Civ 7 Feature wishlist, whether reasonable or not!

[Leucarum]

That took a lot of work. I remember playing on maps during the pre-release period in which Territories would stretch across half a continent in a long, snaky line that made no sense at all and dramatically hindered movement and play.

And the size of Territories can be altered, I believe, but even the smallest territories are still Artificial.

More important, they cannot be altered easily, whereas the definition and boundaries of regions, territories and such were altered constantly either by political fiat or natural population changes.

Better, IMHO, to let the players set Territorial boundaries by what they are doing (or what their populations are 'invisibly' doing) as the game progresses.

That's basically the current (and Forever) Civ system, but it has to be made much more flexible. Posted on this already, but for example, Millenia, in one of its few good ideas, allows a beginning city to also form a Settlement/Town at the edge of its territory which grabs a radius around itself - extending the city territory. Make that a standard in the game, and allow several Settlements per city IF your political structure can handle it, and you can grab quite a bit of early territory per city beyond what the city itself can even work. That, in turn, allows tiles out on the periphery to be 'contested' with another Civ's expanding territory, so that, for instance, you can only extract a Resource in those tiles by placing a Fort next to it to 'force' control - and, possibly, give the other Civ a Diplomatic pretext for war.

I can absolutely believe that. For something which falls into the category of something which 99% of players take for granted it'a a very core feature and not an easy one to get right.

As much as I ended up not being a fan of humankind overall, it was full of ideas which I hope don't just fall to the wayside.

Millenia. I tried the demo and couldn't get enthused about it... Glad some people had the patience to find its strengths.

 

[reddishrecue]

If they had fractal maps I would be satisfied. I always used fractal maps and always will.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

Honestly, just replace Settlers entirely (or make them a later-in-the-game thing, for colonization and the like). Instead, you expand by building Settlements which can then develop into full-fledged cities over time.

This is what Humankind does - virtually any unit can 'start' a city until the fairly late game, when an expensive Settler unit can start a city with a whole bunch of buildings already in it, which is a HUGE jump-start for the late-game cities.

I don't know, Settler Units are about as old a staple as Civ has, and they represent rather neatly the 'classic' colonization problem that it took a bunch of people and resources to get a new city started Far Away. The classical Greek colonization efforts all started with specially selected Colonists and religious ceremonies and much effort for each new city. The history of starting cities in the Americas includes a lot of cases where they failed utterly or very nearly failed: Roanoke, Jamestown, Plymouth, Dairen were all either disasters or near-run. Building a Settler Unit is a nice, clean, simple way to show the effort required to make it work.

On the other hand, I thoroughly agree that the game also needs the Less-Than-City Settlements - from the very earliest Cities there were also outlying smaller pockets of people that fed resources to The City, and some of them from quite far away. A well-designed system could cover both the early Distant Sites like Arslntebe or Hacinebi (feeding Copper resources to Uruk from Eastern Anatolia, 100s of miles away) to later Colonies feeding resources from across the ocean.

 

[SupremacyKing2]

This is what Humankind does - virtually any unit can 'start' a city until the fairly late game, when an expensive Settler unit can start a city with a whole bunch of buildings already in it, which is a HUGE jump-start for the late-game cities.

I don't know, Settler Units are about as old a staple as Civ has, and they represent rather neatly the 'classic' colonization problem that it took a bunch of people and resources to get a new city started Far Away. The classical Greek colonization efforts all started with specially selected Colonists and religious ceremonies and much effort for each new city. The history of starting cities in the Americas includes a lot of cases where they failed utterly or very nearly failed: Roanoke, Jamestown, Plymouth, Dairen were all either disasters or near-run. Building a Settler Unit is a nice, clean, simple way to show the effort required to make it work.

On the other hand, I thoroughly agree that the game also needs the Less-Than-City Settlements - from the very earliest Cigties there were also outlying smaller pockets of people that fed resources to The City, and some of them from quite far away. A well-designed system could cover both the early Distant Sites like Arslntebe or Hacinebi (feeding Copper resources to Uruk from Eastern Anatolia, 100s of miles away) to later Colonies feeding resources from across the ocean.

