What do you want to see in Civilization 5?

[Öjevind Lång]

No, they don't fight on behalf of the English or the French. Have you ever paid attention to history or recent events?

Who are the Celts wgho refuse to fight on behalf of the French? to my knowledge, there has been very little violence committed by people in Brittany. There were a few bombs in the '60s that didn't hurt anyone, and that was about it.

 

[Öjevind Lång]

In a way it could, I suppose, but how many Carthaginian cities did Rome lose to Egypt because of Alexandria? None, I'll wager. I can't recall any city anywhere in history that ever flipped to some other empire simply because that other empire had more artists. Not a single one.

There have been many examples of city-states who changed allegiance because they started to get more impressed by another civilization than their original mentor. for example, Capua abandoned Rome in favour of the Carthaginians; Saguntum abandoned Carthage in favour of Rome; Greek city states changed allegiance all the time.

Anyway, the game is not exclusively about historical accuracy. If it were, they would have to remove the Vikings (a name for ancient sea-robbers, never for a civilization), the "Celts" (there never was such a civilization, merely groups speaking Celtic languages) and God knows how many other things. Magellan needed two years to sail around the globe, not generations. And so on.

 

[Öjevind Lång]

I'd like a Pacifist unit which explains to all military units it meets how stupid war is, and then they all disband and there is world peace... sorry, just joking.

 

[Skallagrimson]

What I meant is: being Celtic has nothing to do with IRA, since what's happening in Ireland is (basically) about religion (protestants vs. catholics, though I know it's all a bit more complicated than just this). Ireland has a Celtic heritage, but so has Scotland, Wales, French Brittany...
There simply is no real Celtic civilization anymore (There will be complaints for people who are from the regions mentioned above , i'm sure), just as there is no real Roman civilization anymore (I know Rome, capital of Italy, still exists but as we all know there's no Roman Civilization anymore). That's what I meant when I said you could not have one UU/age for every civilization, but you can have one UU/leader.

Ireland today would represent the remnant of a Gallic "empire" (confederation of like-minded people who often fought among themselves, more like) which diminished over time by military losses to other civs. Their territory was at its height under Brenhin (Brennus), but had been in sharp decline ever since. Even when Vercingetorix was able to unite the Gauls against Rome it was just a loose confederation which fell apart after the battle of Alesia. The Civ4 representation in a post-game animation would show a number of cities being lost in succession, over time, to Rome and to Germanic tribes after Rome's fall, until ultimately all that remains is Ireland.

The subject of Rome brings up an interesting point about a thing some civs do in real life which isn't represented in Civ4: they sometimes transform and transpose themselves, occasionally to entirely different lands and leaders. The official "Roman" empire became a Church--still dominant in Europe, but using religion as its influence-base in a mafia-like activity. The eastern half became a separate entity with more of a Greek culture, but still claiming the Roman name. And then other civs pop up adhering to the name, such as Barbarossa and his "Holy Roman Empire" which was actually German. Even the Russians titled themselves "Tsar", a form of "Caesar", as a sort of glomming onto Roman culture. I think a realistic reflection of that could be that when an empire begins to fall due to conquest, it can split into different kingdoms (some of which will attempt to make their own peace with the invaders), and new kingdoms may spontaneously emerge adhering to that culture (if it was influential), similar in style to how the barbarians sometimes found cities, but as that kingdom's cities instead of barbs.

 

[Skallagrimson]

Who are the Celts wgho refuse to fight on behalf of the French? to my knowledge, there has been very little violence committed by people in Brittany. There were a few bombs in the '60s that didn't hurt anyone, and that was about it.

I suppose a better way to put it is that the Bretons are generally assimilated as "French" today, with only a shadow of a hint of a separate non-Frankish identity. They don't fight *against* the French, and whenever they do fight for the French, it's AS French troops.

Then again, France did have a separate legion of Scottish Archers to consider, but in the game that would be a generic Longbow unit, not a Celtic UU.

 

[Skallagrimson]

There have been many examples of city-states who changed allegiance because they started to get more impressed by another civilization than their original mentor. for example, Capua abandoned Rome in favour of the Carthaginians; Saguntum abandoned Carthage in favour of Rome; Greek city states changed allegiance all the time.

