agreeIMO some of the earlier ideas/mechanics are superior to some of the civ4 ideas/mechanics (pointing at civ3).
The Civ V wish-list!!!
- Thread starter Logitech
- Start date
Pariah
Outside Influence
This is among one of the best detailed answers to one of the best recommendations that can improve civ.
obscurereferenc
Chieftain
- Joined
- Aug 26, 2005
- Messages
- 67
- remove great person points, and different great person 'categories' for wonders. instead have great people production based on an existing stat, such as culture for great artists, science for great scientists, to avoid adding extra stats & numbers to the game.
- in diplomacy if a player can't use a particular option tell them why. (e.g. greyed out tech trading options - which give the mouseover message: you must discover alphabet before you can trade techs)
- In the build queue, if a player has the technology to build a unit but not the resources, tell the player this instead of hiding the unit. (e.g. a greyed out swordsman: 'you need access to iron to build a swordsman')
- take away the complicated bonuses for each unit (e.g. 25% vs siege units etc), and replace with easier to understand attack/defence/movement attributes instead.
- Units should have only 1 tech prerequisite - It's confusing for new players for units that have more than one. discovering the technology they are shown 'inside of' in the tech tree should be the only prerequisite
- easier to use build queues, more responsive & context sensitive interface
- in diplomacy if a player can't use a particular option tell them why. (e.g. greyed out tech trading options - which give the mouseover message: you must discover alphabet before you can trade techs)
- In the build queue, if a player has the technology to build a unit but not the resources, tell the player this instead of hiding the unit. (e.g. a greyed out swordsman: 'you need access to iron to build a swordsman')
- take away the complicated bonuses for each unit (e.g. 25% vs siege units etc), and replace with easier to understand attack/defence/movement attributes instead.
- Units should have only 1 tech prerequisite - It's confusing for new players for units that have more than one. discovering the technology they are shown 'inside of' in the tech tree should be the only prerequisite
- easier to use build queues, more responsive & context sensitive interface
obscurereferenc
Chieftain
- Joined
- Aug 26, 2005
- Messages
- 67
big, controversial idea: everything that is built gets added to a single, national build queue (using the combined hammers of all cities to build them).
advantages:
- greatly reduce micromanagement
- preparing for wars much, much easier. just add all the units you want to your build queue and the cities work together to create them.
- simple & important enough to be on screen the whole time, giving an instant overview of what your civ is doing.
- no more cycling through cities every turn.
- gives much greater control of overall civ production, meaning you're not just reacting to when each city has finished production of something.
- you're not obsessively finding something to build for every city. just build the things you need for that city, then focus production on another area of your civ
big environmental problems in the late game that have a big effect. This shakes things up a bit, and gives the player 2 endgame options/victories: save the planet (environmental victory: make civs reduce pollution or destroy polluting civs) or abandon it (spaceship victory).
UN resolutions more powerful & biased against strongest civs. e,g, declare war on civ x. UN members more aggressive to the most powerful civs to make the late game more challenging if you're winning. The UN is a fun idea so should be expanded.
big effect & big penalties for nukes! nukes destroy city completely (as previously suggested), completely removing any trace of it, its units and its population and ruin the land around them, but have a downside of negative diplomatic hits ('e.g. -3 you have used nuclear weapons!') and big war weariness increases.
Encourage wonder races - have fewer wonders but make them more important, and increase messages and more information about wonders others are building, to encourage a race to finish wonders first. this gives peacemongers some excitement!
nationalize food production. similar to national build queue above. This allows 'bread basket' cities with lots of farmland around them giving food to civ as a whole.
an option to set transports to 'taxi' mode, to automatically pick up and transport units across oceans.
If a city has unhappy citizens, they get a temporary happiness bonus if you start production on a building that will improve their happiness. keeps the incentives of keeping your citizens happy, removes some un-fun bits (such as when the people keep on moaning even though you're building what they want!).
rally points for new units. they go to their closest rally point if more than one are set.
have an overall taxation slider. the lower it is the happier your civ is, the higher it is the more gold your civ receives per turn. simple, intuitive way to increase happiness/gold when you need it
I agree that pop-ups should be avoided most of the time, but bring them back for big, world events (only for civs you are in contact with) - e.g. declarations of war / peace, cities captured, cities flipped, wonders started, wonders nearing completion.
