The Civ V wish-list!!!

I think that comparing Phoenicians to Elves is a little silly. Phoenicians conquering the planet is leaps and bounds ahead of Elves conquering the world, in terms of realism. For example, Phoenicians exist.

What you're talking about is a scenario for Civ5.
 
I think that comparing Phoenicians to Elves is a little silly. Phoenicians conquering the planet is leaps and bounds ahead of Elves conquering the world, in terms of realism. For example, Phoenicians exist.

Sorry to disappoint you esemjay but Pheonicians do not exist. They were all wiped out long ago. They left no history of themselves and we only have Roman and Greek accounts that they ever existed.

What you're talking about is a scenario for Civ5.

Yes you are probably right. Maybe a Dungeon and dragon off shoot. It would have to keep to the general civilization rules however or the game would be spoiled. Dwarves could be given extra mining knowledge, Gnomes
extra technology, and elves some sort of control over nature and all growing things. Instead of barbarians there could be mythological creatures roaming the earth to cause havoc. Pirates and sea monsters could roam the oceans etc. My idea was not to change the way civilization is played, but to add
extra things to make it more interesting.
 
Yeah I accept it could be a scenario or a mod, in fact aren't there already mods that are like this?
 
Yes, Fall from Heaven.
 
one of the biggest feature adds i'd like to see would be leader successions. One leader per civ would be eliminated. (no more bobbleheads, unfortunately) Each leader of your faction would have 3 traits - any combo of good and bad traits. You would, of course, have great leaders for the civ that would have 3 good traits. And you would have the Neros and Stalins with lots of negatives and a few-none good traits. Examples of negatives might be a trait 'corruption' which reduces hammers. Another might be 'unpopular' which reduces happiness.

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

You would also have the option to use your Great People to overthrow or (in the case of democracy) replace the current leader in an election, (useful if you had a bad leader in place with lots of negatives). This 'feature' would replace the current golden age. Instead of a golden age you would get a set # of turns of a great leader in charge. You could also assassinate leaders from rival factions or aid a revolution to overthrow them. I think this could be an awesome addition and follow with the level of enhancements we've gotten, culture in civ3, religion in civ4, etc..
 
I think the whole unit system needs a rehaul. I mentionned this elsewhere, but there is a dichotomy for me in Civilization in that the game is seen as 6000 years of simulation of a warped history, yet in tile-improvement and war terms it feels a lot like just another RTS.

The rehaul I propose may be rather bold, but maybe Civilization needs to be bold to refresh its series.

First, the worker unit... I wish that land transformed itself when worked by a city. In the city screen, you could pick a tile to be worked "as a farm" and with time, farms would develop in the tile and become more efficient at it. In a way, this is already in the game through cottages, but for some reason, you still need to have a strange worker unit create the "cottage" first. I'm not sure why. In the same way, early roads happened by themselves; create two neighbouring cities in the 2000BCs, a road would develop by itself and after a while trade between these cities would increase. In the more industrial/modern age, you could start upgrading some of these roads to more official highways and such to increase trade even more. But I find micromanaging workers around to be a bit tedious and weird. It's not a perfect idea, but I'm sure some of it could work.

Same goes for the army. A lot of people complain about the army and combat system. Why build individual units again? I'd much rather set a city to continually build "swords and armors" or "rifles" and maybe have a city continually grow "manpower". That could be a measure of a civilization's power. When time came for war, you could mobilize your men and equip them with the weaponry you made over the past years to create army groups. There should be a way to see your army in the field, but I'd much rather have a bit more automatism to war. As the ruler of the civilization, I would decide where to open fronts, and send my army groups there, and the front would move depending on how much army is being sent to itand how it is equipped. Of course, we should be careful to let the player have ways to do strategic decisions and which cities to take... But I find the idea of individual units moving towards the enemy for 15 turns (which is like 300 years in the early game) a bit weird.

Anyway, to me it all comes down to the inherent problem of having units in a game that spans thousands of years. There are things to make better in my idea, and it's largely food for thought, but I hope at least someone somewhere finds it interesting.
 
I did, and I largely agree with you, roads should develop on their own accord, and rivers should play a larger part of the game, there should be navigable rivers , uncrossable rivers, and crossable rivers, I am thinking of sections of river where a gorge has formed and it is impassable, cliffs should form that make certain tile borders uncrossable, and these might not just be near rivers. Mountains should be crossable, think of Hannibal with his Elephants in the Alps. Similarly think of Hadrians Wall (wiki it if you are unfamilar, northern England/ northern limit of the Roman Empire), the actual wall was only a few feet high, but it was built across cliff tops and steep hills.

