What We Must Need In Civ 5

[killmeplease]

what i really want to be in civ 5 - bring citizen icons back to city screen!!! as well as food/hammers filled progress bars.

Wodan
i think it will kill what civ is now. unit constructor etc is maybe ok for alpha centauri but not for civ

 

[Wodan]

Wodan
i think it will kill what civ is now. unit constructor etc is maybe ok for alpha centauri but not for civ

I didn't suggest a unit constructor (a la SMAC). I suggested that UU be replaced by a specific bonus or specialty unit which you determine in-game.

 

[Willem]

All this Nation should be add before more native American

It's not about including as many modern nations as possible, it's about adding civilizations that have developed a unique culture and heritage and have made an important contribution to the world or their region. What the hell has Luxembourg ever done? Most people don't even know that it exists or where it is. Canada certainly doesn't belong, we've done very little that's unique or has had an important impact on the world. And our culture is very much like the US. Many people can't even tell us apart. The Iroquois at least had a unique culture and they were a very important political force in the area before the Europeans showed up. Same with the West Coast tribes, of which the Haida are probably the best known. And of course there's the Apache, which almost everyone is familiar with. You'll probably hate me for saying it, but all of these tribes are alot more unique that Australia and are more deserving of being in the game. Australia is a nation, not a civilization. You should learn to understand the distinction.

 

[Ahovking]

It's not about including as many modern nations as possible, it's about adding civilizations that have developed a unique culture and heritage and have made an important contribution to the world or their region. What the hell has Luxembourg ever done? Most people don't even know that it exists or where it is. Canada certainly doesn't belong, we've done very little that's unique or has had an important impact on the world. And our culture is very much like the US. Many people can't even tell us apart. The Iroquois at least had a unique culture and they were a very important political force in the area before the Europeans showed up. Same with the West Coast tribes, of which the Haida are probably the best known. And of course there's the Apache, which almost everyone is familiar with. You'll probably hate me for saying it, but all of these tribes are alot more unique that Australia and are more deserving of being in the game. Australia is a nation, not a civilization. You should learn to understand the distinction.

Australian Aboriginal are one of the oldest people in the world, and if you look at everything Australian and even Canada is doing better than the Us. most people know (well in Australia lol) that Australian Culture were born 1949 because before than it was more like British, im saying that Australian was involved in WW1 and WW2 helping the British and The Us in WW2 We Help the us to make a home base and the us saved our lives we are a lay-back ( which i hate lol) people.
Canada well i think you should be add because i think you could become like the Us if you just say no for once lol (Hope you know what i mean), i feel like Sid would not add Australia but i hope he world.

I Don't spell check so sorry if some thing don't make senses its like 10 am and yet haven't went to sleep

 

[Willem]

Australian Aboriginal are one of the oldest people in the world,

There could be a case for the Aboriginals in the game, they did develop a very unique culture after all and had an important influence in their area. However they were never more than an extremely primitive people even at their peak. Their civilization never amounted to anything beyond basic hunters and gatherers. Many groups had passed that stage thousands of years before.

...and if you look at everything Australian and even Canada is doing better than the Us.

Oh please, do Canada and Australia have a fleet of space shuttles, or control one of the largest militaries in the world? Do they have economies that can justify government budgets in the trillions of dollars? We aren't even remotely close to what the US can do.

im saying that Australian was involved in WW1 and WW2 helping the British and The Us in WW2

Funny thing about World Wars, they usually imply that everyone was involved. So it's not really that much of an achievement.

Canada well i think you should be add because i think you could become like the Us if you just say no for once lol

Canada should not be added because we are not a civilization, we are a nation. You really should look into what the difference is.

 

[ainwood]

Moderator Action: Please keep the focus on the ideas for civ. If you want to discuss history, then try the Histroy Forum.

 

[Ahovking]

There could be a case for the Aboriginals in the game, they did develop a very unique culture after all and had an important influence in their area. However they were never more than an extremely primitive people even at their peak. Their civilization never amounted to anything beyond basic hunters and gatherers. Many groups had passed that stage thousands of years before.



Oh please, do Canada and Australia have a fleet of space shuttles, or control one of the largest militaries in the world? Do they have economies that can justify government budgets in the trillions of dollars? We aren't even remotely close to what the US can do.



Funny thing about World Wars, they usually imply that everyone was involved. So it's not really that much of an achievement.



Canada should not be added because we are not a civilization, we are a nation. You really should look into what the difference is.

lol The Us Is so in debt that is canceling is space programs. The only Nation on earth that can replace Us Is Russia And China.

We have lest debt than the us Aus $450b lol us $75trillion http://www.usdebtclock.org/
and Australian does Has a small space program

And in World War2 we play an very impotent role, we stop the advance of the Japanese and looking at the number we were out numbed 100 to 1 . The Us lost most of its most powerful ships at Perl harbor and had to use Australian to attack japan until 1943 or so.

