Wat do u want to see in civ 5?

[Nikolai]

Especially when the target is my freaking vassal.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Nikolai
* Nikolai considers posting the List for Civ3 and Civ4.

Go ahead

[Urban Ranger]

As I said last time, make the game feel like I am actually in control of an empire instead of a collection of cities.

Now that maintenance costs come out of the national coffer it is one step closer, but much more still needs to be done.

For example,

- the ability to shift food from one city to another
- that you shouldn't need missionaries to spread religions within your own border
- that you should be able to centralise resources for Wonders (e.g. Egypt, China)
- that the population shifts from areas with lower quality of living to higher quality of living


What I would really like to see is to do away with the ability to found cities (except for the first one), and cities spring up in areas where there are sufficient people. Of course, this will require a total overhaul of the underlying population dynamics model.

[Cort Haus]

Re: Wat do u want to see in civ 5?

Originally posted by davidono
I think it would be more realistic if you had to pay lump sum of money for units instead of just take away 1 gold per turn. i think from trade routes you should earn something like 1000 gold per per turn. And i think that towns should earn you loads of money like 2000 gold if you work on it. and i think u should have to pay for buildings this makes it more realistic. and also i think if you keep your people happier it should make your money and production and research shoot up.
wat do u think?

Welcome to Apolyton.

I'm sorry to say that I can't agree with any of what you are suggesting. Adding three zeros to the numbers will do nothing for the game except make all the screens look horrible. If you like paying building maintenance costs, play Civ 3. Civ 4 maint' costs are for the cities, not the buildings, and its better for it. 'Realism' is not an argument for anything in CIv games, as playability is far more important.

[Nikolai]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger


Go ahead

Aye, aye cap'n.
The Civ3 List should suit you fine.

Civ3-List

Civ4-List

[Flubber]

every Civ ever would be better if it incorporated more elements of Smax-- particular the design workshop

[LordShiva]

Originally posted by Flubber
every Civ ever would be better if it incorporated more elements of Smax-- particular the design workshop

No! The inclusion of the design workshop will destroy Civ!

[Dis]

No design workshop like smac. That was too much.

But some tweaks might not be a bad thing. Though harder to implement as there are no attack and defense values anymore. .

I was going to suggest an option to make tanks have more armour and a bigger gun at the loss of mobility, but with no defense value, how do you implement it. I guess you could just up the strength and reduce movement. But you can't have a 1 move tank.

[MasterDave]

I would hope that Civ 5 would have better AI, and a more moddable AI. Another game called Space Empires 4 had a fully moddable set of AI scripts, and clever programmers were able to create AI's that were very tough adversaries (Far, far superior to the crappy AI's the designers created in the original). In fact, players were able to import these modded AI's into their own games, so you could choose to play against any number of AI's created by human fans in one game. Imagine if people who are true civ Fanatics could create their own nasty AI's for other people to play against. It would definitely extend the shelf life of the single player game.

For multiplayer, I would like to see an independently hosted server(s) for Civ games, and get away from Lamespy and its many connectivity issues. Also, I would like to see a Voting screen that continues a game with a majority decision rather an unanimous one, so that one person who is griefing or AFK cannot hold up six people indefinitely (that is something that could be in a Civ4 patch).

I would also like to see naval combat become important again on non-island maps and the return of privateers. I would also like some more flexibility in the space race, to force some decisions on the player, and not have everyone building identical spaceships (a la Civ2).

[LordShiva]

The SDK in Civ4 is meant to address the first point.

I don't play multiplayer so I can't comment on the second.

Third is vitally important, IMO. I'd like Aircraft Carriers to be uber-expensive to build, and able to hold bombers. They need to be revamped and somehow capture the true force projection role they play IRL.

[MasterDave]

Originally posted by LordShiva
The SDK in Civ4 is meant to address the first point.

I don't frequent the mod section here, have people made custom AI's that we can download? That would be worth checking out.

[Willem]

Originally posted by diemex
Ya. Look at what a failure Moo3 was. We dont need that creeping into the civ series !

Even the worst game ever done will have some good element in it. No need to throw the baby out with the bathwater.

[Dis]

Originally posted by LordShiva
The SDK in Civ4 is meant to address the first point.

I don't play multiplayer so I can't comment on the second.

Third is vitally important, IMO. I'd like Aircraft Carriers to be uber-expensive to build, and able to hold bombers. They need to be revamped and somehow capture the true force projection role they play IRL.

aircraft carriers aren't that expensive. Except modern ones. But the unit in the game models ww2 aircraft carriers. Which weren't that much different than bb's with flat tops on them. I think even some heavy cruiser hulls were converted into light carriers in ww2.

no bombers on carriers . If you want you could introduce a unit like a dive bomber, or for modern jet warfare introduce an fighter/bomber.

[LordShiva]

Originally posted by Dis
aircraft carriers aren't that expensive. Except modern ones. But the unit in the game models ww2 aircraft carriers. Which weren't that much different than bb's with flat tops on them. I think even some heavy cruiser hulls were converted into light carriers in ww2.

no bombers on carriers . If you want you could introduce a unit like a dive bomber, or for modern jet warfare introduce an fighter/bomber.

OK, then, a new Modern Aircraft Carrier unit. Expensive and powerful enough that even the most powerful civ in a game wouldn't build more than 2 or 3. Fighter/bombers are OK, but only if they can actually bomb stuff.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Willem
Even the worst game ever done will have some good element in it. No need to throw the baby out with the bathwater.

Their problem was they tried to squeeze a lot of good ideas into a game in too short period a time.

If they had 3 years of development time they may do all right.

The best strategy game is not one you cannot put another element in, but one you cannot take something out. For example, Go (wei chi)