Civilization 5

[EmperorFool]

Perhaps a (sort of) "Holy War" option could be added to the next Civ? . . .

Check out Orion's Inquisition Mod.

 

[Camikaze]

Perhaps a (sort of) "Holy War" option could be added to the next Civ? I'll explain:

Let's say you plan on building up your empire and you wish to have only 1 religion present in your cities (which is your state religion). If you have a religion that isn't your state's choice in any of your cities, perhaps you could make attempts to drive it out (like the resistence in a city after capturing it)? Perhaps unsuccessful attempts at driving the other religions out could eventually lead to certain circumstances.

Might be some interesting gameplay in this...

Obligatory 'it will never happen or the headlines will be "New Civ Game allows for ethnic cleansing"'. The only way the option for the removal of a religion could possibly get into the game is if it had no advantages, in which case it would be a useless feature anyway.

 

[Öjevind Lång]

That would make a great scenario, especially with wandering creatures you have to hunt, and depleting ressources (fruits) like if you pillage them, you earn gold, then they become smallest like pillaged cottages.
Animals would work the same way: each time you successfully hunt them, they decrease. Maybe the more you kill them, the slower they increase back. You would have to let them live and not kill them entirely.
So, with ressources decreasing when hunted/gathered, the player would have to move around the world in order to let the "pillaged" ressource to grow up again.
Maybe also the player would have to take care of the other tribes, particularly the AI ones, because this one may exploit the ressources to their death and kill them forever.

However, I can't think of a system to unite this kind of scenario and the normal game.

I think the tribes would all have to be confined to a limited area which they migrate around in; they may come into contact with other tribes, but the populations are so small that wars simply are not feasible (or serve any good purpose). You might get a food or production benefit from visiting a tile with a natural resource but would have to leave it after 1-3 turns and not be allowed to revisit it until quite a few turns later. However, several such visits might teach you Hunting (if it's an animal resource) or Agriculture or Fishing if it's a tile with grain and the like or a tile beside a tile with seafood. You might gain points towards discovering Mining if you spend a lot of time in rocky areas. Living in poor aras might make you hungry and warlike. I don't really think it would be that impossible to combine this with the standard game.

 

[Öjevind Lång]

Here are a couple of other suggestions:

In Civ II, there were fairly often attacking barbarian hordes led by a chieftain. If you captured the chieftain you got a sum of gold, which could be very nice.

I think one should be able to relocate the Forbidden Palace, just the way one can do with the main Palace.

 

[Axeli]

I would like to see two things

1. FARM DEVELOPEMENT
Farm should develop into village - town - city. In real life villages do develop from small farm inhabitations alongside rivers. Towns can still produce food! Maybe city need food. In civ4 you usually build your towns the tiles not near rivers because you need to build farms alongside with rivers. This is stupid.

2. NATIONAL BORDERS
UN should decide somewhen in the game the permanent national borders. it's stupid that national borders move according your culture in 2000ad

 

[Gamemaster77]

2. NATIONAL BORDERS
UN should decide somewhen in the game the permanent national borders. it's stupid that national borders move according your culture in 2000ad

Another idea is that they could be shaped by natural borders such as mountaains and rivers

 

[Camikaze]

Or a mixture of the two...

 

[moscaverde]

I like the idea of fixing your borders with nationalism, there would be a race for nationalism.

 

[My Pet Hamster]

Yeah...

 

[Gamemaster77]

But with new cities, how would hey grow? Would they never?

 

[Camikaze]

For some discussion on this issue, see the following:
Cultural vs. Political Borders, Colonel, 29/3/09
Suggestion: Real borders - not cultural borders! (Civ 4 or 5), PieceOfMind, 8/6/07
Military Borders, Khan Quest, 9/11/06
Land Manipulation, Edgecrusher, 11/8/06
Political Borders vs. Cultural Borders, Roibeárd, 31/3/06


My personal opinion is that the current cultural borders thing should be kept, but with scope for annexations of individual tiles. Let me just find where I outline my idea...bingo. Border wars- the tool with which to allow for annexation of individual tiles despite culture.

