My vision for Civilization V

[Naokaukodem]

imagine every civ starting out with just one city, and lots of tightly packed neutral cities everywhere. these cities will join you if your culture reaches them or if you invade or buy them. so instead of building a settler to get your border closer to your rival, take all the cities there. the minimum distance between cities should be smaller. and if you really want that one and only iron out in the tundra, you'll have to wait until you got some late game civic that allows to force people into a new area. this makes sense since people living in 3000bc didn't go found cities like that they just build near food. as i've said you dont need a governor in every city. non-governor cities should pay maintenence to the closest governor city. good idea?

This looks like exactly an idea of mine... in a letter to Firaxis (that I didnt' finished yet), I suggested (not sure if i will keep it) to purely delete settlers. Goody huts would be replaced by true civs, and there would even be more civs than goody huts in the other Civs. Then, the player could visit them, them giving rumours, gold, techs, just like indian civs in Colonization. But, more importantly, they could convert to our civ. First, they would be pretty influencable, and may convert if you build an early wonder. (that would enhance the importance of early wonders, proposing more strategic choices to the player) They would also be influencable about your power rating, but not only, your effective conquests also. Some war could trigger a chain reaction of civs converting to your.
Of course, in this system, culture should be more malleable. I mean, you could convert more easily if you have a strong culture, and culture should not be managed like in Civ3/4, but like religions in Civ4 (with more spreading cohesion). Culture would spread through plains, rivers, seas, roads, air (modern time), etc.
It would for sure enhance the role of culture, and add a whole new strategic layer to the game.

As to your other suggestions, added to this one, i think like Rysmiel that it would change the game too much in one hit. (although I find them good)

 

[rysmiel]

Rest assured, I will quote you on this, in the future, repeatedly.

If you quote it against me I shall pout.

("C'est magnifique, mais c'est pas Civ" is a slightly different sentiment, I think.)

 

[devcayer]

I really like all of your ideas. What do you think if for espionage missions, the game could switch into a first person mode, a little along the lines of like Rome:Total War for battle scenes, you get to actually battle with some strategy. I was thinking for espionage missions, if you can switch into first person mode, you can actually control your spy wandering through the city, and you can assassinate their leader, or blow up a building and escape, or poision their water supply and escape, etc. it might be a bit much, but I think it would be a cool extra feature.

Yes, I know, not enough time has passed since Civ4 to think about Civ5, but I decided it would entertain many to speculate on the features of a Civilization V. Below, I've written my first draft of my vision for the next Civilization.

GRAPHICS

3D graphics, just like Civ4 now. However, terrain tiles would not have to look square; they could have diagonal as well as horizontal and vertical edges. This would make coastlines, highlands, and other terrain features look more realistic.

The player could rotate, zoom, and pitch the game camera, giving him or her a dynamic view of the game world.

Water could reflect boats and coastal cities.

Each unit would look like a whole army or workforce, with hundreds of people, instead of a wimpy one to three people.

ESPIONAGE

You could have spies to infiltrate other civilizations' cities. They could steal technology from enemies, or plant bombs that go off and reduce an enemy city's population. Or they could spread propaganda so that an enemy's civilians turn against their government and take over the city, which would turn to your rule.

Alternatively, your spies could enter an ally's city and spread propaganda against an enemy, so that the ally will grow hostile towards your enemy to the point of willing to attack that enemy alongside you.

TECHNOLOGICAL DIFFUSION

If your civilization has cities next to those of another civilization, that civilization's discoveries may "diffuse" into your own territory, and you would thus gain that technology without having to research it or beg your neighbor for it. Diffusion wouldn't occur between civilizations hostile to each other.

COLONIES

Colonies would return, so you could take control of resources far from your own territory. However, a resource would benefit you more if it lay in your own land (e.g. luxury resources would add more to happiness, unit creation relying on strategic resources would take less time, and bonus resources would provide a bigger bonus).

TWO PROJECTS PER CITY

You could have a city working on two projects at the same time, to get things done more quickly. A city may train one unit and build one building at the same time. This would let people solve crowding issues without having to postpone building projects.

