A lot of you are way off....add back feature x, add feature x in the first place....
I never played the original civ, so I can't comment there but...
civ III adds resources (ie luxury resources and strategic resources) and culture
Civ IV adds religion
Civ V adds 1UPT
Each new civ adds a new concept, while expansions either add back old concepts (religion add back) or just more stuff (units etc)
You really need a new concept to sort of be the centerpiece of your proposal for civ VI. So far I think I've only read getting rid of hexes and adding co-ordinates....which doesn't appeal to me at all...
Look, I'd like to see the game become more dynamic, so it's practically impossible to run away with the game, so that those civs that have been left behind are never out of it. And now, like everyone else I'll make a list...although it could all probably be done in an expansion
- Proper trade routes, that involve trade caravans and merchant ships going across the map (that you cannot control).
- Raiding of these trade routes (kill caravan gain gold).
- Rather than the city say getting +5 gold from trade route, the hexes along the trade route get the bonus (so, +1 gold on all hexes on the trade route, to all players)
- Add stacking back, but make anti-stack units (a lot) more powerful. Say, a catapult that gains +50% combat for every +1 unit stacked on that tile, and range attacks. This would massively discourage stacking.
- Ability to negotiate land with other civs
Create the ability to ambush an army. And proper raiding (sending only a few hundred men to harass the enemy's supply lines).
forming armys Civ Rev Style 1upt is just flawed in so many ways
Overhaul Trade with Other Players
I want to see the way you trade with other players overhauled.
The way I think trade should work is to have a stock market where on one side you have sellers and on the other hand you have buyers. Players put buy/sell orders of resources/gold per turn/technologies/units(?) and when there is a match, a deal is automatically made.
Trade to some players (you do not like) may be blocked or you may ask for extra tarrifs.
I see three big advantages to implementing a stock market versus the current approach:
1. Realistic prices that evolve with market conditions: Players will bid against each other when their economies become stronger for luxury resources versus the fixed lump sum you now always get from AI players. Also technologies will become cheaper when the number of sellers increases and the number of buyers decrease (I think research agreements are a bad idea and instead technologies should be traded. You can trade with more people and have better conditions for deals if you are not at war.)
2. Having a stock market is much simpler than having to check with every single player individually to see which one offers the best conditions. Also with a stock market, the 2 trading partners agree on the trade on a different time, which is especially useful in multiplayer, where the approach that both players need to have the trade window open at the same time to conduct a trade is very annoying.
3. Related to being simpler, it is also less time consuming to conduct trade by placing orders. You have no search costs to make deals, you just place the orders and when the conditions arise, the deals form automatically.
As a side not to Civilization V, I think it makes no sense that a crossbowman upgrades to rifleman and that thus the specialisations (as indirect fire, range +1) become useless. Instead, I would upgrade a crossbowman to a sniper that also has a ranged attack.
I would like it as and continues development from the CIV4 BtS... Returning to the essentials of the CIV fransise and forget all about CIV 5, as it pretty much have nothing to do with the original franshise.
Originally Posted by PRAILE
Yeah, "more civs" I disagree with, mainly because it arises from an unfair comparison.
Every iteration of Civilization from 1 onward has had about the same number of civs at launch, and has then added to that number via expansions.
Civ5 is not an exception to this.
Just going back as far as references are easily found:
... Play the World: 8
... Conquests: 8
>>>>> TOTAL: 32
... Warlords: 6
... Beyond the Sword: 10
>>>>> TOTAL: 34
... Individual DLC: 6
... Gods and Kings: 9
>>>>> TOTAL SO FAR: 33
So, civ5 already has more[ civilizations than Civ3, and only one less than Civ4. Plus whatever other small DLC come out. Plus, possibly, a second Expansion. Civilization 5 is almost guaranteed to have more civilizations than any prior incarnation of the series.
So would people please stop whining about "more civs, more civs, more civs" ... please?!? /facepalm^3
What do you mean "Civs are almost equal?"
Originally Posted by PRAILE
I assume that means "mroe balanced", Pacha.
Aren't they already, for the most part, balanced? Each one has its own specific play style that is unique to them.
Originally Posted by _Pax_
Actually, Civ V has 34, equal to BTS. There were 7 DLC's (including Mongolia)
Originally Posted by _Pax_
AHA ... but as I understand it, Spain is both a DLC, and one of the 9 civs in G&K. Not wanting to count the same single civ twice, I had to pick which category to put Spain in. Given the hoopla about "the 9th civ", I decided to count Spain in with G&K, keeping that entry at 9.
