The Civ V wish-list!!!

[TheBladeRoden]

Nukes that actually do some good

 

[gingermick]

Here is a thorny subject, it has been raised quite early, I think under the question of why isnt Hitler a possible leader?

In Civ V, if there were to be the capability of Cities declaring themselves independant and forming nations not under the control of a recognised starting civilisation, which is being advocated by some ppl in this thread. Then why cant there be as a random event the possibility of a tyrant but popular/fanatical leader who has managed to gain the unswerving support (through whatever means) of the populace and have distinct enemies upon arising. This Manical leader will be able to produce military units quickly and would arise as a significant force quickly. It would be the players choice to band to together and defeat this entity, or use and support this entity to help them in their gains/bolster their position with mutual aggression pacts.

there have been many historical instances of this type of leader throughout history, Hitler being an obvious one, Iam sure other players could name many more and even question the "respected" Civ leaders as they stand, but that is for the philosophical, Iam arguing the point from gameplay.

Comments?

 

[Antilogic]

Among the ideas floated here, I'd like to add to the city capturing and city razing effects shpould be changed for Civ V.
(Note:this has been stated elsewhere in different form by others)

1. When razing a city of population more than, say, three, you should have the ability under Slavery to make a worker out of each population point, OR add them to a city.
2. When capturing a city it is always a bummer that EVERY building(some few exceptions) is completely destroyed. Taking a city would be much more fruitful if it didn't mean having to build it again from the ground up. My suggestion is to have a percentage chance of destruction for each building type. For instance, walls in some cases would NOT be completely destroyed, and markets and/or libraries probably would be.

But let's take it a step further. If a civilization is in the medieval era and three out of seven cities are sacked, surely their civ should fall back a good ways in developemnt on account of stored knowledge in libraries and monastaries being lost. They should actually LOSE techs. This is a small detail that can be easy to create and would add a realism to gameplay. Likewise, sacking a city should give the chance(percentile calculated) of the invading civ to gain a tech from the capture. Not always, but occassionally, since every civs knowledge base is in their cities, right? And likewise, the size and culture of a city would help to determine the negatives and positives on each side for what is lost and what is gained.

Naturally, this would be lessened a good deal once Paper came along, and much more so as the game advanced, to the point where, in the computer age, it becomes much less probable altogether--but not impossible.

3. Rather than getting too into resource utilization, why not feature certain techs that you need a resource to be able to discover--like iron-working. This would make it impossible for a land-locked nation to discover Seafaring, for instance. Ways that civs are kept backward should be exploited so as to encourage meaningful resource trading to begin with. Likewise, if we carry the religion idea a little further, why not feature some religious techs that are automatically given to those civs that share that religion? This would be some boost to the religion game, as well as a dicey way to suggest that overall religious conversion has it's pros and cons. I like the way religious blocks develope in BTS, but taking it that step forward is a real plus--much like how with the UN you are able to introduce civics to all civs, only in this case it is automatic.

4. Last thing--having some thing integral like the Revolution concept. Really playing with city-state theme, and only being able to really tie together tightly your civ near nationalism. This naturally gives religion thast much greater an impact, but other factors can be introduced that can help keep your city in line. Remeber how in Civ 2 your cities would be demanding certain buildings? Along those lines, only with the culture aspect of it, these cities can gain their own identity! Which makes where you build what wonder all the more critical to your overall empire.

Just a few thoughts.

I like the idea of enslavement and getting workers out of razed cities. You could probably program an event to do that right now for Civ4 (I might look into doing something like that in a week).

On your second point, the Civ4 game already does that. Each building has a chance of being destroyed, and "cultural" buildings, except for World Wonders, are always destroyed if they are not UBs (UBs that replace non-culture generating buildings that generate culture are not always destroyed). But I have captured cities with several intact buildings (you also tend to have more survive late game because more buildings are there in the first place).

I think the tech loss is adding insult to injury. What if you lose Machinery and all of a sudden cannot create contemporary troops any more? "Well guys, we have plenty of surviving examples and were in fact training more crossbows and macemen all over our empire. And then all of a sudden some worthless size 3 outpost was lost and we have no clue what we are doing. None at all. All that training you just did doesn't make any sense any more, and that half-finished unit is suddenly worthless."

On your third point...I'd leave in the players hands whether or not to trade technologies instead of forcing them to share. Besides, researching Seafaring when you don't have a coastline is a waste of time, and you won't utilize it any way. In short, if you don't get a benefit of Seafaring if you are landlocked, it doesn't make sense that you should forbid it. After all, it doesn't help (except for trading).

