Civilization 6: Ideas

[Thormodr]

Please, please, please, please, please remove 1 unit per tile. Frankly, it just doesn't work in a Civilization game. In Panzer General, yes but in Civilization, no.
It destroys the game pacing since you have to adjust build times and tile yields to accommodate it. Plus, the AI is incapable of using it. It is much easier for the AI to use stacks effectively. Above all else, get rid of one unit per tile. It's an absolute must.

As for other things, first of all, make Civ VI 64 bit. Not only will the game be stunning but it will be infinitely more moddable. So many possibilities will be open.

Global Happiness should also be removed. It makes zero sense thematically and it is a cumbersome system overall.

Keep the variety of Civilizations. Venice, Indonesia, Assyria, etc. are very interesting. This was very well done.

City States are an excellent addition to the franchise and offer so many intriguing possibilities.

Religion and Trade were done pretty well, as well. Definite keepers with perhaps a few minor tweaks.

Keep the strategic view. It helps people with poor eyesight and can allow the game to be played on slightly less powerful computers.

Social policies are fine as well as the tech tree. These were done well.

Bring back random events but make them optional to play with if some people don't like the randomness. It adds to the flavour and helps with immersion for many, however.

Anyway, looking forward to Civ VI.

 

[DarkestOnion]

Thormodr, I am surprised that much of what you wish for Civ 6 is a reversion to Civ 4 and earlier titles in the franchise. Wouldn't you just be happier continuing to play Civ 4?

 

[Ryoga]

I would be very excited if civ VI had geodesic maps. After changing from squares to hexes, this is the natural next step. A quite ambitious goal, but it would be awesome.

I'd like for diplomacy to be better refined and less irrational. I liked the fact that in Alpha Centauri for any demand the AI made to you you could ask them to give you the same thing (or make the same promise) before agreeing. It really grates on my nerves that they can settle 3 squares away from my cities as if they did nothing wrong, but they get angry if i settle 6 square away from their borders.
Diplomacy in civ V seems very one sided.

I would also like a better visual rendition of what I do. The art of civ V is cool and all, but buildings should be more than simple icons on the city view.

Civ V is also very limited on terrain modifications. One of the awesome things of Civ games is seeing how much the world transforms from pure wilderness into urbanized areas and farms. I'd like to have more options to change the world. Planting forests, building tunnels and canals, creating artificial islands, constructing monumental bridges, or even robbing pieces of land from the sea (as the dutch did).

It would also be pretty cool if you could switch from day view and night view, especially when you get to later eras when you can judge how much a place is economically and industrially advanced simply by looking at how much is covered by lights.

As for the rest I really really really love how the combat system has changed in civ V, 1upt and hexes have added a whole new layer of complexity to combat.
However there are wide margin of improvement. Some units are decidedly disadvantaged and some others are completely disregarded by the AI, which makes some units (copters) completely pointless to build from the player side.
Also it is probably better if war is handled as a special system where the players involved alternate between each unit move. When you have nukes and 30 units, you can completely destroy an enemy before he can even do a thing.

 

[Thormodr]

Thormodr, I am surprised that much of what you wish for Civ 6 is a reversion to Civ 4 and earlier titles in the franchise. Wouldn't you just be happier continuing to play Civ 4?

It's not a reversion. That seems to imply that they are regressing by getting rid of 1UPT and global happiness. In fact, they would be getting rid of ideas that frankly don't work well at all.

The AI is utterly incapable of using 1UPT correctly, anyway. It is much, much, much easier to have a competent AI use stacks.

Hopefully Firaxis will really listen to their fans like they did for cIV and come out with another classic in Civ VI.

 

[werothegreat]

From watching MadDjinn's BE let's plays, it seems the AI has gotten a LOT more competent with 1UPT. They really just needed to put some effort into it and see what worked. I'm glad they're continuing in that direction and not bringing back doomstacks, which would be terrible.

 

[Thormodr]

From watching MadDjinn's BE let's plays, it seems the AI has gotten a LOT more competent with 1UPT. They really just needed to put some effort into it and see what worked. I'm glad they're continuing in that direction and not bringing back doomstacks, which would be terrible.

Doomstacks are bad, I agree. Intellegent Limited stacks are good, though.

In combating doomstacks, they went way too far and adopted 1UPT which had far reaching effects on the entire game and destroyed the pacing and quite frankly the fun.

