Is there anything announced about the fifth part of the Game? Year, civilizations, anything... I heard something about 2009/2010 year of release. Is there anything true in the years. I just can't wait
I hope it comes out for the PS3 too. The PS3 supports mouse and keyboard and allows for mods support and HDD installs afterall.
Nothing on Civilization 5, just colonization. But i would imagine CiV 4 is reaching it's limits, thus leading to the notion that they are already hard at work on CiV 5, i mean they must have gotten some good ideas during CiV 4 + expansions and revolutions which they thought would be better for a CiV 5.
According to interview (i dnt remember what site) Sid Confirmed it in development, thats all i know
All I can hope is that Civ5 is more like 4, and less like Rev. Revolution is great for my DS, but otherwise, BRING ON THE MICROMANAGMENT.
If Civ 5 is more like Civ IV, I likely will stick with Civ IV, after all, Civ IV is a well made game, and there's a limit to how something can be done.
I'd rather Civ V was a hair more game than Civ Rev is, but keeps the user friendly, simple, easy to play aspect of Civ Rev.
I want something FUN to play. If I want to nit pick, I can just crank up Civ IV.
My only complaint with Civ Rev, is the map is a teeny bit too small, there is a need for maybe a few more Civs and maybe a few more unit types, maybe a bit more detail in the tech tree.
And If I was able to actually save games on my DS, not be forced to be limited to the number of save slots and never be able to retain a games high score or unlockables, I'd be happier.
Loving the DS version, but for PC I want the power of the PC and the ability to accumulate, to store, to add to. Everything you just can't do with a DS copy.
When Civ V and all its expansions have come out I would be quite dissapointed if there was not a Civ Rev option.
I would like 5 to still go through eras like rev I would like more wonders espicailly in modern era I would like harder computers
I hope Civ 5 has the same user interface as Civ 4, better, its a PC game... It wont be released on the consoles at the same as the PC version, theres over 10 times more PC fans on this game there is on the consoles, and MR Meier knows this as does 2K. But Take 2 the owner of 2k is in massive debt, so who knows what will happen at this stage. Firaxis might have to go to another Distributor, or publisher if they need the money.
I've been a loyal civ fan since the first civ game came out. But I've always missed to be able to continue the game after the modern area. I'd like to see something to the likes of "Civ: Call To Power" Genetic & Diamond Ages, taking the game to sea and space colonization.
Orbital, floating & underwater cities, oceanic bridges, terraforming, moon/mars/interplanetary colonization, etc are just some examples.
From the forums I know there is also a large vocal civ fanbase out there with a future/space age phobia. So maybe just add an option where you can select up to which age you can play.
they also confirmed it at gamespot and you know gamespot they need alot of information before they put it on the website ohh and also been confirmed at www.neoseeker.com
things i like to see in civ5
some of the things i would like to see in civ V, are more units (more country unquie units, user designed, etc.) more techs (more complex tech tree, with most giving something as the techs are discovered).
Something else i would like to see is the ability to have different chosen ideologies. another thing is the ability to create laws or presidents for my civilization. maybe add the option for goverment like king, president, democacry, council, republic, etc.
i like the ideas also the timline needs to go longer basicly add more techs that is about two eras also more speed and make it longer like the mathron instead of stopping it at 2050AD
Originally Posted by nightwolf
Civilization V: My recommendations
I'd like to outline my ideas for Civilization 5 which have been formulating for quite some years, as I am an avid Civilization fan and I am pleased to say Civ 4 is the best to date. Hopefully Civ 5 will be better. I also have a degree in Ancient and Medieval History
Its important not to rest on your laurels 2k because although Civ 4 is fantastic, there's always room for improvement, and the things I will mention here are in addition to, and in my opinion a higher priority than, what others are saying about expanding into the future a little more and maybe including some of the elements from Call to Power.