Originally Posted by istry555
So, no ... Civ5 will only have 33 civs when G&K breaks.
Nope. 34. Spain is the 10th civ of G+Ks.
DLC: Inca (1), Korea (2), Denmark (3), Polynesia (4), Mongolia (5), Babylon (6).
G+Ks: Spain (7), Sweden (8), Austria (9), Ethiopia (10), Netherlands (11), Huns (12), Maya (13), Carthage (14), Celts (15), Byzantium (16).
Likely, I'd say, CiV will have 2 more DLCs.
Originally Posted by _Pax_
Originally Posted by Shiav
Originally Posted by _Pax_
I am very keen on 4 ideas, a more dynamic world, in-depth corporations and random events and my (really unrealistic) dream of an in depth UN, currently it seems to me like it has been just one of those things which hasthe opportunity to be great but is just being used terribly, my (again unrealistic) idea is that when you or someone builds the UN that the diplomacy screen changes to a recreaction of a boardroom in the UN with all the leaders playing sitting around the table, you could click on them to talk to them alone ....
2. Declarations of Friendship
3. Threats etc.
Or you could annouce it to everyone...
1. Declarations of War
2. Proposals of Trade Embargos etc
Of course they would really have to rework the diplomacy system and add in a heap of new options but it would be really cool!
A guy can dream.....
What I would like to see is a more robust diplomatic capability in the game. While its been commented over and over that CIV 5 has achieved a kind of balance, I feel that the extremely limited and very narrow capabilities of the diplomacy dialogues (what you can say or contact the other characters about) is extremely and narrowly limited. Diplomacy is not just about trading natural resources or forming some kind of loose alliance for a duration. Diplomacy is about forging long-term relationships. The diplomatic function in CIV 5 is primitive. It is narrow. It is constricted and confined. And I find the level of beligerance from the characters infantile. I am not flamming here - I am just being honest and forthright. The programmers of this game apparently lack interest in the "ART" of diplomacy, in forging alliances, and in dealing with real conflict. Civilization is wonderfully developed in most other areas but really hurts in the diplomacy area. War should not be the ultimate outcome of just about every transaction between parties. If I wanted to play shoot-'em-up, I would get one of the shooter games. War should be "diplomacy by OTHER means," in other words, it should only happen when all other means have failed (and then some). I am giving this feedback as an older adult, not as a teenager. Also, I find the capriciousness of the characters to be unfruitful in developing long term strategic alliances. If you think diplomacy is simply about trickery and guile, I think you have it wrong. Diplomacy is often portrayed as being nothing but enhanced trickery and bluff - but just take note of REAL WORLD relationships, long term ones, like that between the US and Britain...while we maintain soveriegnty, we have a strong mutual working relationship going back for over 100 years. I don't think country relationships should always be based on neutrality or fundamental hostility.
Second - I find the blatant ability to use nuclear weapons as appauling! In the real world, we know who has them and we have a damned good idea about who is sneaking around and trying to develop them (like Iran, for example). In this game, you don't know what the opponents have and that creates a dangerous scenario - getting blown away without ever knowing you were in mortal danger. In the real world, there are intelligence services and diplomatic feedback which has, since WWII, lead to a DETERRANCE nature. This means, that everyone knows who has these weapons and everyone understands what happens to the world if they get used. Just deterrance alone has been sufficient in the real world for preventing nuclear war. How can we know when an opponent possesses the ability to masacre us no matter how strong our conventional forces? I was nuked on more than one occassion by a computer opponent and found it appaling. You don't have to take it out of the game, just create some common sense, that's all.
To me, the entire screen, every inch of it, is high cost real estate. So I find polar caps a waste of precious space and would rather have just land and water. In fact, there should be a lot more choice when it comes to player options. We should have a lot more say about how a world looks or functions and what the build ratio of land to water is. If we want a world with 80% land and 20% oceans, we should be able to have it. If we want a water world, we should be able to have it. That goes for all the other geographical features as well.
