The Civ V wish-list!!!

[RedRalph]

I really like the idea too, but its hard to imagine a map that would support that many Civs. Shame though, cause I'd love that idea too.

 

[Pariah]

I really like the idea too, but its hard to imagine a map that would support that many Civs. Shame though, cause I'd love that idea too.

The idea of having many minor nations and a few big ones was discussed extensively while Civ4 was in development. Firaxis seem to have compromised by giving barbarian cities the names of various minor historical tribes and nations.

I don't think Gustav was suggesting having 200-300 minor nations in the same game simultaneously - just that many possible minor civs, allowing a different selection each time around. Still, to make the concept work you would need a good 20 or more per game; larger maps are still required. Perhaps the main effort in designing Civ 5 should be to increase available map sizes, without significantly increasing the necessary processing power.

 

[RedRalph]

hopefully. the system in RFC is good (independents, Natives, etc) but you cant communicate in any way with them, and they can attack you without a DOW. If you could do deals with tyhem it would greatly improve the system, though I understand that would slow the game down significantly.

 

[alms66]

The idea of having many minor nations and a few big ones was discussed extensively while Civ4 was in development. Firaxis seem to have compromised by giving barbarian cities the names of various minor historical tribes and nations.

I don't think Gustav was suggesting having 200-300 minor nations in the same game simultaneously - just that many possible minor civs, allowing a different selection each time around. Still, to make the concept work you would need a good 20 or more per game; larger maps are still required. Perhaps the main effort in designing Civ 5 should be to increase available map sizes, without significantly increasing the necessary processing power.

Or, rather than increasing map size to get more area, you could decrease city size, thus decreasing empire size, thus "making" more area for civs on the same sized maps. Population on every tile anyone ?

 

[bentley004]

Or, rather than increasing map size to get more area, you could decrease city size, thus decreasing empire size, thus "making" more area for civs on the same sized maps. Population on every tile anyone ?

Well by decreasing city size, wouldnt that would mean more tiles? which is the same as a bigger map, actual "size" doesnt matter, its the number of tiles that counts.

 

[Zenon_pt]

Spoiler :

HAVE AN ALL NEW APPROACH TO MINOR CIVILIZATIONS

HAVE MINI-CIVS THAT CAN REVOLT FROM A MAJOR CIV OR START NORMALLY

THE IDEA IS PARTIALLY INSPIRED BY PARADOX TITLES LIKE EUIII AND VICTORIA

HAVE ABOUT 200-300 "MINOR CIVS" ALONG WITH THE "MAIN" CIVS
THAT CAN DECLARE WAR, TRADE
RESOURCES MAKE ALLIANCES, ASK FOR VASSALISATION AND OTHER
DIPLOMATIC ACTIONS.

THE 30-50 "MAJOR CIVS" LIKE ROME, GREECE, GERMANY
WILL HAVE FULL ARTWORK AND FEATURES
WHILE THE 200+ "MINOR CIVS" HAVE NO LEADERHEADS AND
ONLY A FLAG, UNIT AND CITY ART STYLE, AND COLOR SCEME TO REPRESENT THEM IN ORDER TO SAVE MEMORY TO INCLUDE ALL THESE CIVS!

GERMAN REVOLTS MAY CREATE THESE " MINOR CIVS":

LEIPZIG - SAXONY
MUNICH - BAVARIA
HAMBURG - FREE CITY OF HAMBURG
HANOVER - STATE OF HANOVER

GREEK REVOLTS MAY CREATE:

SPARTA - CITY STATE OF SPARTA
ATHENS - KINGDOM OF ATHENS


RUSSIA REVOLTS MAY RELEASE:

NOVGOROD - REPUBLIC OF NOVGOROD
TVER - KINGDOM OF TVER
MOSCOW - MUSCOVY
NOVOSIBRISK- SIBIR

AMERICA MAY RELEASE:

NEW YORK - STATE OF NEW YORK
HOUSTON- STATE OF TEXAS
MINNEAPOLIS- STATE OF MINNESOTA

JAPAN COULD RELEASE ITS STATES LIKE EDO, AND OTHER FUEDAL STATES

CHINA COULD SPLIT AND HAVE WEI, SONG, JIN, XI-XIA, AND OTHERS

I HOPE YOU GET THE IDEA! THIS WOULD PUT CIVILIZATION OVER
THE TOP IN REALISM AND I WOULD LIKE THIS IDEA TO BE GREATLY
CONSIDERED, THANK YOU!

It's a good idea! But what will happen with civilizations that does not have this 'separation' minor civ's? E.g. Netherlands, Portugal, Kmhers, France, Mayas, Incas, Aztecs ...

 

[GUSTAVUS II]

France Was Once Made Of Many Fuedal Kingdoms Like
(burgundy, Brittany, Aquitane, Nevers, Orleans, And So On.

