A few options in Civilization Revolution that I'd like:

[lantern48]

-Ability to choose the number of AI opponents-

-Ability to choose which civs you face off against-

-An option to sell/raze a city if there 're no enemies in a certain radius-

-An option to set a cap on the number of cities that can be built. For example: anywhere from infinite to only being able to have 1-

-1 on 1 MP with no AI civs-

These are some things that I feel would add even more replay to the game and encourage even more strategies to pop up based on the different settings.

It'd be nice to get an update with some or all of these, but at the least, maybe they can be considered for a sequel or expansion.

[InfiniteStates]

They all sound great (except the raze cities one), but they should apply to any mode except ranked multiplayer.

Map size might be a nice option too...

[Matrix49G]

Take away enemy spaceship launch parts, I have no need to see them. (even if you can skip most it, I still have to watch something)

Add bridges - We can fly in space but we don't know how to build a bridge. (mainly for 1 or 2 tiles, not across the sea.)

Tweak the AI not to cheat as much. I find it hard that they can rush army units, and still build a wonder, while they want to fight me. ! city building a wonder, the other city builds armies, cool. But how do they make so many, while I cant. They don't have that much gold aswell but it seems that they can buy a unit on demand, for no money at all.

Bring, my own demands options, They always demand stuff from me. Let me have the same option.

Fix the spies that can't be captured by my units.

Maybe give the sub's more purpose other then just looking pretty.

Those are my thoughts.

[lantern48]

Tweak the AI not to cheat as much. I find it hard that they can rush army units, and still build a wonder, while they want to fight me. ! city building a wonder, the other city builds armies, cool. But how do they make so many, while I cant. They don't have that much gold aswell but it seems that they can buy a unit on demand, for no money at all.

Bring, my own demands options, They always demand stuff from me. Let me have the same option.

Fix the spies that can't be captured by my units.

Maybe give the sub's more purpose other then just looking pretty.

Those are my thoughts.

Yeah, I wish the AI operated under the same rules as we do. I've even "choked" the very last enemy Civ City left, by: moving armies onto all it's resource squares, blocking it's sea squares with Battleships and then building my own Civ right by them and overtaking all their resource squares (can't culture flip a capitol city) through culture.

They still produced armies, even with all their resources cut off. I also sent in spy ring after spy ring, until I destroyed every building and stole all their money -- and yeah, I even kept disrupting their rifleman production -- all to no avail.

[PandaMana]

Take away enemy spaceship launch parts, I have no need to see them. (even if you can skip most it, I still have to watch something)

Heck, I don't even want to see *my* parts launching, especially when I've rushed them all at once and have to watch 4-5 in a row on the same turn.

[badken]

Yeah, I wish the AI operated under the same rules as we do. I've even "choked" the very last enemy Civ City left, by: moving armies onto all it's resource squares, blocking it's sea squares with Battleships and then building my own Civ right by them and overtaking all their resource squares (can't culture flip a capitol city) through culture.

They still produced armies, even with all their resources cut off. I also sent in spy ring after spy ring, until I destroyed every building and stole all their money -- and yeah, I even kept disrupting their rifleman production -- all to no avail.

Keep in mind that even if a city is reduced to a single square, workers still make production and trade. The amount depends on the size of the city. It'll never grow, but if there's enough population, they could still be making gold and enough production to produce units.

Also remember that at the higher difficulty levels, the AI gets huge production & trade bonuses that human players don't get.

It's basically impossible to starve out a city in Civ Rev. You have to attack it.

[BIGwooly]

This is what I posted at Xbox.com a while back (I like some of the OP's ideas too):

#1
Allow saving of MP games with friends (host could save the game and would have to be the one to reload it later) and allow saving of the "Game of the Week". I know the developers supposedly didn't allow that feature to cut down on cheating, but most people don't have the time to sit down and play a game straight through for 3 or 4 or 5 hours. I'd rather have the option to save and just deal with the fact that more people could cheat.


#2
Create an extended version of the game (with larger maps, maybe). Instead of each turn being 2 years, make each turn 1 month. This could make for some epic SP games and would really help the game feel less rushed. Obviously research and so forth would be adjusted as well.


#3
Along with the extended version of the game, make players upgrade all inferior units before building ANY advanced units. So, for example, if a player has warriors and has researched Iron Working then he can build legions, but once he has research Feudalism he isn't allowed to build any knights until he has upgrade all of his warriors to at least legions. Upgrades could be handled two ways. First, a player could devote resources to upgrading units (unit upgrades would have to be done with the unit in a city) and units could be upgraded for half of the resources that is cost to make them in the first place (so for a warrior that costs 10 resources to build, it would only cost 5 resources to upgrade them to legions). The second way would be for a player to just spend gold to upgrade units. This feature would add more depth to the game and would prevent what happens in every single game ... that is, players having archers and tanks and whatever all at the same time. Later in the game archers are basically useless, so it would make more sense to allow upgrading of units.


