My vision for Civilization V

[DroopyTofu]

Sorry, I've been out of town for several days.

I have a couple of for a massive redesigning for Civ5. Get your guns, and get ready to shoot them down.

First: Just got BTS, and played the religious mod, loved it, and would like to see inquisitiors into regular gameplay. Once you've gotten a civ to convert, you can make an inquisition in thier capital city, and that will erase all other religions from their lands. Or, another option could be to send a missionairy to their capital, and get it spread, then an inquistion spreads it to all other cities.

I agree with rysmiel that converting an entire civ is over simplify it. I actually like the idea of converting percentages of a city, and giving the missionaries upgrades. Converting different amounts of a cities population could take different amounts of turnsl. I've been on missionary trips. You don't just walk into the city and say "Convert to Christianity" and everyone falls to their knees praying.

Spies can assissinate. If successful a spy can assassinate a unit on the same tile, a great person, or a great specialist.

I like this idea. It should take a modern age tech, like Industrialism or Rifling.I also wish you could give spies upgrades. Make it cost less esp. points, less chance of being caught, etc.

Rework the city system. Instead of building your city, then dotting the landscape with "terraforming" (used loosely), build a camp, and build your city improvements in the city territory. Each city has an influence border, and if engulfs the city center of another city, it becomes a state, and all improvements help both cities. The closer to the center something is built, the more effectively it works. Banks, barracks, granaries, etc. take one tile. Wonders take 4. They generate "x effects" per citizen, minus distance from city center, for all cities governing it. (Remember, if its a state, both cities govern it, but one is controlling). You can build multiple buildings in the same city.

I greatly dislike this. It would require to much micro-managing and is to much like a Sim City game, or Civilization, Rise of Rome. This does remind me of a game I found on the Internet over the weekend. Check it out. http://www.addictinggames.com/imperium.html

Walls have to be built tile by tile. Each tile has HP that increases the longer it stands. An attacking unit hits one time, in an effort to break them. A defending unit on the wall must be killed before damage is done to the wall directly. Taking the city center takes the whole city. If its a state capital, taking it takes the state. If its a civ capital, taking it takes the whole civ. All defending civs are still in play as long as resistance is still going on in at least one city.

I strongly agree here. One thing, having a wall should provide a defensive bonus to the unit on the other side(just to be clear, you can attack with no penalty from your own wall), and the def. bonus can be taken away by seige units(like normal walls on a city). The walls do not take up the entire tile. They are like rivers and only go between tiles.

Workers and units are generated in the city center. Workers generate a certain number of hammers, depending on the city they were generated in-current status. This would allow truly specialized cities.

Farms rotate yields. Medium, High, Medium, Low, each turn. Graineries store excess foods and food resources. One unit of food supplies 10 people, or 1 person 10 turns. Each resource has a storage facility. That way, if you get more than you use, either from harvesting the resource or trade, you can store surpluses. When you trade, you trade certain amounts, and they have a market value according to scarity. If corn is very plentiful, but you don't have any, you could buy it at 1 per unit per turn. Aluminum could be one tenth as plentiful and cost 10 per unit per turn.

Like I said earlier, to much micro-managing, and to confusing. Try Imperium.

Anger and sickness build. Once you start getting more of those then happiness and health, respectively, you start fostering revolt and plague. Having one city with plague or revolt causes anger in other cities. Plagues can spread via trade routes at a certain pace, and can infect other cities and units.

OK. I like this. Is this going with your idea of doctors?

Feel free to comment on any ideas I suggested!

 

[DroopyTofu]

What do you think of the idea of making products? Certain techs give you the ability to make certain products, assuming you have the right resoucres and buildings. Should that be part of the corporation? Found and spread the corporation, build a building, and then you can make products. Thes can then be trades for moneies or other products.
On that note, would it be better to be treated like an unlimited resources, or a certain number are generated by workers every x turns? If the later; once a corporation has been built, you can assign workers, who generate one product every X turns.

Isn't that how normal resources work? Certain techs unlock the resource, need them for a corporation, and are unlimited?

What about currency exchages? After currency, each civ gets thier own currency, and the more people/cities one civ has, the more weight that currency has. After building a wall street, you can buy other people's moneies, and help them grow.

I second the notion. It might even have a diplo effect.