Revolutions, I think, should be triggered by long-term unhappiness (of several angry faces, just not 1 or 2) or sheer brutality (constant whipping). Simply having two high culture cities should not be enough to cause internal disarray. To represent the city state theme, you can always increase the number of cities maintenance for early government civics, and then drop them for more modern ones. However, you really play as an absolutist early on (no early democratic or city-state option, just Despotism, Monarchy, and then whoever builds the Pyramids is the exception). Fact is, I think representing city states and "loose affiliation" over strong affiliation should be done through a civic or two.

I think I could probably code a pretty fair "League" civic that could fit in the early Government category to do just that. Might increase trade routes yields, but as an off-set increase your number of cities maintenance.


@gingermick: On the issue of Hitler, the arguments have been posted again and again, so I won't debate on a specific leader. I have yelled myself hoarse over it. But, on the subjects of internal civil wars, full-fledged conflicts would be difficult to program fairly (as in, not randomly). Plus, what side are you put on? Do you always have to be the loyalists or always the rebels? I don't think giving him an alternate "Manical" trait that produces military more quickly woudl be required--whoever is selected to lead the new nation would have their own pair of traits to lend benefits to. However, like I said before, having revolts in cities that have had long-term severe unhappiness problems or if you make several decisions that reduce your overall stability would be a fair addition. After all, you would see it coming.

I strongly believe the random events should be added for flavor, but should not have utterly game-changing consequences. Small bonuses and penalties are fine, but larger ones should just be avoided. Case in point: the instant city destruction event the playtesters hated in the beta version of BtS.

 

[Phatkarp]

I think the tech loss is adding insult to injury. What if you lose Machinery and all of a sudden cannot create contemporary troops any more? "Well guys, we have plenty of surviving examples and were in fact training more crossbows and macemen all over our empire. And then all of a sudden some worthless size 3 outpost was lost and we have no clue what we are doing. None at all. All that training you just did doesn't make any sense any more, and that half-finished unit is suddenly worthless."

I agree. My sense is that this would screw up gameplay for a small "realism" benefit. Anyways, losing a bunch of cities sets you back pretty significantly anyway.

I do like the idea of enslaving all or part of a captured city to bolster the population of your core cities. I know in Civ3 you could add workers back to your cities as population points. Can you do that in Civ4?

 

[Antilogic]

EDIT: Sorry, double post.

 

[Antilogic]

No, not without a mod. And you would have to add a new unit command, which means you would probably need an SDK modification, something I can't do.

 

[Gudinsdiv]

On buildings suriving a capture: I've rarely, if ever, had other than a lighthouse still standing, even in late games.
But hey, I'll take your word for it!

Antilogic:
On tech loss, it would have to be a cumulative effect, as I said above. If you lose three out seven or two out of five--a large percentage of your stored knowledge than it makes sense that you would fall back. I'm thinking of Egypt after the Great Library went down, the effect of barbarian hordes laying waste to everything in sight, as much as the English forceably decimating any trace of written Scottish and Irish culture and tradition. These actions leave a definiate vacuum, and likewise it makes it that much more difficult for a war-torn country to completely recover in a few turns--tech recovery, that is.
First, let me give an example of why this is something better for the game. Ever crush a civ to one city--that city being their last one on a island or something that you didn't realize they had? Well how is it that all of these acquired techs are operate and usable where this civ have been marginialzed to the edges of the world community--and with a 6 or 7 population city no less?
Second, let me give you the mercy end of the deal. Odds are they can regain those lost techs by trading if they want to, and the techs lost would have to make some kind of sense. Which can and can't be reasonably lost is something to ponder, but the idea that a virtually crippled civ has to regain lost ground in the advancement game is not only pure logic and pure realism, but a great element overall.

There's a sensitive Pole around here somewhere who can surely attest to the dire effects that partition and occupation have on a civilizations progress.

 

[gingermick]

Tech loss:

if techs were easier to gain the more different Civs have found them, the this "lost knowledge" would be easier to "re-gain"

 

[Loosevelt]

I just really think Civ V would extinguish itself if they could make trade much more important.

 

[Gudinsdiv]

Tech loss:

if techs were easier to gain the more different Civs have found them, the this "lost knowledge" would be easier to "re-gain"

I agree. Consider that even today what was groundbreaking for the more advanced nations forty years ago has become much more accessable to the less advanced ones--a kind of trickle down of tech, really.
Heck, one could argue that, as in Civ 2 when you gifted an advanced unit to a civ, new factors like embassies and favored nation trade agreements would automatically transfer techs from one civ to another--maybe not cutting edge advancements if the two states were that lopsided, but periodically for one civs contact with another resulting in a breakthrough for that civ.

There does need to be a certain logic where tech loss and tech gain is concerned--I'll give you that. Obviously a civ that hasn't even discovered Construction isn't going to break out with a canon by any chance, even if one was gioven to them. Knowing how to use it and having the knowledge base to actually build one are two different things.

