Civilization V ideas

[Germanymaster]

Post any new ideas about civ 5.

My ideal new civ:
Australia:
Leader: Sir Edmund Barton
Military Unit: Aboriginal Warrior (Spearman)
Building: Outback Ranch (Aqueduct) +2 health +2 food
Capitol: Canberra



Any other civ ideas?

 

[holiday_hawk]

New leader for U.S.
Bill Clinton:Financial and Charismatic
New UU for America Minutemen instead of SEALs

 

[Germanymaster]

Bill Clinton!!!

Okay how about new leader for US

Ronald Reagan
Charismatic, Protective

new UB: Downtown area

 

[dexters]

Civ III trade table back in play. The lack of flexibility in what can be traded and different combinations is one of the things I didnt like about Civ4. Every trade needs to have value, and it can be paid with gold, resources or some other commedity.

GPT deals and better enforcement mechanism for these deals to avoid the exploits that went on. One possibility is to treat gpt deals as a lump sum payment spread out over X turns. AI or players can choose to re-negotiate the deal and pay the lump sum and get out of the gpt deal (though if if its a gpt for resource trade the resource will continue to be shipped until the turns run out).

More flexible trading and more tiers to trading.
Civ4's bloc system usually blocks out about half of the civs from ever wanting to trade with the human player anyways, and to add to that, those who would trade are so very cautious.

As a way to help with 'exploits' trades can advance in tiers and also tied to tech levels
-middle ages/ancient era = caravan trade
if allied with a civ:
-can trade gpt up until alliance ends (up to 10 turns)
-can trade resources/gpt gpt/resources. gpt/+gold/techs and different combinations

if not allied with a civ
-nominal trade. resource for resource only
-tech for gold lump sum and techs

-industrial age
merchantile trade
if allied with a civ:
-same as in middle ages but larger trades available
-longer trade deals (up to 15 turns)
-trade bonus available if player has a monopoly on a resource

if not allied with civ
-same as above

-Modern era
-Capitalism (for democracies, republics, fascist governments)
if allied with a civ
-longer gpt/per turn deals available (up to 25 turns)
-civs engaged in trade gets commerce bonus (think Civ2) (both sides get this)

-Socialism (for republics, democracies and communist governments)
-gpt/per turn deals available (up to 20 turns)
-no trade bonus

 

[Germanymaster]

I think resource trading should be way more in depth.

for example....

Saladin has oil
Roosevelt has corn

so....

3 million bushels of corn every 10 turns for
1 million barrels of oil every 10 turns

or....

1 million barrels of oil every 10 turns for
$1,000,000,000 every 10 turns

this would make the game more interesting because you could temporarily run out of a resource, and you could make more for a certain resource because there would be a system of supply and demand.

 

[Scilly_guy]

Why the new thread? There are already plenty of threads for suggesting new leaders and ideas for civ 5.

Are you talking about quantifiable resources? Because I agree, I think that could be interesting and work.

 

[Germanymaster]

yeah that would be cool

i mean quantifiable resources

 

[dexters]

quantifiable might be one way to go, but they should cut down on resources back to 8 or so (back to Civ3 levels) so players are only having to manage inventories on 1 or 2 resources each age, and maybe up to 4 in the modern era.

My gripe with the Civ IV model is its just so pathetically boring. I have rice. lets trade per trun copper. There's no depth, its more of a cheap bartering system.

What I'd like to see is for AI to put a value on all items and there should be an exchange rate of some sort in place. Pay for oil with gold or with another resource plus gold. Closer to the Civ3 model. If they go with a deeper 'quantity' based resource model, it could be something like 3million barrels of oil and 30 gpt for 6 million bushels of corn etc.

What I don't like to see is further dumbing down of trade. I know someone is going to say 'but Civ3 trade system is often abused'! A lot of exploitative behavior can be curtailed with a tiered trading system as I described so the best trades are only available form close friends and allies and players will never get back to being a close friend agian if they bretray that trust. Furthermore it's not like the AI in Civ4 all want to trade. When half the AI in the world hates a human player for no other reason than the obtuse 'bloc' system. The human player only realistically has 2-3 trading partners.

 

[Lachy123]

I thought perhaps bringing immigration into the picture.

Consider you can have Open Borders in the game and one civ is far more advanced and/or culturally significant by the game standard. There could be a general diffusion to people towards that empire. Also consider warfare between different civs as well as more oppressive civs () would create refugees.

That leads to a whole new can of worms for example new civics (i.e. Multicultural Civic, Assimilation [Monocultural] Civic, Melting Pot Civic, the-Japanese-way-of-doing-things Civic lol, etc). Plus it could dramatically change relations with civs; either they hate you since their skilled workers are moving elsewhere or they like you since your culture has been influenced to a degree by their own (under Melting Pot or Multicultural civic) as well as civil unrest from angry natural citizens that are unhappy with so many foreigners. Long-term immigration can cause changes in religion as well. New Golden Ages from cultural harmony as well. More ethnic and cultural diversity could also make wars harder to fight since certain civs you go to war with might have ethnic/cultural positions in your own civ. Also as your civ becomes more developed the birth rates hence population growth declines, so immigration can bring it back up (I cite Canada as an example of this). Probably more spin-offs are possible.

