Sullla Discovers the Major Fault Behind Civ V: The Death of Civ?

[Sullla]

If you guys are interested in seeing some of these mechanics play out over the course of a game-in-progress, we're starting up a Deity succession game with the hapless Ottomans. You can follow it over in the succession game forum at the following link: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=392335 Thought that the information might appeal to some people here.

 

[pi-r8]

So you admit that this would be a simple fix for ICS. That rather scuppers your original statement

This is true at least for the version of ICS as you and Sulla have shown it to be possible with small cities. The colloseum is the vital building and hence weak point in your scheme and a fix to it can control the practical rate of expansion and city sizes.

With a fix like this, would it even be worth going for an extreme version of ICS, like you and Sulla did, by saving up culture for SPs and then suddenly unleashing a horde of settlers? It seems to me that a more gradual rate of expansion is favoured since cities take quite a long time to grow to size 8 (or 9 for option 2).

You'd still want as many cities as possible, to boost everything except for happiness. You just wouldn't be able to do it forever like you can now, so you'd have to stop at some point. Wait for them to grow and build some theaters too. But it would still be in your best interest to build a lot of cities, because of all the other advantages. It's the difference between giving an incentive for vertical growth, and simply forcing you to do that because of an artificial boundary on horizontal growth.

I do think changing the coloseum (and the other happiness buildings) would be a good start, I just don't think it would be enough by itself to encourage vertical growth.

 

[Zogar]

Huh? Firaxis already said they are improving the worker AI calculations for the next patch.

I'm skeptical all the same. There's not only 1 problem with the worker AI for it to take so much time.

I believe it when I see it (actually, if this is really true I would actually have more faith in a modder to fix this than a Firaxis employee).

Check this link for an obvious proof. Some brief results :

300 (three hundred) combat units, consisting of approximately 200 warriors, 60 archers, 20 spearmen and 20 catapults :
Turn times were : 22s. 4s. 4s. 3s. 3s. 11s. 40s. 35s. 35s. 41s. 38s. 37s. 35s.
200 Workers, 25 cities 1m01. 52s. 39s. 37s. 42s. 53s. 54s. 54s. 45s. 49s. 52s.
200 Workers, 50 cities: 1m44. 1m37. 1m34. 1m43. 1m50. 1m37. 1m25. 1m26. 1m49. 3m14. 2m24.
200 Workers, 50 cities, double cultural tiles (mostly useless tiles in fact): 2m50. 3m10. 3m20. 3m10. 3m40.

I'm trying to find another thread that was even more relevant.

There is this fix to improve game speed a lot.

 

[Vellis]

You'd still want as many cities as possible, to boost everything except for happiness. You just wouldn't be able to do it forever like you can now, so you'd have to stop at some point. Wait for them to grow and build some theaters too. But it would still be in your best interest to build a lot of cities, because of all the other advantages. It's the difference between giving an incentive for vertical growth, and simply forcing you to do that because of an artificial boundary on horizontal growth.

I do think changing the coloseum (and the other happiness buildings) would be a good start, I just don't think it would be enough by itself to encourage vertical growth.

I personally would consider this to be a "fix". You don't want to eliminate city spam as a strategy, you want to balance it in accordance with fewer larger cities. If you make new cities always cost some degree of unhappiness rather than being free resources that's an incentive to grow bigger in itself, especially if Colloseums and Maritime food were fixed to grow in relation to city populations. I guess the root cause of the ICS problem is that too many of the low tier bonuses use static values instead of scaling multipliers, since the Library specialist slots contribute to the problem too.

 

[cracked]

Offhand, I think the idea would be to limit free sprawl, but allow for large, developed sprawl. Namely, your large core cities need to have buildings/produce resources that fuel your continued outward expansion. Currently, that is not the case because you can deal with the happiness constraint without needing to develop your core significantly. So, the happiness mechanic needs some revision, obviously.

This would be the "oh god I live in a hole" penalty.

Simple enough to implement. Along with the unhappy generated by pop and cities, you would add.