Farms SHOULD just appear, and towns, villages and hamlets, might appear if there is plenty of food for the city the farms are near, or perhaps cities are just bigger towns anyway.

If people are happy with a war, ok not happy but they agree with it, for instance if they are fighting for their freedom, or if their civilisation is small and yearns to be bigger, then units should be cheaper, as people will want to be in the army. There are of course some very complex issues and dramatic changes might not work. One of the main things I do not understand is why an axe man built in 2000BC is still exactly the same in 2000AD if you have not deleted him, surely he has a better axe now or something, why can you not give him a gun instead, I mean he knows about fighting and war, can't you just teach him how to shoot?
 
as to the last bit of that I am aware that you can pay to upgrade units, I just always think its pretty expensive, but I guess thats a balance issue which has been... well balanced.
 
SimonL said:
The rehaul I propose may be rather bold, but maybe Civilization needs to be bold to refresh its series.
Click to expand...

I think what you propose would kill it as Civ for me, I'm afraid. Though that is in a context of finding micromanagement half the fun of the game.

Same goes for the army. A lot of people complain about the army and combat system. Why build individual units again? I'd much rather set a city to continually build "swords and armors" or "rifles" and maybe have a city continually grow "manpower". That could be a measure of a civilization's power. When time came for war, you could mobilize your men and equip them with the weaponry you made over the past years to create army groups. There should be a way to see your army in the field, but I'd much rather have a bit more automatism to war.
Click to expand...

which means needing orders of magnitude better AI to fight the war for you.

As the ruler of the civilization, I would decide where to open fronts, and send my army groups there, and the front would move depending on how much army is being sent to itand how it is equipped. Of course, we should be careful to let the player have ways to do strategic decisions and which cities to take... But I find the idea of individual units moving towards the enemy for 15 turns (which is like 300 years in the early game) a bit weird.
Click to expand...

What this proposal does not readily show a way to implement, though, is how having units allows force concentration. There is a world of difference between forty units along a frontier with half a dozen cities on the other side, and forty units concentrated on the city you want to take.
 
This was discussed partially on the Newbie question thread recently and I thought it sounded like a nice idea, so here we go:

Regarding Vassal states, a nice idea would be to include a diplomacy bonus for liberating a capitulated Vassal state.

Example: The english are happily constructing cities one day, when Russia comes along and thrashes them senseless. England decides to capitulate in order to survive and rebuild. They're pretty much oppressed, having to hand over a lot of materials. Suddenly, Caesar comes along with his Romans and thoroughly destroys Russia to such a status that England is able to free itself from the clutches of its master. The English are extremely grateful to the Romans, and they go on to form an alliance and trade fairly, dominating the world happily ever after. The end :)

I'm sure in a multiplayer match, if I ever capitulated to another civ (Which I most likely would, being the cautiously diplomatic (read: cowardly) leader I am), I would probably want to form an alliance with whoever freed me. So I'd imagine that'd be a fun feature to have ^^

Another idea (if it has not already been suggested/implemented) would be (in Multiplayer games) to allow players to set their own diplomacy settings towards other players' civs they have met, as well as giving a reason. This is borrowed slightly from my time on EVE Online, having seen the option to alter your disposition towards another player as well as providing a reason.
 
tflst5 said:
one of the biggest feature adds i'd like to see would be leader successions. One leader per civ would be eliminated. (no more bobbleheads, unfortunately) Each leader of your faction would have 3 traits - any combo of good and bad traits. You would, of course, have great leaders for the civ that would have 3 good traits. And you would have the Neros and Stalins with lots of negatives and a few-none good traits. Examples of negatives might be a trait 'corruption' which reduces hammers. Another might be 'unpopular' which reduces happiness.

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

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

That would definetly add Drama to the game. :sniper:
 
SimonL said:
I think the whole unit system needs a rehaul. I mentionned this elsewhere, but there is a dichotomy for me in Civilization in that the game is seen as 6000 years of simulation of a warped history, yet in tile-improvement and war terms it feels a lot like just another RTS.

The rehaul I propose may be rather bold, but maybe Civilization needs to be bold to refresh its series.