I think, instead of the emphasis being WAR (because that is what I seem to be forced to concentrate on - preparing for invasion and war)...too little of my time is spent in the game on CONSTRUCTIVE issues, like how well developed my cities are. We need to have a lot more positive interaction with our cities, and we need to see and experience the benefits of those populations as they gain technology. But most of all, I dislike the fact we can run out of new technologies to build on - once we get to Future Tech, what else is there? Mankind has gained much more technology area than what this game provides. Is it just a matter of trying to keep the code small? I suggest you provide double the number of technologies and even if we ever get to Future Tech, we need to KNOW what that means...what are we gaining with Future Tech? How is that impacting our society and that of others?
Last, CIV 6 should have vastly improved diplomatic and communications capabilities with city states. Basically, all you can do now with them is bribe them with gold or gifted items...that isn't much to go on. Real City States like the Vatican, for example, play an important role in the world and exert considerable influence everywhere. But in CIV 5, city states are more like a second thought - next to useless. If you want to bribe them with gold and gifts, go for it! But if you want to do anything else, forget it! If the programmers cannot come up with a more intelligently designed city state relationship, why not just take the entire idea out of the game?
Thread TLDR: Maybe this has been noted, but as far as I am concerned, most of the suggestions here belong in a Civ V patch/expansion.
Personally I would like to see the return of:
* Advanced Start
* Fall From Heaven mod
The Civilization series is incomparable in its depth, vision and ambition. I love it, a wonderful achievement in gaming. However I think the following tweaks could make huge improvements to gameplay:
1) When the location of resources are generated also generate a quantity of the resource at that location
2) Have a simple market mechanism for resource trading based on supply&demand/negotation
3) Have more fanfare when you wipe a Civilisation of the face of the Earth
4) Replace workers in the later game, handing over work to corporations or a 'civil service' dependent on the capitalist-socialist inclination of the leader
For me the game loses its excitement when every civlization has access to every resource and trades 1xwheat for 1xuranium etc. So much of global politics, economics, diplomacy, warfare, strategy, quality of life etc is about access to scarce resources and the quantity available. Imagine the depth, variation and involvement of a game where resources are genuinely scarce and have to be fought/negotiated for. Small Civs strike oil, and larger nations compete for their favour, with the global economic balance at stake. One nation has the technology for nukes, but another has all the uranium etc. How exciting??!! Such a simple tweak, but so many imaginable game scenarios through the ages that it would keep players coming back time-after-time as something new happens every game.
The the handover of work to 'directed' civil service or 'free-market', coupled with a capitalist/socialist element could add extra excitement and intreague with alliances etc. It would also remove the tedium and slow down late in the game from moving score of workers around.
Finally, wiping a rival civilzation of the face of the Earth is not easy - its a major achievement. You want to sit back and revel in the glory of your achievement after all that hard work. Some nice scenes, animations, celebrations etc and a 'feel good factor' after such an achievement would be lovely. Then back to business with renewed enthusiasm!!
Anyway - keep up the good work. Really hope there is a CIV VI and would love to see some of these ideas incorporated, either in CIV VI or a mod.
Here's a new one.
Release the DLL. <--- Best idea yet
"What's a broken promise? Well theirs hope.."
sooooo, any news on civ6 coming out soon? lol
time to troll.
UU: T800, replace giant death robot, kill anything in one blow, time travel to anywhere on map on next turn.
UA: Debt clock, all city, unit , land maintenance would be added to the debt instead of deduct from gold.
debt have interest rate of 5% per turn.
- X vp at the end of game, where X = the order of magnitude of the debt.
UB: Hollywood, replace museum, +5 gold/turn instead of +5 culture/turn.
wow, finally my civilization will be added! fund it!
Originally Posted by Antony_Lee
I want a COMPLETELY customizable civilization, better diplomacy, more relevance in the social policies part of the game, and better trade.
1.) The ability to make a custom leader, a kick butt flag, and realistic ua, uu, and ub would be awesome. The only problem would be users who make their Unique Unit some gigantic Giant Death Robotesque unit with a ridiculous movement, power, and a quick production time a replacement for a warrior so that they win a domination in the first 10 turns.
2.) Diplomacy needs to be expanded so that everything isn't such a public affair. I don't want Empire X to know I'm trading for iron to build units when they are "Guarded" which clearly signals that I'm preparing for war. I also would like friendship to be meaningful and for "backstabbing" to not be as prominent. I also like LOTS of other ideas people have had on diplomacy.
