The Civ V wish-list!!!

[Scilly_guy]

For what its worth I want to side with Sangeli, I think somewhere I have mentioned something to do with this too. It really is a simple concept, forces are arranged with a direction in mind and this is where flanking comes in. It is possible to imagine that all this happens without you knowing about it but I do like a bit of micro management. Someone said that being attacked from behind was easy to defend against, clearly they are wrong, if your cannons/artillery is on the front line its going to be easily overrun and then the archers aren't great at hand to hand combat and the foot soldiers have to get through/around everyone to face their enemy, so attacking from the back is effective. Cossacks is the game that springs to mind, where you have armies made up of many types of troops, pikemen, archers, rifleman, cavalry, artillery, and I would prefer if that is what civ was more like for its battles, less about individual units and more about armies, but maybe that is too different for civ, maybe that would destroy it.

A single type of unit can fortify relatively effectively in all directions but once you have a mix it becomes more complex. Anyway I'll leave it there for know.

 

[rysmiel]

Additionally, if you're not a fan of the military aspect, so what? War is a major part of being the ruler of a country; throughout history a good portion of the budget is spent on the military for nearly every country.

I'm arguing this on gameplay grounds; realism is beside the point.

If you don't like fighting in wars, fine, don't. However, leave the option open for people who do want to fight wars to fight.

Absolutely agreed..

Personally I think that although much or even most of the game is dedicated to war, the war aspect is still very weak.

I disagree here, though. Military might is way too significant a part of gameplay even now; what D0MINATRIX says about the guy with the biggest stick having the final say strikes me as a failure mode. It would be a much more interesting game if having a bigger army could be more effectively countered by, for example, having a civilisation that was so much better a place to live, because of the effort you'd put into making it so, that the relatively miserable citizens of the civilisation with the bigger army were desrting to join you in droves (which is the direction I want to see reperesented by "culture"), or by having a sufficiently more powerful economy to bribe half that army over to your side, or by converting a third of your enemy's cities to yoru state religion so they mutinied and stopped supporting the army.

 

[Balderstrom]

@ rysmiel - you strike upon something I was hinting at in my previous post...

Where Culture & Military are counters to each other, akin to where
Religion & Science is counter to one another.

 

[rysmiel]

@ rysmiel - you strike upon something I was hinting at in my previous post...
Where Culture & Military are counters to each other, akin to where
Religion & Science is counter to one another.

That's not exactly what I mean, though. I prefer to think of culture and miltary and economics and science and religion all competing for the same basic resources, along with other factors, like citizen happiness, health however you represent it (including pollution clean-up), and... call it efficiency, but ways of fighting corruption and waste.

Choosing to spend money on science, luxuries, or have it go into your coffers may not be the most sophisticated empire management model in the world, but having seven or eight different sliders would drive me crazy, managing a civilisation that way would be like trying to paint a miniature while wearing boxing gloves. I like the mechanic of having different buildings have different effects, and in an ideal Civ 5 I would like there to be development options in improvements that included different mixtures of these things as well as the one-function development lines of buildings, so that, for example, you could have the classic marketplace->bank->stock exchange giving a purely economic benefit, you could have libraries giving some science and some culture, you could have breweries giving some happiness at the cost of a slight decrease in efficiency, you could have whatever the equivalent of a church is for each religion giving some culture points and some effect towards religion, and so on. You might even want options like some of the Civ 3 mods support for things like internment camps and other features of totalitarian governments that you can build for increased production (with slave labour) but that give negative culture points. The more options there are there, the more different strategies will emerge from them, and it's just a question of balancing them such that the different strategies are all viable and none of them have too much of an advantage over the others; a difficult question, granted.

 

[Lord Ben]

It makes sense, I just don't want that level of micromanaging of my 300 units. If it was played out in armies or corps made up of a smaller number of units that would be much better.