These have the benefit of making the world feel more alive, making sure you're not missing anything important (I sometimes don't notice my own cities flipping to an enemy in civ 4!)
advantages:
- greatly reduce micromanagement
- preparing for wars much, much easier. just add all the units you want to your build queue and the cities work together to create them.
- simple & important enough to be on screen the whole time, giving an instant overview of what your civ is doing.
- no more cycling through cities every turn.
- gives much greater control of overall civ production, meaning you're not just reacting to when each city has finished production of something.
- you're not obsessively finding something to build for every city. just build the things you need for that city, then focus production on another area of your civ
big environmental problems in the late game that have a big effect. This shakes things up a bit, and gives the player 2 endgame options/victories: save the planet (environmental victory: make civs reduce pollution or destroy polluting civs) or abandon it (spaceship victory).
UN resolutions more powerful & biased against strongest civs. e,g, declare war on civ x. UN members more aggressive to the most powerful civs to make the late game more challenging if you're winning. The UN is a fun idea so should be expanded.
big effect & big penalties for nukes! nukes destroy city completely (as previously suggested), completely removing any trace of it, its units and its population and ruin the land around them, but have a downside of negative diplomatic hits ('e.g. -3 you have used nuclear weapons!') and big war weariness increases.
Encourage wonder races - have fewer wonders but make them more important, and increase messages and more information about wonders others are building, to encourage a race to finish wonders first. this gives peacemongers some excitement!
nationalize food production. similar to national build queue above. This allows 'bread basket' cities with lots of farmland around them giving food to civ as a whole.
an option to set transports to 'taxi' mode, to automatically pick up and transport units across oceans.
If a city has unhappy citizens, they get a temporary happiness bonus if you start production on a building that will improve their happiness. keeps the incentives of keeping your citizens happy, removes some un-fun bits (such as when the people keep on moaning even though you're building what they want!).
rally points for new units. they go to their closest rally point if more than one are set.
have an overall taxation slider. the lower it is the happier your civ is, the higher it is the more gold your civ receives per turn. simple, intuitive way to increase happiness/gold when you need it
I agree that pop-ups should be avoided most of the time, but bring them back for big, world events (only for civs you are in contact with) - e.g. declarations of war / peace, cities captured, cities flipped, wonders started, wonders nearing completion.
These have the benefit of making the world feel more alive, making sure you're not missing anything important (I sometimes don't notice my own cities flipping to an enemy in civ 4!)
Balderstrom
Emperor
@ obscurereferenc : sounds like you should be looking at the Domestic Advisor (F1) - if you are manually cycling your cities every turn. Or even the Customizable Domestic Advisor that can be found in BUG Mod (BTS).
obscurereferenc
Chieftain
- Joined
- Aug 26, 2005
- Messages
- 67
By cycling I meant the round of pop-ups at the beginning of every turn (especially in a quick game) asking what to build next. I know setting up big build queues per city would reduce this but its not always sensible to do and the current interface encourages picking one item to build at a time.
Balderstrom
Emperor
That was something that annoyed the heck out of me, I found a post a while back that fixed that annoyance for me 
Options / [x] Minimize PopUps.
Will allow you to open your cities build queues at your convenience - at any time during your turn, you will be "forced" to cycle thru them if all your units have moved (or are set for fortify/sleep)... but so long as you leave just one unit not fortified (and able to move) - then you wont get those popups at all.
Options / [x] Minimize PopUps.
Will allow you to open your cities build queues at your convenience - at any time during your turn, you will be "forced" to cycle thru them if all your units have moved (or are set for fortify/sleep)... but so long as you leave just one unit not fortified (and able to move) - then you wont get those popups at all.
bob bobato
L'imparfait
I'm not sure if this has been mentioned-and, since there's about 27 pages of posts, I don't have the time to check. But they're mostly cultural changes.
