What do you want to see in Civilization 5?

[T.rex]

I think the ages in CIV IV should have went something like this;

Ancient 4000 BC - 1000 BC
Classical 1000 BC - 400 AD or therabouts
Dark Ages 400 AD - 800 AD or therabouts
Middle Ages 800 AD - 1450 AD
Renaissance 1450 AD - 1550 AD
Colonial - Flintlocks and Musket era (16th - 18th centuries)
Industrial - Revolvers, Gattling Guns, Repeating Rifles etc..) 19th - early 20th Century
Early modern - WW I - WW II era
Modern - 1950's - 1990's
Post Modern - 2000 - ?

I think CIV IV leapfrogs over huge spans of time especially the "colonial period" which may be why the Musketmen/Musketeer unit has a short usefullness period and quickly becomes obsolete in the game. The same occurs with the calvery units in that there appears to be a huge jump from medieval knights to mid/late 19th century cavalry with nothing in between. There is also some debate among historians about when certain periods began and ended and actually how long they lasted. This is especially true regarding the Dark Ages and Renaissance periods.

I also portray ancient units wielding stone and copper weapons while classical age units wielding bronze and later iron weapons.

 

[Skallagrimson]

I would also like to be able to actually liberate cities. Like, when you are at war with someone and you have an ally, you can free your ally's city that was captured by the enemy and return it to that civ rather than keeping it for yourself.

I was playing the Europa Europa mod and to my amazement when I took a city that had recently been taken from my ally by my enemy, I got prompted if I wanted to keep it or give it back to my ally. I don't know if that's a native Civ4 feature or if it was modded in, but I have seen it.

And there is a lack of a mounted unit between knight and cavalry. In Civ 3 and Civ 4 the cavalry units look as if they are from the industrial period , with the earliest they could possibly represent being the mid 1700's (and this is less so for civ 4 as the cavalry is more detailed, while in civ 3 you could stretch it to make it seem so) but what about the Renaissance? There is a necessary stage between medieval and industrial cavalry that has not represented in either civ 3 or civ 4 and would be nice to have in civ 5.

Civ2 used to have "Dragoons" as a midway between Knights and Cavalry. I'd posted before about how I wanted Dragoons back and was shouted down by Civ4's cartoony-rubbish-apologists that it's too quick a time period to represent. Why bother representing anything at all, though, from the Renaissance period if you can't do it *right*?

This is the thing I don't get about Civ's anti-realism crowd: if they DON'T WANT realism and want "playability" instead, why not just play... checkers?

 

[Skallagrimson]

I think the ages in CIV IV should have went something like this;

Ancient 4000 BC - 1000 BC
Classical 1000 BC - 400 AD or therabouts
Dark Ages 400 AD - 800 AD or therabouts
Middle Ages 800 AD - 1450 AD
Renaissance 1450 AD - 1550 AD
Colonial - Flintlocks and Musket era (16th - 18th centuries)
Industrial - Revolvers, Gattling Guns, Repeating Rifles etc..) 19th - early 20th Century
Early modern - WW I - WW II era
Modern - 1950's - 1990's
Post Modern - 2000 - ?

I think CIV IV leapfrogs over huge spans of time especially the "colonial period" which may be why the Musketmen/Musketeer unit has a short usefullness period and quickly becomes obsolete in the game. The same occurs with the calvery units in that there appears to be a huge jump from medieval knights to mid/late 19th century cavalry with nothing in between. There is also some debate among historians about when certain periods began and ended and actually how long they lasted. This is especially true regarding the Dark Ages and Renaissance periods.

I also portray ancient units wielding stone and copper weapons while classical age units wielding bronze and later iron weapons.

Time in general is just way screwed up in Civ, period. 40 years per TURN, and 15 turns to build a Scout. That's 600 years just to get a guy some rations and a spear and send him out exploring.

Also, starting at 4,000 BCE is very biblical-centric, as there are many archaeological finds that place early ancient settlements and cities into the tens of thousands BCE. Start time at the very latest should be 10,000 BCE, but preferably 30,000 BCE (era of Cro-Magnon man and the accelerated production of new and different tools, as opposed to the "hand axe" which was our only tool for over a million years).