1) Population movement, migration, culture, great people, trade route game concept development. One of the problems with all the CIV games has been the city-centric and largely static map, although Civ 4 has started improving this with villages/towns. I'd like to see trade routes on the map (toggle display) with nice glowing flow lines (not unlike Rome Total War), that follow roads, rivers, coastal sea routes, to adjacent cities and across the world. These are kept in line with tech discoveries so ocean trade routes are only displayed after ocean sea-faring has been discovered, same with mountain routes and bridge building etc. The fatter/stronger coloured the line is the bigger the value of the trade route, if you hover mouse over it you can see what is being traded over this route (resources, luxuries and money), you can even have animation of trade transit. The routes are automatically calculated by the computer, you can show tiny subroutes to places (mines, trade sources, villages/towns) in vicinity that aren't connected by road too. Along routes over time you find towns and villages developing of their own accord without you physically having to build them, these usually beginning at strategic points such as a bridge, a crossroad, a resource (which may flower into a resource harvest spot of its own accord) etc.
The user can interact with these 'flows' by: imposing trade tariffs on all custom in import or export or both, placing military units in the flow and giving them the command to disrupt traffic (blockade), placing privateers on routes, targetting traffic peculiar to particular rival civilizations, using spies to siphon off or steal some trade bound for a rival civilization into your coffers, putting spies in strategic points of high population movement to increase the chance of them discovering enemy intelligence. If a route is blocked then a new way through will be calculated unless its closed borders, or war. Corruption can be seen on routes, i.e. how much piracy (barbarian, rival civ spies, privateers) and money is being lost in transit, which the player can take the usual steps to counteract.
The same concept should be applied to population migration, a flow line of a different colour, indicates the attractiveness of your civilization. you can have people moving animation with how busy it is depicting how much movement there is. Hovering the mouse over will tell you whether you're getting more immigrants or whether you're losing population to other neighbouring civs (building on the Civ3 concept of cultural borders), so the culture can determine a cities ultimate population size as well as not only or instead of borders changing (see point 2). With population flows you can disrupt militarily, influence migration towards your civ with incentives (e.g. if you are losing people you can encourage them back with money or other goods) or treat your population badly to lose more people if you want to. All kinds of things could accumulate to give the result of how desirable your civ is over anothers, an example being slavery, if you engage in slavery as a civic whilst your neighbour does not then that is one reason for people to leave, or if you built a wonder that makes people flock to your city e.g. great library, you can attract a specific kind of demographic (scientists) etc. Great people distribution can be directly related to who is getting significant demographic in a particular area. You can use your military to conduct specific deterrants on for example any foreign religions you do not want to encourage. The possibilities using this model are endless and I feel it would be a good way to visualise on the map what we tend to imagine in our minds, helping to make the game seem more fluid and even attracting new players.
Furthermore, the Beyond the sword addition of random world events, can be placed on these routes as well as in cities so that they have more significance to the actual map, even disrupting routes.
2) Uprising, civil war, vassal states concept development. Building on the above (1). Towns that arise independently and naturally (as in real life) tend to be more self-sufficient, less loyal, than towns and cities that are built by the player. The player should have to police his kingdom's routes otherwise he will invite open rebellion. A town may rebel against the player, at which point they become a sub-civ of your civilization on the diplomatic stage, with which other civs can engage and support against you either openly or behind closed doors. Towns that rebel for example go black and spread like disease, effectively blockading your routes if there is no other way around them (which should be where towns are most likely to rebel), they could do this because of all the usual reasons for civil disorder in Civ 4, including enemy propaganda. Similarly the player can use all the usual methods to stop this from happening. If the player allows this rebellion to go on for long enough, the pretender-kingdoms within your civ gain ability to become vassals of enemy civs and ultimately civs in their own right. On rebelling, these towns should get an initial military force so they are a power to contend with, and build their way forward autonomously until sorted out. e.g. If a town on a route is say on the opposite side of your capital from the rebellion and the only route is through the capital, then that town is dependent on the state and therefor should be almost impossible to lose unless the capital falls.
Some buildings should be able to be built along routes, e.g. forts, castles, barracks, airfields, ports, police hq, or even more if not too complex.
Rebellions should be able to occur from religious difference with your civ, foreign population percentage difference, wealthy independent areas, government civic disagreements. Each rebellion has a leader with diplomatic conditions which if you meet will stop the rebellion (though make further rebellion in future more likely) or you can put them to the sword of course! Before a town (or region) first rebels in the game, you get a grace period of up to 5 turns say where they themselves are in civil disorder fighting one another to determine a leader, after which they become a sub-civ until sorted out.