1. All the different era changes shouldn't be automatic. Instead, they should start in one city (probably the capital), and then spread to other cities, over a couple of turns. For example, when the classical age starts, instead of all the cities suddenly being torn down and being replaced with classical cities, only the capital should make the switch. A nearby city would then spend about a turn becoming classical, and then another nearby city, etc. Maybe the eras could even spread to other civs, like the renaissance did in the real world.
2. It should be possible for civs to lose technologies, in wars and riots and so on. Not all of them, but the complex, specialized techs. These would require specific buildings (usually libraries) to be recorded. If that building/library is destroyed, in a war or riot, then the tech is lost. That doesn't mean that all buildings and units that need that tech would be destroyed, but you wouldn't be able to build more of them, until the tech is rediscovered. It would also be possible to recopy techs' records in other libraries, and some future techs (like printing press, or the internet) would make the loss of a technology much less likely-but not impossible.
3. Changes of State Religions should be much more dramatic, with riots and so on. Also-and I think this has been mentioned already-but it should be possible to persecute other religions., as in expelling believers and destroying their buildings. This would make the remaining population happier and more loyal-but the extent of the destruction would depend on that religion's influence on a city.
With only 10% of a city being heretic,only temples would be destroyed. But, if 80% was heretic, not only would temples be destroyed, but some other buildings in the city would be destroyed too (which might destroy a couple of techs, as in #2). And, since so much of the city is heretic, they might rebel-and the garrison and governor might join them. which would require the army to come in, squash the rebellion, which would result in the slaughter and forced conversion of thousands, as well as even more destruction of buildings. Though I guess it would also be possible to let that city continue with their religion, which would end the rebellion.
4. Advancement should slow down sometimes. I think this might already be in the game, but I mean more than because your spending more time with taxes. I mean, if theres a war and riots and a plague and an earthquake just happened, then nobody will care about the next tech, will they? Tech advancement in such a case would take twice as long then it normally would. This should also affect other things, like construction or recruiting. Can't build a school if half the workers are sick.
5. OK, completely revolutionary idea that I'm pretty sure no one else has thought of-or at least posted. It would probably annoy a lot of people, though, so even if it were used, it probably be possible to disable it. OK. Basically, a new unit is added-you. The ruler. You would only be able to know what the ruler knows. And the ruler's knowledge of things would be limited. Because it would take so long for messengers to reach him, much of the world would be filled with outdated info, by a turn or two, usually (this would probably be shown by increasingly dark shades on the ground). Also, his orders might take a while to get to far away cities-if he'd want to build something in a different city, a messenger would automatically be sent from the capital to that city, and the construction would only begin when the messenger reached that city.
But that would cause problems. How could you run a war if all your info about the front is outdated? You would have to automate it-or move the ruler closer to the front. The ruler would be able to move to other cities whenever he'd want to (or, better to say, whenever you want him to). But, since he wouldn't be in the capital, some things would have to be disabled. If you're not in the capital, you wouldn't be able to make treaties with other nations, for example, because all the diplomats stayed in the capital. However, you'd still be able to send orders to other cities-they'd simply come from a different place. Eventually, however, with new techs like the railroad or telegraph, this distance problem would effectively disappear-to control a unit-you'd just send a telegram to the closest city, which would send a message to the unit.
5.5 OK. One small issue with that. With very large empires, it would be impractical to send messengers to faraway cities-it would just take too much time. So, you'd have the ability to set up distant provinces of a couple of cities, who would be controlled by a Governor, who would be a unit like the ruler. The governor would be more than the automated production that you could currently do in cities-the governor would also be able to move units within the province, and build roads, and mines, and so on. However, the governor wouldn't have as much power as a normal ruler-he wouldn't be able to attack or contact other civs, leave the confines of the province, or send units outside of the province, etc. The province would also remain a part of the civ, and the Ruler would still be able to mess around with the province as much as he wants-he would even be able to replace the governor. The Governor would also have a representative with the Ruler.
