new features

[whizkid07]

So, I've been thinking about new features for civ V. I've come up with one, and I want to hear your ideas. Please include a description for confusing features. So, here's mine:

Unlockable civs
(civs that you don't get
at the start of the game
and you get them by achieving certain things,
ie beating the game with Germany unlocks
Austria.)

__________________________________________________________________________

this in my first post!!!! congratulations me!!!!!!!!
__________________________________________________________________________

This post is mine, for it bears my marking

 

[Lillefix]

Unlocking things is so console.

I want trade options. Loads of them. And caravans.

edit: And welcome to the board.

 

[whizkid07]

Oh, in this thread you can also say your ideas for new civs, units, expansion packs, and city improvements(that includes wonders)

expansion: forgotten warriors
theme: powerful,yet rarely mentioned civs.
new civs:
olmecs
austrians
polynesians
macedonians

and i think that some greek city-states could be individual civs
ie sparta, athens, thebes
________________________________________________________________

This post is mine, for it bears my marking

 

[Mango Elephant]

I want Pirates.

 

[ori]

Moderator Action: moved to civ ideas

welcome to CFC

 

[Mustakrakish]

Two ideas that might have been suggested already by someone (because I don't find these ideas particularly unique).

Lots of text so stay with me...

First: National scale projects

Big projects like The Great Wall or SDI shouldn't be built in cities, it doesn't make sense. It's time Civilization took it a bit further. Imagine that besides the usual city builds there was a "National Project" built that wouldn't be tied to some city.

For example you have 3 cities, Washington, New York and Boston. All of them are building Granaries (just to simplify the example). You decide to start a national project, The Great Wall. You open the national project screen and choose The Great Wall. Now it won't have it's own production (hammers), instead you can donate production from any and all of your cities without interrupting the current production in them.

So let's say Washington produces 19 per turn, New York 13 per turn, Boston 14 per turn. You decide to donate 9 from Washington, 11 from New York and 5 from Boston. So you have 9+11+5= 25 per turn towards the national project while granary in Washington is built 10 per turn, 2 in New York and 9 in Boston.

This would require those project to cost a lot of to balance it out.



Second is something that was cast down by cfc users as "Blah, total war simulator!"

So instead of one unit per tile rule, let's say 5 unit max per tile. When your 5 units engage let's say 4 enemy units on a grassland, the battlefield will zoom into a little hex grid grassland field 10x20 or something and units will be placed in opposing formations (a la one unit per tile rule) and the battle will go the "Heroes of Might and Magic" style with the ability to withdraw.

 

[Frank Drebin]

i think civ is replayable enough without unlocking things.

 

[duckofspades]

So, I've been thinking about new features for civ V. I've come up with one, and I want to hear your ideas. Please include a description for confusing features. So, here's mine:

Unlockable civs
(civs that you don't get
at the start of the game
and you get them by achieving certain things,
ie beating the game with Germany unlocks
Austria.)

__________________________________________________________________________

this in my first post!!!! congratulations me!!!!!!!!

I can't stand unlockable things. I don't see the value of paying for a product and not have full acsess to it, regardless of have much you play it.

 

[bestrfcplayer]

I can't stand unlockable things. I don't see the value of paying for a product and not have full acsess to it, regardless of have much you play it.

Agree. Unlockables are the worst!

 

[whizkid07]

Agree. Unlockables are the worst!

Well what do you got?
________________________________________________________________________-
this post is mine, for it bears my marking

 

[Frank Drebin]

i would like to see unit raising independent from production.
speed would be tied to civics and available able bodied population.

 

[sonofkong]

Small civs which you can trade with and declare war on as well as acting like standard civs but are limited to one city. All the forgotten civs could take the place.

 

[Frank Drebin]

Small civs which you can trade with and declare war on as well as acting like standard civs but are limited to one city. All the forgotten civs could take the place.

this will actually be in ciV.

 

[whizkid07]

this will actually be in ciV.

ya isnt that pretty much a barbarian? and i didnt say that the forgotten warriors are weak!
_________________________________________________________________________
this post is mine, for it bears my marking

 

[Khan Quest]

Two ideas that might have been suggested already by someone (because I don't find these ideas particularly unique).

