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

[Hauptman]

What I'd like to see, but I know I never will, is a new CV that expanded the current game to such a degree that it would take months to complete...

A game as complicated as Europa Universalis 3 with the combat subgame of Total War (just not so repetative) and/or Close combat and real life war stratagies that have an actual effect (mainly by adding supply)

On the aspect of resources. Give us a real reason to invade someone for oil. As it stands 1 oil is all you ever need. Lets make those resources give you a certain amount that can only support so much. Perhaps a country with such a huge silk surplus then can use its silk trade to become a real economic powerhouse! (not just 3 gold per turn or trade for +1 health)

In short I want a difficult complicated super long very engrosing sequal... But I wont get it....

[Fleme]

Complicity

I love tinkering with every little detail imaginable.

[frenzyfol]

Heres some stuff that was lying around in my brain.

Current diplomacy with AI is terrible. Huge room for improvement there. Example: when your asked to go to war and the only option is yes/no.

Barbarian diplomacy. Barbarians as a state. Barbarian piracy at sea

Trade routes could be improved. What about consequences of trade routes. Say for example a city along a trade route would experience increased science, more rapid spread of religion, disease, growth.

Displaced populations/troops. Rome faced some serious problems with finding land for its retired troops.

Direct Unit Supply as both a logistical problem for the invading army and a way of taking out your enemies troops. Attacking an armies supply chain could be an excellent alternative than hitting them directly.
Live off the land promotion?

Bring back unit area control from civ2? Or at least make forts give area control.

Factions, Uprising, Usurpers

bla bla .

[LzPrst]

There are some suggestions here that should definitively be in a new civ game.

1. Supply lines (also for ships, by having a max range from nearest friendly port) and attrition in difficult terrain.
2. Food should be movable within the empire. Your farms feed your cities and as your tech develops food can be transported farther.
3. Trade \ Production \ Culture as the basis for growth, food merely being the bottleneck.
4. Production should also be happening more in the city than out in the mines, again, use the population to produce what the miners dig up.
5. Quantifiable resources.
6. Very easy to add, if you're flanking a unit (troops on more than one side) you get a, say, 10% attack bonus. No more stacks marching along, broad fronts required.
7. Better diplomacy AI
8. Population should to some extent be moveable. Razing cities (or even pillaging improvements...) will create refugees for example.
9. Navies would be necessary to maintain sea trade (pirates sighted!)
10. Trade routes should be traced somehow.



Just a few suggestions, others could be that for example roads had a maintenance cost, but would also boost cash flow through trade, and would also be necessary for strategic purposes. Loyalty problems would be extremely interesting, fringe cities of the empire would tend towards disloyalty, civil war a genuine possibility, an empire should be hard to hold together. Resources should be exportable to other tiles, for example, rice, cows, horses, etc. Civs that choose certain paths gain skills on that path, for example, if you have a lot of horses and spread your horses and make them the basis for your economy (early game obviously), then your mounted troops will get bonuses. If you build lots of ships and do lots of naval exploration\trade your ships will get bonuses. etc.

these are just some of the many ideas that I believe would fit right into the Civilization brand name without diminshing or changing the game too much. Which is why I voted, there's "Alot! Plenty they can do". Not just do, but implement WELL.

[Unimatrix11]

I totally second you, LzPrst. I agree to every single one of your 10 points.

# 1 + 6 would totally alter the way wars were fought in civ and this way would add the tactical/operational level many seem to desire, without having to have some kind of "zoom to the battlefield and fight it out every single battle for ten+ minutes"-thing. As i mentioned in another thread, concerning land-battle mechanics, civ could learn a lot from "strategic command II" (as it seems that one looked over to civ, to improve from scI as well).

EDIT: oh, btw, i disagree with the statement, that civ4´s graphics were functional. 2 years ago, during my first sessions i was so frustrated with constantly overlooking enemy units, that i was close to quit the game for good. It surely takes time to get used to looking for them. civ1´s graphics were functional. I never failed to note an enemy there (on 320x200x8 !).

[Heraclitus]

Many of these suggestions seem quite reasonable and would add to the civ experience.