= 2(C^2)/p.

C is the number of cities settled after your capital (conquered cities are excluded, but not their population, even if they have courthouses) while P is your total population (excluding puppets).

The idea is that, starting out, this wouldn't affect you particularly badly.

Your capital would obviously excluded.

Your second city wouldn't impact that greatly because your population would level the penalty out entirely.

In fact, it only starts to impact once you start building a silly number of small population cities, or when 2(c^2) starts becoming larger than your total population.

And this would actually encourage players not to burn cities they take and seek to annexe them.

So for an empire that's balanced in terms of its population:

100 pop over ten cities: would be a penalty of 1 extra unhappy. I.e. not a big deal.

100 pop over 25 cities: would be a penalty of 12 extra unhappy.

I don't think you could make the penalty greater without breaking the game in the other direction.

For the indians, you would have to change things slightly: 4C^2/(pop/2)

Other things to balance the game;

Cities cannot be traded in lieu of peace. (stops the AI from being ********).

You would have to add a research penalty should you become unhappy.

Make theatres and stadia more effective: produce more but for the same price they currently are: but Colleseums slightly less effective (+3 instead of 4.

So theatres could give you 5

Stadiums could give you 7

This would make building larger cities worthwhile.

And on the extreme end: prevent cities being built closer than four tiles apart (reduces the defensive viability of ICS).

I personally wouldn't wish to discourage ICS entirely: it's an option if you find yourself on an isoalted start: and as stated in a previous thread, it doesn't always gaurantee victory.

ICS can also make it more difficult to obtain social policies.

Besides, if you run your empire effectively why should you be penalised just for having a large number of cities? Why should horizontal expansion be so difficult as to be absolutely prohibited?

What I would hope to discourage through this is the negative play that often characterizes a sucessful strategy on civ V. (razing other civs cities etc).

 

[ohioastronomy]

You'd still want as many cities as possible, to boost everything except for happiness. You just wouldn't be able to do it forever like you can now, so you'd have to stop at some point. Wait for them to grow and build some theaters too. But it would still be in your best interest to build a lot of cities, because of all the other advantages. It's the difference between giving an incentive for vertical growth, and simply forcing you to do that because of an artificial boundary on horizontal growth.

I do think changing the coloseum (and the other happiness buildings) would be a good start, I just don't think it would be enough by itself to encourage vertical growth.

You need to make larger cities grow faster if you want to make it harder to have many small cities.

And also increase tile yields plus lower city state food; and make buildings cheaper, for heaven's sake, with lower maintenance for advanced buildings.

 

[Zogar]

OP is a bit dramatic I think =p

It should read "Sulla discovers some balance faults in civ that can be easily fixed". As mentioned earlier, nerf Colloseums and Maritime food and it will slow ICS in comparison to large city development. It's been obvious for a long time that Great Scientists need to be nerfed. Fix those two issues and ICS becomes a strategy instead of the strategy.

Also, I find it interesting that Sulla states he hits the industrial age while his military is still in the stone age when not being able to focus research in the new tech tree has been a constant complaint from the naysayers since day one

I would rather say "Sulla discovers a lot of balance faults in civ that can be dubiously fixed, but won't before a long time because there are so many other things to fix as well "

Especially, nerfing Colloseum and Maritime food is not a small balance change, and will affect notably the early game, for both the player and the AI (don't forget that the next happiness building, circus excepted, comes very late in the game, that's the main problem I encounter when I want to build my big cities empire). The way happiness is managed needs to change, that's a major change, and so won't be done any time soon (if done at all). The ICS is not the only flaw in the game, in his 4 commented games he points out most of the biggest problems in Civ 5, ICS is only the "cerise sur le gateau" (sorry, don't know the equivalent in english).

Now I will have the usual counter argument "Civ 4 took a long of time to be fixed". That's true, but the problems seem more numerous, and we expected more content.

