.

[DizzKneeLand33]

You want scaling? How about the Civ 3 corruption mechanic -- omg it was the absolute most awful aspect of the game. Find a new continent no one has seen across the world, settle a city -- and get 1 gold and 1 production from it until you had 1200 years to build the forbidden palace [or a great leader (original) who *poof* builds it in one single turn, even more bizarre]....

The original post is great. The problem is, that's some of the reason why I like Civ. I like the runaway AI giving me a challenge. I mean, if you are beating the game so easily, then ramp up the difficulty level. At Immortal, the bonuses are crazy. The AI starts with 2 settlers, 2 builders, and 4 warriors. On epic, that's hard to match in the early game (it takes longer to build those first units -- but the 4 the AI starts with are immediate). Add to that +24% science, culture, and faith and +60% production and gold (and 3 boosts each for science and culture), and combat bonuses and so forth. If you are still crushing the AI, then scaling isn't the problem.

I hate the idea of punishing civs (AI or human) for doing the right things.

Monopoly might be the way not to design a board game, but, let's see, isn't it one of the most popular games to have ever existed in terms of sales? The problem with Monopoly is that usually people make up their own rules (having a pot at Free Parking, for example, which does nothing but prolong the game) instead of playing the game as it is written. Civ keeps trying to make speedbumps/scaling, which is like making up your own rules. Stick to the rules, and build better AI. Modders have done it, it's time for the company to do the same.

Again, scaling isn't the problem. The snowball effect is what makes Civ, well, Civ!

 

[MisterBoomBoom]

Instead of starting from scratch with each iteration of the franchise why not build and ADD upon what has already have accomplished. That said (and utterly meaningless at this point) I do believe the ability of the AI to actually work to some small degree is a primary need. So far I see an entirely dismal display of AI. from lack of navies, lack of air, lack of any very basic tactical movements from both military and civilian units. This appeared fixed to a relatively good degree in 5. We have taken several steps backward, and it is quite frustrating. Likewise, I believe we have taken several very positive steps forward with the additional of unstacked cities and districts and wonders. More of this would be welcome. Likewise, keeping the single unit concept in place with adding the idea of Corps/Armies and attachable support units is rather brillant, sophisticated and also a much-welcomed addition. Again, More diversity and options would be welcomed.

As for ideas. I would wish resources spent on the scenarios end and have the franchise concentrate on only adding more civs, units, concepts, and maps. These will provide more bang for the buck and IMHO be welcomed by the community as a whole.

On a final note, it would seem they play tested this game via overnight auto plays to see what the result would be rather than sit through and play the game to see what the game experience was. Nothing beats beta play by experienced gamers already familiar with the franchise, all of its quirks and glaring needs from the very outset. Such as a restart button, refined TSL maps, and excellent information panels. It should be of note to the developers that to date people are still trying to figure out many of the bonuses and systems. This indicates the lack of precise information and is a frustration factor we all can live without.

Civ is a ...
Civ is a strategy game. It is a tactical game. It IS a building game.
It can be and should be IMHO a more immersive game by adding game-like elements such as many of those listed by other forum members above. Many I would like to see such as, Random events, requested tasks, celebratory achievements!

And don't forget the fair use of the Advanced Options page. Turning off something that some users may not want to worry through. An easy adjustment.

 

[Left Foot]

Getting rid of any late game tedium needs to be achieved by increasing meaningful player interactions later in the game.
Right now, the main issue for me is that, after some point, you don't really need to do anything meaningful to win.
Culture victory is a question of waiting for your tourists to increase, or, in prior iterations, to wait for your city to accumulate enough culture. Clicking next turn will get you there.
Science victory is just going through all the techs and waiting for the spaceship to be built. Clicking next turn will get you there.
Religious victory... well, who doesn't want to be the modern Sisyphus?
The only victory condition which is interactive is domination but it's still more grind than compelling strategy.

The game needs to include more meaningful things for the player to do in the later game. That can be random events, mini-missions, new functionalities, etc.
But, getting rid of later game tedium of certain victory by adding more tedium by way of production nerfing, scaled inefficiencies, or wthatnot that just delays the inevitable just isn't the way to go. Make the game harder by adding more and new stuff to do, not by making it artificially slower to get where you're unavoidably going.

 

[UWHabs]

Another important thing to consider - people want to win. I want to get an advantage early, and build upon that to victory. I don't want to conquer my nearest neighbour and then squander in corruption and fail. Now, of course, you also want it to be balanced, so that there are decisions at play. Civ 4 did this in the great way - every city had a cost, that went up the more cities you have/the further away you are. So if you go on an rapid expansion through settlers or swordsmen too fast, your cities could essentially bankrupt you. But over time every city eventually can pay for itself.

