Wat do u want to see in civ 5?

[Lambiorix_be]

I would like to rethink the calculation of the score. I have noticed that you receive higher scores if you go for a domination victory. In other words most of the time you play you are in a state of war.

If you look at the stats in the end you notice that the life expectancy of your people is about 60 years. So how can you claim to be a great civ if your people don't even reach the pension age.

I would like that the game score also takes those parameters in account for the end calculation (also the Mfg prod, agric. prod etc.)

I still feel that if my civ has 'only' 40% of the population/land area but is the most advanced and has life expectancy of 75 for its people it is superior to one of 50% population/land area and only a life expectancy of 60 years.

[Bobby Chicken]

Originally posted by Thedrin
A lot of the stuff you want is in the expansion.

The stories of King Arthur are myth. What's more they are myth from a time when England was something of a backwater - not a regional (as in western European) power.

I know the stories are a myth. Duh. But Arthur was a real person and if he wasn't he was at least based on a real person. Who cares if they were backwater? If the Japanese have Tokagawa as a leader and the French have Louis 14th, why not Arthur? A lot of the stuff is in the expansion? If that includes the extra specail units, then I might get it. I left a lot of stuff out though because I mentioned a completley new system. I pretty much only mentioned civ-specific stuff. Also, the stuff a wanted most that they could have easily added is probably the last stuff they would actually put in.

I think a non-city based game would still be civ because the gold, hammers, and food values of tiles once they were worked would still be there. And that's the heart of civ in my opinion.

But, if they keep the city-based (which they will) and do not institute a more custimizable mass battle system, I still have suggestions. The most glaring error with the entire civ series is that units just "recover". Since when does a 95% decimated cavalry brigade flee back to a city and recover the dead men and horses? The elimination of the worker is second on my priority list. When a citizen packs up and moves, it should take time to rebuild and instead of having to have a worker, the citizen just gets a time period. I'm sure some arrangement could be made for roads (like just moving a citizen arround on the city map maybe). This would give a great incentive to attack/defend things other than cities and maybe the worker could just return to build fortifications. Different levels of roads to keep 'em busy and hell, make them able to become police officers too so they can serve like a mini-mini capitals. I'm liking this idea much better than I had when I first started talking about it. It solves more problems than I thought it would. A game like that could never be accused of not being civ. I guess I'll save part 3 for tomorrow.

[Nugog]

Originally posted by Lambiorix_be
I have noticed that you receive higher scores if you go for a domination victory.

Is there anyother way to play?

[Thedrin]

Originally posted by Bobby Chicken
I know the stories are a myth. Duh. But Arthur was a real person and if he wasn't he was at least based on a real person. Who cares if they were backwater? If the Japanese have Tokagawa as a leader and the French have Louis 14th, why not Arthur?

My understanding is that there wre a series of Tokugawas who ruled Japan as the Shogun. During this time period the foundation for Japans industrial and modern power were laid - political unity, curbing the influence of foreign forces within Japan and implementing a massive program of reforestation.

Louis XIV governed France when it was the most powerful country in Europe. While not much territorial gain was made in Europe during this time this can be put down to France's warring against a combination of England, Russia, Prussia and the Hapsburgs.

Another argument against Arthur is, "why would you include him when there are so many notable, historical (read; not mythical) figures that could rule England beyond the ones already contained?" An example being Pitt the Elder.

If that includes the extra specail units

I hope that never comes to pass. One of the elements of civ I like the most is the ability to construct alternate histories. Emphasising the individuality of each civ ruins that. Ultimately (and I don't expect to see this for a long time, if at all) I would like to see no unique units or buildings but unit and building bonuses made available through expensive, specialised and entirely optional technologies. This would be subject to the AI knowing what bonuses would benefit the most and which to discard so as things stand I'm happy with uniques limited to what they are now.

I think a non-city based game would still be civ because the gold, hammers, and food values of tiles once they were worked would still be there. And that's the heart of civ in my opinion.