Netherlands Was Formed Of Various States In Holy Roman Empire
(gelre, Friesland, Holland, Utrect)

Some Of The Native American Tribes Actaully Had City-states.
(mayans)

The Khmers Had Small Kingdoms They Conquered As 'vassals'

Portugal's Cities Were Never Independent, However They
Had Many Colonies Split From Them(brazil, Macau, So On..)
Or You Could Have Cities Like Oporto, Or Lisbon Revolt
Using Their City Flags Or Coat Of Arms As An Identity.

 

[alms66]

Well by decreasing city size, wouldnt that would mean more tiles? which is the same as a bigger map, actual "size" doesnt matter, its the number of tiles that counts.

Get rid of the fat X of current city sizes and reduce that to a 3x3 square, or better yet, IMHO, just make every tile a city... How exactly would that mean more tiles?

You keep the same size maps, just make the area needed for a city to survive smaller, allowing you to cram more cities on the map, thus allowing more civilizations. This all, of course, hinges on the assumption that players who were comfortable controlling 20 cities and considered that a good-sized empire will still feel the same when the land area - number of tiles - is reduced while the number of cities still remains the same.

 

[eddiewillers]

If a city's religion is jewish or moslem, shouldnt the pig food surplus be rendered useless for that city, yet not for the entire empire? LOL. And in Theocracy for the whole empire. In a Christian Theocracy, clams and crab (but not fish) should also be rendered useless because they are a delicious abobination.
Two thecratic friendly neighbours, say a hindu and a moslem could exchange a frontier town with pig for another one with a cow. (I'd like more city buying and exchanging. A civ should be able to sell a wrongful placed city before it flips).

I've always resented the fact that you can't place one city right next to the other. IT limits the empire's whole design, particualrly for the later game. I guess what I mean is that the cottage-town resource sould be upgraded, and could have production of buildings and units of its own. This way the game could last longer than the modern era by going into a period of total urbanization (not that different from a cottage economy) but with some future building next to supermarket, that actually builds food inside the city/town. In this line of ideas I've previously thought of polders. It happens in real life (I also want a Dutch civ though i'm not one) so work boats could build (expensive) polders in coastal water tiles.

just some thoughts, please judge them impiously.

 

[eddiewillers]

one of the biggest feature adds i'd like to see would be leader successions. One leader per civ would be eliminated. (no more bobbleheads, unfortunately) Each leader of your faction would have 3 traits - any combo of good and bad traits. You would, of course, have great leaders for the civ that would have 3 good traits. And you would have the Neros and Stalins with lots of negatives and a few-none good traits. Examples of negatives might be a trait 'corruption' which reduces hammers. Another might be 'unpopular' which reduces happiness.

After a leader dies, the next leader selection would be heavily determined by your government type. Depostism would be completely random (bad), Monarchy might allow you to select from 1 or 2 leaders (multiple hiers), Representation and Democracy would allow you to pick from 2-3 leaders, but all of them having one bad trait and two good ones. Of course the number of turns each leader is given control would be very limited under those types. I could see scenarios where you may switch government types to keep a good leader in place much longer. (risking unrest and revolution)

You would also have the option to use your Great People to overthrow or (in the case of democracy) replace the current leader in an election, (useful if you had a bad leader in place with lots of negatives). This 'feature' would replace the current golden age. Instead of a golden age you would get a set # of turns of a great leader in charge. You could also assassinate leaders from rival factions or aid a revolution to overthrow them. I think this could be an awesome addition and follow with the level of enhancements we've gotten, culture in civ3, religion in civ4, etc..

I like this idea very much and it reminds me of a new type of victory i'd like to see in Civ V: Political Victory: when you the absolute monarch abdicate (win the game) and hand over the power to the people in a total freedom capitalist libertarian system (actual emancipation). At least is better than the diplomatic victory handing all the power to the U.N.

Iy would be implemented as you say through great people and wonders, it could be an ofshoot of cultural victory but it would requiere a lot of scientific research to achieve the tech (objectivism par example) that would allow this victory civic.

 

[eddiewillers]

ironic victory would be achieved after a turn of anarchy

 

[RedRalph]

I like this idea very much and it reminds me of a new type of victory i'd like to see in Civ V: Political Victory: when you the absolute monarch abdicate (win the game) and hand over the power to the people in a total freedom capitalist libertarian system (actual emancipation). At least is better than the diplomatic victory handing all the power to the U.N.

Iy would be implemented as you say through great people and wonders, it could be an ofshoot of cultural victory but it would requiere a lot of scientific research to achieve the tech (objectivism par example) that would allow this victory civic.

I dont think so man. Theyre not going to make one idelogical slant a victory condition. Particularly one almost no one supports like total Liberterianism.

 

[JedaiNait]

I have not read the entire topic, but things i'd like to see:

• Automatic promotions based on experience. So my unit gets woodraider promotion only when he has been successful in woods/jungle, not when he has never seen a tree and has only been fighting in deserts.
  