Realistic reflection of scouting could be coded in a way that scouts are easily produced, but also easily animal-eaten or slaughtered by barbies (or better yet have other calamities happen to them as well, e.g., fell off a cliff or drowned in a river, all the various hazards of being out in the wild alone!), so that you'll have to re-produce and re-re-reproduce the scouts often if you want to map a large region.

If they wanted to accurately reflect a slower progress of tech discovery in the ancient era, they can simply increase the beakers required for a tech, rather than increase the year-passage per turn. If instead they just wanted to quickly get past the ancient era and dive right into the Renaissance and the nitty gritty of gunpowder-based conquest, maybe they should build a different game that focuses only on the colonial era?

 

[NYHunter]

Hmm... it's never happened to me but I don't have mods or patches. It's good to know that the feature came about and exist in some way.

I once had civ2 for a short while and I liked the Dragoons.

Personally, I prefer a balance between fantasy and realism. But, the realism is necessary for the fantasy because the whole fantasy is suppose to be that you are a leader of a civilizatio and it's how you would do things under certain conditions, and you can't do that without a certain extent of realism, or you can, if you like pretending way too many things at a time.

 

[Newbunkle]

I'd like to see a more fun combat system in the next game. The promotions thing gets really boring when you move beyond a handful of units. I preferred the Civ 3 way (although its not perfect), and the Civ 2 air units were better as well (I'd rather have direct control over their movement).

 

[Moon Pine]

Every Leader has its own unique unit. Taking Russia as Example, Catherine has the Cossack(Replace the Cavalry); Peter has the Strelet(Replace the Musketeer); Stalin has the T-34(Replace the Tank).
Gold costing Abilities for units. Mostly for the agent units. For example, when a Slaver catch a citizen as Slave it will cost 5 gold or something as mission allowance.
Bring back the agent units in Civilization II, such as Slaver, Priest,Abolitionist ect.
Requirement for units. For example if a city without barracks, you can`t build Axeman even you have copper. Then Tank needs Factory. Knights needs forge and Stable. Fighter needs Airbase, ect.
ocean exploitaion: ^^ worker boat can build Offshore Platform or fishing ships on ocean out of your territory. This improvement will cost your worker ship and can product golds and resources only(no foods though^^).
Food exchange, you can order some of your food production city share some foods to the citys growing slowly. Of course there are penalties, the transfered food will be decreased by certain rate which determinated by the distance and road condition between the two city and tech level(Refrigeration^^).
Units can be enhanced by techs. For example, when you get "Rocketry" Tech, your infantry get TOW missile and get 25% more strength against tank; when you get "Ecology", your infantry get 50% resitance to chemical weapon.

About Combat System:
Ability that can affect terrain: Worker can build Land Mine; Bomber can drop defoliant bomb to remove jungle or forest to lower enemy units` defense; Chemical Weapon that can block a area for several turns. Of course those ones cost gold ^^
Morale effect: When a unit of yours killed, all units in a certain radius of it will be demoralized. When a unit`s morale is decreased to certain level, the unit`s strength decreased; and farther demoralization could make it unable to attack(can only defense). And also a capture of an enemy city will increase the morale of units nearby - high morale means high strength^^.
Flanking system: Look at the picture under
7 8 9
4 5 6
1 2 3
If a enemy archer is at Tile 5. One of your Macemen attack it from Tile 2 then killed. Now the the Archer is facing Tile 2, then you get another Maceman attack it from Tile 6, your Maceman get a first strike against the archer, then the Archer facing Tile 6(Your maceman failed again^^Damned bad luck), then you get another Mace attack it from Tile 4(From the Archer`s Back), your mace can get 2 first strikes. Of course if there`s more than one unit in a tile, you can only force one unit to face to Certain direction per attack(In the begining of a turn, you can`t flank any unit from any direction, you must attack it to force it to face to a direction before flank it).

 

[KrAiGiUz]

lots of individual country units with equal strengths to the other country units.. a scenario with all (almost) present day countries in their current places with peace keeping missions .. why doesnt sid ever make heaps of civs? pisses me off, if u wanna do something do it right.

