The Civ V wish-list!!!

[Antilogic]

dang I haven't upgraded to BtS. Can I really poision enemy wells? What about throwing infected corpses into a walled city? Biological warfair is ancient and perhaps the most important part of a game concept I'd like to see implemented: BESIEGED CITIES:
In the times when cities that didn't want to be razed had walls surrounding them, to caputre one meant a long siege and a war of supplies: who starves faster.
I strongly emphasize my reiterative suggestion: let's make diseases forCIV V the way we have religion for CIV IV. That way a siege could actually be realistic.

All French medieval wars between feuds were a matter of sieging the castle.
Acre was taken by the Crusaders this way.
Tmutarkan or some Crimean city was taken by the turks this way, and that way came along the black pest.

There's a whole world of memetics if we incorporate disease!

I need support for this guys. Firaxis will think it too politically incorrect and itwould be a shame and a historical mistake.

There is biological warfare in their "Next War" mod, but not in the basic game. However, there are over a dozen different things you can do with espionage, with both "active" abilities, like poisoning wells or causing city revolts or stealing technology, and "passive" abilities, like seeing inside your enemy's territory. The passive abilities are gained by simply investing time in building up espionage points (make Intelligence Agencies and Security Bureaus, run spy specialists), and you don't have to do anything to use them--it's all automatic.

I think there is a random event that incorporates a disease, and Rhye's scenario has a brutal black plague that kills off half your army...


I would keep the current array of religions in the game, and a very similar system for their usage. Religions are greater than individual cultures, and help the formation of alliances and voting blocks.

The problem with unit editors are numerous for Civ--we have a customization system already: Promotions. After all, giving your archers Shock customizes them for combat against a particular unit type, while you have the Garrison promotion enhances defense in cities, and so on... It would be redundant to include yet another layer on top of that. Just added complexity without any real gain. Civ4 already offers you several more unit types than Civ3 did, each with a specific role (spears against mounted, axes and maces against melee, archers for defense...not exactly realistic, but good enough for the gameplay).

God, am I actually agreeing with rysmiel?

 

[Zenon_pt]

Does any one have a resumé of this thread?

 

[Antilogic]

Probably not. I only joined 2/3 of the way through because people were getting too crazy.

 

[W|M]

Why not have prerequisite recourses for certain wonders? (e.g. You need stone for Pyramids) and implement elements of The Ancient Mediterranean (TAM) Mod, such as new recourses and different theme tunes.

Also, once, when I was playing RFC, I was France and England declared war. I got Spain in the war, but when I made peace with England (Not a single battle! All I saw were a couple of galleys off the Bordeaux coast!) Spain declared war on me.

 

[Gudinsdiv]

It would be nice if in CivV it were easier to have military alliances, as well as to have a LIMITED number of turns that a vassal is kept. Maybe allow an easier system for breaking away or just having a simple time constraint. Has anyone else had issues with the perpetual defeated being a roadblock to your centralized advancement? I found this playing China on GEM. I had vassalized the Moguls, but then they were just stuck there. And being powerful, no one would dare attack me and my "minion states".
It creates what I think is an unintended stalemate for the player, especially as you are able to flat out abuse your vassals in every way shape and form--taking all of their money, their resources, etc.
It would a better vassal system if you were equally able to terminate when you wanted(after a certain turn) or if, as with captured cities, you had the "liberate" option available.

As to military alliance, it seems difficult to get the right guy to back you at the right time against another. Nine times out of ten someone is asking you to decalre war on someone half a world away, which is absurd. I'm sure there is a better way to develope alliances, especially those that are more regional in nature. After all, how different combinations of nations went to war with eachother in just the seventeenth century? Then figure the eighteenth and nineteenth!
My opinion is that there should more factors calculated to create pro- or anti- attitudes between given civs. I like that there is avalue and it's representation, but perhaps there should be more significance given to some factors than others--especially trade! Two nations that are neighbors that trade goods over time should have a strong conncection. Not totally unbreakable, but not wholly selfish either.

 

[gingermick]

but there is trade, and unfair trade.

 

[Skallagrimson]

It would be nice if in CivV it were easier to have military alliances, as well as to have a LIMITED number of turns that a vassal is kept.

That's one of those extremely unrealistic civisms that just 15 seconds of actually engaging brain and THINKING would have avoided. "You are the powerful master of a vassal... but you CANNOT tell the vassal he's on his own now!"

