What features from older games would you like to see in Civ V?

[sketch162000]

So, before I start, I just wanted to request that everyone keep the conversation civil in here. I don't want this thread to turn into another flame war. This is only for discussing ideas. Thanks.

As some people may know, I don't have a very high opinion of Civ V. Without getting into too much detail, I think that the game excludes several features from Civ IV that could have been updated and balanced better with just a little elbow grease and ingenuity. For the purposes of discussion, I'm asking you, my fellow civvers, which game mechanics from any previous game you would like to make a comeback in Civ V. Please explain why you think it is important, and how you think it could be implemented. From Civ IV, I would like to see a return of Religion and Civics.

Religion has played a large part in the story of humanity. Many of the wonders are direct results of religion. Wars have been fought with religion as an excuse, at the least. Religion has affected society, culture, art and philosophy greatly. Religion was somewhat flawed in that players exploited it for diplomatic gain in Civ IV, but to leave it out completely is just...lazy, IMO, given its impact on history.

Balancing relgion seems to be an easy fix. Weight religion in diplomatic situations based on the leader. Maybe Ghandi and Isabella(hopefully in an expansion!) both give a nice relation boost for a shared religion, but Ghandi is far more tolerant of other beliefs than Isabella is. Maybe religion has little to no effect on Caesar and a large effect on Harun Al-Rashid.

Introduce consquences for changing religions. If you change your state religion away from what the majority of what your people believe in, they should be upset. I mean, you've been preaching the words of the Buddha for years, and now you are a heathen ruler! Players should suffer unhappiness penalties at least. Depending on the popularity of your former religion, or if you convert to a hated rival's religion, players should suffer worse, like anarchy, schisms, emigration or revolt. Maybe give players the option to institute an Inquisition, which would sacrifice population to expedite the conversion process.

My next ideas about religion are a little more half-baked and only serve to add depth to religion in Civ. First, religion could be a tech in the ancient age, say, "Spirituality." Players first have the option of embracing religion when they research the tech. If the player chooses to embrace a belief system, the population immediately adopts a "traditional religion" that the player gets to name. It always bothered me that I could build Christian temples but I couldn't build Egyptian, Shinto, or Pagan ones. This system fixes that oversight. The real world major religions would still be discovered later through techs, as in Civ IV. Founding any religion, and thus a holy city, would make converting your people an easier process, should you switch to it.

My last idea is a bit controversial. What if each religion had a bonus? Say, Islam resists the spread of foreign religions due to the Five Pillars, Christian missionaries cost less due to Evangelism, Buddhism boosts happiness due to Inner Peace. Bonuses for traditional religions could be picked after players input the name. Again, I know thats a touchy subject and a PR nightmare, but it would make for interesting choices.

Whew! That ran a bit long! I'll talk about Civics in future posts....

[/OMGTEXTWALL]

 

[Celsus]

I want the game more to be like a sim of running a civilisation than about zerging your opponent or outplaying him at rather arbitrary win conditions (Utopia project my bum). I don't care what features specifically (personally I didn't mind religions or corps but I understand those who hate them), I just want it to feel more like running an empire than it does now with hopelessly simplified aggregate-everything. I mean, has any aggregate-everything game ever worked? MOO3 maybe? Why didn't they learn from the past? The aggregate-everything info should be there in the advisor screen for players who come from the George Dubya school of management, but the disaggregated game should still underlie everything and it should be possible to sift it out as necessary.

 

[sketch162000]

I want the game more to be like a sim of running a civilisation than about zerging your opponent or outplaying him at rather arbitrary win conditions (Utopia project my bum). I don't care what features specifically (personally I didn't mind religions or corps but I understand those who hate them), I just want it to feel more like running an empire than it does now with hopelessly simplified aggregate-everything. I mean, has any aggregate-everything game ever worked? MOO3 maybe? Why didn't they learn from the past? The aggregate-everything info should be there in the advisor screen for players who come from the George Dubya school of management, but the disaggregated game should still underlie everything and it should be possible to sift it out as necessary.

Ok, thanks for your input, but I'm asking for specific features you would like to see again, though. Espionage? Healthcare? Corporations? Stacking? Those kinds of things, mate...

 

[jtb1127]

I definitely wish their was religion and espionage in the game. Intelligent AI was another pretty good feature of the other games too.

 

[Gatsby]

I want the game more to be like a sim of running a civilisation than about zerging your opponent or outplaying him at rather arbitrary win conditions.

Agreed

 

[He-Who-Hunts]

I've always loved the caravans from civ 2!

I wouldnt like to see trade lifted exactly from civ 2 (as it was clearly improved upon in later reiterations) but I'd like to see a caravan unit utilized in some way, maybe not to replace but rather be apart of.

 

[doug219]

I loved the way victorious troops used to jump for joy when they'd defeated an oppenent. I'd like to see more of this type of personality injected into the game. For those who prefer a more clinical approach make this an option that can be activated or not.

 

[cccv]

I've always loved the caravans from civ 2!

I wouldnt like to see trade lifted exactly from civ 2 (as it was clearly improved upon in later reiterations) but I'd like to see a caravan unit utilized in some way, maybe not to replace but rather be apart of.

haha, almost forgot about that. I thought of it as kind of a minigame in Civ II. Sometimes I'd play just for that. But yeah, it would definitely have to be done better.

