Let's make Civ 5

[Scilly_guy]

A better idea might be to break up future tech into a few fields: one which gives all cities +1 , one which gives all cities + 1 , one which gives all your units +5% strength, one which decreases the chance of your planes and nukes getting intercepted and increases your chances of intercepting enemy planes and nukes. These four future techs could be repeated like the singular future tech we have now.

Now that I like the idea of!

 

[Antilogic]

I'd like to see the colonization graphics, and more realistic mountains, and a battle mini-map, with basic battle organizing, a bit like on Spartan. I know this can slow everything down, and on Medieval 2, it was very tedious, especially the siege, which ended up too boring to bother with. So instead of ending up auto-resolving everything, some sort of basic unit/arrange/combat window... if i knew how, i would make such a mod. I suspect they will make a Civ 5, as it's been a few years now since Civ 4, and colonisation seems like it might be a step to Civ 5. I'd also like more realistiic images of the national leaders.. perhaps actors.

I'll stick with the animation. The Civ2 actors were goofy and hilarious for all of a few games, and then it just dragged on.

The problem with the battle map idea is, people are going to complain the AI doesn't fight battles well for them, and the players will feel obligated to use the battle map for even the long and boring sieges. The Civilization series has never been about tactical combat, where you control each unit's movement and operations. Instead, it has been about strategic combat, where you guide the overall allocation of resources and leave the details to your unseen generals who cause you to fall on one side or the other of the combat odds in the pop-up window. Civ5 should stay true to this focus--it's one of the things that makes a Civ game, well, a Civ game.

The idea to continue the techtree after the modern age instead of having repeating future techs is very good, however, many people feel civ is a game about history, and thus there should be no sf. A better idea might be to break up future tech into a few fields: one which gives all cities +1 , one which gives all cities + 1 , one which gives all your units +5% strength, one which decreases the chance of your planes and nukes getting intercepted and increases your chances of intercepting enemy planes and nukes. These four future techs could be repeated like the singular future tech we have now.

Wow, an intelligent and reasonable suggestion. I'm used to posting an argument against future tech ideas and Next War stuff in the standard game, but this is one I can get behind.

 

[Tholish]

Civ is about the trends of history, and how they repeat in each age with new cycles added each time. The infinite upward spiral. If it were about history it would attempt to be realistic.

As for battlemaps, they could be optional and if battles on the battlemap were a valid fun game in and of itself it would never be a drag that you always got dragged into it. Just a tripling (each hit point becoming a subunit on the battlemap, and the battleground becoming maybe a chessboard size map) would be not that different from managing a battle as now, which is pretty fun, only more so. Saying it would be a drag because it would be mandatory is assuming it would be a drag.

What might also be cool would be if there were something like an increasing scale, with each era rather than huge maps. What I mean is, the map size stays the same but with each era, the land area represented gets larger and everything loses detail and changes values to reflect. So when you start in the Ancient era you are a chief of a small tribe, establishing a kingdom among other tribes. The map represents only a small part of the world, so you have a modest sized kingdom once you conquer it all, or get into the Classical era. At that point, the everything changes, and the map triples in size. Now it is a region, and there are other kingdoms. What were cities are now merely towns. Areas that had lots of farms are now farms, others that had only a few merely have that record, like when a worker starts an imp and doesn't finish.

When you enter the middle ages the camera pulls back again, and you have an entire continent. Then in the Rennaissance you have the entire world. Maybe in the future it pulls back again.

OK, kind of like Spore, but done right, and more like a series of Civ scenarios automatically generated based on each other.

 

[Thorburne]

Civ is about the trends of history, and how they repeat in each age with new cycles added each time. The infinite upward spiral. If it were about history it would attempt to be realistic.

As for battlemaps, they could be optional and if battles on the battlemap were a valid fun game in and of itself it would never be a drag that you always got dragged into it. Just a tripling (each hit point becoming a subunit on the battlemap, and the battleground becoming maybe a chessboard size map) would be not that different from managing a battle as now, which is pretty fun, only more so. Saying it would be a drag because it would be mandatory is assuming it would be a drag.

What might also be cool would be if there were something like an increasing scale, with each era rather than huge maps. What I mean is, the map size stays the same but with each era, the land area represented gets larger and everything loses detail and changes values to reflect. So when you start in the Ancient era you are a chief of a small tribe, establishing a kingdom among other tribes. The map represents only a small part of the world, so you have a modest sized kingdom once you conquer it all, or get into the Classical era. At that point, the everything changes, and the map triples in size. Now it is a region, and there are other kingdoms. What were cities are now merely towns. Areas that had lots of farms are now farms, others that had only a few merely have that record, like when a worker starts an imp and doesn't finish.

When you enter the middle ages the camera pulls back again, and you have an entire continent. Then in the Rennaissance you have the entire world. Maybe in the future it pulls back again.

OK, kind of like Spore, but done right, and more like a series of Civ scenarios automatically generated based on each other.

