Little things you'd like to see in Civilization VII

And the Pope being Catholic
He's not a Monarch, by proper definition, though he had long been treated by many with the dignties of one. He's a Theocratic Head-of-State, like the Supreme Leader of the Guardian Council of Iran among soverign state leaders, today (and the very contentious claim of the Emir of Taliban Afghanistan).
 
Depends if you want to make Japan a faith civ.
Having a religious UI would not necessarily and strictly mean that civ would have to be faith focused. It would depend on how the bonues were allocated, and how much history outside the leader was covered, meaningfully, in the design.
 
Having a religious UI would not necessarily and strictly mean that civ would have to be faith focused. It would depend on how the bonues were allocated, and how much history outside the leader was covered, meaningfully, in the design.
True. Ex. If an Eagle Warrior killed for faith, would the Aztecs be a faith civ, even though they may be more linked towards culture or military?
 
'Faith' - or more properly in-game, 'Religion' is a tricky concept to implement, because:

1. You absolutely cannot try to represent any actual religion or you will, inevitably, upset someone. And if you upset enough someones, your game is wrecked in the marketplace.

2. Religion historically was very much like Money: it could be a goal in and of itself, but more often had many uses and effects ranging from cultural to political to military. 'Faith Civ' can, therefore, mean almost anything, depending on what aspect the game design emphasizes.

3. Religious influence of any kind varies wildly. Early in the game, it is almost ubiquitous and pervasive: numerous Civs were all or in part defined by their religious practices and beliefs, even without 'theocratic' governments. Later, religion became less important during and after the Enlightenment and afterwards, but it never disappeared, and the amount by which it became 'less important' has been exaggerated: it was always of great importance to a large part of the population even if the Leaders of the Civ were no longer obviously religious. Recently 'religion' in various forms has apparently become more important as a cultural, political, diplomatic driving force, but it has not been remarked on (enough) that it frequently is important as an Alternative to secular institutions that appear to have failed to address the population's problems.ate Change, Wealth Inequity, and general constant change in culture and technology that seems to be too fast to keep track of for many people. (Apparent or Real) Threats abound, and religion has always been one answer to Threats of all kinds.

4. Religions Change. Although, especially those that have Holy Books defining them, religions try to remain absolutely firm and static, they never do. Therefore, there is always a dynamic between the 'Old Time Religion' and the New Religion, however each of those are defined - and just to keep things soap-slippery, the definitions keep getting changed even as members of the religion argue over them. The stresses of this religious dynamic have been sadly neglected in Civ, I suspect because it is too often assumed that this only becomes important when religions are afflicted with Major Schisms like the Protestant - Catholic or Sunni - Shia splits in, respectively, Christianity and Islam. However, I think that just as important is the constant reaction of religions to both outside religious influences and on-going secular changes in culture and technology that require response for the religion to remain relevant. The idea that you, the Great Poobah or Leader, can set all the aspects of the Religion for your Civ and then forget about it until you want to change it is, frankly, a fantasy model. In fact, your religion will keep changing whether you want it to or not, and the changes may be largely Unpredictable rather than Desired.

So, to return to the concept of a 'faith-based Civ', the whole concept, early in the game, is almost redundant: ALL Cis, to some extent, were 'faith-based' - even if their religion had very little influence on their political or military actions (like Classical Greece or Rome) it still did a lot to define the cultural aspirations of their populations. That influence could be enormously changed if a 'new' religion appeared, either because large parts of the population rejected it and a religious Civil War resulted (Cue the Protestant movement in Europe 16th - 17th centuries CE) or because it swept through the population and changed a great deal of the culture and even the organization of the Civ and population (Cue the late Roman Empire and the effects of Christianity). A sufficiently pervasive and coherent Religion could, ultimately, Define a Civ (Cue 'Arabia' or Renaissance Spain or Byzantium) - making it the ultimate 'Faith-Based' Civ.

And as noted, even modern, post-Enlightenment and secular Civs still have a large Faith Component, even if primarily confined to Culture, and a purely Theocratic or 'Faith-Based' Civ is still quite possible in the 21st century. In fact, if Ideology is defined as having many of the aspects of a Religion (Communism, Fascism, Libertarian Capitalism) - which is debatable but certainly possible and playable in a game design - then Faith Based Civs can be viable from beginning to end of the game.
 
customize your own religion mechanic down to dietary customs, number of gods, ethics, etc. i want to play with a religion that discourages study of the natural world just to see how far I can get when that religion is deeply influential. there would be ethnic and universal religions. universal religions have founders.
 
'Faith' - or more properly in-game, 'Religion' is a tricky concept to implement, because:

1. You absolutely cannot try to represent any actual religion or you will, inevitably, upset someone. And if you upset enough someones, your game is wrecked in the marketplace.

2. Religion historically was very much like Money: it could be a goal in and of itself, but more often had many uses and effects ranging from cultural to political to military. 'Faith Civ' can, therefore, mean almost anything, depending on what aspect the game design emphasizes.

