Civ 7 Feature wishlist, whether reasonable or not!

[1SDANi]

Are you referring to merging the source code of the .dll mods? If so, I cannot imagine anyone outside of a tiny fraction of the people interested in adding mods to their Civ game would have the knowledge to do that. I work with computers for my day-to-day job; I don't code for a living, but I often do automate some tasks with some simple scripts, and I imagine that puts me as more familiar with coding and scripting than most. I've written and compiled a program in C++ a handful of times, and at best when met with compilation issues in C++ programs I tend to be able to fix prerequisites that have changed or similar minor fixes, merging the source code of two .dll mods that aren't incredibly trivial would likely be significant effort for me to figure out.

Yeah, as long as at least one of the mods you're merging is a small mod like "adds 1 more ring to cities", it is relatively easy

 

[jozef57]

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.

ofcpourse i respect your opinion.. but i was trying to make a point

 

[Leyrann]

ofcpourse i respect your opinion.. but i was trying to make a point

I also respect your opinion in return, but I felt your point was unfair towards Potato, hence my reply.

 

[nakzox]

That the game is good enough for FilthyRobot to come back to it Civ V style.

 

[raider980]

Chopping forests should have some consequence. (This is coming from a Civ 5 perspective, I haven't played Civ 6).

In Civ 5 when you chop a forest you get an immediate production boost in the closest city. This always seemed weird to me. Free hammers with no consequences doesn't seem right. Plus your lands end up looking like a barren wasteland, its pretty ugly. There should be some negative effect to chopping all the forests. In Civ 2 there was global warming as a consequence of pollution. I would like a similar mechanic so that if you choose to chop all your forests, you can expect a negative future consequence of some sort.

 

[Leyrann]

Chopping forests should have some consequence. (This is coming from a Civ 5 perspective, I haven't played Civ 6).

In Civ 6, deforestation speeds up global warming when it starts happening.

Which, in all honesty, doesn't really stop chopping from being the optimal strategy.

Oh yeah and droughts can only occur on 7 hexes in a circular pattern, none of which border a river or sea nor contain a feature, so chopping can cause those.

 

[Trav'ling Canuck]

Chopping forests should have some consequence. (This is coming from a Civ 5 perspective, I haven't played Civ 6).

In Civ 5 when you chop a forest you get an immediate production boost in the closest city. This always seemed weird to me. Free hammers with no consequences doesn't seem right. Plus your lands end up looking like a barren wasteland, its pretty ugly. There should be some negative effect to chopping all the forests. In Civ 2 there was global warming as a consequence of pollution. I would like a similar mechanic so that if you choose to chop all your forests, you can expect a negative future consequence of some sort.

Civ's approach to chopping forests has always been a bit off the mark. Historically, most deforestration was to allow growing populations to feed (and in northern climes warm) themselves. Yes, trees were cut to support some construction projects, notably shipbuilding, but mostly forests were cut down to create arable land. Chopping should really be something you need to do to feed your people as you outgrow your current sources of food.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

Civ's approach to chopping forests has always been a bit off the mark. Historically, most deforestration was to allow growing populations to feed (and in northern climes warm) themselves. Yes, trees were cut to support some construction projects, notably shipbuilding, but mostly forests were cut down to create arable land. Chopping should really be something you need to do to feed your people as you outgrow your current sources of food.

The most common causes of deforestation in both Europe and China were clearing land for agriculture, as posted, but also for firewood to cook the food and heat the homes. And deforestation could quite ligterally make a city Unviable. The Cucuteni cities in the Danube plains deforested everything within a 10 - 20 kilometer radius of the city and so had to move west to the better-forested foothills. This, of course, was very early (semi-Neolithic) and they did not have enough animals to use dried animal dung as an alternative fuel, nor did they apparently have coppicing to provide more firewood from the same stands of forest.

Firewood, though, was a major problem in northern climes. The first mention of coal used as a heat source is in England is from 952 CE - long before any industrial use - because ready sources of firewood were getting to be too far from the cities for the town folk to gather easily.

So, cut down all the trees near the city and there should be major minuses, at least until coal generally replaces wood as a fuel (18th - 19th century in Europe, much earlier in China but only for Industrial purposes like firing kilns and blast furnaces). In some areas removing all the trees also causes major soil erosion from both water and wind, reduces fertility of the soil and its recovery from agriculture, and can enormously increase the potential Flood damage from both sea (storms, tides, hurricanes, etc) and rivers. Tree Roots are a major, often overlooked, Bonus to the land, and their removal can result in some locally massive problems.