You know, I was thinking about something similar myself. Kind of like a Civilization Campaign. Where you start with one civ starting in a small region. Using Rome as an example, you would begin on the Italian Peninsula, and surrounding areas, where you would be competing with the Etruscans and other people of that land. Once you've met a certain condition (or reached the classical age), you would reach the second stage. Now, the map is showing the entire mediteranean region (and maybe a bit more of Europe). Now you are facing off with a bunch of civs from that period, including Greece, Egypt, Judea, Gual, and Carthage. Then it goes on to expand the map with each additional stage to All of Europe with parts of Northern Africa and the Middle East, then stretching across the atlantic the the Eastern Americas, then, finally to the Entire world.

Transistions would consist of taking each surviving civ's capital, along with the largest cities (appropriately spaced) to the next map. Each civilization (and there would have to be a ton for alternative history buffs) would have their own maps, though, as it goes on, the number of maps would lessen with each expansion. The key would be in having good algorithims to calculate the transitions so that each map flows good and is not just a bunch of linked scenarios.

Oh, and depending on what Civ you pick, you will start at the time in history. In other words, picking America will start during the 16 or 17 hundred's with predefined (by the scenario creator) placements for cities and units.

I see this, not as the core game mechanics, but as its own scenario or campaign. The core gameplay could stay as it is, a seamless game on a single map.

 

[Tholish]

Civ 5 should have support for it, and a random versions and maybe one mod, but all the historical specifics should be left to modders and expansions. What I mean by random version is the first era map is 60 by 30 and represents the central 20 by 10 of the second era map. Its randomly generated terrain, with opponents whose faces come from a stock supply for the region and whose names come from a list--no need for detail here. The second era map gets you a mostly randomly generated map incorporating the old map as its central ninth, including new opponents. These kingdoms can be built on the spot using something like in Advanced start rather than autoplayed. And so forth. Only when you get to world scale, unless its a custom scenario, do you get standard leaders as rivals.

 

[V. Soma]

I like this idea of evolvong and developing maps during the game

 

[dualee14]

What about modern construction such as bridges across narrow sea straits--tunnels thru mountains--underwater settlements--irigation/terraforming to improve deserts/tundra--moving mountains to expand land mass...new techs for totally illiminating unhealthy conditions--new weapons platforms such as hovertanks which can move faster or farther and carry beam weapons

 

[dualee14]

Isn't it amazing that we are all so smart that we buy Sid's game to enjoy it and then complain that his genius isn't good enough to meet our expectations? Some of the suggestions "like in Rise of Nations"--don't complain--play Rise of Nations!!!!. Let Sid do what Sid does...make great games.

 

[Chutasynth]

Hello everyone, I become some tired about the ideas from forums. Too much repeated ideas and tons of pages and threads. Just for vacations I recently create a blog about my own Civ 5 ideas. You are welcome to read, debate or ignore my proposed improvements.

http://civ5.blogspot.com

Greetings from a South American Civilization fan.

 

[Scilly_guy]

Isn't it amazing that we are all so smart that we buy Sid's game to enjoy it and then complain that his genius isn't good enough to meet our expectations? Some of the suggestions "like in Rise of Nations"--don't complain--play Rise of Nations!!!!. Let Sid do what Sid does...make great games.

Are you sure people haven't got confused about the MOD that ships with Civ, possibly with BTS, called Ryhs and Fall, because I know that has come up somewhere-people getting confused about them.

Also I don't see anything wrong with people suggesting game mechanics that work in other games that are relative to civ.

 

[NapoleonIsBack]

On original post: Agree on 3D performance. After that, you are just going on and on with "MORE OF EVERYTHING".
The concept that is the most lacking right now is commerce, I find it way too simplistic and limited (barter with other nations, caravans and corp. late in the game).
How about specialized citizens with specific buildings, then grow concept with Guilds & Banking etc...
AND CIV4 is a GREAT game!

 

[Ramesses]

On original post: Agree on 3D performance. After that, you are just going on and on with "MORE OF EVERYTHING".
The concept that is the most lacking right now is commerce, I find it way too simplistic and limited (barter with other nations, caravans and corp. late in the game).
How about specialized citizens with specific buildings, then grow concept with Guilds & Banking etc...
AND CIV4 is a GREAT game!

I highly recommend that you check out this thread: "Wimsey's Economic Model"

It's a heavy read, for sure, but it's definitely the beginning of something good.

 

[NapoleonIsBack]

Than you Ramesses... I will check it out when my meeting is over !

 

[danielbrowne0]

The game needs to be made to fit reality - the closer it is to reality the better it will be

 

[danielbrowne0]

Hi all,
The best idea that could ever be done with the civilisation series is an increase in the strategic aspect of troop manuvering. Example? - in reality Alexander the great was able to take on huge armies and defeat them because he used his troops and the terrain to his advantage. How the Schlieffen Plan in WWI emulated Hannibal’s surrounding and defeating the larger force with a smaller but tactically superior force. I know that this exists now as in if you defend a mountain then you have more chance to win, but i know that most gamers simply build their units into a 'block of doom' and then move from one city to another. This is a shame yet is arguably the best tactic in a civilisation game...

