The Civ V wish-list!!!
- Thread starter Logitech
- Start date
Actually, I'm just here to play the Devil's Advocate. I love Civ4 and will continue to play it for a long while. And, if some people get their way, I might continue playing it after Civ5 comes out.
gingermick
Chieftain
i think it represents the "essence", the memory, the "myth". Its like the Hanging Gardens dont exist anymore, but they have a certain mystic about them.
gingermick
Chieftain
lol
I think they would be stupid NOT to be on this site. If i was tasked to research "Project: improvements for Civ 5" this would be the first place i would go. giving good ideas and bad, or even a few of us are Firaxis, putting different points of view......
Gudinsdiv
Marshal Davout 3 Corps
Has anyone brought up the ideas of either Land Reform or Nobility as either civics options or as techs?
Land Reform should actually lead from Republicanism to Democracy or Nationalism. It would be a cash bonus and happiness bonus. That is, your cities would generate, hypothetically, +5 gold and +2 happiness.
This would reflect not only property tax intake but also private property.
Nobility could come in some time after Chivalry (because knights are the ancestors of the nobles) but before Mercantalism. The warrior class leads to the priviledged class, the priviledged class to the upper class. The effects would be strictly research and Mercantalism would negate it. Say a +10% science for each city. But it would need a penalty, like +3 unhappy in your six largest cities. But, you would need Nobility to reach things like Divine Right. It would be a neccessary evil, which is just what the peasants thought, I'm sure.
I would like to see more attention paid to class diversity within each city. Where are the rich, the poor, the middle class, or the political sub-class beneath the leader? I think there are interesting ways these could be represented in a city.
Just an idea. Still puzzling it out in my head.
Land Reform should actually lead from Republicanism to Democracy or Nationalism. It would be a cash bonus and happiness bonus. That is, your cities would generate, hypothetically, +5 gold and +2 happiness.
This would reflect not only property tax intake but also private property.
Nobility could come in some time after Chivalry (because knights are the ancestors of the nobles) but before Mercantalism. The warrior class leads to the priviledged class, the priviledged class to the upper class. The effects would be strictly research and Mercantalism would negate it. Say a +10% science for each city. But it would need a penalty, like +3 unhappy in your six largest cities. But, you would need Nobility to reach things like Divine Right. It would be a neccessary evil, which is just what the peasants thought, I'm sure.
I would like to see more attention paid to class diversity within each city. Where are the rich, the poor, the middle class, or the political sub-class beneath the leader? I think there are interesting ways these could be represented in a city.
Just an idea. Still puzzling it out in my head.
I don't know, guaranteed job for life, medical care when you're ill, legal representation if you need it, and military protection if you need that, in exchange for your loyalty and your taxes seems a better deal than lots of people get in Western democracies today.
Insert standard rant about the difference between functional feudal systems and the degenerate generation-or-two-away-from-collapse cultural stereotypes here.
Pariah
Outside Influence
I doubt that many medaevial European peasents were looked after as well as you describe! If it was such a good system, why did it ever change?
People get this odd notion that liberty matters more...
I would like to see supply matter in military manuevers. In reality, logistics are a huge component of military strategy and effectiveness. In terms of gameplay, having to preserve supply lines could really make military positioning a lot more interesting. You could no longer just move your stack deep into enemy territory - you would need to also guard your supply line. The deeper you penetrate into enemy territory the more difficult it would be to protect your supply. On the other side, if you find yourself on defense and too weak to attack the main stack directly you may be able to attack the rear and cut off the main stack. Perhaps unsupplied/undersupplied units would lose 10% of their strength each turn. Such a system would force players to put a lot more forethought and planning into their offensive strategies. In Civ IV all you need to do is assemble stack, move stack to enemy city, attack enemy city, rinse-and-repeat. The only positioning decision is to make sure that your stack is on the most favorable defensive terrain. A supply system, properly done, could be easily understood as a gameplay mechanic while adding many layers of complexity to the actual execution of strategy.
I would also like to see a combat mechanic that would give attack bonuses to units when other friendly/allied units are positioned to the flanks and/or rear of the defending unit. If you have a unit surrounded you should get a bonus. Again, this is a simple and easy to understand mechanic that would add needed complexity to what I believe is an overly simplistic combat/military system.