What about priests? Preists can put a mystical aspect to religion. They have would have some ability corelating to the religion. Some ideas include:

Hindu: Karma-Cursed units automatically dies if kills another unit, lasts for X turns
Jewish: Famine-One city produces half food for X turns.
Christian: Resurrection-Targeted unit resurrects upon death.
Islam: Mardyr-Sacrifice priest to defeat all units on one tile.
Confusous: Folly-Cursed units loose all experience for X turns.
Toaism: Modesty-Cursed units loose 1 attack point for X turns-cumulative.
Buddihst: Peace-Removes all anger/rebellion from a city.

You could limit these to so many at a time. Also, a city can't make one if there is another religion in that city, so there has to be some way of "purifying" the city.

I wish different religions had different effects, but you get into politics and lawsuits very easily. Ex.

A Jewish person plays the game, "The effect of Islam is more powerful than Judaism, so you're saying that Islam is right and the Torah is wrong. I'm SUING!!!"

A Muslim person plays the game,"Not all Muslims are terrorist and suicide bombers. Most of us are peaceful. That hurts my feelings. I'm SUING!!!!"

A Christian plays the game, "I don't believe that priests can resurect people from the dead. Jesus was only able to do that through the power of God. Now people have a skewed view of Christianity. I'm SUING!!!!!!"


See where Sid could get into trouble. I've already heard rumors that Sid hates Jews because Isreal is not in the game. Remember, THESE ARE JUST RUMORS!!!

 

[rysmiel]

I have a silly idea. How about, in the industrial area, you can build an infinite monkey.

It has a 1 in (really big number) chance to win or loose the game randomly. And the more civs going, the more likely you are to randomly loose the game.

Well, that's taking the "random event" idea to its logical conclusion; I suppose it works to show what's wrong with that notion in the first place.

 

[Infinite Monkey]

That's a good point, but my counterpoint is these aren't arbitrary ideas. These are all based on their own holy scriptures.

Jesus wasn't the only leader to raise the dead.

God would strike kingdoms with famines.

Muslims do believe that dead during battle is honorable. Reseach the term "Shahid" which means someone who has died fighting for Islam. A Martyr, if you will.

So, while I admit it is a fine line, it could be argued that these are respectful if their faiths.

 

[DroopyTofu]

I wish that they would add some diversity and strategy to the different religions, like different spread rates, possibably movies (like those annoying wonder movies) when each religion is founded, etc. All in all, I agree with you, but even if it is based on the religions holy scripture, someone would find something to complain, and sue, about.

Spoiler :

Jesus wasn't the only leader to raise the dead.

Where in the Bible does it say that Jesus wasn't the only leader to raise the dead? I don't remember that.

 

[rysmiel]

I wish that they would add some diversity and strategy to the different religions, like different spread rates, possibably movies (like those annoying wonder movies) when each religion is founded, etc.

Just want to put in a very strong vote for not doing this. Religions being all the same is something Civ IV has got really right; I just wish Civ 5 would get rid of unique units and buildings and leader traits, but I doubt I am going to convince anyone of that one.

 

[Öjevind Lång]

I like this idea. It should take a modern age tech, like Industrialism or Rifling.I also wish you could give spies upgrades. Make it cost less esp. points, less chance of being caught, etc.

With all respect, no, no, no! The spies are enough of a major pain in the butt as it is. I think spies should be made much more expensive to produce; I do think that they should be able to get experience points, but a spy that becomes too overpowered should simply turn into as Great Spy.

And, as has said before, there should be a chance that you or the AI discover which nation was behind a successful outrage committed by a spy, and in peacetime this should be a valid cause for war without any diplomatic hurt to your reputation.

 

[Öjevind Lång]

Just want to put in a very strong vote for not doing this. Religions being all the same is something Civ IV has got really right; I just wish Civ 5 would get rid of unique units and buildings and leader traits, but I doubt I am going to convince anyone of that one.

Your suspicion is probably correct.

 

[DroopyTofu]

There is a chance that you or the AI will find out who sent the spy. If the AI finds out, who it was, it will have a negative diplo effect. Their is also a random event where you can declare war because of a spy.

 

[Infinite Monkey]

I have no problem with the initial cost of the spy going up, but I do think that any actions you do with a spy should be free. After all, you don't pay extra money for a swordsman to attack, a plane to bomb, a catapult to bombard, or an infintry to defend. Its part and parcel with generation.