 

[Diamondeye]

I like KKKK29's post on page 2 (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=182506&page=2).
Eventually, this could involve a tile being able to be worked by several citizens, although this would increase unhapiness and disease. Seldom as many people work on a large field than the same area covered by factories or mines. Also, a larger FatX work radius, as kkkk29 mentions. Eventually, larger cities could create suburbs, not being as financial deployed as cities, but with less maintenance aswell. This could support New York City with raw food from small settlements, aswell as found the ground beneath revolutions - a large city losing some of its food supply will have a hard time. A city at a large river summit could live nearly only by the profits created by trade flows

-Diamondeye

 

[egaonogenki]

1. Canals.
2. Canals!
3. CANALS!!
4. DIDN'T I SAY CANALS??

250 Gold per square would sound fair for canal routes.

Please don't limit canals to just cities because the Panama Canal runs through a rural area and the Grand Canal in China is over a thousand miles long.

5. Tunnels through mountains

6. Mountain-cities (e.g. Macchu Picchu, Swiss cities, Vail (Colorado), et al.)

7. Civil Wars & Breakaway States

 

[T.rex]

I posted this on another thread that I started but I think it could be added to CIV IV or possibly the upcoming "Beyond the Sword" expansion. They are some suggestions on WWII air units game mechanics.

WW II Era Air Units

I’ve decided to try and create some guidelines and rule suggestions for WW II era air craft in CIV IV. Note, they are just that, guidelines and suggestions. Feel free to add other suggestions or critique. Thanks.

Air Units

Fighters: These units may be launched from land (within a city), a Military Air Base (Tile Improvement *) or from a carrier. Fighters can attack the following: Tile improvements, cities, ships and all ground based units. Fighters may be intercepted by AA batteries **, Fighters, Fighter Bombers, Destroyers, Cruisers and Battleships.

Fighters receive the following bonuses: +100% against all aircraft, -5% to city defence per hit/attack and an additional +10% collateral damage. Fighter bombers can also perform recon missions.

Statistics: Strength 12, Range 6, Cost 80 Hammers, Movement 2

Fighter Bombers: These units may be launched from land (within a city), a Military Air Base (Tile Improvement *) or from a carrier. Fighter bombers can attack the following: Tile improvements, cities, ships and all ground based units. Fighter bombers may be intercepted by AA batteries **, Fighters, Fighter Bombers, Destroyers, Cruisers and Battleships.

Fighter bombers receive the following bonuses: +50% against all bombers type aircraft (dive, torpedo, light and heavy bombers), -5% to city defence per hit/attack and an additional +10% collateral damage. Fighter bombers can also attack any aircraft and perform recon missions.

Statistics: Strength 16, Range 6, Cost 100 Hammers, Movement 2

Dive Bombers: These units may be launched from land (within a city), a Military Air Base (Tile Improvement *) or from a carrier. Dive bombers can attack the following: Tile improvements, cities, ships and all ground based units. Dive bombers may be intercepted by AA batteries **, Fighters, Fighter Bombers, Destroyers, Cruisers and Battleships.

Dive bombers receive the following bonuses: +50% against ground units, +50% against ships, -10% to city defence per hit/attack and an additional +20% collateral damage. Note: Certain dive bombers (such as the Junkers 87 aka: “Stuka&#8221 may receive a +100 bonus against armour units (tanks, APC’s and other armour type units) specifically. Dive bombers cannot attack fighters or fighter bombers and may only defend against them.

Statistics: Strength 14, Range 7, Cost 100 Hammers, Movement 1

Torpedo Bombers: Like dive bombers, torpedo bombers may be launched from cities, a Military Air Base or from a carrier. Unlike dive bombers however, torpedo bombers can only attack ships as they were specifically designed to do so. Like dive bombers, torpedo bombers may be intercepted by AA Batteries **, Fighters, Fighter Bombers, Destroyers, Cruisers and Battleships.

Torpedo bombers receive the following bonuses: +100% against all ships except perhaps submarines. Torpedo bombers cannot attack fighters or fighter bombers and may only defend against them.