Why not both? Have any unit be able to create a settlement or outpost which could become a city over time but might fail. But also have settler units which would be more expensive but would start a city right away (and cities could even start with 1-2 buildings already built). You could also have different types of settlers that would determine what building your city starts with. You could have a "religious settler" that would start the city with a basic religious building, a "scientist settler" that starts with a science building, a "culture settler" that starts with a culture building etc... This would give the player more choices of settlers and represent historically how settlers have come from different areas of society. It would also give the player more choices because if they just wanted to grab some land quick, they could settle an outpost with any unit but could also invest in settler units to found cities.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

Why not both? Have any unit be able to create a settlement or outpost which could become a city over time but might fail. But also have settler units which would be more expensive but would start a city right away (and cities could even start with 1-2 buildings already built). You could also have different types of settlers that would determine what building your city starts with. You could have a "religious settler" that would start the city with a basic religious building, a "scientist settler" that starts with a science building, a "culture settler" that starts with a culture building etc... This would give the player more choices of settlers and represent historically how settlers have come from different areas of society. It would also give the player more choices because if they just wanted to grab some land quick, they could settle an outpost with any unit but could also invest in settler units to found cities.

I think the last thing the game needs is more differentiation among basically the same units. One Settler to settle them All. Period.

However, a mechanism for setting up the Settlements based on Civs Usual Practice would require a Unit of some kind. That coud be Any non-civilian Unit (Humankind's model, since they really don't have 'Civilian' Units much) OR use a Builder as a 'half Settler' to build/establish a Settlement which Might become a City later on - with work, and support.

Cities should be specialized the way they are now - by what you build in them after they are founded, not by 'special additives' to the original Settler. However, (and this is another argument for using a Builder) the Settlement might well be a specialized mini-City, depending on what it is desired to Exploit: A Strategic or Luxury Resource, a site of some religious or cultural significance, or just a Fort to hold territory. Say, perhaps, for argument that it takes 2 Builder Actions to establish the basic Settlement, then 1 action to Specialize it for Resource, Religion, Military or Cultural significance, possibly represented by a single exploitive structure like a Monument, Mine/Plantation/Farm/Camp, Fort, etc.

If you want a Settlement to do more than one thing, that might require building it up into a City, which gives a nice in-game excuse for expanding into a City or not based on a specific requirement.

 

[BuchiTaton]

Most "Improvements" are pretty much villages, farming, mining, forestry, fishing, etc. villages. A CIV6's "builder charges" system make more sense as part of the settlers founding villages instead of cities, so each settler could spend all their "charges" to found a city or distribute them into multiple villages.
So is possible to get rid of "builders/worker" units, they are redundant when their abilities could be easily absorbed by Settlers, the City's production queu and Armies with Engineer promotion.

 

[Blue whale]

An idea for a DLC for civ 7 could be a "folklore leaders" pack, where various civs get leaders from their folklore. We already had a few good ones in civ 6, like Dido or Gilgamesh - it's fine if they may have been real or based on real people. Some other possible examples... Johnny Appleseed for the USA, Paul Bunyan for Canada, Robin Hood for England, Aeneas for Rome, Odysseus for Greece, etc. Maybe Papa Legba for a Caribbean civ? The heroes/legends mode has some good ones that could be re-used, like Maui, etc.

Folk lore leaders don’t make sense, no tales exist about Johnny apple seed conquring canada, or robin hood establishing diplomatic relations with Scotland. Having the yellow emporor and people like him makes more sense

 

[b81a98]

How about...
You can claim a tile any time without immediate cost
But if you claim 1 or more tile, you have to pay maintenance fees on those tile to "own" it.
For example, you have to pay 1 culture in 10 turn (actually 10 culture) on it,.
Of course you can't claim any tile when you can't pay 1 culture on it.
And it also have a "Auto claim" button, so the city will claim the tile automatically.
If the city didn't claim any tile, it will gain a tall play bonus or some positive (random)event (like Old World)

 

[eso12por8]

• For national parks: exotic animals &/or plants
• Buying territory from other civs (individual tiles or cities)
• Dynastic unions (uniting with another civ)
• Civil Wars (as a part of gameplay, not scenario)
• Revolutions (new civ is born from one of your cities, also perhaps cultural, scientific, industrial revolutions, etc.)
• Colonies like the old days, perhaps they could grow into cities eventually?
• Palace or Seat of Government, perhaps specific to your government type. If you change government, you have to have a new building for it in the capital. I want to decorate the palace again.
• A unique luxury good per civ
• Please bring back Venice.