But as well, you don't want things to be too easy. If I conquer my neighbour early, it shouldn't necessarily automatically mean that I win the game. Some other ideas to consider:
-When you go to war, it should cost money/science/faith/culture/etc... Maybe some, maybe all, maybe none. But I shouldn't be able to simply build an army, and send them off to fight a massive world war as everyone at home just sits around continuing on like normal. Now, maybe the cost is not a direct penalty, but comes in other forms. Sort of like the war weariness penalty to amenities that we have now, although it needs to be both obvious, yet fair.
-There needs to be an easier way for civs to catch up. Honestly it feels like every civ should have Russia's ability, where trade routes to more advanced civs yield science and culture.
-There needs to be more bonuses to be able to make friends with people. Especially with someone on the other side of the world, they really need to be more content by default. It always seems to me that everyone in the world is angry at me even if I've never attacked anyone. If you basically have no interaction with anyone else, they shouldn't really ever denounce you, which seems to keep feeding into a never-ending cycle of hatred. By default, people shouldn't really be upset at you unless if you do something to piss them off. Or would be awesome if it was more dynamic - so if you make a good trade with someone early, then they'll remember that, and just naturally veer towards being friends. Like in real life, you may not like everything your friend does, but unless if they do something that really pissed you off, you're probably going to stay friends through petty squabbles.
-There also needs to be more bonuses for staying friendly. Yes, you get more favorable luxury deals, and there's a handful of policy cards that can impact things. But as it stands, I rarely every have a reason to give into someone's demands. If they ask me to stop settling near them, most of the time, I find it doesn't really matter what I say to that, they'll just end up being angry with me later on. Maybe even if they could codify a nice system of bribes - like, I'll give you tea as long as you don't settle within 10 tiles of any of my cities. Or if traders and trading provided a better benefit for both sides, that would further encourage staying friends - if I'm getting +50 gpt by having traders going between lands, maybe I decide that's more valuable than invading.
-Which brings to another point - would be nice if there were more ways to basically play peacefully to win. Even stuff like bringing back the old allied victories like they've had in past games, that could be nice. Sometimes I do like going and invading the world, but sometimes it's fun to play the builder game and make my cities as strong as possible.

 

[Manifold]

1. The most recent inventions, like a bunch of military units, the internet, globalization, social media, etc. You want to play the game only up to 1970? I mean, why exclude what came after?

I mean the information age is still missing. We have no B-2, smart bombs, drones (UAV), Cyberwarfare... in game.
Social media: I would have been able to do without it (except this forum of course). It will still have to show, for what this was good.

 

[UWHabs]

I mean the information age is still missing. We have no B-2, smart bombs, drones (UAV), Cyberwarfare... in game.
Social media: I would have been able to do without it (except this forum of course). It will still have to show, for what this was good.

I'm more upset that there's no modern districts or buildings except airport/spaceport. Like, no mass transit, no nuclear plants, solar plants, recycling centres. It's like you get to the modern era with powerplants and suddenly the game is like, "Okay, you're done building. Now just watch your cities grow and go back and build the same arena you could have build 2000 years ago."

 

[DizzKneeLand33]

If I ever write a Mod, culture will immediately decrease 90% for all civilizations as soon as anyone discovers Social Media....

 

[MooFreaky]

WARNING: Holy cow violation imminent!
.

This is a fantastic concept. I am sure people would cry it's arbitrary (while ignoring how culture, science and score are equally so).
But it is a genuinely interesting game concept. The only potential issue is the capacity of the AI to deal with it.
I cant imagine a more intriguing multiplayer game, but i can just imagine the AI just generally bumbling along aimlessly while the player collects these achievements.

Another idea (but not mutually exclusive to SteveG's) is is to find ways to make the AI more competitive/interesting by giving them projects or concepts the player doesn't have the ability to do.

Eg (and this is purely a concept) have two pr three civs be able to form an aggressive alliance in the late game. Not just declare war but put mechanics behind it, so its interesting. One of the potential allies has to build an Alliance HQ style minor wonder. Then there will be X turns of "negotiations" then the three allies will become far more aggressive and go a conquering but working together as one force for Y period of time.

The player has the ability to try and stop it by stopping construction or effecting the negotiations etc.

 

[Photi]

Eg (and this is purely a concept) have two pr three civs be able to form an aggressive alliance in the late game. Not just declare war but put mechanics behind it, so its interesting. One of the potential allies has to build an Alliance HQ style minor wonder. Then there will be X turns of "negotiations" then the three allies will become far more aggressive and go a conquering but working together as one force for Y period of time.