The game already brings this into account to a degree with the idea that stronger cultures can take over neighbouring tiles from lesser cultures, but I was thinking this might expand it.

 

[Lachy123]

And also to add to the last, a new set of rules to be voted for in the UN regarding refugees. Like the more advanced and developed civs being required to resettle more refugees than others.

Also just away from that, perhaps a wonder like the League of Nations to pre-empt the UN?

 

[Infantry#14]

A different immigration idea:

Return to Civ 3 worker system, where you can resettle workers from 1 city to another. However this time you can add your own workers to foreign cities. Emmigration gives the following bonus to home civ:

1. You have line of sight on the tile of city.
2. A small boost of trade.
3. Your citizens will get angry at their new host civ if you go to war with them.

Balancing Conditions:

1. Civ can set the max % of immigrated citizens. (Ex, if they already have 10% foreigners in their entire nation, then no more immigration allow.)
2. 100 years (game years, not turns) of assimilation. After 100 years, the immigrant becomes naturalized.
3. No Ethnic Cleansing. You cant build workers of foreign population. Also, the worker cant be disbanded.

 

[The British Kid]

Ideas for new Civs

Akkadia
First City: Akkad
Leader: Sargon
Unique Unit: Helmeted Warrior (Warrior)
Unique Building: Bronze Walls (Walls)

Assyria
First City: Assur
Leader: Ashurnasipal II
Unique Unit: Battering Ram (Catapult)
Unique Building: Pontoon Bridge (Bridge) (can move to a different position)

Austria-Hungary
First City: Vienna
Leader: Franz Joseph I
Unique Unit: Landwehr (Infantry)
Unique Building: Opera House (Theater)

Belgium
First City: Brussels
Leader: Leopold III
Unique Unit: Mitrailleuse (Machine Gun)
Unique Building: Grand Place (Market)

Brazil
First City: Rio de Janeiro
Leader: Pedro I
Unique Unit: *none*
Unique Building: *none*


Does anyone else have any ideas for me?

 

[WICKLC1]

All or most units should be unique.

multi-party diplomacy

 

[rysmiel]

All or most units should be unique.

No units should be unique; every civilisation should be able to build all units.

 

[WICKLC1]

No units should be unique; every civilisation should be able to build all units.

I mean like USA has minutemen, Iowa class battleships, and M1 Abrams tanks. And England has redcoats, King George battleships, and Challenger tanks.

The different countries have slightly different units that do the same thing, but have small changes and are unique to each country. It's more realistic that way.

 

[rysmiel]

I mean like USA has minutemen, Iowa class battleships, and M1 Abrams tanks. And England has redcoats, King George battleships, and Challenger tanks.

I know what you mean; I just don't like this.

The different countries have slightly different units that do the same thing, but have small changes and are unique to each country.

Differences in appearance without differences in function irritate me. I have enough difficulty with the graphics as is, more variety that has no information content would just make that worse.

It's more realistic that way.

"Realistic" on its own is not a virtue. Realism that affects gameplay may be a virtue; your idea has no effect on gameplay whatsoever, it sues time and effort that could be put into something functional, and it adds apparent complexity without adding real complexity; so I vote very much against.

 

[WICKLC1]

I know what you mean; I just don't like this.



Differences in appearance without differences in function irritate me. I have enough difficulty with the graphics as is, more variety that has no information content would just make that worse.



"Realistic" on its own is not a virtue. Realism that affects gameplay may be a virtue; your idea has no effect on gameplay whatsoever, it sues time and effort that could be put into something functional, and it adds apparent complexity without adding real complexity; so I vote very much against.

Whatever floats your boat.

 

[ViterboKnight]

I'd like a unit system like the now-not-so-old (!!!) colonization, where you can take a simple settler and give him anything allowed by your tech level. For example, you give him a bow, a plate mail and a horse, making him a bow-knight. So he would be considered both a mounted unit (for the horse) and an ranged unit (since he has a bow). Instead, a mace-knight would be both mounted and melee.

This way, techs would not allow units, but items. Archery would allow bows, horseback riding would allow horses, machinery would allow crossbows, metal casting would allow plate mails, and so on.

 

[The British Kid]

I think voice acting for leaderheads would be a great addition (just as long as it is not bad voice acting)

 

[Antilogic]

I think voice acting for leaderheads would be a great addition (just as long as it is not bad voice acting)

I don't mean to be a pessimist, but I don't think we are going to find 50-some good voice actors for the leaders in Civ4 if a similar set was created for Civ5. I'll stick with Leonard Nemoy for the tech discoveries, and just unique animated leaderheads otherwise.