3) I'd like to see Seminal discoveries marked as such on the tech tree and cultural bonuses for those who achieve them first (e.g. Theology etc.). Possibly collaborative tech research in a normal single player game rather than always having to trade a tech.
4) Definitely more intelligent diplomacy with more flexibility
There are more things, but the main concept from which all this springs is really the next stage of the game as I see it, I hope you read my suggestions 2k! Let me know what you all think!
long live Civ
PS: sorry its a bit of an essay, I've been meaning to write that for ages.
is this true ? civ rev was my first civ game but i would love to play civ 5 if/when it comes out
ive heard from a friend of a friend who works for firaxis its been work in progress for some time now!
Sounds good; I wonder if they'll announce it soon? At least if they did that, we'd start to see the trickle of screenshots that come out. I'm hoping to remake my Anno Domini mod for Civ V once it lands; potentially, I'll even take a much-earned sabbatical from work to learn the necessary skills .
Originally Posted by Bantams
Thoughts for Civ 5
This is related to the post cardinal_V wrote concerning trade routes. Naval units should be able to blockade or disrupt enemies trade routes during war, especially after the Renaissance era. World War II comes immediately to mind as an example of this concept. Germany and her U-boats trying to sink England's lifeline to the US by disrupting shipping lanes and oceanic commerce. The U.S. also did this to some degree against Imperial Japan. Other historical references that come to mind is the U.S. Civil War and the North's naval blockade against the South. The French blockade of Yorktown against the British during the American Revolution is another fine example of an area of warfare that ALL the Civ games have overlooked.
Naval blockading would be especially effective against an enemy whose overland trade routes run through your country, virtually cutting them off to the outside world.
The Civ franchise needs to seriously work on naval warfare in the game. I've noticed that warfare is very land oriented even if you choose Archipelago maps- its very hard to conduct effective combined navel/land operations on a WW II scale in the game on Archipelago maps.
Sea power made the British Empire. Her ability to use it effectively against Spanish sea commerce in the 16th and 17th century reduced Spain to a wannabe superpower by 1800. Civ 5 needs to take a different naval approach to the game and consider Great Britain's rise to world domination via her ability to bring ships to bear in peace and in war as a model for naval aspects of any upcoming release.
The game seriously lacks good 'trade busting' naval interaction and strategies in a wartime environment.
Make it more real
I wish they made certain things in the game more real for example, resources have set amounts that you can deplete from buildings/units use and what the cities use thus need to find more of, more special units/buildings, more detailed AI diplomacy, Units needing to rearm/refuel every so often, when you build for example a road (or any other improvement) you can have a fast to build but poor quality building, med and med, or slow but great, be able to use the population more, have a boatload more random events and they occur more often, MAYBE have a cabinet that is re-elected that each give or take bonuses ie trade, food, etc kinda like in the total war series, and more that you can do with money.
BTW I also REALLY like Cardinal_V's ideas esp. population movment and trade route
Also PLEASE keep the battle setup the same a lot of people would not like a total war battle style, the game should solely be overview not up close
Last edited by PaintballDude; 09-17-2009 at 02:21 AM.
Reason: just adding more stuff...
What about TOURISM ?
With special tiles : for example 1 with the grand canyon, 1 with Niagara Falls, Kilimandjaro, Everest, Great Barrier Reef, Uluru, and so on...
With new wonders to give you tourism points, that you can only build on one tile in the world : I.E. Mont Saint Michel, Cape Town, Machu Picchu...
And more tourism bonus points : the longer river in the world, the greatest mountain, the biggest desert, the biggest forest,...
Tourism could be a new gauge, like science, culture and spying, or it could replace culture gauge when you discover the "tourism" technology ?...
I have been playing Civ since III, and have been waiting for some expansions that include some ideas I have had. Seems like this is a good a place as any to throw them up.