But, everything wouldn't always stay the same. If the Ruler never makes any orders in the province, then the province will slowly stop feeling connected with the civ as a whole, and might develop its own culture (I don't mean that the American province of California would start thinking of itself as Persia. They would just start thinking of themselves as Californians instead of Americans-though California may take on the characteristics of Persia). This culture would spread, more and more people in the province would switch to it, until you'd notice that the Governor's representative is wearing different clothes than he used to. And, since the province would become more established, they might be looking for more autonomy. It would start with little requests from the governor-that the province's units only be used for defense of the province, that the governor would have the right to set his own tax policy, that the ruler lose his power to construct in the province, etc. Eventually, the Governor would ask that his province seperates into it's own civ-whih would make it a colony or vassal state. Or, if the province/governor really doesn't like the ruler, it might just go like the US instead of Canada and declare independence. The trick to avoiding that would, of course, be to keep good relations with the province and Governor-a little gift now and then wouldn't hurt.
1. All the different era changes shouldn't be automatic. Instead, they should start in one city (probably the capital), and then spread to other cities, over a couple of turns. For example, when the classical age starts, instead of all the cities suddenly being torn down and being replaced with classical cities, only the capital should make the switch. A nearby city would then spend about a turn becoming classical, and then another nearby city, etc. Maybe the eras could even spread to other civs, like the renaissance did in the real world.
2. It should be possible for civs to lose technologies, in wars and riots and so on. Not all of them, but the complex, specialized techs. These would require specific buildings (usually libraries) to be recorded. If that building/library is destroyed, in a war or riot, then the tech is lost. That doesn't mean that all buildings and units that need that tech would be destroyed, but you wouldn't be able to build more of them, until the tech is rediscovered. It would also be possible to recopy techs' records in other libraries, and some future techs (like printing press, or the internet) would make the loss of a technology much less likely-but not impossible.
3. Changes of State Religions should be much more dramatic, with riots and so on. Also-and I think this has been mentioned already-but it should be possible to persecute other religions., as in expelling believers and destroying their buildings. This would make the remaining population happier and more loyal-but the extent of the destruction would depend on that religion's influence on a city.
With only 10% of a city being heretic,only temples would be destroyed. But, if 80% was heretic, not only would temples be destroyed, but some other buildings in the city would be destroyed too (which might destroy a couple of techs, as in #2). And, since so much of the city is heretic, they might rebel-and the garrison and governor might join them. which would require the army to come in, squash the rebellion, which would result in the slaughter and forced conversion of thousands, as well as even more destruction of buildings. Though I guess it would also be possible to let that city continue with their religion, which would end the rebellion.
4. Advancement should slow down sometimes. I think this might already be in the game, but I mean more than because your spending more time with taxes. I mean, if theres a war and riots and a plague and an earthquake just happened, then nobody will care about the next tech, will they? Tech advancement in such a case would take twice as long then it normally would. This should also affect other things, like construction or recruiting. Can't build a school if half the workers are sick.
5. OK, completely revolutionary idea that I'm pretty sure no one else has thought of-or at least posted. It would probably annoy a lot of people, though, so even if it were used, it probably be possible to disable it. OK. Basically, a new unit is added-you. The ruler. You would only be able to know what the ruler knows. And the ruler's knowledge of things would be limited. Because it would take so long for messengers to reach him, much of the world would be filled with outdated info, by a turn or two, usually (this would probably be shown by increasingly dark shades on the ground). Also, his orders might take a while to get to far away cities-if he'd want to build something in a different city, a messenger would automatically be sent from the capital to that city, and the construction would only begin when the messenger reached that city.