I am hoping that Firaxis will be creative in Civ VI and find a happy medium.

By the way, if you want to see how 1UPT ruins the game, this article here explains it quite well. I do hope that Firaxis read it and took it to heart. Obviously it was too late to change things for Civilization 5 but not too late for Civ VI.

Here is a snippet as well as the link:

1) One Unit Per Tile: Yes, the largest change in Civilization 5 is ultimately its largest design flaw. This will be a controversial point, as I know a lot of people really enjoy the new combat system, but it has to be said: the One Unit Per Tile restriction is the core problem with Civ5's design. Everything is based around this restriction. Everything. It determines how city production works, it determines the pace of research, it explains why tile yields are so low. Civilization was completely rewritten from the ground up to make use of the One Unit Per Tile limit on gameplay.

http://www.garath.net/Sullla/Civ5/whatwentwrong.html

 

[Jayman1000]

May I suggest that Civ VI will be made HIGHLY moddable? As in contrast to Civ V which is not very moddable (which I believe is linked to the 1UPT system problem). And how about an in game working world builder like in Civ IV (however with expanded customizations and optimized)? As in contrast to Civ V's cumbersome external worldbuilder.

 

[Sorinth]

Doomstacks are bad, I agree. Intellegent Limited stacks are good, though.

In combating doomstacks, they went way too far and adopted 1UPT which had far reaching effects on the entire game and destroyed the pacing and quite frankly the fun.

I am hoping that Firaxis will be creative in Civ VI and find a happy medium.

By the way, if you want to see how 1UPT ruins the game, this article here explains it quite well. I do hope that Firaxis read it and took it to heart. Obviously it was too late to change things for Civilization 5 but not too late for Civ VI.

Here is a snippet as well as the link:



http://www.garath.net/Sullla/Civ5/whatwentwrong.html

Except it's not 1UPT that ruins the game. If the AI was competent at using ranged or ranged units became complementary units rather then primary ones then 1UPT would be fine.

The article attributes way to many things to 1UPT. Just one example is that 1UPT isn't the reason it takes X turns to build a library, the claim that is that it's because the lower production yields but this isn't true because regardless of what production yields the cost of the building is then set based on the expected production.

I think the main criticism is pacing (Both the article and yours), Civ 5 has a much slower pace, but this doesn't have anything to do with 1UPT, you could have a fast-paced 1UPT game if you wanted. The slower pace is mostly because they tried to balance Tall empires.

Allowing stacks gives the defender the edge in combat since the counter unit will be the one always defending. So you put a spear in your stack and now mounted units can't do much against that stack. Whereas with 1UPT that spear can't protect your other units with that one spear unless the terrain favours it.

Having limited stacks means one or two meatshield and the rest ranged. That just makes ranged even more powerful since they can't even be damaged until the meatshields die (And they will probably be fortified and healing every turn).

 

[tetley]

Finisher bonuses for completing an entire Ideology tree. Or a Tier 4 tenet. Or both.

 

[Thormodr]

Except it's not 1UPT that ruins the game. If the AI was competent at using ranged or ranged units became complementary units rather then primary ones then 1UPT would be fine.

The article attributes way to many things to 1UPT. Just one example is that 1UPT isn't the reason it takes X turns to build a library, the claim that is that it's because the lower production yields but this isn't true because regardless of what production yields the cost of the building is then set based on the expected production.

I think the main criticism is pacing (Both the article and yours), Civ 5 has a much slower pace, but this doesn't have anything to do with 1UPT, you could have a fast-paced 1UPT game if you wanted. The slower pace is mostly because they tried to balance Tall empires.

Allowing stacks gives the defender the edge in combat since the counter unit will be the one always defending. So you put a spear in your stack and now mounted units can't do much against that stack. Whereas with 1UPT that spear can't protect your other units with that one spear unless the terrain favours it.

Having limited stacks means one or two meatshield and the rest ranged. That just makes ranged even more powerful since they can't even be damaged until the meatshields die (And they will probably be fortified and healing every turn).

Well, yes, you could have a fast paced 1UPT game but it would just bog down into carpets of doom which no one wants. It seems the developers realized that but it was too late to deviate from 1UPT. So they kept pounding that square peg into the round hole. I think Sullla's observations are pretty well spot on and has accurately diagnosed the unmitigated disaster that is 1UPT. Obviously you don't agree but I'll side with Sullla on this one.

