Elements You'd Like to See In the Next Incarnation of Civilization

[SilverTab]

As enthralled as we all are with Civ IV, I'm sure that as we play we can see things that we'd like updated or changed, or some elements that we'd like to see added to the game. I'll start it off with a few thoughts that I had.

Judaism, Christianity, and Islam are overtly militaristic religions. I'd like to see a difference between the militaristic religions and the non-militaristic ones. Some military bonuses for the aforementioned three. World opinion could suffer if a state with a non-militaristic religion is attacked...just a thought. I really love the idea of making distinctions between militaristic and non-militaristic religions, but they'd have to be careful. Looking through history, it is apparent that the cultures with militaristic religions dominated the stage of history in many ways. Maybe it was because of military aggression, or maybe a combination of factors (see "Guns, Germs, and Steel" by Jared Diamond). I'd LIKE to say that having a militaristic religion shouldn't bestow any definite advantage, but in real life, I'm not sure I could say that for certain. Personally, I think that WOULD be an advantage...except for maybe if you're going for a diplomatic victory. Anybody else have any thoughts on this?

I think that maybe Hereditary Rule, Slavery, and Serfdom should cause some unhappiness after the discovery of Liberalism. Some civics are incompatible with the modern political modes of thought. The persistence of said civics certainly caused civil disorder in real life as liberalism spread.

Historically, nationalism caused conflicts along ethnic lines. I think that maybe after nationalism, former barbarian and foreign cities that haven't been part of your civilization for very long should be harder to make happy (at higher difficulty levels) and newly captured ones should be even more difficult to make happy. The longer you keep them, and the more culture and happiness you can create will steadily decrease the tendency toward rebellion, of course. When you look at real life, this is precisely what happens. (look to Austria-Hungary, Czechoslovakia, the Balkans, German Unification, and the extreme difficulty of permanent conquest in modern times.) With the rise of nationalist ideas, every ethnic group wanted their own country...that's the idea I'm feeding on. Any thoughts on this?

As you can see, this would bring in the element of civil war, which is too huge a part of history to ignore. I used to like it in Civ I when the capture of a capital city would sometimes cause the civ to split into two rival factions. I think the prospect of civil war should be included in the game, maybe only at the higher difficulty levels.

What are some elements that you'd like to see added or tinkered with?

 

[Sjaramei]

Judaism, Christianity, and Islam are overtly militaristic religions. I'd like to see a difference between the militaristic religions and the non-militaristic ones. Some military bonuses for the aforementioned three. World opinion could suffer if a state with a non-militaristic religion is attacked...just a thought. I really love the idea of making distinctions between militaristic and non-militaristic religions, but they'd have to be careful. Looking through history, it is apparent that the cultures with militaristic religions dominated the stage of history in many ways. Maybe it was because of military aggression, or maybe a combination of factors (see "Guns, Germs, and Steel" by Jared Diamond). I'd LIKE to say that having a militaristic religion shouldn't bestow any definite advantage, but in real life, I'm not sure I could say that for certain. Personally, I think that WOULD be an advantage...except for maybe if you're going for a diplomatic victory. Anybody else have any thoughts on this?

Hmm... yes. Maybe the late religions needs some added benefits to encourage spreading. Maybe a +production for cities with islam in it, +science from Taoism etc. Would be sweet.

I think that maybe Hereditary Rule, Slavery, and Serfdom should cause some unhappiness after the discovery of Liberalism. Some civics are incompatible with the modern political modes of thought. The persistence of said civics certainly caused civil disorder in real life as liberalism spread.

I disagree. It's mostly western culture who have had these examples of disorder. A large part of the rest of the world have existed without this. A cruel dictatorship can keep the populace ignorant through propaganda, maybe a spy option to spread "own propaganda" to cause unrest instead with said civics?