#4
Fix the enemy AI on higher difficulties so it doesn't cheat the odds (as in AI units with attack rating of 6 defeating my unit with a defense rating of 27). Either make the odds fair and adjust the AI so that it is more strategic, or if you're going to allow the AI to overcome ridiculous odds, reflect that in the game so that we can see what the odds really are. As it is right now, I'm often hesitant to send my overpowered warrior army against an underpowered enemy legion unit because it's entirely possible they might lose, even though the odds I'm seeing are 3:1 in my favor.


#5
This is small, but fighters should have the same offensive and defensive ratings. It's dumb when an enemy fighter wing attacks a city of mine where I have my own fighter wing defending, and I'm guaranteed to lose every single time. So either fix this or give us anti-aircraft (AA) guns that we can build. AA guns could have like 1 for attack rating and 1 for movement, but a high number for defense like 8 or 10.


In addition I would like to see the AI behave like a human player - in other words, no spawning units in the fog, or on ships, no more knowing whether or not I have a spy in a city, or what defenses I have in a city. Basically, fix the AI and make it more challenging on higher difficulties without resorting to blatant cheating.

DEFINITELY allow us to skip rocket-launching cutscenes. I find it hard to believe this game went through so much testing and everone was just like "wow, I've watched this spaceship part launch a thousand times and it just gets better every time". Skip it please.

[lantern48]

Keep in mind that even if a city is reduced to a single square, workers still make production and trade. The amount depends on the size of the city. It'll never grow, but if there's enough population, they could still be making gold and enough production to produce units.

Also remember that at the higher difficulty levels, the AI gets huge production & trade bonuses that human players don't get.

It's basically impossible to starve out a city in Civ Rev. You have to attack it.

How much gold can they possibly make when I'm completely strangling them and have already robbed them blind? How much production can they have, when I'm sending in spy rings every turn to disrupt production?

I even shot them down with my tanks till I got them down to a very weak unit, just to see if they were still able to keep on building armies. They did. Even after all I was doing. In a few turns, I attacked them down and they had managed to build 4 more rifleman armies.

The AI cheats. From enemies appearing out of nowhere, to spies that just appear out of thin air. Galley's that become never ending army production facilities (wish my Navy could do that) that pump out multiple armies every turn!!! The computer doesn't play by the same rules we're held to.

I really wish it had to, is all I'm saying.

[Hellogoodbye123]

i want bridges atleast......like matrix said.....just to get across the sea....

[damuffinman123q]

I think you should be able to have open borders agreements with other civs so you can travel through them without having to declare war to enter their boundaries. You should also be able to bring ships into your cities so they can stay protected until you can build a fleet or let you use well placed cities like canals so you could get from one ocean to another without having to sail around.

[lbloom]

I like the open borders agreement idea. I don't know how many times I have had to declare war to move a galley through a sea square owned by another civ and then next turn sue for peace.

[MorteEterna]

They are all good for single games I think but the 1-1 in MP games, I think they should fix those for single player at least

[MorteEterna]

I like the open borders agreement idea. I don't know how many times I have had to declare war to move a galley through a sea square owned by another civ and then next turn sue for peace.

I agree also for this, if I use greeks in single player games that's annoying, only I would see more teamer in FFA (this has happened also today to me )

[august29f73]

I like the open borders agreement idea. I don't know how many times I have had to declare war to move a galley through a sea square owned by another civ and then next turn sue for peace.

it can be annoying when someone else's influence blacks you from movement, but it is also a defense for you when you are doing things in the game as they should be

An appropriately growning city will force enimy units out of its boundaries when in peace time ... that is good! It keeps that city from mounting too big an offensive from inside your borders prior to declaring war.

More importantly, it is realistic!!! Why do you think there are both non-international and international air spaces and waters in real life? B/C as anyone with any level of political or military awareness knows, for military units to cross out of international space/sea into foreign waters without some very unusual and serious -- pre-arranged -- reason is an act of War!!

[lbloom]

it can be annoying when someone else's influence blacks you from movement, but it is also a defense for you when you are doing things in the game as they should be

An appropriately growning city will force enimy units out of its boundaries when in peace time ... that is good! It keeps that city from mounting too big an offensive from inside your borders prior to declaring war.

More importantly, it is realistic!!! Why do you think there are both non-international and international air spaces and waters in real life? B/C as anyone with any level of political or military awareness knows, for military units to cross out of international space/sea into foreign waters without some very unusual and serious -- pre-arranged -- reason is an act of War!!