1. Canals- It would be awesome if you could build canals to give your ships some ability to move across thin spots of land. I am actually kinda surprised this hasn't been included yet. Sure you can sail through a 1-tile city, but surely your workers build a canal over three or four tiles. Naturally travel would be a little slower, but who cares if it takes 4 turns to get across four tiles, if it saves you taking 30 turns to go all the way around your continent?
2. Have a world that has to deal with terrorism. Once a particular tech is learned you make your stand (a terrorist haven or terrorist "hunter"), your decision affects interactions with other Civs. Choosing to harbor terrorists allows you produce them (at a cost to population) to attack other Civs. Choosing to stand against them makes you a target, but gives you a bigger boost to diplomacy. Their abilities should be of a more destructive nature than spies. Effective attacks produce civil unrest. Perhaps a terrorist could even destory a Wonder.
3. More resources and QUALITY of those resources. Perhaps all Civs will have silk, but maybe one Civ has a better quality of silk, making it more desirable in other Civilizations' eyes.
4. Ability to trade units (or trade the ability to MAKE those units/buildings). Of course it would require being on EXCELLENT terms, but there's no real world reason I see why Korea couldn't learn how to build their own Samurai or for France to have their own Malls.
5. Propaganda or Spin Control- Want to go to war against Carthage, but your people would probably not approve? Spend a few turns spreading negative news about them. Inform your people to persuade them to see things in YOUR eyes. Nothing like convincing your people England is a society of heathens to get them on your side (and for realism, make it obsolete with the discovery of Internet).
6. Public Executions - Towns rioting? People getting out of line? No more luxuries to placate them? Lop off some heads. (Naturally not a very effective way to rule, but in a pinch.........)
That's all I can think of for now, but Civ has always been a staple in my gaming collection. Thanks to all who work on it. Your efforts have really raised the bar in gaming. Bring on Civ 5.
Last edited by SnS; 09-23-2009 at 06:12 AM.
Reason: Thought of some more
That is what I'm talking about
You hit the nail on the head, that is what I would like to see in future renditions of Civilization. I really enjoy playing Civilization: Call To Power, still.
Originally Posted by goldorak
One of the things I am really missing is the possibility of building bridges! This could make Islands close to continents more attractive, and more realistic.
Also maybe the ability of deciding which crops etc to grow on the fertile spots rather than as in Civ4 there being the same type with no opportunity to change it, etc.
If any large nation was half or more completed a "World Wonder", would they really dismantle it and sell the materials? It would be completed, but have much lesser effect than the original. Second to complete Stonehenge? Free monument in your 3 largest cities. Third to complete Colossus? +1 commerce in water tiles in the city that built it and the city in closest proximity. Fourth to complete the Oracle? Add 100 research points. Give the nation a choice, for at some point taking the cash would be better than completing a near useless Wonder (especially if you are third or worse). But don't automatically assume it would be taken down...
i disagree with your ideas.. throughtout history there has only been 1 of each wonder..
Originally Posted by civfanatiq
1 eiffel tower, 1 taj majal, 1 collusses.. etc..
also the second,third, forth bonuses you give on these wonders are more powerful than the original effects, if you make this the case many ppl will wait till the noobs build the wonders so they can get the good bonuses, getting a free wonder if you get stonehedge is very powerful because no one builds that wonder, and being the cheapest, why would you get another one for free..
also the east india is the most powerful wonder in the game, and if you make the collusses have the same effect but for 100 hammers, this would create a lot of turmoil. sorry
First off, I'm afraid I am referring to the real Civ 4, not Rev as this IMO is a watered down version.
Originally Posted by Hellogoodbye123
Secondly, I disagree with your thoughts of unique wonders. There is 1 Hollywood, but there is Bollywood and several other global film hotbeds. There is 1 Apostolic Palace, but there is the Potala Palace and the Temple Square in Salt Lake City. There is Stonehenge but there is also the Poulnabrone dolmen in the Burren. There is one Mausoleum of Mausallos, but there is also the Kosciuszko Mound (though from a later era). There is one Three Gorges dam, but do we dare forget the impact of the Hoover dam? There is one Hagia Sophia (now a museum), but there is the Louvre (formerly a great palace, now also a museum). In fact, I can come up with at least two lesser wonders for each Great Wonder in the game.