Historically, nationalism caused conflicts along ethnic lines. I think that maybe after nationalism, former barbarian and foreign cities that haven't been part of your civilization for very long should be harder to make happy (at higher difficulty levels) and newly captured ones should be even more difficult to make happy. The longer you keep them, and the more culture and happiness you can create will steadily decrease the tendency toward rebellion, of course. When you look at real life, this is precisely what happens. (look to Austria-Hungary, Czechoslovakia, the Balkans, German Unification, and the extreme difficulty of permanent conquest in modern times.) With the rise of nationalist ideas, every ethnic group wanted their own country...that's the idea I'm feeding on. Any thoughts on this?

This would lead to a more genocidal play style. (like civ3? i think i remember starving populace to establish myself there) I don't think we need that. The culture thingie in cities works fine for now. (though i would have some counters to cultural invasions by other civs as it is now)

As you can see, this would bring in the element of civil war, which is too huge a part of history to ignore. I used to like it in Civ I when the capture of a capital city would sometimes cause the civ to split into two rival factions. I think the prospect of civil war should be included in the game, maybe only at the higher difficulty levels.

Civil war is cool. Which civ version did include that? I seem to remember capturing a capital of another civ made a civil war, with a former destroyed civ rising up against them again. I would like something like that possible yes

What are some elements that you'd like to see added or tinkered with?

- More incentives for sea power. (squares giving more economic benefit/production and ships being more important)

- More realistic approach with civs around the globe. (smaller civs all over the place just like in the real world, hard to achieve i know, but you can always hope )

Thats what i can come up with for now

 

[Unionfield]

My favorite of these ideas is the civil war.

 

[SilverTab]

I disagree. It's mostly western culture who have had these examples of disorder. A large part of the rest of the world have existed without this. A cruel dictatorship can keep the populace ignorant through propaganda, maybe a spy option to spread "own propaganda" to cause unrest instead with said civics?

Very true. I try to look outside of the lens of western culture, but I think we all get caught in that sometimes.

I understand what you mean about genocidal play. Should we discourage genocide? Or should the game punish it? I suppose it would be hard for the AI to detect it.

It was the very first Civ that sometimes caused a civil war (of sorts) when you took the capital of another civ.

 

[Lance of Llanwy]

Designating religions are militaristic or non-militaristic is silly and inaccurate. Need I remind you that the Samurai were practitioners of Buddhism, and the Samurai ethic which grew out of this fusion was responsible in large part for the fanaticism that consumed Japan in the early-20th century and abetted the commission of terrible crimes. Gandhi was murdered by a Hindu extremist. By the same token, the religions you pegged as "militaristic" have pacifistic elements. What I'm saying is that every religion has wackos and considering that Civ isn't reconstructing so much as recreating history from scratch, it is absolutely ridiculous to pre-define religions. If you replayed history differently, you could have well seen a militantly-Confucian Korea dominate the Near East and force Confucian teachings on its conquered peoples, including peaceful Islamic Russians and devoutly pacifistic Jewish Japan. You can already set the character of your religion by utilizing religious civics...

 

[SilverTab]

You have a point, but the doctrines of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam specifically encourage warfare. It's a lot easier for people following these religions to go to war because of this. It's certainly true that Buddhists, Hindus, etc can go to war as well, because war is a product of mankind's nature, not just his religious beliefs (to be fair we could say that any religion could be used to justify war) And the religions I called militaristic certainly do have pacifist elements. But it would be odd at best, and denial at worst to not notice the prevalence of conquest in the histories, and doctrines of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam.

Just as different governments bestow different bonuses, different religions should as well. All religions are currently treated equally, but I don't see why that should be so. I hope no one would argue to keep it that way for the sake of political correctness. As a consideration for political correctness, the attributes that the religions have should be balanced, but I think they should be different, and militarism is just one obvious attribute of some religions (again, historically and doctrinally).

In the very first Civ, there were no real differences between the Civs. But to make things more interesting and to reflect history, recent incarnations have incorporated the facts that there are differences between civilizations, and even between different leaders that these civs have had. What's so blasphemous about suggesting that there are differences in religions? To deny that is to deny history.

