My Big Hope for Civ 7

[Miserable Old Git]

There are clearly improvements needed. Religious victory on huge maps in Civ 6 is effectively a variant of dominance victory, and diplomatic victory is too mechanistic. The world congress in Civ 6 is a joke. But on the other hand the trade routes and district mechanisms are vast improvements. And can we please have workers once more called workers, not builders! And I like hex tiles. I'd also like see the Civ V colonies (access to distant luxuries) reintroduced.

The one big change I'd like to see is military. I would like to see GDRs consigned to history. In Civ 6 - at least on big maps and at high difficulty - you can't do anything agressive until you get these. Realistically, to absolutely require suitable combined arms tactics to take down cities (relative to the era, so making ranged units relevant in the classical era, siege and naval units in the mediaeval, gunpowder units in the renaissance, rifled units in the industrial, and air units in the modern, and all cumulative). And to make agressive warfare realistic in all eras at all difficulty levels.

 

[newtociv6]

I disagree with the siege requirement. If it's hard, player doesn't need to build military early at all - and that's what I did with lower difficult, a single warrior until turn 50 while all resources were poured into tech and settlers. The first army I had consisted of tanks, then a combo of battleship + ironclad or bomber + helicopter to roll up everyone who's still in medieval age. GDR was never needed.

 

[InsidiousMage]

I would like to see GDRs consigned to history. In Civ 6 - at least on big maps and at high difficulty - you can't do anything agressive until you get these.

I can and I play on Emperor with huge map sizes. You can start reliably taking cities in the Classical or Medieval era. Get some melee units, battering rams/siege towers, and catapults/trebuchets with some ranged support and you can start taking cities. What you really helps though is a great general. That's what gives you the extra CS you need to take down walls plus the extra movement allows you move and fire on the same turn with your catapults/trebuchets.

 

[Futumch]

I certainly agree with you about the World Congress. Jettison that from the next Civ iteration.
Perhaps Religion would be better suited as completely opt-in. What I mean is, if you have RV switched on, then it stays as-is. If you switch it off, then ALL the associated gameplay goes too. Pantheons, great prophets, the lot. Even the overlay. I just don't need the "which sky-fairy is the toughest" distraction, I'm trying to build a spaceship here.

 

[universecreep]

I'd hope they terminate the religious victory or change it dramatically from unit spamming to something that is a little more fun.

I agree the world congress was not good. I would prefer they have just one resolution to vote on at a time but make it something significant that affects the game. Also, it should be easier to get other countries to vote for you rather than they all vote for themselves for world leader even though they have no chance. I think in Civ IV only the two strongest nations got to vote for themselves, the rest of the nations would vote for whomever they liked the best, feared the most, or were vassellised by. That incentivizes making friends with or intimidating other nations.

 

[Depravo]

I don't and I play on Emperor with huge map sizes. You can start reliably taking cities in the Classical or Medieval era. Get some melee units, battering rams/siege towers, and catapults/trebuchets with some ranged support and you can start taking cities. What you really helps though is a great general. That's what gives you the extra CS you need to take down walls plus the extra movement allows you move and fire on the same turn with your catapults/trebuchets.

That's another thing: GG and GA points should be earnable via onmap battles as well as from encampments and projects that depend on them.

If they keep that system in VII of course and I'm far from sure they should.

 

[Kupe Navigator]

I just hope there is no bugs... unlike civ 6

 

[universecreep]

There will definitely be bugs but Firaxis does a pretty good job of cleaning those up over the course of the game. I think they've even still added a mini-patch to Civ V last year.

 

[Kupe Navigator]

here will definitely be bugs but Firaxis does a pretty good job of cleaning those up over the course of the game.

LOLZ in which universe do they do a good job? Their jobs are on the level of Game Freak in cleaning up bugs

 

[LMT]

The one big change I'd like to see is military. I would like to see GDRs consigned to history.

I'd like these gone as well, though for a slightly different reason. They get too close to the fantasy/sci-fi element that Civ VI seemed to cross into--something I see as a negative attribute to the game.

Also, how likely is it that a mechanical Godzilla or an AT-AT Walker is the future of armored weaponry? To me, not very.

