The Civ V wish-list!!!
- Thread starter Logitech
- Start date
You will find the AI much improved. Not only will it pursue alternate victories much more intelligently, such as Cultural victories, the AI will also attack other AI players. If you get the Solver/Dresden unofficial patch as well, which fixes a couple small logic errors, the AI war targetting is even better (the unofficial patch fixes a small issue with the AI not being able to tell whether or not you share a border).
If you play with Aggressive AI on, it's almost like having another human player gobbling up their part of the world. My best fight yet was between myself at ~35% of the world's land and population against a runaway Frederick with ~45%. Although, if you count the fact we both had vassals that were relatively large, only a meager three city empire wasn't involved in the great war.
If you play with Aggressive AI on, it's almost like having another human player gobbling up their part of the world. My best fight yet was between myself at ~35% of the world's land and population against a runaway Frederick with ~45%. Although, if you count the fact we both had vassals that were relatively large, only a meager three city empire wasn't involved in the great war.
This is important, and probably discussed somewhere before: I want back some of the feel of civ3. In civ3 you had advisors and you could see in the city-screen your happy and unhappy citizens. Advances into next era were illustrated with pictures of this riverside town and changing costumes of other leaders, you were more immersed in the game.
In civ4 on the other hand only non-unit humans you see are the leaders who already in the stoneage look like they're from the 20th century (or as industrial era leaders of multinational empire talk to you in front of claycottages). They talk you about winning the game, not about their spacecship project.
This all came back to me when I saw the screenshots in front page:
Look at the coastlines: in civ4 it is rectangular, but in civ3 it takes a god while until you recognize the patterns used, and even after that you don't usually notice them.
Don't get me wrong, civ4 with bts is much better game, and some of graphics things are awesome too, like how everything moves (or would move if I had good enough graphics card
) and you can zoom in and look the globe. It's just that it would be much better almost perfect, if they had made it look more natural.
In civ4 on the other hand only non-unit humans you see are the leaders who already in the stoneage look like they're from the 20th century (or as industrial era leaders of multinational empire talk to you in front of claycottages). They talk you about winning the game, not about their spacecship project.
This all came back to me when I saw the screenshots in front page:
Look at the coastlines: in civ4 it is rectangular, but in civ3 it takes a god while until you recognize the patterns used, and even after that you don't usually notice them.
Don't get me wrong, civ4 with bts is much better game, and some of graphics things are awesome too, like how everything moves (or would move if I had good enough graphics card
) and you can zoom in and look the globe. It's just that it would be much better almost perfect, if they had made it look more natural.Onionsoilder
Reaver
- Joined
- Mar 19, 2007
- Messages
- 3,173
A hexagonal grid would be best. Makes it look(and feel) more natural, improves army dynamics, placement, etc...
Cyberviking
Chieftain
I would like to have a civ V with more advanced geography.
-Hills, mountains and flat land should have a height variable.
- Forest types should be gradient over the world.
- Graphics shouldn't be so childish
- Different geology!
-Hills, mountains and flat land should have a height variable.
- Forest types should be gradient over the world.
- Graphics shouldn't be so childish
- Different geology!
Region specific bonuses.
For example, if you settle on a very rocky island, your civilization adapts to the landscape, and makes better Stone/Iron/Uranium, if the region is rich in the material.
And a better spy system ... the current spy system sucks (Vanilla); only 4 allowed and you need a national wonder to build them. Nicht so gut.
For example, if you settle on a very rocky island, your civilization adapts to the landscape, and makes better Stone/Iron/Uranium, if the region is rich in the material.
And a better spy system ... the current spy system sucks (Vanilla); only 4 allowed and you need a national wonder to build them. Nicht so gut.
I liked how Alpha Centauri did it. A 3-D sort of grid with topography, and a simulated weather/climate system. All of which became REALLY cool once you started terraforming , or the oceans started drastically rising.
Agree on all the geography/topography ideas. The terrain in civ4 looks a bit too bland as it is. Also, it would be fun to see a comeback of major terrain features like SMACs Mount Planet and New Sargasso. Only make it a long list, and use some of them in every game so you'll never know what you'll find when you go exploring. Wouldn't it be nice to see a thundering waterfall where a river meets a large elevation difference between two tiles?
Oh, and hexagonal grid of course.
Oh, and hexagonal grid of course.
Pariah
Outside Influence
I LOVED the Hex grid in Civ 2, but it gone'd
I don't recall Civ2 having hexagonal terrain tiles... they were 4-sided tiles last time I looked.
Ditto the major terrain features and other details. Heck, anything to make the terrain more interesting is a step in the right direction. I've written this before, but I also miss the ability to name tiles like in SMAC. Why must that giant, awesome river that runs through the heart of my motherland forever be nameless? Why?!?
You are right. It was a plain square grid rotated about 45 degrees.