 

[Leyrann]

snip

Keep in mind that historical gameplay mechanics themed around long-term environmental stability are pretty much impossible to do right, as a player will usually be far more aware of the need for that stability than people historically were, leading to an outcome that's still ahistoric because people are taking undue care to sustain the environment.

It's pretty much a lose-lose situation - you can't make it properly historic no matter what you do. Unless maybe if it's a passive mechanism but that can easily become frustrating to the player.

 

[Patine]

Civ's approach to chopping forests has always been a bit off the mark. Historically, most deforestration was to allow growing populations to feed (and in northern climes warm) themselves. Yes, trees were cut to support some construction projects, notably shipbuilding, but mostly forests were cut down to create arable land. Chopping should really be something you need to do to feed your people as you outgrow your current sources of food.

There is a mournful song by an Irrish songstress about an old growth forest chopped down by the British in the 1800's to make a fleet of ships. That was noteworthy enough an event for a song.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

Keep in mind that historical gameplay mechanics themed around long-term environmental stability are pretty much impossible to do right, as a player will usually be far more aware of the need for that stability than people historically were, leading to an outcome that's still ahistoric because people are taking undue care to sustain the environment.

It's pretty much a lose-lose situation - you can't make it properly historic no matter what you do. Unless maybe if it's a passive mechanism but that can easily become frustrating to the player.

I didn't mean to suggest that the actual consequences should be exactly modeled. As posted, that is extremely difficult to get right in the long term, especially since the uses of wood for construction, ship-building, firewood, even charcoal for industrial (iron-working, among others) uses almost all had Substitutes of some kind.

But, in the context of 'free' production by deforesting your civilization, that needs to be toned down or given an associated malus. On a wider note, ANY mechanic that allows free anything is usually best reserved for a very specific Unique, because as a general mechanic (and a general rule) it will be abused by human players.

The penalty for rampant deforestation could be anything from a malus to your farms (due to soil erosion that doesn't have to be specifically modeled) or to population growth, or penalties to production of some form: lack of timber had effects in all those areas, but don't have to be modeled explicitly ("Your production of any naval vessel before Ironclads is penalized X% due to lack of large timbers") - For one thing, that implies to the gamer that the ONLY malus from deforestation is the explicit case he/she is given, whereas it had more general effects over the decades and centuries.

While they have pretty firmly debunked the "deforestation of Easter Island caused population collapse" hypothesis, that doesn't imply that chopping down every tree in sight was ever a particularly Good Thing to do.

 

[Patine]

The most common causes of deforestation in both Europe and China were clearing land for agriculture, as posted, but also for firewood to cook the food and heat the homes. And deforestation could quite ligterally make a city Unviable. The Cucuteni cities in the Danube plains deforested everything within a 10 - 20 kilometer radius of the city and so had to move west to the better-forested foothills. This, of course, was very early (semi-Neolithic) and they did not have enough animals to use dried animal dung as an alternative fuel, nor did they apparently have coppicing to provide more firewood from the same stands of forest.

Firewood, though, was a major problem in northern climes. The first mention of coal used as a heat source is in England is from 952 CE - long before any industrial use - because ready sources of firewood were getting to be too far from the cities for the town folk to gather easily.

So, cut down all the trees near the city and there should be major minuses, at least until coal generally replaces wood as a fuel (18th - 19th century in Europe, much earlier in China but only for Industrial purposes like firing kilns and blast furnaces). In some areas removing all the trees also causes major soil erosion from both water and wind, reduces fertility of the soil and its recovery from agriculture, and can enormously increase the potential Flood damage from both sea (storms, tides, hurricanes, etc) and rivers. Tree Roots are a major, often overlooked, Bonus to the land, and their removal can result in some locally massive problems.

And that was ttypically why a player cut down a forest for the plains underneath in Cic2. The one-time-hammers yield are not remotely as great, there, as Civ6, and, though I've not played them, from what I can obviously grasp in Civ4 and 5.

 

[Vincent_lacruz]

I didn't mean to suggest that the actual consequences should be exactly modeled. As posted, that is extremely difficult to get right in the long term, especially since the uses of wood for construction, ship-building, firewood, even charcoal for industrial (iron-working, among others) uses almost all had Substitutes of some kind.

