[NFP] Interconnecting Systems

[Hellenism Salesman]

So, Civ VI has a lot of systems, doesn't it? I'm just gonna quickly name 20 off the top of my head... Population, Districts, Power, Loyalty, Amenities, Tech Tree, Civic Tree, World Congress, City-States, Governments, Housing, Terrain, Ages, Competitions, Casus Belli, Wonders, Barbarians, Climate change, Disasters, Appeal...

I could go on but I'm going to spare you.

Point being, Civ VI is a pretty complex game, with lots of moving parts. But, a common complaint I here on these forums is that these aren't connected moving parts. Many of the systems aren't tied to one another.

And, eager to hear your ideas and reworks, I ask you this: how would you interconnect some of Civ VI's systems?

While I do repeat the use of the word "system," note that this can encapsulate any mechanic in the game. They don't all have to fit under our own definition of "system."

While I don't have many ideas on this broad topic, I do have one: tying together Amenities and Loyalty, or even, getting rid of Amenities altogether.

Rather than there being a fixed number of negative Amenities in which rebel units appear, I feel that negative Amenities should simply decrease the Loyalty of their home city. Granted, you'd have to adjust the Loyalty system to compensate, but I think its a much better concept than having these two separate "rebellion" mechanics.

Alternatively, delete Amenities altogether and change Scotland and the Aztecs. What I'm suggesting here is that typical Amenity-harming factors (overpopulation, war weariness, bankruptcy, etc.) just harm cities' loyalty instead. Additionally, make it so the Content, Happy, and Ecstatic bonuses apply to cities based on their positive Loyalty. While this does mean you would have to entirely rework the Entertainment Complex, Water Park, and any replacements for said districts, I feel it ties up a loose end/superficial mechanic that could just be incorporated into another one.

Thoughts?

 

[Zaarin]

I don't have ready answers because, while I can certainly appreciate a good design, I don't really think like a designer. However, Civ6 certainly feels like clockwork where the gears are all spinning but none of the cogs interconnect; I'd like to see them interact in some ways. A very easy example would be bigger diplomatic bonuses and penalties for religion--but I think religion needs an overhaul first so that it's less founder-centric. Another might be cultural influence affecting amenities, loyalty, and diplomatic relations.

 

[Zegangani]

It would be hard to try to interconnect the Systems/Mechanisms in Civ VI without making an overhaul for some of them (if not all). Anyway:

I think the main Things that should be interconnected are Technologies, Civics and Governments (also Tech/Civic Trees and Diplomacy Actions). Governments should have an impact on what a Civ is researching, while also affecting the Social System (Civics to unlock - The Government Specific Policies are a step in the right direction). Civics could affect Tech research, like having Exploration Civic Unlocked could rush the research of Carography and Square Rigging Techs (a Boost or +xx research modifier for those Techs). Also, having met Civs that have some Techs/Civics unlocked that you haven't yet, and having trade routes to those Civs may give those Techs/Civics a boost and be faster to research. Civs could also buy certain Techs from other Civs that have them...etc.

I don't think Amenities should be removed, otherwise what's the Point of Luxury Resources (Unless Happiness will have a return)? Luxury and Bonus Resources OTOH should be overhauled. Especially Bonus Resources, as they just mean some few extra Yields here and there. But that's for another Discussion. The Happiness of your Citizen should affect your relationships with other Civs. Leaders should be upset about Leaders that don't treat their People well, and City States may refuse your Suzerainty (not able to send more Envoys).

Speaking of CSs, they should also have Governments and Social Systems. Therefore also being more dynamic in diplomacy, like liking Civs with the same government as them over the ones with different ones (perhaps refusing suzerainty of Civs with Governments they dislike). And also participating in WC (maybe with less power than major civs (limited Diplo Favors to use)).

 

[AnonymousSpeed]

What they ought to do is cut the number of mechanics down to half and have 10 good mechanics instead of 20 alright ones. The game also feels like it has real yield bloat. Faith, Culture, Diplomatic Favor, Influence / Envoys- these feel very much like their uses are overly specialized or that they had to force them to be useful. Provided, Civ hasn't known what to do with culture for a few games now, but that's hardly an excuse.

Then you have appeal, which matters for a couple districts, a couple leader abilities, and basically nothing else. It's an utterly awful and totally tacked-on mechanic.

Having amenities impact loyalty is a good idea. I think the Civ4 system for luxuries is still better than every other game's, so, you know, maybe get back to that. Or ditch them entirely, amenities feel kind of useless. At this point we're only talking about future games anyway, so might as well disregard the Entertainment Complex in discussing them anyway.

A very easy example would be bigger diplomatic bonuses and penalties for religion--but I think religion needs an overhaul first so that it's less founder-centric.

Religion itself is pretty, y'know, awful. Unlike every other mechanic it's really all or nothing right at the start. There should be some kind of ecumenical council where you can "take control" of a religion someone else founded and win the game with it, or cause a schism and hijack another player's progress towards a religious victory.

