Does Civ V need a blue shell?

[LincolnofAmeric]

I love mechanics I can abuse, I hate mechanics the computer abuses. I suspect this might fall into that category of ideas.

This. I could imagine having to try not to be the best so you don't get sent to last in the victory race... Just like in MK I'd only pass the leader on the last lap to avoid blue shells.

 

[Tagma]

Remember the uproar caused by pikes upgrading to lancers rather than rifles or whatever? I'm pretty sure that was intended as a kind of "reset military dominance" button. (I liked the idea...) So: there are certainly ways of blueshelling/rubberbanding/imitating the rise-and-fall mechanics of real history; but a lot of them will be percieved as unfair by the player. Particularly if the player is more interested in getting Bigger Numbers than in role playing.
Still, lots of really great comments and ideas in this thread. Any of you guys modders?
(Last of all, I would like to see each civ given one "Great Leader" to spend over the course of the game, who would grant a whole lot of units- the number increasing dramatically later in the game. This means we could finally have big Rome/Persian style early empires, and would allow for the sudden dramatic expansion of colonial empires etc. AI would always use theirs when their UU came along, probabaly. Just an idea!!)

 

[CraigMak]

If there is one thing that makes my interest in Civ V go down from time to time is the lack of surprises during the course of a game. I play on Immortal, and in half of my games, by the Renaissance it gets pretty obvious that either 1) I won, or 2) there is a runaway AI that I will duel with until the end of the game, with every other AI just watching (if they are even alive).

I wonder if the games would be more interesting if Civ V had a kind of blue shell like Mario Kart, a feature or mechanic made with the only purpose of harming the one who is winning.

One can argue that Autocracy and Scholars in Residence are made to power up the civilizations that are behind, but these come way too late in the game. Nukes also don't qualify as blue shells because the leading players can have them too (and will probably have them first).

What do you guys think?

The AI is boring and predictable, not to mention completely stupid. Play humans and you will find the game endlessly interesting.

 

[loserforsale]

One idea which would be more historically accurate but probably wouldn't be a good idea for Civ would be for the game to involve numerous empires rising and falling, with the aim not being so much to conquer the entire world or to have the best/most developed empire at the end, so much as to be betterer compared to all the other empires which have at some point been dominant.

I like the idea of a penalty to building numerous wonders, it would really force you to prioritise and think ahead. That said, you'd have to be sure the AI is also taking this into account - I can imagine the larger and more powerful AIs grabbing every wonder under the sun without a strategic thought, leaving certain powerful late-game wonders as sitting ducks for the player. My other concern is that it could lead to a kind of "I could build this wonder... but it would be so much easier to let this AI civ build it, and then invade and take the wonder over..."