Civilization 5

[Camikaze]

maybe religions would have unique units, but those units only fight in wars against other religeons. for instance:

Cristianity - crusaders
Buddhist - warrior monks (apparently there were some.)
Islam - sorry, but Al-Qaida comes to mind

(help me out here)

That's quite racist (not that Islam is a race, or, for that matter, Christians). Which is why religious differentiation will never, and should never, be included in the game. Besides, religions don't actually, by themselves, create units. Having this would undermine why a civ chooses a religion, and just make it about what unit would be helpful at a given time.

 

[johnconor]

I m satisfied with u.

 

[Shurdus]

That's quite racist (not that Islam is a race, or, for that matter, Christians). Which is why religious differentiation will never, and should never, be included in the game. Besides, religions don't actually, by themselves, create units. Having this would undermine why a civ chooses a religion, and just make it about what unit would be helpful at a given time.

I agree. Religious strife is included in the game in the form of dislike between religions. The ones waging war in the name of religion pick up any kind of arms that are available to them and that fit into the lifestyles of the time. Buddhist monks choose different means to fight that crusaders do. I do not see how adding a unit of this type is really different that attacking some one with plain knights. A medieval stack consisting of units that are in the game repreent these crusaders just fine.

I am sure this goes for every other religion as well. Use your imagination and you will find that the game does a good job of mimicking this. Even terrorists are in the game. Spies can destroy things, right? Doing this can even cause a civ to dislike another, and it may even make relations so tense that war breaks out.

Ok in the game the terrorist is not a unit, but the game represents it in some form. Just because these units are not named as such does not mean that they cannot be used as such. The only limitations to this lie in your own imagination.

 

[Öjevind Lång]

maybe religions would have unique units, but those units only fight in wars against other religeons. for instance:

Cristianity - crusaders
Buddhist - warrior monks (apparently there were some.)
Islam - sorry, but Al-Qaida comes to mind

(help me out here)

Instead of al-Qaeda, why not traditional jihad warriors? They were no worse than the crusaders. The Jews could have zealots; the Hindus could have members of the traditional warrior caste; I forget what they were called.

However, neither the Confucians nor the Taoists ever fought religious wars in any form. Even the Buddhists and the Hindus are something of a stretch. On the whole, I agree with those who think including religious warriors would be a bad idea.

 

[Gamemaster77]

So do I. They should only be included if you could build them without specific religions. Any on on this idea from the last page:

Also, this may be a little drastic but, the CFC community is very large. We could make a whole sub forum with a thread about a list of things that want to be improved. Then have a thread to vote on each feature, yes or no. The reason we should make one list is that people don't usually feel like making their own list. Then we all email it to firaxis. Firaxis could also just look at the subject and that sais somthing like "CFC civ5 request with suggestions" .This amount of people supporting civ5 would cause firaxis to start thinknig about it.

 

[Camikaze]

Instead of al-Qaeda, why not traditional jihad warriors? They were no worse than the crusaders. The Jews could have zealots; the Hindus could have members of the traditional warrior caste; I forget what they were called.

However, neither the Confucians nor the Taoists ever fought religious wars in any form. Even the Buddhists and the Hindus are something of a stretch. On the whole, I agree with those who think including religious warriors would be a bad idea.

I know! Let's think of every way imaginable to insult each religion in the game!

IIRC, the AP can institute holy wars if it so desires. So what would be the difference between Crusaders and normal Knights fighting in what is an AP declared war?

Also, this may be a little drastic but, the CFC community is very large. We could make a whole sub forum with a thread about a list of things that want to be improved. Then have a thread to vote on each feature, yes or no. The reason we should make one list is that people don't usually feel like making their own list. Then we all email it to firaxis. Firaxis could also just look at the subject and that sais somthing like "CFC civ5 request with suggestions" .This amount of people supporting civ5 would cause firaxis to start thinknig about it.

IIRC, Firaxis does not read emails sent to it, full of ideas, for copyright reasons. However, AFAIK, there is a summary document of all the ideas presented in the Index, being made currently by a particular member of CFC.

No additional sub-forum is really necessary, and polls are probably not the best way to decide what should be in the game.

 

[Terrance888]

Crusaders have unnormal zeal!

(or, just use theocracy.)

 

[Ganda1fs Puppet]

For the Holy wars and everything I was so upset that I could never negotiate with shaka or tokagawa if they were not my religion it sucked so could the hate factor for other religions go down some. (I mean Hindu's don't really hate Jews that much do they?)

And I know I brought it up earlier but is anybody really interested in a star trek mod?

 

[jsweeney]

For the Holy wars and everything I was so upset that I could never negotiate with shaka or tokagawa if they were not my religion it sucked so could the hate factor for other religions go down some. (I mean Hindu's don't really hate Jews that much do they?)

what i would like is to overtime religions to almost evolve in a sense that at first it is a -1 for different religion but if one member of that religion goes to a disastrous war against a different religion then a -2 relations takes place

 

[Camikaze]

The relations penalties for different religions are different for every leader, reflecting their realistic views on the matter. Now, this may be as applicable for modern leaders, and it may seem to us in the modern day world of free religion that religious differences are not all that important, but historically, they did have the effect that the game institutes.

