The Civ V wish-list!!!

[eddiewillers]

*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...

Polders: Not such a WILD idea. We already have offshore plattforms, and the Dutch were reclaiming land before oil was discovered (or deemed useful).

Towns being able to produce: perhaps instead of having to take care of each mini-city, towns could evolve into "suburbs". i.e. after a city get 2 suburbs in its radius it gains the ability to work on two buildings/units simultaneously (as it's been suggested earlier on) 4 suburbs, 3 buildings simult. and so on. IT would be a later game practice.

 

[JedaiNait]

Why do you all want to build multiple things simultaneously? It would always be a better strategy to only build one thing at a time!

Example:
Suppose you have 10 hammers a turn and want to construct two buildings of 50 hammers each. If you build simultaneously (5 hammer for each building) then you have both buildings after 10 turns. If however you built them one at a time building A will be completed after 5 turns and building B after another 5 turns. So again you have both buildings after 10 turns, but you already enjoyed the benefits of the most important one after 5 turns!

So why would you want to simultaneously build stuff?

 

[Luckystrike77]

Why do you all want to build multiple things simultaneously? It would always be a better strategy to only build one thing at a time!

Example:
Suppose you have 10 hammers a turn and want to construct two buildings of 50 hammers each. If you build simultaneously (5 hammer for each building) then you have both buildings after 10 turns. If however you built them one at a time building A will be completed after 5 turns and building B after another 5 turns. So again you have both buildings after 10 turns, but you already enjoyed the benefits of the most important one after 5 turns!

So why would you want to simultaneously build stuff?

I agree with you!

 

[Scilly_guy]

For me building simultaneously would not be about building two buildings, because, as you say, its better to concentrate on one and get the benefits sooner. Instead it is about building a building/wonder and training a unit. I always think its strange that warriors, archers, missionaries are "made" from the same stuff as Aqueducts and the Pyramids. I can accept that a source of stone is not essential for building things like the Pyramids or Stone Henge and that access to the resource only speeds up the process but what exactly are these magical hammers? I guess what I am saying is that building and training should require different resources, training would use food and man power but not Hammers, where as a building project would use up Hammers and man power.

 

[alms66]

Why do you all want to build multiple things simultaneously? It would always be a better strategy to only build one thing at a time!

Example:
Suppose you have 10 hammers a turn and want to construct two buildings of 50 hammers each. If you build simultaneously (5 hammer for each building) then you have both buildings after 10 turns. If however you built them one at a time building A will be completed after 5 turns and building B after another 5 turns. So again you have both buildings after 10 turns, but you already enjoyed the benefits of the most important one after 5 turns!

So why would you want to simultaneously build stuff?

Only because you're assuming that the production gets divided amongst the build lists, but what if instead, each list had full production, or per your example, 10 hammers per turn...

 

[rysmiel]

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

Pathological selfishness is pathological selfishness whatever you call it; employ it as a technology, you lose synergy, tragedy of the commons happens, carrying capacity declines, civilisations collapse.

 

[rysmiel]

Only because you're assuming that the production gets divided amongst the build lists, but what if instead, each list had full production, or per your example, 10 hammers per turn...

If you can have two lists at ten shields per turn (Hammers are heresy ! Stamp out hammers now!) from a given city, then you could put that production in one list for twenty shields per turn and the same argument applies.

Build one thing at a time; allow shields to be swapped as many times as you like between anything you like with no penalties; allow only one purchase per turn, so you don;t have the incremental rush-build hack in Civ 2, and then go back to exponential decay of shield prices - so the last ten or fifty or hundred shields of a unit or improvement cost the same to finish however expensive the unit is, but the more expensive it is, the more expensive the first few shields are. And make wonders buyable for something like five times the basic shield cost, or even better, a cost multiplier which increases over the ages.

 

[alms66]

If you can have two lists at ten shields per turn (Hammers are heresy ! Stamp out hammers now!) from a given city, then you could put that production in one list for twenty shields per turn and the same argument applies.

Well, that's sort of the point though, you don't have 20, your city only produces 10. But using this as a game mechanic, you get double production. So in the game a certain technology... oh, I don't know, maybe Industrialism... would activate this new build list, effectively doubling your empire's production in a similar manner to the way production skyrocketed during the real Industrial Revolution.

Anyway, I was merely pointing out that it's possible to have more than one build list without dividing the production amongst those lists.

