Civilization 6: Ideas

[Megalomano]

take out 1Upt but make stacks less usefull:in my opinion the 1upt system doesn't work.the human player has much more advantage than the ai because the ai doesn't know how to use units well.i have found that one easy way to defeat civ V in a war is just to wait in your cities and kill all their units and then counter attack.so please bring back stacking but fix it a bit.big armies should be slow but powerfull while smaller stacks are faster and better at irregular terrain(the bigger the stack is,less defensive bonus it gets from forests).in the stacks the powerfull units will move while hit & run units are more effective separated(more abour that latter)

Some people suggest using a supply mechanism to control stacks of doom and allow multiple units to occupy the same space without abuse.

If movement costs food and tiles give a limited amount of food you can archieve that. For example if one of your units is in a desert it would run out of food faster (also in a snowy place), if there are two or more units in the same place they would get out of supplies faster. Technologies, social policies and special units (scouts) would improve this.

I like your ideas on ranged units and early stealth units. It would be cool to have a unit capable of hiding in the forests.

 

[MerchantCo]

Civilization V is an excellent game, but there are a few features that I don't like.

Actually, it took me a long time to realize what these features were, but when I finally put a finger to it, I couldn't help but imagine the potential of the next Civilization installment. Since the release of Brave New World, I've done a lot of thinking. I have thought of ideas that would revolutionize the Civilization franchise, and give each game a completely different flavor from the next. Here are my ideas:

1. Make each map a sphere formed by hexagons.

I can't take credit for this idea. This was the brainchild of someone else on CivFanatics, but I can't remember his username. He realized that if hexagons were connected in a certain way, the result would be an almost perfect sphere. Civ6 could have spherical, 3-D maps instead of flat ones. The player could simply zoom, drag, and release to find a desired location on the map. Just like Google Earth! This feature would make the next Civ game even more realistic and immersive.

2. Separate Civilizations into Groups

What irks me about the Civ franchise is that each civilization is almost exactly the same as the rest. Civilizations have only two unique buildings, units, or improvements, and one unique ability. Considering that there are hundreds of different buildings, units, and improvements in the game, the slight differences in each civilization amount to almost nothing. What Civ6 needs is to give a reason to the player to play every civilization in the game at least once. Why would I want to play a nine-hour game just to try out a new civilization that's so similar to the rest? Same units, same improvements, same tech tree, same everything, except for some relatively small alterations. You know why Civ5 has 40+ civilizations? Because the developers spammed civilizations but didn't make them interesting enough (Venice as the only exception).

Coming from a Civ fan, that sounded rather hateful. I also know it won't be received well on a site dedicated to diehard Civ fans, but I digress. This is a simple problem, and simple problems have simple solutions. Civilizations should differ much more than they do right now, and I know a perfect way to keep them different. Each civilization should belong to a class.

Each class would afford a completely different style of gameplay. Not just gameplay - different tech trees, different units, different strategies, different buildings, different improvements, and different wonders. Civilizations would be separated according to their class, and civilizations from the same class would receive a small diplomatic bonus. Each class would have it's own style of play. Behold, the classes and the civilizations that belong to them:

ORIENTAL:

China
Japan
Korea
Siam
India

Focused on technology and culture. Certain technologies such as Gunpowder, Compass, and Writing would be available relatively soon (in comparison to tech trees of other classes). Weaknesses: exploration, defense, and piety.

MIDDLE-EASTERN:

The Ottoman Empire
Arabia
Egypt
Babylon
Persia

Focused on piety and commerce. Certain technologies such as Currency, Guilds, Theology and Economics would be available relatively soon and give better yields. Weaknesses: exploration, happiness, and technology.

You get the gist of it. Other classes could be African, Aboriginal, European, and Mediterranean. Unfortunately, many of the things in this system could be interpreted as racist or offensive. Steering clear of potentially offensive "statements" would be difficult (ie: Middle-Eastern civs have happiness issues). Tis unfortunate indeed...

Sheez, I guess I'm done with this post. Please, go ahead and pop a complaint or suggestion in the comments section. Thanks for reading.

-MC

 

[Silverman6083]

Well civ is about creating your own history in my games I want to see the Mongol Navy obliterate the English Navy! So I hate the idea of having that much difference because of the real world. You want different gameplay then play the game differently! There are a lot of people complaining about repetitive gameplay who don't make an effort to try new playstyles, recently I played a game solely on Honor, Commerce, Autocracy, & like 2 into Tradition, with my religion being war focused. I've never really played like that before & I had a blast! People shouldn't have new gameplay opportunities shoved down their throats in my opionin.

 

[MerchantCo]

There could be two different modes, one for a more random approach and one with civilization classes. Even with classes, the games would be crazy. The Carthaginians would still conquer the Romans, the British would still have the weakest navy, and the Vikings would still try to conquer the Babylonians. The essence of the Civ franchise would still be there. Honestly, the only thing civilization classes would change is variety. Instead of playing with one tech tree, one certain set of units, buildings, etc, you could play with several.