What do you think of the idea of diverting money to building in cities that don't do so well to increase their output? ie: funnelling money into a hospital in a sick city generates more health.

 

[rysmiel]

I have no problem with the initial cost of the spy going up, but I do think that any actions you do with a spy should be free. After all, you don't pay extra money for a swordsman to attack, a plane to bomb, a catapult to bombard, or an infintry to defend. Its part and parcel with generation.

It depends on what the spy is doing.

A swordsman attacks with a certain attack strength, and that's all it does. The swordsman's chances of success are very diffent against, say, a warrior standing out in s grassland somewhere and a fortified musketeer behind a city wall, and the chances of victory for the swordsman reflect this.

Similarly, a spy spying on a size-1 city with nobody in it, and a size-24 city with half a dozen defensive units garrisoned, represent very different actions. You could implement it such that the spy has a much greater chance of success in the former case and much less in the latter; but it seems entirely reasonable to me that another way of representing this would be to treat it as the spy having to bribe their way through more, and more seriously organised, opposition, and therefore give make the larger city a much more expensive task. (At the extreme example, there would be something similar to the Civ III model where you can, for example, steal the plans to show where every unit in an opponent's entire empire is, and the amount that costs is liable to be most of your treasury even for a large and thriving late-industrial civilisation, so you have to build towards it as a major strategic goal for quite some time; high investment, high reward.)

I think I prefer the latter approach because it translates economic dominance directly into more useful espionage, rather than invoking a random element.

What do you think of the idea of diverting money to building in cities that don't do so well to increase their output? ie: funnelling money into a hospital in a sick city generates more health.

Rush-building buildings that help with the city's problems seems a reasonable solution to that, particularly in late game when you also have the option of corporate branches to beef them up; I'm not sure I see need for an additonal mechanism.

 

[Infinite Monkey]

It depends on what the spy is doing.

A swordsman attacks with a certain attack strength, and that's all it does. The swordsman's chances of success are very diffent against, say, a warrior standing out in s grassland somewhere and a fortified musketeer behind a city wall, and the chances of victory for the swordsman reflect this.

Similarly, a spy spying on a size-1 city with nobody in it, and a size-24 city with half a dozen defensive units garrisoned, represent very different actions. You could implement it such that the spy has a much greater chance of success in the former case and much less in the latter; but it seems entirely reasonable to me that another way of representing this would be to treat it as the spy having to bribe their way through more, and more seriously organised, opposition, and therefore give make the larger city a much more expensive task. (At the extreme example, there would be something similar to the Civ III model where you can, for example, steal the plans to show where every unit in an opponent's entire empire is, and the amount that costs is liable to be most of your treasury even for a large and thriving late-industrial civilisation, so you have to build towards it as a major strategic goal for quite some time; high investment, high reward.)

This is where the odds of success come in. Even when you have econimic dominiance, there's still the chance of you failing.

I think I prefer the latter approach because it translates economic dominance directly into more useful espionage, rather than invoking a random element.

Rush-building buildings that help with the city's problems seems a reasonable solution to that, particularly in late game when you also have the option of corporate branches to beef them up; I'm not sure I see need for an additonal mechanism.

I think you misunderstood. Not to hurry up and build them, but to increase their effect. In my example above, a hospital will only generate an arbitrary number of healths. If my city is so big, that I still have several sickness, why can't I spend money in that city to generate more healths, in increase the size of that city.

I just dislike how your cities are a victim of your location, and there's nothing you can do about it.

 

[rysmiel]

This is where the odds of success come in. Even when you have econimic dominiance, there's still the chance of you failing.

I'm not sure this should be the case, though. Or rather, if you can afford to spend 3,000 to get some result with 75% chance of success, being able to spend 7,000 to get the same result with 99% chance of success seems a resonable reward for managing your economy that much better.

I think you misunderstood. Not to hurry up and build them, but to increase their effect. In my example above, a hospital will only generate an arbitrary number of healths. If my city is so big, that I still have several sickness, why can't I spend money in that city to generate more healths, in increase the size of that city.

I'm not misunderstanding, I am disagreeing with the philosophical basis of your suggestion.

I would say the answer to a sickness problem with big cities is to put more options for health-increasing buildings in the game, such that you basically aren't ever going to reach a situation where you can't build enough to handle sickness (when tech permits).

