What do you want to see in Civilization 5?

[Camikaze]

How about adding in a new era AFTER the modern era: like a future era? And maybe you could colonize distant planets and stuff. And then the space race victory could be not just reaching Alpha Centauri, but maybe developing the first faster than light engine or something.

Also, it would make sense to allow big enough cities to build multiple things at once, and maybe even assist other cities in construction.

If you extend the game into the future, it diminishes the scope of the game that is actually within the confines of history (i.e. Ancient --> Modern). If you add heaps and heaps of Future Era things, it will mean that less importance is placed on the other eras, which is what the game is really about. A recreation of history, not a simulation of the future. Sure, it's fine for a mod, or even another new game, but not as Civ V. It would unnecessarily diminish what should be in the game.

 

[Hail]

How about adding in a new era AFTER the modern era: like a future era? And maybe you could colonize distant planets and stuff. And then the space race victory could be not just reaching Alpha Centauri, but maybe developing the first faster than light engine or something.

Also, it would make sense to allow big enough cities to build multiple things at once, and maybe even assist other cities in construction.

If you extend the game into the future, it diminishes the scope of the game that is actually within the confines of history (i.e. Ancient --> Modern). If you add heaps and heaps of Future Era things, it will mean that less importance is placed on the other eras, which is what the game is really about. A recreation of history, not a simulation of the future. Sure, it's fine for a mod, or even another new game, but not as Civ V.

any future at some point in time will become a part of history

It would unnecessarily diminish what should be in the game.

and what should be in the Game?
maybe 1/3 of civ4, 1/3 of civ4 remade, 1/3 of something new and unknown?

 

[Camikaze]

any future at some point in time will become a part of history

At which point it stops being the future, and starts being part of the scope of Civ.

and what should be in the Game?
maybe 1/3 of civ4, 1/3 of civ4 remade, 1/3 of something new and unknown?

Ancient --> Modern should be in Civ, was what I was meaning.

For instance, say there are currently 500 turns from 4000 BC to AD 2050 currently (I can't remember what it actually is, but for the sake of argument, let's just pretend). If we institute futuristic elements, for them to reasonably futuristic enough to be dramatically different (i.e. fun), we would probably have to go to at least, say, AD 2300. That is an extra 250 years. Given the time scale of Civ, with diminishing number of years passing as we progress into the future, that would be an extra 250 turns at the very least. So if the future era (at a restricted state, even) is implemented, it will make up half of all the other eras put together. So the game will be heavily focused on the future, which will diminish the rest of the game.

 

[rysmiel]

At which point it stops being the future, and starts being part of the scope of Civ.

But this does not answer the question of how the game should handle someone playing better than any real-world civilisation has done and attaining a state equivalent to a contemporary civilisation by 1700 - requiring that the remaining 300 years or whatever should exist in a state of effective tech stasis with no further qualitative improvement or changes in gameplay, just characterless generic Future Techs, seems not a net plus to me.

For instance, say there are currently 500 turns from 4000 BC to AD 2050 currently (I can't remember what it actually is, but for the sake of argument, let's just pretend). If we institute futuristic elements, for them to reasonably futuristic enough to be dramatically different (i.e. fun), we would probably have to go to at least, say, AD 2300. That is an extra 250 years. Given the time scale of Civ, with diminishing number of years passing as we progress into the future, that would be an extra 250 turns at the very least. So if the future era (at a restricted state, even) is implemented, it will make up half of all the other eras put together. So the game will be heavily focused on the future, which will diminish the rest of the game.

Howe does it "diminish" a 500-turn Ancient-> Modern game to put 250 more turns at the end of it ? It seems to me that it would be exactly the same game either way.

 

[Hail]

At which point it stops being the future, and starts being part of the scope of Civ.

when did a "spaceship to Alpha Centaurs" stopped being the future?

Ancient --> Modern should be in Civ, was what I was meaning.