3.) I think that social policies should be changed so that they lead to governments like democracy, communism, republic, etc. Each government gives distinct bonuses and generates happiness(Democracy) and unhappiness(Dictatorship). New governments could be unlocked with technology, because I don't remember hearing about communism in bronze age Greece. You would be allowed to change goverment at any time but would have to convert money to culture to go through that government's policy tract.
4.) I love the idea of trade caravans being automatically sent to a chosen city, but not as a physical unit. This could be similar to the new espionage system only with caravans and no risk of ruining your relations with an empire.
Last edited by JibberSkin; 06-15-2012 at 07:31 AM.
1.) Diplomacy with a lot of options and that feels real and makes sense. (and that works in LAN games!)
2.) Bigger differences between civs.
3.) Less focus on war and more focus on actually building and customizing a civilization.
How about an ancient Israel?
Ancient Israelite Civilization
Leader: King David
UU: Maccabean Soldier(Replaces Warrior)- 2x attack and defense in your Empire
UB: Synagogue(Replaces Temple)- +5 culture and +5 faith
UA: Gihon Spring- Plus 10% defense and growth in all cities
Last edited by JibberSkin; 06-15-2012 at 03:14 PM.
I'd like to see good multi-threading to take advantage of multicore CPUs as well as functional multiplayer, not multiplayer has a partially-finished afterthought. I miss my Civ4 coop games with my friends.
There is a formula? Pray do tell...I could use it to pown my friend in multiplayer. Would be fun.
Warning: Wall of Text incoming. I've put a lot of thought into this. Also, historical examples will tend to come from a Western standpoint, don't judge me.
Something I've been thinking of recently would be a drastic change to the series, but one that makes great sense if you think about it.
At the beginning of the game, the entire map is already peopled. "Settlers" as a unit are removed entirely. Every six or so spaces would be an independent city. Rather than having large civilizations and small city-states (a distinction I've always found incredibly arbitrary, especially as some given city states like Venice have had empires spanning many cities), there are several ethnicities in the game, for example "French", "Italian", "Greek", etc. These cities are free to unite or destroy each other at will, but different groups in the same ethnicity will forgive more easily, and more often unite in the face of external threat than groups from different ethnicities. For example, Athens and Sparta, two cities falling under the Greek ethnicity, might squabble for a long time, but when the Achaemenid empire starts pushing over other cities in the Greek ethnicity, even ones neither Athens nor Sparta /really/ care about, they might unite, along with other members of the ethnicity, to halt the Achaemenid advance. Notice that "Achaemenid" is a political - not an ethnic - title, meaning it is an empire formed by many cities in many ethnicities who united, either through diplomatic or through military means.
In this system, each city would have a governor selected from a base of the most influential leaders of that ethnicity, for example a given French city might be lead by Louis XIV, Napoleon Bonaparte, Jeanne d'Arc, Charles de Gaulle, or any of a number of other important French people. In the Ancient and Classical Eras, cities would always retain sovereignty, but if they were captured, the governor would be replaced with another selected randomly, this time with a /massive/ diplomatic boost with its captor, much more willing to give tribute or join in a war with the victorious city. In this way, making a "puppet" state actually makes sense, unlike in ciV. However, this boost is diminished every time its captor demands something, therefor if it is oppressed for too long, eventually it will break away and stop acquiescing to demands, perhaps going so far as to declare war. Another option at this time would be some kind of "ethnic cleansing", though not always in the horrible, genocide way. For example, when Rome was first expanding, whenever it would take a city, it would send half of its population back to Rome, replacing them with Roman citizens. Using this as a mechanic could mean that the ethnicity in that city just switches to the ethnicity of its conqueror. This would, of course, come with an incredibly large hit to diplomacy with other members of that ethnicity.
Starting in the Medieval Age, a city can have another city pledge fealty to it, which is much more like annexing in a city in the current state. This can be done, however, through purely diplomatic means. For example, agreeing to declare war against an enemy they cannot possibly defeat alone, in exchange for keeping their city. Cities are much more likely to do this with a like ethnicity if they are risking being captured by a different one. If another governor pledges fealty to you, you can then direct their troops, building projects, etc. Their city is your city. You done run some amount of risk, however, in that if you mistreat cities that have pledged fealty to you, for example by adopting policies that strengthen your capital at the expense of your other cities, there is a statistic that gauges that city's desire to be revolt against you, again modified by ethnicity. Other problems, such as an economic downturn, will effect this as well. In this way, if you have a large empire like Rome, economic failure combined with cities on the outskirts being taken by foreign invaders will eventually cause the whole thing to fall apart, dividing along ethnic lines first.