The advantage this has over being able to throw money at a hospital is that it doesn't need any additional game mechanics or coding, just more options added to the current mechanism for city improvements,

I just dislike how your cities are a victim of your location, and there's nothing you can do about it.

It would be boring if one did not have to balance the benefits and drawbacks of any given city location, or if there were a simple optimal solution to that problem. Late game, though, I am all for terraforming options to allow you to reshape the terrain around each city into whatever you like, which would implicitly answer all the practical problems with location, no ?

 

[Infinite Monkey]

RE: odds of success

So, I guess we just aren't going to come to a compromize on this

RE: Arbitrary Number

Yeah, I can live with more optional building that increase health/work/money/food as the techs become available.

RE: Terraforming

An idea you and I see eye to eye. Can we get that included in the next version? What if we ask really, really nicely?

 

[rysmiel]

RE: Terraforming

An idea you and I see eye to eye. Can we get that included in the next version? What if we ask really, really nicely?

I would hope so, but comebody somewhere must have thought it was a good idea to take it out of Civ 2, so I am not overly hopeful of getting it back.

 

[Aserjiek]

Spies : Personally I rarely use them, but I do think their abilities should be incresed to civ 2 standards.
Terraforming : When I picked up civ 4 after playing civ 2 for 1 1/2 years, that was my biggest disappointment in the modern age. I do think that it should be restricted in some way though.

 

[DroopyTofu]

I got a random idea at church this week. I know it wouldn't work, but I'm going to throw it out for you all to rip to shreds. [joke].

Great Missionaries.
I haven't decided what thier stats would be, but possibly lots happiness for what ever religion they belong to (different state religions would generate different GM. ex. Christianity might have Paul, Peter, Timothy. Judaism might get someone like Danial.) They could also decrease the cost of normal missionaries, but inrease the cost of missionaries of other religions.
They would also have the option to spread the religion to, I don't know, maybe 10 cities to that religion. that would vary by map size and game speed.

 

[Infinite Monkey]

That's a pretty good idea. They could convert a certain number of random cities in a nation, and put a monistary in the city the go in to. If we follow that up with generating religion like culture, a certain number of people in a city would have one religion or another depending on the religion(s) in that city.

Missionaries or priests could add a certain number of religous points to convert people one way or another. If you have open borders, you could in effect have a non-declared religious war.

 

[rysmiel]

That's a pretty good idea. They could convert a certain number of random cities in a nation, and put a monistary in the city the go in to.

I like this, apart from the randomness; possibly have them convert a certain total amount of population (eg, either one size-6 city or half a dozen of the nearest size-1 cities ?)

If we follow that up with generating religion like culture, a certain number of people in a city would have one religion or another depending on the religion(s) in that city.

Definitely. I think religion should work as a component of culture, separately in some places, cumulatively in others; it would allow for improvements and things to have a range of possible effects, on religious culture only or secular culture only or total culture, in the same way that you can now have mechanics that affect the total trade of a city and others that effect only the amount directed into gold or science.

Missionaries or priests could add a certain number of religous points to convert people one way or another. If you have open borders, you could in effect have a non-declared religious war.

I don't know that you should need open borders for it, actually; make missionaries hidden-nationality instead ?

I can't recall whether I've said before, but I think there should be different levels of open borders, so that you can make an alliance with someone so that you can move troops across their territory and they can across yours to fight a common enemy without allowing them to run settlers across your territory to the site you're a turn or two away from putting your next city on. Open to missionaries/corporate execs without being open to military units should definitely be an option there.

I'd also like open borders/right of passage to not have to be bidirectional, so that if I have just beaten Montezuma to the point of suing for peace, I can require him to let me move forces through his territory without having to allow him to move through mine.

 

[DroopyTofu]

The reason that my idea wouldn't work is that you have normal scientist and you have Great Scientist. You have normal merchants, and you have Great Merchants. I don't see how you could work in a missionary into the game like you use artist/priests/merchants/scientist/etc. That would be to redundent with a priest.

On the subject of Missionaries, I have always wished that you could use a normal missionary to spread your religion in a civ that is running Theocracy or you don't have Open Borders with. Their would, of course, be a penalty, simalar to when you use a spy; chance of being caught, with a negative diplo hit
My defence to this is that missionaries will often go into a dangerous area to convert that population. Think about Christian Missionaries in China or the Middle East.