• Unique wonders! Special wonder building for every civ.
  
• Luxury/food resources which appear after specific technology has been found.
  
• More different resources which have slightly different effect. CivIV made a good start, like copper/iron (in this case iron units should be a bit stronger perhaps) and wine/dye. But more of these . Not every (non vital) lux/food resource needs to be present on every maptype.
  
• Colony break offs are nice, but i think at the moment the costs are too large to build oversees empire in the first place! Perhaps the additional costs of a colony should come later in the game.
  
• Civil war? Don't know how this could be implemented without frustrating players though.
  
• Alliances like US, EU, OPEC etc. (even more advanced diplomacy!)
  
• After capitulation, the civ should get a new leader (and if you run slavery you can publicly execute the old leader, giving +3 happyness in your capital for 10 turns )
  
• Vassals should not have a voice of their own in UN! Additionally their land and population should count for domination victory.
• Ability to change land, under some circumstances. Like 'poldering' a lake into landmass. Ofcourse this should cost you and would need specific technology, but it happens in real life (one of the Dutch provences used to be a lake and that lake used to be a sea).

 

[eddiewillers]

I dont think so man. Theyre not going to make one idelogical slant a victory condition. Particularly one almost no one supports like total Liberterianism.

not neccesarily, they can call the tech and civic whatever they want, or let us tweek it (and for the matter tags as fascism and environmentalism are already in place), but in definintive a science victory that leads to you abdicating the power to the people instead of spaceship.

About fractures:
I've always been frustrated that decolonized coutries such as the U.S.A. can't exist in a normal play of civ. With fractures and civil wars, you should be able to chose a side and become the sovereign of either the new one or the amputated country. That way you can begin playing England and end up playing America.

(or Netherlands and ORange-Vreestaat, Portugal and Brazil, FRance and GErmany (lol but true)

 

[eddiewillers]

I've summed up my points:
* Religious specific food value
* Cottages-Towns that produce buildings-units
* Workboats that polder coastal waters into dry land
* Colony Break-Off, Civil War, and a more easy and fluent selling and buying of cities.

 

[rysmiel]

I like this idea very much and it reminds me of a new type of victory i'd like to see in Civ V: Political Victory: when you the absolute monarch abdicate (win the game) and hand over the power to the people in a total freedom capitalist libertarian system (actual emancipation).

Civ already simulates that state; it's called anarchy. Collapse of population and starvation and so forth will be pretty realistically modelled if you turn your high-population high-tech civilsiation into an ongoing permanent state of anarchy and the yields drop accordingly. This is not, to my mind, actually a win.

 

[firekirl]

I would like to see the ability to toggle on/off the naming of your ships, and maybe even other units. Most likely ships though, as throughout time, countries had to spend a great deal of their capital to build and support a navy. So, when a new ship is built, i.e. a battleship, a country can show pride in that ship by naming it. For example, when the English build a battleship, it can be named the HMS Duke of York. Ideally, there would be just a generic list that all of the civs would use for each ship type, and when the ship is built, you could use the name from that list, or come up with your own custom name.

 

[eddiewillers]

Civ already simulates that state; it's called anarchy. Collapse of population and starvation and so forth will be pretty realistically modelled if you turn your high-population high-tech civilsiation into an ongoing permanent state of anarchy and the yields drop accordingly. This is not, to my mind, actually a win.

not libertarian. I was more thinking of a "proper Republic" civic enabled by the tech Objectivism.

 

[Zenon_pt]

Portugal's Cities Were Never Independent, However They
Had Many Colonies Split From Them(brazil, Macau, So On..)
Or You Could Have Cities Like Oporto, Or Lisbon Revolt
Using Their City Flags Or Coat Of Arms As An Identity.

But the colonies it's an ideia, I like it!
England, France, Dutch, Spain, could also add this "Liberations"!!!

Revolt's:
In Portugal is more Revolt Cities, than Independents. But there is maybe one:

Madeira (with Alberto João Jardim)

 

[Logitech]

I've summed up my points:
* Religious specific food value
* Cottages-Towns that produce buildings-units
* Workboats that polder coastal waters into dry land
* Colony Break-Off, Civil War, and a more easy and fluent selling and buying of cities.

*Yes, good idea.
*Good idea, but then you'd have to keep track of not only your cities production and population, but also these 'mini-citys'. Maybe extra production?
*Hmm. I'll put it in the wild ideas chapter.
*Yes, Yes, and maybe. Cities can't be too easlly bought and sold, otherwise you just might find yourself leading a compleatly different empire (I make it sound better than it really is.)

As for the fears of getting frustrated with civil wars and break-offs, it's just somthing like a random event. I probebly won't happen to every civ in every game, just like, say, 10 times a game, a varrying amount of times to a single civ.

Update tomorrow...