During the Renaissance, you can start Uniting various cities within an ethnicity. This isn't complicated, you just hit up another city in your ethnicity and say "hey bro, want to unite" and they say sure. United cities are very hard to break apart, and are essentially permanent, mutual annexations. Of course, the player continues as the ruler rather than the AI. Unifications between AIs would leave the stronger AI as leader. Diplomacy with that alliance is done entirely with the leader of all cities. Historical examples of this include the Holy Roman Empire and the unification of Italy.
This would make the game function in a much more realistic way, as historical events are given a new vocabulary to be discussed in terms of this game. For example, when British conquers land on another continent, they banish the residing American Indian ethnicity and governors and replace them with an English ethnicity and, say, Winthrop, Washington, or other leaders of the sort. These start as decidedly pro-English, however, when England starts adopting Mercantilistic policies, which increase wealth in London at the expense of the colonies, combined with the economic struggles of the time resulting from the Seven Years' War with France, several of the American colonies revolt, leaving the British political unity, then form their own American political unity. However, in the future, America and England will get along quite well, relatively speaking, because they come from a shared ethnicity. That, combined with their similar policy choices in the Industrial Era, will give them a diplomatic boost, and then make them more probable to jointly attack the different ethnicity and different policies of Germany when it attacks France, who also has similar policies.
See, it makes sense! Right? ... Right...? Ok, I'll just see myself out, then.
The game is almost perfect as it is but for me i do awesome on emperor but have not beat immortal yet, maybe put more difficulty levels and tell exactly what bonuses the ai does get.
To be quite honest, that is a marvelous idea. I love it, I truly do. However, this would be better for a type of scenario. Perhaps even a game of its own Fraxis can sell to those damned X-Box/Playstation players and never make a sequal.
Originally Posted by TheEarthSheep
Might I add, I want to see the Smoky Mountains in the game. 3 Tiles composed of mountains with trees and smoke around them. Each one giving +3 gold and +1 culture. The Smokies are one of Amurica's most beloved landmarks, and generate millions of dollars per year.
the following i believe would be a nice idea, if possible:
1. Happeiness levels affected by winning / losing wars (number of units killed versus lost could be one indicator). happiness resets when peace is signed. this could simulate war weariness and have happiness bonuses for example like the japanese invasion of Korea to keep samurai and population busy.
2. The additioin of factions that you can form and support (money or troops) just like city states. would be genius. factions could be terrorist groups, rebel groups, peacekeeping missions. where depending on their status, your influence with them would dictate their actions (capture city, kill units, raze improvements). this would greatly add value and simulate proxy wars.
3. Most wars are about territory but not cities. workers should be given the ability to "claim land" neutral or other players. this can be like a base "tile improvement" that would allow workers to claim land if it is connected to one of your own tiles. this automatically declares war if it belons to other player. this might need some sort of hexagon catalogging system, i believe an alphanumerical system can be used. (A10, ZT89 etc)
4. Timeframes for Open borders and etc should be editable. i mean a certain amount of resources and money per turn can be worth peace for a 100 years or 10 years. I would assume this is difficult considering making the AI understand the value of time as well.
5. there should be no-aggression pacts that bind you from declaring war for a certain amount of turns. i play random personalities to keep things spicy and this would greatly help avoiding sneak attacks. as when the player does it, the negative political implications are for 1000s years compared to the normality of the AI doing it. this can be tied to ambtions the AI have of land.
6. Increase the AI tolerance for "war-mongering" the way i see it, a couple of war declarations and we are it. but the AI would have limits of 3-4 war declarations.
7. Make UN decisions available and binding by the threat of war from all those who voted with the vote. decisions could be to halt support for factions / city states. return cities / land etc. also make politics affected by contradicting voting. as in i dont like you coz you did not support my vote.
this is it for now. i will update if there is anything more.
but if i may say, i freakin love CIV, all of them and thank you all for your hard work!
Also the vassal and capitulation mechanics were a good idea. where defeating a warmongering neighboor did not require a complete wipeout.
Last edited by nkhater85; 07-15-2012 at 04:52 AM.
I'd like to see a future Civilization where population flow is more dynamic and partly out of the player's control. Sure, you should be able to found cities, but your population should also be able to spontaneously do so on their own as well. In addition, I'd like to see something like the satellite communities that we had in the past, where a city (region really) can spin off or spawn outlying communities that settle on or near attractive sites and/or resources...perhaps spontaneously, without player control.
