1. We have added a Gift Upgrades feature that allows you to gift an account upgrade to another member, just in time for the holiday season. You can see the gift option when going to the Account Upgrades screen, or on any user profile screen.
    Dismiss Notice

If civ5 were "civ4.5" what would you have changed from 4?

Discussion in 'Civ - Ideas & Suggestions' started by JohnnyW, Feb 26, 2011.

  1. JohnnyW

    JohnnyW Gave up on this game

    Joined:
    Oct 8, 2010
    Messages:
    658
    Location:
    USA
    -assume hexes are in
    -assume 1UPT is in
    -assume SPs are in (does not necessarily remove civics!)

    What would you have changed from 4 and added to the above 3 features to make civ5 a better game?

    ***Note: do not say better AI in any way because obviously we would all love that and it would be really hard to do so keep it to design features or specific gameplay issues.***

    ps, no flaming, trolling, etc. I'm really curious to see how people would have expanded from 4.
     
  2. Thormodr

    Thormodr Servant of Civ Supporter

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2005
    Messages:
    4,886
    Location:
    Vancouver, Canada
    Strategic resources being of a limited quantity would be a good addition.
     
  3. m4gill4

    m4gill4 King

    Joined:
    Aug 8, 2007
    Messages:
    772
    Location:
    CA
    Your constraints make your question tough to answer. Other than the AI, every gripe you ever hear about civ 5 has its roots in 1UPT.

    - Preventing "carpet of doom" is the reason behind the low tile yields, leading to "click next turn over and over syndrome"
    - It is also the reason production doesn't scale correctly with research leading to "I have a million buildings unlocked and can't build any of them syndrome"
    - It is the reason the last patch was full of nerfs, and probably the next one too.
    etc.

    The game described by the constraints in the OP can't be "civ 4.5" as you say, because what you describe is exactly Civ 5, for better or worse.
     
  4. ohioastronomy

    ohioastronomy King

    Joined:
    Dec 14, 2005
    Messages:
    714
    The lack of stacking is the fatal central flaw that makes Civ 5 the poor game that it is. So you're not actually allowing realistic answers to the question.

    My main problem with Civ 1 - Civ 4 was that the game took too long to resolve once the outcome was clear - it could take far too many hours to complete a game that was obviously won.

    My second was that you could build armies without limit - some restrictions on how many units you could build, or much stiffer costs to maintain them, could remove bloat.

    There were arguably too many buildings in more recent versions (Civ 4 especially); I'm comfortable with opportunity cost, but I could see my way to a bit less busywork in constructing good cities.

    Expanded foreign trade and more sophisticated diplomacy would add a real additional dimension - essentially boosting the non-war approach to the game or adding consequences for Mongol-horde approaches to gameplay.
     
  5. lschnarch

    lschnarch Emperor

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2010
    Messages:
    1,296
    Wrong assumption. 1upt is the cardinal flaw of Civ5.
    It doesn't scale with the map, it doesn't scale with production, it doesn't scale with research, it is just arbitrary.

    But, if for whatever crazy reason somebody would have forced me to keep it in, I would have moved it to a tactical battlescreen.
    On the main screen there still would have been stacks, although not unlimited ones but ones with a high enough cap (I am thinking of something like 15 - 25 units).

    Religion, espionage and economic warfare (corporations) would still be in the game, although in a changed form.
    A religion would not be founded by researching a tech but it would be founded by a Great Prophet. The Great Prophet would have been a product of cultural points accumulated. Religion after all is a cultural phenomenon.

    Espionage would get much of its points from trading routes. Additionally, you would have to spend a certain part of your GNP (commerce) and the resulting points would be determined by the average of your spending, counted over the last 100 (or whatever number of) turns.

    Corporations would have to interact wit civics and social policies.

    Social policies and civics would have an impact on international relationships. A republican democracy could still be on good terms with a fascist regime, but not become best friends with them.
    Due to their "eternal" nature, social policies would have to have much lower modifiers. No more "from now on you will get 50% more of this or that, regardless of what you're doing".

    Of course, all of this would have required to keep an at least working diplomacy, so the diplomacy system of Civ4 would have been kept (modified, where necessary).
    In addition, to allow the player to manage the more complex game, the UI would have been important. Civ5's clunky UI would never have come to life.

    These are elements which come to mind immediately and many of them mean "keep well thought items from Civ4 and don't try to "improve" them with the clumsy principles of Civ5".
    So, the question is less "what would you have changed" but "where would changes have been unavoidable".
     