I seriously doubt that was due to "artists". The Mediterranean city-states calculated constantly which regional power would be better able to protect them and give them a better deal as client city-states. They would never muddy their heads by infusing their calculations with "who has the better artists". That's just not a reasonable assessment, IMO.

Anyway, the game is not exclusively about historical accuracy.

The game is wholesale ALLERGIC to historical accuracy, and that, to me, is its biggest opportunity for improvement. It doesn't have to be an anal-retentive adherence to what actually was, but if at least it could align itself with what *might have been*, that would be a gigantic improvement.

If it were, they would have to remove the Vikings (a name for ancient sea-robbers, never for a civilization), the "Celts" (there never was such a civilization, merely groups speaking Celtic languages) and God knows how many other things. Magellan needed two years to sail around the globe, not generations. And so on.

And it would take more than two Knights to defeat a modern SAM Infantry soldier with an assault rifle. Yes. Well, it would seem to me they have some re-programming to do, but instead they bide their time and defend the cartoony rubbish as "playable" in its fantasy sci-fi "this never would happen but we don't care" style.

If I ever get seed money to start my own game company, I'd be able to show a concrete example of how it should be. For now, it's a matter of deep deep Python coding to try to surgically remove as much of the unrealistic nonsense as possible.

 

[alms66]

Total elimination of the UN. In reality the UN is as corrupt as it is impotent. If I'm even close to pulling off a UN win I'll quit just out of principle.

Well, if you'll quit because you're about to win, will you kill yourself because you're about to live? I think you should, as a matter or principle...

IT'S A GAME!
GET OVER IT!

 

[Fuzzz]

I still believe a UU / leader is a good idea

 

[sokar]

I like the iodea someone suggested of the ability to redistribute food which would allow "breadbasket cities". Also would suggest that the number of units generated in a city should be a function of population and a repeated creation of military units really ought to impact the cities population. Also bring back the signiicance of roads where roads in a tile generate extra cash or perhaps extend the range of the city. Not logical that a "fat cross" with no roads has the same eco impact as one with lots of roads.

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

Yeah, losing food trading was a big loss from Civ2 to Civ3.

I also want to bring back the ability to exploit resources in squares outside the city radius, like in SMAC.

 

[T.rex]

I have a few ideas of my own (sorry if some of this or all of it has aready been mentioned).

Resources

Titanium: Used to make advanced modern military units mainly tanks and aircraft.

Nickel: Used in several industrial possesses sinse the late 19th/early 20th centuries. Also required for WWI and WWII era units as well as batteries for electricity.

Zinc: Needed to make brass with copper. Again used in several industrial processes. Also for music (instraments), coinage, churches (toll bells) and shells for tanks, artillary as well as munitions in general. Also used in some early gunpower units.

The following food resources would add some "colour".

garlic (good for health), dates, figs, apples, cherries/berries, pinnaples, coconuts, tea, game birds (grouse, turkey, pheasent etc..), bison/buffalo. Many food/animal/plant based resources should be situated according to climate.

Units:

Ancient Units: slinger, javilan thrower (peltest, skirmisher etc..)

Classical Units: light and heavy calvery, hoplite.

Middles Ages Units: foot knights (does not require the "horse" resource), heavy crossbowman, two-handed swordsmen, halberdtier, bombard (early gunpowder seige weapon)

Renniasance Units: Hand gunner (primitive gunpower (pistol) unit)

Industrial Units: gattling gun, morter.

Modern Units (WWI/WWII): WWI tank, WWII tank, mobile artillary (looks like tank except no turret - gun is fixed to fire forward only), WWI bi-plane/tri-plane, dive bomber, jeep, half-track, torpedo bomber, deisal powered sub (as opposed to modern nuclear powered sub), cruiser, radar base (another building perhaps?)

Modern Units (present): SAM missile base, armoured hummer, "nuke" silo (might be a building), scud launcher, tacitcal missile base or "nuke".

Also, railroads should also be aloud if player civ has access to oil or electricty rather just just coal.

What about telephone and television techs. Both had a huge impact on modern civilization.

What about more than one special unique unit per CIV?

Leaders: Vercingetorix (Celts) Was warchief who united quarraling celtic tribes to fight a Roman invasion led by Julius Cesaer. Gallic wars occured in the mid 1st century BC.