MORE THAN ONE TECH AT ONCE

Your researchers could work on multiple technologies (up to four) at the same time. However, the more techs you research at any given time, the more money you spend on research, and not all research projects would necessarily end simultaneously.

MOVEMENT BONUSES PROVIDED BY RIVERS

Units move much faster alongside rivers, though this bonus increases for downriver as opposed to upriver movement.

RANDOM MAP SCRIPT: EARTH

Similar to Civ4's Terrra, the Earth script would generate an exact replica of Earth, though players could adjust the size just as they could any other script. Civs may begin in their historical locations or in very different locations; the players have that option.

AGES

Players could choose at what age they begin their game at. The game would have 6 ages: Prehistory, Antiquity, Enlightenment, Age of Industry, Modernity, and the Future (lightsabers, blasters, and spaceships, oh my!).

CIVILIZATIONS AND CULTURE GROUPS

I have classified my civilizations into several culture groups: African, Middle Eastern, Northern European, Southern European, Far Eastern, and American. Civilizations within a culture group share similar architecture and unit appearances (African units have brown skin, European units have pale skin and blond hair, etc.). Civilizations also have easier relations with others of the same culture group.

Each civilization also has its own personality. A civilization may have the following personality traits: aggressive (militaristic and prone to war-mongering), artistic (emphasizing culture and the arts), scientific (investing heavily in science and progress), religious (emphasizing religion and theology), industrious (working harder and getting jobs done at a faster rate), commercial (emphasizing commerce and wealth),
adventurous (emphasizing expansion and exploration), seafaring (emphasizing ships and navies), and organized (emphasizing civic-related research and government stability).

African
Egypt
Led by Hatshepsut
Industrious, artistic
Unique Unit: Chariot Archer
Bantustan (Bantu peoples; apologies for lumping them together)
Led by Cethswayo
Aggressive, organized
Unique Unit: Impi
Songhay
Led by Sunni Ali
Commercial, religious
Unique Unit: Songhay Knight
Ethiopia
Led by Menelik
Religious, artistic
Unique Unit: Oromo Horseman
Kush
Led by Taharqa
Industrious, aggressive
Unique Unit: Medjay Archer
South/West Asian
Israel
Led by Solomon
Aggressive, religious
Unique Unit: Makkabi
Babylon
Led by Hammurabi
Artistic, organized
Unique Unit: Bowman
India
Led by Asoka
Religious, industrious
Unique Unit: Mahout (think war elephant)
Arabia
Led by Abu Bakr
Scientific, adventurous
Unique Unit: Camel Rider
Turkey
Led by Suleiman
Commercial, organized
Unique Unit: Basilica Cannon
Persia
Led by Darius
Religious, adventurous
Unique Unit: Immortal
European
Spain
Led by Ferdinand
Seafaring, adventurous
Unique Unit: Conquistidor
Greece
Led by Leonidas
Scientific, organized
Unique Unit: Hoplite
Rome
Led by Augustus
Scientific, adventurous
Unique Unit: Legionary
Celtia
Led by Arthur
Aggressive, artistic
Unique Unit: Woad Warrior
Germania
Led by Barbarossa
Organized, industrious
Unique Unit: Stormtrooper
Scandinavia
Led by Ragnar
Aggressive, seafaring
Unique Unit: Berserker
Russia
Led by Ivan the Terrible
Organized, scientific
Unique Unit: Red Troops
East Asian
China
Led by Qin
Religious, organized
Unique Unit: Dragon Song Cannon
Japan
Lead by Tokugawa
Commercial, aggressive
Unique Unit: Kamikaze
Korea
Led by Wang Kon
Religious, seafaring
Unique Unit: Turtle Ship
Cambodia
Led by Suryavarman II
Commercial, adventurous
Unique Unit: Siege Crossbow on top of an Elephant
Mongolia
Led by Genghis Khan
Aggressive, adventurous
Unique Unit: Keshik
American
Iroquois
Led by Hiawatha
Organized, adventurous
Unique Unit: Tomahawk Warrior
Mexico
Led by Montezuma
Aggressive, religious
Unique Unit: Jaguar Warrior
Maya
Led by Pacal
Industrious, aggressive
Unique Unit: Guerrilla
Inca
Led by Parachuti
Commercial, adventurous
Unique Unit: Chasqui Scout

LEADERHEADS

Each civilization would have a leaderhead that dresses differently for each age. What would Hiawatha look like as the President of the United States in 2006? How about Lenana as an Enlightened despot?