I would also like to see a combat mechanic that would give attack bonuses to units when other friendly/allied units are positioned to the flanks and/or rear of the defending unit. If you have a unit surrounded you should get a bonus. Again, this is a simple and easy to understand mechanic that would add needed complexity to what I believe is an overly simplistic combat/military system.
Naokaukodem
Millenary King
- Joined
- Aug 8, 2003
- Messages
- 4,303
Bringing such a tactical aspect to the game would open a whole set of problems such as "how many troops and in what configuration are surrounding how many defending ones", or "how legitimate is it to not know by advance the number or the configuration of the enemy troops and not adapt to them?".
Gudinsdiv
Marshal Davout 3 Corps
I made this same point some time ago here. The consensus seems to be that "supply" is reflected by the negative cash balance as a result of your soldiers in enemy territory. I disagree, of course, being a military history buff.
What would make things at least strategically respectable would be the zone of control concept for land-based units. That is, an enemy unit can't just fly passed your units, it is forced to stop where your zone of control is. This alone would alow a better defense to be constructed and for the terrain effects to be better utilized. As it is now, there's no fight for hill when you can just skip right around it.
Good points. I agree completely!
eddiewillers
Chieftain
- Joined
- Aug 6, 2007
- Messages
- 64
Yes Supply chains for ground troops. Note that we already have that for our air units by depending on an airbase and having a range of action.
Remember this is the reason the Germans lost Operation Barbarossa by getting too many panzers in there and then feeding them with polish horse-carts and a couple of stolen French trucks.
If a system is developed it could also replace the capture /reverse capture flag system, by mantaining controlled routes instead.
Remember this is the reason the Germans lost Operation Barbarossa by getting too many panzers in there and then feeding them with polish horse-carts and a couple of stolen French trucks.
If a system is developed it could also replace the capture /reverse capture flag system, by mantaining controlled routes instead.
I too miss the Zone of Control from Civ2. You are absolutely correct that it made defense in the field a lot more interesting.
I think a good supply chain system could, tactically, have an effect similar to the old zone of control mechanic, as enemy units that fly right past you would be putting themselves at risk of being cut off. My thought is to:
(1) establish a supply chain mechanic as previously described;
(2) eliminate the movement penalty in enemy territory (I think you would need to have more movement flexibility to make up for the new perils of supply interdiction);
(3) keep the ability of units to move through enemy zones of control; but
(4) have the "zone of control" reflect the unit's ability to receive or interdict supplies. That is, you wouldn't need to have a solid line of units protecting the supply chain, nor would you need a solid wall to block one. You could protect or interdict with a unit placed every third tile.
Of course, all of this should be playtested to death to see what works and what doesn't, but I can't think of a single other change that could so easily make a huge improvement to the quality of the game.
I think a good supply chain system could, tactically, have an effect similar to the old zone of control mechanic, as enemy units that fly right past you would be putting themselves at risk of being cut off. My thought is to:
(1) establish a supply chain mechanic as previously described;
(2) eliminate the movement penalty in enemy territory (I think you would need to have more movement flexibility to make up for the new perils of supply interdiction);
(3) keep the ability of units to move through enemy zones of control; but
(4) have the "zone of control" reflect the unit's ability to receive or interdict supplies. That is, you wouldn't need to have a solid line of units protecting the supply chain, nor would you need a solid wall to block one. You could protect or interdict with a unit placed every third tile.
Of course, all of this should be playtested to death to see what works and what doesn't, but I can't think of a single other change that could so easily make a huge improvement to the quality of the game.
Gudinsdiv
Marshal Davout 3 Corps
"(2) eliminate the movement penalty in enemy territory (I think you would need to have more movement flexibility to make up for the new perils of supply interdiction); "
Again, something I brought up once before. This movement penalty boggles my mind. It makes no sense whatsoever.
Again, something I brought up once before. This movement penalty boggles my mind. It makes no sense whatsoever.
Death2thepelicn
Chieftain
- Joined
- Nov 21, 2008
- Messages
- 25
What I want to see is the return of the ultimate Civ 2 unit--the paratrooper. Have him paradrop into an empty city from an airport, hells yeah. The AI always used to beat me with those. Or have the more recent civ 4 add-ons already included them? I don't know, all I have is vanilla.