Anyhow that's all my ideas for know. I hope you find them of at least some use. Thanks.

 

[T.rex]

Here's some more ideas which I give RussianRoulette some credit for his suggestion on near future techs.

I've always felt that the jump from a terrestrial bound civilization to a manned colonization mission to the Alpha Centauri star system a little much. It is far more logical, and hense likely, that some intermediate "steps" would be taken. For example, what about lunar colonies? martian colonies? Asteroid colonies? Perhaps visiting the moons of Jupiter and Saturn? As a prelude to such missions, various probes and landers could be launched and could be minor wonders in there own right. Indeed such probes and landers have been send for the last five decades. Among these are: Sputnik, Pioneer program, Luna program, Zond program, Venera program, Mars probe program, Ranger program, Mariner program, Surveyor program, Viking program, Voyager program, Vega program, Phobos program, Discovery program and the Chang'e program.

And of course this does not include all the manned programs.

I just feel that it would make more sense to explore our own 'backyard" as it were than to go exploring off in the next city.


Other near future techs might be things that actually exist today such as the Ion and Plasma based engines for space drive technologies

 

[Skallagrimson]

Maybe a UU per civ per era?

Roman ancient: Hastati (Roman hoplites, 5 strength, +50% vs. melee, +25% vs. cavalry)

Roman classical: Legionary (same as present Praetorian)

Roman medieval: Alpine Pikeman (replaces Pikeman, +200% vs cavalry)

Roman renaissance: Venician Caravel (replaces Caravel, 5 strength, 4 movement)

Industrial: Trench Gun (replaces Cannon, 15 strength)

Modern: Alpini (replaces Infantry, starts with Guerilla I)

...something like that.

 

[T.rex]

Another thing I think would be interesting is the idea of coastal defences. Castles on the shore could be equipped with anti-ship seige weapons as a sort of counter bombardment and can appear as early as the Renaissance. During WWI, the concept of the "land battleship" first appeared and was extensively utilized by the French. By WWII, the Germans massive coastal defences was used as a counter to allied warships was known by the allies as "Fortress Europa". All in all, a nifty idea

 

[NYHunter]

Here are some war related features that I KNOW will not be in any expansion for Civ IV but I would like to see in Civ V.

I wish you would be allowed to state your reasoning for war. Like there could be several options and click that as your reasoning, however you would only be allowed to click that reason if it made sense. For example one reason could simply be revenge, however you would only be allowed to pick that reason if you were going to war with someone who had attacked you (perhaps a reasonable time frame from the time that past war was over should dictate if you pick that option). Then the other civs might not necessary hate you as much because you declared war on someone who is a total jackbutt, but instead could hate you because you went to war for the sole purpose of revenge. It would also work better if the AI was good (at least on the more difficult settings) at realizing if your reason was total BS.

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.

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.

 

[T.rex]

Here are some war related features that I KNOW will not be in any expansion for Civ IV but I would like to see in Civ V.

I wish you would be allowed to state your reasoning for war. Like there could be several options and click that as your reasoning, however you would only be allowed to click that reason if it made sense. For example one reason could simply be revenge, however you would only be allowed to pick that reason if you were going to war with someone who had attacked you (perhaps a reasonable time frame from the time that past war was over should dictate if you pick that option). Then the other civs might not necessary hate you as much because you declared war on someone who is a total jackbutt, but instead could hate you because you went to war for the sole purpose of revenge. It would also work better if the AI was good (at least on the more difficult settings) at realizing if your reason was total BS.

There is only one real reason for waging war, and that reason is always economic. The acquiring of additional living space when things get a little crowded at home and to secure additional reasources which of course come in many forms, including slaves and trade routes. It is the same reasons that war has been waged for a long time now.

This is the sole reason why I wage war in CIV IV - is there any other?

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.

Good idea, and it should be implemented in CIV IV.

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.

One word - Lancers! A Neopolionic era unit. The polish also had a nifty cavalry (clad in leopard skin cap no less!) unit during the 17th century that had two flintlock pistols and a sabre.

