1. We have added a Gift Upgrades feature that allows you to gift an account upgrade to another member, just in time for the holiday season. You can see the gift option when going to the Account Upgrades screen, or on any user profile screen.
    Dismiss Notice

Things You Like To See in Civ5.

Discussion in 'Civ - Ideas & Suggestions' started by thelibra, Oct 24, 2007.

  1. Rod

    Rod King

    Sep 22, 2004
    Munich / Germany
    I agree with most of the post before, because basically most people want more advanced or more realistic enhancement of current features. I can sign such ideas without second thought.

    However there is one wish of mine that was not mention before :

    I want the game to be shorter, but more exciting ..

    What do I mean with that.

    See I want to give a few keywords :

    1) 90 % of game turns I am just developing the land, because I need an extensive infrastructure otherwise I get outteched, outbuilded

    2) 50 % of my time I spent on war time, because I have to manage each unit individually

    3) Every game on a scale with 18 civs lasts at least 20 hours.

    Did it ever occurred to you that this does not has to be like that ??

    Regarding 1)

    -New founded Cities can start with a set of buildings in later ages
    -Units will be upgraded automatically with advanced technology (see we are spending a considerable amount of money on our army each turn, why dont they buy equipment by themselves ?)
    -Buildings will upgrade themselves with advanced technologies (why do I have to build a library and then a university and then a observatory and then a ... )
    They will take their time (lets say a library upgrades itself into a university in so and so many turns) but it does this automatically, without my interference)

    Regarding 2)

    - Why can I not have Admirals,Captains , Generals and Commanders who are able to lead their own armies according to my strategic orders (I could also control one army, but I dont have to control ALL units)

    Regarding 3)

    Why can I not have milestones, like victories at the end of each Age ? So all the victories will be achievable in Ancient Times, but then I can decide whether I want to continue with new higher victories in the next age.

    (it will be a little bit like a Role Playing Game, where I can finish one adventure, but then take my current hero and go into the next adventure,but I dont have to use the same character (the same civ) for all the time)
  2. Siesta Guru

    Siesta Guru Prince

    Dec 2, 2007
    The Netherlands
    Some of my idea/ Ideas i strongly support

    Hex maps, more realistic movement, maps with poles, some more reasons, its just better...

    Make more of the same resource usefull, 1 cow + 1 wheat provides more food then 7 cow.. Doesnt make sense. The same with the very important modern day resource oil, more oil could allow more units/buildings depending on it.

    Way more and better diplomatic modifiers, such as getting a better reputation if theres alot more happy faces then mad faces or jealousy (land, resources, technologies, money, wonders) Also the ai shouldnt ignore insane deals just because they dont like someone (fur could be redded out even though youd like to give oil and allimunium for it, or someones unwilling to trade a 500 beakers tech for a few techs worth thousands of beakers)


    I find the current technologie system a bit rubbish, currently there seems to be atleast 3 types of things on the tech screen that all act in completly different ways (realisticly speaking).

    Theres: Inventions and sudden discoveries, such as the wheel or finding iron. These arent really things you develop into, its not like the chieftain says: scientist, why dont you go develop the wheel. The moment it was thought of it was there, its no process. You shouldnt be able to research into them, a more realistic way of reaching this is setting some timer with a random factor after having researched the prereqs, so for example you could discover copper 20 turns after researching mining alowwing you to research bronze working.

    Techniques or improvements upon inventions: These are the things a chieftain could let a scientist dig into. Scientist, find a way to catch those fish, improve upon our bows(longbows). These could work as it works right now.

    Cultural things: Techs like meditation or constitution dont seem like real techs, their not devolped by scientists, its just the way a civilization grows. Maybe these could be in a seperate techtree which needs cultural points instead of beakers. This would also really make the cultural slider a usefull thing. (These 'techs' shouldnt be tradeable but they could spread like religions do, spreading could give some nice diplomatic modifiers aswell).

    Another strange thing with the current system if the way different things are packed into the same tech, take guilds for example, youd expect some new ecnomic civic or some specilization bonus, maybe some extra commerce, but instead you get to build knights :confused: Doesnt make much sense to me, id rather divide alot of techs into smaller techs, some only there because its a prereq to somehting else. Fishing for example would need either rope or spears and requires boats, which in its turn would require woodworking.

    And theres the catchy requirements aswell, such as the requirements for pottery, huh? Some requirements are obviously only there because then the tech gets researched in a reasonable time, a much better idea might be to give other requirments to techs then just other techs, such as requiring a resource (manhattan project becomes tech), a total amount of beakers produced a certain happiness rate, you name it.