And you will need to explain how the secondary, tertiary and quarternary effects are greater. The cost would be just as large, but you would need to accept lesser rewards. Second to complete Hagia Sophia? Workers complete improvements 30% faster. Second to complete Three Gorges dam? Three closest cities on the same continent get free powerplants. Second to complete Apostolic Palace? Receive several more votes when Apostolic elections take place.
i still dont agree, because who would want to build a wonder for the same cost with a lesser effect?..
Originally Posted by civfanatiq
lets say a wonder in the game produces lets say quadruples trade at 100 hammers, but built a second time you will only double trade.. or..you can use the building that doubles trade for a much cheaper construction
I love this game
Most of us have great ideas for making this game better and it proves that this game have infinite potential. Let me tell you some interesting points that I'd like to see in Civ5.
1.Changing the growing city radius. To be more realist, the city radius should follow the population and the geography, not all city in the real world are circular. Then it would be necessary to define the territory of a city inside it's country.
2.Spreading the city inside it's territory. There was a time where a certain density of population was impossible to maintain, so it became larger instead. I'd like to see the wonders inside the city but not necessarily in the same square. Like in google map, it would be more natural.(In Civ4, there a little of that but it's not well integrated with the rest of the city)
3.What about the roads. It so important, there could be a lot of it in the tech tree. Sand road, brick road(like in the time of Rome), asphalt, highways, each with it's advantages. I'd like to see it constructed more intelligently instead of a wave-like brown line that go nowhere.
4.Balance the different goals. In Civ4, it's OK. In CivRev, an all out attack is the sole strategy that guarantee success. It was a deception for me.
5.More technologies in the tech tree, Civ4 was great for that, why not make this better. Some ideas come in my mind; Glass(Égypt,-1500), metric system, telegraph, photography(which could lead to X-Rays).
What do you think about that?
well ive been a fan of civ since civ 2 and my dad was a fan since civ 1 but hes addicted to civ 2 lol. i think to be able to continue beyond are own age is really cool idea with futuristic technology and all. but like some ppl said before me more focus on navel and trade routes is a good idea. but i really don't focus on naval warfare anyways i just use my boats to take my little guys to other continents lol then conquer them all with out my navy. in civ 3 i used my navy more though cause it was pretty fun. like what i said earlier to go beyond 2050ad and to have better tech and new eras with new building and wonders will be awesome and maybe to get off the planet. yea i now there's that space race thing were the civs make a spaceship and all but that's the end of the game. yea you can keep playing but its not as fun after you win. then you hit 2050 aw man that's rely unfun. but yea thats what i have to say ty.
My Thoughts for what they are worth...
You both have convincing arguements and good ideas. I think a way to accomodate both of you would be this: If you are not the first to build a wonder AND you are building it in one of your cities when another civ has completed it, your civ should have the option of ceasing construction or converting the construction to one of those secondary and lesser wonders. For example: if you are working on the Hagia Sophia and another civ beats you to completion, you should have the option to switching construction to the Louvre or the Smithsonian.
Originally Posted by civfanatiq
There is only one problem that I can see with this, though. Most of the secondary and lesser "wonders" were built in later eras. For example the Great Library was built several thousand years ago and the Library of Congress was built in very recent history. I have not figured out a way to compensate for this. After all, if you are in the Bronze age and building the Great Library, you should not have the ability to build the Library of Congress.
I also think that the discovery of cement should be added to the tech tree. After all, if the Romans hadn't figured it out, many of their marvels would not have been possible. Then upgrade it to concrete then to asphalt.
I think interstate highways should be added to the workers abilities with the Autobahn considered a national wonder. This would add +1 trade routes maybe.
I also agree that terrorism should be considered in Civ 5. I played around with this concept in Civ 3 with some very interesting outcomes. They are very unpredictable and difficult to detect with varying results. Most often they attacked buildings and units but occasionally they got improvements and once they used a nuke on one of my cities. It certainly added spice to the game.