The player has the ability to try and stop it by stopping construction or effecting the negotiations etc.

uh oh, NATO comes to Civ. your next turn will never be the same! don't even think about that next tech or you'll be instantly attacked by B-2s and F-35s

 

[magha77]

Simple suggestions:

1. hall of fame
2. missions (e.g. crusades)
3. age of revolutions midgame
3a. railways as infrastructure mini simulation game
3b. more modern and later infrastructure (e.g. offshore wind farm, canals...)


Other suggestions:

One part of the Civ series named "Test of time". But at the moment Civ6 is become the lead and roll to the end. After a proper point in game the play is not tested anymore.
For my view, a prerequisite for more challenge would be a Civ skill system. Rudimentary it is already the Governmental Legacy Bonuses. A very good thing in Civ5 was to choose your next bonuses when you have enough culture. So if there is such a skill system for the Civ and a hall of fame it will be possible to annoy or test the player and his Civ more if he gets a compensation (skill progress) for master the new challenge.

4. major natural and barbarian triggered events
5. civil wars (e.g. when the Civ changes the Government or Religion. This could be settleable option or the player could be asked if he wants to risk a civil war and double his points in the hall of fame.)


At the moment last suggestions:

6. AI Scripting:
7. Scripted world wars

I have the feeling that the AI does not want to win and will also not prevent me from winning. There must be a mechanism that every participating Civ tries to win or tries to prevent another from winning even if this means the downfall if this try is unsuccessful.
I cant understand why a defeated Civ gives me more cities in a peace deal when this takes all chances to win for them. Would it be not better to give their gold and city to another Civ who could stop the warmonger. Like Pergamon did when they jointed the Roman Empire.

8. diplomatic option to join a war for everyone

I love all of the above. My favorite Civ games were from Civ 3 and Civ 4 scenarios that had scripts were suddenly either you or your opponent got a boost or new challenge. Weather related challenges could make things interesting like global warming effects from Civ 4. The world congress/UN also made the game and diplomacy interesting throughout the game. Corporations made dealing with resources fun as well. Dealing with Partisans from your own empire and conquered cities is missed. Having vassal states was interesting as well. I hate how there are only two options (sometimes three when it comes to liberation) when I conquer a city now. As I've said before, Civ 4 was SUCH a better game.

 

[comatosedragon]

OP is right on. I have been around since almost the beginning (Civ II), and I promise you I have finished less and less games with each iteration, even if my total hours rises exponentially. I have close to 3000 hours in Civ V (I'm using this as an example, since Civ V required steam, and started keeping track of our playtime, but surely 3 and 4 are close to this total as well); and I know for a fact I only finished a dozen or so games, probably 3-4 with each expansion. I completed more games of Civ IV BtS than any other in the franchise.

I have 900 hours now in Civ 6, and I have never finished one game, ever!
I play on Immortal level, and it's just so damn boring ..... (and yes, most games are won by turn 100 or so, even without war)
I generally only roleplay games of Civ now, to add my own enjoyment.

 

[Victoria]

I think worldwide corporations could also add another level mixed with intrigue.
They end up owning your districts and building new ones.
You are the governments that vie for their trade.
You could build one yourself choosing banking, the arts, shipping etc gaining a % of others districts and being able to close them down if need be
Late game certainly needs something new

One thing I always liked in various games were the random cards you could get to play on other players to limit them. It may seem a bit naff but it did stop steamrolling and would force people to play the political game more.

Or the ability of spies to incite revolt based on the size of the empire rather than IF they have neighbourhoods

I also agree that victory conditions are forcing people to click next while it should be based on overall score that can be augmented by the various areas.

Science should bleed out more to surrounding civs.

Not keen on just doing a list of tasks, sounds meh and out of my control more.

 

[PYITE]

The Runaway Lead isn't just a problem in the Civilization series (and other similar games), it's also a pretty common issue in board games. Take Monopoly for example. If you manage to make another player Bankrupt (**Lose**), you get their belongings. This gives you twice as many properties to work with, increasing the odds of you winning mathematically. Unlike Civ, Monopoly is a chance based game, but it is a game of probabilities none the less.

That is not how the rules of Monopoly work. You are not supposed to be allowed to trade properties, you can only mortgage them to get cash from the bank to pay your debts. When you eliminate someone you only get their bank and the mortgage value of their properties. The properties then go back up for sale; available to any player that lands on the spot.
Civ6 does work like that however and I really hope it changes. When a civ is getting beaten in a war or are about to lose their capitol they offer a going out of business type deals to their opponents. Like offering the 6 other cities they own just so they can keep their capitol. Giving up all hope of success just to survive 10 more turns until you can DOW on them again.

 

[Katakanja]

That is not how the rules of Monopoly work

One day I will play a game of monopoly and not hear someone say that line.