I mean, historically religions have come in two flavors- something to make the people go to war with your neighbors and something you have to work around so you can go to war with your neighbors. Civilization has literally none of that, religions or ideological movements never really take on a life of their own. In Civ4 this wasn't really a problem because you didn't pick particular tenants tenets (I am smart), so there was never this weird sense that the state had total control of the faith.

 

[Buktu]

Then you have appeal, which matters for a couple districts, a couple leader abilities, and basically nothing else.

Appeal is a great way to play for a CV. Seaside resorts and National Parks both rely on appeal.

 

[Zaarin]

Then you have appeal, which matters for a couple districts, a couple leader abilities, and basically nothing else. It's an utterly awful and totally tacked-on mechanic.

Appeal is a great way to play for a CV. Seaside resorts and National Parks both rely on appeal.

Appeal was a really cool idea that the game drastically underutilizes. Ideally Civ7 needs to expand further on Civ6's "play the map" design philosophy, and they could make appeal a bigger part of that.

There should be some kind of ecumenical council where you can "take control" of a religion someone else founded and win the game with it, or cause a schism and hijack another player's progress towards a religious victory.

I really think cutting Religious Victory altogether is the most elegant solution. Make religion something that helps you win other victory conditions, and make it something more dynamic that's bigger than the player or an individual faction. (I hesitate to agree to an ecumenical council simply because it threatens to be an early World Congress, and Firaxis has yet to make a version of the World Congress that makes me think it's anything but a bad idea.)

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

I really think cutting Religious Victory altogether is the most elegant solution. Make religion something that helps you win other victory conditions, and make it something more dynamic that's bigger than the player or an individual faction. (I hesitate to agree to an ecumenical council simply because it threatens to be an early World Congress, and Firaxis has yet to make a version of the World Congress that makes me think it's anything but a bad idea.)

Since religious tourism is a thing I think they should just double down on that aspect and make religion part of the cultural victory, at least for the future.

I like the idea of a ecumenical council but I'm not sure how that would work in the game unless everyone was under the same religion, or only members who had the same religion could meet?

 

[Zaarin]

I like the idea of a ecumenical council but I'm not sure how that would work in the game unless everyone was under the same religion, or only members who had the same religion could meet?

If an ecumenical council involves determining matters of doctrine/tenets for a specific religion and also allows for schisms (e.g., the non-Chalcedonian churches/Oriental Orthodoxy rejected the Council of Chalcedon) then I'd be for it, but not if it's just an early World Congress.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

If an ecumenical council involves determining matters of doctrine/tenets for a specific religion and also allows for schisms (e.g., the non-Chalcedonian churches/Oriental Orthodoxy rejected the Council of Chalcedon) then I'd be for it, but not if it's just an early World Congress.

That would be an interesting way to build your religion rather than using apostle charges to evangelize beliefs. Or at least use apostles to trigger ecumenical councils with other civilizations with the same religion as you.

 

[AnonymousSpeed]

I really think cutting Religious Victory altogether is the most elegant solution.

I stick by my one post about abolishing victory types altogether.

(I hesitate to agree to an ecumenical council simply because it threatens to be an early World Congress, and Firaxis has yet to make a version of the World Congress that makes me think it's anything but a bad idea.)

Well, part of the problem with the World Congress is that the things you vote on are stupid and you don't get the option of ignoring it or forming the Warsaw Pact instead or something. Another issue is that it's more demographic democratic (I am smart) than diplomatic- not enough give and take, y'know?

S
I like the idea of a ecumenical council but I'm not sure how that would work in the game unless everyone was under the same religion, or only members who had the same religion could meet?

I would say that only members of the same religion could meet in an ecumenical council, but different religions could have different councils.

If an ecumenical council involves determining matters of doctrine/tenets for a specific religion and also allows for schisms (e.g., the non-Chalcedonian churches/Oriental Orthodoxy rejected the Council of Chalcedon) then I'd be for it, but not if it's just an early World Congress.

That would be an interesting way to build your religion rather than using apostle charges to evangelize beliefs. Or at least use apostles to trigger ecumenical councils with other civilizations with the same religion as you.

Triggering councils with Apostles is a good idea, actually. I kind of like that.

Maybe these councils should assign "quests" and the person to complete all the quests takes over the role of "Caliph", the prime Earthly authority of the religion. I don't know, once again I think there should be some way to shift the power different civilizations have over the believers. Making it a popularity contest would be sort of lame, but if you made the claim to the title and then successfully defended it (attacking rival claimants, fulfilling certain quests, etc) it could prove pretty interesting, especially if there are some big benefits to the position.

 

[Zaarin]

Well, part of the problem with the World Congress is that the things you vote on are stupid and you don't get the option of ignoring it or forming the Warsaw Pact instead or something. Another issue is that it's more demographic than diplomatic- not enough give and take, y'know?

I agree. That's why I think they should focus on deepening regular diplomacy instead of trying to tack on World Congress.