Civilization VII Wishlist

[Malachi256]

I don't know where I posted this a long time ago, but I once thought out a bit of a system to keep exploration interesting. I opted for a zone of attrition outside of your borders. Units would lose health outside of their borders the further they went outside the capital (see this as people growing too old to travel vast distances, food not being able to be supplied easily, etc). Scouts could deal with this better and thus explore further, but still not explore all the way. This way, with new advances in technology, more of the map could be explored. It would make war more tactical, it would make exploring more rewarding in later ages. It's by no means a flawless idea, but I think there is a basis for it.

I think this is a very interesting idea. I like it a lot. It does strike me as the kind of thing that might sound cool on paper, but isn't fun in gameplay-reality, but I definitely think it's worth... exploring... (in an alpha state)

It meshes well with an idea I've been batting around which has to do with supply lines in mid-game and later wars, where a big part of fielding a successful military campaign involves keeping certain supply units intact between your armies and your cities (or else your military units suffer the exact kinds of attrition effects you're talking about).

 

[luca 83]

A foundation of a corporate company such as the India Company that manages the colonies and collects taxes and trades in colonial products, and then pass and enthusiastically under government : prasimile to the enterprises of the 4th but correct to the modern age , this can also be integrated into the colonial dynamics of colonization as for example already mentioned two nations but different governments? Korea for example. Leader? several I am against the leaders because they obstruct the government without leaders and easier to make and simulate a revolution : a civil war can create a new people or divide it as in Vietnam or create it divided as in germany

 

[luca 83]

Governors could attempt a coup d'état as well as military leaders if disgruntled

 

[Corvana]

I want Akbar as the leader for India, and have since Iearned about him. He's my favorite figure in Indian history, and one of my favorite historical figures anywhere.

 

[luca 83]

We also need to devise extraterritorial alliances such as the European Union or the Warsaw Pact or economic alliances such as comecon that create true political economic alliances

 

[luca 83]

I want Akbar as the leader for India, and have since Iearned about him. He's my favorite figure in Indian history, and one of my favorite historical figures anywhere.

How can one leader represent millennia of history? How can Asoka's India represent Gandhi's post-colonial India? Or the fragmented Mughal, Maurya, or Sik empires, or the Islamic kingdoms, and too complex a history to reduce it to one or two leaders

 

[Patine]

I want Akbar as the leader for India, and have since Iearned about him. He's my favorite figure in Indian history, and one of my favorite historical figures anywhere.

I personally think (and several show agreement) that just an, "India," civ with alternate leaders is artificial and unsatisfying, and it should be beoken up into several civ's, including the Mughals.

 

[Corvana]

I personally think (and several show agreement) that just an, "India," civ with alternate leaders is artificial and unsatisfying, and it should be beoken up into several civ's, including the Mughals.

This would be even better.

 

[luca 83]

This would be even better.

All civilizations are not monolithic. Louis XIV's France is not Napoleon's. As an Italian, how should I represent myself? as a Sicilian in the kingdom of the two Sicilies, certainly not in imperial Rome, in the Piedmont of the Savoys, in the Venetian Republic in that of Tuscany, or in the Duchy of the Medici, in the Lombardy of the Viscounts or in Austria-Hungary? in Angevin Sicily, or in Swabian Sicily? Frederick II or the Aragonese

 

[Futumch]

All civilizations are not monolithic. Louis XIV's France is not Napoleon's. As an Italian, how should I represent myself? as a Sicilian in the kingdom of the two Sicilies, certainly not in imperial Rome, in the Piedmont of the Savoys, in the Venetian Republic in that of Tuscany, or in the Duchy of the Medici, in the Lombardy of the Viscounts or in Austria-Hungary? in Angevin Sicily, or in Swabian Sicily? Frederick II or the Aragonese

So let's drag the Civ series back towards "game" and away from "simulator". Let the player choose their Leader not from a miniscule list, but from anywhere they like. You want to be George III ruling England? How about Lenin ruling the Soviet Union, or Peron ruling Argentina? Let the player manually put in their own ruler name and Civ name, and derive the possessive forms from there. Let the player choose their livery - colours, emblem, architectural style and city list. I like player choice, and being railroaded into a smaller bracket of leaders goes against that.
I think Humankind sort of took a couple of steps down that path, with their avatar generation, but FreeCiv currently has a larger variety of leaders and nations.

