What do you want to see in Civilization 5?

[RedRalph]

On your warfare ideas,

Morale - could you elaborate on how it might work?
Surrenders/POWs - surrenders probably not a good idea. What are you suggesting exactly?
quality of army dependent on military funding, availibility of amounts of oil, etc - I prefer civ units to all be the same. Sometimes simpler is better. By that logic, I'd almost be against promotions too, which is almost true I guess.
Ranks. Assign certains amounts of soldiers to gereral, private, etc, giving an army cohesion points, numbers strength, etc - too complicated.
Supply lines, but simplified. Early game, a supply caravan, late game, airlifts, etc... just to keep it real - As long as it's kept simple, sounds like it could work.
Various new units, guerilla warfare, terrorism, resistance movements - Personally I don't want to see terrorism in Civ games. guerilla warfare is a bit lacking in Civ4.
Foreign military bases - I think this'd be a very nice idea, depending on how you intend to implement it.
War not simply about capturing cities, but land and resources. Occupying squares should be an objective, which can be kept after the war ends, simply capturing cities is only one aspect of warfare, and always has been. - Last but not least! I couldn't agree more on this one. Like my dislike of Civ4 borders, I'm growing bored of Civ's capture-all-the-cities type gameplay. While there are a lot of tactics for war in Civ4, the best long-term strategy is always the same - control as many cities as possible. Definitely some of the focus needs to be taken away from cities.

Morale - like the existing factors (strength, promotion etc), based on how many units your side has lost/killed in the war so far, amount spent on entertainment, length of war so far, etc.

I think surrenders should happen on a chance basis, pretty much the same way as retreat does now. Then the units are returned to your country, and can be used as bargaining chips.

Military bases, I've eleborated on another thread but cant find it now. Basically In order to extend the projection of your army, they would be more useful late game when you could airlift to them, they could be most useful when situated on a border or a coastline. you would pay a maintanence fee for them, they could be a way of improving relations with a country, or a contentious issue if relations deteriorate afterwards.


Thanks for the deeback. Have to say though, for me the quantifiable resources and extended trade of goods as well as raw materials would really improve the game. All warfare happens in the context of trade and economic relations, I think it'd be great if the game could reflect this.

 

[RedRalph]

you know, looking back through this thread, quite a bit of the requests have been granted in BtS

 

[dagriggstar]

I like the civics system but some civics should work better with overs, eg police state and state property or universal sufferage, free religion and free speech.

Also in a free market there are booms (1990's) and recessions (like the great depression), how about having a way of simulating these.

And there should be a new civic option, society, that you have no control over. Some ideas could be nomads, racism, moralism, imperial.

Bring back the events.txt from civ II !!!!

Dynamic names, eg rome -> Holy roman empire -> Italy. Dynastic disputes could be a way of doing this

I dont like leaders having traits I prefer civs having traits, different leaders should handle the same civ differently though. Maybe with dynastic disputes incorporated into the game leaders who lead their civ for long periods could effect the society civic option

Religions can displace each other, religions can disapear, if no religion in a city than assume paganism.

Great people are made not entirely based on wonders or specailists, ie a city with high culture at 1AD is likely to get a great prophet, A city with a lot of science is likely to get a great scientist around 1965 etc.

Build trade routes, just to add another aspect to the game (Like in civ II) so we can have better trading empires. Also on trade have 2 major trade routes that change with time, if this passes through a cities radius they get a trade bonus. EG on earth map would be the silk road and cities along it getting trade bonus.

 

[Withouthatred]

Cold war style standoffs.

 

[damienvdl]

About those message about roads, and highways and trains.
Don't you all find it weird that the entire country ends up coverd by them?

It could be me, but it's just not realistic. Normal you would only make roads/highways/rails from one city to another.

My opinion is that that's something that should be changed!
More like it would give you commerce bonusses if you connect more cities together. But it should also give negative health if you have to many road/rails etc in your city tiles.

Perhaps like... roads are fine... but for more movement you can build highways.. and gain extra movement, and rails for extra commers?

Just an idee, wich i would like to see implemented!

 

[Colossian]

More island maps. No leaders.

 

[Icarusmk2]

One thing that would provide a greater variation in how each race is played would be by giving a larger number of leaders with a greater variation in stats

United States:
- Abraham Lincoln

Chinese:
- Sun Yat Sen
- (maybe) Deng Xiao Ping

Egypt:
- Ramses II
- Cleopatra

British:
- Churchill

Germany:
- (Though everyone hates him) Hitler

Russia:
- Stalin

Rome:
- Augustus Caesar

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

Additional Races (Factions):
- Koreans
- Babylonians
- Iroquois

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

Scenarios:
- Space / future scenario (like what will be in Beyond the Sword)
- Fantasy scenario (also like in Beyond the Sword)

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

Actually have some "future tech" units
- Mechs
- Satellites (Ion Cannon from C&C sounds good )
- Futuristic ships and planes
- More faction specific units

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

Get economy to be a bigger factor in your cultural influence. So if your country / faction's economy is stronger than say that of your neighboring nation, it will affect your borders and if you are at war with that nation, how often there will be revolts within it.

 

[bob bobato]

Royal families. Like, every civ could have a list of rulers that would change rulers every so often. And, in diplomatic agreements, you could marry your children to other families, if both are monarchies. And if they become king of your civilization and the other civ, then the player would control both for as long as their reign.

 

[DennisIran]

More leaders for the persian empire.

 

[TheLastOne36]

Polish Empire < Of course

other then that, i think Immigration would be a nice feature to add. For example you can sorta control Immigration Waves and you can populate an enemy city with your people, and eventually the city will go in Revolt and join your empire.

