I wouldn't want the job of making Civ V, Civ IV is too good

[Lancer]

What could they possibly do to improve upon this game that the modders can't do now?

Also, Civ III wasn't so good, and Civ IV is excellent. Civ V won't be making such a leap, and now players may have very high expectations.

Could be a tough job with a difficult act to follow.

[Harovan]

There's not much left to improve (except of the lack of reforesting ), fully expanded Civ4 is awesome as it is. So I voted "not better, just different".

OTOH, Soren's gone. Now is your time to shine, alexman!

[Julian Delphiki]

Somewhat better, there are still some things that can be improved.

[Andydog]

I think the fully expanded Civ4 is the best game money can buy. Firaxis has done an outstanding job, and they've successfully managed to cater for many different tastes and styles of play, from single player to multiplayer, from the warmonger to the builder. They learnt from their mistakes in Civ3 and have listened to the fans. Its a balanced well thought out game. I remember posting an awful rant on these boards during the C3C patch debacle, reasoning that if the team couldn't get Civ3 right, then what hope was there for Civ4? Well I certainly ate my words. Well done Firaxis on a truly magnificent game.

So I voted not better, just different. Off the top of my head I'd like to see a spherical world and a revamped economic system to incorporate tourism and trade routes that require protecting, and a new more realistic combat system.

Originally posted by Sir Ralph

OTOH, Soren's gone. Now is your time to shine, alexman!

I agree. Alexman is definitely the man for the job!

[Yosho]

Oh, I think they could make it better. I'd like to see more interesting economic choices in the game, for one thing; internal managment of your empire's economy has become a quite simple formula to follow once you get the hang of it; I'd like to see it where managing your own economy can be as challanging as any war, and can have as good or bad conseqences as any war.

[Dilger]

Battlefield tactics

If technology continues to improve in the next ten years...I imagine that Civ V or Civ VI will improve actual combat. Instead of just seeing the results of combat, players will have the option to fight the battles on a battlefield scale....this will extend the time of a game...and I am not sure our current machines will be able to run this much detail...also I believe we will be able to label each unit with the city it was created from to give an even more realistic touch...think Bavarian 3d Rifle Division or the Royal Moscow Grenadiers....

[wodan11]

Civ5 could add more flexibility. Civ4 really forces the player down the path that history really followed.

Say, for example, a people that discovers steam power early on and really focuses on it, taking pneumatics to an incredible extent.

Or, a civ that follows a biology/genetics path, possibly even discovering a way to advance selective breeding, such that animal power is used to an extreme. Super-large birds could even carry a human.

It's the height of hubris to think humankind (in real life) has discovered everything. And I'm not talking about future techs, I'm talking about things we simply haven't discovered. Things that don't require advanced prerequisite knowledge. Call it an en masse "blind spot" or whatever you want... there's no reason an early civilization couldn't discover steam power, or viral genetics, etc.

So, Civ5 could, to an extent never before done in a civ game, empower the player to truly develop a new history, a "what if", and to explore the creation and advancement of a civilization. With Civ4, you can do this, but oh by the way your civilization HAS to be just like all the others that have ever happened in real life.

Wodan

[Pinchak]

Graphics could be better. Some have argued they are fine for the boardgame format of Civ, but there is alot of room for improvement IMO.

[Fleme]

Civilization has never been about the graphics. They're functional and as such sufficient for the game, imo.

I'd like to see more civics (for example; Oligarchy, Aristocracy, Vice Royalty, City States, Colonialism, Imperialism, Inquisition, Religious reforms... The list is endless and I think there should be a lot more choices than the ones we now have.), more religions (or sects within the main religions) and a lot more diplomatic options and of course improvements to the AI behaviour and adding variety to how it approaches the game. (Some leaders could in some situations knowingly aim for a Cultural / Diplomatic / Space Race victory instead of it just being a matter of time for them to happen). Also, more options for terrain improvement and altering. With modern technology one should be able to clear icebergs from the ocean and irrigate deserts, eventually converting them to plainsland. Also, canals for ship to cross land (2 width max) while still having the land usable for other improvements. The forts just don't cut it.

[snoopy369]

Re: Battlefield tactics

Originally posted by Dilger
If technology continues to improve in the next ten years...I imagine that Civ V or Civ VI will improve actual combat. Instead of just seeing the results of combat, players will have the option to fight the battles on a battlefield scale....this will extend the time of a game...and I am not sure our current machines will be able to run this much detail...also I believe we will be able to label each unit with the city it was created from to give an even more realistic touch...think Bavarian 3d Rifle Division or the Royal Moscow Grenadiers....

