My Ideas for Improving the Series

[Osama Bin Davis]

I have been away from the forums for quite some time and only just started playing Civ 5 and thought I should get back into the community by sharing some Ideas that I had.

Now these have probably all been shared many times over, but I thought I would put them out there anyway to see what people think.

So I have been playing the series since the first and I think the 1 unit per tile system brought in by Civ V has been one of the best changes made.

I don't think allowing more units to a tile is needed, what is need is larger scale maps and higher supply drains to limit army sizes. And by larger scale maps I mean by 8 times what they are now.

If units cost food and more gold that grows larger as you go further from your borders it would keep armies smaller and make exploration a more tactical endeavor.

If you coupled this with the introduction of outposts and make it more expensive to create cities so you don't just have the world covered in cities. I think Cities should take up 7 hexs to make up for the larger map. At first you should only create a "village" and it grows into the 7 Hexs as the population grow, any resources would be taken over and that part of the city would provide the type of output. ie wheat would become a food district etc. This would also allow for more units to attack it, while making it easier to arrange your troops.

Technology needs to be fixed, it needs to be more fluid to allow for more choices. It should allow for less prerequisites and adaptable to each civ and their circumstances. I can't think of how to do it exactly but I am sure there is someone much smarter than me that could.

Say for example I may choose to ignore researching sailing early on, I may reach the WW2 era and be able to research submarines without knowing how to use sails. Does that make any sense?

Diplomacy needs a huge overhaul, while I would love to have a fully indepth diplomatic and personality system where the AI makes more decisions based on circumstance and long term planning. I think that is probably nigh impossible to do.

So what I suggest is going more simple, have randomised personality types for leaders that are done from the start of the game. Should with 12 AIs the breakdown should be 3 are warmongers, 1 is an explorer, 1 is only interested in technology, 3 are traders, 1 is all about culture, 1 is completely peaceful and will help everyone, 1 is all about espionage and gathering information and 1 is all uniting everyone through diplomacy.

The player wouldn't know who is what personality type and would have to meet with them and talk to them to understand the types.

From there it should be a simple points based system. Positive points for positive actions and Negative points for negative actions. The more positive the more aligned the civs are and the more negative the more hatred. With biased thrown in to account for the personality types and faiths.

Once you are close/allied for many years it would take a huge event for things to change, and if you were despised by a civ for many years it would take a huge act of positive to change things.

Take out the stupid negative points that used to happen at random for actions you can't control. The main thing is diplomacy needs to be somewhat predefined and more clear cut so the player understands what is happening, not all this behind the scenes nonsense that goes on now.

This would enusre there is a competitor for every type of victory, the diplomacy would be understood be player meaning they have more control thus making things more enjoyable

I think these changes it would kick the Civ series up a huge notch from being a great game to being close to perfect.

 

[9gkj548hkm20vk79dj689bnj4]

I don't think allowing more units to a tile is needed, what is need is larger scale maps and higher supply drains to limit army sizes. And by larger scale maps I mean by 8 times what they are now.

- You would then have to make unit movement much faster. You would then need map pins and waypoints so moving units up to the front lines isn't a chore. And as you say, cities would then have to take up more tiles. I personally don't have a problem with the map size as it currently is, but these are some considerations you have to keep in mind.
- Others have mentioned a "war weariness" mechanic, something that limits unit strength and happiness the longer a war goes on without any progress (ex: capturing cities). I imagine military supply would work in the same way. Building forts/outposts would help keep your army supplied. Of course, they would have to carry heavy maintenance costs.

Technology needs to be fixed, it needs to be more fluid to allow for more choices. It should allow for less prerequisites and adaptable to each civ and their circumstances. I can't think of how to do it exactly but I am sure there is someone much smarter than me that could.

I had the idea of partial-blind research. Techs within the era are visible, future eras are not visible, but once you reach a new era, the techs are mixed up. So basically every time you play, the tech tree is different.

Diplomacy needs a huge overhaul, while I would love to have a fully indepth diplomatic and personality system where the AI makes more decisions based on circumstance and long term planning. I think that is probably nigh impossible to do.