What?

 

[Antilogic]

It would be nice if in CivV it were easier to have military alliances, as well as to have a LIMITED number of turns that a vassal is kept. Maybe allow an easier system for breaking away or just having a simple time constraint. Has anyone else had issues with the perpetual defeated being a roadblock to your centralized advancement? I found this playing China on GEM. I had vassalized the Moguls, but then they were just stuck there. And being powerful, no one would dare attack me and my "minion states".
It creates what I think is an unintended stalemate for the player, especially as you are able to flat out abuse your vassals in every way shape and form--taking all of their money, their resources, etc.
It would a better vassal system if you were equally able to terminate when you wanted(after a certain turn) or if, as with captured cities, you had the "liberate" option available.

As to military alliance, it seems difficult to get the right guy to back you at the right time against another. Nine times out of ten someone is asking you to decalre war on someone half a world away, which is absurd. I'm sure there is a better way to develope alliances, especially those that are more regional in nature. After all, how different combinations of nations went to war with eachother in just the seventeenth century? Then figure the eighteenth and nineteenth!
My opinion is that there should more factors calculated to create pro- or anti- attitudes between given civs. I like that there is avalue and it's representation, but perhaps there should be more significance given to some factors than others--especially trade! Two nations that are neighbors that trade goods over time should have a strong conncection. Not totally unbreakable, but not wholly selfish either.

I don't know what you are doing, but the AI picks fights with me and my vassals all the time. Literally, the world was divided 45/45, with one small Civ away on the side of the map. We both ended up running Police States and beating each other senseless for over 150 turns until I finally got enough land to claim a Domination victory.

What's GEM? Is it a mod? If so, modders may fool around with AI aggression levels. And if you were so powerful, why didn't you declare war?

Also, every AI personality keeps a small gold reserve behind they don't offer for trade--just because you see a 0 available for trade doesn't mean they are actually flat broke...they might be sitting on 40-50 and won't give it up. They also fixed the exploitation of resource selling for gold per turn in BtS...before, you could sell repeat resources (as in, sell each of your additional 5 silk resources) for 15 gold per turn apiece to your vassal to get 75 GPT income. If this is what you are talking about, they fixed it already with a patch.

I agree on the diplomacy, though. Improved diplomacy with more options would be the major factor in me upgrading from Civ4. Stuff like most favored nation trading pacts to improve trade route income between two countries, for example. Or, a difference between open borders (just for merchants trading) and military access (for your armies to cross over their lands). Hell, if somebody tacked these options into BtS, I would be happy.

 

[ZachScape]

-A feature that shows a political map of the world. And also have the option to draw on it.
-Ability to buy plots of land from other civs (make war treaties more significant and borders more dynamic).

 

[Glassfan]

Several have touched upon this already, but I'd like to take it further. As clever as the Firaxis{?} programers are, they're fairly clueless when it comes to actual weapon systems, such as helecopters that can't fly or fight over water. When we complained in the Civ III forums about underpowered aircraft carriers with only 4 planes, in Civ IV they gave us only 3. And don't even get me started on the dumbed-down nuclear weapons! My suggestion it that for Civ V, they hire someone with some actual military science background to help them with more intelligent units. The user-based scenarios always get around to improving the units, but I'd like to see the basic game act rationally.

 

[Silver_wizard]

I have got a few idea's about diplomacy:

#1: Make it possible to negotiate about the amount of turns a trade agreement is active.

#2: Make it possible to trade everything in exchange for everyting. (for example: trade resources in exchange for techs)

#3: Make it possibe to make open borders and defense pacts unequal. (for example: I can cross your borders, but you cannot cross my borders)

This will lead to agreements like:
-I will pay you 100 gold now and you will pay me 6 gold/turn for 20 turns. (borrowing money )
-You will get my world map if you provide me with sugar for 8 turns.
-This peace will last for 60 turns.
-I will protect you in exchange for your aluminium.

 

[Zeeba_238]

And don't even get me started on the dumbed-down nuclear weapons!

What about the just plain dumbed-down weapons? I'm pretty sure if someone launched a nuclear bomb at the city where I live, it wouldn't just injure the military unit standing on the city; It would more likely just kill everyone.