I don't think that's the direction Civ is going, or should go. There are plenty of games where you can play tactician if you want (Paradox anyone?), and adding that to Civ makes the game too big and cumbersome. Civ is a grand strategy game, not a tactics game, and RoN is about as close as you can get to a merger of the two - and it loses a lot from both, albeit being an interesting game in and of itself.

The key to Civ being a good and interesting game is its simplicity as much as its complexity. Civ is not a war game, ultimately, and so the complexity is not in the war elements; in fact, the complexity is not in any one element, but simply in the amazing number of elements that make up Civ. No other game has as many different factors simulated; most games focus on one area, whether it be economic (ie Merchant Prince), war (Axis and Allies), or city management (SimCity). Combine all of those games and you get Civ - but if you tried to keep all of the complexity of these games, you would have a hulk of a game that was no longer fun.

[jbp26]

Originally posted by wodan11
So, Civ5 could, to an extent never before done in a civ game, empower the player to truly develop a new history, a "what if", and to explore the creation and advancement of a civilization. With Civ4, you can do this, but oh by the way your civilization HAS to be just like all the others that have ever happened in real life.

Wodan

wow, that sounds awesome. good idea.

[Supr49er]

Re: Re: Battlefield tactics

Originally posted by snoopy369
... The key to Civ being a good and interesting game is its simplicity as much as its complexity. Civ is not a war game, ultimately, and so the complexity is not in the war elements; in fact, the complexity is not in any one element, but simply in the amazing number of elements that make up Civ. No other game has as many different factors simulated; most games focus on one area, whether it be economic (ie Merchant Prince), war (Axis and Allies), or city management (SimCity). Combine all of those games and you get Civ - but if you tried to keep all of the complexity of these games, you would have a hulk of a game that was no longer fun.

Exactly. I like the flexibility to play any style of game at any given time. You can focus on culture, warmongering, empire building, diplomacy in any way or combination.

And between the game and the forums you really do learn a lot.

[Robert]

I'd like it if future civ itterations would focus more on city speculation. Ie. building harbor cities, commercial cities, labor cities, military cities, etc.

In every city you can select the main focus of that city, and over long time that city gets extra bonusses for that category. Ie. a harbor city will generate extra commerce from overseas, will heal ships sooner, will produce faster ships, etc. etc.
While commercial cities will generate more commerce from banks, stock exchange, attract more corporations, etc.

Switching main focus in a city takes time. Do you want to lose something you've build up over years? Select your cities carefully. Build cities you need, it''s not about many cities, but asbout building the right city on the right spot.

Hit another civ by isolating that specific city. If your civ grows you could create several provences or states.

I think there''s much to do in that direction.

[snoopy369]

Originally posted by Yosho
Oh, I think they could make it better. I'd like to see more interesting economic choices in the game, for one thing; internal managment of your empire's economy has become a quite simple formula to follow once you get the hang of it; I'd like to see it where managing your own economy can be as challanging as any war, and can have as good or bad conseqences as any war.

To me this is probably the only true area that can be significantly added without making the game too cumbersome. It is very weak compared to other elements in the game, and is both too complex for newer players, and not interesting except as a limiting factor to expansion.

Strengthening the player's ability to control his economy, while limiting the necessity to do so, is difficult but achievable. Particularly, the trade route system could be enhanced by adding more value to the trade routes and decreasing their 'hidden' nature (more ability to add trade routes, higher return); 'rare' resources that boost trade route value but nothing else (ie, dyes would give you an extra trade route in the city nearest it that has its value doubled, instead of giving the happiness); increased complexity to the inflation mechanism while decreasing the amount that is 'hidden' here also, such as tying inflation to more clearly controllable factors (trade, income, population, etc.) in a direct manner; and adding monetary costs to modern units to maintain the value of money in the modern day (where you generally have more than you know what to do with). Corporations were an interesting start to this, but they are not the ultimate answer.

[Harovan]

Originally posted by CyberShy
I'd like it if future civ itterations would focus more on city speculation. Ie. building harbor cities, commercial cities, labor cities, military cities, etc.

In every city you can select the main focus of that city, and over long time that city gets extra bonusses for that category. Ie. a harbor city will generate extra commerce from overseas, will heal ships sooner, will produce faster ships, etc. etc.
While commercial cities will generate more commerce from banks, stock exchange, attract more corporations, etc.

Switching main focus in a city takes time. Do you want to lose something you've build up over years? Select your cities carefully. Build cities you need, it''s not about many cities, but asbout building the right city on the right spot.

This is actually a very good idea.