    The military feels kindda lame, it takes loads of micromanagement while there hardly any serious battlefield tactic, its just a matter of choosing which unit to sacrifice on those longbowman with 2 citydefense promotions behind walls in a city with 60% cultural defense bonus on a hill.
    A way of greatly enhancing this system would be letting armies fight instead of single units, a archer might be worthless on its own, but will cause great casualties if backed up by some infantry. Im not talking about stack attacks here, but about a large fight with many units fighting against each other simultaniously. This would require a much more complex system though.

    Earlier starts, this isnt ancient, the ancient times where when people used stone tools to slice meat so they could eat it, ancient time is the discovery of fire, not the discovery of mining. Besides greatly adding to this era the others could use some work too, classical seems fine gameplay wise, it doesnt feel too classical though. The medieval ages are a bit boring since hardly anything happens in this time anymore, those dreaded longbow defenders are preventingany serious warmongering. The next 3 eras are way too long (in civ) considering how short its been compared to the ancient (thousands of years), classical(a few thousand years) and medieval ages(a thousand years) These three eras are like 400 years combined....
    Shorter renassaince, industrial and modern ages would be great, the future isnt much of a era, its like 5 techs which are probably going to come anyways, some creative ideas here might be nice.

    Currently all civs play pretty much the same way, theres only the unique units, buildings and starting techs, starting techs arent much of an issue for me, it only changes ancient tactics a bit, the difference these techs gave at the start is usually gone by the classical era (besides mysticism which will leave some with their own religions and others without).
    The unique units and buildings are just small improvements of old units, nothing groundbreaking, theres only one unit so a early uu would hardly change tactics during the later eras and a late one wouldnt touch the early tactics at all. These buildings and units just make a civ a little more powerfull during a certain timeframe, building 2 or 3 more units will usually result in the same as having a uu. Id say thats not much of a gamechanging thing.
    What id like to propose is 2 new things for civs, first is a free great age at the start of the civs dominant era (rome=classical sumerian=ancient america=modern). This comes with some small adjustments to great ages, first add some cultural and science bonusses aswell and second let the ages have better effects later in the game because otherwise the early age civs would have a clear advantage.
    Second is unique bonusses for every civ, the dutch might gain some bonus to sea trade while the mongols could have stronger mounted units (all of them) and lwer maintenance costs of cities. This could make every civ completly unique, and it would really depend on the civ what tacits youd have to use.

    Religions should come from great prophets, not techs, some more diversity between religions would be great too, a aztec sungod religion and a greek/roman pantheon for example.

    More balanced amount of units per era. In ancient youve only got warriors, galleys and archers to choose from while (with bts) youd have tons of units in the modern era. While the classical era is very light on units and maybe missing some (light cavalry, heavy cavalry, chariot archer, javelinmen, slingers). The modern era is completly stuffed with all kinds of units, this is strange since most of the warmongering actually happens in the classic era, modern age is usually a bit late to try conquer the world (doable though).

    Naval seems kindda weak too, its only usefull (talking about classical/medieval here) to drop troops somewhere, destroy some seafood improvements or project your own seafood. This is strange since huge navies ment huge power in the classical era (think athene or carthage), the worlds are also built in such a way that what you can reach by water you can usually also reach by land (not counting archipalago), so the dropoff aspect becomes kindda limited too. Having to build 10 galleys + triremes for escort just to get your stack of 20 troops somewhere is just not practical. To improve this id say allow sailing of rivers, being able to block said rivers (no trade anymore), block ports which stops a civ from working water tiles and trading overseas.

    Economical victory, get 50 times as much gold as any other civ with a minimum of 40000 and receiving at least 10 times as much gpt as any other civ while having atleast 200 gpt. (or something similar)
  3. Peaceful Leader

    Peaceful Leader Chieftain

    Nov 28, 2007
    - Border managment when expanding to another Civ's border

    - Seperate trade and open borders agreements

    - Toll for any import/export during trade

    - Automatic city specialization by surrounded improvements, meaning that if there's a mine, your city is best managed as a procuction city; if it's surrounded by cottages towns, it's a commerce city, etc.

    - Free upgraded buildings (Colosseum > Stadium; Aqueduct > Plumbing, etc.)

    - Unique general buildings for each civ, even in the modern era

    - Balanced road/railroad construction when workers are automated

    - Cars as tradable production (needs specialized car factory)

    - Assigning all wonders to each civ with equal traits (it's confusing to see the Vikings building the Taj Mahal o_O)

    - Breaking up your civ into states, which can be given independance, similar to overseas colonies

    - Diplomatic unions (like the EU) which enhance trade and military actions, by assigning a civ the power over one produce (like coal, oil, etc.)