@cracked : you should stop making one sentence and skipping one line . Your solution for extra unhappiness is interesting but too complicated, firaxis wants to make the game more simple, not the opposite . I would increase the coefficient also, 25 cities with 4 people each bringing 12 extra unhappiness is not enough, you need at least to double it to have any effect. Something in C^3/4p (or C^3/6p) would give 39 (26) extra unhapiness, seems better, wheras 10 cities for 100 pop only 3 (2) when rounded upwards. Razing other civs will always be the better option until the puppets stop making useless and costly buildings / the courthouses have lower costs.

 

[Eberon]

= 2(C^2)/p.

C is the number of cities settled after your capital (conquered cities are excluded, but not their population, even if they have courthouses) while P is your total population (excluding puppets).

The idea is that, starting out, this wouldn't affect you particularly badly.

Your capital would obviously excluded.

Your second city wouldn't impact that greatly because your population would level the penalty out entirely.

In fact, it only starts to impact once you start building a silly number of small population cities, or when 2(c^2) starts becoming larger than your total population.

And this would actually encourage players not to burn cities they take and seek to annexe them.

So for an empire that's balanced in terms of its population:

100 pop over ten cities: would be a penalty of 1 extra unhappy. I.e. not a big deal.

100 pop over 25 cities: would be a penalty of 12 extra unhappy.

People seem to think that ICS has a problem with happiness. It doesnt. I run 40-80 to the good in happiness when I play ICS. It runs a little shorter durring periods of quick expansion but if I stop for a few turns it jumps right back up there.

If they decide they want to try this I am not against it. I am just going to tell you right now that it is not going to have a drastic effect on ICS. If it were me (and for now it is) I wouldnt even try to fix ICS. What I might do is add some benefits to being smaller. Perhaps CS and SP could provide fixed bonuses that of course grow with era that get divided evenly among your cities.

Cities cannot be traded in lieu of peace. (stops the AI from being ********).

Thats a heavy handed fix. AI were perfectly capable of trading cities in previous civ games without the kind of issues we have been seeing in CiV. In Civ IV civs would often rather die that give up a crappy city. I dont know if they need to be made to value their cities more or if it requires a stronger approach like putting a cap on how many cities a civ can trade at once. But I do think that diplomatic options like this should not be removed. We have so few as it is.

And on the extreme end: prevent cities being built closer than four tiles apart (reduces the defensive viability of ICS).

This seems very extreme to me but it would in fact drive the biggest stake into my personal ICS style. Pushing those cities 1 tile farther apart means I have to build 1 more road to reach them which cuts their cash generation. It also would drastically limit the number of cities I could cram into an area meaning my ICS would have to sprawl a lot more in order to be effective.

ICS can also make it more difficult to obtain social policies.

In my current ICS game I am on turn 744 of a marathon game. I have only 8 SP. I am at about 8500 of 20000 to my next SP Making 214/turn. I am severely crippled in the SP area. But I am about to finish off the tech tree in the early 1700s. I am making almost 700/turn in gold without a golden age. I am running about 30 happy right now because I am expanding my cities alot. So SP are very limited with an ICS strategy.

Besides, if you run your empire effectively why should you be penalised just for having a large number of cities? Why should horizontal expansion be so difficult as to be absolutely prohibited?

What I would hope to discourage through this is the negative play that often characterizes a sucessful strategy on civ V. (razing other civs cities etc).

ICS is just a symptom of the global happiness mechanic and will never be solved IMHO while the mechanic exists.

Also I would like to say that I was done with this game. I was so freakin bored that I couldnt see straight. I was taking a lot more naps... seriously. Then I discovered ICS. It gave the game a new depth. It gave me something to micromanage. All of a sudden I went from getting ready to shelve this game to playing it non stop. This gameplay isnt as deep and interesting as previous civs so I am sure that once I have tweaked and played this strategy about 10 more times I will finaly be done with CiV until an expansion changes things drasticaly.

