What would you add in G&K
- Thread starter Nikola
- Start date
- Status
Remmert
Warlord
- Joined
- Feb 21, 2012
- Messages
- 103
Units: I would like to see the maceman(melee), crusader (mounted), grenadeer (ranged)
Tech/Ability: Amphibious warfare: units can attack when embarked, but need a promotion for that first.
In general, I would like to see events like in Civ 4.
A hurricane destroys your farm, or give aid/harm to other civs.
Tech/Ability: Amphibious warfare: units can attack when embarked, but need a promotion for that first.
In general, I would like to see events like in Civ 4.
A hurricane destroys your farm, or give aid/harm to other civs.
I would have liked to have seen more changes to the modern era of warfare (1900 - 2012), basically everything Rifles forward, so I guess more like 1850 forward. Basically i kind of have an issue with the way that gun combat is treated as melee. I'm not sure exactly how the balance would work, but that's the change I would have liked to have seen, but will not.
I agree,i think they need to improve modern era,units at first,infantry is bad we have wwii and not modern,I know that mech. infantry is there but the need to include more unit,tech is so advanced now,there is a bunch of things to include
comatosedragon
Emperor
Animal Barbarians (a la civ IV), random events (can be turned off/on), Throne Room (Civ II & III), regenerate map button, save advanced settings, more natural wonders (and a toggle to turn off fantasy wonders), naming regions (hills, rivers, woods, Mountain Ranges a la Civ Revolution), UN resolutions.
I can only second this. Perfect.
Bechhold
King
- Joined
- Dec 27, 2008
- Messages
- 725
Multiple choice for leaders for civilizations, with traits, Resolutions, random events, naming regions, traits for civs to earn while in game(you never befriend or always tend to decline to DoW with others), you earn a trait a "always neutral" while unlocking a badge or something, civic policies, much more micromanagement ala Victoria II. Pretty much what comatosedragon said but with...
Map trading...
Map trading...
apocalypse105
Deity
- Joined
- May 17, 2011
- Messages
- 2,705
Change the warmonger hate into a conquer hate.
Get a penalty from taking cities not dowing
Get a penalty from taking cities not dowing
fuzzatron717
Holy Warrior
I think a terrain Plateau so it takes a turn to get on the top like a hill. But when you're on you move like flat terrain if it has other plateaus' next to it so everything like hill like +sight and 1 turn to get on but on top it would act like flat terrain depending if the plateau like grassland or plain etc. and random events too
The game needs an Explorer-like upgrade for the Scout. Or mounted units should have Scout promotions available without any prerequisites.
I would definitely like to see the return of random events, especially the positive/quest ones from BtS. They added a lot of flavor to the game.
Animal barbarians aren't functionally different from regular barbarians, so I don't see them as anything but unnecessary complication -- it doesn't add play value. It would be nice if barbarians did more interesting things that impacted gameplay, like demanding tribute or ransom for captured units. It would be nice if they continued later into the game with "pirate" activities.
I don't miss the UN resolutions at all. They were nothing but a pain.
Map trading just discourages exploration.
I would definitely like to see the return of random events, especially the positive/quest ones from BtS. They added a lot of flavor to the game.
Animal barbarians aren't functionally different from regular barbarians, so I don't see them as anything but unnecessary complication -- it doesn't add play value. It would be nice if barbarians did more interesting things that impacted gameplay, like demanding tribute or ransom for captured units. It would be nice if they continued later into the game with "pirate" activities.
I don't miss the UN resolutions at all. They were nothing but a pain.
Map trading just discourages exploration.
comatosedragon
Emperor
On board with the explorer upgrade for sure.
As far as animals go, your point is valid, but to me it adds a little character to the game, and that never hurts. Also, it gives a few turns to explore without worrying about barb camps. If they did it though, they would for sure have to change standard barb behavior, letting them attack cities for example.
Why get a penalty for conquering? It makes no sense.
The people love victories. "France will follow me to the stars if I give her another victory"- Napoleon Bonaparte
What I think they should do with regards to wars is have both sides call their friends when a war starts and ask for support. Each civ should make its own decision to help a friend or not. Some may not choose too, because they are friends of the enemy, or they may turn on their friend's enemy, and support the civ asking for help. Both sides could also bring more friends into the war, via diplomacy in the first, and later turns, as the war develops. The penalty or reward for war should happen on the battlefield. By attaining glory or defeat. But you should not get a penalty for conquering a city. Why wage war if not to expand one's territory, or take back what was yours? If you succeed that is reward enough. If you fail, well you live and learn, and next time perhaps you'll win. The game is about destroying your rivals in either a belligerent or peaceful way. In short, to win the game. How you do this should not give you a penalty. Otherwise you might as well receive penalties for every type of VC, you try, not just Domination.
