1. We have added a Gift Upgrades feature that allows you to gift an account upgrade to another member, just in time for the holiday season. You can see the gift option when going to the Account Upgrades screen, or on any user profile screen.
    Dismiss Notice

The Civ V wish-list!!!

Discussion in 'Civ - Ideas & Suggestions' started by Logitech, Nov 18, 2007.

  1. Zeeba_238

    Zeeba_238 pearls before swine fan

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2009
    Messages:
    32
    Location:
    My house
    In most games, they have tracks recorded by actual bands, not just music made by a computer. So maybe we could get the programmers some music recorded live?

    Has anyone said anything about the weather yet? (Your unit can't go into the jungle because it's raining. Ha ha.)

    Or take Hannibal's situation--his army got owned because it was crossing snow covered mountains with elephants.
     
  2. AndrewCree

    AndrewCree Chieftain

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2005
    Messages:
    15
    Too many ideas that need further development, otherwise they simply add complexity without increasing the value of the game.

    Example, the tax slider part 2.

    At least this one does mention bonuses (although penalties could apply as well), but then gives no suggestions!

    I'll look at education. Currently, only literacy is tracked.

    Let's change this so that the education level of the population is tracked (this can be tricky - a 1630s University student is not going to have the same knowledge as a 1830s University student for example).

    Now we add in that the work done by a citizen is related to the education/knowledge rating of the citizen (awhich should be tracked individually).

    So as an example (having to rush the names here, just using a number):

    1 - (starting level) - can gather up to 2 food, 1 hammer, 1 coin
    2 - (needs libraries) - can gather up to 3/2/2
    3 - (needs schools [new education building]) - can gather up to 4/3/3
    4 - (needs universities) - can gather up to 5/4/4
    5 - (research labs) - can gather maximum resources

    [I did think about making it a percentage, but that has the potential to cause a problem early game with food shortages - although percentages would work for specialists].

    Putting more tax to education increases the rate of education improvement. A low value (say 1g per instiution per city) should be adequate to maintain the standard of education. This means there's times when you can cut down on education expenditure. Other times, you will want to increase it (e.g. you are building a lot of education buildings after conquering a less well educated nation).

    Finally, we can make education buildings effectively "maintaince free" - upkeep comes from the eduction "budget", not the "general" budget.



    However, is this going to add to the enjoyment factor? It is, after all, another level of complexity and micro-management that not everyone will want. I'm of the opinion that such "sim-like" changes may be better recieved in the form of options (Detailed Budgets in this case).


    I will come back and edit this later - I'm close to running late for work now (I think I have a better idea for how to use the education levels).

    Edit:

    Yeah, the alternative certainly seems simpler to understand.

    Rather than the Education level limiting the maximum capabilities of a Citizen, a certain education level is required to benefit from an advance/improvement.

    As an example, a education-level 1 citizen can only gather the basic resources from a tile.

    Education level 2 allows them to take advantage of Irrigation and Mines.

    Education level 3 allows them to use Plantations

    Education level 4 allows them to use Workshops

    Education level 5 allows them to use Offshore Platforms.

    It's not a definative list by any means (nor is it intended to be).



    The question now though, is "does this increase in complexity add anything to the game?".

    I've had fun coming up with it. I can see it being a pain in the backside to play with. Hence, it needs to be optional.
     
  3. Öjevind Lång

    Öjevind Lång Deity

    Joined:
    Aug 22, 2005
    Messages:
    2,371
    If espionage is kept in, at least get rid of that damned espionage slider and make spies more expensive to build. Also, make it possible (but not inevitable) to discover who is behind a successful espionage operation, and if the spy committed an act of terrorism (poisoning water, blowing up buildings and so on), include the option to demand compensation from the offending country. If the demand (which should be possible to satisfy) is rejected, one should be entitled to declare war without any diplomatic penalty. If the spy wasn't currently doing anything naughty or was just trying to steal technologies, influence culture or the like, enable the right to close borders and curtail all trade agreements with the offending country without suffering a diplomatic penalty with it.