BTW: I'm constantly trying out new things. Yesterday I played as Germany, deleted my settler, and amassed a barbarian army. I tried to conquer the Ottoman capital but I was defeated. Ha, that was awesome.

 

[Browd]

Moderator Action: Moved to Ideas & Suggestions.

 

[Pouakai]

While the idea sounds great on paper, when you try to develop a game like civ it becomes nigh-on impossible. Think of how many things in-game need icons at the moment. Around 75 buildings, 130 units, 30 Social Policies and 100 Techs. 305 icons, approximately speaking. And that's just the icons for one group - doesn't include models, unit skins, quotes and so on. Imagine if you were giving unique stuff to 7-8 groups. You'd end up having the game take exponentially longer to make, as well as making it even harder to balance.

Civ 5 has the most variation between civilizations in the history of the franchise - now there are tiers, with unique improvements, two unique units and all that sort of thing. I would say for Civ 6 we'd definitely get more variation again, but the scale on which you're suggesting would be way too difficult to make.

 

[Silverman6083]

BTW: I'm constantly trying out new things. Yesterday I played as Germany, deleted my settler, and amassed a barbarian army. I tried to conquer the Ottoman capital but I was defeated. Ha, that was awesome.

God the barbarian Germany games are always fun & challenging ^-^
Although here are some ideas:
Spherical Worlds
Tectonically Generated Worlds

Tech Tree Split-Offs:
Steampunk
Electric(Regular Tech Tree)
Aquatic

Random Events:
Natural:
Hurricanes, Tornadoes, Tectonic Plate Shift, Volcanic Eruption, Solar Flare, Ice Ages, Eclipses
Improvement: Mine Collapses, Farm Bankruptcies, Trade Post Sacking, Road Raids
World: Religious Uprisings, Religious Reformation, Ideological movements(like the Arab Spring), Random Nation Formations, Technological Revolutions throughout the World etc

 

[otaman1]

- Building upgrade (wooden walls upgrade to stone walls but requires stone)
- Transportable resource (can use a caravan or cargo ship to transport a resource from one city to the next)
- Drop-in real-time battles (like Total War)
- Naval units can go on rivers and can also be shipped to another port (kind of like the GA)
- More Ideologies (not just Autocracy, Democracy, and Communism)
- More Religions (Jainism, Anglicanism, Lutheranism etc)
- Coalitions (like NATO, the Entente and Central Powers, Arab League, Warsaw Pact etc)

 

[Carlos77]

- Greater variety, absolutely, but as other people pointed out, OP's suggestion is way too ambitious, this would be insanely difficult to balance. But mainly please balance out the UAs, some of them are way more useful than others (Spain, Germany or Netherlands are extremely weak in this respect).

- Changes in warfare. Go back to stacking units but not the stacks of doom, good riddance to those, but why not allow limited stacking? Three units max? Or even stricter - three units max but only different types, in effect creating "combined arms" situation, like in Victoria 2. One unit of swordsmen, one of knights and a catapult - a small army detachment, with additional bonuses/penalties. Or in modern era - infantry, tanks and AA gun. And yeah, change the air combat. Artillery shouldn't be able to defend against a bomber, neither should a city without an appropriate instalation (AA Battery).

- Find a way to utilize resources that become useless in later part of the game. Horses can become a luxury resource from the Modern Era on, Iron shouldn't become obsolete at all, it's an essential commodity even today. Also, add more strategic resources, there are very few of those compared to luxuries.

- AI requires some work, we all know that. Also moar diplomacy please. Make it easier to be friends with Civs, allow trading techs, modifiers shouldn't be permanent (Napoleon hating my guts in 1850 because I broke a promise in 1500 BC?).

- Liked other suggestions - spherical map (yes!), upgradable buildings, transportable resources, natural events, much more interesting Natural Wonders, a bit more worthwhile Religion bonuses, random events (positive and negative)

 

[Carlos77]

Oh and pleeeaaze go back to those fantastic, awesome movies from Civ2. What a great reward for completing wonders! I missed them so much in the sequels. I still remember the movies for the Eiffel Tower, Shakespeare Theatre, Cure for Cancer, Hoover Dam or Apollo Program and I haven't played the game for 10 years.

The art for wonders in Civ3 was a sad, depressing joke and in Cv4 it was so drab and unispiring. In Civ5 the pictures are great but they're just still pictures. And I wouldn't mind more imaginative tech art either.

Also the victory screens - what an underwhelming reward for winning the game )

Oh yeah, and bring back the city screens from Civ1!

I know some people will snort contemptuously at those "cosmetic" features but if you remove all art and media from a strategy game then all you have left is a dry spreadsheet number crunching. That's partially what's preventing for example Endless Space to gain more popularity IMO.

 

[Arcaian]

@Carlos77, just picking on an individual point here.