First, the worker unit... I wish that land transformed itself when worked by a city. In the city screen, you could pick a tile to be worked "as a farm" and with time, farms would develop in the tile and become more efficient at it. In a way, this is already in the game through cottages, but for some reason, you still need to have a strange worker unit create the "cottage" first. I'm not sure why. In the same way, early roads happened by themselves; create two neighbouring cities in the 2000BCs, a road would develop by itself and after a while trade between these cities would increase. In the more industrial/modern age, you could start upgrading some of these roads to more official highways and such to increase trade even more. But I find micromanaging workers around to be a bit tedious and weird. It's not a perfect idea, but I'm sure some of it could work.

Same goes for the army. A lot of people complain about the army and combat system. Why build individual units again? I'd much rather set a city to continually build "swords and armors" or "rifles" and maybe have a city continually grow "manpower". That could be a measure of a civilization's power. When time came for war, you could mobilize your men and equip them with the weaponry you made over the past years to create army groups. There should be a way to see your army in the field, but I'd much rather have a bit more automatism to war. As the ruler of the civilization, I would decide where to open fronts, and send my army groups there, and the front would move depending on how much army is being sent to itand how it is equipped. Of course, we should be careful to let the player have ways to do strategic decisions and which cities to take... But I find the idea of individual units moving towards the enemy for 15 turns (which is like 300 years in the early game) a bit weird.

Anyway, to me it all comes down to the inherent problem of having units in a game that spans thousands of years. There are things to make better in my idea, and it's largely food for thought, but I hope at least someone somewhere finds it interesting.
Click to expand...

That is an interesting idea. I don't know if it would work on Civ because it would totally change everything. However, if I recall, that is how you made units in Colonization. You had to build all the right buildings in your city and stockpile guns to make a musketman or you would have to hire units from the motherland. It would be cool if you could mobilize your army rather than have dozens of units just sitting around wasting resources but it would totally change the game.

I do like your idea of having roads kind of connect themselves and the land evolving by itself rather than meticulously controlling all of your workers. Of course, where do you stop?
 
tflst5 said:
one of the biggest feature adds i'd like to see would be leader successions. One leader per civ would be eliminated. (no more bobbleheads, unfortunately) Each leader of your faction would have 3 traits - any combo of good and bad traits. You would, of course, have great leaders for the civ that would have 3 good traits. And you would have the Neros and Stalins with lots of negatives and a few-none good traits. Examples of negatives might be a trait 'corruption' which reduces hammers. Another might be 'unpopular' which reduces happiness.

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

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

That would be cool but how long would leaders live before they die because you couldn't have changes going on every turn in the early game. It would be kind of like Total War where you have different leaders although the leaders had a limited impact on the game anyway. It would be cool though to see how civiliztions would completely change their traits and attitudes towards you based on who is in power.
 
Everyone needs to stop double-or-more-posting, first of all. Second, I'm sorry I haven't been around lately. All of these ideas are great and really should be in civ 5, but I don't think the designers will be able to put everything in. I will therefore discontinue to update.













April fools!!!:D:D:D I will, of course, keep adding everyone's new ideas untill civ 5 is out in the market.
 
:cool: HAVE AN ALL NEW APPROACH TO MINOR CIVILIZATIONS:cool:

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

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

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

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

GERMAN REVOLTS MAY CREATE THESE " MINOR CIVS":

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

GREEK REVOLTS MAY CREATE:

SPARTA - CITY STATE OF SPARTA
ATHENS - KINGDOM OF ATHENS


RUSSIA REVOLTS MAY RELEASE:

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

AMERICA MAY RELEASE:

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

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

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

I HOPE YOU GET THE IDEA! THIS WOULD PUT CIVILIZATION OVER
THE TOP IN REALISM AND I WOULD LIKE THIS IDEA TO BE GREATLY
CONSIDERED, THANK YOU!:king::king::king:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Z
Dear Devs! Make civilization more sophisticated again, please.
Replies
1
Views
619
MutilationWave
MutilationWave
SupremacyKing2
Where does civ go after civ7?
Replies
17
Views
1K
ehecatzin
ehecatzin
Lazy sweeper
Modular units?
Replies
0
Views
335
Lazy sweeper
Lazy sweeper
D
Civ franchise idea- "spy points"
Replies
2
Views
208
Krikkit1
K
Lord Lakely
Filling in the gaps - Charting the optimal Civ Switches
5 6 7
Replies
134
Views
4K
Xandinho
Xandinho
Back
Top Bottom