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

[Dilger]

I disagree. I think Civ is the ultimate war game. Economics, diplomacy, and culture are just many sides of conflict. Why not make the game even more flexible by improving the battlefield? Why not make the game more complex? Keep the basic system that we all have been playing for 15 years, but evolve the ways to play the game...I do not believe that a tactical game that reflects every era civ covers exists....

[Theben]

I'd like to see trade routes affect the income of cities they pass through; i.e. if City X is on an isthmus between two major trading partners, and the game mechanics or tech allows ships to travel thru (like now), a lot of trade will pass through that city. So it should become a major trade center in itself.

Plus a lot of what others said, minus the tactical map.

[Garth Vader]

I am still the only one that picked worse!

Civ 3 was worse because it added a lot of new concepts that it took until Civ 4 to get right.

A Civ 5 is likely to add similar new concepts like some of those suggested here which will take a while to perfect, especially as it gets more complex.

[snoopy369]

Civ certainly has interesting military aspects to it, and certainly is played by many who enjoy this element of it. However, it is not even the core element, at least according to its creator...

Ultimately, the problem is that if you add the tactical element (of fighting battles out at the tactical level), you either:
a) Lengthen an already very long game absurdly
or
b) Must take out significant elements of the game

RoN does b), by significantly reducing the elements of empire building and exchanging them with playing the battles out; but that makes it a very much less fun game for most hard-core civvers (or at least a very differently fun game). Have you played Rise of Nations, by the way? It's as close as any game I've ever seen at adding tactics to Civ...

A game like you say would potentially be interesting - but it wouldn't be Civ, and I'd not want it to be called Civ (unless it was something like CivCity: Rome, although that game was ... not so good.)

[Dilger]

I agree with you Snoopy, I am just thinking 15-20 years from now. I think Civ V will improve economics and diplomacy...which probably means a great Diplomat and perhaps splitting up Great Merchants into Great Traders and Great Economists.

[Blaupanzer]

An economic victory possibility would greatly enliven the end-game. Not sure if this should be a fixed number (perhaps in a select set of cities, like cultural) or a differential (e.g., one nation's economy is some multiple of the next nearest competiter -- 1.5, 2 or whatever). Economic choices at the city level that modify national goals might be introduced by some tech or building. Other than that this is as good a civ as we have ever had. Thus, I voted that Civ V will be worse -- too much will change.

[Theben]

I wouldn't want a tactical map in civ, but that's not to say some tactics couldn't be included. They should be available for scenarios at least.

Civ does need to move away from the 1-on-1 combat style to a combined army.

[Sir Og]

I was surprised to see that I am only the second person to vote Worse. I am just skeptical that all the new features that Firaxis will want to introduce to the game will be implemented successfully.
Remember the "1/3 unchanged, 1/3 new features and 1/3 changed features" rule that they had before. I don't think that it is impossible to make a new game with a third of the features being new and balance the game so that these features work well with the other features (and make an AI that knows how to use these features) but I doubt that they will be able to pull this off.

Having this in mind I will be happy if they program some parts of the game from scratch so that they can take advantage of multi core processors. By the time Civ 5 is out quad core will be the norm for new PCs. This will open some interesting opportunities IMO (AI, Trade routes, etc.).
Also I wold like to finally see true stacked combat.

[Theben]

Originally posted by Blaupanzer
Thus, I voted that Civ V will be worse -- too much will change.

Hopefully Firaxis has learned to beta test more this time.

[Sir Og]

Another thing that I always wanted to see in Civ is a system where food production within a city's radius is not the only determining factor for the size of this city. I would like to see a system where all food produced within the empire is distributed throughout all cities but population growth is determined by other factors (happiness, buildings, wonders etc.)
This will create a game world closer to the real world where the biggest cities are not the strongest agricultural cities.

Also a system like that will be able to simulate the shifting of power from the early "agricultural" empires to later "industrial" empires.

[Heraclitus]

-How about religions with traits, they acquire during game play according to you’re actions and decisions?
-I love the idea of a really flexible history woodan11 mentioned.
-Spherical map is right there with it.

-Let the player play on multiple maps: Think of all the cool stuff that could be done with that for mods and the like. Especially in combination with the spherical map. Imagine zooming out of the strategic view a bit and seeing the moon or taking a look at another planet. Fantasy would benefit from this as well, underground layer ect.

Ok, if they are going to keep it in as a feature for mods and official scenarios the zoom out of strategic would be a bit too much work. They could combine it with improved interface though, they could make that view a replacement of the spaceship screen, just zoom out and see in geostationary orbit to see how you’re and the other nations spaceships are coming along. Perhaps how many military satellites each nation has

- maybe a system based on the SMAC with such military satellites where one satellite has a chance to make a kamikaze intercept of one nuke, destruction of enemy space defenses or even a direct assault on the almost complete spaceship, maybe add spy satellites for espionage bonuses and to replace surveillance by aircraft in the late game. Maybe add in addition to this a national wonder type “can only build one” thingies that could, unlike national wonders, be destroyed. Maybe communication grid (with commercial&cultural benefits, eliminates colony maintenance), space program (science&culure bonus), GPS (some military bonus, can sell its services in diplo screen just like resources in GalCiv). It would liven up the space race and nuclear warfare.



How about they make instead of a sequel a civ-esque game, like SMAC? Something that takes closer a look at a certain historical period, or perhas fantasy or even a galactic empire (they have never done one of those, and I think firaxis could compete with stardock)?

[yaroslav]

Civ4 is very good

IMHO the biggest issue is that Civ currently ignores logistics. I can send a stack marching in to the capital of my foe without any attrition except from combat. I´d like Firaxis to sit down and think if there is any way to simulate the logistics. Maybe the logistic line can be drawn in the map and you need to defend it until it reach your supply points or... I do not really know the details, but I think that way they can add depth to the war part of the game, make the war interesting for builders (as logistic is a building-like activity) and not increment the overall complexity too much.

[Crossfire]

Yep, Civ4 is the best game I have ever played except maybe M:TW. While everything mentioned above has some merit, I would like to see some serious effort put into making the AI much better and more varied. I would like to see different leaders with even more varied approaches to winning. And I would like to see them set more long term goals. This is a realm that games haven't tried much yet but is the obvious direction for a game like Civ to head. If the game can keep a database for each leader and what they are trying to accomplish the game would go forward by leaps.

[Starfarer]

Originally posted by Heraclitus


How about they make instead of a sequel a civ-esque game, like SMAC? Something that takes closer a look at a certain historical period, or perhas fantasy or even a galactic empire (they have never done one of those, and I think firaxis could compete with stardock)?

This sums up my idea for the next Firaxis game, followed by a Civ V that takes the best parts of Civ 4 and the new one and makes them better.

[Heraclitus]

That is a very good idea.

In many way's Civ4 is a coupling of SMAC and Civ2.