 

[rysmiel]

Well, that's sort of the point though, you don't have 20, your city only produces 10. But using this as a game mechanic, you get double production. So in the game a certain technology... oh, I don't know, maybe Industrialism... would activate this new build list, effectively doubling your empire's production in a similar manner to the way production skyrocketed during the real Industrial Revolution.

Anyway, I was merely pointing out that it's possible to have more than one build list without dividing the production amongst those lists.

OK, I see your point. But when you do anything to change production for your city in future - when it grows to get another tile, or you finish another mine or whatever - how do you envision changes in the basic shield production being divided ? Do they have to go between both lists evenly ?

What this effectively is, come to think of it, is making productivity into something more complicated than a single value. Which I am not very taken with, but could be convinced on depending on the details. How, for example, should corruption and waste work (presuming the Civ 5 design is sensible enough to reinstate them) ? Do buildings that currently improve productivity affect both production lines equally ? Come to think of it, if you get two for industrialisation, why not four for Robotics ? Can you pick which tiles you work towards which queue, or does it just split the total ?

 

[Trojan Sheep]

I'm sure it's been noted elsewhere in this thread but...

Age specific leaderheads, age specific leaderheads, oh and age specific leaderheads would be my top three choices for CIV V additions. Other than that they could keep it exactly like CIV IV and I'd still buy it.

PS. Age specific leaderheads

 

[alms66]

OK, I see your point. But when you do anything to change production for your city in future - when it grows to get another tile, or you finish another mine or whatever - how do you envision changes in the basic shield production being divided ? Do they have to go between both lists evenly ?

The current way things work for production would define the production value of all queues. I don't believe anything should be divided anywhere, you simply get to build two things at once now, at the same rate you were building before, with slight modification, like so:

At two queues:
100%
25%

At three queues:
100%
50%
25%

At Four queues:
100%
75%
50%
25%

...and so on, boosting the percentage of base production that each queue works at with each additional queue added, and perhaps once the maximum number of queues were reached additional techs could simply bring those values up to 100%.

So, for example, if you had three queues and a city with 10 shields/hammers, whatever you want to call them, it would like like this:

10 per turn
5 per turn
3 per turn (rounding 2.5)

What this effectively is, come to think of it, is making productivity into something more complicated than a single value. Which I am not very taken with, but could be convinced on depending on the details. How, for example, should corruption and waste work (presuming the Civ 5 design is sensible enough to reinstate them) ? Do buildings that currently improve productivity affect both production lines equally ? Come to think of it, if you get two for industrialisation, why not four for Robotics ? Can you pick which tiles you work towards which queue, or does it just split the total ?

Corruption and waste, if reintroduced, would work just as they did before basically - but they just affect base production (the value we currently see as the number of shields/hammers). The value of each queue's production would still be based on this base production value with all modifiers applied.

Regarding the number of queues to have and when to give them, I'd have it to where you get the first extra queue, the second queue, at Replacable Parts, then the third at Assembly Line, the fourth at Industrialism and a fifth at Robotics. Each discovery of Future Tech would then boost percentages until all queues operated at 100% base production value.

 

[rysmiel]

The current way things work for production would define the production value of all queues. I don't believe anything should be divided anywhere, you simply get to build two things at once now, at the same rate you were building before, with slight modification, like so:
At two queues:
100%
25%

At three queues:
100%
50%
25%

At Four queues:
100%
75%
50%
25%

OK, that's rather neat. Were you thinking of the queues as each being capable of building anything ?

Regarding the number of queues to have and when to give them, I'd have it to where you get the first extra queue, the second queue, at Replacable Parts, then the third at Assembly Line, the fourth at Industrialism and a fifth at Robotics.

That compresses it into the second half of the tech tree, no ? I'm not as familiar with the Civ IV tech tree off the top of my head as other ones.

Each discovery of Future Tech would then boost percentages until all queues operated at 100% base production value.

Interesting, if one is not going to have defined Future Techs.

 

[alms66]

OK, that's rather neat. Were you thinking of the queues as each being capable of building anything ?

Yes, I don't really see any reason to make it more complicated by not allowing everything in a particular queue - if you use the system as I'd written it.

If you'd want to have queue's only capable of building one thing (wonder/unit/building), then I would just have a single queue per each and leave it at that. They could each work off of base production their own way, 100% or otherwise, perhaps with techs modifying those percentages.

That compresses it into the second half of the tech tree, no ? I'm not as familiar with the Civ IV tech tree off the top of my head as other ones.

