Civilization 5

[Öjevind Lång]

obviously, there are some things that are too ridiculous. like, no one would want to play the game if their were fairy units and magic fire techs.... however, in a mod this would be great, but i think although people love getting messages like london has been captured by the indian empire, but i doubt that if the entire game was filled with things magic and fantasy like people would get sick of it fast

I want rabid Killer Ents with a huge potential to do harm as a special unit for civs running environmentalism. The Ents can sow trees in one turn - trees that are impassable terrain for your enemies and can't be harvested - but they'll walk away if I ask them nicely. All Ents disappear if you abandon environmentalism. I'd also like gay Elves who seduce your enemies' soldiers so they throw away their weapons and make love instead.

 

[jsweeney]

I want rabid Killer Ents with a huge potential to do harm as a special unit for civs running environmentalism. The Ents can sow trees in one turn - trees that are impassable terrain for your enemies and can't be harvested - but they'll walk away if I ask them nicely. All Ents disappear if you abandon environmentalism. I'd also like gay Elves who seduce your enemies' soldiers so they throw away their weapons and make love instead.

are you trying to make this thread a mockery? if you're joking don't bother replying to this thread. If you're serious you seriously in need of help.

 

[patheslip]

SMAC?? What's that?

I'm just an ignorant newbie

 

[jsweeney]

SMAC?? What's that?

I'm just an ignorant newbie

i believe its Sid Meier's Alpha Centuri. Never played it but i think its about space......

 

[exhile]

That just seems so incredibly boring to me it might as well not be a game at all; with real history you already know how it comes out in the end, so where on earth is the challenge ?

As the title of Civilization states, "to stand the test of time". The challenge is if your civilization can withstand real human history on earth. You may find human evolution boring but 4 editions of the same game prove otherwise.

 

[jsweeney]

exactly, i mean isn't Rhye's mod, a mod all about re-living history, a huge download, and other big mods include charlemagne and Road to War, all historically based games?

 

[JonathanStrange]

SMAC?? What's that?

I'm just an ignorant newbie

A 1999 turn-based game focused on colonizing a planet in the Alpha Centauri star system, sort of a Civ on another world. Incredible factions, story telling, very innovative for its day.

 

[jsweeney]

i would also be interested in a revolution factor to the game. I mean, there have been major world affecting revolutions in the last 300 years (american, french, russian, chinese, iranian etc...) and i feel that after a while people should simply throw off their current government and set off a completely different system. These revolutions can intertwine with the ideology system discussed, where if there is marxism is present in your civilization with a strong majority, then a marxist revolution will take place. Every city that has marxism (and only marxism) in it automatically switches to this faction and a revolutionary leader (additional leader for civ) comes up and you can negotiate with him to adopt all the marxist styled civics and switch your capital (automatically) to a city that the marxists want it to be. Of course, no capital switch has to occur. If the civ does not negotiate a treaty then the rebels can continue its war to take over the entire nation.

 

[jsweeney]

Also, an increased trading system is needed. One that relies on your allocation of resources between your cities. No colonization trade, but if you have wheat near washington you should be able to send some of it to a particular city, just not all of them.

 

[Dave Hartwick]

Also, it would be interesting if you can affect the power of your government with a slider, so if it is at 100%, you get production bonuses but your tech rate suffers and you have more unhappiness, but with a loose government structure you get decreased production but more happiness and a higher tech rate.

So, a centralization slider? One possible use of it would be for wartime-- historically, governments become more controlling and more centralized in times of war. That's a generalization applying more to liberal governments (USA during the American Civil War, for instance, when Lincoln suspended the basic right of habeus corpus).

Also, say if the Apostolic palace is built for buddhists, then the AP has some power of the people, so then the govt. can't be at 100%, and then the kings or whatever govt. structure can separate themselves from the AP and the creation of Religious branches come into play, which can also be used in your ideologies idea, where if there is one central example for a capitalistic society, and another civ wants to be capitalistic but decides to take a different approach, then they get their own unique form of capitalism and they have increased nationalistic pride.

I don't follow your Apostolic palace example, but ideologies typically do become identified with nations or governments. Italian Fascism wasn't the same as German Naziism (initially, at least, it lacked the racist element) and Marxism became identified in different nations as Leninism, Stalinism, Maoism. Possibly a way to express it in the game is to have ideologies linked to nations: Indian + Nationalism, American + Communism, Celtic + Utopianism or whatever evolves in the game.

Thats what i can't stand about the game, how there's always one finite path for everything, and there's no real danger in switching from state property to free market, only a few turns of anarchy. I mean, russia is still dealing with a bit of protests and stuff and they haven't fully recovered since the fall of the U.S.S.R. So, if i interpret your post the way i think you meant it, which would be a missionary system for ideologies, like a marxist unit or a capitalist unit spreading those ideas around, then i am all for it.

Well, a civ adapted perfectly to state property isn't going to be well adopted to a free market-- it'll have workshop spam rather than cottages, for one thing. But you do have a point, major social changes are usually accompanied by civil unrest. The trick is to make it amusing to have in a game.

I was thinking of something similar to the missionary system but I don't know if the missionary/executive system is something I'd like to see carried on to Civ V. It feels a little tacked on, as in fiddly and requiring micro management.

 

[Dave Hartwick]

i would also be interested in a revolution factor to the game. I mean, there have been major world affecting revolutions in the last 300 years (american, french, russian, chinese, iranian etc...) and i feel that after a while people should simply throw off their current government and set off a completely different system. These revolutions can intertwine with the ideology system discussed, where if there is marxism is present in your civilization with a strong majority, then a marxist revolution will take place. Every city that has marxism (and only marxism) in it automatically switches to this faction and a revolutionary leader (additional leader for civ) comes up and you can negotiate with him to adopt all the marxist styled civics and switch your capital (automatically) to a city that the marxists want it to be. Of course, no capital switch has to occur. If the civ does not negotiate a treaty then the rebels can continue its war to take over the entire nation.