 

[jozef57]

well what CIV7 will be is bsically already decided and worked out and implemented by the defs.. i just hope that the devs did nto cater to much for the potato mazobir and so on crows. play on deiti restart 10 times than try other civ and still boast how good they are at civlol. i play just a birt easyer settign and take it as it comes and not restart if i think i could loose.. but ok that is my way of playing

 

[Leyrann]

well what CIV7 will be is bsically already decided and worked out and implemented by the defs.. i just hope that the devs did nto cater to much for the potato mazobir and so on crows. play on deiti restart 10 times than try other civ and still boast how good they are at civlol. i play just a birt easyer settign and take it as it comes and not restart if i think i could loose.. but ok that is my way of playing

I only know Potato but first he doesn't boast how good he is at the game, he just explains how to do things like you'd expect a content creator to do, and second while he sometimes does roll for a fun (and easy) start, he also has series where he specifically goes with an extremely difficult start. Such as the one where he played Canada on a desert map script, just to name one. To summarize, he's playing to have fun. Sometimes that means going for a challenge, sometimes that means rerolling until you get something interesting but easy.

 

[luca 83]

With modern ai the economy and politics will be more rational so you Modern have to keep in mind for the player economic and political choice, where fixed leaders make no logical sense

 

[Patine]

With modern ai the economy and politics will be more rational so you Modern have to keep in mind for the player economic and political choice, where fixed leaders make no logical sense

I would still highly doubt that fixed leaders are going anywhere, logic aside. They are an icon of the Civ series, and give one the feel of personable opponents, and are an expected feature of Civ players. But, that being said, AI leaders who actually behave rationally and competively would be astounding!

 

[Piers Shepperson]

Better mod support. Return to CivIV which had a lot of great mods.

 

[Leyrann]

Better mod support. Return to CivIV which had a lot of great mods.

That difference is primarily because Civ IV didn't allow loading more than one mod at a time, which incentivizes people to combine things into larger mods, which you can then download as an entire package. Civ VI modding on the other hand is far more modular - but indeed doesn't have complete overhauls on the level Civ IV does.

(Civ V also allows loading multiple mods, but I suspect it's modding culture is more directly influenced by Civ IV's style because it's the immediate successor, leading to an in-between situation)

 

[1SDANi]

That difference is primarily because Civ IV didn't allow loading more than one mod at a time, which incentivizes people to combine things into larger mods, which you can then download as an entire package. Civ VI modding on the other hand is far more modular - but indeed doesn't have complete overhauls on the level Civ IV does.

(Civ V also allows loading multiple mods, but I suspect it's modding culture is more directly influenced by Civ IV's style because it's the immediate successor, leading to an in-between situation)

CIV also released the DLL source code very early, whereas we had to wait years for CiV's and CiVI hasn't released its at all

 

[Leyrann]

CIV also released the DLL source code very early, whereas we had to wait years for CiV's and CiVI hasn't released its at all

Modders have previously argued (on this very subforum) that this isn't nearly as major a difference as people pretend.

 

[pokiehl]

Modders have previously argued (on this very subforum) that this isn't nearly as major a difference as people pretend.

Correct. The opposing side of this argument is always people who don’t actually mod.

 

[Patine]

Better mod support. Return to CivIV which had a lot of great mods.

Civ2 and Civ3 were the heyday and height of fanmade mods and custom scenarios.

 

[Prester John 2]

I would also like a better mod support. Not just for new leaders and civilizations, but as in Civ2-Civ4 for an easier way to set up scenarios, a map with preset cities, units and civics, change the time scale etc. Civ2 Fantastic worlds was great in this regard. I want to build detailed historical scenarios as I did in Civ2 and Civ4 but that was hard from Civ5 onwards.