But I doubt, given the series' popularity thus far, that having a deeper playing experience would be a minus to anyone. Civ 4 came out with a good few new elements that took getting used to, and if new versions mean taking play to the next level--both technologically and in playability--I don't see so many potential buyers turning up their noses. People want a better and more challenging game, whether it's Civilization or hockey. And both cases, the closer a developer can get to added realism with added playablility, the better off they are going to be.

 

[Antilogic]

The thing is, if you lose all but a handful of population points and workable tiles, your civilization will become stagnant and not advance except through donations by your generous overlords. Other civilizations will have advanced units and you will have little to fight back with. Adding tech loss on top of that seems excessive to me; you are still going to be behind. This sounds like it'll just be more frustration.

 

[Gudinsdiv]

The thing is, if you lose all but a handful of population points and workable tiles, your civilization will become stagnant and not advance except through donations by your generous overlords. Other civilizations will have advanced units and you will have little to fight back with. Adding tech loss on top of that seems excessive to me; you are still going to be behind. This sounds like it'll just be more frustration.

I suppose, but then the civ in question would have to have been behind to begin with to be losing 40%-60% of their cities. As I see it, the demonstrably weaker civs are simply weeded out earlier and more easily, and you don't find yourself competing late in the game with some marginalized civ that has been able to maintain cutting edge advances while having little or no cultural or political influence as compared to larger and more powerful civs.

On the other hand, an aggressive civ could regain those cities, restore their overall prestige, and having lost, let's face it, one tech (as far as I envision it) for every three or four cities, not be that terribly hampered.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not advocating that a mauled civ be confined to the ancient tech era, I'm just saying that a certain logic dictates tech loss where multiple city capture is concerned. Not one city, not two, but a relative percentage, overall, of their knowledge base. And not multiple techs either, but one, maybe two, in relation to the size and scientific output that's been lost. Likewise, this could only happen easily up to the medieval era(printing press) at which point it becomes less and less likely that it could happen at all as a civ advances, to the point where, with mass media and computers, it becomes impossible.

[The defense rests.]

As a side note, is there, or could there be, a random event of a library or university burning, resulting in lost technology? There's already a random event for set-backs. This would take it a step further.

 

[eddiewillers]

More realism through Geography:
One thing that bugs me quiet a lot is that climate doesn't play almoast any role

For example: It is a known IRL fact that the Indian Ganges Civ became possible only after they learnt Iron Working and how to clear out jungle (so I give credit because this already happens since Civ 2) . Likewise most of the tropics were uninhabitable until the discovery of DDT.
What I mean is that a fertile chermozem prairie at 33º can't be worth the same food shields than a rocky frozen soil or an equatorial tract before the advent of pesticides.

I'd like to see in Civ V a map, or Globe, with a visible -exagerated- topology and both a latitude gradient as well as a height gradient.

Geography should be man-alterable and with more detail (bigger maps) things like canals to tunnels to polders could be made.

I'd love to see Sim City's way of laying down a road in Civ as an altewnative way to automate workers. You could even zone: commerce is "cottage", residential is "farms", and industrial "mine".
I hate to do it tile by tile.

Another thing I'd like te to see is both region specifi plants and livestock and the ability to acquire them, plant them. I'm not thinking about luxuries nor resources but more speciic food shields the same way we can have specialized citizens. "Genetics" could be worked out from the beggining of the game as it happens with religion. After all they are both memes.

Finally, allow for levels of federalism in Civics: Feuds, Provinces, States and Territories should have the chance to build their respective capitals. Throw away that civ-specific reliq of the Forbiden Palace.

 

[eddiewillers]

on tech loss:
Once a secret is uncovered you can't burn it or put it back into Pandora's box. The opposite is true: when a civ invades another it should rightously steal the victim's techs.
Even the most barbarian of civs (say the Mongols) who razed cities and monasterienes, acted in the end as the linking force that would allow for all to Eurasia to trade. We indirectly owe the Press and Pasta to the great Khans.

Find another way to weed out the weak.

 

[Onionsoilder]

Another thing I'd like to to see is both region specific plants and livestock and the ability to acquire them, plant them. I'm not thinking about luxuries nor resources but more speciic food shields the same way we can have specialized citizens. "Genetics" could be worked out from the beggining of the game as it happens with religion. After all they are both memes.

While it would be interesting, I think the current Civilization model is just fine, at least from the stone age through the industrial era. When you find a Corn resource, think of it not as the only corn for miles, but an especially fertile area where corn is abundant. Until the discovery of artificial fertilizers, this system works pretty well.

Finally, allow for levels of federalism in Civics: Feuds, Provinces, States and Territories should have the chance to build their respective capitals. Throw away that civ-specific reliq of the Forbiden Palace.

