What is your single most important request for Civ 6?

I just want the devs to realise they should not make me into an accountant when I play the game. If any diplomacy-response I make will be seen as being an 'agreement', or a 'promise', or an 'undertaking', or a 'commitment', then that needs to be clearly shown in the response tooltips, and it needs to be shown with turns-remaining along with all the other diplomatic agreements. I shouldn't have to write the turn # down (once I figure out from sufficient playthroughs that response 'X' is actually a diplomatic treaty) I make a diplo-response on in order to be able to know when the effect of the diplo-response will wear off.

And, um, seperate all such 'agreements' from all others, and from naturally-occuring game-effects over which I have no control, such as automatic plot 'buying' from culture expansion.

I don't mind if the game-mechanic where you never really know how Leader-X feels about you or what She/He intends toward you is retained, but you should (from an entirely user-interface point-of-view) always be able to know whether you have any form of 'treaty'¹ active, and for how long the treaty will remain in effect.


¹regardless of nomenclature legerdermain -- if it walks like a duck, etc.....

LeeS said:

I just want the devs to realise they should not make me into an accountant when I play the game. If any diplomacy-response I make will be seen as being an 'agreement', or a 'promise', or an 'undertaking', or a 'commitment', then that needs to be clearly shown in the response tooltips, and it needs to be shown with turns-remaining along with all the other diplomatic agreements. I shouldn't have to write the turn # down (once I figure out from sufficient playthroughs that response 'X' is actually a diplomatic treaty) I make a diplo-response on in order to be able to know when the effect of the diplo-response will wear off.

And, um, seperate all such 'agreements' from all others, and from naturally-occuring game-effects over which I have no control, such as automatic plot 'buying' from culture expansion.

I don't mind if the game-mechanic where you never really know how Leader-X feels about you or what She/He intends toward you is retained, but you should (from an entirely user-interface point-of-view) always be able to know whether you have any form of 'treaty'¹ active, and for how long the treaty will remain in effect.


¹regardless of nomenclature legerdermain -- if it walks like a duck, etc.....

Click to expand...

You can get this from the diplomacy screen. It says when deals run out.

Should add:

Civ 3, Civ 4, CivRev, Civ 5 and CivBE had many differences. I'd be happy if Civ6 took the best bits from all of them, and only tried to make incremental improvements.

UPT - require compromise. I like Armies only - like in Civ3 you generated a leader that could create an army.

Culture - I like the Civ BE system - with horizontal bonuses. And it being efficient to dip into a tree and not necessarily finish it. On CivBE it's an interesting choice. On Civ5 its just Tradition--> Rationalism every peaceful game).

Multiplayer - I think they should do as DLC because:

a) they always mess it up at first, ruining it forever
b) people should get a few months playing first
c) it can be free DLC (or included free with pre-orders).

Units - I think ranged was a very good idea, but they were OP. If balanced it would be OK. I'd also like a range = 3 unit track (less strength to be balanced).

Playtesting - they should get exploit playtesters, to make sure there is balance. The Firaxis guys are not great players. MadDjinn is, but isn't an exploit player. Example: even I (mediocre Diety player) could see on Civ BE that Artists were originally OP. Firaxis should have figured it out before releasing.

Science - In CivBE you can trade for Science. In Civ 3, you could buy/ sell techs and demand in peace agreements. I like this for Civ6.

Tall v Wide: Civ5 got the balance wrong. In every realistic situation, an extra city (all else being equal) is better. So I don't like Tech/ Culture/ Global Happiness penalties. I'm OK with some form of "Corruption" from Civ3. And I'd prefer Global Happiness. The penalty for local unhappiness could be a) revolt b) people leave to a nearby city (owned by another Civ) c) something else.

CivRev: I like the different bonuses in different eras.

But if it's just one thing to change; it's the Tall v Wide Balance. 4 cities should not be optimal.

I think incremental progress leads to a better game. Civ5 did very, very well in terms of sales, I don't think it's in their interest to move to far away.

LeeS said:

I just want the devs to realise they should not make me into an accountant when I play the game. If any diplomacy-response I make will be seen as being an 'agreement', or a 'promise', or an 'undertaking', or a 'commitment', then that needs to be clearly shown in the response tooltips, and it needs to be shown with turns-remaining along with all the other diplomatic agreements. I shouldn't have to write the turn # down (once I figure out from sufficient playthroughs that response 'X' is actually a diplomatic treaty) I make a diplo-response on in order to be able to know when the effect of the diplo-response will wear off.

And, um, seperate all such 'agreements' from all others, and from naturally-occuring game-effects over which I have no control, such as automatic plot 'buying' from culture expansion.

I don't mind if the game-mechanic where you never really know how Leader-X feels about you or what She/He intends toward you is retained, but you should (from an entirely user-interface point-of-view) always be able to know whether you have any form of 'treaty'¹ active, and for how long the treaty will remain in effect.