More diplomacy options. The current diplomacy is good but not Great. Civ is the standard for these games and should reflect that. Not just relations between competing civs but also more emphasis on internal politics. Civilizations have to deal with their own people first and the rest of the world secondly. Each city should have mayoral elections, for instance. The winning party will determine the emphasis of that city. For example, one party could force the city to emphasize production, one party could emphasize unionizing and strikes would be more prevalent. One party may be in opposition to the civs civics causing disruptions in tax revenue or research. Maybe a religious party has taken power and wants to force the city to join an adjoining civ with their religion. The possibilities are quite astounding. Of course during election time, players have the option to run their own candidate or back a candidate already running.
I, like all of you, have many other ideas but these are the ones I would MOST like to see incorperated into future Civ games.
how to put 5000y into 2-3 hours of play ?
any of you who suggest game to be longer then 2050 or 2100 did any of you get to that age in multiplayer how long took it how many players left playing did you ever finish the game or it was saved for some later times
its ridiculous !
so for multiplayer game should last 2-3-4 h no more single player make it last forever .
1 expansion must be limited more cities more reasrch more gold more production small civilizations got no chance game over stop massive expansions early in game make huge penalties for those who take massive territories no reasrch for small cities no trade small production etc or give each civilization territory to build own empire so you cant really build in somebody designated territory but you could capture their cities that they build .(create imaginary borderlines for each empire ) i think this would create more balance then perks for each civ or uu .
it would be cool that we can build buildings and units at same time.
2 diplomacy and trade more options trade should make bonds btw empires so those empires that sign deals for trades not just open borders cannont attack each other sudenly they should not be able to attack until 20 turns or so if trade is broken btw 2-3 of them . so sign deals with wisdom and we should be able to buy stuff and make lots of golds in civ 4 my tresury is allways -something never enough gold .
3 naval units and importance to have big armada to control the sea and your shore you should get lots of gold and food for your cities from the sea that are you control not from city squares but your borders in the sea .also create international borders. not all land should be good for building cities make some space .
3 also in diplomacy each region should have council where leaders could make trade resolutions or important decisions like asian region eu america etc plus international later on and UN .
4 world events player1 gets rewarded as a great leader in economy reward 500 golds or player2 gets reward as a cultural leader free gp . etc we need more rewards for all hard work hehe .
5 most important for me creating army .warriors should be build in 1 turn archers in 2 or 3 turns no matter what production in the city is i mean those are chepaest units anyway to build so we should not waste time waiting 5 turns 10 turns for warriors is too much in ancient .5 turns warrior 8 turns worker ancient is over fix that so you can have bigger wars in ancient massive warrior armies that would be cool and ofcourse this armies should not affect reasrch and economy . i mean i build 5 warriors in ancient and few cities i must put my reasrch 80 90 % no fun . so when civ 5 is out ? hehe
First of all I strongly disagree with anyone that wants to make civ5 more like Rev. They are really apples and oranges and should be treated as such. Civ5 should be just that, the 5th installment of the civ series not Rev 2.
As long as its like traditional Civ I'll play the game no matter what and I'm sure I'll love it. I played all 4 so far however here is my wish list.
Better AI - Civ 4 was a big leap forward in this department but there is still a room for a ton of improvement. For a human to be competitive in the early game you have to stick with the first 3 or so difficulty levels, but at those levels the AI cant keep up with you and you end up an age ahead at the end and never see any massive modern battles. You can do a higher difficulty level to make it so when you reach the modern age the AI players are too but it is achieved by giving the AI a massive head start and easier rules, so it is difficult to impossible to keep up with them early on. It would be nice to see the AI compete better on an even playing field. I realize AI programming isnt easy even in far less complex games but the same basic fix has been taken each time.
Better transactions with AI - To get friendly with the AI was rather cookie cutter. If you give in to their demands once or twice they warm up to you and treat you on a level playing field. After 2 or 3 givaways and 2 or 3 other favorable transactions you can possibly get a free tech back if you ask and theyll ally up easily. Its the same pretty much without regard to how big they are or how big you are. That would be expected if you have 2 cities and they have 8 but if you have 8 and they have 2 I'd expect them to butter up their better or at least make equatable deals from the start. They also realize way to late when they have a disadvantage in war and give in to demands only when a good majority of their cities are down. In some situations that is a decent gamble (for instance if you are at war with more than just them) but in others destroying a large portion of their standing armies should prompt them to sue for peace before their empire has been permanently eviscerated. Fair peace should only be when its a stalemate or they have some ace in the hole. That isnt the case if their army is almost utterly destroyed and yours is knocking on the door of several of their cities even if none have been taken.