3. Religious influence of any kind varies wildly. Early in the game, it is almost ubiquitous and pervasive: numerous Civs were all or in part defined by their religious practices and beliefs, even without 'theocratic' governments. Later, religion became less important during and after the Enlightenment and afterwards, but it never disappeared, and the amount by which it became 'less important' has been exaggerated: it was always of great importance to a large part of the population even if the Leaders of the Civ were no longer obviously religious. Recently 'religion' in various forms has apparently become more important as a cultural, political, diplomatic driving force, but it has not been remarked on (enough) that it frequently is important as an Alternative to secular institutions that appear to have failed to address the population's problems.ate Change, Wealth Inequity, and general constant change in culture and technology that seems to be too fast to keep track of for many people. (Apparent or Real) Threats abound, and religion has always been one answer to Threats of all kinds.

4. Religions Change. Although, especially those that have Holy Books defining them, religions try to remain absolutely firm and static, they never do. Therefore, there is always a dynamic between the 'Old Time Religion' and the New Religion, however each of those are defined - and just to keep things soap-slippery, the definitions keep getting changed even as members of the religion argue over them. The stresses of this religious dynamic have been sadly neglected in Civ, I suspect because it is too often assumed that this only becomes important when religions are afflicted with Major Schisms like the Protestant - Catholic or Sunni - Shia splits in, respectively, Christianity and Islam. However, I think that just as important is the constant reaction of religions to both outside religious influences and on-going secular changes in culture and technology that require response for the religion to remain relevant. The idea that you, the Great Poobah or Leader, can set all the aspects of the Religion for your Civ and then forget about it until you want to change it is, frankly, a fantasy model. In fact, your religion will keep changing whether you want it to or not, and the changes may be largely Unpredictable rather than Desired.

So, to return to the concept of a 'faith-based Civ', the whole concept, early in the game, is almost redundant: ALL Cis, to some extent, were 'faith-based' - even if their religion had very little influence on their political or military actions (like Classical Greece or Rome) it still did a lot to define the cultural aspirations of their populations. That influence could be enormously changed if a 'new' religion appeared, either because large parts of the population rejected it and a religious Civil War resulted (Cue the Protestant movement in Europe 16th - 17th centuries CE) or because it swept through the population and changed a great deal of the culture and even the organization of the Civ and population (Cue the late Roman Empire and the effects of Christianity). A sufficiently pervasive and coherent Religion could, ultimately, Define a Civ (Cue 'Arabia' or Renaissance Spain or Byzantium) - making it the ultimate 'Faith-Based' Civ.

And as noted, even modern, post-Enlightenment and secular Civs still have a large Faith Component, even if primarily confined to Culture, and a purely Theocratic or 'Faith-Based' Civ is still quite possible in the 21st century. In fact, if Ideology is defined as having many of the aspects of a Religion (Communism, Fascism, Libertarian Capitalism) - which is debatable but certainly possible and playable in a game design - then Faith Based Civs can be viable from beginning to end of the game.
Religion has almost disappeared in a traditional way from large portions of northern Europe. I mean traditional as in there's a large sectarian divide between secularism and Islam, but the idea of religion bearing a large influence as such on large portions of Europe, or even indeed an increasing amount wealthy countries, is a bit ridiculous. The backlash is not from religion wielding influence, but from it dying away as an influence. The more technologically and economically advanced a society becomes the less impressive religion is, yes this is backed up by scientific studies. But you can just consider that curing blindness or leprosy seem ever less like "miracles" when your local doctor can casually do the same thing.

It's why I was interested in victories having specific "timings" where they're optimal in each game, and then where they go off to eventually become impossible to win by. Tech already has this, very obviously, so why not the other ones? Religion probably shouldn't be a victory condition by whatever would be called the late 19th century or definitely not by the mid 20th (when humans have the very real power to wipe ourselves out the hypothetical power of god to do so doesn't seem quite as impressive). Meanwhile no one's going to manage some sort of economic/cultural victory in the medieval ages, right? So that's got to come later. That does make "religion specific" civs a bit awkward in balance terms perhaps. But the faith mechanic obviously gives a bunch of other bonuses, and could be balanced correctly.
 
Religion has almost disappeared in a traditional way from large portions of northern Europe.
And, in the Modern World, Northern Europe has a very small percentage of the World's population, too.
 
Religion has almost disappeared in a traditional way from large portions of northern Europe. I mean traditional as in there's a large sectarian divide between secularism and Islam, but the idea of religion bearing a large influence as such on large portions of Europe, or even indeed an increasing amount wealthy countries, is a bit ridiculous. The backlash is not from religion wielding influence, but from it dying away as an influence. The more technologically and economically advanced a society becomes the less impressive religion is, yes this is backed up by scientific studies. But you can just consider that curing blindness or leprosy seem ever less like "miracles" when your local doctor can casually do the same thing.
Spider Robinson, a very good science fiction writer, once said that he would only start writing Fantasy when it was more fantastic than what technology could accomplish every day in the late twentieth century.