¹regardless of nomenclature legerdermain -- if it walks like a duck, etc.....

Click to expand...

All the information you seek is available in Civ 5 and the mod community has even organized it more readily at the requests of the community (infoaddict and EUI). Perhaps a more community friendly ui could be developed from the start by the firaxis dev team but all the info is already there.

Sent from my SM-N920V using Tapatalk

MIS said:

You can get this from the diplomacy screen. It says when deals run out.

Click to expand...

blitzkrieg1980 said:

All the information you seek is available in Civ 5 and the mod community has even organized it more readily at the requests of the community (infoaddict and EUI). Perhaps a more community friendly ui could be developed from the start by the firaxis dev team but all the info is already there.

Sent from my SM-N920V using Tapatalk

Click to expand...

Exactly where are the 'Just Passing Through, I won't attack you', 'I won't settle near you anymore', and 'I won't buy plots near you anymore' displayed, as you contend? I'm not aware of them ever showing up on the standard diplomacy menus for how much longer this 'agreement' lasts, or even that there is such an 'agreement' showing anywhere in the current deals and treaties.

LeeS said:

Exactly where are the 'Just Passing Through, I won't attack you', 'I won't settle near you anymore', and 'I won't buy plots near you anymore' displayed, as you contend? I'm not aware of them ever showing up on the standard diplomacy menus for how much longer this 'agreement' lasts, or even that there is such an 'agreement' showing anywhere in the current deals and treaties.

Click to expand...

You know what, you have a good point. If someone knows where this is displayed, please let me know, too. I actually had a war declared on me in a recent game because I thought my "I won't settle near you anymore" deal ran out but it was still in effect.

Sent from my SM-N920V using Tapatalk

a printed manual in the size and written in the style of the Civ1 manual

some people will most likely disagree with me on this, but I have got to say the one unit per tile thing has just got to go. It makes things far to bulky and awkward to move around, there is a such a thing as a game being too realistic, i want to stack a whole crapload of guys and move them all at once because it's easier on my mind and stack my army in the middle of my territory where I can easily locate and deploy it if need be. Bottom line, whether you think it's more realistic or not, I think the added hassle makes the game almost intolerable.

My most important request: Put in some sort of stability or revolution mechanism that make big multinational empires inherently unstable (like in RevMod or RFC) and enable the founding of new civs within the game possible or alternately later starts for civs (possibly from Barbarians or City states).
This is my single continous annoyment within the Civ series, as much as I love it: After a certain crucial empire size there's no more serious empediment that barrs you from winning. Anyone more advanced than you? Crush them with the forces of your bigger empire. Lacking happiness ressources? Get them from weaker neighbours.
I always loved how there was the continous possibility of your empire breaking up in RFC and Revolutions in CIV4. LoR incorporated and expanded this feature.
Gedemon tried to devise a similar mechanism in a Civ5mod but unfortunately it never really worked out and I think he quit. Rhye once wrote that he considered the possibilities of migrating RFC to Civ5 but then abandoned it.

- Put the focus in imitate history and historic dynamics instead of board games
- Put the focus on the single player experience and the AI rather than on competitive online gaming
- Put the focus in the beta testing process and theoretical game design & balance rather than on shiny new graphic engines

Also, some short of anti-snowball mechanic is in order. I think that we can all agree that the happiness system just didn't cut it.

MP is very low on the list of priorities as far as I can tell... Civ5 MP is not at all to be taken seriously.

Decent AI.

I think with the current state of hardware and AI development, it's impossible to create genuinely good or great AI for so complex games, but I just wanna decent AI. Slightly better than Civ5 BNW final edition and definitely much better than the catastrophe of Civ5 release (when AI was basically dead and rotting)

I don't need AI doing God knows how advanced maneuvers, I just want it to
a) Be active, expansive and agressive participant of the world (declaring wars, joining alliances, participating in trade, diplomacy, victories, capable of using all game's features etc - I absolutely hate passive AI in strategy games, just waiting to be conquered)
b) Be capable of waging land, air and naval warfare: naval invasions, land capturing cities, amassing big armies, capable of endangering human player (it doesn't need napoleonic tactics but I wanna feel pressure and danger)
c) Develop its empires properly, rich in economy, science and culture (this is the smallest problem as BNW's AI already does it quite okay)

A multiplayer that isn't utterly ignored. Civ 4 multiplayer once was an incredibly well organized portion of the game and groups like civ4players used to keep massive detailed leaderboards. Civ 5 multi had so many bugs, lack of focus by developers, etc. even though it should have been a great game for multiplayer. Outside of small dedicated groups like Civilization No Quitters that kept a competitive multiplayer scene going, Civ 5 multiplayer largely died due to a lack of attention/unaddressed issues.