I am well aware that the purpose of playing the game is not to recreate history as it happened, but to play our your own version of it, but the deeper we go into emulating elements of actual history (such as the effect of specific theologies) the more interesting the game becomes.

I see no reason to cast my idea of drawing distinctions between the characteristics of specific religions in a bad light.

 

[Hero]

ROP rape...

 

[cuchulain]

I'd like all the civs to be more unique, even if its only aesthetic stuff like different skins for buildings etc. Or maybe each civ gets 3 UU and UB's instead of just one.

I'd also like the religions to be either unique or more customizable. (See the 10000000 other threads on religion for elaboration.)

 

[Phoenix1595]

Civil war is cool. Which civ version did include that? I seem to remember capturing a capital of another civ made a civil war, with a former destroyed civ rising up against them again. I would like something like that possible yes

Civ I definitely had this feature, and I have an itching feeling that BtS may include it. It certainly would add more dynamics to war and diplomacy. Just cozy on up with one faction of a split empire and destroy the other half. Maniacal.

While I don't agree religions should be split into militaristic or non-militaristic camps, I think the religion concept altogether needs some spice. After the early game rush to spread your religion, there is not much point to religion at the end game. I think the corporation race is a cop-out: I don't what to replay the missionary game all over again. Surely, Firaxis can think of something more dramatic for religion other than shrines and missionaries.

 

[almeida_cohen]

i want to see a better UN. The idea has so much potential but it is seriously crap in Civ 4 lol. I would also like to be able to found a religion and just have that religion in my cities without having other religions creep in, even when you have theocracy if you research a tech that founds a religion it is in your city and that annoys me!

almeida_cohen

 

[Eagle'sStrength]

1. Ability to zoom into cities - much like in earlier Civs or Rome Total War, but maintain the city view in the play map as with Civ IV
2. Civil War
3. Coordinated Attack. It's unnatural to have units attack one at a time
4. Customizable Leaders, including trait selection, with 3 traits, Customizable 'Culture' or flavor of Civ, Customizable flags
5. Palace View! (or equivalent - throne room would be nice)
6. Animated trade routes and piracy feature
7. Movement based not on world 'tiles', but like Rome Total War wherein a movement area is shown, based on the movement points of the unit
8. Random Events

 

[erik316wttn]

I'd like to see an option where Civs could start at different times. Not all of them would start right at 4000 B.C.

 

[Infantry#14]

I would like more civic options, new civic categories and maybe even subcivic within civics.

 

[ViterboKnight]

Religion is a delicate aspect, and Firaxis has clearly stated it, both in the manual and in the civilopedia. All the religions have intentionally been made identical, just to avoid problems from people. I think they should stay as they are: they are a way to "group" civs with strong alliances.

Some features I would like to see are:
- strategical functions for fortresses (like zones of control, line of sight, increasing borders, ecc.)
- more roleplay in naval battles, and a greater importance for air units, expecially against ships. Some special actions for subs (like, the ability to choose their target in a stack).
- a better balancement for the less used civics (serfdom, environmentalism, ecc), units (musketman,...) and wonders (eg, the Chicken Itza bonus should remain after all bombardments).

 

[flaming_iles]

I would like to have an option to split my research beakers between more than one technology at a time. You could use a slider like the overall science % one to set how much of the overall beakers one tech gets per turn.

 

[kniteowl]

I'd Like to see Unique National Wonders, although they'd need to add more national wonders as there are more Civs then National Wonders.

Example of of UNW, America - Whitehouse (Replaces Hermitage)
Effect - acts like another Forbidden Palace plus usual Hermitage bonuses.

i want to see a better UN. The idea has so much potential but it is seriously crap in Civ 4 lol. I would also like to be able to found a religion and just have that religion in my cities without having other religions creep in, even when you have theocracy if you research a tech that founds a religion it is in your city and that annoys me!

almeida_cohen

What's wrong with having more then 1 religion in your city, there's no downside, they're more beneficial then not having them.

under Free Religion you get +1 Happiness per Religion in a City.

