Civilization 5

[jsweeney]

Also, i think that "similar" civics should like each other while "disimilar" hate each other. Representation and Universal Suffreage should get a bonus relationship, while free market and state property simply hate each other

 

[Tholish]

What would offer a richer playing experience would be if the leaderheads changed with eras, such that you don't have some tribal goon wearing feathers threatening to nuke you if you don't give him oil for his tanks.

You mean like in Civ 3? Maybe, just as a reskin over time. Better yet, each civ could have an array of 5 different leaderheads to represent different civics within one civic option. By changing civic in that civicoption you change leaderheads, with all that goes with it,including art. Like Russia could use the Government civicoption, and have Peter the Great for Hereditary Rule and Stalin for Police State and Ivan the Terrible for Despotism and Gorbachev for Representation and Yeltsin for Universal Suffrage.

 

[RulerOfDaPeople]

Tholis you're on to something. You just reminded me what I really wanted to add to this thread all week long!

I also think that the game should allow one civ to play with all their leaders through the ages. I also think it would be REALLY cool if say you are in a republic or democracy type of civic, you would have to be re-elected to stay as that same leader, or else your citizens could elect a new leader. In other words you would have to keep a high approval rating or you'd get kicked out of office.

A similar thing for other types of civis like hereditory rule/monarchy/police state/communism and such. You would have to have a prosperous economy/win your wars, or your citizens would uprise and have a revolution... OR there could be an event that happens which causes your leader's death in which case the next in line to the throne would appear.

It's pretty much a brainstorming idea, but I think something like this would make the game much MUCH more interesting and give it life and flavor. I'm also in agreement and of the thought that going through the era's your leaders should be distinctive and adaptive to the era and your civics. I think adapting to the era and your civics would make the game much more interesing. I really love the idea of elections. Now we just need a way to program it in the game...

 

[civfanatic14]

You mean like in Civ 3? Maybe, just as a reskin over time. Better yet, each civ could have an array of 5 different leaderheads to represent different civics within one civic option. By changing civic in that civicoption you change leaderheads, with all that goes with it,including art. Like Russia could use the Government civicoption, and have Peter the Great for Hereditary Rule and Stalin for Police State and Ivan the Terrible for Despotism and Gorbachev for Representation and Yeltsin for Universal Suffrage.

Well, that could be a problem because there are 5 different civics within the 5 categories. So this means that you would need a lot of considering of which civic enables which leaderhead and if you choose a combination it would just stick to one leaderhead. A good idea would be that the leaderheads change when you switch to a civic on the government category and not all.

Of course, if this is possible, you have England, America, Russia, France, China, Germany, India and Spain cut out for you but what about all the others who just had few leaders. At least I have a few ideas on England, America and Germany.

England

Despotism - Alfred the Great
Hereditary Rule - Queen Elizabeth I
Representation - Duke of Wellington
Police State - Neville Chamberlain
Universal Suffrage - Tony Blair

America

Despotism - James Monroe
Hereditary Rule - William Henry Harrison
Representation - Abraham Lincoln
Police Sate - Richard Milhous Nixon
Universal Suffrage - Bill Clinton

Germany

Despotism - Conrad III
Hereditary Rule - Frederick Barbarossa
Representation - Napoleon VI
Police State - Adolf Hitler (or Bismarck)
Universal Suffrage - Louis Ferdinand

I'm really sorry if i offend anyone or if i give historically inaccurate details.

 

[vsoma]

I also think that the game should allow one civ to play with all their leaders through the ages. I also think it would be REALLY cool if say you are in a republic or democracy type of civic, you would have to be re-elected to stay as that same leader, or else your citizens could elect a new leader. In other words you would have to keep a high approval rating or you'd get kicked out of office.

That'd be terrible IMHO. First, very few would choose democracy where they can lose control over their civ. Second, let the player be an evil bastard to his people if he wants to, without taking the control out of his/her hands. It's a fine example to me when total realism isn't needed for a strategy (or any other) game.
(E.g. in a flight simulator your co-pilot would shoot you down if you fly towards the ground for purpose?).

A similar thing for other types of civis like hereditory rule/monarchy/police state/communism and such. You would have to have a prosperous economy/win your wars, or your citizens would uprise and have a revolution... OR there could be an event that happens which causes your leader's death in which case the next in line to the throne would appear.