    - Specializing your civ to dominate in one field such as commerce, production, military, culture etc. (this will effect automatic city production alongside to each city's specialization)
  4. mavajo

    mavajo Chieftain

    Dec 3, 2007
    Some of the suggestions here are pretty good (especially the "upgrade names/visuals of units as the eras progress" so you don't have Archers in the modern era), but my major gripe is the diplomacy. It's much improved from the days of Civ 1 and Civ 2, but there's still much to be desired.

    Roughly 60 years ago, America was in a war with Japan and dropped two nuclear bombs on them. Just a few decades later, they became allies. This sort of thing could never develop in Civ 4.

    Diplomatic suggestions:

    - Negative feedback should decay over time, especially if the wrongs are righted. (ie. "You refuse our demands!" If you later comply, the negative feedback should be removed/reduced.)

    - Gifting units should receive positive feedback. Gifting previously captured cities should receive significant positive feedback. I was playing a game where the Japanese captured an American city. I promptly came to the Americans aid, resecured the city, and gifted it back to them. What a waste - I received no positive feedback for it.

    - Engaging in combat with an ally's enemy while in the ally's territory should reward positive feedback.

    - Building nukes should draw the attention of rival civs. Some my warn you to cease production. Others may demand you share the secret. Others may not mind. This would depand on many factors, such as military strength of your civ and theirs, diplomatic relations, leader's personalities, etc.

    - Building a nuke despite objections from rivals should warrant negative diplomacy, if not an outright declaration of war (ie., U.S. v. Iraq).

    - Opposing civs should be able to sense military buildup in your cities.

    - Opposing civs should react if you post military units near their borders, especially if you begin stationing more and more units.

    - Institute an 'early era' spy that you can do things like steal a civilization's world map, assassinate a city's governor (incurring unhappiness and possibly revolt), etc. Could be used to incite distrust or even war between two rivals that share a close border. Perhaps call it a saboteur.

    - Affiliate units with a religion. If a city has Christianity and Hinduism, all units produced in that city will be affiliated with one or the other. This could come into play when conquering rivals - stationing a unit with the same religion as the conquered city could expedite flipping. However, a unit with a rival religion could cause more problems in the city. Could also come into play when calculating combat odds - attacking a city with a unit of the same religion will increase odds of a successful attack, while an opposing religion will increase the defenders' odds (city fighting harder to expel the infidels from their borders).

    - More ways to city-flip through non-combat means: For instance, surrounding a city with units of the same religion as the city could significantly increase odds of city flipping peacefully. Why would the city fight when they can simply flip allegiances and carry on life as normal? City flipping could also be significantly increased by civics - if a city has a different religion than their state and a Free Religion civ is pressuring them culturally, they'll be very likely to flip. Etc.

    - 'Declare War on Friend' should be reworked. I can attack someone in 3800 BC and wipe them out, and still be suffering the "Attacked a friend" modifier in 1000 AD. Also, if I'm a better friend to my ally than the guy that I attacked, then I shouldn't incur any negative feedback - or if I do, it should fade quickly after the war ends.

    - Ways to 'pursuade' ally. It'd be nice if we could basically threaten our allies to go to war against an enemy with us, or else our alliance with them will end immediately. The ally could then choose to agree in order to preserve the alliance, or they may decline and threaten to declare war on us if we attack their friend. This would depend on military strength, diplomatic relations, etc. Perhaps we could even broker an agreement...they'll attack our enemy for us, but once the dust settles they want ownership of enemy cities A, B and C.

    - Make civs more likely to give away or sell cities. I was playing on a Terra map where America and I were on opposite sides of the 'Old World'. In the area I settled, there was a barren little desert area with no resources - so I specifically left it unoccupied. Eventually, America came down and plopped a city there - completely surrounded by my cities on all sides. This annoyed me, since I otherwise owned all the land there. I tried to get America to peacefully gift or sell the city to me, but of course, there was no chance of it happening. So I declared war and wiped him out - all because I'm OCD and hate having a rival city in my territory. Civs should realize when an isolated city in enemy territory may incite tension (America was in last place, I was in first) and act logically to preserve their nation by gifting it over. Sometimes I've ran wild against an enemy civ, methodically wiping them out - yet they'll still refuse to gift over some Pop 3 city in exchange for the preservation of their civilization. That's just silly.

    Etc. That's it for now. At work right now. :)
  5. sela1s1son

    sela1s1son King

    Oct 27, 2001
    Boodleburg Imperial Palace in Switz
    I'd like firepower brought back.