Before you roast the Civ4 spy system, I highly encourage you to upgrade to BtS, which overhauls the espionage system, integrating in a new espionage point system, along with both passive and active spying abilities. Plus, you can start making spies at the Alphabet technology.
Correct. My mistake.
and thanks for the recomendation, Antilogic, I'll check it out when I get BtS.
Skallagrimson
Deity
- Joined
- Sep 12, 2006
- Messages
- 2,043
Seconded. I LOVED the Hex grid in Civ 2, but it gone'd
Civ2 was a diamond grid.
Scilly_guy
Prince
- Joined
- Nov 13, 2006
- Messages
- 403
Hexagons do have the best angular resolution but as you can move diagonally on the current square grid that is "better", sorry if that sounds a bit pretentious (basically 4<6<8). I do think a hex grid would be better though.
DIPLOMACY
DIPLOMACY
Many of these ideas has probably already been posted...
AI: More difficulties-
Diplomacy: Embassy-better relations between countries with embassies, Unions(EU,USSR)-Ability to form economic and militairy unions(kind of like a small UN) with congresses and voting on different matters, alliances(NATO)-civs can form alliances with the ability to have joint operations and joint military, UN must have the ability to have an international congress on different matters with voting and the possibility to invite countries(Civs have to be invited to join UN). UN must have the ability to pose sanctions, embargo's and perhaps peacekeeping forces. Borders- civs must agree to different border agreements(Only Civilian, Civilian and military, or just trade). Planning- more joint military and economic planning(Operation Desert storm). Organizations- different organizations based on different matters( OPEC, WTO etc). Countries can have foreign bases on a rental basis. Culture must not decide borders, ability to agree and rewrite borders.
Trade: Trade must play a much bigger part. You first have to gain resources, have them like raw materials or refine them, then you have to establish contact with a civ, agree on border conditions, establish a trade route(either by river,sea, land or air in modern times) and begin trading. Civ V must have much specific resource placement(Norway have lots of fish and oil-Sweden have little fish and little oil but maybe lots of iron and uranium=example).
Resouces must play a much bigger role(Some building,tech and units need spesific resources which is refined or not, and the resources is divided into renewable and not renewable and will after some time deplete, but will be able to replenish.example: OIL=10000 you use points for every tank, airplane and other things that use oil and you do not use oil for production of these(like in civ iv) but for every turn you use them, so when you have empty supply lines during war, tanka and airplanes cannot move without oil). This will make trade vital, because the german war machine will not work without traded Norwegian oil. In modern time corporations must play a larger part in trade and civs are able to have tax on trade.
Units and Military: More specific military for specific civs( USA have the M1 abrams and Russia has the T-90). ICBMs destroys city under 10 of size and badly damages from ten and up. Nuclear submarine with the ability to launch ICBMs and tactical nukes. Missile cruiser and destroyers with the ability to launch tactical nukes and guided missiles(A missile cruiser in the persian gulf can send a tactical nuke with limited range over land). Satellites with the ability to reveal tiles and alliances can joint their satellites sharing information. Barbarians in early ages and terrorist and guerrillas in modern ages. Missile defense systems with possible cooperation between civs(The planned american missile defense system in eastern europe).
Warfare: Joint operations, combining forces creating bigger armies, unconditional surrender with a treaty(Versailles) dividing the land into occupation zones between different parts. Rewriting borders.
Government: Much more civics. Are your civ a federation(possible dividing big countries into smaller states like the U.S giving you the ability to focus on foreign politics while your governors manages the improvement of land and cities). Monarchy,dictatorship, democracy or anarchy(different bonuses and minuses come with them).
These are my ideas for now......
AI: More difficulties-
Diplomacy: Embassy-better relations between countries with embassies, Unions(EU,USSR)-Ability to form economic and militairy unions(kind of like a small UN) with congresses and voting on different matters, alliances(NATO)-civs can form alliances with the ability to have joint operations and joint military, UN must have the ability to have an international congress on different matters with voting and the possibility to invite countries(Civs have to be invited to join UN). UN must have the ability to pose sanctions, embargo's and perhaps peacekeeping forces. Borders- civs must agree to different border agreements(Only Civilian, Civilian and military, or just trade). Planning- more joint military and economic planning(Operation Desert storm). Organizations- different organizations based on different matters( OPEC, WTO etc). Countries can have foreign bases on a rental basis. Culture must not decide borders, ability to agree and rewrite borders.
Trade: Trade must play a much bigger part. You first have to gain resources, have them like raw materials or refine them, then you have to establish contact with a civ, agree on border conditions, establish a trade route(either by river,sea, land or air in modern times) and begin trading. Civ V must have much specific resource placement(Norway have lots of fish and oil-Sweden have little fish and little oil but maybe lots of iron and uranium=example).