I do hope that Firaxis has the creativity and vision to do away with the failed experiment that was 1UPT. It works for Panzer General because the map supports it but it has no place in a Civilization game, IMHO. Then we all can have a Civ VI game that will truly stand the test of time.

 

[Sorinth]

Well, yes, you could have a fast paced 1UPT game but it would just bog down into carpets of doom which no one wants. It seems the developers realized that but it was too late to deviate from 1UPT. So they kept pounding that square peg into the round hole. I think Sullla's observations are pretty well spot on and has accurately diagnosed the unmitigated disaster that is 1UPT. Obviously you don't agree but I'll side with Sullla on this one.

I do hope that Firaxis has the creativity and vision to do away with the failed experiment that was 1UPT. It works for Panzer General because the map supports it but it has no place in a Civilization game, IMHO. Then we all can have a Civ VI game that will truly stand the test of time.

In previous Civs you had to expand constantly, because if you ever stopped expanding for a prolonged period of time you wouldn't be able to catch the runaway. So there was always something for you to do, you were either rushing to get settlers and claim land, or finding targets to attack so you could take their land.

In the Civ 5 on the other hand once you expand to 3-6 cities you stop, so there's no longer that pressure/rush to expand. That's why the pace is slow, after 100 turns or so you sit back and put the game on auto-pilot. The fact that the game is also so peaceful only adds to that, and it's peaceful because you don't need to expand.

This isn't 1UPT it's the way they balanced wide vs tall. If stacks were allowed and everything else stayed the same the game would still have a very slow pace. Sulla wrongly attributes all those rules as a consequence of 1UPT when it's in fact wide vs tall. By making tall competitive with wide they removed the need for constant expansion and let you sit back that's what causes the slower pace.

 

[Thormodr]

In previous Civs you had to expand constantly, because if you ever stopped expanding for a prolonged period of time you wouldn't be able to catch the runaway. So there was always something for you to do, you were either rushing to get settlers and claim land, or finding targets to attack so you could take their land.

In the Civ 5 on the other hand once you expand to 3-6 cities you stop, so there's no longer that pressure/rush to expand. That's why the pace is slow, after 100 turns or so you sit back and put the game on auto-pilot. The fact that the game is also so peaceful only adds to that, and it's peaceful because you don't need to expand.

This isn't 1UPT it's the way they balanced wide vs tall. If stacks were allowed and everything else stayed the same the game would still have a very slow pace. Sulla wrongly attributes all those rules as a consequence of 1UPT when it's in fact wide vs tall. By making tall competitive with wide they removed the need for constant expansion and let you sit back that's what causes the slower pace.

Agree to disagree, then.

I do hope that the designers of Civ VI disagree with you as well.

 

[Playsoneasy]

A city should continue to retain its previous culture even when captured by another civ. Perhaps a city could then be "settled" by its new owner to increase the number of people of the new owner's culture, at the expense of an increased revolt risk/decreased happiness within the city. Also, why not give units culture as well, so for example if a unit is raised in a city with culture x it will continue to have that culture, and if a settler built in a city that was captured and still retains its old owner's culture a newly founded city will still have the old culture. So for example, if Paris was captured by the English Paris would still be mostly French, and a settler built in that city - even though controlled by England - would continue to be French culturally and thus any city founded by that settler would have French culture.

Units should also have religion, and if a city is captured by a unit of religion x that should increase the numbers of people following that religion as long as the city continues to be controlled by its new conqueror.

It shouldn't be possible to own a city outright by simply capturing it; for the course of a war you can control a city and occupy it, but outright ownership can only be confirmed at a peace treaty, and only then will you be able to levy taxes, construct buildings, and raise units from it.

Bring back sliders, individual city happiness with happy vs unhappy citizens, and government types.

It should be possible to tax individual commodities/resources, to raise revenue, or maybe cut them to increase production and even reduce revolt risk in cities near where a resource is heavily produced, so in an area where iron is common nearby cities could get an increased production from a reduced tax on iron, or an increased revolt risk but also increased revenue if tax is increased.

Just a few ideas off the top of my head; feel free to ignore at will!

 

[Naokaukodem]

Agree to disagree, then.

I do hope that the designers of Civ VI disagree with you as well.