Family trees and inheritage shouldn't play a major role in the game. As someone said here already, you play the civilization and not the leader. I wouldn't mind some built-in function like inheritage and stuff, but don't let it interrupt your gameplay and/or make it optional. I mean it should only be a message like "King George is elected as a ruler in England". Again, make it only a side addition to the game, not anything that affects your gameplay seriously. Remember, random events aren't fair most the time which makes people angry which - possibly - makes them stop playing.

I'm also in agreement and of the thought that going through the era's your leaders should be distinctive and adaptive to the era and your civics. I think adapting to the era and your civics would make the game much more interesing.

I wouldn't mind, but of course they should improve the overall gameplay first.

Now we just need a way to program it in the game...

Are you a programmer at Firaxis?

 

[warpstorm]

Now we just need a way to program it in the game...

The SDK could probably let you do this if you are motivated to.

 

[Brighteye]

Revolutions and elections need not be random events. There can be plenty of warnings about resentment before the computer actually makes a city rebel or a population vote out their leader.
Of course, as commander of military forces you might just need to reconquer your cities by defeating 'conscripts'. This would be easy, and you would then have your empire again, but under a different civic.
Alternatively, an election could just be an imposition of targets: democracy might give you great bonuses but also give you odd missions, such as colonising a lonely barbarian island. That's public opinion. If Civ5 were scored on a points system these missions would all be things that increased your points, but might not be your idea of an optimal stragegy, if you're focussing on one thing more than others.

 

[Hero]

two words:

HEX TILES

 

[battleaxe]

I also think that the game should allow one civ to play with all their leaders through the ages. I also think it would be REALLY cool if say you are in a republic or democracy type of civic, you would have to be re-elected to stay as that same leader, or else your citizens could elect a new leader. In other words you would have to keep a high approval rating or you'd get kicked out of office.

A similar thing for other types of civis like hereditory rule/monarchy/police state/communism and such. You would have to have a prosperous economy/win your wars, or your citizens would uprise and have a revolution... OR there could be an event that happens which causes your leader's death in which case the next in line to the throne would appear.

That'd be terrible IMHO. First, very few would choose democracy where they can lose control over their civ. Second, let the player be an evil bastard to his people if he wants to, without taking the control out of his/her hands. It's a fine example to me when total realism isn't needed for a strategy (or any other) game.
(E.g. in a flight simulator your co-pilot would shoot you down if you fly towards the ground for purpose?).

Family trees and inheritage shouldn't play a major role in the game. As someone said here already, you play the civilization and not the leader. I wouldn't mind some built-in function like inheritage and stuff, but don't let it interrupt your gameplay and/or make it optional. I mean it should only be a message like "King George is elected as a ruler in England". Again, make it only a side addition to the game, not anything that affects your gameplay seriously. Remember, random events aren't fair most the time which makes people angry which - possibly - makes them stop playing.

(note: civ3 player)

I don't agree that you play the civ, not the leader. I take the view that you're playing the leader of the civ and you direct your people on what to build, where and when. I don't see a great benefit in playing as a greater number of leaders in a civ's history as the game evolves through time.

However, I'll put a variation on the idea out there... what if when the proportion of discontent citizens reached a certain point you risked them rioting for a change of government type. Rather than just killing production in your cities and burning down improvements, they actually demanded a gov type in use by another civ. Overall civ happiness could be used to determine when to riot, and an index per gov type available that factored the number of civs using that gov type, the size of those civ's populations and the happiness of those civs could impact your civ's happiness when your gov type doesn't match the type with the best index value - think of it as propaganda. The gov type with the best index would be the gov type you population demands. Different gov types could be more prone to such riots. Democracy could be less prone than autocratic-style governments.

 

[flyingchicken]

Modular clothing, not different leaders!

 

[exhile]

Modular clothing, not different leaders!

Just like in Civ 1 where a despot government in the modern age will show a bunch of goons like that of Cuba. The modular clothing of Shaka Zula from tribesman rags to European attire and then to a business suit was hilarious.

