Nitpicky Things You'd Like Fixed

City-States have too many long-lasting negative consequences if you deal with them harshly. I think they've lightened up the "war-monger" hate from Civs, it really would be nice to have it such that your conquering of a neighboring city-state in 1000 BC does not contribute to some other civ's opinion of you in 1900 AD.
For that matter, if I conquer another civ before either had contact with a third civ... the third civ should have no notion of me being a war-monger until they can account for something I've done while in contact with them.
I often get the war-monger label and deserve it in most of my games... but little things like this always have annoyed me.
 
My list:

City state defense/unit gifting quests need to remain viable even if they return to peace with the enemy.

City state bullying quests are really only achievable if the placement of the city state is convenient. Most the time on Immortal and Diety level I think how inopportune it would be to move a large enough army to actually demand tribute (and the window of time is too small as well)

The fact that you cannot pay to put a citizen on a tile/make workable a tile in your territory that is beyond the 3rd ring of your city. I'm a completionist and I want that damn fish out there in my border to be workable by my city.

The fact that sometimes you can't lock a citizen on a tile and must switch to the appropriate focus (food, production) to try and get the desired affect with that citizen. This is especially annoying surrounding lead up turns to starting a wonder or constructing a wonder itself.

Desert and tundra spawning too close together, especially near starting locations. This provides a "Sophie's Choice" when founding a pantheon that often leads to me re-rolling instead.

Barbarians spawning with advantage (often from an out of sight camp) and moving to capture a worker or attack a unit instantly. Camps themselves are an acceptable random event, but the priority move is akin to a disaster event in unpredictability and causing a change of plans.

The fact that there are no promotions to choose from when a spy levels up and that their sight radius remains the same.

The fact the the God of War pantheon belief is arguably a "God of Defense" in it's execution. To use it in war you must forward settle AND plan to get your pantheon or religion in that city asap (somehow?)

Leads me to my next nitpick - pantheon followers. Religion is just a big mess until religions are actually established. I still haven't figured out what's going on with the spread of pantheons. Sometimes you have the belief in all of your cities and sometimes you need to use a missionary. I also find it the opposite of fun, and thus a bad mechanic, that pantheon beliefs can be lost if someone's religion overpowers your pantheon before you can found a religion. They should persist as cultural flavor, much as superstitions do in the real world.

The displayed number for construction is not always mathematically pinpoint accurate (taking into account that factors such as happiness and golden ages have not changed during construction). I don't know how to reproduce or explain this one but it has infuriated me on occasion with the failure to construct a wonder. Perhaps it's only my imagination.

That you can't always build 2 of the same unit back to back in the same number of turns (i.e. workboat A takes 1 turn, workboat B requires 2 turns). I often switch to something else and just go back to building it in 1 turn much later citing "WTH?" as my reason. People constructing work boats should become more specialized if anything, not take literally twice as long the second time around.

That policy saving doesn't let you save free policies.

That no civ has a UA bonus based on the liberation mechanic (USA for example). This would be interesting because you can never know for sure the intentions, whether it was done for ethical reasons, diplomatic reasons, or purely for selfish reasons.

That no civ is naturally good at catching up at tech (Japan for example). The World Congress will offer a catch-up mechanic but I still like this idea for a civ like Japan. It could work like Ancient Regime did by tapering off late game and offering great historical flavor.

That no civ naturally favors the early annexation of cities. (Denmark would be great for this.) I suggest they retain a much greater portion of buildings upon capture. Perhaps in some way religion could work as a taper against this behavior as Christianity brought about a change about in the real Vikings.

That there is no mode of play that encourages remaining in each era for ongoing time-period tactics employing all the units (horsemen, composite bows, spearmen, galleys). Instead it is an arms race that often ignores parts of the tech tree, defying warfare conventions. (Yes I still intend this in lieu of there being a marathon speed).

Lastly, I think that as far as attacks being able to pillage tiles, I vote that that only be done by A-bombs, nukes, and GUIDED MISSILES. Give those crumby little missiles a purpose. They don't do splash damage so increase their viability.
 
Bring back city sounds like in IV, as well as the Religious sounds/themes.

Bring back the uniquie artwork that civs had as well as their workers etc.
 