I will update this later; feedback and suggestions encouraged strongly!

 

[rysmiel]

I really like all of your ideas. What do you think if for espionage missions, the game could switch into a first person mode, a little along the lines of like Rome:Total War for battle scenes, you get to actually battle with some strategy.

I think it would be utterly hateful to me to have that in Civ, because it's a completely different sort of game in which I have no interest whatsoever.

(Well, you asked.)

 

[Henrique Syvert]

Have anyone of you played Europa Universalis? It has some elements which would fit perfectly into Civilization V. The research system there is much better, investing some of your montly earnings into research in different areas, Land military, Navy, Trade and Infrastructure. of course to civilization we would add some categories. also a new water type would be nice, Mediterranean waters (another name of course) in which galley like ships would gain a bonus. supply things: you cant have an army of 10000 soldiers out in the desert with no food, you need a supply line. supply lines should not be able to go thru jungle and desert, neither will troops. exploration stuff. if you play on earth as any civ you should not know half the world in 100bc. exploration needs to be limited to certain units, such as the scout or you need a great explorer guy who can be attached to a unit. when you have found uninhabitated land you can send colonists. sending theese will cost gold. you will automatically generate colonists, at a faster rate if you are near the coast and such. when you have sent enough colonists to an area they will form cities there and act normally. trade. the world should be divided into trade groups. depending on how big the trade gruops is it will generate more money. by placing your merchants at one of these centers on trade you will earn a procent of that sum. the cost for placing merchants should vary depending on if you're nation is part of that trade group and on what kind of culture you got, more expensive to place merchant at baghdad if you're german.

i think thats all, most ideas from Europe Universalis II. great game, try it.

 

[Antilogic]

I've played EU3, and it doesn't always translate well into Civ. Part of the problem is the fixed provinces and fixed starting positions, which is simply the nature of the game.

I actually I don't think the EU research would mesh well with Civ. It's just too limited; what category are aircraft going to fall into? The specific advances of Civ4 still enable structures, give bonuses to movement (like Engineering and roads), enable new units, etc. without running into these logic problems.

I can see giving particular ship types, like galleys and triremes, bonuses along coastlines and on inland lakes while giving square-rigged big ships advantages on the open ocean. That's not too bad and can even be modded in now.

Supply lines are something that have been endlessly debated on the Civ boards, and its not something that has an easy consensus. As for colonists--well, we do have settler units you construct already. If anything, you are talking more about how units should be created: although the upkeep is gold, should the recruitment cost be gold or hammers?

I've stolen several EU3 event ideas and translated them into Civ.

 

[maximusrexmundi]

Sorry if I am repeating an idea, but it has always bothered me that as the city grows, its boundaries stay in the same square. I think it would be more realistic, and add to an an idea I read that instead of settlers, you conquer existing cities, if you did something similar to the suburb phenomenon. For example, a city now occupies one tile, and controls an added 20. What if after level 10, the 4 middle tiles in the outer segments of control (if that makes sense? You know, there are 8 adjacent, then a pseudo-square missing corners around that? The tiles in the middle of those 4 segments) become 'suburbs' that are similar to cities, but can grow in population and once they reach a certain number, 'join' the host city, and the cycle continues on an on, so that eventually, a city could in fact cover a continent. The boundaries of dominance would then grow accordingly (perhaps using the same method of control as when cultures expand?). This way you wouldnt get an absurd amount of cities, but instead 5 or 6 "mega-cities" that act as a collection of minor cities and their hosts. The city control screen would then be much more versatile and in depth.
Back to how this could tie to the existing city idea, because your cities are now ever expanding, you dont need to worry about the distance in between the cities, as all those tiles will eventually be useful and under your direct control. At end-game, the surface of the world would look almost like one giant city (Star Wars fans are laughing right now).
As to how conquering would work, you could have it be sort of a central defense idea, similar to old medieval towns. The outlying towns would not get the full bonus from say a wall, but the central town/city would have an extra bonus depending on how many suburb/town areas it has under its control. When you conquer a suburb, you either have the option of integrating it into your nearby city, pillaging it, or if you want to take the risk, giving it the title of city, and seeing what you can do with a city surrounded entirely by your enemy.
edit:
to clarify on the way it would expand I made a sort of diagram (1 is first generation suburb, 2 is second, and so on)
4 - - - 3 - - - 4
- - - - - - - - -
- - 2 - 1 - 2 - -
- - - - - - - - -
3 - 1 - C - 1 - 3
- - - - - - - - -
- - 2 - 1 - 2 - -
- - - - - - - - -
4 - - - 3 - - - 4