I pretty agree with him, the production cost of units is not that skyrocking, it's just that you have less incentive to build them. Last game I gave up pretty early because I was bored to have nothing to build, and science or gold iddles were not available yet.

I think that science and gold builds should be consequent according to the era we are in, or at least be available since the start. Would make for more "strategical decisions".

 

[Naokaukodem]

A city should continue to retain its previous culture even when captured by another civ.

I'm all for more cultural relevant games. I liked Civ2 cultural links of citizens and assimilation, unfortunately the lack of relevance (aka this was barely used for anything) made its disappeance like nothing.

Perhaps a city could then be "settled" by its new owner to increase the number of people of the new owner's culture, at the expense of an increased revolt risk/decreased happiness within the city.

You could add settlers to any existing city in Civ2, and it has this effect with no drawbacks. don't remember the impact it should have had though, I don't think it was doing anything beside changing slightly the cultural appartenance of citizens as expected.

In the same vein, you should be able to deport citizens, being a mixed fashion of genocide. In Civ5 you can raze cities, but as long as nothing is specified about the real population, we could as well assume that it migrates elsewhere, in city-states, other cities, other civs or simply become barbarians or... well, nothing. If you raze cities (at the cost of higher diplo hits) there should be some variable casualties and the other population migrates or found camps (if you do nothing). If you have plans, then maybe you can kill them (at the cost of higher diplo hits), or deport them.

But all this is tied to migrations. A system of migration could be interesting and fun as long as we find gameplay justifications to this system. Civ2 failed to find citizens culture owning system gameplay justifications, and you and I fail to see such gameplay justification for culture beside just "it would be cool". I don't think Firaxis should allow things that are not usefull, that would be confusing for newcomers and well, just useless for others.

Also, why not give units culture as well, so for example if a unit is raised in a city with culture x it will continue to have that culture, and if a settler built in a city that was captured and still retains its old owner's culture a newly founded city will still have the old culture. So for example, if Paris was captured by the English Paris would still be mostly French, and a settler built in that city - even though controlled by England - would continue to be French culturally and thus any city founded by that settler would have French culture.

Agreed, culture should live by itself, but I fail to see how we could simulate such a thing. Mongols were assimilated after conquering China, why ? How to translate it in term of system ? How and why keep its own culture ? Does this determine civilizations borders ? (gameplay wise i dislike city flipping, too difficulty level dependent like in Civ4)

Units should also have religion, and if a city is captured by a unit of religion x that should increase the numbers of people following that religion as long as the city continues to be controlled by its new conqueror.

Reastically, I don't see why a city conquered by muslim troops should become more muslim if the owner is catholic.

It shouldn't be possible to own a city outright by simply capturing it; for the course of a war you can control a city and occupy it, but outright ownership can only be confirmed at a peace treaty, and only then will you be able to levy taxes, construct buildings, and raise units from it.

Brute force makes people pay chiefs. Disorder consecutive to conquests are already represented in Civ5.

Bring back sliders, individual city happiness with happy vs unhappy citizens, and government types.

I'm not too fond either of global happiness but I think another system should be found in order to allow both "tall" and "wide" as they say. As to governments, they usually were broken in the sense that few of them were really interesting, it was more the lesser problematic of them than a strategic choice, same for Civ4 civics, simply because there is no hundred ways to win a game of Civ. To say all, they are, as well as social policies, totally superfluous. Are they fun ? Sps no (as well as civics), but I admit government changes were contributing to a "wow effect".

It should be possible to tax individual commodities/resources, to raise revenue, or maybe cut them to increase production and even reduce revolt risk in cities near where a resource is heavily produced, so in an area where iron is common nearby cities could get an increased production from a reduced tax on iron, or an increased revolt risk but also increased revenue if tax is increased.

Revolutions are not simple concepts beside words. Civ2 had revolutions occuring between government types changes, but it was for the sake of it, it sounded "fun" and appropriate and basta. True revolutions like in France (XXVIIIth) rised because of the improved liberty of previous times. It's up to the ruler soul to give those liberties, and totally up to it to temper the taxes. It's only a question of good/bad, conscience, being a good or a bad ruler for example. In Civ, the player would tax its people at the maximum, and if it's realistic nothing would happen to it. Revolutions can succeed if they are consulted or debated, which can't happen if the ruler is ultimately wise. Because thought and opinion are uncontrollable. It's mostly made of garbage. (see French revolution, a total insanity)

 

[Thormodr]

I pretty agree with him, the production cost of units is not that skyrocking, it's just that you have less incentive to build them. Last game I gave up pretty early because I was bored to have nothing to build, and science or gold iddles were not available yet.