Statistics: Strength 15, Range 9, Cost 100 Hammers, Movement 1

Bombers: These units may only attack ground based targets as well as ships. However, they are not as effective at attacking the latter as dive bombers or torpedo bombers since the latter two types are more precise. Bombers come in two types; light and heavy. The light bombers may be launched from carriers or from a city or military air base. Heavy bombers can only be launched from a city or a military air base. Light bombers are also cheaper in cost and hammer production. However, heavy bombers possess a better range and attack strength and cause more collateral damage to ground based unit stacks and are better at lowering city defences.

Heavy Bombers receive the following bonuses: +100% against ground units, -20% to city defence per hit/attack and an additional +30% collateral damage. Both light and heavy bombers my attack the following: Tile improvements, cities, ships and all ground based units. Heavy bombers may be intercepted by AA batteries **, Fighters and Fighter Bombers. Heavy bombers cannot attack fighters or fighter bombers and may only defend against them.

Light Bombers receive the following bonuses: +50% against ground units, -15% to city defence per hit/attack and an additional +20% collateral damage. Both light and heavy bombers my attack the following: Tile improvements, cities, ships and all ground based units. Light bombers may be intercepted by AA batteries **, Fighters and Fighter Bombers. Light bombers cannot attack fighters or fighter bombers and may only defend against them.

Statistics (Heavy): Strength 18, Range 12, Cost 180 Hammers, Movement 1

Statistics (Light): Strength 15, Range 10, Cost 140 Hammers, Movement 1

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Other Considerations and Rule Suggestions

Variable Operational Range: I think the concept of a more detailed aircraft operational range would add a great deal of tactical and strategic options for the hardcore CIV IV gamer. In general, I would suggest that bombers possess the greatest range followed by torpedo bombers, then dive bombers and finally fighter bombers and last, fighters. In historical truth however some fighter aircraft possessed a very long operational range such as the American P-47 Mustang which had a huge fuel tank. While the Messerschmitt ME 109 fighter suffered from a short operational range although it was a formidable fighter in its own right. If specific historical WW II aircraft are used, these could have differing operational ranges reflecting this.

Repairs: Aircraft may “heal” on a carriers or military air bases simulating repairs and resting pilots. Both carriers and military air bases will be considered “friendly territory” for healing purposes.

Carriers should be able to hold 6 air units rather than only 4. Carriers should also be able to intercept all aircraft (30% chance), except light and heavy bombers.

* - A tile improvement that I think should be included in the game. The advantage is that they can be placed outside of the cities “fat cross” radius providing an earlier warning to impending attack and to be more able quickly respond to any enemy attack before any damage can be done to cities and/or tile improvements.

** - A WW II era unit that I think should be included in the game. Bonuses: +50% against all aircraft. Can only defend. 30% chance to intercept all aircraft. Statistics: Strength 24, Cost 80 Hammers, Movement 1.

 

[T.rex]

1. Canals.
2. Canals!
3. CANALS!!
4. DIDN'T I SAY CANALS??

250 Gold per square would sound fair for canal routes.

5. Tunnels through mountains

6. Mountain-cities (e.g. Macchu Picchu, Swiss cities, Vail (Colorado), et al.)

7. Civil Wars & Breakaway States

Yes, I 'm hoping these will be added at sometime in the future. Both canals and mountain cities would be nifty. Though I think "plateau cities" would be more accurate. Civil war should be related to unhappyness in cities - especially if such unhappyness is prolonged.

 

[Newbunkle]

More impassable terrain plz. Peaks are a good idea, but unless you play a rocky world, they are too easy to navigate around.

 

[T.rex]

I like to see the Musketeer (the French UU) receive a +50% bonus vs Mellee. Why? Because swordmenship had reached a very high level of expertise and skill by that time. Furthermore, the ability to fight well hand to hand was still important because of the slow rate of fire and their poor accuracy (especially at longer ranges) of the firearms of the day..

 

[T.rex]

More impassable terrain plz. Peaks are a good idea, but unless you play a rocky world, they are too easy to navigate around.

Broad rivers and/or rivers with extreme rapids are a possibility. Great canyons are another. Deserts should also be a formidable land obstacle to pass through.