Maybe they could just have three categories of future weaponry units in the endgame: future land units, future sea units, and future air units with each being available once future technology is reached. Or maybe even just one type--future military units--that can fight on all three surfaces.

There are very creative artists that could render a somewhat vague, yet futuristic-looking representation of something like this.

And if we're thinking about the actual history of civilization, warfare has become much less common as time has passed. So I think the future of weaponry could become more effective as a deterrent to invasion (or more defensive in nature), but not necessarily more effective as a means to take over other civs. In this manner, a domination victory would get much more difficult once the Future Era (or even Information Era) is reached.

 

[GIO888]

What LMT said.

Oh, and no bl**dy Vampires either.

 

[Oberinspektor Derrick]

In Civ 6 - at least on big maps and at high difficulty - you can't do anything agressive until you get these

What, sure you can.
This is a player issue more than a civ 6 issue.

Source: I usually do more ancient/classical era rushes against the deity AI than I tend to play peacefully during these eras. With any kind of civ, not just the militaristic ones.

 

[Oberinspektor Derrick]

What you really helps though is a great general.

This usually doesnt work on Deity, because the AI tends to grab these as fast as scientists, and it delays your rush to the point that they might have crossbowmen waiting.
What does work very consistently though is getting a religion up for crusade and then rush with warriors (later swordsmen) with a battering ram plus Archers.
Timing it right you can usually have 30 CS warriors on their doorstep right as the game transitions from ancient to classical, and often before they have walls up even.

 

[Caesar of Bread]

Mine is to finally finish Gandhi once and for all, and to nuke him first! Well, that is my hope...

Oh wait, wrong forum!

 

[acluewithout]

I hope Civ 7 is pretty similar to Civ 6.

To me, Civ 6 is basically Civ 4 +Civ 5, but done to an incredibly high standard. Civ is best at being a “board game” where each player plays a “historical themed” faction. The minute it gets more like a simulation, it just ends up a very poor grand strategy (I’d rather play EU IV thanks).

Civ 6 is basically my perfect Civ - my only complaints really are that the game lost focus a bit in New Frontiers meaning some mechanics just didn’t get developed more (Governors, end game mechanics), the modding scene is a bit disappointing in some respects (although amazing in many other ways, esp alt leaders), and of course the computer opponents are a bit weak in terms of gameplay.

I frankly love a lot of stuff that people don’t like about Civ 6. I love the more fantastic elements, and think they work pretty well - they’re either “speculative” future so only late game, so sort of like a reward for getting that far; or optional game modes, meaning you choose whether to play with them or not (I don’t always play with vampires, zombies and Demi-gods, but when I do it’s a blast).

I also think Religion and the World Congress work really well on their own terms - by that I mean, you can imagine other ways these mechanics could be designed and you might like those ideas better, but the mechanics as they are do achieve what they were designed to achieve, ie religion is literally an additional combat layer that leverages cultural power and faith, not science and hammers / gold, and the world congress is basically a “deduction ” and “bluffing” game, where you spend limited resource (diplomacy) based on what other Civs will likely want to get benefits, disrupt victories or achieve your own victory.

My hope is Civ 7 continues along the Civ 6 direction, but just fills out some game elements a bit more particularly “newer” mechanics like Governors, and maybe brings back more stuff from earlier Civ games like Civ 5 Ideological Tenets and Ideological Pressure. My other hope is Civ 7 makes the late game more meaningful and more “play the map”, instead of Civ 6’s approach of the end game being something you’re meant to just speed run.

The only thing I worry about is that Civ 7 continues the trend towards the end of Civ 6’s life of sort of removing real trade-offs or complex / situational choices from the game. A good example of this are the changes to Oligarchy and Autocracy - originally, the two were very competitive with each other, and it wasn’t always clear which was “best” for war, but once they flipped them around so Oligarchy is “all war, all the time” and autocracy was “all the hammers, all the wonders”, it just removed any real hard choices from the game. Similar changes are making Lumbermills “always” good, or nerfing spies so Alliances become risk free.

I dunno. I’m fine with Civ 6, so whether or not I like Civ 7 isn’t much of a stress for me. And Ed Beech is staying involved, so I’m anyone reasonable confident we’ll end up with something good.