    I think the espionage slider is an unnecessary complication - it makes the game less enjoyable, not more.
     
  4. Gudinsdiv

    Gudinsdiv Marshal Davout 3 Corps

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2007
    Messages:
    207
    Location:
    New Jersey, 24th lrgst economy
    Ojevind:

    I agree about the slider, but no the "caught spy" ramifications. Taking a historical example, Israel has been caught numorous times stealing tech from the US but there has never been ANY penalty whatsoever.
    Without the slider, all espionage points would be based on buildings and advancements, as well as super spies.
    This is a great idea.
    However, remember that a given civs level of intelligence against another determines whether a spy is caught or whether you know where the spy is from.

    But consider this: in the game one of the first things that espionage points tell you is what a civ is researching and then you gain visibility of their cities, and eventually you can look into their city screens.
    I say put seeing their research way ahead. How is it we can see so easily what's done behind closed doors, but the obvious is obscured?
    The first benefit should be city visibility, then city-screen access, and then seeing their research--because seeing their research is pretty critical.
    Likewise, having your spy in an enemy city should allow you to open the city screen automatically--at least until and if the spy is caught. This makes your decision-making of what to do whith the spy much better.
     
  5. Öjevind Lång

    Öjevind Lång Deity

    Joined:
    Aug 22, 2005
    Messages:
    2,371
    I agree, though perhaps a spy should have to stay in a city for a certain number of turns before it can open the citt screen. Experience points for spies would also be a good idea.
     
  6. Gudinsdiv

    Gudinsdiv Marshal Davout 3 Corps

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2007
    Messages:
    207
    Location:
    New Jersey, 24th lrgst economy
    I've been playing the Rise of Mankind mod where spies do get experience. I like the idea, as well.

    What do you think of this idea(since, like you, I don't agree with idea of spy missions have so many elemants of sabotage and terrorism):

    Emissary: available with Alphabet, replacing spy; can construct an embassy in foreign capital(espionage boost for both players and mutual territorial visibility); can steal technology and open city screens; religious or cultural influence; change civics

    Spy: available with tech(not sure which) and/or upgrade;basic spy abilities above, +bribe unit and infiltrate enemy(confusion level reflected by % health loss of units--though relatively small and each instance increases possibility of detection); religious or cultural influence; change civics

    Diplomat: available with tech(again not sure) same as spy, but can improve relations by visit to rivals capital;give gift(relations boost);improve embassy(gold cost, relations boost); berate leader(relations drop--just short of war); sending Diplomat on peace mission would increase chance of cease-fire without danger of vassalage, HOWEVER, this doesn't mean a civ won't simply "dismiss diplomat"

    Saboteur: emissary upgrade, available with tech, but after gunpowder; poison water; destroy buildings, etc.--no culture or religious influence as opposed to spy/diplomat, no civics changes; bribe unit; infiltrate enemy

    Terrorist: sabotuer upgrade, available with tech; same as sabotuer + ambush enemy(same as infiltrate above but percentage damage is higher); detonate oil field; hijack plane(unhappiness in target city); assasinate great specialist; others I'd have to think up

    Emissary>Spy>Diplomat
    Emissary>Sabotuer>Terrorist

    Whadaya think?
     
  7. Gudinsdiv

    Gudinsdiv Marshal Davout 3 Corps

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2007
    Messages:
    207
    Location:
    New Jersey, 24th lrgst economy
    IMO, that's really the role that specialists play in the game, isn't it? That's the educated elite at work right there.
     
  8. Rusty Edge

    Rusty Edge Deity

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2007
    Messages:
    2,895
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Cheeseland
    To my way of thinking, a Space Victory is establishing humans off- planet. That way the species is no longer vulnerable to a single asteroid/comet particle or other cataclysmic meteorite strike.

    It doesn't have to be Alpha Centauri as in the original Civ. I could be happy with a colony on our moon, Mars or in the asteroid belt. Each has it's own advantages and prerequisites.

    .
     