Maybe you can make your individual units (attack defense seperate), and they have a powerscale of X. Regiments probably. Then you can combine a certain number of them into a leader unit to form your divisions. A division combines properties of each of the units to make for one much larger unit. And unlike in Civ III it's not just a stack of normal units with a combined HP. It actually would be it's own seperate unit.

Then you could combine multiple divisions into a Army or Horde or whatever timescale and civ you have would name it. Like an individual mounted archer could have an attack of 4, and a defense and movement of 2. But a mounted archer mongol horde would have an attack of 20 and a defense of 8 and a movement of 2. Or something like that.... But then a army of phalanx troops might have a defense of 20 and +100% against mounted units... ouch!

 

[sangeli]

First off, you're not going to have 300 units. Second, you only really need to micromanage them during war, which I argue is important. Dale's Combat mod suffeciently addresses the idea of combining units, by stacking, so you shouldn't worry about that as it will be implemented I'm sure.

Someone complained that the guy with the bigger stick always gets the final say. That is how the world works lol. Also, the idea of the totalitarian/less happy country having negatives is already in the game. By drafting soldiers you insure that your cities are going to be unhappy thus hurting your production. But I do like the idea of cities that have your religion mutiny to join you like cities with your nationality.

One thing I think would remedy the totalitarian vs. free countries would be a tax bar slider. As it is now, all money is directed toward you and you decide if you want to store it, make it into to science, or make it into culture. Instead, there should be a base tax slider that determines how much money you actually receive to put it into your bank, science, or culture. To compensate, all the money that is not taxed is used with 120% efficiency compared to the money the government uses. However, you do not choose how the money is spent and it could be random. For example, out of nowhere one of your citizens discovers a tech so you get credit for it.

 

[Lord Ben]

I've had 300 units. 4 mech inf in each city, plus extras for invading, plus 120 modern armor or so, not to mention workers and ships and all that. But I typically don't start fighting until way late in the game if I can help it.

Personally I'd like to see the ability to make both units and buildings at the same time. One of the things I never liked was the tradeoff between having a city solely devoted towards making tanks or whatever and never actually putting in a barracks.

And along with bigger military units I'd like it to be where the defender and attack wear each other out over several turns.

Like if you have a stack of 20 infantry defending a city it might take several attacks over several turns before it's eliminated instead of just being defeated instantly. Or RTS battles on a slow non-twitch scale ala TW.

 

[rysmiel]

I've had 300 units. 4 mech inf in each city, plus extras for invading, plus 120 modern armor or so, not to mention workers and ships and all that. But I typically don't start fighting until way late in the game if I can help it.

How anyone can find Civ IV fun when 300 units is an extreme, rather than a sensible average by half-way through a standard map game, just boggles me.

Like if you have a stack of 20 infantry defending a city it might take several attacks over several turns before it's eliminated instead of just being defeated instantly.

hit poitns are your friend.

Or RTS battles on a slow non-twitch scale ala TW.

There is, alas, unlikely to ever be an RTS option slow enough for my comfort.

 

[Balderstrom]

An RPG game on Kongregate enables a turn based 'row' combat option
Monsters Den

Basically you set your units into rows, there are two types of units in its case: Ranged, Melee and Melee (spear)
FR: Front Row, BR: Back Row

Opp: R R R
     M S M
     =====
You: M M M
     R S R

Melee can attack directly in front of them, or to the left/right.
Thus a melee unit in the middle, can attack any FR unit.
A melee unit on the left/right side can only hit two possible targets.
If the Defender's FR is reduced to 1 unit, any of your front row attackers can attack that unit.
If the Defender's FR is reduced to 0 units, Your FR Melee can attack the BR as if they were FR units.

A Spear unit in your FR, can attack the Defenders BR.
A Spear unit in your BR, can attack the Defenders FR.
Archers/Catapults/etc are Ranged units, and can attack any unit.

In Monsters Den, each unit acts based on its Speed, in case of Ties, attacker goes first. Once all units have had a turn, new turn begins.