But that would cause problems. How could you run a war if all your info about the front is outdated? You would have to automate it-or move the ruler closer to the front. The ruler would be able to move to other cities whenever he'd want to (or, better to say, whenever you want him to). But, since he wouldn't be in the capital, some things would have to be disabled. If you're not in the capital, you wouldn't be able to make treaties with other nations, for example, because all the diplomats stayed in the capital. However, you'd still be able to send orders to other cities-they'd simply come from a different place. Eventually, however, with new techs like the railroad or telegraph, this distance problem would effectively disappear-to control a unit-you'd just send a telegram to the closest city, which would send a message to the unit.
5.5 OK. One small issue with that. With very large empires, it would be impractical to send messengers to faraway cities-it would just take too much time. So, you'd have the ability to set up distant provinces of a couple of cities, who would be controlled by a Governor, who would be a unit like the ruler. The governor would be more than the automated production that you could currently do in cities-the governor would also be able to move units within the province, and build roads, and mines, and so on. However, the governor wouldn't have as much power as a normal ruler-he wouldn't be able to attack or contact other civs, leave the confines of the province, or send units outside of the province, etc. The province would also remain a part of the civ, and the Ruler would still be able to mess around with the province as much as he wants-he would even be able to replace the governor. The Governor would also have a representative with the Ruler.
But, everything wouldn't always stay the same. If the Ruler never makes any orders in the province, then the province will slowly stop feeling connected with the civ as a whole, and might develop its own culture (I don't mean that the American province of California would start thinking of itself as Persia. They would just start thinking of themselves as Californians instead of Americans-though California may take on the characteristics of Persia). This culture would spread, more and more people in the province would switch to it, until you'd notice that the Governor's representative is wearing different clothes than he used to. And, since the province would become more established, they might be looking for more autonomy. It would start with little requests from the governor-that the province's units only be used for defense of the province, that the governor would have the right to set his own tax policy, that the ruler lose his power to construct in the province, etc. Eventually, the Governor would ask that his province seperates into it's own civ-whih would make it a colony or vassal state. Or, if the province/governor really doesn't like the ruler, it might just go like the US instead of Canada and declare independence. The trick to avoiding that would, of course, be to keep good relations with the province and Governor-a little gift now and then wouldn't hurt.
obscurereferenc
Chieftain
- Joined
- Aug 26, 2005
- Messages
- 67
Give players more things to do at peacetime, with more involvement in the game world. The problem with being a pacifist in civ is that you run out of things to build/do, and you end up just watching your cities and not caring much about the rest of the game world! Building missionaries is a good step in the right direction something proactive you can do that doesnt involve war, but still gives you a chance to interact with the world directly. Maybe bring back caravans/trade missions, or give more benefits to exploring the world and contacting new civs before your rivals? Or something that helps with scientific or diplomatic development like caravans do with making money?
Big change that needs lots of thought: create units only by conscripting your population. They could be created instantly (but maybe they only become active after a turn so you cant just generate them at the last second), but each leave 1 population unable to work the land. This would mean units cant keep being endlessly churned out like robots (unless theres a robot unit late in the game I suppose!), it would make units more like people, and would speed up wars.
The nature of this system means attacking would require a greater commitment of troops than defending, which should help prevent smaller civs from being easily defeated.
Discourage city sprawl by making overall population size constant no matter how many cities you have. Having more cities would just mean your population is spread more thinly. (This would also help keep the game balanced for the point above!). This would probably mean scrapping health ratings though, but at least thats one less stat to keep the game streamlined, and Im sure new ways could be found to measure happiness without relying on population size.
If corporations are kept in the game, dont keep them tied to great people. The generation of a certain type of great person is in general too random to plan a proper strategy around. (also see my earlier post about scrapping great person points and having great people generated based on amounts of gold, science or culture).
Big change that needs lots of thought: create units only by conscripting your population. They could be created instantly (but maybe they only become active after a turn so you cant just generate them at the last second), but each leave 1 population unable to work the land. This would mean units cant keep being endlessly churned out like robots (unless theres a robot unit late in the game I suppose!), it would make units more like people, and would speed up wars.
The nature of this system means attacking would require a greater commitment of troops than defending, which should help prevent smaller civs from being easily defeated.
