Things that would make Civ V even better:

[snoochems]

•Some way to explorer territory of a civilization you're not chummy with. (espionage or map-sharing) When you play a war-mongering style of game, the map seems to remain "clouded" for a long long time.

 

[Neato]

•If an AI player basically capitulates and gives me half their Cities for peace, my whole bloody empire should not slow down to a crawl due to the extra cities! There should be a difference between captured cities and gifted cities as far as happiness goes.

Actually, this sounds like a great "peaceful" strategy for screwing over the victor!

 

[snoochems]

Actually, this sounds like a great "peaceful" strategy for screwing over the victor!

It screwed me over massively in my first MP game. I took the best AI civ (by points) capital, and thinking I had just had a massive win, I accepted peace and as part of that deal, took 4 of his cities. Yeah... worst decision of all time. Took me to like -20 happiness.

 

[snoochems]

•Allow save games to be sorted by date modified. (seriously, how is this NOT in the game)

 

[mamba]

Neg. When I think range I think canon, artillery, missiles. Not infantry.

I agree to that, but then I doubt archers shoot farther than rifles do

 

[Neato]

•Allow save games to be sorted by date modified. (seriously, how is this NOT in the game)

Agreed! It's cute and clean to just see the name of save, but this is one of those things that should be an option. Even an option for the old save style, where it lists the leader/civ name and the in-game date would be nice.

 

[Dave_Oz]

Release the god damn world builder and 'tuner'

 

[The Rev]

maybe. Maybe it would be better to remove range for archers etc. Keep it to 1-hex distance bombardment only, and beef them up, given the scales of the game (though that's out of whack anyway) but moreover given you would not have any frontal units in modern age that way, which partially defeats 1upt purpose. But in either case, the contrast is quite weird, BC archers having more range than modern infantry.. It probably works best as it is gameplay-mechanic wise, however..

I could definitely agree to that, give archers only one range, but either some better melee strength, an extra move, or can move after firing so they can skirmish. Then give rifles and infantry a similar setup.

 

[digitalcraft]

I'd rather they just have all modern units have range. That's realistic anyways. Modern wars are all fought at range. Just give the artillery 3, and have infantry and tanks have two. Would still be very tactical to take into account line of sight, chokepoints, high ground, all that stuff.

 

[GreyIago]

I'd rather they just have all modern units have range. That's realistic anyways. Modern wars are all fought at range. Just give the artillery 3, and have infantry and tanks have two. Would still be very tactical to take into account line of sight, chokepoints, high ground, all that stuff.

Personally I think all units should have range. I think that would be epic. I mean, infantry battles in Iraq/Afghanistan were always won at range. Same with every other battle. WWII, Korea, Vietnam. All of them were fought at range...oh wait.