  6. Windsor

    Windsor Flawless

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2008
    Messages:
    1,385
    Location:
    Norway
    Civ4 concepts and features I would have placed in Civ5(writing everything I would have changed from Civ4 is too much, better to take what I would have kept):

    - Diplomacy. I would have kept the visible and quantifiable modifiers together with diplo levels and the general philosophy of an AI that's pretty predictable. Of course, modifiers should be improved in terms of what to give a positive and negative reaction (and a lot of the things the Civ5-AI considers are reasonable) and the AI needs to consider military strength A LOT more than it does in Civ4 (so you can't survive with a single warrior as military). Also, I want modifiers that change more based on actions rather than the simple "it sticks" or "increased/decreased over time".

    - Trade routes. Simple in Civ4, I would have expanded on the possibility of a trade route economy. Culture should also spread through trade routes. In general, Civ4 system is not complex enough.

    - Local happiness and health. However I would have kept the finite resources from Civ5. Cities should buy luxury resources as they need them, giving the player a larger control of which cities that should benefit from additional resources.

    - City maintenance. Works well.

    - I would have kept commerce and therefore also the science slider. I'm not totally against science from population, and maybe you could have a hybrid. However the previous system is working well and I don't see much reason to change it.

    - The cottage-concept, and brought back some form of caste system to keep the specialist economy alive.

    - Great scientists should not be able to bulb the full techs if the tech is expensive.

    - OR-arrows in the tech tree(with AND-requirements listed) and allow dead-end techs.

    - Vassal states. I like these and it's a feature that I easily think could have been improved.

    - Religion would certainly be in. Like lschnarch I like the idea of prophets founding religions. In my game religions would start out generic and equal, but based upon what the followers are doing each religion would be able to get benefits/drawbacks. How much the AI likes/hate you because of religion should not simply be just a matter of personality + time, but also what happens with the religion. Some religions might only give a small happy bonus during peacetime and not be a religion the other AIs hate and so on.

    There's probably some more stuff I can't remember right now. Espionage and corporations would not have been in my game, after all a vanilla game can't have everything. From Civ5 city states and puppet cities would have been axed asap by me.
     
  7. joyous_gard

    joyous_gard Prince

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2010
    Messages:
    476
    Resources, tile improvements, more realistic map generation (actually forests, actual jungles separating civs), the buildings wouldn't linear and one dimensional (culture1 +2, culture2 +3, culture3 +4).

    Much better game.

    edit - also roads
     
  8. JamesCivFan

    JamesCivFan King

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2010
    Messages:
    604
    Location:
    Greece
    As people in this topic said correctly, civ5's major flaw is 1UPT.


    I believe they went way too far from infinite units per tile to only 1. They could at least test a limited number of units per tile.

    They could for example make the AI to tend to have balanced teams of units (something like an expanded version of civ3's armies, without the exploit of the AI not attacking you when you had them).

    That way I'm sure we would have nor stacks of doom and neither carpets of doom. Of course such an idea requires a lot of playtesting.
     
  9. JohnnyW

    JohnnyW Gave up on this game

    Joined:
    Oct 8, 2010
    Messages:
    658
    Location:
    USA
    I know I've said in several places that I don't think 1UPT could work on a civ scale, so what if they drastically increased the scale and made the maps much bigger and cities farther apart? Granted that wouldn't work with the F'd engine they have running the graphics now, but if they weren't so intensive it certainly would have a chance at working.

    I like how cities can defend themselves and how strategic resources are limited, so I would keep those from 5. I would, as others have said, made religions founded not by techs but through another mechanic. I didn't like how espionage worked in 4, so I would have totally redone it somehow. I also didn't like how you could use the sliders to change from 0-100%. I don't know if I would have reworked the sliders or removed them (after playing 5 I enjoy not having them, even if I'm not 100% fond of the research mechanics in game).
     
  10. awesome

    awesome Meme Lord

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2009
    Messages:
    2,768
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    behind you
    there was a limit to the number of units you could build in civ 1, it was somewhere around 120, but it was possible to get a few extra
     
  11. Camikaze

    Camikaze Administrator Administrator

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2008
    Messages:
    27,234
    Location:
    Sydney
    It's hard to answer this question. Civ5 is pretty different to Civ4. You're basically asking what further improvements on Civ4 there could be, not really what could be made into a new game. I wouldn't want Civ5 to be merely a patch of Civ4.

    To throw something out there, quantified resources. Oh and how about supply lines and more complex trade routes as well.
     