You have a very good point. The only thing I would ask for is the ability in game for a menu to ask permission to cross the AI waters, not for the feature to be done away with.

[damuffinman123q]

[QUOTE=august29f73;328836]it can be annoying when someone else's influence blacks you from movement, but it is also a defense for you when you are doing things in the game as they should be

An appropriately growning city will force enimy units out of its boundaries when in peace time ... that is good! It keeps that city from mounting too big an offensive from inside your borders prior to declaring war.

More importantly, it is realistic!!! Why do you think there are both non-international and international air spaces and waters in real life? B/C as anyone with any level of political or military awareness knows, for military units to cross out of international space/sea into foreign waters without some very unusual and serious -- pre-arranged -- reason is an act of War!![/Q

I thought borders wouldn't be constantly open, it would be more like a ten turn treaty thing, so you wouldn't make the treaty with someone who might attack you

[august29f73]

[QUOTE=damuffinman123q;329162]

it can be annoying when someone else's influence blacks you from movement, but it is also a defense for you when you are doing things in the game as they should be

An appropriately growning city will force enimy units out of its boundaries when in peace time ... that is good! It keeps that city from mounting too big an offensive from inside your borders prior to declaring war.

More importantly, it is realistic!!! Why do you think there are both non-international and international air spaces and waters in real life? B/C as anyone with any level of political or military awareness knows, for military units to cross out of international space/sea into foreign waters without some very unusual and serious -- pre-arranged -- reason is an act of War!![/Q

I thought borders wouldn't be constantly open, it would be more like a ten turn treaty thing, so you wouldn't make the treaty with someone who might attack you

I mean, the only reason they made the treaty with you is to either extort something from you or buy time to rebuild their military forces ... especially in Deity

Remember, the game has something in common with the professional world: "everybody wants something, and they are doing the things they need to only because they need to do them to get what they want".

[Michelasso]

What about:

- The ability to join/host any MP game
- A fixed MP leaderboard
- A fixed GOTW leaderboard
- A fix that doesn't tell us we won when we have been the ones losing the connection
- A fix that doesn't assign the win to the other guys when we clearly won and we NOT lose the connection

I know, this is getting boring. But in this game I consider the leaderboards very important. That would help us understand if the players we are facing are people ready to drop the game as soon as they are losing or someone that will fight until the end.

[Maximus Australis]

1. Switchable AI difficulty in multi-player (King/Emporer) as a pre-game option.

2. Allow time limit changes initiated from Modern era. EG. 30 secs turns prior to Modern Age, then changes to 1 min from then on.

3. See other players win/loss/disconnect record

Sorry if this is done already I have only played unranked. I know I am veering OT a little here but in my mind disconnects should be penalised more harshly in terms of leaderboards scoring than losses. The way the computer should differentiate between the 2 is that when a player wants to leave and accept a loss they can 'Raise the white flag', leave and accept a far lesser penalty than any other form of disconnection. This will IMO will encourage fairer online play. It gives someone feeling they are in a hopeless position (or just out of time and have to leave) the option to move on in a more honorable way and punishes others that would otherwise want to manipulate the scoreboards. I know some people get discon legitimately and sorry about that (fix your router/ISP if you have to) but I suspect (as a long time XBL player) this is generally minimal compared to quitting.

[Boomastix]

- Scaled time limits for turns. Scaled time limits (possibly based on the current epoch, or total number of cities/units) would provide a reduced time limit at the beginning of a game but adequate time towards the end. Both extremes are screwed up at the moment:- annoying people taking ages at the start when all they have is a single city to manage; to the end game where planes are running out of feul and dropping out of the sky because I'm unable to cycle to them before the time limit runs out.

- Have a requirement to complete 2 victory conditions instead of 1 in order to win. This could reduce the sudden, unsatisfying endings that most games seem to have.

[BIGwooly]

Have a requirement to complete 2 victory conditions instead of 1 in order to win. This could reduce the sudden, unsatisfying endings that most games seem to have.

Wow, what a great idea. I'd never even thought of that. I like it.

[Cavan219]

i want bridges atleast......like matrix said.....just to get across the sea....

I want bridges too in the GotW India had a city that was on a one tile island so I couldn't attack it or set units on it via ship

[Bradley20]

Me too, I am tired of the AI cheating.

[Boomastix]

Bridges are pretty inappropriate and unrealistic for this game..Firstly, the bodies of water you are suggesting should be connected by these bridges are actually ocean sized. Bridges hundreds of kilometers in length don't exist in reality...

Secondly, if the game included these, how would water craft handle the new 'bridge' tile. Would they be blocked from moving though them at all? Could they move onto the same space and if so would they block or be blocked by land units? Would they then be able to directly attack or be attacked by land units?
The bridge tile would create more problems than they would solve, and ruin some of the strategy and fun in the game.