 

[ohioastronomy]

the ICS is not the only flaw in the game, in his 4 commented games he points out most of the biggest problems in Civ 5, ICS is only the "cerise sur le gateau" (sorry, don't know the equivalent in english).

The cherry on the cake would be literal. A colloquial equivalent would be the tip of the iceberg.

 

[apotheoser]

The cherry on the cake would be literal. A colloquial equivalent would be the tip of the iceberg.

Not exactly. I think the "cherry on top" is just fine as a literal translation.

"Tip of the iceberg" implies hidden problems. If ICS is the one thing you immediately see, and the AI problems came later, then ICS would be "tip of the iceberg". In this case it's quite the opposite. The AI problems are the "tip of the iceberg", as they're immediately noticeable yet there are many other problems lurking beneath as well.

Maybe a better one would be "the icing on the cake" or "the last straw" - just that thing that finishes it off. A "cherry on top" is something that finishes the sundae, or is like the most extreme, like "pretty please with a cherry on top?"

 

[cracked]

@ Eberon

Can't really fault any of the points you make old chap: most of the suggestions were more tongue in cheek than anything. The reason for the name of the penalty in the first point. Facetious, ultimately: when writing these things it helps to know posh ways of expressing smutty ideas

I tend to space things out for the sake of clarity: makes things easier to read for old people such as yours truly. I wonder if flaming myself is allowed? Wouldn't want a yellow card from the moderators now, would I?

There is, however a serious point.

The game is moddable by this community. If an aspect of the game is not to your liking then it can be changed. Much of the criticism has bordered on the "melodramatic" shall we say. Very little has been constructive. It's good that there is such passion around the game: definitely a positive thing. Slamming the game without offering positive ways of solving the problems with it is unlikely to lead to a positive result.

And most of the complaints are not that the game is too complex: it is that it's too simple and that the exploits present offer too great a disadvantage to those who do not use them. This essentially leads to other tactics seeming to be prohibitive because of their lack of effectiveness by comparison with ICS.

Which lead to two obvious conclusions: either introduce a penalty to those who use ICS or improve the effectiveness with which other tactics can be employed. i.e. make the game more balanced. Doing so without introducing some degree of complexity will not be easy. I would personally suggests positive benefits to using other tactics rather than penalties for having too many cities. Adjusting city growth mechanics could be positive, while improving the benfits of some of the kind of buildings you shall naturally want in big cities.

If you really want the game to be as you wish, then some kind of consensus within the community as to what practical changes will improve the game need to be reached. I strongly suspect that ICS as a viable tactic was not the intention of the developers: and this suggests poor design. But simply slating it with no suggestions for improvements are going to be treated by the developers as facetious

I do feel for Jhon Schaeffer (or whatever his name is). He gets to design a game for a franchise he loves and then has to deal with some pretty aggressive and destructive criticism. Either way, he will learn from the experience. But a negative, hyper critical approach is not going to encourage him to respond positively. The fact that a mongol DLC is being released free to those who are members of this site, precisely because it was asked for, suggests that the guy will listen and do what he can (obviously when he can as well).

Where consensus does not exist: don't expect to get anywhere. This will mean convincing those who currently like the game that changes will enhance their experience. This should not be considered too much effort for those seeking positive change.

This doesn't just mean highlighting the problems with the AI, but promoting changes that would improve it.

As to your most intelligent point, that happiness is not a problem for those using ICS strategies: I suspect that the lack of drawbacks for using such a tactic is the reason why people believe that the happiness mechanic is broken. I suspect that the solution would be to ensure that more advanced buildings have a greater impact upon the effectiveness of producing science, gold, hammers, happiness. Not just ensuring that a city can grow more easily. That way, a city with a pop of 24 can more effectively compete with 6 cities with a population of 4. I think this would represent a better solution than simply nerfing ICS (and could allow for a very effective combination of strategies).

Anyway, in keeping with my more general attitude to forums...

It's facetious, facetious, facetious, facetious, facetious.

'Cos as it sais in my sig......

