The Civ V wish-list!!!

[Izaak Weiss]

no... that would totally suck! european countrieas would be unplayable!

 

[rysmiel]

A Civilization 5 wish I'd like to see is a big Earth Map that represents the Civs of the world today in terms of their current borders.

Basically, 18 civs start out but only the remaining civs between 1800AD - 2050AD remain at the end of the game. Therefore some civs would transform or attain their current borders. For example, the Americans would have all of North America except for Montezuma and Mexico. Montezuma would not send settlers to where Seattle or Chicago is and George Washington would not send settlers overseas or to South America. The same applies to India where they would be confined to the Indian continent, the Japanese to the islands, Saladin to the Arab pennisula.... etc.

No other civ would settle beyond their own borders. Areas such as Australia, Canada, Phillipines, Vietnam, would be settle by barbarians unless their is an Australia & Canada, Vietnamese & Phillipine Civilization in the Civ 5. Otherwise different barbarian civs for each continent would exist.

So if you can't extend beyond your borders, and everyone is bound to their current "realistic" size and power, how on Earth could any civ other than Russia and maybe China actually win ?

 

[eddiewillers]

So if you can't extend beyond your borders, and everyone is bound to their current "realistic" size and power, how on Earth could any civ other than Russia and maybe China actually win ?

Build the U.N.

I think the answer to his suggestion is called scenario.

I like the idea of supply lines: it will make war more organized as in fronts, I don't particularly like it when a non-specialized unit travels a long distance to "support" an ally and takes a city from me, when that happens before the Modern era it makes me sick.

Also in line with the supply lines idea, the food diverted to the campaigners should disappear from somewhere else - obviously, so I insist on the idea of a gran stock, and even the possibility to TRADE in grain in the early game. Historically it has happened since Egypt.

 

[AutomatedTeller]

oh - a way to deal with not having resources. nothing crappier than teching BW and IW and having no metal nearby.

It would be nice if you could do something like make crappy axes and swords - or maybe with mining, you see where the copper/iron is (or whatever resource you use for those things), but can't improve them until you get BW and IW, so you can at least say "damn - no metal, better go find horses or make archers"

Also, would be really nice if archers and LB's could actually be useful on offense if you have no resources...

 

[MistroPain]

A Civilization 5 wish I'd like to see is a big Earth Map that represents the Civs of the world today in terms of their current borders.

Basically, 18 civs start out but only the remaining civs between 1800AD - 2050AD remain at the end of the game. Therefore some civs would transform or attain their current borders. For example, the Americans would have all of North America except for Montezuma and Mexico. Montezuma would not send settlers to where Seattle or Chicago is and George Washington would not send settlers overseas or to South America. The same applies to India where they would be confined to the Indian continent, the Japanese to the islands, Saladin to the Arab pennisula.... etc.

No other civ would settle beyond their own borders. Areas such as Australia, Canada, Phillipines, Vietnam, would be settle by barbarians unless their is an Australia & Canada, Vietnamese & Phillipine Civilization in the Civ 5. Otherwise different barbarian civs for each continent would exist.

Ah I think the issue here is that this goes against the concept of the Civilization game. As someone earlier stated it would probably be left best as an idea for a "Scenario" concept.
The idea of the Civilization game is to create your own civilization (OR at least change the civilization you are playing) and raise it to be your own. It is the reason I personally believe that the game should be moving away from true historical accuracies... The game should not revolve around what happened in history but instead revolve around the possibilities of that civilization in a new history and world...

Otherwise we may aswell set it up so that game over occurs in about 300 AD for the Romans or 900 AD for the Byzantium as thats when those civs crumbled and in all truth I already hate the current gameover after 200 turns (Thank god you can continue though) to see a game over in what could be 50 turns would just make me scream lol.

Though I can see this being utilized so that the game limits how far you may build a new city without certain techs and stuff like that. An Ancient Period civ would never be able to efficiently hold a territory as large as the US without a ton of issues coming up at every corner of the Empire... Rome suffered a lot from this, I have always thought that Rome could have held out much longer if it didnt spend so much of its resources on these areas and just gave it up (Or at least some of it)...




AutomatedTeller I definately agree with the idea of enhancing Archers. Archers were a key piece in almost every military. China was said to be impenetrable due to its massive standing armies utilizing the Crossbow as its core weapon (Moreso than spears, swords or any weapon at all). Mongolia conquered almost the whole world thanks to the skilled horseback archers. Rome's "Great" (I used quotations cause I think they are overhyped) Legions were stopped by the Parthinians simply because the Romans Legions shields could not withstand the Parthinian Bow's strength and the Parthinians used hit and run tactics with these bows (It, to an extent, resulted in an overhall of the Roman Armies to include more Archers and Cavalry to deal with Archers).




eddiewillers I definately agree that food should be taken from elsewhere. One issue almost EVERY early civilization saw was that feeding armies was difficult. The earliest standing armies of Sumeria and Assyria had to cut campaigns short to return there soldiers back home for the Harvest seasons meaning that the armies were never really able to go out on proper full length campaigns, giving time for there enemies to re-cuperate and re-establish themselves. One solution was to use the vassal states to provide food for armies marching that direction, Romans constantly bled its Vassals dry for its armies and where able to conquer a lot of land due to it. I would personally like to see a proper Logistics system added where food must be taken from somewhere in specific (Maybe vassals or cities you have established on the front lines). Maybe the further an army marchers the weaker the Supply Line gets, resulting in less food for troops... Heck this could utilize the Civics stuff so that you can select a specific method of food provisions...
One of the biggest differences between modern combat and ancient combat is how much easier it has become to provide food to soldiers, more importantly its become easier on a global scale... It amazes me how the US are able to provide food to there soldiers in Iraq, you gotta respect how well they do it... And this is coming from a person who is Iraqi by blood
There are so many more examples of how well Logistics has advanced in the Modern Age:
-Vietnam
-Falkland Islands (Then again this was like a one week thing)
-US's Attack on Japan
-Japans Attack on US

Whereas in the past people like Alexander the Great (Considered as one of the best when it comes to logistics) had a hard enough time trying to figure out how to feed their soldiers. Alexanders biggest accomplishment was marching his men over the mountains, and his attack on India, both requiring very well planned logistics in an era where it was very difficult to transport goods.