But, in the context of 'free' production by deforesting your civilization, that needs to be toned down or given an associated malus. On a wider note, ANY mechanic that allows free anything is usually best reserved for a very specific Unique, because as a general mechanic (and a general rule) it will be abused by human players.

The penalty for rampant deforestation could be anything from a malus to your farms (due to soil erosion that doesn't have to be specifically modeled) or to population growth, or penalties to production of some form: lack of timber had effects in all those areas, but don't have to be modeled explicitly ("Your production of any naval vessel before Ironclads is penalized X% due to lack of large timbers") - For one thing, that implies to the gamer that the ONLY malus from deforestation is the explicit case he/she is given, whereas it had more general effects over the decades and centuries.

While they have pretty firmly debunked the "deforestation of Easter Island caused population collapse" hypothesis, that doesn't imply that chopping down every tree in sight was ever a particularly Good Thing to do.

In CIV 6, you had the drought mecanism that was supposed to penalize heavy deforestation. However it did seam to seldom happen, so it didn't have that much of an impact...

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

In CIV 6, you had the drought mecanism that was supposed to penalize heavy deforestation. However it did seam to seldom happen, so it didn't have that much of an impact...

My own experience is that 'drought' hits mostly plains and desert areas regardless of deforestation, so I never noticed any connection between the two.

 

[Hellenism Salesman]

My own experience is that 'drought' hits mostly plains and desert areas regardless of deforestation, so I never noticed any connection between the two.

Same experience here.

I thought it was just there to make flat tiles worse. Perhaps I should have read more into Gathering Storm’s mechanics…

 

[UWHabs]

Same experience here.

I thought it was just there to make flat tiles worse. Perhaps I should have read more into Gathering Storm’s mechanics…

It's also that it's not like you chop a forest and the next turn a drought hits. If it's delayed by 50 or 100 turns, you won't think about it being a causal relation.

 

[Canadian Bluebeer]

It hits plains areas that have no forests. I can get nasty, as in back to back to back overlapping.
Planting forests to break up the large empty plains will prevent it from happening again.
(so chopping old growth, then replanting... works.)

Desert doesn't get droughts. It get Ha-Boobies!

 

[jozef57]

I also respect your opinion in return, but I felt your point was unfair towards Potato, hence my reply.

glad you did to be honnest

 

[Krajzen]

Since we have three weeks until gameplay release, I would sum up my wishes as:

0) General design philosophy being less lopsided towards "every mechanic reminds you it is board game", with more simulationist - immersive "this is organic living world" vibe.
1) Combat-army system different from civ6 1UPT and old 4X stacking - you have interesting battles and AI often threatens you offensively, yet there is as little micromanagement as possible.
2) Interesting endgame, filled with fun historically appropriate mechanics which disturb status quo and snowballing. Ideologies causing revolutions, alliance blocs, world wars and cold wars, and/or new modern industrial economy mechanics which can make weaker civs grow rapidly and are object of rivalry.
3) AIs in diplomacy being like "we are rational, scheming political players", no irrational agenda obsessions. AIs being agressive and expansive till the end, no boring and naive "end of history" thesis of civ6 and AIs being moralist pacifists.
4) Dynamic city-based happiness system which generates interesting internal conflicts within civilizations (both civ5/6 had terrible city happiness systems).
5) Some interesting revolution in the way economic/demographic fundamentals of the game are done - something refreshing with cities, yields and pops. For example I would love "unstacked pops" as in pop units having ethnicity, religion, social class, needs, migrations physical location etc.
6) Balance between tall and wide (civ5 being too tall, civ6 being too wide)
7) Balance between gov system being too inflexible or too inconsequential (civ5 and civ6 extremes)
8) Some radically new religion system (civ5 and 6 had them almost identical)
9) Barbarians and city states being reworked into unified system of interesting minor faction "life cycle", with their own adventures, options to negotiate and assimilate them etc.
10) Reworked border growth mechanic, so my early era empires are not ugly city patchworks separated by nothing (petty I know )
11) Fun statistics and fun replays, wealth of interesting data to play with
12) No agendas, governors, loyalty, era score, competitions, terrible civ6 world congress, gee I didn't like so many new and fun systems of the past game


Beyond that I am open for new and strange ideas, it's just lack of those that would make me sad. Just the first six points would make me very happy.

 

[tramwajg]

1) all periods of human history, from prehistory to intergalactic travels (like civ4 caveman2cosmos mod), not only ancient-modern
2) realistic combat without wooden ships destroying battleships