I was wondering could an flexible way to limit the size of stacks in an organic way, be extra support costs the bigger the stack gets?


Several stacks = More units
One large stack = Fewer units

PS Adding acquirable properties to civ seem a very good idea. Would adding these to religion be one too? Since religions are different and we could at the same time still remain politically correct.

[wodan11]

Originally posted by Heraclitus
I was wondering could an organic way to limit the size of stacks in an organic way, be extra support costs the bigger the stack gets?

That would be disease. Historically, disease killed more of every army than the enemy did.

Only in modern times (say, the past 150 years), has this changed.

Wodan

[Heraclitus]

Organic in the same way as is the health system is organic compared to the aqueduct/hospitals/sewers of previous civ iterations.

But perhaps you are right attrition of larger stack might do the trick, but it would be very annoying without ways to at least partially counteract this.

[wodan11]

Originally posted by Heraclitus
Organic in the same way as is the health system is organic compared to the aqueduct/hospitals/sewers of previous civ iterations.

But perhaps you are right attrition of larger stack might do the trick, but it would be very annoying without ways to at least partially counteract this.

Sure.

But the ways would be there. It would be easy to add some early sanitation and medical techs. And, even without this, the player could always simply not put all his units in the same tile. Plus, the disease would really ramp up only if the army stopped moving (i.e., set up camp or entered a siege).

It's not like rulers in ancient times or the middle ages didn't know about disease. It was considered to go hand-in-hand with war, a necessary evil, and pretty much unavoidable.

Wodan

[Heraclitus]

Well yes, but I'm certain that it hasn't played a mjor role since WW2, I was thinkin more along the lines of generic "attrition" since that way we wouldn't have to change the system with the modern era, and you could have terrain effect factored in too.

[Heraclitus]

BTW Even if you do have ways to counteract "disease", it would be hard to make it fun, or even not "unfun" without making it ineffective.

Remeber corruption in Civ3? In civ2 it wasn't that annoying but it didn't do what it was supposed to (prevent ICS).

[wodan11]

The system wouldn't have to change in "modern" times (WWII and later)... you simply would have the techs which provide the sanitation and health bonuses that counteract it. It's the same as it would be in earlier times, remember those early "sanitation" techs I proposed adding... this would just be more of the same. At some point, it will completely counteract the disease factor.

As for the unfun factor, that's something else. But, even this could be balanced.

A lot of people have advocated bringing back the Advisors... remember them? Not only giving helpful tips, but a source of amusement and a pleaseant divergence from the turn-to-turn management.

So, inlude this into the "War Advisor". He simply pops up and says, "Sire, our clerics say that if we continue with this siege, the chances of perilous disease will increase dramatically."

So, you're probably not going to care overmuch if you lose one unit out of ten, here or there. But, the advisor pops up, you ignore him, and a couple of turns later plague hits big time and you lose FIVE units out of ten... and it's your own damn fault. Especially when all you had to do was separate into different stacks (yeah you risk counterattack but even if you lost a 1 or 2 that way that's a lot less than half your army), or possibly research a "Latrines" tech so your knights didn't pee right into the same creek you drew your water from.

Wodan

[Heraclitus]

Wouldn't it be better for units not to die but lose health?

[snoopy369]

Originally posted by wodan11

Sure.

But the ways would be there. It would be easy to add some early sanitation and medical techs. And, even without this, the player could always simply not put all his units in the same tile. Plus, the disease would really ramp up only if the army stopped moving (i.e., set up camp or entered a siege).

It's not like rulers in ancient times or the middle ages didn't know about disease. It was considered to go hand-in-hand with war, a necessary evil, and pretty much unavoidable.

Wodan

I like this idea a lot actually... several elements of Civ (collateral damage for one) exist to give an incentive not to put all of your units in one stack. None of them work very well, however, particularly with CD only affecting a small number of units. SOD is the biggest problem with Civ combat, in my opinion...

[Yosho]

The desease idea is interesting. One question; would it effect units in cities as well? Because if not, defense would have a big advantage over offense.