I would advise you to purchase Civ4: BtS and prepare to have your mind blown. Yes, they make a comeback.
Gudinsdiv
Marshal Davout 3 Corps
One more for the wish list:
I like what they've done with the Wolfrevolution mod as far as having an optional "minor civ start". With this, everyone is at war with eachother until writing is researched, at which time there is diplomacy.
Why not go back, however, to Diplomats? I don't like the idea of a wandering unit being a diplomatic representative for an entire civ, aside from the obvious glitch of language and custom. What was great about the diplomat way of things was that you didn't know who a unit was when you encountered them. You needed a diplomat to interface, or to at least have one your own units reach one of their cities.
What it does is put limits on how much you can do with another civ until a certain time, aside from the fact that it makes relations less spurious. I wouldn't mind there being something more to these relationships that makes them more extreme to either end of the spectrum. That is, open borders and trade should be a bit more critical, and the often arising situation of a friendly neighbor allowing enemies of yours to set up on your borders could be addressed.
One reoccuring problem I've found is that "open borders" doesn't mean automatic trade of resources, and while it has a currency reflection, it has little to do with hardcore bartering. There is no easy way, for instance, to create a closed economic area, much as what ancient civilizations were able to do against outside threats to commerce. I suppose it would be easy enough to simply not allow certain empires open borders priviledges, but this is always taken as an extreme insult as opposed to a geographic or political neccesity. That is, you tend to make more enemies than you need if you don't. Likewise, you would have to sacrifice good relations with allies to keep enemy armies off of your borders.
Diplomats without the ability to bribe, however. I think the bribe option was too easily abused. You could discretely pay a thrid party to go to war, however, as well as have a boost to trade offers by having a diplomat stationed in a civs capital. This alone would be a great relations booster, and when things come to a head and your diplomat is asked to leave, you know where the winds are blowing.
I like what they've done with the Wolfrevolution mod as far as having an optional "minor civ start". With this, everyone is at war with eachother until writing is researched, at which time there is diplomacy.
Why not go back, however, to Diplomats? I don't like the idea of a wandering unit being a diplomatic representative for an entire civ, aside from the obvious glitch of language and custom. What was great about the diplomat way of things was that you didn't know who a unit was when you encountered them. You needed a diplomat to interface, or to at least have one your own units reach one of their cities.
What it does is put limits on how much you can do with another civ until a certain time, aside from the fact that it makes relations less spurious. I wouldn't mind there being something more to these relationships that makes them more extreme to either end of the spectrum. That is, open borders and trade should be a bit more critical, and the often arising situation of a friendly neighbor allowing enemies of yours to set up on your borders could be addressed.
One reoccuring problem I've found is that "open borders" doesn't mean automatic trade of resources, and while it has a currency reflection, it has little to do with hardcore bartering. There is no easy way, for instance, to create a closed economic area, much as what ancient civilizations were able to do against outside threats to commerce. I suppose it would be easy enough to simply not allow certain empires open borders priviledges, but this is always taken as an extreme insult as opposed to a geographic or political neccesity. That is, you tend to make more enemies than you need if you don't. Likewise, you would have to sacrifice good relations with allies to keep enemy armies off of your borders.
Diplomats without the ability to bribe, however. I think the bribe option was too easily abused. You could discretely pay a thrid party to go to war, however, as well as have a boost to trade offers by having a diplomat stationed in a civs capital. This alone would be a great relations booster, and when things come to a head and your diplomat is asked to leave, you know where the winds are blowing.
They have done that in BtS. If they are still attacking you exclusively, it means you aren't building enough military units. I have seen, on several occassions, another AI conquer nearly half of the world while I worked on the other half, and the final 50 turns of the game was a climatic world war.
On the issue of economics and open borders, I have argued for a difference between military access treaties and trading pacts before. Although its necessity has been reduced due to the existence of a new espionage system in Civ4, I would rather see the establishment of an embassy in a foreign capital (through paying a nominal fee) like in Civ3 instead of having to go back to Civ2 diplomat units.
On the issue of economics and open borders, I have argued for a difference between military access treaties and trading pacts before. Although its necessity has been reduced due to the existence of a new espionage system in Civ4, I would rather see the establishment of an embassy in a foreign capital (through paying a nominal fee) like in Civ3 instead of having to go back to Civ2 diplomat units.
Similar threads