 

[[ERS]-Dominator]

Maybe if 2 civs with different religion are at war with a 3rd party that has a religion that neither of it's 2 or more opponents has, then its enemies would not have as big a relations penalty towards eachother. Example: Christians and Mongols during the Crusades.

 

[Camikaze]

That could possibly work, but I don't think it quite gets to the point of religious difference and disrespect, whereby wars are started due to religion. i.e. The Crusades. The antipathy between Islam and Christianity was the reason behind the war, not caused by the war. So, before the two were warring, they didn't like each other anyway, is my point. It is the fact of a different belief, and people's insecurities and prejudices against that, that was the cause of deep-seated resentment.

 

[[ERS]-Dominator]

The relations penalty for different religion would exist in peacetime, but would be modified by diplomatic/war situation.

 

[Camikaze]

That makes sense- but that would only seem to aggravate the problem of religious alliances dominating the game that some people see.

 

[jsweeney]

I want the game to be able to handle the actual world politics present today. I want it to be nearly impossible for a government to be friends with everyone. Make the UN more of a force. I want to see the decolonization of nations if the correct needs are met. I want world wars that are addressed as world wars by all involved. I want 5 years of terror and 50 years to pick up after the terror. I want cold wars. I want to occupy a nation and not just take over. I want to form finite alliance systems. I want to have revolutions where you either stay in power or exile yourself to the head of a friendly nation. I want empires to rise and empires to fall. I want to be the US and have to deal with a bunch of third-world countries getting their act up. I want to slowly take over India as the Brits. I want to dominate the world as the mongols and then divide my empire into different states for some allies.

 

[The Turk]

First of all nice idea jsweeney, I think that would be really nice if they could do that, but I was actually wondering if Firaxis has actually announced that they would make a Civilization 5, because I have always thought for a long time that after Civilization 4 that was the end of the road

 

[Bechhold]

I would like a better in depth focus/revamp of alliances in Civ 5, like agreeing to a trade embargo and able to stop trade routes vua sea, land etc. And as many have said, a overhaul of the Diplomacy system.

 

[Öjevind Lång]

First of all nice idea jsweeney, I think that would be really nice if they could do that, but I was actually wondering if Firaxis has actually announced that they would make a Civilization 5, because I have always thought for a long time that after Civilization 4 that was the end of the road

I'm fairly certain it is not. Civ sells better than ever, so why should they refrain from producing Civ V?

 

[Soda7777777]

I want the game to be able to handle the actual world politics present today. I want it to be nearly impossible for a government to be friends with everyone. Make the UN more of a force. I want to see the decolonization of nations if the correct needs are met. I want world wars that are addressed as world wars by all involved. I want 5 years of terror and 50 years to pick up after the terror. I want cold wars. I want to occupy a nation and not just take over. I want to form finite alliance systems. I want to have revolutions where you either stay in power or exile yourself to the head of a friendly nation. I want empires to rise and empires to fall. I want to be the US and have to deal with a bunch of third-world countries getting their act up. I want to slowly take over India as the Brits. I want to dominate the world as the mongols and then divide my empire into different states for some allies.
__________________
I definitely agree with you, it would be very nice to have all that detail in the game. I think it would also be nice if they had done all the scenarios they had done in Civilization II. I really like the part about colonizing Alpha Centauri. I think it would also be nice to have a post modern tech tree, with a lot more advanced technology. I like playing the next war scenario with the added tech tree, even though we don't get very much tech, it still ads to the gameplay. Perhaps we could have Tranhumanism as a possible way to have a victory in the late game. I would also like to have the advisors heads brought back from Civilization III, as well as the Civilization III style leaderheads, where the leaders outfit and backround changed every tech period, except for bald Joan D'Arc.

 

[Naokaukodem]

I want the game to be able to handle the actual world politics present today. I want it to be nearly impossible for a government to be friends with everyone. Make the UN more of a force. I want to see the decolonization of nations if the correct needs are met. I want world wars that are addressed as world wars by all involved. I want 5 years of terror and 50 years to pick up after the terror. I want cold wars. I want to occupy a nation and not just take over. I want to form finite alliance systems. I want to have revolutions where you either stay in power or exile yourself to the head of a friendly nation. I want empires to rise and empires to fall. I want to be the US and have to deal with a bunch of third-world countries getting their act up. I want to slowly take over India as the Brits. I want to dominate the world as the mongols and then divide my empire into different states for some allies.
__________________
I definitely agree with you, it would be very nice to have all that detail in the game. I think it would also be nice if they had done all the scenarios they had done in Civilization II. I really like the part about colonizing Alpha Centauri. I think it would also be nice to have a post modern tech tree, with a lot more advanced technology. I like playing the next war scenario with the added tech tree, even though we don't get very much tech, it still ads to the gameplay. Perhaps we could have Tranhumanism as a possible way to have a victory in the late game. I would also like to have the advisors heads brought back from Civilization III, as well as the Civilization III style leaderheads, where the leaders outfit and backround changed every tech period, except for bald Joan D'Arc.

It makes me think that the AI should be able to surrender by giving us all its cities, not only "capitulating" and become our vassals. That would allow to reduce war and its casualties. (population deaths when capturing a city, building destroying when capturing a city also) That would happen when the AI does not have an army anymore. Speaking about that, the AI should be able to empty its safe cities of troops, in order to put them in the stacks or in its armies.

*But*, for example India, they should still have an identity, that could re-emerge later in the game as a country.