In classical times you had Greek Companion Cavalry. The Romans relied fairly heavily on Germanic, Iberian, Numedian and Gallic auxillary cavarly units to fill a gap that they often largely lacked. Though the Romans themselves possessed their Equites. Gothic heavy cavalry was one factor that was able to turn the tide against the Roman legions in many battles during the 4th and 5th centuries AD. Later the Eastern Roman Empire employed Visigothic and Sarmatian heavy cavalry on so on.

In combat, I think cavalry should receive substantial bonuses on grasslands and plains land tiles, no penelties in forest or hill tiles, a -10% penelty in jungle tiles and a -10% to perhaps as high as a -20% penelty when when attacking a city with walls and/or a castle.

I would like if they added light and heavy cavalry units (for various nations) for classical and medieval periods when playing CIV IV

 

[NYHunter]

The last thing is that that I find annoying is that their are some wonders like the (Eg:Rock' N Roll I think that's what that one wonder's called anyway please tell me if I am wrong) that IMHO I don't find to be worthy of being a Wonder yet their are some wonders such as the Nazca lines,the pyrimid complex (the feathered serpant, th sun and the moon) do IMHO deserve to get to be wonders but guess what? Nope that's what Firaxis decided when they came out with the civ 4. My final consulsion please take my conciderations into account please.

I agree. However, I think the whole purpose was to balance the game so that there could be a good amount of wonders in each age.

 

[T.rex]

I'm a huge Buddy Holly fan myself

 

[NYHunter]

There is only one real reason for waging war, and that reason is always economic. The acquiring of additional living space when things get a little crowded at home and to secure additional reasources which of course come in many forms, including slaves and trade routes. It is the same reasons that war has been waged for a long time now.

This is the sole reason why I wage war in CIV IV - is there any other?

Yes, good point. I totally agree. Economic incentives are the base of the reasons for all wars.

I don't know why else you go to war in CIV IV, but for me it it usually for revenge. When someone attacks me, I don't like that civ until that game ends. I don't care if I end up losing the game to someone else as long as I get to destroy that one (or sometimes two) civ who was foolish enough to attack me. That alone makes the game worthy to me, that I can destroy those who I don't like. Also one time in Civ III I invaded a civ because it was the only one who was polite to me while all the others were gracious. I realize I may have some unusual reasons for going to war, and one can argue that both cases are based off of economic reasons (my enemy initially invaded me for economic reasons, that country disliked me because of something I did that had an econmic base) but my incentive was never an economic one.

Good idea, and it should be implemented in CIV IV.

Thank you.

One word - Lancers! A Neopolionic era unit. The polish also had a nifty cavalry (clad in leopard skin cap no less!) unit during the 17th century that had two flintlock pistols and a sabre.

Sounds good, but a Neopolionic era unit doesn't exactly satisfy my sweet tooth. I am looking more for a mounted unit at the more early stages of gunpowder. However, it would still be a great improvement so that I don't have 19th century cavalry roaming around with musketman and even worse sometimes pikeman and maceman. Even the rifleman don't seem to match the cavalry very well. So even though it's not exactly what I want I would definitely be very satisfied with it.

The polish unit you mentioned seems more like my taste as it was earlier. It would also demonstrate the upgrade from pistol to rifle, which I think is necessary. Many early guns were quite heavy and muskets were not exactly a common weapon choice. Even when infantry used muskets lots of states still used lots of archery. For example, the musketeers in France may have been important, but according to my studues (I say this to be safe because sometimes my knowledge is wrong) their armies used a great of crossbows. But, I am begining to get way too off topic now.

 

[NYHunter]

Maybe a UU per civ per era?

Roman ancient: Hastati (Roman hoplites, 5 strength, +50% vs. melee, +25% vs. cavalry)

Roman classical: Legionary (same as present Praetorian)

Roman medieval: Alpine Pikeman (replaces Pikeman, +200% vs cavalry)

Roman renaissance: Venician Caravel (replaces Caravel, 5 strength, 4 movement)

Industrial: Trench Gun (replaces Cannon, 15 strength)

Modern: Alpini (replaces Infantry, starts with Guerilla I)

...something like that.

Sounds like a good idea and I would LOVE it if they did that. But sounds like too much for them to handle with all the other things they need to do. How about three uu, with one for either ancient or classical, the second for either medieval or renaissance and the final one for either Industrial and Modern. This way you can have at leas one UU for the early game one for the middle and one for the late.