But I think you are incorrect in your characterization of the influence of modern Religion.

Yes, northern Europe and the US have moved into a 'post religion' period, and I would argue that for parts of the rest of the world Ideology takes the place of religion (most notably, Communist Ideology, but note that in Russia, the longing for the 'good old days' of the Soviet Union is because the USSR maintained a wide social safety net for most of the population which collapsed with the Communist government. What people are longing for is not the ideology, but what they personally got out of it in physical well-being. I strongly suspect that if the Chinese economy goes belly-up, enthusiasm for the Communist government and ideology will follow: secular religions require concrete evidence of their effectiveness to remain viable).

And in large parts of the world religion is still very much a cultural and political force which Leaders ignore at the risk of their lives and power. Nor is 'modern religion' necessarily anti-technology. Ignoring technology is simply suicidal given its power to change the environment and empower the military, so no matter how 'fundamentalist', religious groups and states make accommodation with secular science. BUT, and this could be very important in game terms, religious fundamentalism is largely incompatible with original science so that religious states and peoples have to adapt science and technology from other sources - there is very little development of it from within their own societies.
 
I went back and played V
I miss the fullscreen 3d leader screens. The ones in VI are so much less interesting.
 
I'd like to see a 'historical relationships' option, where leaders and/or civs that were notable historical adversaries would have a penalty to their relationship. E.g. Persia and Rome, Korea and Japan, France and England etc.
But then how would one get the Entente Cordiale, or an analog, at least, to get up and running. And, Japan and Korea were not always at each others' throats - Korea was often the bridge for Chinese cultural influence to Japan - just at certain historically notable time.
 
But then how would one get the Entente Cordiale, or an analog, at least, to get up and running. And, Japan and Korea were not always at each others' throats - Korea was often the bridge for Chinese cultural influence to Japan - just at certain historically notable time.
It's an option, so toggleable.

It was rather inspired by the 'Historical Rivals' relationship modifier from Europa Universalis IV, and a similar mechanic from Age of Empires III
 
I don't know if I said it earlier, but I'd like to see rankings back. Things like "top 10 biggest cities in the world" or "top 10 richest civilizations in the world".

I'd just want to see proper 'statistics' panel with a lot of fun rankings and graphs... Civs ranked by area, income, production, all yields, yields to citizen ratio (so you can see their 'productivity'), citizens to land area ratio ('pop density'), yields to land area ratio... Size of military, strength of military (unit strength of all units combined), number of enemy units destroyed by all civs and amount of units lost, who fought the most barbarians, who was the best religious speader, amount of great people and art produced...

Total turns spent in war and peace by each civ, longest wars, bloodiest wars (most pop and/or military units killed), most ancient enemies, longest - lasting alliances and friendships. Most ancient and profitable trade routes and partners. Trade capital of the world (most incoming/outgoing trade routes). Largest fleets, biggest cities in each era counted separatedly, greatest battles (impossible in 1upt). Most besieged cities in world history (total turns under attack, how many times it was conquered). Most loyal and disloyal leaders, neutrality prize, most warlike and most pacifist civs. Most politically stable and unstable civs (how often gov form changed). Top 10 most experienced military units in the world history.

I heard the argument that such information should not be accesible beyond espionage, but let's be honest - most of it is useless for ingame 'competetive' purposes, it's just pure fun. You could limit espionage to uncovering fog of war and performing actions, while making most of such fun data freely available. Or toggleable before starting the game.
 
Last edited:
I'd like to see a 'historical relationships' option, where leaders and/or civs that were notable historical adversaries would have a penalty to their relationship. E.g. Persia and Rome, Korea and Japan, France and England etc.
Would that include Germany vs. the world/ most of the civilizations in game? :mischief:

Also did you mean Persia and Greece, instead of Rome? Unless you are talking about the possibility of a Sassanid leader.
 
Would that include Germany vs. the world/ most of the civilizations in game? :mischief:
Only in a 31-year modern snapshot. And even then, they had a few allies. Not nearly enough of a time period to build a whole notion like this for a whole playing of a game of Civ. Not that I'm at all a fan of this concept, anyways...
 
Only in a 31-year modern snapshot. And even then, they had a few allies. Not nearly enough of a time period to build a whole notion like this for a whole playing of a game of Civ. Not that I'm at all a fan of this concept, anyways...
That was a joke. But yeah, I'm not really a big fan of it either. Most of the European civs would have some sort of negative relationships towards each other. :shifty:
 
Leaders should change to match the era, civs should appear at about the "right" time in history and we should then be asked if we want to be their leader.

- Wasn`t this about what went on back in CivIV, some mod?

- And another thing; at wartime we should be able to lend soldiers in/out to allies/friends.
 
Top Bottom