  9. Camikaze

    Camikaze Administrator Administrator

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2008
    Messages:
    27,225
    Location:
    Sydney
    I think a moon colony would be a lot more realistic. I would quote that for seeming absurdity if it wasn't so true. The way the game is structured, it is made out that getting to Alpha Centauri would be possible in the present day, or not long afterwards, which is utterly ridiculous. Particularly when the most high-tech energy source is oil, or the nuclear plant. If Civ V is going to contain the same victory condition, it should at least make it more realistic by extending the game into the future further.
     
  10. Öjevind Lång

    Öjevind Lång Deity

    Joined:
    Aug 22, 2005
    Messages:
    2,371
    It could perhaps benefit from some refinement, but I like the general idea a lot. Still, I do think there should be the possibility for a spied-on civ to react if it wants to.
     
  11. MtB

    MtB Chieftain

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2009
    Messages:
    18
    The original message and attachment has been deleted because the document has been updated. You can find it somewhere below...
     
  12. Öjevind Lång

    Öjevind Lång Deity

    Joined:
    Aug 22, 2005
    Messages:
    2,371
    Good work. Thank you!
     
  13. MtB

    MtB Chieftain

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2009
    Messages:
    18
    This posting and attached file has been moved to page 46.
     
  14. vinx98

    vinx98 Chieftain

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2009
    Messages:
    5
    Just my 2 cents worth as I love the game.

    I think two things would help to make it a more enjoyable and fun experience.

    First, more user creativity. For starters, it would be great if you could create your own religion, or if it was named after you. For example, if your name is John, it would be called Johnism, etc. You could define the specifics of this religion and try to work out ways to spread the religion – by the way, just sending a monk to another city is not a fun way to spread a religion, perhaps you could win their heart and soul by building a massive building in another city or by reducing hunger and poverty, or building a hospital, etc – these would cost you resources of course, but it would be a more challenging way of spreading religion. You should also be able to name your religion and there should be a “pope” like figure that lives in a certain city, which would massively increase the prestige and culture of that city and instantly make it a holy city.

    My second idea has kind of been thought of with colonies, but I want to bring in a different concept which I think will make the game a lot more fun. I think within your civilization, there should be regions/communities/zones/states (depending on what type of empire you have). In the beginning the region and civilization will be “one”, but as it grows, new regions could appear especially depending on resource or natural borders – for example a river could be a region border, or a region could be small as it is extremely wealthy already, or even better you could change the borders of the region as you see fit. You could put a leader to head up each region, perhaps a successful military leader, or a major religious leader, or even a warrior, swordsman, etc each one will have their benefits, but obviously the more prestigious the person, the better the leader is. I like this tactic because it means that if you don’t want to, you don’t have to micromanage each city, you can manage at a regional level, or you could get another leader to take care of the region for you. What you could do is manage on a macro level, check to see how your regional leaders are doing, and throw the person out if they are doing a bad job. WHATS THE POINT OF THIS you may ask? Well, I see it that this could be a new dynamic dimension to the game – can you imagine that your region wants to split (Colonization style) and has to fight you for it – or perhaps you could cede a region in peace negotiation – the region could have a different religion causing inter-regional tensions, the region might have terrorist activites (like ETA, IRA, etc), the region could set it’s own taxes (or you could set taxes for each region separately depending on their resource requirements, one region might be resource rich – so you could have inter-region trading, the possibilities are endless and would add a new, fun dimension to the game for sure – you could also make it as detailed as you want because assigning leaders to regions would mean that the cities that fall within those regions could be managed without you. If you have a particularly badly managed region, you could move a really good leader into the bad region to get it sorted out or just take over control yourself and sort out the problems. You could devote one region to making great buildings, another region to farming and production, another region for trade, another for producing defense units, etc. Finally (and the one I like the best), is that a region would act as a traditional AI (but they are on your side!), for example, units can belong to a region, or you can assign your units to a specific region – instead of guarding cities, they roam around the region – guarding the region. You could instruct a region to attach another civilization, so basically it would be like making the AI declare war against another region – your civ would be at war, but you wouldn’t have to do any fighting as your AI is hard at it.