Civilization: A civilized society is often characterized by advanced agriculture, long-distance trade, minimal government, occupational specialization, and urbanism....that's Australian we are civilized we have advanced agriculture and trade to china, Canada, UK, Russia and minimal government we are a civilization most nations are Civilization http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_world

 

[Ahovking]

Ainwood is right lol

willen you think one thing and i think another so lest stop and begin talking about how to inprove the game so everyone keep those post coming

 

[Ahovking]

More Ideas:

add journalism/media to the game

world event would be displayed on the new screen ina newspaper ?

nore diplomacy that can create diplomatic crises similar to the Cuban Missile Crisis would be fun

country to be able to ignore UN resolutions (North Korea and Iran) You could then be prompted to
contact Korea and ask them stop building nukes and to delete existing nuke units and then they can lie to you.
weapons inspectors by the Un and who is elected to be the weapons inspectors can build units and send them to korea.

explorer units can claim new land (4 block around the unit and will absorb the unit when done. so like in the us can claim land without settling
on it but if you dont settle near it and some one else settles there you could loss the land.

give religion a more generic dynamic where it effects your ability to manage your civilization

The Black Market trading between civilizations and barbarians
Trade could be opened up with barbarians through the positioning of a spy in a barbarian city.

Immigration would mean new civis

another idea: what about reinstituting the airbase, as in civ 2?

 

[EsaKo]

add journalism/media to the game

Oh yes! Media has and has always had an important role in the evolution of empires. This would enable things like propaganda, global animosity against terrorists... and does anyone else feel like constructing a Ministry of Truth?

world event would be displayed on the new screen ina newspaper ?

Perhaps, why not, but this would be just flavor so no disaster if it wouldn't happen.

nore diplomacy that can create diplomatic crises similar to the Cuban Missile Crisis would be fun

A more complex diplomacy system would be very suitable.

country to be able to ignore UN resolutions (North Korea and Iran) You could then be prompted to
contact Korea and ask them stop building nukes and to delete existing nuke units and then they can lie to you.
weapons inspectors by the Un and who is elected to be the weapons inspectors can build units and send them to korea.

One can defy the resolutions already but that's more like vetoing them... I want to be able to lie too!

explorer units can claim new land (4 block around the unit and will absorb the unit when done. so like in the us can claim land without settling
on it but if you dont settle near it and some one else settles there you could loss the land.

No comments. With some refinement, could be a nice system overall.

give religion a more generic dynamic where it effects your ability to manage your civilization

No comments on this either.

The Black Market trading between civilizations and barbarians
Trade could be opened up with barbarians through the positioning of a spy in a barbarian city.

Barbarian cities are often too short-lived to make real use of this. Perhaps that could be tweaked too.

Immigration would mean new civis

I don't get what you mean at all.

another idea: what about reinstituting the airbase, as in civ 2?

They already are in the game, as forts function as airbases. I don't think they should be separated, because forts aren't worth it anymore if some of their functions are removed.

 

[Camikaze]

Civ is a stragegy game, and whip timing is just about mathemathics. That means that anyone who knows the mechanics can figure the optimal times to whip. There are no strategical decisions, just numbers - how many hammers/food do you get if you whip now, how many hammers/food would you get 10 turns later. It's possible to use whipping without paying heed to the optimal times to whip, sure, but the rewards from carefully planned whipping aren't trivial.

Of course, planning is nice, it's a part of a strategy game. But going through your cities, trying to figure whether one should whip now or next turn is a distraction from the very essence of the game. As Sid himself has said, packing too many things into a game can cause them to distract each other (The Covert Action Rule) and I feel that whipping is such a distraction in its current form.

Yeah, that's fair enough, although mathematical skill is nothing really to cringe at in the game. If you have mathematical skill, why shouldn't you be able to use it to gain a more optimum result?

As for micromanagement, my opinion differs greatly from yours. In strategy games, optimally the winner is the one with the best strategy - the rest had worse strategies, so they lost. Civ adds some insymmetry to this by randomized maps and different civs and leaders, increasing the viability of certain strategies. In my opinion, it is only strategy that should be rewarded with victory and high scores - not empty clicks, no empty math. If micromanagement is given a big role and it is rewarded, a player may win simply because he spent several minutes doing extra clicks, while still having a worse strategy.

And as for abuse, yes, some uses of whipping micromanagement are abusing the game mechanics. Many of the overflow tricks have been fixed, but it's still possible to, for example, channel production from whips into wonders without having the usual 50% penalty by choosing the right things to build and, once again, doing one's math well. This is definitely abuse.

I find it very ironic that I'm arguing against this, seeing as this is pretty much the exact same argument I use all the time regarding military strategy vs. tactics. I hadn't really thought about it this way before.

IMO, whilst the overall focus of the game is on strategy, requires micromanagement, simply because you need the tools with which to implement your strategy. Ideally, you would be able to just tell the computer your general strategy, and it would sort out the minutiae from there. But that is impossible. You need to be much more specific, and to control individual elements of the game in order for your strategy to be realised. And micromanagement is a valid way of achieving those specific strategic objectives.