Discourage city sprawl by making overall population size constant no matter how many cities you have. Having more cities would just mean your population is spread more thinly. (This would also help keep the game balanced for the point above!). This would probably mean scrapping health ratings though, but at least thats one less stat to keep the game streamlined, and Im sure new ways could be found to measure happiness without relying on population size.
If corporations are kept in the game, dont keep them tied to great people. The generation of a certain type of great person is in general too random to plan a proper strategy around. (also see my earlier post about scrapping great person points and having great people generated based on amounts of gold, science or culture).
GeneralX
Warlord
Power Network Networks; the world functions because of networks. Civ reflects the American (neo-Greek city-state) view of the world, that is, every city is a self-contained isolated entity. Reality is different. Cities, regions and countries are dependant upon the networks they belong to. The same should apply to Civ and the development of power generation. Power plants should be categorised as being able to support a total population of a set amount (e.g. 20). If you build a power station in a city of 10 then you have a surplus population score of 10 and could supply a city of 7 and a small city of 3. More than this will require you to build another power station. These cities should also be linked by a power line to access the power (a power grid). This feature would require a player to add another dimension to their strategic planning, namely network security, redundancy, planning for growth etc. You should also be able to supply power (expressed as 5% increments of total capacity) to neighbouring countries (for a fee of course and maybe for a set period of time).
Oil pipelines Before oil can be used a pipeline should be built from the well to a city. Oil is transported by pipeline, not roads or rail (not in export circumstances anyway). Before you can export oil the pipeline should be extended to either a port or a city belonging to a neighbouring country. The same strategic thought would then be required as for power generation.
Terrain modifiers on specific military units We have unit modifiers (e.g. +25% against melee units) etc, but in combat terrain plays a big part as much as unit abilities. A classic example is any unit type that relies on mobility (cavalry, armour, mech. Infantry). Mobility is best used in terrain that is flat and has limited obstacles (desert, plains) and is at risk in terrain that is hilly, mountainous and full of obstacles (forest, rainforest). This is because such units, to operate effectively, need to have numbers and formation and mountains, hills and forests do not allow this thereby making the units vulnerable to other sorts of units (infantry) that can use rough terrain to their advantage. In this example mobility units should incur a penalty when operating in forests and hills and infantry gain a bonus. The reverse would be true in open terrain (plains, deserts) unless using some sort of defences (fort).
Loaning money Just like trading in resources countries should be able to take out a loans from other civs paying interests (5% one off) over an agreed period (1-100 turns).
Industrious/Philosophical This should not be a forbidden combination. Make the AI able to cope with it.
Oil pipelines Before oil can be used a pipeline should be built from the well to a city. Oil is transported by pipeline, not roads or rail (not in export circumstances anyway). Before you can export oil the pipeline should be extended to either a port or a city belonging to a neighbouring country. The same strategic thought would then be required as for power generation.
Terrain modifiers on specific military units We have unit modifiers (e.g. +25% against melee units) etc, but in combat terrain plays a big part as much as unit abilities. A classic example is any unit type that relies on mobility (cavalry, armour, mech. Infantry). Mobility is best used in terrain that is flat and has limited obstacles (desert, plains) and is at risk in terrain that is hilly, mountainous and full of obstacles (forest, rainforest). This is because such units, to operate effectively, need to have numbers and formation and mountains, hills and forests do not allow this thereby making the units vulnerable to other sorts of units (infantry) that can use rough terrain to their advantage. In this example mobility units should incur a penalty when operating in forests and hills and infantry gain a bonus. The reverse would be true in open terrain (plains, deserts) unless using some sort of defences (fort).
Loaning money Just like trading in resources countries should be able to take out a loans from other civs paying interests (5% one off) over an agreed period (1-100 turns).
Industrious/Philosophical This should not be a forbidden combination. Make the AI able to cope with it.
Civ Person
BEAST
i want natural disaters like volcanoes or earth quakes. maybe comets come down and act as a nuke a kills eveerthing it hits. the blast radius is 9 spuares? it would add statigy(except the comet as that can happen any were) 1 example would be the ocean. while it is help full, you risk a tusnami.