It shouldn't be 'easier' to be friends with civs. As it is now, early game you tend to make DoFs quite easily, and you can keep a friend for most of the game, but in the long run they're not trying to be realistic; they're trying to win. If backstabbing you or hating you or going against your proposal helps them win, they should still do it. Trading techs should really come back, love the mod that adds it in.

 

[cpm4001]

Civ 6 desperately needs a Casus Belli system a la EUIV. My suggestion to implement this would entail:
1) When you declare war, you get a popup asking what the war goal is. This could be anything from taking a nearby city to recapturing a city you previously owned to conquering cities that follow a different religion (which would be an opportunity to implement the Crusades system.)
2) The AI warmonger "fear" would scale a bit better. So, if you capture a city you set as a wargoal, you get basically no warmongering penalty at all. If you capture a small city "en route" to the one you set as your wargoal, you get a small warmongering penalty. It then scales from there; the more cities you capture that aren't the wargoal the more concerned the AIs get about your warmongering. The exception would be capitals; those get you a warmongering penalty no matter if you set that as your wargoal or not (and the more capitals you've captured previously the greater that penalty would be.)
3) Certain civs could have UAs that allow for different casus belli. Taking some examples from Civ V, Venice could have a "trade monopoly" CB that would allow them to conquer rich cities or cities that are in some way interfering with Venice's trade routes (trade routes also desperately need a rethink), the Mongols could have a "World Conquest" CB that would reduce the warmonger penalty from capturing non-wargoal cities, and certain European powers (Spain, perhaps?) would be able to attack cities on other landmasses without a CB, to represent colonial conquest efforts.

 

[Browd]

Why should you get no warmonger penalty for taking one city just because you declared that to be your war goal? If the war goal is to recapture a city previously taken, or to liberate a CS or another AI city, OK. If it is to exact retribution for a breached promise (stop spying, stop proselytizing, go to war in 10 turns, etc.) or a backstab, perhaps. A "just war" should get lower penalties, but an "every DOW gets one city free of warmonger penalties" would be a hollow mechanic, IMO.

There also needs to be a mechanic for articulated war goals in defensive wars. Much of the irritation with warmonger penalties comes from folks who got DOWed and then exterminated the aggressor ("I was DOWed, so I destroyed his army, puppeted his capital and razed all of his other cities, and now everyone hates me."), but they should not get a free pass either.

I do think that a "crusader" CB vs. infidels should result in reduced warmonger penalties with civs that have adopted the same religion and increased warmonger penalties in the eyes of infidels. An alternative would be to limit that CB to followers of the World Religion -- every follower of the World Religion has a CB against every infidel, which would add some spice to World Congress voting on World Religion resolutions.

 

[Carlos77]

As for the aforementioned ideas about diplomacy and casus belli - that would mean a bump in complexity and a shift towards a Paradox-type grand strategy game. And although I wouldn't mind such a development I really doubt Firaxis will go this way. Everything they did in the past 15 years points to "streamlining" and "simplifying".

I almost fear the next Civ will be RTS.

 

[cpm4001]

As for the aforementioned ideas about diplomacy and casus belli - that would mean a bump in complexity and a shift towards a Paradox-type grand strategy game. And although I wouldn't mind such a development I really doubt Firaxis will go this way. Everything they did in the past 15 years points to "streamlining" and "simplifying".

I almost fear the next Civ will be RTS.

I also hope the next Civ is not RTS, but thankfully I doubt Firaxis would pull THAT stunt. The Civ franchise is so "ingrained" as a turn-based game that I don't believe they'd try to change it to an RTS.
What I was trying to do with my suggestion about Casus Belli was to provide a way to make it more "understandable" as to why war was declared, which in turn would alter how other Civs view the said war and make for more interesting diplomacy. However, coming back to it after reading the comments made by you and Browd, I can see that that it would need some extreme alteration to actually work (this may explain why I'm not employed by Firaxis...)
I definitely do like what Browd suggested above, that there should be a greatly reduced warmongering penalty for capturing cities from Civs that declare war on you.

 

[Carlos77]

I definitely do like what Browd suggested above, that there should be a greatly reduced warmongering penalty for capturing cities from Civs that declare war on you.

Yes, absolutely. After all it's not like the Americans were seen as a warmongering menace to the world when they captured half the Europe during WW2.

 

[Browd]

Well, to put it in CiV terms, liberating European cities went over a bit better (with both liberated civs and neighbor civs) than taking and keeping them would have, even though Germany did DOW the US.

 

[otaman1]

You should be able to plunder trade routes without DOW kind of like what Germany did to the US during WWI & II

 

[cpm4001]

You should be able to plunder trade routes without DOW kind of like what Germany did to the US during WWI & II

I'd say that only Privateers and Submarines should be able to pillage trade routes scot-free, as they both represent types of ships that, in real life, were able to do this. However, even then there should be a risk of getting "caught" and having war declared upon you, just to keep it somewhat balanced.

 

[Guandao]

What kind of benefits would an Amerindian class give? Would they lack a bunch of techs until contact with European civs? Would they suffer epidemics and loss of population?