 

[EsaKo]

IMO, whilst the overall focus of the game is on strategy, requires micromanagement, simply because you need the tools with which to implement your strategy. Ideally, you would be able to just tell the computer your general strategy, and it would sort out the minutiae from there. But that is impossible. You need to be much more specific, and to control individual elements of the game in order for your strategy to be realised. And micromanagement is a valid way of achieving those specific strategic objectives.

Optimally strategy games wouldn't need any micromanagement (the game could read the player's mind). Strategy games are characterized by leaving small-scale details out, and that's the way it should be. Sure, we have very great tactical combat games as well, but Civ should stay non-tactical. Tactical combat would only divert the player from empire management. I don't want to spend 10 minutes settling every bloody encounter with an enemy musketman, not to mention being penalized for letting the AI/RNG do it (AI/RNG penalizes the player in every game featuring tactical combat). Instead, I propose that more strategical elements are added, opening more options for the player.

And as for the math - the game has been made for humans. If it was the point of the game to perform complex calculations and simulations before doing anything, it would've been made for computers.

 

[Camikaze]

Your first paragraph could easily be one of my posts, word for word; I agree with it that much. However, I don't see it being wholly applicable to micromanagement, as opposed to tactical military manoeuvres. Micromanagement in general involves the detailed direction of the resources of your Civ. A good example of micromanagement is deciding whether to build cottages or farms. Choosing one or the other offers you a different strategic direction regarding your city. So although it may be micromanagement, in that you have to actually manage what is built and where, it is beneficial to the strategic focus of the game. Whether or not this general idea extends to whipping is certainly debatable, but IMO whipping is somewhat similar, in that you have the decision to reduce your population or not for a gain in production. And the better timing you have with this direction of your resources (using it in the general sense, not the specific Civ-related sense), the better your strategy therefore is.

 

[Ahovking]

is this the real deal http://civilization5.indews.com/ ?

 

[EsaKo]

is this the real deal http://civilization5.indews.com/ ?

Well, although Civilization 5 has not yet been announced, we just decided to build a website anyway, and keep you guys updated with the latest news.

Why wouldn't it be the real deal?

 

[Hail]

micromanagement is all about marginal gains. they do add up though.

i believe that civ should not be about adding up marginal gains

 

[EsaKo]

micromanagement is all about marginal gains. they do add up though.

i believe that civ should not be about adding up marginal gains

I concur, your Excellency!

 

[Kullervo]

Just throwing this out there: I think an option for siege weapon bombardment should be added. Units in adjacent squares should be able to be targeted by siege, and a new promotion (Something along the lines of Evasion 1, 2) removing say, 40% bombard damage outside cities. The damage should be reduced when the unit is inside a city, and drastically at that... say, to 4% per shot. Plus, the firing range for the siege units should be accounted for as well: Catapults and trebuchets would get less range than cannons and artillery. Plus, I think that for a catapult, the firing range on flatland should be the 4 squares directly adjacent to it, while on a hill it would increase to all 8 surrounding squares. Also, hills and forests would in that case reduce the amount of damage taken from bombard, by 15 and 30% respectively or so.

Just an idea. It is completely open to refinement or rejection.

 

[EsaKo]

Just throwing this out there: I think an option for siege weapon bombardment should be added. Units in adjacent squares should be able to be targeted by siege, and a new promotion (Something along the lines of Evasion 1, 2) removing say, 40% bombard damage outside cities. The damage should be reduced when the unit is inside a city, and drastically at that... say, to 4% per shot. Plus, the firing range for the siege units should be accounted for as well: Catapults and trebuchets would get less range than cannons and artillery. Plus, I think that for a catapult, the firing range on flatland should be the 4 squares directly adjacent to it, while on a hill it would increase to all 8 surrounding squares. Also, hills and forests would in that case reduce the amount of damage taken from bombard, by 15 and 30% respectively or so.

Just an idea. It is completely open to refinement or rejection.

It's not a bad idea, especially since a similar system is already done - it's in the DCM, which is also a part of the unofficial expansion pack LoR.

The system allows artillery and other advanced siege units (plus the legendary Hungarian Cannon) as well as some modern ships to deal collateral damage from further away without engaging in combat. The damage done is seldom as great as in normal siege combat, bombarding is inaccurate and cities often lose their defences before their defenders get hurt. Also, damaged units are harder to hit so normal siege combat is still useful.

As for ranges, a single tile in Civ IV is quite large in real-world scale so having siege units with a range higher than 2 would be nearing impossibility. And as for catapults, Civ's catapults resemble mangonels, which were used primarily for taking out enemy city walls. Their range wasn't impressive at all. It would be absurd to have them able to attack enemies in adjacent tiles while still being too far to rush at. Same story for trebuchets - their range never exceeded a kilometer.

 

[Ahovking]

lol once again more civics