 

[Öjevind Lång]

I like the cultural borders. but then, I love to culture-flip the cities of my competitors.

 

[Axeli]

I like the cultural borders. but then, I love to culture-flip the cities of my competitors.

In past times it is realistic and fun, but after nationalism, it's against odds (maybe not entirely impossible) that some city would flip to another nation just because of there is more culture.

 

[Camikaze]

I would say it would be entirely likely. Perhaps there should be an option to suppress the rebellion, for the cost of population, to make it more realistic (although this would make culture flipping near impossible), but I wouldn't say the idea of cultural pressure resulting in the change of allegiance of a city is unrealistic.

 

[Öjevind Lång]

I would say it would be entirely likely. Perhaps there should be an option to suppress the rebellion, for the cost of population, to make it more realistic (although this would make culture flipping near impossible), but I wouldn't say the idea of cultural pressure resulting in the change of allegiance of a city is unrealistic.

No, indeed not. One might say that almost all of eastern Europe has culture-flipped from Russia to the EU, for example.

 

[toft]

Borders should be decided by a number of variables - not just culture.

Primary means of pushing borders:

• Fear and suppression (military might)
• Living standards (culture)
• Buy land? (economy)

And then there should be some predefined features on the map that are harder to gain control over.

• Land beyond a mountainrange
• Oversea land
• land beyond rivers

Once you have crossed these harder obtained lands, then further expansion shouldnt be deminished until the next mountainrange and so on.

 

[jacyp]

The one thing Civilization desperate needs is a totally revamped combat and unit systems.

Yes, Civ is a game that can be played following any strategy you want, not only military, but, hey, everybody knows that in higher dificulty leves the CPU will bring your ass down if you dont have an adequate military.

That said, no matter what strategy you follow, military will always have an important role, and while you have options on choosing how you will deal with the economics, science and so on, you have no choice on military: just keep poping the best unit you have at the moment and create a big stack of them. This is too narrowminded.

So what we have today is a game wich, whether you like it or not, have a big emphasys on military but with a ridiculous "too-simple-for-something-too-important" combat system. Come one, just stack a big pile of units and then throw them at you enemie? Wow! Big strategy! I think I'll put my brains aside for a moment while I do a little war.

But I'm not a dumb ass, so it's obvious that when Civ 4 was launched they've changed so many things in the core game, comparing to Civ 3, and revamped the graphics in a beaultiful way; so, at that time everything was allright.

Besides combat system, the economic system is a bit broken too. Come on, everybody plays with emphasis on science, what happened to the money? Why basically just upgrade units cost money? Farms, Mines, Roads, all investiments on infrastructure cost just... zero. That's why it's no fun to play on normal speed. Before you can create the big stack of units you need, they are obsolete, you have already discovered another tech in 10 turns. Then you chose to be at 0% science to make some money and upgrade your units. When you are finally done upgrading that big stack, your enemy (surprise!) is already ahead of you on science run and have better units already. It's a vicious cicle. Cash should play a bigger role, in a way that science investment becomes limited and needs to be perfectly balanced with other choices of investment, giving more space between the eras so you can enjoy the different ways of playing, priorities and units of each era.

Today, if they are going to launch Civ 5, it's just unacceptable that they leave the mechanics as it is:

- military units on each cities to prevent unrest even after medieval times: basically all civs live in a dictatorship forever I guess.
- big piles of units in the same square are the rule. I never saw such strategy from any great military leader on our history.
- workers everywhere constructing a hell of an infrastructure without having to pay anything.
- Only science matter as investiment, and eras past fast one you have some big cities with towns everywhere.

What Civ 5 needs:

- Balance in economics. Cash ALWAYS had greater importance in any era of humanity. When the real science came along, it was just another way to get even more money. A broken empire with no reserve of gold was trash in any era of humanity. Things should cost more. Wanna a big army? Pay hard for that. Want to go far with your big army? That will cost even more, I sure hope you are succesfull taking some cities, cos if you don't, your empire is bankrupt. Want to build roads in everysquare of the map you own? Good luck paying for it and for the SUPPORT! Yes, why not? Roads don't keep themselves perfect for ages. Nor does every infrastructure you have. So do you want to have a big empire with the most modern infrastructure? I recomend you INVEST accordly then.