    Less emphasis on graphics so older computers can play it.

    I like the idea of religions giving bonuses, but to avoid stereotyping and one religion becoming a "key" religion in the game... it should be based on your "chosen" religion or something... an extended benfit/penalty system then what they have now. Perhaps under theocracy the smallest religion in your civ causes penalties for being scapegoats or something. Also in free religion, your most common religion might get unhappy in a city that only has that faith or something.

    I'd like to see the Hebrews as a civ.

    I'd like to be able to wage wars without my units constantly becoming obsolete or needing to spend so much time building an army.

    Defenders not being guaranteed a win as much.

    Buildings costs lowered, it seems like I never had time to build units, or cities built later need a lot of gold dumped in rushing or are rarely worth it as they never seem to build anything.

    Easier modding. I loved the Civ III editor and all, I didn't need a computer science degree to do mod... nor did I need to go in game.

    World maps where you can start randomly.

    An option to toggle to ignore all requests for right of passage or world maps... the constant pestering annoys me to no end.
  6. Jorunkun

    Jorunkun Back with a vengeance

    Oct 8, 2005
    1. Better AI. This means not just a little better but _exponentially_ better. I would happily shell out another 100 USD for Civ4 with an AI that can compete with a human player without cheating or bonuses.

    2. Give cities or even units some degree of independence depending on your popularity or success or government form. Like cities other than your capital refuse to build another military unit before you get them city walls, or units refusing to enter suicidal combat etc.

    3. Make different strategies equally viable. CIV4 is better at this than any previous incarnation, but CIV5 must be a step up yet again. Experienced players invariably come up with a formulaic, ideal path through the tech tree (and indeed the whole game), and so far it always favours conquest. Fix this so that there truly are multiple different strategies that succeed depending on circumstances (starting location, civ chosen etc).
  7. Jorunkun

    Jorunkun Back with a vengeance

    Oct 8, 2005
    Also, counter to what some of you wrote in this thread, I do not think having more ressources, religions, UUs etc would fundamentally improve the game. Having more of the same mechanic just adds complexity, but is often detrimental to enjoyment.
  8. Thorburne

    Thorburne Centurion

    Aug 21, 2005
    Carney, MD
    I have to strongly disagree with this. There is little complexity with the various systems you mentioned as they stand. Furthermore, what is detrimental to enjoyment is the lack of diversity.

    First off, when it comes to resources, the main problem isn't the number of resources, but the whole resource system. As stated many times by various people in this thread, there needs to be some way that having more than one resource would be beneficial (other than just the yields provided). I am partial to the idea given that each resource should be equal to a certain amount of the resource. Whatever the case, fixing the resource system will also benefit diplomacy as well.

    In regards to the number of resources, there really are only three resources when you break it down... food, luxory and strategy. With the exception of the latter, there is no real difference between the individual resources other than yields. The same can be said about strategic resources, with the added exception of different ones being required for different buildings and units, etc. More resources doesn't really add to any complexity, just diversity.

    In regards to Religions, 7 religions is really to little. Sure, it may be fine on standard and smaller maps with 10 or less playable civilizations, but for larger, more epic games (larger maps, many playable civs) 7 religions get old fast. Adding more religions adds more diversity. As it stands, only two central culture groups are represented by the current available religions, Asia and Middle East. Adding more religions allows for other cultures to be represented, like Pre-Christian Europe and the Pre-Europe Americas. They can simply make it so that smaller maps have a cap on the number religions available (similar to the cap on civilizations). To that end, you can specify in setup what religions will be available in play (or randomize them) as you would with Civs. At least that way, you can have different religions available everytime you play.

    Also, to reiterate, they need to rework the system for founding religions. Founded by a prophet is one step (and makes better sense), but I also feel that there should be additional requirements to techs for founding a religion such as resources, country size, or other religions to name a few possibilities.

    It's all about diversity!
  9. theciscokid

    theciscokid Chieftain

    Dec 4, 2007
    how about some sort of domestic politics facet beyond corruption and civics? uprisings, civil wars etc. basically problems with factions of your own government dependant upon the civ you chose, for every lincoln a davis sorta thing. also definitely more diplomatic options, i saw nato as a template, that was an interesting idea.
  10. Badhron

    Badhron Warlord

    Jan 21, 2007
    The Great White North
    A couple new ideas I had are:
    Certain religions, instead of giving different traits, will slightly alter the leaders diplomacy. ex: state religion of buddhism would be less likely to accept a bribe to go to war, christianity would be more forgiving, etc.