One thing to watch out for is taking control away from the player, people hate that. I've always thought that civil wars should be represented somehow, though.

One way ideologies idea could come into it is that you could have a separatist ideology that would be localized to a particular geographical area attempting to simulate breakaway regions and caused by a random event. The player would be notified of its spread and could take steps to counter it-- building cultural buildings in the area or simply a military buildup in preparation to crush the rebellion.

Rather than spreading ideologies by missionary, possibly they could crop up by how the city is managed and as a reflection of civ/leader traits. Factories after the advent of communism could cause the spread of the Marxist ideology, or banks after the economics could cause Capitalism. Failure to fulfill a quest, defeat in war, military build up, or the adaptation of an appropriate government type could cause Fascism, etc.

Too much of this is expressed in Civ IV terms, Civ V could be a lot different.

 

[Öjevind Lång]

A 1999 turn-based game focused on colonizing a planet in the Alpha Centauri star system, sort of a Civ on another world. Incredible factions, story telling, very innovative for its day.

SMAC was rather obviously influenced by Kim Stanley Robinson's Mars series ("Red Mars", "Green Mars" and "Blue Mars"), and by James Lovelock's Gaia theory, which was much in favour at the time.

 

[rysmiel]

i'm not saying that historically things will happen to the books, but AI strategy simply evolves over time. I don't want the AI to simply expand. i want to see it focus it's goals on one region, and develop serious military plans and not just send units into a territory. I want the AI to be able to look at the map and use it to their best advantage. I also want to see them changing their capital if suitable, not just onto different continents, but on the same continent, to a city with greater defense or more legendary.

All of this makes perfect sense to me and I agree with it - though the game will need some major overhauls if there are to be viable winning strategies that do better than a large amount of "just expand". I just don't think any of these goals are helped by forcing civilisations to behave more like their historical counterparts.

 

[rysmiel]

i would also be interested in a revolution factor to the game. I mean, there have been major world affecting revolutions in the last 300 years (american, french, russian, chinese, iranian etc...) and i feel that after a while people should simply throw off their current government and set off a completely different system.

The simple fix for that has already been implemented and shown to work; unhappy citizens, civil disorder, and revolutions overthrowing your government, as in versions of Civ before 4.

 

[rysmiel]

As the title of Civilization states, "to stand the test of time". The challenge is if your civilization can withstand real human history on earth.

That's about as challenging as doing an exam when you can look up all the right answers in the book.

You may find human evolution boring but 4 editions of the same game prove otherwise.

I honestly doubt that more than a small minority of Civ players are and have been getting most of their enjoyment from trying to simulate Earth history as well as the versions of Civ have allowed; if so, there's not be so many options, and such an increasing range of options over time, for doing other things with the game.

Besides, at the level at which I do find the development of human culture interesting, it sure as heck isn't "it happened this way so it has to happen this way"; changing the starting conditions will change what happens all along. Go read Guns Germs and Steel or something.

 

[rysmiel]

are you trying to make this thread a mockery? if you're joking don't bother replying to this thread. If you're serious you seriously in need of help.

Seriously, I think the popularity of the Fall from Heaven mod shows that you're mistaken in thinking that a well-constructed magic/fantasy take on the game is not going to have any appeal to serious Civ IV players.

 

[exhile]

That's about as challenging as doing an exam when you can look up all the right answers in the book..

What does an exam & right answers in a book have to do with Civ being a challenge? I think you should lay off the civ forums for a while and stick with your studying because you'll getting wrong answers on your exam.

I honestly doubt that more than a small minority of Civ players are and have been getting most of their enjoyment from trying to simulate Earth history as well as the versions of Civ have allowed; if so, there's not be so many options, and such an increasing range of options over time, for doing other things with the game.

I think a majority of civ players enjoy playing the big earth map with their attempt to simulate earth history. The earth map has been in the game since Civ1. Sure, I wish threre were some improvements of the earth may in the expansion packs but that earth map is one of the favourites.

Besides, at the level at which I do find the development of human culture interesting, it sure as heck isn't "it happened this way so it has to happen this way"; changing the starting conditions will change what happens all along. Go read Guns Germs and Steel or something.

I also find other cultures interesting as well such as those of the arabs, mayans and the people of mali. We all know how history is and playing a possible alternative is just for fun. You should read "Guns, Germs & Steel" and tell me what its about because I'd rather be playing Civ.

 

[flyingchicken]

I think a majority of civ players enjoy playing the big earth map with their attempt to simulate earth history.

Them Roman players must be really, really sad.

 

[jsweeney]

while were talking about all this, i would like to point out that i would like larger maps with a good game speed, sort of like GEM but with the same turn timing as Earth18civs.

 

[rysmiel]

What does an exam & right answers in a book have to do with Civ being a challenge?

It's called a metaphor. If you can't handle those, let me put it another way; real history is no challenge because you already know what happened and how.

I also find other cultures interesting as well such as those of the arabs, mayans and the people of mali. We all know how history is and playing a possible alternative is just for fun.

I think you are privileging what actually happened unreasonably much, here. History's a long chain of accidents and consequences.

You should read "Guns, Germs & Steel" and tell me what its about because I'd rather be playing Civ.

What it's about. fwiw, is how the circumstances around a civilisation's starting point, in terms of resources and geography and so forth, affect that civilisation's growth and development. very much worth reading and thinking about in terms of how the range of variation in Civ works and how it could be improved.