Civ 6 - The Next Big Thing?

[KrikkitTwo]

I would really like to see more advanced 'non military war' mechanics.
Enhanced versions of:
Culture-Tourism mechanic from Civ V (cause unhappiness/revolts in cities that identify with you)... make it work on a city by city basis, so that recently conquered territory is hard to control militarily (have it generate rebel units that work at getting the city back)
&
Diplomatic Capital from CivBE: what if your relationship with other civs was like a relationship with a CS... you can spend some resource to make it better (or spend to make it worse)...but they can do that too. (and possibly 3rd parties can as well)
War could cause unhappiness based on how good the relationship is (war wouldn't change the relationship, just suspend it..similar to with CS)


Also Simplified warfare... move from 1 UPT to 1 APR (1 Army per region)
Combine multiple units of different types into an army, that fights as one unit... with the ability to "intercept" multiple enemy armies.

You would have to simplify unit stats, and remove promotions for individual units, but it could streamline warfare a lot (and that is one of the major time sucks in civ, it can be fun, but is often repetitive and boring once you have your military set up for a campaign.)

 

[beetle]

^^ I like the sound of all that. You post also reminds me that I miss the dynamic borders of IV. I mean, I like how V borders start at 6 and expand over time. I just think there should be mechanics for getting back from the AI that forward settles me (besides GG bombs of course).

Also, it is just silly how neighboring cities will both often claim tiles four hexes out -- but three tiles away from an AI city. These stupid spider borders should flatten out over time. I like how borders creep out to a lux or resource before filling in the third ring completely -- but not when that fourth ring is three hexes distant from another city. It is just broken.

 

[duckstab]

I agree, it was the best thing in CivRev, a game otherwise I find not that great.
They were also historically pretty correct, like medieval times England got bonuses for archers, industrial era perks for industrial revolution, naval power buffs etc.

One cool example is also America, who get insane late era buffs, like 3 x production for each city.

One of the longstanding problems with uniques in the Civ series is balancing early and late game uniques. E.g. 25% increase in strength on a classical era melee unit is much more likely to be a game changer than a 25% strength bonus on one that appears in the industrial era. That's both because early advantages snowball over time and because games may be won before the late game uniques even appear. So if, for example you're playing a civ whose uniques all appear in the industrial era or later, your strategy involves surviving until then and getting there as fast as possible. If you manage to do that you should be rewarded with a truly "insane late era buff".

On the other hand, if every civ got a bonus in each era or even just one each in the early, middle, and late game, and those bonuses were balanced properly within those time periods, there would be no need to balance them disproportionately between periods.

So yes, I think this is a good idea.

 

[Camikaze]

Has there even been an announcement that Civ6 is in development?

No, just healthy speculation, largely fueled by Brad Wardell claiming that it would likely be released this year, based on his general industry expertise.

 

[DudewiththeFood]

There has now been an announcement and release date is set for 21st October this year.