- Big piles of units without any relation with them? Come on. Wars had infantry, cavalry, archers, siege machines, all together mixed up fufilling each role was expected of them. Civ is in anciet ages with the combat mechanics. We need regiments, armies, composed by archer launching its arrows without engaging melee combat, while the infantry then charges against the wounded or broken enemy infantry themselves. It's not a very hard to do combat system, just more complex, with more strategy involved.

- law enforcement agents of some kind (the kings guards, police etc) are responsable to keep order on cities on most recent eras, not military units. Cities must worry about "fearing for their safety" only when that's a war monger neighbour wich don't have good relations with our civ and if we don't have adequate military to deal with them. Actually, to have military on cities should be cause of unhappiness or unrest in certain governments.

That's just a scrach of what I would expect of Civ 5.

Best reggards to all the folks.

 

[Cav19]

I would like to see multiple things improved on in Civilization 5. First off, there needs to be better diplomacy because currently, it is too hard to maintain a good relationship with leaders. There is no current way to stay neutral in any conflict between leaders without ticking both off and ending up against both. Another thing to improve on are of course the graphics. I also think that better battle sequences would be nicer too. Maybe even with the possibility of making multiple units attack multiple units at the same time. A major change that I think would be very interesting is to implement a stability rating such as seen in the Rhyes and Fall in Civ 4. The rating would change depending on public happiness and healthiness and possibly those could be effected by the economy and the overall state of the empire. Also, sub-religions... These would be religions that are not major and cannot be founded by research. These sub-religions would be founded during times in which people in your or other empires are unhappy, unhealthy, or your empire has a bad stability rating. These religions cannot become major religions or state religions but they can cause religious tension among your own people. For example, if you state religion is Christianity and you stability rating is very low than there could possibly be a split in the church and you would end up with Catholics vs. Protestants in your own empire. Also due to the stability rating you could fall into a civil war for a variety of reasons. It could be religious unrest, racial tension, or even something as simple as the east doesn't like the west anymore.

Another thing I would like to see is an extension on the future era which was previewed with Next War Epic in the Beyond the Sword expansion pack. An increase in technologies and units would put an interesting spin on the late game.

I would also like to see an increase in Civilizations and in leaders as well as characteristics. I feel now that after just a few games you become limited to the amount of flexibility you have for games. More units and multiple unique units and buildings per civ would be nice too.

As far as colonies go I liked how in the Beyond the Sword expansion pack they cost maintenance costs and could be made into a vassal state after they grew to a certain size. One thing I would change about this is the ability to still gain some income and resources as well as some control over you colonies once you have granted them independence. I understand that they are no longer under your control but what I don't like is that they become a vassal state but at times can be a foreign as other civilizations.

Multiple new improvements would be a strong addition to the game because it would give the player more variety when it came to altering the landscape for the face of the empire.

 

[Naokaukodem]

The one thing Civilization desperate needs is a totally revamped combat and unit systems.

Yes, Civ is a game that can be played following any strategy you want, not only military, but, hey, everybody knows that in higher dificulty leves the CPU will bring your ass down if you dont have an adequate military.

That said, no matter what strategy you follow, military will always have an important role, and while you have options on choosing how you will deal with the economics, science and so on, you have no choice on military: just keep poping the best unit you have at the moment and create a big stack of them. This is too narrowminded.

So what we have today is a game wich, whether you like it or not, have a big emphasys on military but with a ridiculous "too-simple-for-something-too-important" combat system. Come one, just stack a big pile of units and then throw them at you enemie? Wow! Big strategy! I think I'll put my brains aside for a moment while I do a little war.

But I'm not a dumb ass, so it's obvious that when Civ 4 was launched they've changed so many things in the core game, comparing to Civ 3, and revamped the graphics in a beaultiful way; so, at that time everything was allright.