And while we're discussing theoretical ideas, why have a grid? FPS games don't require you to move in an exactly straight line. I mean, instead of one movement point, couldn't we have our tanks move 87.5 pixels 2 degrees west of Northwest? That would be so much cooler, because then you could sneak around a group of spearmen on a peninsula without worrying about your tank getting blown up in a messed up battle.

And they could at least put in some cool futuristic units borg
How many people do you know who love researching future tech?

 

[Aserjiek]

I think that (and anybody who has played alpha centauri probably agrees with me) that units should be on a totally customizable basis. Different arrowheads, fletching stylies, spear tips, swords, shields, armour, and nationality. And later on it would work off of the famous weapons list. For example, with the tech magazine rifles you might get these as choices; the mosin nagant, Springfield '03, the krabiner 98K, the lee enfield, and arisaka.

 

[Terrance888]

An how will this change gameplay? +0.01% V.S. Melee? +0.01 Chance of First Strike? +0.01 Dmg?

Give us an example of how that would work. I would like to see a Spore-styled military creator but hasn't seen a good reason yet. Also, there has been ideas of having multiple units per tech and you chose one of them and can trade for other styles.

For Example. Guilds
You can get Knights, Mounted Infantry, Light Lancer, Dragoon, Wagon-fort

Knights
Same

Mounted Infantry
9 str, Has defence
Less flank attack

Light Lancer
8 Str
Bettr Flank Attack
+50% V.S. Melee

Dragoon
9 STR
2 First Strikes
Half defence

Wagon Fort
8 Str
50% V.S. Mounted
2 First Strikes
+20% defence

 

[Tomjenkins]

as far as Civs are looking, I just want the Assyrians and a polynesian civ.

perhaps adding new religions like Sikhism, Shinto, or Baha'i. And possibly having tribal religions that you must work to convert when you conquer a barbarian city. And being able to "purge" religions from a city once you take it from another civ.

 

[Öjevind Lång]

as far as Civs are looking, I just want the Assyrians and a polynesian civ.

perhaps adding new religions like Sikhism, Shinto, or Baha'i. And possibly having tribal religions that you must work to convert when you conquer a barbarian city. And being able to "purge" religions from a city once you take it from another civ.

I'm against the last suggestion. It would make things too easy for the player, and it would also have rather nasty implications. However, I agree that mroe religions could be fun. I'd also like an added "officially atheist" option where no religions were active - no rival would get money from their religion in your cities, neither would you, monasteries and churches would not give any benefits and so on. That could be compensated by less war weariness or something similar.

 

[Naokaukodem]

I'm against the last suggestion. It would make things too easy for the player, and it would also have rather nasty implications.

I, would be agree for this. Or at least, the dominating (with quantifiable religions) /state religion could grow at the expense of other religions. the player should not be able to remove them manually, they would remove themselves automatically, and the player could influence this automation with buildings or civics.

 

[Skallagrimson]

Several have touched upon this already, but I'd like to take it further. As clever as the Firaxis{?} programers are, they're fairly clueless when it comes to actual weapon systems, such as helecopters that can't fly or fight over water. When we complained in the Civ III forums about underpowered aircraft carriers with only 4 planes, in Civ IV they gave us only 3. And don't even get me started on the dumbed-down nuclear weapons! My suggestion it that for Civ V, they hire someone with some actual military science background to help them with more intelligent units. The user-based scenarios always get around to improving the units, but I'd like to see the basic game act rationally.

Realism? At Firaxis? HERETIC!!!

If anything they will put every effort into making Civ5 even more cartoony, unrealistic, and ridiculous. They'll probably build a spearman that really WILL consistently beat a tank.

 

[exhile]

I think there are a few consultants in the navy, army, airforce & aerospace that Firaxis refers to when conceptualizing flowchart diagrams. Why else would promotions be added?

Civ 5 is a game that is close to how the real world is. Sometimes the real world doesn't fit with how the game is played so rules change to accomodate gameplay. 8 fighter planes in Civ1 & Civ2 then down to 4 fighter planes in Civ3 & Civ4. If gameplay of flight is going to change in Civ 5, Aircraft Carriers and airbases need to be overhauled as well. The US Navy has 12 aircrat carriers whereas other countries have less than a quarter of a dozen in operation. How will this real world fact affect gameplay in Civ5?

 

[rysmiel]

I think that (and anybody who has played alpha centauri probably agrees with me) that units should be on a totally customizable basis.

I am a counterexample. I hate the bother of customising units, it was the one thing in AC I would most have wanted changed.