 

[C~G]

The game is moddable by this community. If an aspect of the game is not to your liking then it can be changed. Much of the criticism has bordered on the "melodramatic" shall we say. Very little has been constructive. It's good that there is such passion around the game: definitely a positive thing. Slamming the game without offering positive ways of solving the problems with it is unlikely to lead to a positive result.

I do feel for Jhon Schaeffer (or whatever his name is). He gets to design a game for a franchise he loves and then has to deal with some pretty aggressive and destructive criticism. Either way, he will learn from the experience. But a negative, hyper critical approach is not going to encourage him to respond positively. The fact that a mongol DLC is being released free to those who are members of this site, precisely because it was asked for, suggests that the guy will listen and do what he can (obviously when he can as well).
.

If someone FUs something, he should be criticized.

No amount of modding or patching will make it workable and it's stupid to demand the fans to be more positive about something that simply has anything positive to offer compared the last installment.

Thank god I didn't put my money on this crap.

Some Mongol civ sounds like freaking joke. Why to add one headlight to car that has no wheels?

The game as it stands now is beyond all "let's make it all better by being positive and constructive". It's FUBAR.

But those who enjoy that kids streamlined console game without AI.
Be my guest. Good God.

 

[UncleJJ]

You'd still want as many cities as possible, to boost everything except for happiness. You just wouldn't be able to do it forever like you can now, so you'd have to stop at some point. Wait for them to grow and build some theaters too. But it would still be in your best interest to build a lot of cities, because of all the other advantages. It's the difference between giving an incentive for vertical growth, and simply forcing you to do that because of an artificial boundary on horizontal growth.

I do think changing the coloseum (and the other happiness buildings) would be a good start, I just don't think it would be enough by itself to encourage vertical growth.

I'm not sure rapidly expanding the number of cities is always a good thing even if you can solve the happiness problem by using theaters as well as colosseums. A large number of cities means that few if any SPs will be gained after the expansion. Is having more SPs more useful than the extra gold and beakers a lot of middle sized cities can provide? That will depend on the map, game speed, intended victory condition and overall game strategy. I don't want to play the same way in every game either by using a modified version of ICS or a horseman rush or whatever else is overpowered. I want strategic depth and several viable choices.

To encourage bigger cities then the amount of food needed to grow needs to be reduced either by changing the algorithm or by making buildings like the Hospital that save some food available earlier in the tech tree.

Here are the amounts of food currently needed to grow for a standard speed game

Size	Food	Total
1	15	0
2	22	15
3	30	37
4	40	67
5	51	107
		
6	63	158
7	76	221
8	90	297
9	105	387
10	121	492
		
11	138	613
12	155	751
13	174	906
14	194	1080
15	214	1274
		
16	235	1488
17	258	1723
18	280	1981
19	304	2261
20	329	2565

It takes 107 food to grow to size 5, then another 385 to grow to size 10, then another 782 to grow to size 15 and a further 1291 to grow to size 20. I see no good reason why the cost should escalate in this way. It severely prejudices larger cities.

 

[cracked]

I do have to say that it surpirses me that they didn't introduce a extended prohibition of settling cities close to each other. Given that cities can work three tiles away from its position and bombard up to the same amount in the later eras, allowing such overlap is surprising.

 

[C~G]

Actually thinking about the game, it reminds me off Heroes of Might and Magic IV.

It was true letdown for many of the fans (and left them cold) after superb third installment in that series.

Criticizing something strongly because you love the series shouldn't discouraged, in fact just the opposite.
Unless as gaming company you want to sell your old fans to get new ones.

 

[cracked]

If someone FUs something, he should be criticized.

No amount of modding or patching will make it workable and it's stupid to demand the fans to be more positive about something that simply has anything positive to offer compared the last installment.

Thank god I didn't put my money on this crap.

The game as it stands now is beyond all "let's make it all better by being positive and constructive". It's FUBAR.
.

I was demanding nothing old chap. Just suggesting that the very attitude expressed in many of these posts will achieve very little in the way of desirable outcomes.