I agree with you, but only if it can be implemented in a manner were there is no excessive micromanagement. That is the last thing we need more of.

 

[eddiewillers]

. I'm thinking of Egypt after the Great Library went down, the effect of barbarian hordes laying waste to everything in sight, as much as the English forceably decimating any trace of written Scottish and Irish culture and tradition. These actions leave a definiate vacuum,

But that's a cultural loss not a technological loss.

Reminds me: more dead-end techs that allow for the creation of your own religious sect. One thing is Religion, another is Church, and the latter plays an important role in state.

Sure, Christianity's holy city is Yerushalaym but for history's sake it's also Rome, Geneva, and Mouont Patmos (catholic, calvinist, eastern orthodox).

I bring this up because I like holy cities.

 

[eddiewillers]

While it would be interesting, I think the current Civilization model is just fine, at least from the stone age through the industrial era. When you find a Corn resource, think of it not as the only corn for miles, but an especially fertile area where corn is abundant. Until the discovery of artificial fertilizers, this system works pretty well.

Some way to immitate the population boom that American tomatoes and potatoes caused in Europe even for civs without colonies, like Poland.

And with more climates (terrain types) some areas could be rendered more productive/less toxic with resources like quinine, or techs like DDT.

I agree with you, but only if it can be implemented in a manner were there is no excessive micromanagement. That is the last thing we need more of.

No, I guess we can call it the ability to build more than one palace with varying efficacy according to the civic in place.

 

[Antilogic]

While it would be interesting, I think the current Civilization model is just fine, at least from the stone age through the industrial era. When you find a Corn resource, think of it not as the only corn for miles, but an especially fertile area where corn is abundant. Until the discovery of artificial fertilizers, this system works pretty well.

I agree with you, but only if it can be implemented in a manner were there is no excessive micromanagement. That is the last thing we need more of.

Exactly how I see it. There was an attempt to make a "natural spread" of agricultural products in a similar matter by Navy SEAL; he used the random discovery of new mined resources as a baseline.


@eddiewillers: I always thought of implementing religious schisms as happening more through politics than technologies--as in, a series of random events in the game will cause the Catholic-Orthodox sects to split in Christianity or the Sunni-Shi'a split in Islam.

 

[eddiewillers]

@eddiewillers: I always thought of implementing religious schisms as happening more through politics than technologies--as in, a series of random events in the game will cause the Catholic-Orthodox sects to split in Christianity or the Sunni-Shi'a split in Islam.

Out of Age of Imperialism I thought of a within Spanish Conquest scn where different religious orders'd compete to convert (enslave and flag capture) natives, like the Company of Jesus or the Inquisition.

N advanced monasteries or 1 small wonder could be built; or a prophet GP, to be able to initiate a reform the same way one changes civics, but at the cost of an automatic declaration of war from the "mother" Civ (the one holding the holy city, or/and the one you acquired the religion from). If you founded the religion there's no need to reform it

 

[Pariah]

In Civ V, if there were to be the capability of Cities declaring themselves independant and forming nations not under the control of a recognised starting civilisation, which is being advocated by some ppl in this thread. Then why cant there be as a random event the possibility of a tyrant but popular/fanatical leader who has managed to gain the unswerving support (through whatever means) of the populace and have distinct enemies upon arising.

This did happen in the Call to Power games: an unhappy city would riot, but when a city revolted, it broke away and declared independence. A new civ name and leader were chosen at random, and the new leader invariably hated the parent civ (understandable, since that civ's misrule was what sparked the revolt).

The problem was, those breakaway civs inevitably started as just 1 city - so they were usually quite easy to recapture before they could expand and grow strong. If such a system in implemented in Civ 5, it should allow for 2 or more neighbouring cities to break away simultaneously, and form a single new nation. This would be basically identical to the existing colony system in BTS - except that it would happen against the player's will, creating a new enemy instead of a new vassal.

More realism through Geography...

Another thing I'd like te to see is both region specifi plants and livestock and the ability to acquire them, plant them. I'm not thinking about luxuries nor resources but more speciic food shields...

Good idea. Also, wildlife and biodiversity should be important. Civ 4 already has dangerous wild animals, and animal resources; why not add various "neutral" animal populations to the terrain graphics, with different species on diferent landmasses? Developing a tile with farms, cottages, lumbermills, windmills etc wouldn't necessarily eliminate the wildlife; there should be a certain % chance of losing it, depending on the type of development.

Wildlife near cities could enhance culture through inspiring art, poetry etc. Like forests & jungles, or the proposed Natural Wonders, wildlife would also help keep people happy in the late game. With this in mind, it should be possible to establish nature preserves in any wildlife-bearing terrain - not just forest & jungle.