    I have loads more ideas, but just wanted to put this up for now as to not overload everyone! I know not every will like this, but it would definitely make it a lot more fun for me!
     
  15. owenbevt

    owenbevt Chieftain

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2009
    Messages:
    47
    I like the idea about more player creativity in naming etc. religions, and a more fun way to spread them would be good though it should be as simple as possible in the base game, us fanatics can add our own complications latter on.

    as people said near the beginning dear etc. recourses should migrate. Also some resources should run out (until you find more) if you over use them. Wood should be a semi-resource in some respects, if you cut down your last forest early on your navy will be screwed.

    the main thing that needs adding is the ability to import/export food between you cities (at a cost of a % of that food until you have Refrigeration), few of the grate city’s of history grew using only local food and its the one thing I find frustratingly inaccurate about the game.
     
  16. Öjevind Lång

    Öjevind Lång Deity

    Joined:
    Aug 22, 2005
    Messages:
    2,371
    Why not an official atheist civic, available from industrialism onwards? Religions and religious buildings give you neither benefits nor unhappiness, but countries running a state religion hold your atheism against you, particularly if their religion(s) are present in your cities. "You oppress our brethren in the faith!"

    Advantages? If you're at war with a country whose state religion exists in one or more of your citis, your subjects are not annoyed at the war against their co-religionists. (They don't dare to.) And of course, though religious cilizations may dislike you for being an atheist, at least they won't hate you for having the wrong religion.
     
  17. eddiewillers

    eddiewillers Chieftain

    Joined:
    Aug 6, 2007
    Messages:
    64
    There is no such thing as Atheism that is not grossly dilluted. In historical reallity, religion is proto-philosophy.

    What you refer to as an -excuse me- "Atheist religion" beggining with Industrialization is actually a philosophy called Materialism, and the behaviour of a Civ that adopts it officially is Communism.


    I support your idea of having philosophies in addition to, or as an evolution to religion.
    It would be like the switch from blades to gunpowder.

    Suggestions for philosophies:

    Materialism: As described by the Viking.
    Pragmatism: Should be something like a secular yet religious state, like America, and its behaviour should be realpolitiks.
    Objectivism: Available only after Materialism is discovered :D . Its behaviour should be kinda like Switzerland's. A lot more productivity, specialized citizens, but some isolation as punishment.

    These philosophies could be discovered by either learning a new tech, or maybe completing a wonder such as a book (think something Marx for Materialism; Dewey or Skinner for Pragmatism, Atlas Shrugged for Objectivism, or Ray Kurzweil for say, Transhumanism)

    There could also be setbacks, for example, Scientology could be discovered after completing the Dianetics wonder, but I don't think Firaxis has enough lawyers to handle that.

    Also:

    I'd like to see schisms:
    Like Eastern and Western Christiandom, or Shi'a and Sunni,

    and reformations among the religions:
    Like Protestantism from Catholicism 400 years ago, or what's happening within Islam as we speak.

    While these would behave as different religions, Civs should feel sympathy for their fellow coreligionists of another sect; and new holy cities would arise later in the game allowing for later game Cultural empowerment.
     
  18. eddiewillers

    eddiewillers Chieftain

    Joined:
    Aug 6, 2007
    Messages:
    64
    So very true about Food. I've been meaning to raise that point (or maybe already did).
    The bread that comes from around the city is ok, and the granaries are ok as well, but there should be a way -until refrigeration- to stock GRAIN civ-wise not city-wise, the way we already stock gold.

    Also I'd like the ability and trhill of genetics before gentics is discovered, meaning:

    When you take an explorer to a far away continent and it discovers an unconnected resource unknown in your landmass, it automatically discovers the tech "potatoes" or "Maize" which makes all your cities produce more food.

    This would be to emulate how the European population grew before industrialization, but after and thanks to the importation of American potatoes.

    In this sense I believe Genes should be treated as techs because you don't need to have a resource connected to enjoy potatoes, you only need one explorer to take back one seed or tubercule back home.