Should any soul wish to or do whatever they want, I shall not stop them. Indeed, god speed to them. I thank the suffragettes, the civil rights movement, the many revolutions in philosophy and social attitudes that have made such liberties possible. Thank the Lord in his heaven that such freedom is possible. And I shall calmly point out the futility of such an approach, for such actions should not be beyond criticism simply for the passion behind them. Just as my own actions should not be beyond criticism. So thankyou for your enlightenning perspective.

The last installment was truly something. I've lost count of the hours I played on it (particularly BTS). Indeed, it was something I enjoyed long after I had discarded my games console (a good couple of years). CiV should, I believe, eventually be a game at least comparable to this monumental testament to the addcitive possibilty of strategic gaming. I doubt this will be achieved without the thoughtful and intelligent effort of all those who care as passionately as yourself.

I am most particularly thankful that you have decided not to part with any money on a product you deem so inferior. God forbid that you had.

 

[Frosty_AUT]

I see no good reason why the cost should escalate in this way. It severely prejudices larger cities.

I guess it's in order to force players to (ab)use maritime city states and construct hospitals and medical labs if they want large cities. With the health system gone and only global happiness remaining to restrict growth (and in most cases, it doesn't), getting a huge and crowded city early in the game would be too easy if it weren't for the escalation of food cost for growth. Too bad this is also indirectly responsible for making ISC so effective.

 

[historix69]

1. Speeding up City Growth is quite easy ... just add/mod the Granary from Civ 1-4 with the 50%-Growth-Bonus back into the game and adjust the %-Growth-Bonus of other buildings to not reach 100%.

2. To emphasize larger cities over small cities I would suggest an exponential rescaling (base = n; value x -> n^x) of the game.

Example for base 10 :
Let a productive Building of Class I (e.g. library) give a 100% bonus, Class II (e.g. university) 1000%, Class III (...) 10000%, ... . Adjust building costs and maintenace. Also adjust costs for Techs, etc. exponentially ...

schema
.............cost..maintenance..bonus
Class .I......1...........1............1...
Class .II.....5...........5...........10..
Class III....25.........25..........100.
...

Tech-costs :
Age .I. 1
Age .II 10
Age III 100
Age IV 1000
...

Using this kind of exponential rescaling, a Size-20-City with Class III buildings will be worth about 100 Size-20-Cities with just Class I buildings or around 400 Size-5-Cities with Class I buildings ... ICS with small cities should no longer matter. Since higher level buildings will be very expensive and will pay off only for large cities, the player will try to optimize city location of his core cities for optimal growth and ressources. Small cities will still be usefull to grab ressources but won't contribute to late-game-research or -production ...

These numbers seem quite realistic to me since modern time productive buildings in most cases have an output being exponentially higher than the output from classic age. Nevertheless it is just an example to illustrate the idea. To be playable some fine-tuning has to be done since such astronomic numbers do not look that good in the game and I don't know if the game can handle ANY numbers.

3. To prevent a Tech Rush when people are building multiple Super-Science-Cities I would suggest a handling of research times as it was used in Civ 3 :
Minimum Turns for Research : 4 Turns.
Maximum : 40 Turns
(Great Scientists and Research Agreements should probably count to the limit, too.)

 

[Zogar]

The game is moddable by this community. If an aspect of the game is not to your liking then it can be changed. Much of the criticism has bordered on the "melodramatic" shall we say. Very little has been constructive. It's good that there is such passion around the game: definitely a positive thing. Slamming the game without offering positive ways of solving the problems with it is unlikely to lead to a positive result.

If you really want the game to be as you wish, then some kind of consensus within the community as to what practical changes will improve the game need to be reached. I strongly suspect that ICS as a viable tactic was not the intention of the developers: and this suggests poor design. But simply slating it with no suggestions for improvements are going to be treated by the developers as facetious

We are not supposed to be developers. But we can point out the things that we don't like / are broken. And slamming the game is a way to tell the developpers : "stop what you are doing if you don't want to destroy the whole franchise".