 

[cybrxkhan]

- mercenaries (not that complicated as one may think)
- less Westerno-centrism and pop culturism (though some is fine, it is a product of America, of course)

and, in the long run... if Total War styles battles can be added, it could be the greatest game ever made in history... but then again that would be too complicated, and it wouold be boring having to fight every time your little warrior encounters a barbarian warrior...

 

[bob bobato]

- mercenaries (not that complicated as one may think)
- less Westerno-centrism and pop culturism (though some is fine, it is a product of America, of course)

and, in the long run... if Total War styles battles can be added, it could be the greatest game ever made in history... but then again that would be too complicated, and it wouold be boring having to fight every time your little warrior encounters a barbarian warrior...

Maybe that little warrior's graphics could be changed into a different graphics-same sized-that's many little warriors put together, like 20-100.

 

[cybrxkhan]

Maybe that little warrior's graphics could be changed into a different graphics-same sized-that's many little warriors put together, like 20-100.

but that still wouldn't have the Total War feel, with actual tactics and stuff... but a Total War + Civilization may be too big and complicated, anyhow.

 

[rebakan]

Sorry for my bad English. Maybe a foolish desire but I would like they could bring back the Adviser counsels like in civ2, those people that you need to click on them, to know what to do.The drunken adviser was the funniest of all.I know they won't do it, but I miss very much this part of civilization games.

 

[dagriggstar]

That would get annoying unless...

Instead of great generals you receive generals based on traits, population, demographics, warfare in your history etc. These generals give bonuses when they battle, eg Subutai may have better tactics than the average general. What having generals fight your battles instead of you doing them is that you can be a warrior king if you want, overseaing all of your battles calling the shots etc. or you can assign different generals to do the minor battles for you and you command your forces for the major conflicts.

Hope that makes sense

 

[cybrxkhan]

^yes, it does make sense. thats what i would like, and with actual unit loss calculated, generals who improve with victories etc., real life tactics, etc. etc., pretty much every military part of the game from Total War, and the faction leader and heir and stuff.

of course, that woud be too complicated.

 

[Arnesson]

1. Emerging CIV's later in the game; either in distant colonies or barbarian cities (eg Canada, Australia, Argentina, Brazil). These would be resource-rich to compensate for their technological disadvantage, their units would start with Guerilla I and II (knowledge of the terrain), and already have the early techs (fishing, sailing, hunting, archery, pottery, masonry, animal husbandry, etc.). The ability to trade resources for technology (unique to them).
2. Ability to capture GP's the same way you capture workers.
3. Ability to capture a settler (as opposed to having him turn into a worker).
4. Ability to capture technology (as was the case in CIV III).
5. Return of the Diplomat unit (CIV II) who would provide a + bonus when he is in the capital of another CIV and you wish to negotiate a trade or treaty.
6. Ability to shift resources (mentioned by many) so that a city with a food surplus can support a Production city that is marginal in food production.
7. Governor warning when a happiness or health deficit takes place in a city.
8. Option for the GM to open a permanent Trade Route with another Civ that provides commerce long term rather than a one-of payment in gold.

 

[Arnesson]

Perhaps too many hardcore civ-fans won't like this sort of gameplay and will just like the fast gameplay style of the civ-series. For those who are looking for a game which is realistic in both city/land-management (meaning civ-series, which is more realistic than TW) and warfare (meaning total war-series, which is at least more realistic than civ), they should implement the function: turn on/off realistic (read "TW-stylish") batlles, so they can meet all fans halfway.
Btw I don't think you lose if turn off battlefield-mode in TW, though I do believe you have higher chance of losing (unless you're really terrible at this game).

As a fan of CIV, RTW, RTR, and Medieval 2 TW, I disagree. They are completely different games. RTS/SEGA emphasize Graphics and unit control, but have nothing like the depth or randomness that CIV provides. You know in advance with whom the different nations in the RTS/SEGA games will declare war, you know what the map will look like, you know what strategies you need to follow. In CIV, every game and map is different. If you employ the random factor, your opponents in each game will be different. The strategy that worked on one game may have to totally change in the next. All of these games are great fun, but they are (to my way of thinking) on divergent tracks in how they can and should evolve.

 

[Al Capone]

more new civs: Austria, Ireland, Denmark, Brazil, Macedonia(Alexander the Great actually was Macedon) or something like that....minor ones....

More allies in one pact, not only the 2!!!

Borders shouldnt be made only by culture, but also by military strength f. e.

the possibility to move units over the pole to appear on the opposite side of the map again(shortcut)

Why england a nation??? Why not the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland??????

Why were the volcanos removed from civ 4?

Rock&#180;n roll is a wonder???? what about TV???more wonders

An included programme to create civs, i dunno how to use XML or other mods

Like Arnesson: the emerge of new civs later in the game, thatd make the game more parallel to history and it would be nice if it was possible to give a city independence(make it a nation) and to start with good relations

I hope others agree with my ideas of civ 5 so that that will be in it

 

[Chenneth]

I think Civ 4 is excellent. I think it would be dangerous to over complicate civ 5 with hundreds of differnt rules, buildings etc. I think civ 4 has got as much as is necessary any more and you'd never be able to invent everything etc. (unless they slow time down to add more turns). The 3d is good but its awafully slow at times. they should address the issue to try and keep loading to a minimum.
They could add more civs and more leaders
Also they must do something with the internet - as its so late in the game it is a totally useless wonder. Perhaps it increase science and commerce for all civ (with computers) by 10&#37;?? or it could be made into a scientifc discovery.