a "failed general". He is arguably the most successful military commander of his day, winning brilliant campaign after campaign and surviving for over a decade in Roman territory with little to no logistical support from Carthage (because Hanno, the strong man in Carthage at the time, hated the Barca family). The reason why Hannibal couldn't defeat Rome was because his country simply could not support him. It's through no fault of his own.

Also, after the Second Punic War, Hannibal returns to Carthage as a beloved hero and becomes a member of the oligarchy; Carthage was ruled not by a monarch or by a "republic" like Rome, but rather a small handful of wealthy nobles. As one of the oligarchs, he pushes through political and financial reforms that are so successful the indemnity is paid off in record time, much to Rome's dismay. What was supposed to be a crippling economic blow for Carthage was healed, and Hannibal started investing in the fleets again, building up Carthage's strength. This was enough to cause the Senate to demand his permanent exile, where he later acted as an advisor in the far East, etc.

I admit, I haven't heard of some of the generals you have listed, but I have reason to doubt they have a tenfold qualification if you see Hannibal as "just a failed general".

Going back to your talk about the Chinese: What about the Ming Dynasty? There was a huge xenophobic belief that Chinese culture was the best.

 

[Scilly_guy]

Yeah, that was also pretty fun.

Hmm what now? Talking to yourself? Don't worry there are others here too, and we can hear you! Nice to meet you. Have a look around, if you have a great idea for a thread do a search for the topic first, there are sections for most things... Infact there are multiple threads for most things. And lots of ideas, such as "the Civ that built that in real life should have a bonus" have been talked about. Basically Civ is not supposed to recreate the real world. I love it when it says "Ghandi declared war on you!" I just sit there laughing shaking my head. It is about alternate histories, that sort of thing. Have a look at Rhys and Fall of Civilisations, that is quite good for real life scenarios, but at the end of the day, things aren't going to turn out the way they were.

 

[CaesarLord45]

Hmm what now? Talking to yourself? Don't worry there are others here too, and we can hear you! Nice to meet you. Have a look around, if you have a great idea for a thread do a search for the topic first, there are sections for most things... Infact there are multiple threads for most things. And lots of ideas, such as "the Civ that built that in real life should have a bonus" have been talked about. Basically Civ is not supposed to recreate the real world. I love it when it says "Ghandi declared war on you!" I just sit there laughing shaking my head. It is about alternate histories, that sort of thing. Have a look at Rhys and Fall of Civilisations, that is quite good for real life scenarios, but at the end of the day, things aren't going to turn out the way they were.

Sorry, I'm new here and pushed the quick reply instead of the quote button. I meant to say the palace you can upgrade was pretty cool.

 

[Scilly_guy]

Aaah yes indeed it was, sorry for seeming a bit rude, I meant it in a playful manner. We were all new once hehe. Please don't let me put you off. I just get a little wound up by some people that keep starting new threads for things that are already being/were being discussed, not that that is what you were doing.

 

[Gokhan]

For civilization 5, there can be a MINE promotion enabled by INDUSTRIALISM and allows gunpowder units 20% defence in cultural borders outside the cities.

 

[CaesarLord45]

For civilization 5, there can be a MINE promotion enabled by INDUSTRIALISM and allows gunpowder units 20% defence in cultural borders outside the cities.

Yeah, that sounds pretty good... It was a BIG factor in WW 2...