 

[Healz]

I would like to see the idea of radar stations being built again by workers. Once you have five or more radar stations on the outskirts of your empire you get the option of integrated defence network. Also there should be two strands of anti-aircraft: mobile and static. Static covers things such as SAM Batteries in Cities and AA emplacements. Then there is the option of mobile AAs that have a successful strike chance of attacking helicopters and aircraft as they fly by, but has a better percentage chance of making the kill when it is fortified. Of course strike percentage can be improved by promotions and upgrades. So it should go WW1 Mobile AA, Basically a truck with an artillery piece on the back, Then you go with that M4 Halftrack with all the guns on it. Finally to the Humvee Avenger as the Modern SAM after Rocketry, then an upgrade to a SAM that can shoot down stealth aircraft. Also stealth aircraft should be expensive. So traditional aircraft should be still able to be built after stealth. Also there should be a stealth fighter like the JSF available in game. All this is some cool ideas in the airwar which is a neglected part in C4BTS. What do others think?

 

[Skallagrimson]

New medieval units:
Longsword man
Mounted spearman
Medieval Spearman
Ballista:8 strength
More?

Longsword man, I'd prefer Man-at-Arms, showing a chain mailed unmounted warrior in a bucket helmet, with a 2-handed sword. Simply replace the "Macemen", scores, etc.

Mounted Spearmen, I'd prefer Feudal Knight. Strength 8. Requires HBR and Civil Service. Conical helmet with nose piece; chain mail; inverted teardrop shaped shield. Similar to the knights under William the Conqueror. Current "Knight" change to "Chivalric Knight". Plate mail; long lance; jousting shield, etc.

Medieval Spearman: that's the Pikeman.

Ballista: yes! Requires Engineering.

Also:

Bombard (early cannon): Strength 10; requires Gunpowder

Petard: ultra-cheap suicide unit for eliminating city defense (kinda like a medieval "Guided Missile"); requires Gunpowder

Siege Tower: allows 1 unit per tower to attack a city without city defense bonuses. Requires Engineering.

Redoubt: (city improvement) Gunpowder era replacement to Castle, similar effect except for culture and espionage bonuses, effective against gunpowder units prior to Infantry.

Rename "cuirassiers" to "dragoons"

Steam Tank: 22 strength, 1 movement. Fairly high hammer cost. Requires Railroad and Coal, does NOT require oil. Promotes along "tank" lines.

Trench Fighter: WWI-era "infantry". Fortify bonus +50%, same cost as Rifleman. Graphics should vary based on civ. 16 strength. Requires Railroad.

 

[Skallagrimson]

You mean like in Civ 3? Maybe, just as a reskin over time. Better yet, each civ could have an array of 5 different leaderheads to represent different civics within one civic option. By changing civic in that civicoption you change leaderheads, with all that goes with it,including art. Like Russia could use the Government civicoption, and have Peter the Great for Hereditary Rule and Stalin for Police State and Ivan the Terrible for Despotism and Gorbachev for Representation and Yeltsin for Universal Suffrage.

Something like that, yeah. Modern Shaka would look like Robert Mugabe or Idi Amin, etc.

Modern Saladin, kinda like Saddam Hussein.

Modern Huayna Capac, kinda like Hugo Chavez.

etc.

 

[Antilogic]

Well, that could be a problem because there are 5 different civics within the 5 categories. So this means that you would need a lot of considering of which civic enables which leaderhead and if you choose a combination it would just stick to one leaderhead. A good idea would be that the leaderheads change when you switch to a civic on the government category and not all.

Of course, if this is possible, you have England, America, Russia, France, China, Germany, India and Spain cut out for you but what about all the others who just had few leaders. At least I have a few ideas on England, America and Germany.

England

Despotism - Alfred the Great
Hereditary Rule - Queen Elizabeth I
Representation - Duke of Wellington
Police State - Neville Chamberlain
Universal Suffrage - Tony Blair

America

Despotism - James Monroe
Hereditary Rule - William Henry Harrison
Representation - Abraham Lincoln
Police Sate - Richard Milhous Nixon
Universal Suffrage - Bill Clinton

Germany

Despotism - Conrad III
Hereditary Rule - Frederick Barbarossa
Representation - Napoleon VI
Police State - Adolf Hitler (or Bismarck)
Universal Suffrage - Louis Ferdinand

I'm really sorry if i offend anyone or if i give historically inaccurate details.

The problem is, this really doesn't work for all societies except the ones which have been around for a long time and we have significant details for. I can't come up with a Universal Suffrage candidate for Babylon. And, even if some US presidents were a little more totalitarian than others, none of them clenched to power when their replacements were elected or they hit the constitutional limit on terms (obvious, this applies to the post-FDR situation, but even before then all but one respected Washington's 2-term tradition).