Pariah
Outside Influence
obscurereferenc
Chieftain
- Joined
- Aug 26, 2005
- Messages
- 67
Trading/selling units (i.e. arms deals) in diplomacy screen
Add the ability to sell/trade units to other civs. Should appear on the usual diplomacy screen so it can be used in combination with all the other options. It would be a relatively simple, true to life addition, with no explanation or much new UI real-estate needed, but think of all the new options and strategies it would add to the game!
When such a (relatively) small, intuitive addition adds so much depth to the game it must be good! What do people think?
This was also discussed before civ 4 ( see: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=122682 - I'm with the 'Keep It Simple, Stupid' school of thought of just trading whole, finished units, without contracts, renting or anything like that)
Add the ability to sell/trade units to other civs. Should appear on the usual diplomacy screen so it can be used in combination with all the other options. It would be a relatively simple, true to life addition, with no explanation or much new UI real-estate needed, but think of all the new options and strategies it would add to the game!
- You could have an arms dealer / mercenary strategy, churning out the most advanced units, selling them to other civs to destroy each other with, while you rake in the profits.
- If youve just finished a war and have lots of surplus units, trade them with someone who needs them
- maybe you want to give a war ally access to the latest type of unit, but dont trust them enough to give them the tech itself.
- The condition of a cease-fire could be that a civ hands over all of its siege weapons, for example
- Buy other civs unique units from them a roman army including Aztec jaguar mercenaries!
- It would also make gifting units easier, and make it fit in better with other gift/trade options.
- Arms embargos (via the UN) could be set up, as well as a 'you sold weapons to our enemy!' diplomatic hit
When such a (relatively) small, intuitive addition adds so much depth to the game it must be good! What do people think?
This was also discussed before civ 4 ( see: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=122682 - I'm with the 'Keep It Simple, Stupid' school of thought of just trading whole, finished units, without contracts, renting or anything like that)
obscurereferenc
Chieftain
- Joined
- Aug 26, 2005
- Messages
- 67
Can the number of religions in the game be balanced based on the number of civs in the game? In games with a small number of civs there are so many religions to go around, that most civs have founded at least one. The same could also be done with wonders, to stop civs being spoilt with choice in smaller games. Wonders are no fun if theyre easy to get.
Onionsoilder
Reaver
- Joined
- Mar 19, 2007
- Messages
- 3,173
I would like to see:
More Victory Options
Most civilization games end up being either a Space Race or a Conquest, which ends up getting boring after a while. With the other victories(Culture, Diplomacy) you basically have to plan for them since the start of the game. I would like to see things such as an Economic Victory, Industrial Victory, Environmental Victory, Religious Victory(Different from AP Diplomatic Victory), and a Technological Victory, among others.
More powerful weapons.
Conversely to what many people think, the current ICBMs should not be able to destroy entire cities. They are not that strong. However, their should be weapons that can. Starting with the Atomic Bomb, civilizations should be able to develop Mid-Range Nuclear Missiles, and then ICBMs. After ICBMs, civilizations will go on to get Hydrogen Bombs, and then develop new weapons, such as Biological Missiles and Antimatter Missiles. All of these can destroy a city, but not all of them will. For example, if you drop a Atomic Bomb on a city with 8 population, it's population will be reduced by 2. If you drop 4 Atomic Bombs on a city with 8 population, the city will be destroyed. Obviously, the more advanced the weapons are, the more damage they will do.
More diplomatic options.
Diplomacy is sorely lacking in Civilization. The game greatly caters to warmongers, and pushes citybuilders to the side. I would like to see more options for alliances, were civilizations can join and leave at will, assimilation, were vassals will eventually be absorbed by your empire and become part of it, an enhanced U.N., perhaps factoring into the alliances mentioned earlier, and having civics impact diplomacy more.
Better A.I.
Goes without saying.