For instance, say there are currently 500 turns from 4000 BC to AD 2050 currently (I can't remember what it actually is, but for the sake of argument, let's just pretend). If we institute futuristic elements, for them to reasonably futuristic enough to be dramatically different (i.e. fun), we would probably have to go to at least, say, AD 2300. That is an extra 250 years. Given the time scale of Civ, with diminishing number of years passing as we progress into the future, that would be an extra 250 turns at the very least. So if the future era (at a restricted state, even) is implemented, it will make up half of all the other eras put together. So the game will be heavily focused on the future, which will diminish the rest of the game.

your logic is based on the assumption, that years are scaled into turns, however it's the other way around. secondly the scale can always be changed, and around a 100 turns for any future ages will suffice

 

[rysmiel]

your logic is based on the assumption, that years are scaled into turns, however it's the other way around. secondly the scale can always be changed, and around a 100 turns for any future ages will suffice

I don't think so, but then, I always set a standard game of Civ III to 950 turns anyway.

 

[Camikaze]

But this does not answer the question of how the game should handle someone playing better than any real-world civilisation has done and attaining a state equivalent to a contemporary civilisation by 1700 - requiring that the remaining 300 years or whatever should exist in a state of effective tech stasis with no further qualitative improvement or changes in gameplay, just characterless generic Future Techs, seems not a net plus to me.

Yeah, I guess that's a good point, although I would think that the idea of 'history' in Civ is not such much what the year on the clock is, but the technological advances are, and other such similar stuff. So, in the given scenario, the year 1800 would be outside the scope of history, and outside the scope of Civ. It isn't meant to be an open-ended game.

Howe does it "diminish" a 500-turn Ancient-> Modern game to put 250 more turns at the end of it ? It seems to me that it would be exactly the same game either way.

Finite game space. If the developers have to create another 50% of the game, then how are they going to improve current aspects of the game, or even keep them at the same complexity level?

when did a "spaceship to Alpha Centaurs" stopped being the future?

I'm okay with one or two things, I just object to a large focus of the game being on the future.

your logic is based on the assumption, that years are scaled into turns, however it's the other way around. secondly the scale can always be changed, and around a 100 turns for any future ages will suffice

Well it would see a bit odd for the clock to slow down for the Modern era, and then speed back up for future eras. And that wouldn't really make much sense, either, given that you would think that technological advancement would accelerate (or self-propagate) further, rather than stagnating and reducing in pace, that being what speeding up the clock would represent.

 

[rysmiel]

Yeah, I guess that's a good point, although I would think that the idea of 'history' in Civ is not such much what the year on the clock is, but the technological advances are, and other such similar stuff. So, in the given scenario, the year 1800 would be outside the scope of history, and outside the scope of Civ. It isn't meant to be an open-ended game.

It depends. Are you playing to get to a victory condition fast, or to maximise your score before you hit the victory condition ?

Finite game space. If the developers have to create another 50% of the game, then how are they going to improve current aspects of the game, or even keep them at the same complexity level?

By making the game as a whole more complex, as I have long argued they should. A jump from the current state of the art up about as far as Civ 2 is from Civ 1.

Well it would see a bit odd for the clock to slow down for the Modern era, and then speed back up for future eras. And that wouldn't really make much sense, either, given that you would think that technological advancement would accelerate (or self-propagate) further, rather than stagnating and reducing in pace, that being what speeding up the clock would represent.

Which gives me the image of a Singularity-themed mod where the turns go to representing days, then hours, then minutes...

 

[agoodfella]

sorry if this has been brought up before, but with the upcoming World Cup and Olympics, I was thinking that it would be a cool idea to have a "mini game" within Civ 5 which would take place every "age" turn.

- Civs would have to dedicate resources to building and training sports teams (i.e. stadiums / Colosseum (which already exist), training facilities, units such as athletes and coaches.

- Civs would have no idea how their "teams" would stack up vs. other Civs (unless through Espionage) until the sporting events took place.

- Winning the Gold medal / World Cup, would be the equivalent of a national wonder (in terms of Culture points, and or would trigger a Golden Age).

Throughout human civilization sporting events have transcended cultures (the most obvious example being the Olympics -- where differences / disputes and even warring nations put aside their differences to compete) -- and this is something that I think would add a new element to Civ.

Whaddya guys think?

 

[hewhoknowsall]

sorry if this has been brought up before, but with the upcoming World Cup and Olympics, I was thinking that it would be a cool idea to have a "mini game" within Civ 5 which would take place every "age" turn.