 

[luca 83]

So let's drag the Civ series back towards "game" and away from "simulator". Let the player choose their Leader not from a miniscule list, but from anywhere they like. You want to be George III ruling England? How about Lenin ruling the Soviet Union, or Peron ruling Argentina? Let the player manually put in their own ruler name and Civ name, and derive the possessive forms from there. Let the player choose their livery - colours, emblem, architectural style and city list. I like player choice, and being railroaded into a smaller bracket of leaders goes against that.
I think Humankind sort of took a couple of steps down that path, with their avatar generation, but FreeCiv currently has a larger variety of leaders and nations.

I argue that it makes no sense to have one or more leaders per civilisation. elizabethI is different from cromwell and cromwell from queen Anne , it should be simulation as it simulates probabilities , of revolutions , wars , based on history in general . but history also foresees changes of historical periods, not only technological, also political: in the other civilisations it is only cultural: you invent gunpowder and you are in the modern era, if for example you invesimplynt industry you should have the proletariat, therefore Marxism, and the possible attempt at revolution, if you have liberalism in the modern era and you are an absolute monarchy the bourgeoisie will want more freedom, the same goes for the Enlightenment and the ancienne regime

 

[Corvana]

I argue that it makes no sense to have one or more leaders per civilisation. elizabethI is different from cromwell and cromwell from queen Anne , it should be simulation as it simulates probabilities , of revolutions , wars , based on history in general . but history also foresees changes of historical periods, not only technological, also political: in the other civilisations it is only cultural: you invent gunpowder and you are in the modern era, if for example you invesimplynt industry you should have the proletariat, therefore Marxism, and the possible attempt at revolution, if you have liberalism in the modern era and you are an absolute monarchy the bourgeoisie will want more freedom, the same goes for the Enlightenment and the ancienne regime

The game makes numerous abstractions for gameplay, and having a single leader for all time is one of those. I think it's fine, it's supposed to be iconic or interesting leaders, and they mostlyi succeed at that. If you do want different rulers, you might check out Old World, which covers the ancient world only, has a smaller number of civs, but has leaders that are born, marry, produce heirs, grow old, and die to be replaced by an heir. It combines Civ with Crusader Kings.

 

[Leucarum]

I argue that it makes no sense to have one or more leaders per civilisation. elizabethI is different from cromwell and cromwell from queen Anne , it should be simulation as it simulates probabilities , of revolutions , wars , based on history in general . but history also foresees changes of historical periods, not only technological, also political: in the other civilisations it is only cultural: you invent gunpowder and you are in the modern era, if for example you invesimplynt industry you should have the proletariat, therefore Marxism, and the possible attempt at revolution, if you have liberalism in the modern era and you are an absolute monarchy the bourgeoisie will want more freedom, the same goes for the Enlightenment and the ancienne regime

i don't think Civ7 should be an 'everything' simulator. The strategy game market is pretty wide and civ's biggest edge is the name recognition to reach a big audience, which requires it to be as accessible as possible. That in turn (probably) requires things like a high level of abstraction, and avoidance of punishment mechanics. Maybe it even argues that AI shouldn't be Civ's priority... The most commonly asked for things by very hardcore fans I think...

Besides, when it comes to highly in depth simulations of specific eras, paradox already has firmly occupied that space, usually does a good job at it, and their titles aren't as big a commercial draw as Civ is anyway. So why compete for a smaller pie?