More Victory Options
Most civilization games end up being either a Space Race or a Conquest, which ends up getting boring after a while. With the other victories(Culture, Diplomacy) you basically have to plan for them since the start of the game. I would like to see things such as an Economic Victory, Industrial Victory, Environmental Victory, Religious Victory(Different from AP Diplomatic Victory), and a Technological Victory, among others.
More powerful weapons.
Conversely to what many people think, the current ICBMs should not be able to destroy entire cities. They are not that strong. However, their should be weapons that can. Starting with the Atomic Bomb, civilizations should be able to develop Mid-Range Nuclear Missiles, and then ICBMs. After ICBMs, civilizations will go on to get Hydrogen Bombs, and then develop new weapons, such as Biological Missiles and Antimatter Missiles. All of these can destroy a city, but not all of them will. For example, if you drop a Atomic Bomb on a city with 8 population, it's population will be reduced by 2. If you drop 4 Atomic Bombs on a city with 8 population, the city will be destroyed. Obviously, the more advanced the weapons are, the more damage they will do.
More diplomatic options.
Diplomacy is sorely lacking in Civilization. The game greatly caters to warmongers, and pushes citybuilders to the side. I would like to see more options for alliances, were civilizations can join and leave at will, assimilation, were vassals will eventually be absorbed by your empire and become part of it, an enhanced U.N., perhaps factoring into the alliances mentioned earlier, and having civics impact diplomacy more.
Better A.I.
Goes without saying.
squid1111
Warlord
- Joined
- Aug 20, 2007
- Messages
- 132
*Remove the fat cross. A civilization should be able to work any tile it reaches.
*How about you, say, only get unhealthiness/healthiness/happiness bonuses if a tile is worked? To get horses, you would have to work the horses tile, to get 0.4 unhealth you would have to work the jungle tile.
*More units in the modern era. H-bombs, artillery batterys, Modern Infantry... As someone said: "Look at my mighty modern army, made up of 4 types of units!"
*More civilizations. 32 or so in the base game, 16 each in the expansions. Hittites, Elam, Maori, Bulgars, Magyars... More traits too, obviously.
*How about you, say, only get unhealthiness/healthiness/happiness bonuses if a tile is worked? To get horses, you would have to work the horses tile, to get 0.4 unhealth you would have to work the jungle tile.
*More units in the modern era. H-bombs, artillery batterys, Modern Infantry... As someone said: "Look at my mighty modern army, made up of 4 types of units!"
*More civilizations. 32 or so in the base game, 16 each in the expansions. Hittites, Elam, Maori, Bulgars, Magyars... More traits too, obviously.
Some random ideas for Civ 5
More resources with different effects than just happiness and health. For example:
1) tobacco, appears on plains or grassland, +1 Happiness, -1 Health, requires farm, +4 commerce for that square, obsolete with Ecology (square goes back to ordinary farm),
2) cotton, appears on flood plains, requires plantation, +1 shield, +4 commerce, +1 food if pasture in city BFC (cottonseed meal is a livestock feed supplement) +1 movement to vessels with sails
Special events/bonuses to first player to reach a specific age. For example: First player to reach Renaissance age experiences an age of discovery (similar to the Civ III age of discovery). Other ages' random events could trigger free unit upgrades, quests, etc. These could be random; personally I find the random events the most compelling feature introduced (aside from the AI-a step in the right direction) in BTS.
More resources with different effects than just happiness and health. For example:
1) tobacco, appears on plains or grassland, +1 Happiness, -1 Health, requires farm, +4 commerce for that square, obsolete with Ecology (square goes back to ordinary farm),
2) cotton, appears on flood plains, requires plantation, +1 shield, +4 commerce, +1 food if pasture in city BFC (cottonseed meal is a livestock feed supplement) +1 movement to vessels with sails
Special events/bonuses to first player to reach a specific age. For example: First player to reach Renaissance age experiences an age of discovery (similar to the Civ III age of discovery). Other ages' random events could trigger free unit upgrades, quests, etc. These could be random; personally I find the random events the most compelling feature introduced (aside from the AI-a step in the right direction) in BTS.
Similar threads