    I'd also like different climates and biomes. It drives me crazy that Tropical regions are just as inhabitable in early game as after the discovery of DDT which almoast erradicated malaria and made new land more inhabitable. Regardless of the jungle needing iron to be cleared out (very true, study the history of India!), we need a latitude system to render that cleared land still disease prone until the discovery of the pesticides tech.
     
  19. Aserjiek

    Aserjiek Chieftain

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2008
    Messages:
    31
    I think it would be cool to be able to create your own civs through an on game program. I know you can mod it, but an in game program would probably be easier to use and faster. And I'd get rid of leaders and traits altogether and make each civ totally unique in their own right.
     
  20. MistroPain

    MistroPain Chieftain

    Joined:
    May 26, 2008
    Messages:
    50
    I cant seem the right link to find my own posts so I am unsure if ive already posted in this thread...
    There is no difference on the main icon for the thread so I assume I havent posted here, sorry if I have though...
    Anyways, these are my ideas: (Please forgive me if I have posted ideas already covered elsewhere as I have not read much due to the 40+ pages)

    Military Related:

    -Armies:
    The first thing I would like to see in the next civ is the introduction of proper armies, not just units running about but a more common system of armies with multiple units within it.
    The idea here is that armies NEED a commander, no matter what period you go back in armies were present, the first signs of an army exist in the first definitive civilization "Sumeria" which had an army with selected leaders who lead that army. Sure its largest army was 5000 men (And that was deemed massive and impressive by all the opponents of this army) but consider the fact that this could be around 5 to 7 thousand years ago.
    Anyways, back to the point, what I would like to see is that you can produce units and then put them into an army of your choice, each army would have a cap of the number of units allowed in it, depending on either Technology or some other factor. At the start I suggest a cap of 3 units, but make it so that the leader's benefits are good. This does mean that whilst Great Generals should still be available, Generals themselves should be recruitable. A general can give various benefits to an army, I think we should move away from the idea that a general simply provides an EXP bonus...

    -A larger roll in battles:
    One thing ive begun to dislike about Civ is how boring wars can be... All you really do is direct your units to attack another unit. Im not saying we go into depth like a TW game but what I am thinking off is to introduce "Strategies" into the game. The idea is that upon engaging an enemy you may select a strategy to engage them in. Each army would get a basic selection of strategies which define how your army engages another army... Different strategies would have different effects on the enemy. As you advance in military technology you could earn new strategies...
    Im thinking off Strategies like:
    >Wall: +30% Defence
    >Charge: +50% Attack, -30% Defence, certain chance of killing leader!
    >Ambush: Opponent Defence reduced by 20%
    and so on...
    A battle can then be split into three rounds where each force can select one strategy per round, the engaging force is the only force capable of selecting a strategy for the first round tho...
    It doesnt necessarilly have to be strategies, but id just like to be more involved in battles and wars personally. The Civ games are starting to bore me with the way battles go...

    -Balanced Units:
    Civ 4 kinda ruined this, IMO Civ 3 had more balanced units. I understand that units need to take leaps in strength over certain periods of time (E.g. Industrial to Modern) but within the periods themselves the units need to be balanced... More so Sid Meiers needs to add more variation in units... Finally units should do what they actually do, why on Earth do Swordsmen have a City Attack Bonus, it makes no sense whatsoever... Swordsmen should get a bonus to attack against other foot melee troops...

    -More Unique Units:
    I personally like that they introduced unique units and extended it by introducing unique buildings. BUT IMO each nation should have more unique units, im thinking 1 unique unit per period shouldnt hurt... If they need to make up stuff why not, all you gotta do is look at the culture of these civ's and mix it up with the periods they are not in... E.g. America is all about Freedom, and so a unique Chariot may make most sense. Babylon was known for its rich culture with its ritual polytheistic religion, if you need to come up with something it seems to me that you can base it on the novel of Gilgamesh quite easily, in which case you could introduce a tank called the "Gilgamesh Tank" which would have an anti-air attachment in return for being weaker as a tank... The Iroquois are known for being efficient fighters when it comes to hand-to-hand combat, why not give them some sort of ranged/melee soldier for the Modern era and in the ancient era some replacement for the Axemen or the Swordsmen. This game is basically re-writing history so it makes no sense that they are only unique in one specific era... We need to imagine what they would be good at in any other era...