Resouces must play a much bigger role(Some building,tech and units need spesific resources which is refined or not, and the resources is divided into renewable and not renewable and will after some time deplete, but will be able to replenish.example: OIL=10000 you use points for every tank, airplane and other things that use oil and you do not use oil for production of these(like in civ iv) but for every turn you use them, so when you have empty supply lines during war, tanka and airplanes cannot move without oil). This will make trade vital, because the german war machine will not work without traded Norwegian oil. In modern time corporations must play a larger part in trade and civs are able to have tax on trade.
Units and Military: More specific military for specific civs( USA have the M1 abrams and Russia has the T-90). ICBMs destroys city under 10 of size and badly damages from ten and up. Nuclear submarine with the ability to launch ICBMs and tactical nukes. Missile cruiser and destroyers with the ability to launch tactical nukes and guided missiles(A missile cruiser in the persian gulf can send a tactical nuke with limited range over land). Satellites with the ability to reveal tiles and alliances can joint their satellites sharing information. Barbarians in early ages and terrorist and guerrillas in modern ages. Missile defense systems with possible cooperation between civs(The planned american missile defense system in eastern europe).
Warfare: Joint operations, combining forces creating bigger armies, unconditional surrender with a treaty(Versailles) dividing the land into occupation zones between different parts. Rewriting borders.
Government: Much more civics. Are your civ a federation(possible dividing big countries into smaller states like the U.S giving you the ability to focus on foreign politics while your governors manages the improvement of land and cities). Monarchy,dictatorship, democracy or anarchy(different bonuses and minuses come with them).
These are my ideas for now......
On diplomacy, my list of ideas and gripes with the current system is far too long to post here, but I can comment somewhat on your other categories.
On Trade: I don't think processing resources (like a Colonization system) would be appropriate--the system would just have to be too dumbed down for anyone to be satisfied with it. The realists would scream bloody hell and demand more buildings for refining, and the classic Civ players would wonder what the hell is going on. I can't see a way to incorporate that well enough to satisfy even a plurality of the players.
For the renewable vs. nonrenewable debate, I think it might be easier to represent quantity of supplies by requiring you to have 1 resource per building you have that requires the resource. So, to build a tank, you need to have at least one source of oil. Two cities can't use the same source, so to produce a tank and a plane you need at least two sources. You could impose a production penalty as an alternate if you aren't a fan of the binary you can or you can't system.
I don't have an opinion on corporations--haven't played enough games with them to comment intelligently.
On Units and Military: I won't comment on nukes, largely for the same reason as corporations--I don't play enough games that last past the Industrial era. I vastly prefer the one UU and one UB per civ rule, largely because it isn't possible for us to give every Civ a unique unit for every era unless you just pull them out your rear (language censored for the forum so I don't get banned). Instead, just insure every Civ has a single UU, and then use the different art styles to add flavor. Building actual satellites after researching the satellites tech would be a neat addition.
Government: I really don't know what you are talking about with Federation...would you be unable to select city improvements or guide your worker units (or the Civ5 equivalent) under a Federation? I am working on some Civic changes, but I think a lot of modders around here go overboard with them. You don't need 10 categories with 10 different options to have a good game; there can be a little grace in simplicity. Your listed options largely reflect the choices that are already available in the Government category, except for Anarchy.
On Trade: I don't think processing resources (like a Colonization system) would be appropriate--the system would just have to be too dumbed down for anyone to be satisfied with it. The realists would scream bloody hell and demand more buildings for refining, and the classic Civ players would wonder what the hell is going on. I can't see a way to incorporate that well enough to satisfy even a plurality of the players.
For the renewable vs. nonrenewable debate, I think it might be easier to represent quantity of supplies by requiring you to have 1 resource per building you have that requires the resource. So, to build a tank, you need to have at least one source of oil. Two cities can't use the same source, so to produce a tank and a plane you need at least two sources. You could impose a production penalty as an alternate if you aren't a fan of the binary you can or you can't system.
I don't have an opinion on corporations--haven't played enough games with them to comment intelligently.
On Units and Military: I won't comment on nukes, largely for the same reason as corporations--I don't play enough games that last past the Industrial era. I vastly prefer the one UU and one UB per civ rule, largely because it isn't possible for us to give every Civ a unique unit for every era unless you just pull them out your rear (language censored for the forum so I don't get banned). Instead, just insure every Civ has a single UU, and then use the different art styles to add flavor. Building actual satellites after researching the satellites tech would be a neat addition.
Government: I really don't know what you are talking about with Federation...would you be unable to select city improvements or guide your worker units (or the Civ5 equivalent) under a Federation? I am working on some Civic changes, but I think a lot of modders around here go overboard with them. You don't need 10 categories with 10 different options to have a good game; there can be a little grace in simplicity. Your listed options largely reflect the choices that are already available in the Government category, except for Anarchy.