I don't think anyone actually knows how the rules of monopoly work or bothers to play it the correct way

 

[PYITE]

One day I will play a game of monopoly and not hear someone say that line.

I don't think anyone actually knows how the rules of monopoly work or bothers to play it the correct way

Should have said vanilla monopoly - no mods.
There are official rules but much like civ you can play by whatever rules you like.

 

[Disgustipated]

No amount of building and expansion can beat the efficiency of conquering opponent cities in the same time frame.


A better solution to this issue is to
a: Bring back the penalties of conquering cities so that it is not superior to normal expansion. This is only fair since you are already gaining a lot from conquering opponents cities without significant costs. (Units are far cheaper to produce now thanks to the 50% boosts from military policy cards while districts costs inflate to huge amounts.)
b: Reintroduce penalties for having too many cities. Founding new cities should still give significant advantages but there must be appropriate costs and decision making processes to manage huge empires and that's only fair based on reality.

As much as it pains me to say this, I have to agree. Part of me doesn't want to lose this mechanic, because it's so easy. My most recent two games were as Germany and England both on the Greatest Earth Map mod. Germany I expanded through warfare, and England I expanded through peaceful expansion (not a single conquered city). A huge difference in score obviously. But I also struggled in tech with England and I got beat to both Forbidden City and Big Ben wonders . I really hated losing Big Ben since I had London on an Earth map, but oh well. Of course my Germany game had more production, but I was far enough ahead in tech that it didn't matter. I got the wonders I wanted (just no early game ones since I was warring).

Think about it. Districts are so difficult to build in my England game, where as with Germany I got them all through building around 10 units. I never even had spare production or time to build Holy districts in my England game, and didn't get my Campus districts up until much later. In my German game they were all pre built. That's what I love most about conquering, having everything built for you.

I'm more upset that there's no modern districts or buildings except airport/spaceport. Like, no mass transit, no nuclear plants, solar plants, recycling centres. It's like you get to the modern era with powerplants and suddenly the game is like, "Okay, you're done building. Now just watch your cities grow and go back and build the same arena you could have build 2000 years ago."

Very good point, I can't help but think this is in store for the first expansion. I really wish airports would be more useful, as my German game mentioned above I never did build any aerodromes. Modern and Information age need many more fun things to do. This alone could make me finish more games. Not annoying things like punishing large empire players through scaling.

 

[empresskiova]

BANKRUPTCY… You are declared bankrupt if you owe more than you can pay either to another player or to the Bank. If your debt is to another player, you must turn over to that player all that you have of value and retire from the game. In making this settlement, if you own houses or hotels, you must return these to the Bank in exchange for money to the extent of one-half the amount paid for them; this cash is given to the creditor. If you have mortgaged property you also turn this property over to your creditor but the new owner must at once pay the Bank the amount of interest on the loan, which is 10% of the value of the property. The new owner who does this may then, at his/her option, pay the principal or hold the property until some later turn, then lift the mortgage. If he/she holds property in this way until a later turn, he/she must pay the interest again upon lifting the mortgage. Should you owe the Bank, instead of another player, more than you can pay (because of taxes or penalties) even by selling off buildings and mortgaging property, you must turn over all assets to the Bank. In this case, the Bank immediately sells by auction all property so taken, except buildings. A bankrupt player must immediately retire from the game. The last player left in the game wins. MISCELLANEOUS… Money can be loaned to

Idk, the rules still say I get your crap. I know Monopoly has probably had it's rules edited to death, but what can you do?

https://www.hasbro.com/common/instruct/monins.pdf

 

[DizzKneeLand33]

Right, the properties are only auctioned if the bank knocks a player out. It's amazing how nothing is played by the correct rules anymore, except maybe chess and go....

 

[Victoria]

I hate the free parking official rules

 

[juanpavo]

b: Reintroduce penalties for having too many cities. Founding new cities should still give significant advantages but there must be appropriate costs and decision making processes to manage huge empires and that's only fair based on reality.

I think about this a lot. There needs to be some hit for having a very wide empire and to create disincentives to extreme across-the-world forward settling.

If a city is far away from your core cities, there can be a penalty of some sort. "Too far" can be defined as something like "closest city is more than X hexes away" where increasing values of X mean gradually increasing "penalties". Additionally, this could be mitigated by having more cities at a given distance. For example, having one city 10-15 hexes away would be penalized more than having three cities 10-15 hexes away. Anyway, the exact formulas would need to be worked out, but the goal would be to reward expansion in a more organic inward-out way, and to somewhat penalize across-the-world settlements.

As for "penalties", they could take the form of negative amenity hits in the far-off cities. That would make them more susceptible to revolts, which seems logical.