  12. kekekeke

    kekekeke Chieftain

    Joined:
    Sep 29, 2010
    Messages:
    70
    So if the starting point was Civ4 BTS with hexes instead of squares, 1UPT and SP
    1. unlimited stacking
    2. civics instead of SP

    I have really hard time thinking what would ADD to civ4 from civ5. Maybe features from some great civ4 mods but they are already in civ4 so.. oh well, I could try civ4 btw with hexes suppose. :)

    This is not trolling, but since you made me think about this..

    What does civ5 has what civ4 doesn't?
    -tactical combat
    -1upt
    -hexes
    -social policies
    -******** victory conditions
    -fancy graphics
    -speech that i hate
    -city states that i hate
    -fukking DRM that I indeed do hate, yes sir

    What civ4 has that I miss while playing civ5:
    -city health
    -city happiness
    -unit stacking
    -civics
    -diplomacy (sucks but still better)
    -transports instead of embarking
    -religion, espionage to a lesser extend
    -freedom to patch or not to patch (no fukking DRM forced in throat)

    probably forgot some
     
  13. Louis XXIV

    Louis XXIV Le Roi Soleil

    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2003
    Messages:
    13,579
    Location:
    Norfolk, VA
    I would keep unique abilities as a must. Definitely a breath of fresh air. I'd also probably get rid of corporations, since they never really worked well. I'd consider tweaking espionage and a few other things.
     
  14. Camikaze

    Camikaze Administrator Administrator

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2008
    Messages:
    27,234
    Location:
    Sydney
    @kekekeke- I find it interesting that you mention SPs as one of the two things you'd get rid of as a starting point. Why is that? I find SPs to be a great addition to the game.
     
  15. Louis XXIV

    Louis XXIV Le Roi Soleil

    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2003
    Messages:
    13,579
    Location:
    Norfolk, VA
    I think everybody disagrees on what the best and worst additions were.

    I think everyone agrees diplomacy is underwhelming and the nitty gritty details aren't as good (buildings and their effects, the tech tree, terrain). But then when you get to things like Civ specific abilities, One Unit Per Tile, Social Policies, City States, etc., people are far more divided.

    I think that's actually how I would handle it. Bring back Civ4 terrain and a modified Civ4 tech tree (modified to account for different Civs). Bring back Civ4 diplomacy (although I like the idea of Civ5 diplomacy, it hasn't worked in execution). Bring back religion. Keep 1upt, social policies, civ-specific abilities, and some form of City States (although they should be modified heavily to fit in with Civ4 diplomacy). I'd also try and find which Civ5 buildings are worth keeping as they are and which Civ4 buildings are better (I'd consider keeping some of the food production buildings over the growth increasing buildings).

    Also, while I wasn't a fan of city maintenance, I miss health, so I'd probably bring back the old expansion limit instead of global happiness (also in the interest of keeping it at Civ 4.5, and not Civ5).
     
  16. kekekeke

    kekekeke Chieftain

    Joined:
    Sep 29, 2010
    Messages:
    70
    City states are ok idea but imo they are implemented poorly. They are just moneywhores who rent bonuses for highest bidder. Diplomacy victory condition well, sucks too. Its not much of an issue though, since I can always turn number of city states to 0, which I do.

    Simply put city states are just too "gameish".
     
  17. Louis XXIV

    Louis XXIV Le Roi Soleil

    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2003
    Messages:
    13,579
    Location:
    Norfolk, VA
    SP would be Social Policies, not City States, no?
     
  18. Sonereal

    Sonereal ♫We got the guillotine♫ Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2008
    Messages:
    14,877
    I would've scrapped espionage and replaced religion with the system Lemmy and Binky were working on in the Civ5 Modding Discussion board (the thread isn't on the front page). Second, I would've make the corporation mechanic work like Afforess's does. Happiness would be replaced with stability/unrest. Bring back Civ4 diplomacy because, for all its flaws, it worked, but with the caveat that Realistic AI (again by Afforess) be made standard. I would keep 1UPT simply because its 30x better than stacking still.

    But in all honestly, the two game killers for me is happiness and diplomacy and I liked Civ 4's but I wouldn't mind improvements. I do mind them trying to reinvent the wheel.
     
  19. Camikaze

    Camikaze Administrator Administrator

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2008
    Messages:
    27,234
    Location:
    Sydney
    Yes, that was what I was assuming.

    If you were originally referring to city states, then I think that's probably a more valid complaint than against SPs, but I would still think that City States are one of the good new features of Civ5.
     
  20. Louis XXIV

    Louis XXIV Le Roi Soleil

    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2003
    Messages:
    13,579
    Location:
    Norfolk, VA
    I would keep them, but dramatically overhaul them. Basically, like how Civ4 overhauled Civ3's great leader system to make the current great person system.
     

Share This Page