    -Balanced Unique Units:
    Some of these seem silly in that they are way too unbalanced between different nations unique's... They need to be balanced, ignore history in this case... Remember that this game is about re-writing history!

    -Applying Strategy to Airforce:
    I think this one is a bit more important than the earlier Strategy mentioning... The idea here is to allow us more control over our Airforce. One thing I liked about Japan was how well it executed its airstrike on pearl harbour, give us options like that... Flying Low to avoid interception should be an option, ofcourse it'd heavily reduce that units attack strength. Allow us to select what WE want it to attack, again one of the best things about Pearl Harbour was how well it was executed, one of the targets was to immediatly hit all the airplanes the Americans had, give us options of what to hit, from hitting ground troops to supporting other units on the field in their attack to hitting civil areas to create civil unrest and fear amongst the populace...

    -Applying Morale:
    I think morale needs to be applied in the game, a nation that is known for its strength in battle should be able to intimidate the weaker nations that arent known, resulting in a morale loss... So successes elsewhere could result in successes at the current war theatre... Morale could also be a primary factor in espionage missions and stuff giving more to do in espionage.

    -More of a roll in Wars:
    Id like to see more of a roll in wars, one way to do this is to apply morale... There are many other ways, what I would love is to see is the introduction of "World Wars" and things such as...

    -More things to do in the Navy:
    The Navy stuff right now kinda sucks due to the fact that there isnt much to do.
    What I am thinking is to make them much more important in certain aspects of the game. One thing Germany done during WW2 was using U-Boats to hit transport ships going to England, if a good enough resource system is created then this could be implemented very well... Let them hit Trade Routes, Patrol to find other ships, and again make Naval Battles more interesting... I personally like the bombarding things but maybe a larger range can be added. One thing Israel done during the recent attack on the Gaza strip was using there ships to bombard certain areas from far, the cannons on those ships are massive and so they do massive damage... Make it so that Naval ships may be preferable to Artillery guns, remember that artillery isnt being used as much now that the Airforce has come in, its only really used where the airforce cannot be used...
    Things like the Falklands War can also be taken as an example here, make it so that the Navy can act as a strong force when it comes to launching attacks, the UK used to have hundreds of fleets now the only fleets it has is for Amphibious assaults (Heck, before the Falklands War it didnt even have those) and for Aircraft Carriers protection, make it so that the rolls of Amphibious Assaults and Aircraft Carriers are grown so that Navies become a necessity in some way in the future on coastal attacks...

    -Introduction of proper Logistics:
    Alexander the Great is well known not only cause he was able to conquer massive lands and great empires but because he was able to do it with good logistical support and a supply line that was efficient and worked well... The military need a good way of operating in the game, one where supply lines are present and logistics is important... Supply Lines could be held via supplying armies, lets say that you need to be in the range of 5 squares of a Supply Unit (Without obstacles such as mountains) to be supplied, you then create a chain of these supply units... This also requires a better resource system especially for food as food would be taken into consideration if this was introduced...

    -Make war more devestating:
    Not just on the side thats loosing its lands but on the side thats attacking, make it so that an attack isnt always a good idea so that wars have to be thought off and prepared... The idea of proper logistics could do this enough on its own but then the defending teams will always win... Things like a scare factor need to be introduced better in Civ5, defections should occur as should rebellions...
    Holding territory should be just as difficult to gain it...

    -Rebellions:
    Rebellions should occur on a better scale next game, make it so that there are predefined factors that result in rebellions. Rebellions should result in the creation of a new empire/civ in the game... It could be historic but it doesnt have to...
    E.g. If the Greek city of Macedon rebels it could result in a new Civ called: Macedonia
    If the Chinese cities that would be located in China's real NorthWest rebelled it could result in the state of Tibet and so on...




    Ill edit this post with non military stuff. Hope you guys like my ideas :D
     

Share This Page