    Default EDU, ethnically diverse units are really nice to play with and it would be good if the game came with them already installed.
  11. Pariah

    Pariah Outside Influence

    Feb 19, 2003
    Beyond, Between, Before
    Really? :eek: I doubt that the victims of the Inquisition or the Salem witch trials would think so!! Nor would the IRA!

    I think that's almost certain to happen. It's the next logical step after having unique units for each civ, and already incorporated in BTS to some extent.
  12. buglepong

    buglepong Chieftain

    Dec 15, 2007
    In Civ4 religions aren't any different from one another... and can't compete. They might as well be religion 1, religion 2 etc. Yet they are named and based on real life religions no less. This is boring and senseless.

    Each civ should start with the ability to create their own religion (or adopt a stronger, imported one). It must be developed similar to culture/religion in current Civ (which will be amalgamated). National borders should be physical with religion/culture as a sub-border. This way religions can fight each other for control and having several (weighted, thus adding to 100%) in one city has pros and cons. Cities with religion other than state will then have penalties, as opposed to no effect (current).
    More than one holy city should be allowed and there should be more [unique] holy buildings. It would then make sense for religions to be functionally similar, relying on civics, buildings and civ development to determine the characteristics.

    This can then go back to the diplomatic calculation. Two civs adopting the same religion slightly differently will have both common ground and tensions.

    Although I like the idea of ethnically diverse units... it's a little too much micromanagement for my endorsement
  13. buglepong

    buglepong Chieftain

    Dec 15, 2007
    I thought of one more idea. Great Merchants or spies should be able to transplant pasture/farm/plantation resources from other civs. This has been done countless times in history
  14. 6K Man

    6K Man Bureaucrat

    Jul 17, 2007
    in a Gadda Da Vida
    It's strange, in a way, that the AI leaders will have an attitude change towards you based on your actions, but your own people react to the AIs in the same way (war weariness) no matter how dastardly, or peaceloving, the AI has been.

    I'm not asking for the Civ2 Senate back, but I'd like to see a game mechanic where my citizens remember that Montezuma attacked them 20 turns ago, and consequently they don't get (as much) war weariness when I DOW on Monty. Perhaps in extreme cases, they might actually get an unhappiness penalty if I don't go to war with Monty. Similarly, I think there ought to be effects in citizen morale if I trade with AIs that I was formerly at war with, happiness bonuses (short term, even) for signing an alliance with a friendly nation, and so on.
  15. mintyfreshdeath

    mintyfreshdeath Warlord

    Dec 25, 2003
    In Civ 5 I would like to be able to buy it, complete. No expansions - everything is there and done and 100% complete. HAHAHAHAHQHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
  16. ecc

    ecc Warlord

    Dec 17, 2003
    Actually dude, that isn't laughable. It should be that way.Unfortunately, not so. You can expect that with console games however 100% of the time.

    But as for PC Games it will never be. Patch here, "expansion" there. Fix here fix there. PC Gaming is dead.

    Long live Civilization!!
  17. 77alex77

    77alex77 Chieftain

    Oct 25, 2007
    Somewhere beyond the sea
    My fear is that the life of Civilization may be incompatible with the death of PC Gaming. We will see... maybe CivRevolution can prove me wrong.
  18. Crazy Civ

    Crazy Civ Do I Really Need A Title?

    Dec 17, 2007
    And please, please, let the Mac version's XML be edited! WorldBuilder has some power, but new leaders? New units? Not possible for Mac users ... grrrrrrrr!!!!
  19. mintyfreshdeath

    mintyfreshdeath Warlord

    Dec 25, 2003
    The thing is, I have had no real problems at all with buying not only the two expansion packs for Civ4 but the two that came with Civ3 as well (obviously in addition to purchasing the vanilla versions and downloading however many patches). Aside from some bugs and performance issues, Civ4 - particularly BTS - is probably the best game I own. I have gotten more than my moneys worth out of this game.

    I do wonder how Firaxis and other game companies go about making and releasing expansion packs though. I haven't really read anything about it. I'm sure that there are alot of additional features that are added as a result of feedback from people who have played the game that are then included whilst programming an expansion. But it also seems as though Firaxis plans most of it out ahead of time and apportions the game in it's entirety into two or three parts. I guess the best example I can think of is that they saved the Babylonians for last.

    Oh well, I'm sure the shareholders are happy.
  20. rysmiel

    rysmiel Emperor

    Oct 23, 2007
    Twenty hours ? Twenty hours for a Civ-type game played out to a spaceship or modern-era global conquest victory on a really large map is way too fast to be fun. I want games that reward planning, thinking things through, and playing on a scale of hundreds of hours.

    I'm very much in favour of this, particularly if we get more eras.

Share This Page