The main problem, just like in Civ 4, is that each diplomatic modifier is independently assigned a positive or negative number. Enough negative numbers, and the other civ will hate you no matter what you do. So you're basically whoring yourself to get enough positives just to be on another civ's good side. But there's huge a difference between how severe an issue is in and of itself and how much you care about it in the grand scope of things.
So there's only one one solution I see: you as a leader issuing a declaration of principles which assigns your own number value to the game's current diplomatic modifiers, similar to how you pledge to protect a city-state or promise not to settle cities near another civilization. You pick a diplomacy issue from a larger list that you think is important, give the issue your own number value, and you can reveal it to others the more you trade and make deals with them. Civs that are strangers will probably be only concerned with staying alive, whereas civs that are familiar with one another will care more about the mundane stuff...

 

[otaman1]

I have been away from the forums for quite some time and only just started playing Civ 5 and thought I should get back into the community by sharing some Ideas that I had.

Cool. Welcome back mate.

Now these have probably all been shared many times over, but I thought I would put them out there anyway to see what people think.

So I have been playing the series since the first and I think the 1 unit per tile system brought in by Civ V has been one of the best changes made.

Personally, I disagree. 1 unit per tile (UPT) is the main cause for freezes and lags.

I don't think allowing more units to a tile is needed, what is need is larger scale maps and higher supply drains to limit army sizes. And by larger scale maps I mean by 8 times what they are now.

Yep. I agree on the larger scale maps but those can be map sizes (titanic, colossus etc). I think army sizes are limited by how much population your empire has. When your army count exceeds your empire's population, production will slow.

If units cost food and more gold that grows larger as you go further from your borders it would keep armies smaller and make exploration a more tactical endeavor.

I've read this sentence 16 times and I still don't get it (English ain't my first language) but I totally agree.

If you coupled this with the introduction of outposts and make it more expensive to create cities so you don't just have the world covered in cities. I think Cities should take up 7 hexs to make up for the larger map. At first you should only create a "village" and it grows into the 7 Hexs as the population grow, any resources would be taken over and that part of the city would provide the type of output. ie wheat would become a food district etc. This would also allow for more units to attack it, while making it easier to arrange your troops.

This is starting to sound like those Paradox Games (Europa Universalis, Victoria, HOF etc) but I agree on the basis.

Technology needs to be fixed, it needs to be more fluid to allow for more choices. It should allow for less prerequisites and adaptable to each civ and their circumstances. I can't think of how to do it exactly but I am sure there is someone much smarter than me that could.

Say for example I may choose to ignore researching sailing early on, I may reach the WW2 era and be able to research submarines without knowing how to use sails. Does that make any sense?

I think in order for someone to know how to make submarines, they need to look into ships. In order for someone to know how to make ships, they need to look into mathematics and the beginnings of sailing. So um, if you want to skip sailing and go straight to submarine .. Well, I don't think that's possible. But if it is, then you're missing out on all those sea luxurious resources.

Diplomacy needs a huge overhaul, while I would love to have a fully indepth diplomatic and personality system where the AI makes more decisions based on circumstance and long term planning. I think that is probably nigh impossible to do.

So what I suggest is going more simple, have randomised personality types for leaders that are done from the start of the game. Should with 12 AIs the breakdown should be 3 are warmongers, 1 is an explorer, 1 is only interested in technology, 3 are traders, 1 is all about culture, 1 is completely peaceful and will help everyone, 1 is all about espionage and gathering information and 1 is all uniting everyone through diplomacy.

The player wouldn't know who is what personality type and would have to meet with them and talk to them to understand the types.

From there it should be a simple points based system. Positive points for positive actions and Negative points for negative actions. The more positive the more aligned the civs are and the more negative the more hatred. With biased thrown in to account for the personality types and faiths.

Once you are close/allied for many years it would take a huge event for things to change, and if you were despised by a civ for many years it would take a huge act of positive to change things.

Take out the stupid negative points that used to happen at random for actions you can't control. The main thing is diplomacy needs to be somewhat predefined and more clear cut so the player understands what is happening, not all this behind the scenes nonsense that goes on now.

This would enusre there is a competitor for every type of victory, the diplomacy would be understood be player meaning they have more control thus making things more enjoyable

Diplomacy has been improving ever since September of 2010. In BNW, diplomacy will be better than ever. Also, there's an option for random personalities.

I think these changes it would kick the Civ series up a huge notch from being a great game to being close to perfect.

Ja. Perfecto! But I dislike 1 UPT, maybe have up to like 3 UPT. I want multiple characters, character traits, random events, and all those awesome stuff back from cIV.