I'll also add:

--throne room.

--Roads. There was nothing wrong with them to begin with. Watching them expand gave you a sense of seeing your empire grow.

--religion, only if they can think of some way to make it meaningful. I agree with the devs that it wasn't very well done in IV and I wasn't disappointed to see it go other than my initial reaction of "but it's an important part of history!" So if they can put it back in and make it more worthwhile than IV's, I'd be for it. But I don't have ideas of how to do that either.

--wonder movies.

--a narrator that doesn't make me want to strangle kittens. Entire boxes of kittens.

 

[Rusty Edge]

I miss civics and religion, too.

I kind of liked gold per turn trades.
I liked the Civ III abillity to capture ships with privateers rather than destroy them.

 

[Lance of Llanwy]

-Much more involved trading. Trade should be important. It should provide many benefits, but also have downsides.
-Like, you know...having a bunch of German merchants around probably means they know a lot more about your civ than they would otherwise. Information their spies would find useful! Espionage should be more about acquiring detailed information than anything, though it'd be cool if you could potentially mess with a particularly-debilitated opponent, short of large-scale sabotage. Like induce your mole to screw up their military formation(currently this would be entirely pointless Perhaps even fabricate documents or something designed to get another civ angry at your victim. Fun, devious stuff like that.
-Food trading! And a wider variety of food resources to make it more vibrant. You should want lots of food. You should want to invade Gandhi almost as much for his tasty potatoes as for his shiny gold mines.
-ICS needs to be nerfed. Especially if the above happens.

 

[shihuacao]

Replay button when you win/lose/retire.

Why they have not yet implement this simple feature always make me amazed.

 

[cccv]

OH!!!!! Just remembered: the ability to put notes on the screen. Would be really handy for remembering when RA's expire.

 

[TM Moot]

-Much more involved trading. Trade should be important. It should provide many benefits, but also have downsides.

Trade/commerce should be a huge feature of civ, second only to war/conquest in my opinion, at least on par with diplomacy, religion etc..

International trade should never have been removed, it's pants that it is no longer relevent. I used to love blockading AI's with my privateers...

Personally i would like to see the need to create a trade network (with a merchant unit), after the initial exploration phase. Then the need to patrol and protect the land and sea routes from barbarians/pirates/brigands or a hostile AI.

I was never a massive fan of Corps (BtS) (came to late), but the general idea had promise.

 

[RulerOfDaPeople]

Before I even entered this thread, just from title alone I was ready to jump in here and should Religion! Then beginning to read your post, you did all the explaining for me. Nice job!

Seriously though, I was thinking about this all day today. How if Civ V actually had religion I might be far more intersted in it. I was wondering if they included it under some other area of game play like how government types went to civics, and now they're call something else. But I guess not.

I don't really get it. As you so well pointed out, religion has always been a huge and important part of civilization through out history. (Real life, not the game.)

 

[Horizons]

Yep, city trade routes that extend beyond your own borders (i.e. foreign trade), diplomats/spies, religion, and corporations.

 

[kekekeke]

• Less wargameish and more civ simulation
• City happiness and health as city growth limiting factors
• Rising upkeep costs (+colonial taxes) as empire growth limiting factors (not perfect but better than universal happiness)
• War weariness (OMG what was they thinking when they left this out)
• Trade routes
• Alpha Centauri style "social policies"
• Alpha Centauri natural wonders
• Transports instead of embarking
• Cottages that improve over time
• Proper raze of improvements
• Ability to raze any city I want (oh, just remove all artificial rules)
• Diplomacy from any of previous civs over current one

That would be a start.

 

[Trias]

I definitely wish their was religion and espionage in the game. Intelligent AI was another pretty good feature of the other games too.

When did civ ever have an intelligent AI?

To keep more on topic:
A major feature I would like see back, is foreign trade. Foreign trade systems in previous civ games each had their own faults (The civ2 system was too micro intensive, the civ4 system clogged down the CPU while it workings were almost invisible to the player). Yet, trade should be an important part of the civ economy.

 

[noncognosco]

Ok I will back the foreign trade routs. I never cared much about espionage. Corporations were really interesting but as someone posted above they came too late in the game to do very much.

The main thing I would like to see back is food resources. There should be a greater advantage to cultivating them then there is now and there should be some reason to trade them.

I would like to see some ability to change your borders without going to war. Something like culture flipping from Civ IV.

And I definitely support bringing back the throne room.

 

[OKScientist]

Slavery and additional cool mechanics of the same type.

 

[Specialist290]

Reimplement stackable units. If Stacks O' Doom are too much of a problem, then bring back the old mechanic from Civ I and II where if one defending unit in a stack dies, they all die (unless in a city or fortress). This would cut down the Stack Zerging and force the player to think strategically about unit placement and stack composition, but it wouldn't arbitrarily limit them to one unit per tile.

Honestly, this one thing right here (Panzer General-style unit combat) is what turned me off from Civ5 completely. One combat unit per tile does force the player to think carefully about army placement, but it also limits them too much for my tastes.