Units can retreat from the Battle, which in Monsters Den results in the opponent getting free attacks against the retreating unit.

 

[Whte_rbt]

You know how we have culture, religon, civics etc...

How about ETHICS?

just thought i'd drop a pebble on top of the mountain......

 

[D0NIMATRIX]

@digitCruncher's second post from the page before

I like the idea of Create-Your-Own-Units. Like you said, you could give the bonuses, and the computer could price it accordingly. You could also upgrade existing units' stats and have the computer re-price them too. In short, the unit creating system from Superpower (a really underrated game, if you ask me).

 

[Zenon_pt]

I would love to have the possibility to create a Samurai but Portuguese and still have de Carrack (if I have conquers Japan, of course)!

 

[Balderstrom]

Instead of:

1) Whose lame-brained idea was it to put DELETE Unit front and center...
In the easiest place to select anything for the unit to do.

2) TABS to show types of Units.

3) To Toggle between CityBuild & Units, click the CitySize Icon.

4) Units Fortified or Healing on a Tile should be listed 1st Row

5) More units than can display on a row, should end the row with left/right arrows.

6) SelectRemainingUnits cmd: To Select All units that haven't been issued a command. (Skip, Heal, Fortify, etc)
Thus easy to select units to move, instead of Now:
Selecting all, Manually remove units from the list that were healing/sleeping/etc.

The interface is not smooth at all in some areas. Its extremely easy to accidentally select a unit to move and have the cityDefender tag along for the ride.

 

[Cyberviking]

-Resources shouldn't be moved by the human or AI, they should spread according to routes of trade and military (i,e horsemen), or like herds of animals they should "migrate" around.

Grat idea Dominatrix! The animal resources could be like small civilization only capable of building "invisible settlers". The "cities", could be an animal resource, and the so-called "invisible settlers" could cross the oceans onboard the ships of the human civs, just like horses came to america and rabbits came to Australia.

 

[D0NIMATRIX]

Thank you cyberviking!

I'm still working on a full set of my ideas. It's going to take a LONG time to finish.

 

[Logitech]

This thread has gotten too big and too confusing for one person to handle!
As a result, the list is now in a document, and will no longer be updated.

For all those who want lists of EVERYTHING without doing anything, I'm sorry, but this is too much for me to keep doing. You all can keep posting and such, but no more will I update the first post.

 

[D0NIMATRIX]

This thread has gotten too big and too confusing for one person to handle!
As a result, the list is now in a document, and will no longer be updated.

For all those who want lists of EVERYTHING without doing anything, I'm sorry, but this is too much for me to keep doing. You all can keep posting and such, but no more will I update the first post.

Yeah, I was wondering how you did it to keep up with the ideas.

 

[Balderstrom]

Not to mention there's 3+ sprawling threads discussing ideas about CIV V, some ideas within the threads overlap, some don't. Overall a mess for sure.

 

[Logitech]

Well, If I had some one looking over the thread with me, then sending everything they think is cool or realistic for civ, then I might be able to have a better time doing this. I just didn't expect this thread to get so much to it. But I guess there are a lot of things everyone wants in civ V.

 

[Kaenash]

My wish list is instead of 2-3 leader traits, I like the old 'point buy' system from masters of magic, except adopted for Civ V.

In Masters of Magic if you recall this game, you could buy a certain number of "Books" in a category and you could also pick Famous, Scholar, etc.

So what I propose is to take all the categories: Industrious, Creative, Expanionsist and then allow us to put points in them, 5 points would give you roughly the equivilant you have today in CIV IV comparatively, you can put up to 10 points in one category.

You can also take a few disadvantages (up to 5 points worth) to be able to spend those bonus points.

In the end, you have a custom leader OR you can pick one of the pre-designed leaders from history that come along with the game.

That to me, would equal more flexibility and less arguing about what should be. Custom leaders.