I'd also like to see different land features such as mesa, butte, plateau, marsh and swamps and so on.

 

[Skallagrimson]

Broad rivers and/or rivers with extreme rapids are a possibility. Great canyons are another. Deserts should also be a formidable land obstacle to pass through.

I'd also like to see different land features such as mesa, butte, plateau, marsh and swamps and so on.

These features would then become passable with the invention of a new tech called "Four-wheeled drive".

 

[Chengora]

For me, it would definitely be to bring back privateers. Ideally, I would like to create new irregular/guerilla units for each time period, as I think it would add an additional dimension to the use of force between civs. Somehow, though, I don't think it's in the cards...

 

[The Flame]

I don't know if this has been mentioned before, but I would like to see diplomacy tweaked (#1 & #2)

1. You should be able to make multiple agreements at one time. For example, create a defensive pact "union" with alot of countries together. Then if one of those countries is attacked, the union comes to their aid.

2. This ties in with number one. Be able to create international unions, but further than defensive pacts. Have a single currency, open borders, and sharing of resources (with alot of countries at one time). As seeing the EU today, this would be quite interesting.

-----

3. The UN should have more abilities. There should be more and better international laws, which go into military, border control, and diplomacy etc.

4. Countries should have the ability to violate UN laws, but suffering consequences. The UN can have its own military, and use it as needed (almost like friendly "barbarians, are not really a civilization, but are still there).

5. A Civ should be able to share food, production, and commerce between cities. This wouldn't be that easy though, as it would require adequate trade routes and certain techs. Also, a civilization should be able to share these things with other civs as well.

6. A city shouldn't have a limit to its fat cross. It should be able to have a much larger cross to work more tiles. The cross wouldn't end, of course (this would be helpful for border cities). However, the population would need to support extra tiles, and so would the finances (it costs more to have a larger cross).

7. Better barbarians. It bugs me how barbarians always end up stuck in the ancient and classical eras. To be more realistic, they should be able to advance more. They would become like vikings, then like pirates, and eventually like modern terrorists (if not wiped out early enough). With terrorism this would add a whole lot to the game.

8. We need religious wars. Depending on the civic, if a city has multiple religions, it can become unhappy. Religions should be able to split up into different groups (for example catholics and protestants). Certain buildings or civics could avoid these problems. Military power should also be able to keep religious problems under control. Otherwise, the city would riot and be very unhappy if religious prejudices broke out.

 

[Diamondeye]

7. Better barbarians. It bugs me how barbarians always end up stuck in the ancient and classical eras. To be more realistic, they should be able to advance more. They would become like vikings, then like pirates, and eventually like modern terrorists (if not wiped out early enough). With terrorism this would add a whole lot to the game.

EXCUSE ME?
What went wrong there? You haven't tried having your city #2 wiped off the map by a raging horde of barberians? Then try playing the Great Plains map in a multiplayer game (you dont have to be several players, just change them to AI...). You will find a massive army of barbies attacking you up through the entire game, severely decreasing your empires security and effeciency.
Suddenly, Archery becomes a very, very neccessary tech...

... That being said, I like the idea of pirates and terrorists... The number of barbies should decrease as time goes by, but increase in effectivity... Atm, what happens is that barbs sometimes advance faster than players... Defending Delhi with archers against a huge stack of axemen/swordsmen or even horsearchers is whack.

 

[Skallagrimson]

Barbarians seem to fade away when everyone's culture wipes out the fog zone on a continent. What might make things more interesting barbie-wise would be if nearby barbarian islands could effectively load up galleys and bring raiding parties onto the shore, OR, alternatively, add a new avenue for the eruption of barbarians by way of unhappy citizens: each turn there's a small chance that a city's unhappy citizens will break away from the city as a "barbarian" unit, and start a sort of Robin Hood-like campaign against you, or in later years, an insurgency.

 

[Chengora]

Or, to push my idea again , somehow incorporate that mechanism so that you, the player, have some ability to direct barbarian/irregular attacks against other civs without declaring war. I think it's a "realistic" component that would add a lot of gameplay value.