Lots of text so stay with me...

First: National scale projects

Big projects like The Great Wall or SDI shouldn't be built in cities, it doesn't make sense. It's time Civilization took it a bit further. Imagine that besides the usual city builds there was a "National Project" built that wouldn't be tied to some city.

For example you have 3 cities, Washington, New York and Boston. All of them are building Granaries (just to simplify the example). You decide to start a national project, The Great Wall. You open the national project screen and choose The Great Wall. Now it won't have it's own production (hammers), instead you can donate production from any and all of your cities without interrupting the current production in them.

So let's say Washington produces 19 per turn, New York 13 per turn, Boston 14 per turn. You decide to donate 9 from Washington, 11 from New York and 5 from Boston. So you have 9+11+5= 25 per turn towards the national project while granary in Washington is built 10 per turn, 2 in New York and 9 in Boston.

This would require those project to cost a lot of to balance it out.

I think this would give an unfair advantage to larger civs.

Second is something that was cast down by cfc users as "Blah, total war simulator!"

So instead of one unit per tile rule, let's say 5 unit max per tile. When your 5 units engage let's say 4 enemy units on a grassland, the battlefield will zoom into a little hex grid grassland field 10x20 or something and units will be placed in opposing formations (a la one unit per tile rule) and the battle will go the "Heroes of Might and Magic" style with the ability to withdraw.

This has been debated before. I think the general concesus is that it would be way too time-consuming.

 

[Robo-Star]

I can't stand unlockable things. I don't see the value of paying for a product and not have full acsess to it, regardless of have much you play it.

That's what cheat-codes are for...or so I've heard.
-

I think this would give an unfair advantage to larger civs.

How so?

 

[revengeofmakno]

"Barbarians" have been interpreted as mobs of bandits when in fact they are better interpreted as civilizations that are prone to movement and aggressiveness. Historically, wandering barbarians were often desperate people who were driven to embrace aggressiveness. There should be room for negotiation and various kinds of bribes and offers including land to settle in (after which, they might assimilate or they might move again depending on what happens and how they are treated). It would open up all sorts of interesting and entertaining possibilities that parallel history (e.g. Hungary, Bulgaria, various Turkish and Germanic peoples).

This is DISTINCT from city states which are a good idea.

Fleeing survivors of a razed city or destroyed civilization is another dimension to be considered.

Also pirates, as mentioned earlier have to be there! They could be handled as a kind of barbarian.

 

[TheDS]

Welcome to the forums!

You've got a couple good ideas in there.

Unlockable content is generally kind of console-y; most computer gamers don't go for that. I think it would be interesting to try it out, if done right. Unlockable civs would work well as a reward for trying different kinds of strategies (or winning the game different ways than your usual way). Win the game via culture, get acess to a civ that's good at culture wins. Win with diplomacy, unlock a civ good at diplomacy wins. Etc.

But we'll also have to disguise it. When you go online to the Civ marketplace to buy new DLC, these "reward" civs will have as their cost that you must do such and such in one of your games. This defeats the appearance that you don't have access to your full game, since it's an add-on that you can buy if you want, or get it free by simply doing something in your game.

I know trading cities somehow got abused in earlier Civs, but I'd like to see it possible to do it. I'd also like to strike bargains when trying to get peace. Maybe I just haven't kicked enough butt to get them to hand over that juicy city I want, and maybe all they needed was a city they've cut off and a few pieces of gold to get them to part with it.

But otherwise, I'd like there to be different kinds of trade routes. Frex: Having a water route is one type, being able to use a road is another type, and being able to run rails is another type. Highway might count as another type if you want to go that far. Being connected by a road gives a city 1 trade route, connecting by sea gives them 2 more trade routes, and connecting by rail gives them a fourth trade route (to use Civ4's parlance). Alternately, each of them could make the existing Civ4 trade routes worth more money, the same way a Harbor and Customs House do now. Sure, it means island cities doesn't get as much trade value as continental cities, and cities off the capital's continent might want to make use of the Forbidden Palace to make their money back.

I hope that wasn't confusing. I need a nappy nap.