I would like the AI to build forts, sometimes when needed, and stop doing stupid things. I would also like to see a medieval ship, like a hulk or cog or something.
apocalypse105
Deity
- Joined
- May 17, 2011
- Messages
- 2,705
Why get a penalty for conquering? It makes no sense.
The people love victories. "France will follow me to the stars if I give her another victory"- Napoleon Bonaparte
What I think they should do with regards to wars is have both sides call their friends when a war starts and ask for support. Each civ should make its own decision to help a friend or not. Some may not choose too, because they are friends of the enemy, or they may turn on their friend's enemy, and support the civ asking for help. Both sides could also bring more friends into the war, via diplomacy in the first, and later turns, as the war develops. The penalty or reward for war should happen on the battlefield. By attaining glory or defeat. But you should not get a penalty for conquering a city. Why wage war if not to expand one's territory, or take back what was yours? If you succeed that is reward enough. If you fail, well you live and learn, and next time perhaps you'll win. The game is about destroying your rivals in either a belligerent or peaceful way. In short, to win the game. How you do this should not give you a penalty. Otherwise you might as well receive penalties for every type of VC, you try, not just Domination.
I would like the AI to build forts, sometimes when needed, and stop doing stupid things. I would also like to see a medieval ship, like a hulk or cog or something.
No there has to be a penalty for warmongering especialy when larger empires are stronger
Wehn napoleon was conquering a lot of territory in europe england and some other countries decided to declare war on france.
The same thing happened in world war 2 germany conquered poland and some other west european nations and france declared war on germany
It makes sence when you capture a lot of territory enemy nations becomes more suspecious about you.
But I've never seen a country changing their attitude because soemone has declared war.. It doesn't make sence
I didn't see catholic france or the pope say hey philip 2 I hate you now even you're catholic because you declared war on england(who are protestants ) and you lost all you're ships
If the country is you're ally well that makes sence but otherwise
I would like to see Pilam Soldiers added to Rome as a ranged UU. Also the ability to create international sea trading via harbors, so that I can set what I want to trade to my neighbours through the UI and have my trade route represented on the map.
JFD
Kathigitarkh
The ability to zoom the mini-map.
SpaceJesus
Chieftain
I want to hunt bears with my battering ram
I feel that if they become suspicious, or a better word would simply be afraid, then they should get a coalition formed against the belligerent civ. Like they did several times against Napoleon, but did he really care about how they felt about him? No, and neither did the people, who were inspired by his victories. I feel they should destroy the bad guy not via penalty, but on the battlefield. If these civs do not like being kicked around then they should gang up and kick the hell out of the bully. You do not need a warmonger penalty to band together against someone who is dangerous.
"But I've never seen a country changing their attitude because soemone has declared war.. It doesn't make sence"
See you understand what I am getting at. France did not care they declared war, and what good would it do if they did? In 1805, Britain paid the Austrians 5,000,000 livres to declare war on France. The reason they did was to take Napoleon's attention away from crossing the English Channel. Of course their fleet was ready, and the French had a terrible admiral in Villeneuve, but why take a chance? They were afraid, but not stupid, whether you want to believe it or not. The British knew if the French were able to cross the they could not have stopped them. They used Austria and Russia as pawns to protect themselves. Being shrewd is what saved Great Britain. That's what I'd like to see in CiV. Instead of standing behind some stupid penalty, be shrewd use your brain. Find out what your enemies weaknesses are and act on them. Use someone else to fight for you if needs be. Just because you call them a warmongering menace, does not mean they won't invade and conquer you. You better come up with a real plan for your own security.
I have done that in CiV many times, have someone declare war on an enemy to draw attention away from them attacking me. Remember that the human player does not get to recieve the benefit of a warmonger penalty against the AI. Which makes no sense, because the AI usually is a much more aggressive warmonger than I ever thought of being. And stupidly they have the nerve to call me warmonger. This warmonger penalty is a free ride for the AI. Not because they should not get bonuses, but because it makes them have no personality, they simply act on the penalty, instead of the situation. Instead of finding a way to beat the bad guy. GnK sounds like it is going in the right direction towards reducing reliance on warmonger penalties. It is a brilliant first step on the devs part. The game will become more fun and immersive. I like that very very much.
- Status