My reasoning is that as emperors, even we are not all-powerful when it comes to dictating the spread and style of how and where our empire evolves. In wartime, sure, we can send out armies, conquer new territories and annex them, but our population in peacetime is doing something like that too. That is why I miss the old Civ IV style of cultural border expansion well beyond the cities...it represented, in part, the spread of national influence beyond your major population centers. So both of these forms of expansion should be in the next game: cultural border expansion and population spread/settlement beyond just founding of new city after new city.
I also want to see spread of national/cultural infuence in the game again. The culture percentages that would be on the tiles in CivIV and city flipping. If a bordering civilization has weak culture and yours is stronger, you should be able to take advantage of that. Chip away bit by bit of their territory.
Originally Posted by gunnergoz
Are you serious? Why do you keep copy/pasting the same paragraph to each thread?
Originally Posted by DrJohn123
looool. Dr.John spreading lithuania epidemic
Originally Posted by Vlynor
1) Upon discovering a tech that unlocks a base unit type you then have the option of using the base "balanced" unit or to create custom units. For example, upon being able to build battleships the default ship has an attack power of 50, a movement of 5, and a production cost of 1000. I may decide it would be in my interest to build a super battleship, so I customize a class of battleship that has an attack power of 80, a movement of 6, and the production cost would be 1900. Also, upon researching fission I can decide if I want my ships to be powered with oil, coal, or uranium and have different benefits/penalties depending on what I select. This also means that if I'm a nation that doesn't have much for oil I can create slower moving coal powered tanks; or I could use elephants or cows instead of horses for early troops.
2) All resources should be dynamically finite (for example animal herds might migrate), have some geographic isolation, and usable for multiple purposes (there should also be many more types [buffelo for example]). Certain buildings/wonders allow you to store up to a certain amount of a particular resource, but you can only harvest so much per turn.
Going to our modern era, a country may be domestically short on oil (using 50 units per turn but only producing 30 per turn and is importing 25 units per turn). This country currently has 5000 units stored. Suddenly they find themselves at war or embargoed by the country they are importing from. Now they have to make some choices; do they want to cut back on their domestic use of oil (cars use oil but generate gold) to save for the military, or keep the economy going and try to secure oil elsewhere and/or switch to another resource type.
3) Military supply chains (note that some of this depends on 2). It needs to become more expensive/difficult to fight a war in far away lands. Tanks need access to oil, soilders need food, archers need new arrows, etc. If the enemy is able to sneak in behind you and pillage your roads your troops should suffer for it. Likewise, you should be able to siege a city by surrounding it and cutting off it's supplys (a desperate starving city might capitulate without it's host empire's consent). Enemy trade supplys should also be capturable. I agree with other posters that the "civilian" nature of it should happen automatically though (i.e. caravans/trucks/trade ships that just do their own thing but are still visible).
4) Inter-city cooperation. Cities should be able to trade resources with other cities. New York may be building the Statue of Liberty, but Philidelphia and Washington can send some of their production over. Like wise food rich cities can send food to larger production cities. Also allows a civilization to fall if they get punched right in the bread basket.
a) Improved diplomacy - Someone mentioned a "forum format" for talks with multiple leaders. I very much like that idea. I would also like to see a return of "tone" like CTP had. Let the leaders know if you were happily giving them a gift or angerly giving them tribute. Let them know if you are cooperatively trading cities or making a military demand.
b) Future techs - Extend Civ into the future era; let's have ocean and spaced based cities.
c) Visible trade routes - a good mechanic needs to be implimented for trade routes and trade disruptions; and trade disruptions should have a major effect on a country and their ability to make war (see ideas 1, 2, and 3).
d) Army stacks - While I like the 1 UPT mechanic I liked another idea I read about producing individual units and stacking them together into an army. So I could have a stack of troups that has 1000 swords men, 500 archers, and 200 horsemen against an army of 400 spearmen, 2 catapults, 300 archers, and 100 warriors.
How does this sound?
Deep sea research centre, a later era building that allows ocean tiles to produce 1 science each.
There was also an idea for snow tiles to produce science, but that might be good for a UI.
Neither of these ideas are mine, I just like them. Credit for the first goes to one of my friends in real life, and credit to the second goes to the member Hellogoodbye123.