 

[DroopyTofu]

I think that would be fun, but unlike Star Wars, you don't have other planets used entirly for agriculture that you can use to send more food to you city planet. If your planet ended up like that, you wouldn't have any gold or production, and everyone would starve from lack of farming area.

I used to think expanding cities would be cool, but the way it was explained to me is that in the game, one city is supposed to represent an entire region. If you build London on an earth map, that represents most of England. You can build a city to the north to represent Scotland, and a city in Ireland to represent that region. Madrid is usually the only city on Iberia, and is able to use most of the land on the penninsula. Cottages that grow, and thier evolutions, represent suburbs. At least, that's how I understand that.

One thing that's always bugged me, and still does, is that cities should be able to somehow go across a river. If you zoom in really close, you can see that small sections of a city go outside of the normal tile, and occasionally cross it, but I think more of the city should cross the river.

 

[Labyrinthine]

Remove Israel from the map!

 

[exhile]

Israel was never on any Civ Earth map to begin with.

 

[maximusrexmundi]

I think that would be fun, but unlike Star Wars, you don't have other planets used entirly for agriculture that you can use to send more food to you city planet. If your planet ended up like that, you wouldn't have any gold or production, and everyone would starve from lack of farming area.

Yeah, I guess that IS true, but it if followed the diagram that I presented, you could see that by 4th gen city, there is a 3 tile gap that would be like the 'rural' area. By the time it was 5th gen, that would be 5 workable tiles in between 'small towns'. There could be a cap on what generation it can get, so lets just take 5 as the max. Then you could plan things out accordingly to get your outermost rural areas to just touch. It would make endgame strategy rely almost entirely on early planning because, as you said, if they over -lap, they will run out of food.

 

[CivMyWay]

It may have already been suggested, but wouldn't Abraham or Moses be good figureheads for Israel (even moreso than Solomon)?

 

[PeteAtoms]

It may have already been suggested, but wouldn't Abraham or Moses be good figureheads for Israel (even moreso than Solomon)?

Was Moses really a leader of the Israel state though? Sure he may have led the ex-slaves out of Egypt, but did he establish the state of Israel? Sure he and Abraham were important cultural leaders, I dunno...

I think Solomon or David would be a good choice for an Israeli civilization.

 

[Whaleyland]

Was Moses really a leader of the Israel state though? Sure he may have led the ex-slaves out of Egypt, but did he establish the state of Israel? Sure he and Abraham were important cultural leaders, I dunno...

I think Solomon or David would be a good choice for an Israeli civilization.

According to both the Bible and some historians, Moses didn't found much of anything. The Hebrew peoples were already in existence and were not really a unified state. In fact, even after Moses (then Joshua) brought them into Canaan, they were not the State of Israel in any form. Perhaps the Confederation of Hebrew Tribes, but certainly not Israel, just merely a conglomeration of mostly Jacob-descended individuals living in close proximity to (but not among) each other.

Saul, David, or Solomon are really the only options for the ancient Kingdom of Israel. Prior to that time they were not unified, only related, and after that time Israel was divided between the northern kingdom (Israel/Samaria) and the southern kingdom (Judah). Personally, I'd vote for David and Solomon for the leader heads for an ancient Israel state. No one likes Saul. He's like the Neville Chamberlain to Winston Churchill.