 

[luca 83]

i don't think Civ7 should be an 'everything' simulator. The strategy game market is pretty wide and civ's biggest edge is the name recognition to reach a big audience, which requires it to be as accessible as possible. That in turn (probably) requires things like a high level of abstraction, and avoidance of punishment mechanics. Maybe it even argues that AI shouldn't be Civ's priority... The most commonly asked for things by very hardcore fans I think...

Besides, when it comes to highly in depth simulations of specific eras, paradox already has firmly occupied that space, usually does a good job at it, and their titles aren't as big a commercial draw as Civ is anyway. So why compete for a smaller pie?

For one , ai is needed to simulate possible events, revolutions , putch , parado . Instead of suggesting random leaders LudigIg for example who represented nothing politically lost a war with Prussia and suffered the Franco Prussian War of 1871 let us focus on politics, and economics, simulated well, on military dynamics ,and possible development milialies

 

[Nikolai II]

For one , ai is needed to simulate possible events, revolutions , putch , parado . Instead of suggesting random leaders LudigIg for example who represented nothing politically lost a war with Prussia and suffered the Franco Prussian War of 1871 let us focus on politics, and economics, simulated well, on military dynamics ,and possible development milialies

Ludvig? Franco Prussian War of 1871? You mean Napoleon III? He’s hardly a nobdy.

 

[luca 83]

Ludvig? Franco Prussian War of 1871? You mean Napoleon III? He’s hardly a nobdy.

Ludwig of Bavaria its merits: build castles , torment themselves for their homosexuality , finance Wagner , build the theater of bayeruth , but politically submitted to Prussia , full of debts , also paid by Prussia , for the expenses of extravagant life , and declared mad , deposed , and murderer , and suicide of his doctor :excellent leader

 

[luca 83]

i don't think Civ7 should be an 'everything' simulator. The strategy game market is pretty wide and civ's biggest edge is the name recognition to reach a big audience, which requires it to be as accessible as possible. That in turn (probably) requires things like a high level of abstraction, and avoidance of punishment mechanics. Maybe it even argues that AI shouldn't be Civ's priority... The most commonly asked for things by very hardcore fans I think...

Besides, when it comes to highly in depth simulations of specific eras, paradox already has firmly occupied that space, usually does a good job at it, and their titles aren't as big a commercial draw as Civ is anyway. So why compete for a smaller pie?

the game is too person-centered covering thousands of years you have to accept that you can't in the game control everything 100 percent political systems change from monarchy to communism and a huge time and a different ideology . that's why you need more politics and ideology . avatars are useless and anachronistic :what changes a green or red dress ? . pre ersemple democracy is a simulation game without action but very political

 

[Leucarum]

the game is too person-centered covering thousands of years you have to accept that you can't in the game control everything 100 percent political systems change from monarchy to communism and a huge time and a different ideology . that's why you need more politics and ideology . avatars are useless and anachronistic :what changes a green or red dress ? . pre ersemple democracy is a simulation game without action but very political

You could make this game but it wouldn't be civilization any more.

 

[Naokaukodem]

They cant even take over the world if you play an AI ONLY game with conquest as the only winning option. They are all equally passive/aggressive/dumb. Older versions of civ had better AI in this regard.

I’ll probably skip civ7 unless I see an AI conquer at least half the map on youtube post-release.

In fact there is plenty of AI only games on YT, and yes the AIs conquer and win. (Civ6)

 

[aieeegrunt]

We also need to devise extraterritorial alliances such as the European Union or the Warsaw Pact or economic alliances such as comecon that create true political economic alliances

All you need to do is bring back the alliance systems from Civ3 and/or 4, instead of this bizarre nonsense where you can only ever have ONE military alliance (with a game breaking arbitrary combat bonus), ONE religious alliance etc.

It’s one of those terrible moments when Civ6 picks up a big old sheet of greyboard and smacks me in the face while screaming “I AM A BOARD GAME”

I personally think (and several show agreement) that just an, "India," civ with alternate leaders is artificial and unsatisfying, and it should be beoken up into several civ's, including the Mughals.

I’ve long thought this way. I mean we have how many civs and leaders for *goddamn Great Britain”?