Not being able to build two units back to back in the same number of turns has a simple (though not obvious) explanation: overflow.
 
Agree, though all techs of the liberating civ sounds odd. Maybe a free tech from the liberating civ and perhaps they get a tech boost based on what their conquering civ was receiving per turn while they were out of the game? I also think that certain buildings (science for example) should only be considered broken while a city is occupied. Regaining a lost city you already lose so many turns just by virtue of the pop loss, losing all of your science buildings (most likely by the city being captured twice) leaves you with a complete wash.

OK, how about all techs of the liberating civ minus the most recent in every branch?

About the science buildings, it aggravates the hell out of me to recapture a well developed city to find that everything substantial has been destroyed but I suppose it's my fault for failing to defend it in the first place...
 
Another thing:
Automating Workers... if they get to a point where there is nothing they can build they go hang out in a city. Then I decide I want to buy a Settler. But I can't because there is a worker there. So I select the worker to move him, but I can't because the game considers him already moved. Now I must wait a turn or pick another city that is hopefully convenient. It's annoying to the point that I often will move a Great General around my frontier cities, in peace time just to avoid this annoying bug.

That you can't always build 2 of the same unit back to back in the same number of turns (i.e. workboat A takes 1 turn, workboat B requires 2 turns). I often switch to something else and just go back to building it in 1 turn much later citing "WTH?" as my reason. People constructing work boats should become more specialized if anything, not take literally twice as long the second time around.
Doesn't the game spill-over extra hammers on followup projects? E.g. City produces 20 hammers per turn. You build a 35 hammer item. One turn for 20, then another turn for the remaining 15 == 2 turns. Next item already has 5 hammers (spillover). So that might affect what you're seeing with something small like a workboat.
 
Eliminate, or at least seriously lower, the influence hit for trespassing in CS territory. It's like -10 per turn. That's excessive.
 
Eliminate, or at least seriously lower, the influence hit for trespassing in CS territory. It's like -10 per turn. That's excessive.

I second this motion . . . especially if it's a Scout. I understand military units causing an influence hit, but who considers a Scout as a viable military option?
 
City state defense/unit gifting quests need to remain viable even if they return to peace with the enemy.

Basically, despite the improvements made by G&K all quests still suck. It's either stuff you'd have done anyway or stuff you'd never think of doing. Anyone ever altered their strategy for a quest after the early game? Personally, at best, and this is even with the Patronage tree fully researched and attempting to keep all CS allied, it has marginally influenced my choice of world wonders. For all else cash.
 
A couple of things I'd change:

•Option for a separation of church & state (SC&S): As of now religion and politics are one & the same. You can't capture a prophet or a missionary without declaring war. It would be cool if you could select a SC&S option (which you could not take back at all or easily). You could then capture foreign religious units without a war (and likewise your prophets, etc could be captured without the AI going to war with you.) Perhaps other changes of switching to SC&S would include not needing open borders to send in missionaries safely (not slowly eroding by being in foreign territory). Also losing the ability to use a prophet to permanently unveil the fog of war or use it to sight a city for a ranged attack. Capturing and/or deleting (executing) a religious unit should bring some sort of dilpo penalty (or even benefit if they oppose that religion) with all other civs. Also perhaps even cause an unhappiness hit in your own civ as you frighten or shock your own people at your brutality and lack of tolerance.

•Ability to gift units to other Civs
You can gift units to city states --- I'd love to have a "cold war" option of gifting other major Civs units.

•City States unswerving loyalty to a losing cause
City states who are at war with you because their ally is at war with you -- I wish you could still "talk" to them to try to either sway them to your cause or at least adopt neutrality and stop fighting you. At the very least, when a civ loses it's capital you should have a chance of some sort to have the option to make peace with city states jumping the sinking ship of their alliance.

• "Do that at your peril" option
It would be great to have an option on the diplo screen that worked by telling the other civ that if they commit some action (found a city near you, covert a one of your city's religion, etc) that you WILL declare war on them --- and then if they do the action; they get a warning "If you do this action then war is declared". DOW is automatic if action happens. I find the "Demand" section of the trade screen mostly useless at the moment so this would be one way to jazz that up a bit.

