Civ V Player Wishlists

[Azuarc]

Ages since I've been here...


Some things I'd like to see:

* Military "units" are produced, rather than entire battalions. A warrior "unit" is like 10 dudes. As a result, you then combine units (up to a certain quantity) to make your actual attack forces. This lets you (a) produce military quicker, and with greater variety, and (b) encourage mixed arms in your warfare. Battles would result in you losing segments of your divisions, rather than the whole thing, or most of it with the possibility to heal back to full.

** Units have limited traveling capacity. It would not be feasible to send your spearmen from Spain to the Kamchatka Peninsula, especially when it takes them some 3000 years to make the trip. Some specialized units would be more capable of traveling long distances.

** Select unit types have real terrain bonuses. Not just "+25% hill defense," but more like "invisible to enemies while in jungle, with +50% bonus defending in jungle."

* Smaller tiles, with greater move quantity for units. It never made sense to me that on an earth map, New York would tie up half of the Atlantic seaboard. America could fit maybe six cities total. What happens to Philly, Boston, Baltimore, etc?

** Cities would start off as a single tile, and gradually expand their influence with a combination of size and culture. As they expand, they gain access to more squares, and closer to full effect from them. Roads, locally, become more significant as a result.

** As cities grow, the actual "size" of the city expands into multiple spaces. Urban/suburban squares become a greater source of production and commerce, and a lesser source of food and production resources.

** Due to smaller tiles and greater maneuverability, zones of control become SEMI-meaningful again. You can go past an enemy unit, but expect to potentially suffer for doing so. Additionally, related to the limited distance units can travel, food supplies become important. A unit that is wholly cut-off from the homeland without any reasonable route back to a friendly city is severely impoverished.

* Cities are built, rather than founded, and can be done so by military units. A military-founded city is initially called a base, and has a limited range of activity and growth compared to a civilian city. A base can eventually be converted to civilian population, but this would make creating colonies much more reasonable and realistic, and also give forts a more feasible use rather than taking a worker into the middle of nowhere for 6 turns.

** Settlers and workers are rolled together again, called pioneers. They are produced by population supply, rather than by hammers, similar to if you had whipped the city. However, under my model, cities grow in terms of their "number" much more quickly and to higher levels, so this is not as significant. A pioneer unit is either used to settle into a tile (such as creating a plantation) or to begin construction of a city. It will not function as a proper city for a short while, and will reach functional status sooner with several pioneers sent.


I could probably go on about my paradigm, but I think this is already TLDR.

[HaplessHorde]

I've always found the early parts of the game the most interesting. The modern ages devolve into an endless upgrade cycle of military units, not much fun.

I'd like a more detailed midgame, and streamlined unit management (automatic upgrading.)

[rah]

I think cottages growing into hamlets and towns etc. simulated the metro area feel around major cities that gives the impression of sprawling over multiple squares.

[a.kitman]

The modern ages devolve into an endless upgrade cycle of military units, not much fun.

this have always been my biggest annoyance in the civ series. bugged the hell out of me seeing swordmen whit my rifle units. or the token warrior medic unit.

[Ming]

I don't know if it's annoying, but it is simply silly. I love how late in the game, the cities deep in your own empire may have an archer or two defending them, while your tanks are on the move and taking cities

With less units ancipated, maybe there will be an auto upgrade if the resource is available.

[rah]

There probably will be for the AI.

[Theben]

I could see an auto-upgrade to a slightly less modern unit.

Or instead allow cheap upgrades to less advanced units. So Upgrading your warrior to a infantry unit would still be expensive, but upgrading to a rifleman would be comparatively cheap.

[Blaupanzer]

There are a ton of other things besides ICS that are just as, if not more so, destructive to the game.

Can anyone say "corruption?" Still have old diehards that never returned over that disastrous implementation.

[rah]

FTW

Yes, worst concept ever.

[Ming]

Can anyone say "corruption?" Still have old diehards that never returned over that disastrous implementation.

Agreed... corruption was the major reason (besides many other broken game concepts) that many of us continued playing Civ II until Civ IV came out

But sadly to say, Civ IV only removes ICS from the human player. The AI still uses the ICS strategy, building cities where ever it can... even in the most worthless places. It just doesn't seem to hurt the AI anywhere near as much as it hurts the human player.

I know how expensive that fifth city can be early in the game, and how it can really drag down my science rate early. But the AI lays out even more cities early, and has no problem keeping up tech wise at the above average to higher levels, while also cranking out tons of troops.

[wodan11]

Yeah... if there's one place... no two places... that I'd love to see improvement, it's in fundamental game design and in how the AI works.

Civ IV "fakes" good AI in many places simply by giving the AI a bonus. But the bonus really does nothing but covers up bad design or gameplay (or both).

A smarter AI will use good city placement, so city maintenance won't be as high and cities will be more productive/efficient. A smarter AI will fight better, so spamming units won't be as necessary for the AI to be competitive. And so on.

Don't get me wrong, IV was better than I, II, or III (actually, all of them combined, probably) in these respects. But it's fair for us to expect and require Firaxis to make V even better.

[SpencerH]

Some interesting ideas here; hope they're being tracked back at HQ.

I've always thought was a big mistake to set up forests as nothing more than slow terrain/chop material, when in fact, this is one of the great strategic resources through all early eras. CIV is designed to encourage destruction of all forests. Later-game builds like forest preserves aren't worth waiting for. Why not have a sustainable forestry system (a tech) that allows you to grow new forests on rotating plots of land? You could even have multiple grades of forest (soft vs hard wood, fast vs slow growth).

.

Based on the importance of oak for the British navy, one of my mods for CIV III included a "hardwood" resource that was required for frigates etc.

[Slainte]

My Wish list

1. Better, more complex combat (done?).
2. Less micro-management in cities -Limit city growth with happiness/pollution, but dont send them to red/green penalty.
3. More (and different) rewards for special resources (done?).
4. Better diplomacy AI, or more diplomacy transparancy - 1/2 way through game, 5 nations simultaneously declare war and invade - please no.
5. More variety - units, quests, national buildings, units, events, special resources, wonders.
6. Easier to see progress toward victory conditions.
7. Ability to wage a "little war" or "colonial war". (done?)
8. Rebellions and uprisings represented far better.
9. Less predictable research, or more complex research system. More research items. More optional research items. Change research times depending on how many items currently known by you and/or the world.
10. Better, more complex, faster, naval warfare.
11. Better and possibly more abstract aerial warfare.

That is about it for me.

[wodan11]

To tired to get on my soapbox and talk about gameplay improvements, but one wish I have is that they improve compatibility with IE.

I can chart a direct correlation with running IE7, whether simultaneously or at any time prior to running CIV without restarting, and CTDs.

I would bet it's IE's fault, and maybe IE8+ fixes it. But, in any event, there's some kind of conflict and I'd be ecstatic if Civ 5 doesn't have the same problem.

[Felch]

One thing I'd like to see is a sense of terrain on the ocean. Since there aren't any relevant landmarks, you could simulate it with currents or winds. Ships would have a certain number of turns they could be at sea, and early ships would rely heavily on winds and currents to move. Certain regions could be very stormy and could prove impassible to early ships.

Right now they have the shallow ocean and the deep ocean, but that's not really how ancient people would have seen it. They would see seas in terms of their winds and currents and storms and other hazards. It would really bring a new dimension to early sea travel.