Yes, it does. Guilds would be an earlier tech where a queue could be added, but I just chose the most logical from the tech tree on the civfanatics home page as I'm not very familiar with civ4's tech tree either. If this were a major game element being put into civ 5, you'd need to space them a little better than that, certainly.

 

[Scilly_guy]

Sorry to change the topic, I keep starting new threads because I feel they are better suited so each idea can be discussed and people can read the whole thread to join in instead of an entire thread like this where the topic changes due to interruptions and its hard to catch up.

I was basically thinking about tourism and the effect of culture on it and its effect on economies. There are different things which people will go to see, The Pyramids, Eiffel Tower, Sistine Chapel, these are all wonders which anyone can build and in reality I suppose anyone could have built them. Buckingham Palace is so popular because of the might and Success of English Monarchs; Parliament (Big Ben), The White House, Capitol Building, Red Square/Kremlin, are famous because of the Governments as much as their architecture, perhaps St Basils Cathedrals architecture is the main draw of the Red Square. There are also physical features that draw in tourists, Uluru, Grand Canyon, Everest, Yellow Stone, Loch Ness, Giants Causeway, Fairy Chimneys, and of course gorgeous beaches and ski slopes. Ok some of them might not be big international tourist attractions but others are. Whilst it cost England a lot to keep the Royal Family it draws in a lot of revenue from the tourism, and this revenue comes from other countries. There is also the third type of tourist attraction, Hollywood, Broadway and Great Artists (Elvis, Van Gogh) these are all cultural buildings/places. People go to Hollywood because it is where so many famous films are produced, they go to Broadway because it has world class theatre, they go to Grace Land and Memphis because of Elvis, people go to Amsterdam (among other reasons) to visit the Van Gogh Museum (OK not a great example of why people go to Amsterdam but a good example of people going to see an artist). Of course people only go to these places if they are famous to them and they can afford to. Hollywood is only big to people who like American Films, Grace Land is only a draw to fans of Elvis, Van Gogh is a draw to people who like his art.

I want to see tourism implemented and its affect on economies, I want to see money move because of tourism. Wealthy countries citizens going to sun bath on beaches in tropical countries. Countries which had/have incredibly successful Monarchs/Governments make their palaces tourist attractions. But each civ has different destinations/attractions. In real life lots of the English and Germans love to go to hot sunny places to sun bath, Buckingham Palace is a draw to Americans and Japanese especially, Rome is a draw to every nation that travels.

So how does everyone else see tourism.

 

[rysmiel]

I was basically thinking about tourism and the effect of culture on it and its effect on economies. There are different things which people will go to see, The Pyramids, Eiffel Tower, Sistine Chapel, these are all wonders which anyone can build and in reality I suppose anyone could have built them. Buckingham Palace is so popular because of the might and Success of English Monarchs; Parliament (Big Ben), The White House, Capitol Building, Red Square/Kremlin, are famous because of the Governments as much as their architecture, perhaps St Basils Cathedrals architecture is the main draw of the Red Square. There are also physical features that draw in tourists, Uluru, Grand Canyon, Everest, Yellow Stone, Loch Ness, Giants Causeway, Fairy Chimneys, and of course gorgeous beaches and ski slopes. Ok some of them might not be big international tourist attractions but others are. Whilst it cost England a lot to keep the Royal Family it draws in a lot of revenue from the tourism, and this revenue comes from other countries. There is also the third type of tourist attraction, Hollywood, Broadway and Great Artists (Elvis, Van Gogh) these are all cultural buildings/places. People go to Hollywood because it is where so many famous films are produced, they go to Broadway because it has world class theatre, they go to Grace Land and Memphis because of Elvis, people go to Amsterdam (among other reasons) to visit the Van Gogh Museum (OK not a great example of why people go to Amsterdam but a good example of people going to see an artist). Of course people only go to these places if they are famous to them and they can afford to. Hollywood is only big to people who like American Films, Grace Land is only a draw to fans of Elvis, Van Gogh is a draw to people who like his art.

I want to see tourism implemented and its affect on economies, I want to see money move because of tourism.

Civ 3 does something in this direction with certain wonders becoming Tourist Attractions after existing for a certain length of time, and that being reflected as extra trade for the city they are in.