The classic single-leader for the a civilization lasting 6,050 years or so is a key element of the Civ experience. I'd leave it in for old times' sake at this point.

 

[exhile]

Also, i think that "similar" civics should like each other while "disimilar" hate each other. Representation and Universal Suffreage should get a bonus relationship, while free market and state property simply hate each other

Are you sure about that? Look at the American Civil War, Chinese Civil War or Germany vs. France. They are similar civics to each other yet they hate and like each other at times.

 

[RulerOfDaPeople]

Well, that could be a problem because there are 5 different civics within the 5 categories. So this means that you would need a lot of considering of which civic enables which leaderhead and if you choose a combination it would just stick to one leaderhead. A good idea would be that the leaderheads change when you switch to a civic on the government category and not all.

Of course, if this is possible, you have England, America, Russia, France, China, Germany, India and Spain cut out for you but what about all the others who just had few leaders. At least I have a few ideas on England, America and Germany.

England

Despotism - Alfred the Great
Hereditary Rule - Queen Elizabeth I
Representation - Duke of Wellington
Police State - Neville Chamberlain
Universal Suffrage - Tony Blair

America

Despotism - James Monroe
Hereditary Rule - William Henry Harrison
Representation - Abraham Lincoln
Police Sate - Richard Milhous Nixon
Universal Suffrage - Bill Clinton

Germany

Despotism - Conrad III
Hereditary Rule - Frederick Barbarossa
Representation - Napoleon VI
Police State - Adolf Hitler (or Bismarck)
Universal Suffrage - Louis Ferdinand

I'm really sorry if i offend anyone or if i give historically inaccurate details.

I have to say, as great and legendary as Honest Abe is, he was much more accurate to a Police State than Richard Nixon ever was. Lincoln suspended Habeas Corpus and took a bunch of other liberties from the state to put in power of the President due to the situation of Civil War... and thus he was hated for it at the time. To sum it up: Lincoln ruled with a steel fist during the Civil War, but spoke with the stroke of a feather. As Teddy Roosevelt would put it, he walked softly but carried a big stick.

But I get your idea and I like it if you can actually find accurate leaders for each type. They may have to come up with clever new civics to make this idea work, which when building a new game shouldn't be that hard. (Especially how we see amateurs doing such types of things when making mods for the game.)

 

[RulerOfDaPeople]

(note: civ3 player)

I don't agree that you play the civ, not the leader. I take the view that you're playing the leader of the civ and you direct your people on what to build, where and when.

However, I'll put a variation on the idea out there... what if when the proportion of discontent citizens reached a certain point you risked them rioting for a change of government type. Rather than just killing production in your cities and burning down improvements, they actually demanded a gov type in use by another civ. Overall civ happiness could be used to determine when to riot, and an index per gov type available that factored the number of civs using that gov type, the size of those civ's populations and the happiness of those civs could impact your civ's happiness when your gov type doesn't match the type with the best index value - think of it as propaganda. The gov type with the best index would be the gov type you population demands. Different gov types could be more prone to such riots. Democracy could be less prone than autocratic-style governments.

I think you are on the right track here. I really like it!

 

[Skallagrimson]

Are you sure about that? Look at the American Civil War, Chinese Civil War or Germany vs. France. They are similar civics to each other yet they hate and like each other at times.

Yeah, maybe overall cultural differences are more important than "civics" differences, in inspiring hatred between the people of different nations.

North and south in the U.S. still don't get along "well".

Germany and France seem not to ever have been the best of buddies, no matter what the leaders of their nations contracted among themselves.

I would imagine China has some deep cultural differences among its provinces as well.

Part of the big reason western nations send troops to meaningless middle eastern or west asian wars, is the knee-jerk revulsion the people get at seeing women being stoned "for the crime of being raped", and other such barbarism. It breeds a deep desire to see "all ragheads die", and very nearly excuses politicians from having to invent a cassus belli.

 

[jsweeney]

Are you sure about that? Look at the American Civil War, Chinese Civil War or Germany vs. France. They are similar civics to each other yet they hate and like each other at times.

umm since when is pro-slavery and anti-slavery similar? also, china commies wore state propertists, and the nationals were democratically capitalistic. sure, they got together during ww2, but that was purely political by Mao and the commies that they are friends. Besides, Germany always hated France, no matter if they were the same government