I don't have any aspirations that Civ 6's multiplayer will reach the heights of Civ 4's multiplayer (back when it was a massive scene and with proper nurturing could have grown into an actual competitive scene with civ 5, which it didn't due to a lack of focus) - but at the least I hope there isn't an absolute neglect. I hope the devs listen to the players, particularly people who stuck around and kept civ 5 multiplayer going despite all of its issues.

Steam link of the no quitters chat: http://steamcommunity.com/gid/103582791435127848 [It has around 6,600 members who at one point at least dabbled in competitive civ. Nowadays there may only be around 30-50 people trying to play "competitive civ 5"]

I've never really been interested in multi for civ. It just seems like the game would always evolve into domination game. After all, if someone is going to try space, as soon as Apollo program is finished, wouldn't everyone declare on that player? Same for culture and Diplo, right? I like domination sometimes and a human would obviously be a better challenge than the AI but I could only see myself in multi for 1 out of every 10 games. Because I like not knowing the victory I'm going for when I start the game.

I've always been curious... Is that how multiplayer Civ games go?

Well there are (or I should say were) 2 main styles of "competitive" multi, 2v2 and 3v3 games and free for all games. Are you familiar with competitive age of empires 2 (A game that has a massive tourney scene with thousands of dollars in prizes, at one point its multiplayer scene was smaller than the civ 3 and civ 4 multiplayer scene, but that stayed alive because of minimal maintenance on the part of developers)? Basically 2v2 and 3v3 functioned in a similar way, players would slingshot resources/production/research to other players in order to focus techs/buildings or certain unique units over time - it was a lot of fun and quite the experience back in its day with civ 3 and civ 4. [This was a mostly combat focused mode]

In Civ 5 free for alls were a quite fun (and at the start showed potential for its own niche in the competitive landscape, unfortunately due to the developers never fixing massive stability issues multi declined incredibly quickly). Free for all games were a balance of power, negotiating with players and a tense battle for resources, map space, etc. FFAs were always 6-8 player affairs (stability issues never allowed multiplayer organizers to have larger games because of the many multiplayer bugs) - and while there was a lot of combat, games were often still won via science [Culture victories were impossible though].

Because I'm a linguistics geek, my biggest request would be more accurate leader languages. Moctezuma should be speaking Classical Nahuatl not Modern. Ramesses (or Hatshepsut) should speak Coptic, since Ancient Egyptian is difficult to fully reconstruct, rather than Egyptian Arabic. Boudicca should speak Britonic, not Welsh. And so forth. If Elizabeth is the leader of England again, she should speak Elizabethan English. A few Shakespeare quotes would not be unwelcome...

On a similar vein, I hope leader screens are at least as majestic and detailed as they were in Civ5. It was always pleasant meeting a new civilization and admiring their leader screen.

On a less superficial note, just generally more advanced and intricate diplomacy would be welcome, and I believe such has already been implied.

Working Multiplayer Mod and Scenario support. My god 6 years and we stilld on't have that in Civ 5.

Stable game that doesn't end up lagging my game when switching players in hotseat, makes Civ 5 unplayable.

I would like to see unlimited stacking of non-military units, in the manner of the No More Civilian Traffic Jams mod for Civ5.

Highplane or flat mountains, natural defensive spots of immense startegic value. Entire civs as the Tibetan and Inca, but also Hyttites, built their cities on mountains top. So tiles should get improved vertically, two hill types, and two or threee mountain type, much more mountain ranges in maps, but only one mountain type should work as a barrier, othe two types of mountains type, should allow road *tunnel building. Same for coastlines, one more level that can surface in little ice age periods and connect islands to continents, and coastal improvements could stabilize the borders, Netherland is built on such terrain below sea level for example. or this could work more as a strategic feature and not allow city building, because sea level variation could occour in one turn. As random events.

Second in order of importance is less city border spread and more cities strategic importance, no min. distance, possibility to steal territory based on higher culture, as city conversion, no more unhappiness for city razing. gold. Smaller cities should work as specific border expansion buildings, replacing current buying of new tiles, and should refine into border forts, not requiring to produce any science at all, nor giving penalties to empire science or culture needed for new policies, one way could be to build them as vassalized cityforts, but later it could be possible to integrate them as proper cities if needed, and viceversa.

-Keep happines, health, discrete to single cities.
-Revolt possible to shut down production and destroy buildings.
-Less health and happiness penalties overall on different difficulties level.
-faster settler and worker building, much faster.
-Bring back government type.
-Bring back technology trading.
-Bring back Great library bonus of civ III to get all known techs from two major civs.
-Bigger empires should face lesser productivity and bigger corruption for further cities, but
science culture and economic should behave accordingly to gov policies, not arbitrarily equalized
-possibility to vassalize your cities in your empire that unease your governance, that could also revolt and form new city states.
-Ninja and assassins as early spies needs special gov. and religious buildings. Civ rev and Civ IV spies are interesting units.
-Tibet as a civ
-Defensive and attack religious and gov. special buildings-wonders units that spawn units.
-No cost mantainance for roads for all civs.
-war weariness