Allow killing of Vassals or tighter control. Idk how many times I've had a vassal reject me without recourse.
Include port forwarding info in the instruction manual.
This one is a bit more out there, but late game villagers usually have run out of things to build. I remember in 3 you could add radar towers and such to help with defense late. I liked that idea and wonder why it was abandoned. Radar towers were a good idea but you could also add other things such as wind turbines, solar installations, or wave generators to add more production to appropriate squares. They could just be different types of power plants you could build in the city (solar already is) but unlike coal plants and nuclear you get a small output from an individual installation and have to build a ton and in specific areas instead of one giant installation wherever land is available (solar is perhaps an exception but still is rather localized). Wind turbines would go in plains or grassland (possibly sea squares), solar in desert, and wave generators in coastal and maybe sea squares. The only problem would see is that their wouldnt be as much room for wind power late game but they could be made to be a bonus improvement that could coexist with any improvement and just make their bonus very small like +1 shield and maybe even -1 trade both for balance and to represent the objection some have that its an eyesore.
Proper canals instead of just forts could also give something to do late game. Sonar nets and fish farms are possibilities as well.
Last edited by wandmdave; 01-02-2010 at 08:22 AM.
The biggest things I would like to see changed are...
1. Unit/Technolgy/Building build times - I HATE how quickly ancient units become obsolete, it makes no sense that you can discover things in 10 turns but it also takes you 10 turns to build a unit. Quick unit build times, medium building build times and long technological discovery times at the beginning of the game makes the most sense. As the game progresses make them quicker, but still comparitively different. You should be able to amass huge armies and see several large battle/wars in the span of each age.
2. Battle Mechanics/Graphics - Instead of having unit graphics with 3 little guys occupying one space, I want to see a graphic of like 100 warriors on a tile when you build a warrior unit. Each little warrior can represent one HP of the whole unit.
Then make the "General unit" option of combining them into an army a regular thing, I think it would be so awesome to zoom in and see like 600 warriors and 300 archers with 100 horsemen all combined into one strong army. It would make the game look so much more realistic, and give you the feel that you're actually commanding an ancient army.
Then give you more fine control over tactics. Who should I send in first during the attack? Should I send in a full cavalary charge? Or do I hold off because they have pikemen? Make each battle a multiple decision affair, and give your troops a chance to retreat as well if halfway through the battle things are really going bad. Again I think this would really really add realism to the game.
Also reinforcing units. If I have two units of warriors, one down to 60 men, then other down to 29, and I build a new unit fresh with 100 warriors, I should be able to integrate that new unit into the previous two existing units. say give the 60 man unit 30 new men to create a 90 strong unit, and then the other 29 man unit would gain the remaining 70 units to become 99. Or even able to combine the two units, so combine the 60 man unit with the 29 man unit to be an 89 man unit.
That's all for now, there has been some really good suggestions on this board, and like somebody said it really is a game with infinite possibilities!
This is my idea - comments would be great!