 

[rysmiel]

Though I can see this being utilized so that the game limits how far you may build a new city without certain techs and stuff like that. An Ancient Period civ would never be able to efficiently hold a territory as large as the US without a ton of issues coming up at every corner of the Empire... Rome suffered a lot from this, I have always thought that Rome could have held out much longer if it didnt spend so much of its resources on these areas and just gave it up (Or at least some of it).

This would be the Roman civilisation that lasted a little less than five times as long as the US has, so far ?

I'm not saying Rome did not have its problems, just that this is not an argument for large empires at ancient/classical tech levels being a priori unfeasible.

 

[Hervé russian]

Likely more than a wish, this would be a request for Civ V :

The rate of money / influence / spying / science can be moved 1% by 1% instead of 10 by 10...

I understand they did not include it in the first civ, maybe they have forgotten in the second but i waited it in the third and i was astonnished they didn't put it in the forth !!

We need to balance our founds !!

 

[f35acepilot]

Likely more than a wish, this would be a request for Civ V :

The rate of money / influence / spying / science can be moved 1% by 1% instead of 10 by 10...

I understand they did not include it in the first civ, maybe they have forgotten in the second but i waited it in the third and i was astonnished they didn't put it in the forth !!

We need to balance our founds !!

I think you can change the amount that the slider changes by pretty easily...look around the creation and customization forum.

 

[Hervé russian]

I think you can change the amount that the slider changes by pretty easily...look around the creation and customization forum.

I didn't know we can customize it... But i still think they can put in the current game...

I will post some other ideas, but this forum is real big... I can't all read, so maybe it would be reposts... i apologize in advance.

(well, for all my futur posts, excuse me for my english)...

 

[Camikaze]

Welcome to the forums.

 

[volbound1700]

BETTER COMBAT - There needs to be a way for you to use some strategy to help you win combat and not all blind luck

Faster AI moves. AI moves too slow in the game. Some of that is the programming. Total War series doesn't have as long of AI turns as Civilization III and IV have.

Move worldbuilder outside of game again or make it accessible without having to enter the game.

 

[Camikaze]

Strategy, yes, but tactics (which is what you seem to be suggesting), no.

I think AI move speed is more dependent on your computer, but if you have 'see enemy moves' toggled on, for example, it would be good if you didn't have to watch a destroyer move round and round in a circle 8 times.

As for WB, I agree.

 

[volbound1700]

I have enemy moves on but most the time I just find myself sitting there. It seems like barbarians are the problem because in a hot seat game with all human players I have seen it slow as well.

I do wish Civ could move more into a Total War series type battles but not full use of those battles. It sucks at times to have a large army marching on a city and an inferior unit knocks out wave after wave of armies. I thought one option could be mass attack were you send in all your armies at once instead of doing it in stacks with waves.

 

[AutomatedTeller]

One thing I'd like is for the start generator to guarantee any resource needed for an early to mid UU to be within 3 tiles of the original capital.

ie, if you need iron, copper or horse, it's available.

There's nothing quite as annoying as not having iron for your praets - what's the point of being rome without praets?

you could set up an option to not ensure it if you wanted a potentially more difficult game

 

[Camikaze]

That would make the Praet even more overpowered, though. You will be guaranteed to be able to use it, whilst other civs will be stuck without those resources.

 

[Öjevind Lång]

I hope they'll write a better manual (not least better indexed); the one for Civ II is still unsurpassed. And some of the historical "information" in the Civilopedia is just bizarre, for example the statement that England was pillaged by "Danes and Vikings" (as if they Danes weren't Vikings too), and that Britain after WWII "introduced socialism". You can call the rather modest social reforms after 1918 all manner of things, but socialism isn't one of them.

Also: lose the spy system, or at least remove the spy slide, make the spies less cheap to build and introduce possible sanctions for successful or failed acts of terrorism. Talk about something being overpowered! (And boring. And annoying.)

 

[Huayna Capac357]

My only wish-list is for Firaxis to leave out the racism and sexism, especially regarding civs in Africa.

 

[Loppan Torkel]

Where's the racism and sexism in the civs regarding Africa?


I want a whole new take on techs. Much broader, and deeper, more randomness involved, perhaps you can choose an area of interest to research, but there could also be discoveries connected to appearance of great persons who discover techs that are related to how you play and where you are and have. A lot less techtrading and instead seeping of knowledge, stealing and conquered techs should be more important. It shouldn't be more complicated than now.

The goal of this would be to experience more varied games and more encounters where civs are fundamentally different to each other. A lot of techs should go undiscovered each playthrough and most should not be discovered by selecting a specific one to research, but by coincidence and the right action to gain it.

The techs could probably be divided in different tiers, where the first tier-techs would be similar to what's in the earlier civs, and the later tier-techs would rise from each of the first tier-techs. Use a lot of Bronzeworking in your military and you'll get improved weapons in the right circumstances.

 

[Huayna Capac357]

1. Shaka
2. Cleopatra

Done.

 

[Loppan Torkel]

1. Shaka
2. Cleopatra

Done.

I haven't noticed it, but then I haven't played it a lot either. So the whole appearance of Shaka and Cleopatra is racist or sexist, and it should rather be applied on civs outside Africa...?