But their needs to be a greater consideration with troops then simply marching them off. In the ancient era many generals faced problems with the natives constantly attacking their troops because the only way to feed the troops was to live off the land (therefore stealing from the locals). In the medieval world the biggest problem for generals was generating the necessary weaponry to defeat the enemy. If they didnt have a support base of workshops to supply good quality armour and swords a better equipped army could flatten even a vastly numerically superior force.
Take even the modern world for example. The American army (the most sophisticated and superior army ever) has been defeated in a war yet never lost a single battle! Veitnam and Iraq being similar situations.

I firmly believe that something needs to be done about this situation. This would change the game drastically yet also increase its lifelike appeal.
Suggestions I might make

1) - Troop support needs to be totally different from how it currently is run. Lines of support with the cities in the empire must be maintained or the troops suffer losses to their hit points. This also needs to change with each era and troop type. EG - if a unit of machine gunners supply is cut then they run out of bullets! But if a warrior unit is deployed from the city it can live off the land as far as (say) 20 spaces before vegetation changes so much that it cant survive and it receives hits to its life points.
(This is similar to how in Civ II sailing boats could go away from the coast but it was a tad risky)

2) - Battles need to be taken strategically. This could be as simple as each side given options of tactics before the battle in regards to the terrain or strategic objectives that they want to attempt to achieve. Taking into account such things as troop types and numbers and positions.

3) - Wars need to be entered into with strategic objectives. Noone ever fights a war for no reason. When war is declared a screen asks what the player is attempting to do. EG - Capture territory. Punish an annoying leader. Obtain certain resources. Capture as a Vassal state. etc... (Defensively these options need to be given after the attacker states his objectives - this could also be done in regards to the level of espionage that the defending civ has over the attacker [eg knowing what he is attempting to do or having to guess]) When the option is selected like random events in Civ IV certain objectives need to be presented with a certain time limit. If these can be achieved reward options need to be installed.

I personally think that war is the best state to be in to win civilisation. You need to be constantly thinking how the next expansion is going to happen. This is in itself a flaw because i do enjoy a good economic race to the finish line as well as anything.
With myself (and I’m sure many other gamers) I enjoy civ because of the imagination that the game brings to my mind. I love history and while I play this game I give my civilisation a little historical narrative. This is the best part of the game but if you start emphasising with your citizens and also the world as a whole, you sometimes find it hard to launch them into a massive war that would see you no doubt victorius but the world devastated. (Reducing size 25 cities to size 5 does kinda make me feel somewhat worse than Hitler). I believe that their needs to be an increase in the incentive towards peace. More than stable economic growth. I am not sure what tho…
Maybe peacekeeping missions from the UN could be backed up with military options?
Their also needs to be an increase in the roles that allied civilisations can take in a war. Economic support for troops? I dont know...
What would also be cool would be once modern economic theory is developed two civilisations that are trading affect each others economies. EG – China in the world of today would never have achieved such growth if it hadn’t been supported by demand from already developed nations…
Making this game as much as possible like the reality of the world will only make the game more complicated, but I think that is what people want. If you cant figure it out, go and play rise of nations or a first person shooter…
This is Civ 5 and its about having the control of the world at your fingertips…

How do you incorporate this in the civ game? I do not know.
I leave the thinking to the next civ Fanatic...

 

[Skallagrimson]

Noone ever fights a war for no reason.

Except perhaps George W. Bush.

 

[thepowersupply]

I also think resources should be handled more realistically. One oil resource isn't going to power your whole civ. Also on that note, the player should have the ability to choose alternatives to a resource he lacks. For example, in WWII Germany didn't have enough oil for their vehicle fleets and experimented with alcohol and early versions of ethanol fuels as alternatives.

 

[Camikaze]

Firstly, welcome to the forums thepowersupply.

Secondly, whilst I agree that the resource system needs to be made more complex, I think that this would be going too far. It would mean numerous ersatz options for all resources, that would still need to be included as resources, albeit inferior. It would greatly clutter the map, and be pretty complicated. However, it could work if the whole improvement and resource system is overhauled.

 

[exhile]

I also think resources should be handled more realistically. One oil resource isn't going to power your whole civ. Also on that note, the player should have the ability to choose alternatives to a resource he lacks. For example, in WWII Germany didn't have enough oil for their vehicle fleets and experimented with alcohol and early versions of ethanol fuels as alternatives.

The whole point of the game is to make certain resources scarce on the map. This leads to trading or warfare for that resource. For example, aluminum is a resource that can't be found in East Asia so I have to either trade it for something or capture the areas of Northern Australia or Central Russia to acquire it. Understand that different resources appear during certain eras as well. I'm not sure why rubber was removed from Civ4 but it was in Civ3. Perhaps a longer list of energy resources, material resources, luxury goods, and foods, and can be added to Civ5

 

[Naokaukodem]

I wonder if nowadays countries with oil know how to extract it. Because if i'm right, most of the extracting companies are occidental, and have a huge percentage on oil price, like 70%. If that is right, I think that it should be reflected in the game.