What do you want to see in Civilization 5?

[Skallagrimson]

Englor, to be honest I didn't fully understand most of what you wrote. It's just that seeing your mention of more detailed resource management reminded me of my other ideas for improvements.

 

[Englor]

Englor, to be honest I didn't fully understand most of what you wrote. It's just that seeing your mention of more detailed resource management reminded me of my other ideas for improvements.

So does this mean you wish to start collabortaing whereas I never seem to stop?

:EDIT: God emoticons suck at translating an actual comic.

 

[jUNGLE cHRIS]

Some way to distribute food between cities so that a breadbasket city can supply commerce or production cities with food to keep them growing.
QUOTE]

If you look on the city screen, you'll see the resources have a +1 food or production or w/e. The problem is that this isn't added into the food or production of that city.

 

[Englor]

Well that does sound infuriating. Has further scurtiny into problem been made past just realizing it?

 

[Mewtarthio]

Some way to distribute food between cities so that a breadbasket city can supply commerce or production cities with food to keep them growing.

If you look on the city screen, you'll see the resources have a +1 food or production or w/e. The problem is that this isn't added into the food or production of that city.

That's what you get if a citizen is actually working the tile.

 

[RussianRoulette]

Resource abstraction is somewhat of a pet peeve of mine. How is it you can build STONE pyramids faster by chopping a WOOD forest? It makes no sense to me. I say you can't work on a stone resource at all unless you have stone, but then, stone should be more widely available than one tile per continent. Same with a lot of other buildings: most should require wood, not that you need to chop a forest down to make them, but a forest has to BE there, somewhere in the fat cross, to make wood buildings. For marble buildings, you need marble. No marble, no building. For more modern buildings you just need concrete which is a generic enough resource that nothing special should be required in the game.

I like that idea...Maybe tiles can have a "set limit" of that resource. Lets say for stone they have 500 tons of stone(i know its not realistic but hang with me) and a pyramid requires 150 tons of that stone so your workers must build a mine there and once the pyramids are done then the 150 tons of stone are subtracted from that tile. Of course this same concept wouldnt be for wheat,cows,etc,but for the minerals i feel it could be much more realistic.

By limiting the amount of uranium it would have players focus more on trades or build much less of ICBMs for the game. Itd create a need to "manage the resources" so that you must live with what you get instead of building huge land or sea armies. Itd be interesting for oil too because maybe when the oil resource starts to become low (prices per barrel rise) then the people who control most of the oil gain more income.

Just some of my ideas i came up with.

 

[SadoMacho]

1) people like in Sid Meier's colonization. They grow food, breath horses, get raw materials and process them (could be luxuries, strategic resources), mine ore and cut lumber and turn them into hammers and tools to build, make wapons, teach others there speciality, become soldiers and souts or missionaries.

2) military borders in stead of cultural borders.

3) Use all the tiles in a civ's border

 

[RussianRoulette]

the idea of the colonization would cause way to much micromanagement imo. What would be the change between military borders or cultural? I would like the borders to also just expand over land as opposed to the sea. In reality no nation "controls the sea". I think that resources such as fish should go to the first person to build the fishing boat.

 

[synthboy]

Voice Recognition

No more pressing 'G' and clicking on a square rubbish. Instead you just say 'Settler, go West' or 'Swordsman, attack London' or 'Monty, prepare to die' and other such stuff. You get to sit back sipping fine wines and feeling like a real emperor, ordering the peons around.

 

[RussianRoulette]

thats way to advanced man....you gotta think things that can actually be done

 

[Skallagrimson]

I like that idea...Maybe tiles can have a "set limit" of that resource. Lets say for stone they have 500 tons of stone(i know its not realistic but hang with me) and a pyramid requires 150 tons of that stone so your workers must build a mine there and once the pyramids are done then the 150 tons of stone are subtracted from that tile. Of course this same concept wouldnt be for wheat,cows,etc,but for the minerals i feel it could be much more realistic.

By limiting the amount of uranium it would have players focus more on trades or build much less of ICBMs for the game. Itd create a need to "manage the resources" so that you must live with what you get instead of building huge land or sea armies. Itd be interesting for oil too because maybe when the oil resource starts to become low (prices per barrel rise) then the people who control most of the oil gain more income.

Just some of my ideas i came up with.

One thing I liked a lot about Civ2 was that you could build "caravans" or "freight" that could transport food, resources, or hammers, from one city to another. These could be intercepted by enemy units, but if they made it there okay, a production city could send its hammers (shields actually in that game) to a commerce or "not so productive" city in order to allow building a wonder or improvement there more rapidly, OR to beef up its food supply. That aspect of resource management took a giant leap backward in realism, with Civ4, where the cities aren't supposed to be able to transport anything at all, one to the other, except by extension through a "route" in which case, ridiculously enough, all cities get one item of the resource without any effort at all to transport it. I don't know if it's lazy programming or just not thinking it through in the game design for the new version...?