But if you really do want a 'bridge', just permanently connect your islands with a line of ships and pretend.

[BIGwooly]

Have a requirement to complete 2 victory conditions instead of 1 in order to win. This could reduce the sudden, unsatisfying endings that most games seem to have.

On second thought, this might not really work. What if someone just goes the domination route and takes all of the cities? If everyone else is pursuing 2 victory methods, it will be easier for one guy to just go domination. Great initial idea, but I think it has some issues.

[Hellogoodbye123]

Bridges are pretty inappropriate and unrealistic for this game..Firstly, the bodies of water you are suggesting should be connected by these bridges are actually ocean sized. Bridges hundreds of kilometers in length don't exist in reality...

Secondly, if the game included these, how would water craft handle the new 'bridge' tile. Would they be blocked from moving though them at all? Could they move onto the same space and if so would they block or be blocked by land units? Would they then be able to directly attack or be attacked by land units?
The bridge tile would create more problems than they would solve, and ruin some of the strategy and fun in the game.

But if you really do want a 'bridge', just permanently connect your islands with a line of ships and pretend.

.....that last line you said....was funny.....

ok i think bridges should be built like roads but can only be for 1-3 spaces away...for one space away it should be like around 70-100 gold....2 spaces 100-150 gold...and 3 spaces should be like 200 gold...and ships could go under them...so no problem their....

[VivaRevolution]

The way the computer should differentiate between the 2 is that when a player wants to leave and accept a loss they can 'Raise the white flag', leave and accept a far lesser penalty than any other form of disconnection. This will IMO will encourage fairer online play. It gives someone feeling they are in a hopeless position (or just out of time and have to leave) the option to move on in a more honorable way and punishes others that would otherwise want to manipulate the scoreboards.

I was talking to a friend of mine just the other day about this, so I agree completely with your "Raise the White Flag" idea. This would be a great option for people to "surrender" in a honorable way in ranked games.

With a game as Long as CivRev (sometimes up to 5-6 hours a game), people sometimes legitimately have to leave the game. If someone is so far behind that they can never win and it is getting late, there should be an option to "surrender" or "raise the white flag". By doing this, the player who surrenders is giving props to the other players and also leaving in a respectful way (instead of just quitting).

But first, the current leaderboard and scoring system would have to be Fixed. Then, once a viable leaderboard and ranking system is in place, an option to surrender would be a great addition. And like Maximus Australis said, the way games are scored on the leaderboard could slightly favor the "white flag" option over quitting or disconnecting.

Other Ideas:

***This is my main Request: The ablity to use cities as "canals" (like in Civ IV). In this case, a city that is built on a strip of land with water tiles on opposite sides of the city would act as a canal, joining the two bodies of water. Thus, the player that controls that city would be able to move Naval Units through the city, instead of having to sail all the way around that piece of land.

--- New Civs!!! either as a patch or DLC. It would be cool to get new leaders with new bonuses maybe once or twice a year.

--- Also, I used to love the "Paratroopers" from Civ IV. There's nothing like declaring war and suprising the **** out of your opponent by dropping five vet paratroopers just outside his biggest city. Don't know how it would work with Balance of play and whether one civ or all civs should have them, but I think they could be a fun addition as a Late Game Unit (after Modern Infantry and Flight).

[badken]

Yeah, I'm kind of surprised there's no "surrender" option for multiplayer games.

[Angus Mac Barca]

What about Civil Wars with appearising new sub-civs called "[adjective of civ] Rebels" ? So we could have a max of 10 Civs : 5 normal and 5 Rebels, the Rebels could have different diplomacy set than their mother civs...

Example : Civ A at War with Rebel A, Civ B at peace with Rebel B, Civ A at war with Rebel B and peace to Civ B, what do you think ?

You can add a new factor "Power of Ruler", At 100 % no problem, at 75 % little risk, at 50 % average risk, 25 % high risk, 10 % and less : automatic lose city to your Rebel version of your Civ...

For implement this i suggest that all city wonders-stationed units-buildings produce it... At different degree depending from chosen Government Type, apart from Fundamentalism where risk of rebelling cities wont exist.....
Depend difficulty level too....

[damuffinman123q]

For implement this i suggest that all city wonders-stationed units-buildings produce it... At different degree depending from chosen Government Type, apart from Fundamentalism where risk of rebelling cities wont exist.....
Depend difficulty level too....

Why Fundamentalism? I think democracy would probably be least, with Despotism being highest. This might overpower Democracy more though...

[Angus Mac Barca]

For compensate the fact that Fundamentalism is a low science government...