Where would units be built?

I fully agree with a version of the game where all tiles within a civs territory are workable (with diminishing returns as the tiles distance from the nearest city decreases). I also would like to see a game where there are no workers and cities appear spontaneously based on their terrain (keep settlers as a means of claiming marginal but strategic terrain). While civ is not strictly supposed to be a history simulator I do think that removing cities from the game would remove the game too far from its subject matter.

But, if they keep the city-based (which they will) and do not institute a more custimizable mass battle system, I still have suggestions. The most glaring error with the entire civ series is that units just "recover".

Such an error could be fixed by the introduction of supply lines.

[Stuff about workers]This would give a great incentive to attack/defend things other than cities and maybe the worker could just return to build fortifications.

I admit it. Even though I would be in favour of the elimination of the worker unit (a long way away) I don't get the logic behind ths point.

[LordShiva]

Originally posted by nugog


Is there anyother way to play?

Yes, it starts with a "c" and isn't culture

[Nikolai]

Civilizing peacefully?

[Thedrin]

Canaan Banana?

[Bobby Chicken]

Thedrin,

Ok, I just like to see a western medieval knight power. Arthur came to mind because he was supposedly a real king. As for Luis, yah, France was great, but he really wasn't. And the Tokogawas were actually the isolationist dynasty before the one that modernized Japan. Tokogawa is about is significantly more vague than King Arthur. But yah, I don't remember any of the names of any people like Arthur, so I just brought up him.

What I was saying with the worker is that units would destroy the citizens if they did not go work another tile, so that if you wanted to not waste time fleeing and coming back you would have to defend non-city tiles. This would give further incentive to introduce fortifications to the game which means the worker could actually be re-instituted as an army-support unit, building forts and walls and roads and such. Or, it could not be. The logic after this point isn't very well-developed or important, so don't worry if you don't get it.

[Thedrin]

By you:
And the Tokogawas were actually the isolationist dynasty before the one that modernized Japan.

By me:
During this time period the foundation for Japans industrial and modern power were laid - political unity, curbing the influence of foreign forces within Japan and implementing a massive program of reforestation.

Back to you:
Tokogawa is about is significantly more vague than King Arthur.

The first Tokugawa lived during the 16th - 17th centuries. King Arthur lived (alledgedly) in the first half of the first millenium AD.

Medieval period, ay? Europe was so fractured during this time period that it's unlikely that any of the kingdoms that existed will make it into the civ series except as precursors to more powerful civs such as the Hapsburgs, the English, the French and the Germans. You should probably go looking for a scenario. There are probably some out there for this time period.

[Lambiorix_be]

Originally posted by nugog




Is there anyother way to play?

I know I am in the minority but I can't be the only one one wanting to build a peacefull society and still win the game (space victory)...or am I

[LordShiva]

Originally posted by Lambiorix_be
I know I am in the minority but I can't be the only one one wanting to build a peacefull society and still win the game (space victory)...or am I

Unfortunately, you're not

[padillah]

No, you're not. It's just that, almost by it's very nature, warmongering is more boisterous than building.

Just think of the references: Violent warmonger and quiet builder.

I'd love to be able to win without a war but since I'm no good I'm forced to go the war route.

Which actually brings me to a OT point: I want to be able to win without a single war. I want to be able to declare defensive actions to maintain my neutrality, like Switzerland does. If they want to handel it realisticly and make me build a peace-keeping force to maintain my neutrality against those that decalre war on me then fine but don't make me be in a war.

Tom P.

[LordShiva]

Originally posted by padillah
Which actually brings me to a OT point: I want to be able to win without a single war. I want to be able to declare defensive actions to maintain my neutrality, like Switzerland does.

But Switzerland will never win.

[Nikolai]

Yes they will. They have the Swiss guard!

[LordShiva]

Those are made obsolete by Musketmen, unfortunately.