 

[Skallagrimson]

the idea of the colonization would cause way to much micromanagement imo. What would be the change between military borders or cultural? I would like the borders to also just expand over land as opposed to the sea. In reality no nation "controls the sea". I think that resources such as fish should go to the first person to build the fishing boat.

Conceptually, I think military borders could be established by sending a unit onto a tile to "claim" it for the civ in question. If that claim by that unit is disputed by another civ, there could be a diplo screen where some bargaining takes place "I'll give you 50 gold for that tile... or this may result in war!" (Something more realistic than just trading techs all the time!)

Realistically wars are often launched as a result of disputes over borders and then the results of said wars, or DIPLOMACY, reset the boundaries. Culture does have an effect similar to the game, but in reality it's not as direct an effect on borders as the military and diplomatic aspects. Perhaps a resolution of this could be that the "official" boundaries (military and political) are what you see in the campaign screen, but if you hover over a tile you could see how culturally the tile is gaining for your side or for your neighbor, and then if a tile goes over 50% to a civ not politically "owning" that tile, the tile could have a chance of erupting into a rebellion, a "barbarian" stack of units sized according to how many tiles are joining the revolt (none if desert, etc., but perhaps MANY if it's a productive farm tile!) In civ4 the game assumes nobody lives out in the country, when in fact many historic revolts BEGAN in the rural areas. A city revolt (similar to what's now in civ4) should be the same concept but erupting in more barbarian units, as obviously a city has more population. This means that to quell a revolt you can't just drop an artist into the middle of it, but you have to, HAVE to, fight it out with the rebels. And you either keep the city with your troop strength, or you lose it to the rebels. Culture can *help prevent* such revolts by making sure people are more in line with your civ, but once a revolt starts, there is no cultural solution to it!!!

 

[Skallagrimson]

thats way to advanced man....you gotta think things that can actually be done

Phones can do it. I'd want it to be an optional feature though, as I'd get pretty tired of talking to my computer all the time. As it is right now I alternate between mouse control and keyboard control because just one all the time gets tiresome.

 

[Lord Kid]

the idea of the colonization would cause way to much micromanagement imo. What would be the change between military borders or cultural? I would like the borders to also just expand over land as opposed to the sea. In reality no nation "controls the sea". I think that resources such as fish should go to the first person to build the fishing boat.

Actually, you're in error. Coastal areas around a nation are soverign to that nation, which is why we have international waters which are not controlled by anyone, so that cultural borders extending in to seas is accurate.

 

[Skallagrimson]

Actually, you're in error. Coastal areas around a nation are soverign to that nation, which is why we have international waters which are not controlled by anyone, so that cultural borders extending in to seas is accurate.

Yes, IRL there are two types of sea territories: national waters, owned and controlled by the nearest civ, and "international waters" which are not owned nor controlled by any one civ in particular. In Civ4 they allow civs to grap open sea territory unrealistically, but to make it realistic you can't do away with national water territory altogether. The more realistic approach would be to limit sea domains to either coastal waters if no city is nearby, or within the nearest coastal city's fat cross. If two coastal cities are across a bay from each other, obviously that would have territorial shifts and disputes similar to land mass.

 

[Skallagrimson]

Sea resources in open water should be a matter of who gets there first, and defends it with a ship. The square of that ship de facto becomes claimed territory and remains "claimed" even if the ship leaves or is disbanded. If another civ takes the square, through either combat or re-claiming after another civ's ship leaves that would be an act of war.

 

[Grave]

I'd like for Civ5 to not to be as much of a memory hog as Civ4.

 

[Swedishguy]

Sorry I made a new Civ V thread. I didn't know there already was one.

 

[Creeping]

I would like to see that we can build breeders, so we can breed horses, cows, pigs +++. And there are fewer of thoses resorces. And when you have built breeders, you can sell cattle to other civs, and then build cattle farms on grass or plain tiles. The same with corn, wheat and rice. But rice need to be built close to rivers... Cos it's a bit wierd that you can build farms, but you don't have corn, wheat, cattle, pigs +++... Every farms irl have eighter cattle, pigs, chicken, corn, wheat, +++. And when you build a cattle farm, you should choose between milk og meat. And when you discover refridgeration, you can share all food produced in every cities, if we build supermarked...

And when you are building something in a city, you can send in a worker to help with the construction. The worker must be there until the building is finished, cos it's a little strange that it takes 40 years to build barracs when we are in the year 2030... And I would like to have the possability to build armies. It's nice with a great general, but there are many armies without a great general. Not every army in WWII had a good general... Not everyone was a Rommel, if you understand what I mean...

 

[Skallagrimson]

Yes, Creeping, portability of resources in general, I think is the gist of what needs to change the most. Civ2 had it (you could transport food and production via caravans or transport) but not Civ4.

40 years to build a barracks is indeed ridiculously long in 2030 but in ancient times it's even longer than that: each TURN is 40 years and it typically takes about 6 or 7 turns to build your first Scout. That's 240 to 280 years, for ONE SCOUT. Freaky deaky scout.