I think that science and gold builds should be consequent according to the era we are in, or at least be available since the start. Would make for more "strategical decisions".

Things certainly seemed to be out of whack. The pacing was not good at all.

In all fairness, the ancient era wasn't too bad. It's when things got to the medieval period and beyond that things seemed to get really, really boring.

 

[Thormodr]

The random events in cIV were awesome. Really added to the game and the immersion.

I'd love to see random events for Civ VI. Make them optional, though, since not everyone likes them.

 

[Thormodr]

Reastically, I don't see why a city conquered by muslim troops should become more muslim if the owner is catholic.

The historical record supports it?

 

[Greatest Ally]

some of my thoughts:

"claiming land" (a bit unsure if this could work out or be pointless)
you might mark tiles that nobody owns as tiles you believe belong to your civ, and when someone is controlling a settler unit, they can see other civs claimed land. as a mechanic to warn others that if they settle these tiles, your hostility will increase towards them, and you might go to war. AI respect this depending on stuff like your friendship, military strenght, the amount of claimed tiles you have (the more you take the less they care) and how close the tiles are to your borders

controlled border growth:
whenever a city's border grow, you choose which tile it takes. when choosing tile, you can also see other players claimed land. can only choose within 3 tile radius, can also be put on automatic.

civilians:
no civilian units except settler and worker. tiles dont give any yield at all unless improved, which is done simply by assigning a citizen to it for a number of turns. workers only build roads, canals, forts and railroads. (I just really dislike having civilian units cluttering up the map).

economy
I'd like to see some kind of different, more complex system of economics. so that you don't earn gold from tiles any more, but in some other way. perhaps have a taxation system which affects both your income and happiness, idk

unit stacking
unit stacking has to be in. I'm gonna say I never played civ4 and don't know the big deal around SoD, but the combat in ciV is such a mess. like when both me and the AI has 10-15 units packed together in some relatively small part of the map at the beginning of a war: it is completely impossible to move units around. strategic positioning goes out the window and all that remains is spamming attacks all you can until the AI can't reinforce anymore. I'd say something like 5-6 military units can go in one tile. units of the same type and mobility can also merge to one, so that all the units in this merged superunit move as one and attack as one (merely making your army much simpler to control, and not affecting combat in any other way, units can dismerge at any time)

strategic resources
I think the game would be much more fun if resources would be distributed differently. rather than being spread around rather randomly, I'd like them to be spread more uniform over the map. each resource contains only 1 quantity, rather than 2, 4, 6 or so on. In ciV I never ever go to war because I lack strategic resources, but I'd like this to be more common.

combat:
rather than strength and ranged strength, have attack and defense. get rid of all promotions that considerably improve an unit: no more range, mobility, logistics, march upgrades. units outside friendly territory cannot normally heal. however, you can use airplanes to airdrop supplies to units, allowing them to heal if they don't perform other actions. also, units standing on road/railroad connected to one of your cities can heal.

allowing land trade in diplomacy

unit cost:
I'm really unsure about this, but have units take away 1 population when produced, and cost food to maintain... would work in with a new economy system. the only type of unit you can buy with money should be a mercenary, which functions like a normal infantry unit except if costs gold rather than food to maintain

canals
if a land tile has ocean on two non-adjacent sides, workers can build a canal through. takes a long time to build, and has high maintenance (other civs may pay you to use your canals)

settling cities and outposts/colonies
when you settle a city, it doesn't start with full health but with 1/3 health. and buying defense buildings shouldn't be possible. when building a fort outside friendly territory, that fort also becomes an outpost/colony, which adds the surrounding tiles to your territory. you can then get these resources without having a city there (this idea needs some work for sure)

specialized infantry:
late game infantry can be promoted to marine/paratrooper (this is not a promotion earned through combat but gained in some other way), so that these are no longer separate units (because there's no need for some many units with little difference between them)

 

[Thormodr]

Some really good ideas there.

Totally agree with you on unit stacking. 1UPT made everything a mess.

Canals are something I've wished for since the original Civ. That and tunnels through mountains. Let it be so in Civ VI.