I think that's a good basis to begin with. Just off the top of my head, I think culture is probably the best measure of being attractive to tourists, for Civ III values of "culture is generated constantly by certain buildings over time". I think the best way of representing this would be to have a mechanism whereby any city is generating a certain amount of culture per turn based on wonders and culture-generating improvements, and once that gets to above a certain point, it starts picking up additional trade, representing tourism. Which is added to the baseline trade value but subject to certain modifiers first; based on the size and number of nearby civilisations and your relations with them perhaps, I think you should get more tourism from a neighbouring civ with whom you are on good terms. I do think it should be based on total culture-generating capacity in the city, though, so that in order to get the point of starting to get tourism you can go by different routes, different combinations of improvements, and possibly Wonders, that fit with different roles for the city in question.

I think that covers your first and third type of tourist attraction. For the second type, physical features of the vicinity... I think how I would like to handle that would be with something like a "national park" terrain improvement. You designate a square a tourist area, and it adds something to the culture of whatever city is nearby, and generates tourist revenue that way; it might be a good thing to do with otherwise not very useful terrain. I think it should preclude any other improvement on the tile, though.

Also, and I'm not as sure about this but just throwing it out, maybe to make this worth doing it should not work in an additive way. If a single square of parkland gets you 1 additonal culture per turn, then maybe three adjacent squares of parkland get you 10.

 

[Scilly_guy]

Of course culture should provide the basis of tourism, culture represents the fame of the city if you like, it might also be possible to see trade routes as representative of tourism. It also provides a way that it can be implemented. Each city would have a number of tourism routes where it links with another city, the number and value of the link depends on the wealth of the origin of the route and the distance. So very rich citizens would go to the most cultured cities in the world (that are accessible), rich citizens would go to the best balance of distance and culture (or the city which is producing the most culture), and the slightly rich would go to the closest most cultural foreign city (or the closest city with the highest rate of culture).

There are other aspects to consider, open borders, relationships (Brits are wary of the Russians and the Germans (still!) and I hear Americans aren't flocking to go to Iran), economies (I'm thinking of exchange rates) and the state of the destination (anyone fancy going on holiday to Sudan? Zimbabwe? Iraq? What not even to see the Hanging Gardens). Looking perhaps too far into it, you could have a tourist route lower the cost of espionage, it would be easy to do and relevant.

I guess for Spain all those coastal tiles are filled with beach resorts and so generate a lot of culture, that is why people would go there.

 

[eddiewillers]

I like the idea very much, I can see buildings like Hotels and Tourist Resorts that generate extra revenue and happiness from trade routes.

Hotels can generate gold for culture, so that if you maximize the culture bar you can still be rich. Indeed they hotels hsould be expensive and perhaps only accesible as a corporation.

Resorts could be built in cities that have the porposed national parks and coastlines. Just as national parks would be virgin forests and jungles, national coastlines should be unworked virgin coast squares. To distinguish between the two, worked coasts and cities with harbour or drydock should generate water pollution.
Beach Resorts could be built in cities with clean coastlines, and much like the space elevator, only in tropical latitudes
Unlike Hotels, BR dont generate gold through culture but only through trade routes and they provide extra happiness for the vacationing citizens of the empire.

I think the environmental aspect is a way to capitalize on later game founded cities that are amongst useless virgin nature far from the capital.

 

[eddiewillers]

this reminds me:
PARKS : add 1 happy or health

build 6 of them and be able to build Central Park wonder and get + 50% happy
+ 50% health in all cities.

Museums!
Adds culture. Better performance under Free Religion. Great Wonder: Metropolitan Museum or Smithsonian, or Guggenheim Bilbao for the looks. It gives you 16000 culture or lol.

maybe museums could add culture according to the GP generated and absorbed by the city.

 

[AntyPanty]

-leave the Civ's IV battle system
-improve borders system (yeah, I have entire island and enemy take 1 plain beacause of his city on another island??!)
-soundtrack even better than Civ's IV (is that possible xD ?)
-more destructive nukes
-more different nukes (10kT, 100kT, 10MT, 1000GT xD )
-more ways to win
-more realistic world
-bigger maps
-more accurate maps of Earth
-ability of going to Pole and to pass it
-better multiplayer
-improved updating
-more techs is modern era and new era: FUTURE ERA with mechs, droids, clones and so on (not only in mod!)

 

[RedRalph]

I would like the modern era to last longer, with the proviso that some way is found to ensure that the winner isnt a foregone conclusion by the renaissance era. Basically research times should be longer in the modern era. I'd like to have say 200 turns over which you would go form biplanes - WW2 era fighters - MiGs - Modern era fighters. Not just for airpower, but for all units. also you should be able to upgrade buildings, not just units. So for a certain price you can change

Aqueduct > Sewer
Granary > Silo
Theatre > Cinema


etc...