- Civs would have to dedicate resources to building and training sports teams (i.e. stadiums / Colosseum (which already exist), training facilities, units such as athletes and coaches.

- Civs would have no idea how their "teams" would stack up vs. other Civs (unless through Espionage) until the sporting events took place.

- Winning the Gold medal / World Cup, would be the equivalent of a national wonder (in terms of Culture points, and or would trigger a Golden Age).

Throughout human civilization sporting events have transcended cultures (the most obvious example being the Olympics -- where differences / disputes and even warring nations put aside their differences to compete) -- and this is something that I think would add a new element to Civ.

Whaddya guys think?

Good idea, I've been thinking about this as well. Maybe there could be an Olympics World Wonder (but the ancient one) that would attract competitors from X land space/X continents/X civilizations/etc., and then after a set number of years/a certain tech is discovered (mass media?) a civilization could build the World Olympics.

 

[Hail]

I'm okay with one or two things, I just object to a large focus of the game being on the future.

the first thing is underwater cities,
the second thing is orbital cities
nothing complicated

Well it would see a bit odd for the clock to slow down for the Modern era, and then speed back up for future eras. And that wouldn't really make much sense, either, given that you would think that technological advancement would accelerate (or self-propagate) further, rather than stagnating and reducing in pace, that being what speeding up the clock would represent.

it would seem odd for the clock to slow down and then accelerate again. the scale overall should be adjusted. e.g. starting from turn one, the scale might be not 40 years, but 30, etc.

 

[Camikaze]

RE: Future stuff- I'll just agree to disagree.

RE: Sports tournaments- Really, do they merit inclusion in the game? I mean, sure, they may have gained a reasonable importance over the last twenty or thirty years, but as an important enough part of civilization and history to be included in the game? I don't really think so.

 

[agoodfella]

RE: Future stuff- I'll just agree to disagree.

RE: Sports tournaments- Really, do they merit inclusion in the game? I mean, sure, they may have gained a reasonable importance over the last twenty or thirty years, but as an important enough part of civilization and history to be included in the game? I don't really think so.

20 or 30 years?

The first Ancient Olympic Games were recorded at 776BC.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_Olympic_Games

 

[Camikaze]

Yeah, but apart from the one perennial tournament in one civilization, professional sports has only been a worldwide phenomena for the past few decades. One tournament in one empire does not really merit inclusion into the game.

 

[Angst]

Sports are already quite significantly represented in Civ, it's not that big a deal on a civilization scale, even thouch the couch-sitting beer man likes his Saturday soccer show.

I'd like to see an inclusion of true borders in Civ V; And not that crazy Europa Universalis things some people want Firaxis to come up with. Leave that for more advanced games.

And I'm with Camikaze on the future matter. All Civ does is give us a small peek into it. And it should remain so. Bringing us into some pseudo-science-fiction game makes it touch the fantasy genre a bit too much. We have no idea what's gonna happen, and Civ should stay on earth, simulating what actually happened. Vaguely simulating, but still.

 

[Öjevind Lång]

Sports are already quite significantly represented in Civ, it's not that big a deal on a civilization scale, even thouch the couch-sitting beer man likes his Saturday soccer show.

I'd like to see an inclusion of true borders in Civ V; And not that crazy Europa Universalis things some people want Firaxis to come up with. Leave that for more advanced games.

And I'm with Camikaze on the future matter. All Civ does is give us a small peek into it. And it should remain so. Bringing us into some pseudo-science-fiction game makes it touch the fantasy genre a bit too much. We have no idea what's gonna happen, and Civ should stay on earth, simulating what actually happened. Vaguely simulating, but still.

I completely agree with this.

 

[Elmir]

I'll say it simple:

In CIV V i want to see CIV III

 

[playshogi]

I would like to see hexagons replace squares, so that a game could be mapped to a globe. Hexagons map a globe with just 12 pentagons, which could be impassable mountains in the ocean. I think this is preferable to squares which let you to play on flat maps, cylinders, or donuts.

 

[Camikaze]

I'll say it simple:

In CIV V i want to see CIV III

In that case, why not just play Civ III?

 

[rysmiel]

In that case, why not just play Civ III?

Well, that's the solution I have ended up applying.

My ideal Civ V bears the same resemblance to Civ III that Civ II does to Civ I, if that helps.