•More reasonable trading of resources
When an AI Civ has multiples of some resource but refuses to trade it without a king's ransom but will still give you all of their meager gold + their GPT for your extra resources.....just silly.
 
Have puppet-cities be a lighter or darker version of the conquering Civ's color. I like to to better represent the political relationship between the territories. Moreover, something similar should be done for allied city-states. Further, bring back the large world map. As someone that loves expanding my empire, I'd like to see a full-screen image of the world map, admiring what I have done. That's where I would like to look at the whole of the world, and deliberate and what I should do. Moreover, I would like there to be different filters for the world map, similar, but more refined than Civ IV. I liked seeing the geographic extent of my religion, as well as my boarders.

I feel a lot has been done since Civ V came out, to transform it from the liner, bare-bones, game it was; to the more detailed, and old school-eqse experience we love. Much of the future additions to the game can be take from older iterations, and refined. That's basically what happening, I hope BNW bring in the rest of the bulk of old school mechanics.
 
Also, bring back local unhappiness, and combine it with global unhappiness.

Your empire could still feel the effect of global unhappiness, but have certain cities be the hot-beds of the issue. Have large cities stop-producing, while having improvements damaged by riots. Also, bring back the pseudo-rocker anarchists as the iconoclasts.
 
I second this motion . . . especially if it's a Scout. I understand military units causing an influence hit, but who considers a Scout as a viable military option?
What makes it particularly obnoxious is that a unit set to "explore" has total disregard for the trespassing penalty, so it's easy to wind up deep in negative influence with a CS and not even be aware of it.
 
I second this motion . . . especially if it's a Scout. I understand military units causing an influence hit, but who considers a Scout as a viable military option?

Third. Motion is passed.

Seriously, every time I march an army through a CS I just conquer it. You either have to go around or throw money at if afterwards.
 
Too many builidings gets destroyed after you conquer a city. I's this CiV way for making up for arties/bombers lacking ability to destroy buildings when bombarding cities, as they could in Civ III

If the real world followed this CiV mechanism German would just about now be finishing granaries and monuments in their cities after they lost WW2.

I suggest that when you conquer a city some of it's buildings enters a damaged/ruined mode you don't get any benefits from them but It only cost 50% of the normal hammers/gold to re-build them.

Edit:
I second this motion . . . especially if it's a Scout. I understand military units causing an influence hit, but who considers a Scout as a viable military option?

Maybe make and option where you pay a small sum to have your units enter a city state for 5-10 turns to heal them quickly if the are far from friendly territory.

"You have discovered a city-state! The local ruler hails you and showers you with gold and gifts. "Praise you and you great leader, may we live in peace forever!!!.... now get the F*ck of my land!!!""
 
Too many builidings gets destroyed after you conquer a city. I's this CiV way for making up for arties/bombers lacking ability to destroy buildings when bombarding cities, as they could in Civ III

If the real world followed this CiV mechanism German would just about now be finishing granaries and monuments in their cities after they lost WW2.

I suggest that when you conquer a city some it's buildings enters a damaged/ruined mode you don't get any benefits from them but It only cost 50% of the normal hammers/gold to re-build them.

The regular bomber and siege weapons should do massive damage to city improvements. But once more advanced technology, like stealth bombers, are used, the chance of damage to non-military targets should decrease.
 
Also: You cannot demand another civilization to remove it's troops in your borders (even if it's many). And if a civ denounces you the only way to close borders is to declar war on it.
 
Also: You cannot demand another civilization to remove it's troops in your borders (even if it's many). And if a civ denounces you the only way to close borders is to declar war on it.

perhaps if any denouncement would end current trade agreements without preventing new trades. This would make denouncements more effective as people would have to think about potentially losing resourses or troop positions before doing it.
 
I'd like to be able to do things that the AI can do to me such as:

Ask a favor of Gold, resources etc.

Call them out on troops near my border.

I'd also like the "Lying about troops on the border" thing to not influence civs who have never met me before and not influence them Centuries after said event.

Knights should have a higher combat strength than the Longswordsmen, Medieval battles on the field were determined by the actions of the heavy cavalry. The way its set up now, I never even think of building early cavalry units unless its a UU unit like the Keshik
 
Back
Top Bottom