Lots of suggestions have been made already (though most are probably not viable). The problem is the community doesn't even understand what was the purpose of the developpers. The game is full of flaws, exploits, and feels empty (at least to the people who are angry).

But it their game, not ours. They decided to release half finished, probably against the advice of the beta testers, now people are not happy. They decided to change more core mechanics than ever been done, and made a mess of it. It doesn't work. And people try to find solutions, don't find them because the new game mechanics don't make sense, and conclude that the game is broken.

 

[LAnkou]

read a lot in this thread (not everything...)

my civ background: play from civ 1 but i'm more of a casual player than an hardcore, but i read the forums and use some tricks from time to time...

Well, i'm still in my first game and here's my list of "not fun" things in the game:
-it takes too long to build or grow anything (except settlers!!!) Boring!
-I want a better diplo screen: I don't even know what are the relationship between civ and with CS...
-after a few things and doing some ics, happiness cap is nothing to fear, i was struggling a lot more when i wasn't doing ics!!!
-it's definitely better to raze and rebuild cities rather than keeping them!! when i go to war, i want to conquer others empire, but it's a pain in the ass to build that courthouse!!!
-OK, poor AI in combat, but that's always been the case at the release...
-I think i will be very angry without a replay screen and a victory video (even a 10s cheap one) would be very nice to have as a reward!

I have a few questions:
-Why didn't they keep building cost from previous civ games? The same can be ask with tile yield, ressource yield and research cost... The path of the game was good and balanced!!!
-From what i remember, there were some features that makes you hesitate from building another city. However, the goal for me had always been to have more cities and more land (Land = power)...there's nothing now that makes me think twice before going for another city!
-well, strategic ressources could have been global, i never felt limited by it (but i'm not yet to coal...). At least iron and horses are plentyfull!!!

My solutions:
-get back the cost and yield of everything back from civ 4...maybe adjusting some building cost depending on effect and increasing a little unit costs to diminish the number of units?
-change the penalty for conquering cities...
-get the happiness work as maintenance used to do (i mean the scale and calculation part...) and have happiness building works like civIV courthouse and money building...
-balance the City state (military are a bonus, but nothing more, i don't even know when and what type of unit i may have / Never get allied with cultured one / Maritime are the greatest with current tile yield)
-balance the AI Diplo (or at least give the player more info on it, being in the dark, they are just plain psycho!!!) and military strategy...

I remember the former sentence back from Civ IV: 1/3 kept, 1/3 change, 1/3 new

1/3 new:
-1 UPT
-Hexagonal map
-city states
-non concentric city radius

1/3 changes
-happiness vs maintenance
-cost and yields
-buildings and wonders effects
-social policy vs civics
-strategic ressources
-tech tree
-civilizations (traits vs UA, new UUs, UB)
-great people (what is this tile improvement? just get rid of it honestly)

1/3 kept:
the game ends in 2050 BC


it's a little cruel, but somethings that were balanced in previous games were changes, in particular costs and yields...
We miss an exponential or geometric limit to city spamming (this limit should be overcomable with building of course!!!), the city pop happyness penalty can be exponential (but limited by the few growth of city), the city number penalty is arithmetic...

maybe i repeat a little myself, but that's what i feel...

I'm not against 1UPT, the AI is poor with it, but it feels more tactical and could be very a lot more fun than SoD if the AI knew how to use it (i remember people complaining about AI units alone to war and get pwn by the player, or the AI not using enough catapult or not at the right time in the battle...)

I find CS fun to play and to please with the missions, except that i would have more information on the screen about which civ is at which friendly point on the CS screen and it would be better if there had been several mission at the same time or some generic way other than gold to please them...and other ways to displease them than trespassing their territories and going to war with them!!! Something to think and to balance of course!!!

I'm ok with some changes (social policies, the way civilizations are made -UA, UUs/UB-, finite strategic ressources) but there are some things that should have been kept, in particular cost and yields!!