Allows you Religion Specific Buildings
Eg
- Temples (+1 Happy)
- Monastary (+10% Research, allows Production of Missionaries)
- Cathedral (+3 Happy if under Specific State Religion and +50% Culutre which help in cultural Victories)

The Religion also Adds +1gold to your Shrine Holy City.
There's also line of sight if you hold the Holy City of a Particular Religion and Running that as a State Religion, where Religions have spread to Foreign Cities.

 

[cuchulain]

I agree, Civil War and Revoultion need to finally get put in.
Also, I feel that feudalism needs to be rethought. There was no central state in the middle ages, marriage played a role in politics, inheritance customs were of huge important, and the king often had little more power than his lords. I know that it would be real hard to implement these facets, but I think firaxis can do better than what they have now. Right now, all feudalism does is have a high upkeep and give you some free guys.

 

[Fronx]

What I would like to see is better turn-system to support multiplayer.

Yes, it is REALLY difficult thing to do, as civ currently is highly turn-based game.

Personally what I would think would be better would be something like in RISK (old boardgame as PC version, it has simultaneous attacking):

- First, all set their movement (units don't move yet, you just set where to move when you press end turn. Opponent does this too at the same time).
- When all have ended turn (or timer has ran out) the set movements happen
- If there is overlap (units move to same square or pass trough same square at same time) it is sorted out (fight. There could be even a "evade" modifier for units, roll dice so that they can go past a unit/stack unharmed that likely would have beaten you). In Risk this was called "borderclash", you attacked country B from country A, and your opponent from country B attacked at the same time to country A => they "clashed" at the borders of those countries. Funny thing happens if there is like 5 players, and 4 players attack the same country at the same time =)

Clarification: so I'm talking about turn system where all do their turn at the same time, but the results (movement) happens last, when no-one can anymore react to it (until in next turn).


This would remove, or atleast "standardize" the problems that current simultaneous turns generate in MP games, and might make MP more generally interesting to people. I think current system isn't really encouraging masses to play civ4 as multiplayer game (either long long long games because of turn-based rules, or exploit heavy "reaction-time-wins" with simultaneous system rules).

 

[rabidveggie]

That idea sounds overly confusing and frustrating. I would love to see civil war, and revolutions. That way if you piss your people off by whipping them a lot and only building a military you face the wraith of your people. Defeated Civs should have a chance to come back, that way you could not leave your back cities defenseless and during a war you would always be looking over your shoulder to make sure that your warmongering isn't weakening your empire internally.

 

[Skirmisher]

Add the concept of combat initiative

Combat between stacks of units should be resolved differently. Say you have two stacks each containing a spear unit, a horse unit, and a catapult unit. The way combat is resolved today the attacker is strangely the one lacking in initiative, because the attacker attacks the spear with his horse instead of the catapult which would be more natural. Meanwhile it is also not clear why the catapult would always attack the horse - a fast moving unit - and not the spearman.

Naturally any defender is not completely lacking in initiative. I just think it is unnatural that the defender always has the initiative. Therefore besides the combat resolution, the should be calculation which decides initiative. If the initiative falls to the attacking unit it will attack the enemy unit it is best suited to attacking. Initiative calculation would at its base be a simple 50/50 chance resolution, and could be modified by for instance the presence of a Great General, various terrain feaures, and unit promotions. Also a surprise attack should give a high initiative bonus (and a diplomatic penalty).

The downside to this system would be that one would simply produce the best units, since the advantages of unit combination is no longer so strong. This could be resolved by adding a flexibility rating for a stack of unit. Flexibility represents an armys capability of adapting to unforeseen attacks. For instance a sudden enemy flanking movement could better be countered by cavalry than infantry. So the flexibility rating should add initiative points to the units.

This might sound overly complex, but the computer does all calculation. As it is now the chance of succes is given in hard figures. This is very unnatural. Instead the combat advisor should simply inform of the chance of succes within range. For instance 25-50%, depending on who gains the initiative.