I think within your civilization, there should be regions/communities/zones/states (depending on what type of empire you have). In the beginning the region and civilization will be “one”, but as it grows, new regions could appear especially depending on resource or natural borders – for example a river could be a region border, or a region could be small as it is extremely wealthy already, or even better you could change the borders of the region as you see fit. You could put a leader to head up each region, perhaps a successful military leader, or a major religious leader, or even a warrior, swordsman, etc each one will have their benefits, but obviously the more prestigious the person, the better the leader is. I like this tactic because it means that if you don’t want to, you don’t have to micromanage each city, you can manage at a regional level, or you could get another leader to take care of the region for you. What you could do is manage on a macro level, check to see how your regional leaders are doing, and throw the person out if they are doing a bad job. WHATS THE POINT OF THIS you may ask? Well, I see it that this could be a new dynamic dimension to the game – can you imagine that your region wants to split (Colonization style) and has to fight you for it – or perhaps you could cede a region in peace negotiation – the region could have a different religion causing inter-regional tensions, the region might have terrorist activites (like ETA, IRA, etc), the region could set it’s own taxes (or you could set taxes for each region separately depending on their resource requirements, one region might be resource rich – so you could have inter-region trading, the possibilities are endless and would add a new, fun dimension to the game for sure – you could also make it as detailed as you want because assigning leaders to regions would mean that the cities that fall within those regions could be managed without you. If you have a particularly badly managed region, you could move a really good leader into the bad region to get it sorted out or just take over control yourself and sort out the problems. You could devote one region to making great buildings, another region to farming and production, another region for trade, another for producing defense units, etc. Finally (and the one I like the best), is that a region would act as a traditional AI (but they are on your side!), for example, units can belong to a region, or you can assign your units to a specific region – instead of guarding cities, they roam around the region – guarding the region. You could instruct a region to attach another civilization, so basically it would be like making the AI declare war against another region – your civ would be at war, but you wouldn’t have to do any fighting as your AI is hard at it.
MY OTHER IDEA – and it’s just gives the game another thing to aim for.
I love at the end of my game to check out my great cities, but there are only 5 of them to see…
I would like to extend this concept so that there is a hall of fame for cities, (just as there is for leaders at present).
So one of the objectives of the game is to build the biggest, greatest city ever! For example, I made a city which ended up with a size of “26”, and I think it might be the greatest city I’ve ever created – but after that game is ended, I lose that city and the memory of that city forever – so it would be great if we could store the attributes of that city and admire it forever!
Also it could be one of the "win" objectives - to build a great city of legendary status or certain type of size. The most important thing though is that the city should be re loadable and you should be able to have a look at it even after you have finished playing the game.
my last idea - I promise....!!
at present you can choose to play against preset empires - like spain, england, USA, etc... but an idea that I had which could make things fun... is that you could select to play against empires that you CREATED IN PAST GAMES..
For example, say last week I created an empire called John Smith of the Smith Empire with the Smithson culture, etc called my Capital Smithton and second city Smith City, etc - this week I start a new game and as well as giving the option of playing the Mayas, USA, Spain, etc I can also play against the Smith Empire I created last week.. and the main cities of that empire will be the cities that I created within that empire, the capital of that competitor is Smithton, their second city Smithton, etc....
So basically you are playing against an empire which you already created...
I think it will be a fun addition..
military menagment should be separated from building empire (cities ).
barracks should reasrch military technology (training ) maybe in each era new skill . so lets say you got option to reasrch strenght forest or melee promotion for unit then you pick 1 of those and your barrack will produce that 1 all the time in city, make many promotions for reasrch even to build normal barrack and super barrack (or upgrade) for elite units etc . need to make military menagment more complex right now its really boring seeing 1 huge stack moving around thats not strategy no flanking no ambush no counterattack surprise attacks etc.
3 units making 1 army and 3 armies making 1bigger army each empire should be limited to 3-5 bigger armies and 2-3 small armies and with those armies player need to show some skillz on the battlefield . maybe special commands or options for army how to position army and where how to attack defend make trap counterattack retreat etc .
another thing make special units for defending cities this units should be allways in city they lose bonus if they are attacked outside of city 50% etc so you got main army that is fighting outside of the cities against main attack if you lose that army attacker will be able to move and attack cities directly . also foot army should be able to move 1,2, and 3 steps depends on reasrch from barracks so after reasrch you got 2 steps and 3 steps is for elite army etc this would be good for surprise attacks when defender think he is out of reach . also 1 important thing players should not be able to see what kind of promotions oponent got so it will be more easy to create manuevers on the battlefield if you got right promotions you win wrong promotions you lose etc .
Canada Should Be Included
Last edited by Canadian_Bubble; 03-28-2010 at 07:52 AM.
Seriously, Canada Has A Rich History
Last edited by Canadian_Bubble; 03-28-2010 at 07:53 AM.
civ v is annouced. Look it up. I'm closing this