Gudinsdiv
Marshal Davout 3 Corps
Among the ideas floated here, I'd like to add to the city capturing and city razing effects shpould be changed for Civ V.
(Note:this has been stated elsewhere in different form by others)
1. When razing a city of population more than, say, three, you should have the ability under Slavery to make a worker out of each population point, OR add them to a city.
2. When capturing a city it is always a bummer that EVERY building(some few exceptions) is completely destroyed. Taking a city would be much more fruitful if it didn't mean having to build it again from the ground up. My suggestion is to have a percentage chance of destruction for each building type. For instance, walls in some cases would NOT be completely destroyed, and markets and/or libraries probably would be.
But let's take it a step further. If a civilization is in the medieval era and three out of seven cities are sacked, surely their civ should fall back a good ways in developemnt on account of stored knowledge in libraries and monastaries being lost. They should actually LOSE techs. This is a small detail that can be easy to create and would add a realism to gameplay. Likewise, sacking a city should give the chance(percentile calculated) of the invading civ to gain a tech from the capture. Not always, but occassionally, since every civs knowledge base is in their cities, right? And likewise, the size and culture of a city would help to determine the negatives and positives on each side for what is lost and what is gained.
Naturally, this would be lessened a good deal once Paper came along, and much more so as the game advanced, to the point where, in the computer age, it becomes much less probable altogether--but not impossible.
3. Rather than getting too into resource utilization, why not feature certain techs that you need a resource to be able to discover--like iron-working. This would make it impossible for a land-locked nation to discover Seafaring, for instance. Ways that civs are kept backward should be exploited so as to encourage meaningful resource trading to begin with. Likewise, if we carry the religion idea a little further, why not feature some religious techs that are automatically given to those civs that share that religion? This would be some boost to the religion game, as well as a dicey way to suggest that overall religious conversion has it's pros and cons. I like the way religious blocks develope in BTS, but taking it that step forward is a real plus--much like how with the UN you are able to introduce civics to all civs, only in this case it is automatic.
4. Last thing--having some thing integral like the Revolution concept. Really playing with city-state theme, and only being able to really tie together tightly your civ near nationalism. This naturally gives religion thast much greater an impact, but other factors can be introduced that can help keep your city in line. Remeber how in Civ 2 your cities would be demanding certain buildings? Along those lines, only with the culture aspect of it, these cities can gain their own identity! Which makes where you build what wonder all the more critical to your overall empire.
Just a few thoughts.
(Note:this has been stated elsewhere in different form by others)
1. When razing a city of population more than, say, three, you should have the ability under Slavery to make a worker out of each population point, OR add them to a city.
2. When capturing a city it is always a bummer that EVERY building(some few exceptions) is completely destroyed. Taking a city would be much more fruitful if it didn't mean having to build it again from the ground up. My suggestion is to have a percentage chance of destruction for each building type. For instance, walls in some cases would NOT be completely destroyed, and markets and/or libraries probably would be.
But let's take it a step further. If a civilization is in the medieval era and three out of seven cities are sacked, surely their civ should fall back a good ways in developemnt on account of stored knowledge in libraries and monastaries being lost. They should actually LOSE techs. This is a small detail that can be easy to create and would add a realism to gameplay. Likewise, sacking a city should give the chance(percentile calculated) of the invading civ to gain a tech from the capture. Not always, but occassionally, since every civs knowledge base is in their cities, right? And likewise, the size and culture of a city would help to determine the negatives and positives on each side for what is lost and what is gained.
Naturally, this would be lessened a good deal once Paper came along, and much more so as the game advanced, to the point where, in the computer age, it becomes much less probable altogether--but not impossible.
3. Rather than getting too into resource utilization, why not feature certain techs that you need a resource to be able to discover--like iron-working. This would make it impossible for a land-locked nation to discover Seafaring, for instance. Ways that civs are kept backward should be exploited so as to encourage meaningful resource trading to begin with. Likewise, if we carry the religion idea a little further, why not feature some religious techs that are automatically given to those civs that share that religion? This would be some boost to the religion game, as well as a dicey way to suggest that overall religious conversion has it's pros and cons. I like the way religious blocks develope in BTS, but taking it that step forward is a real plus--much like how with the UN you are able to introduce civics to all civs, only in this case it is automatic.
4. Last thing--having some thing integral like the Revolution concept. Really playing with city-state theme, and only being able to really tie together tightly your civ near nationalism. This naturally gives religion thast much greater an impact, but other factors can be introduced that can help keep your city in line. Remeber how in Civ 2 your cities would be demanding certain buildings? Along those lines, only with the culture aspect of it, these cities can gain their own identity! Which makes where you build what wonder all the more critical to your overall empire.
Just a few thoughts.
Similar threads