[...]

- Big piles of units without any relation with them? Come on. Wars had infantry, cavalry, archers, siege machines, all together mixed up fufilling each role was expected of them. Civ is in anciet ages with the combat mechanics. We need regiments, armies, composed by archer launching its arrows without engaging melee combat, while the infantry then charges against the wounded or broken enemy infantry themselves. It's not a very hard to do combat system, just more complex, with more strategy involved.

I agree with you! Armies should take care of combined forces. You create armies by putting archers and catapults on the back, and melee and horse based units on the front. They all act in a same move calculated by the PC.

For example, in the field, if the opponent army have horses and you don't, you will be at a fair disadvantage.
also, if you want to take a city with walls with exclusively horse based units, you simply can't. Maybe create an early knight (horsemen with a sword instead of a pike), that can abandon his horse to take walls in assault.

Besides combat system, the economic system is a bit broken too. Come on, everybody plays with emphasis on science, what happened to the money? Why basically just upgrade units cost money? Farms, Mines, Roads, all investiments on infrastructure cost just... zero. That's why it's no fun to play on normal speed. Before you can create the big stack of units you need, they are obsolete, you have already discovered another tech in 10 turns. Then you chose to be at 0% science to make some money and upgrade your units. When you are finally done upgrading that big stack, your enemy (surprise!) is already ahead of you on science run and have better units already. It's a vicious cicle. Cash should play a bigger role, in a way that science investment becomes limited and needs to be perfectly balanced with other choices of investment, giving more space between the eras so you can enjoy the different ways of playing, priorities and units of each era.

Today, if they are going to launch Civ 5, it's just unacceptable that they leave the mechanics as it is:

- military units on each cities to prevent unrest even after medieval times: basically all civs live in a dictatorship forever I guess.
- big piles of units in the same square are the rule. I never saw such strategy from any great military leader on our history.
- workers everywhere constructing a hell of an infrastructure without having to pay anything.
- Only science matter as investiment, and eras past fast one you have some big cities with towns everywhere.

What Civ 5 needs:

- Balance in economics. Cash ALWAYS had greater importance in any era of humanity. When the real science came along, it was just another way to get even more money. A broken empire with no reserve of gold was trash in any era of humanity. Things should cost more. Wanna a big army? Pay hard for that. Want to go far with your big army? That will cost even more, I sure hope you are succesfull taking some cities, cos if you don't, your empire is bankrupt. Want to build roads in everysquare of the map you own? Good luck paying for it and for the SUPPORT! Yes, why not? Roads don't keep themselves perfect for ages. Nor does every infrastructure you have. So do you want to have a big empire with the most modern infrastructure? I recomend you INVEST accordly then.

There again, I agree fervently! It is not the science that should be emphasised, but the gold.

Science should be based on contacts and trade routes with other people. Your people, to begin with. The more you have linked cities (with roads or rivers), the more the science rate is high. Based also on number of citizens. (or not: the most numerous civs in citizens are not always the more advanced) Or based on the number of scientists (specialists should be emphasized by the possibilily, with actual Civ4 system system, to build ressource-based tiles out of pre existing ones)
Then, the more you have contacts with foreign cultures determine in a pretty high way the amount of research you have, based on the speed of those communications. (roads and rivers are fast, plain are middle fast, jungle and mountains are very slow)

Goody huts are replaced by true civs. So a continent with less civs than another one do not suffer too much of a science delaying, altough i would love to see an age of conquest simulated in the standard game.

 

[moscaverde]

"also, if you want to take a city with walls with exclusively horse based units, you simply can't. Maybe create an early knight (horsemen with a sword instead of a pike), that can abandon his horse to take walls in assault."

Don't you think the units represent the emphasis of the different troops? Like, just because you have a horsemen with a pike, it doesn't mean all the guys in the unit uses pikes, or that they can't walk by feet. The game got really weird if you see the units as represented by the graphic or the name (axemen or grenadiers, for example).