Civ 7 Feature wishlist, whether reasonable or not!

[The_goggles_do_nothing]

Regarding large empires the first thing that could/should be done is to look at existing rules and make them less favorable to expansion: For example from civ 6

loyalty in is backward in the sense that a small empire is dealing with pressure from its neighbors and a large empire isn't - because those neighbors are gone.

Eurekas / Inspirations from capturing a city and its infrastructure rather than having to build infrastructure.

 

[AffineConstant]

How did you go from "core game mechanics shouldn't be biased against a certain victory type" to "victory should be easy"?

What is "biased against", if not making something difficult?"

 

[Arcaian]

How did you go from "core game mechanics shouldn't be biased against a certain victory type" to "victory should be easy"?

All game design is going to affect the different victory types - one could just as easily argue that the existing, relatively weak stability mechanics have been biased against victories that don't revolve around conflict. On top of that, I don't think that the mechanic has to be hugely biased against Domination. You're talking about how "anti-expansion mechanics require more than simply tweaking numbers for some types of players - they require different systems, playstyles, and victories than what Civ6 had" as if there's a specific number-tweaking suggestion here, but as far as I can see, there hasn't been a specific suggestion here, just that conquered wide empires shouldn't be as stable as they are. Revamping the victories and systems is perfectly in-line with that suggestion, though not necessary. From my perspective here:

1. I think it's inarguable that the most powerful and effective start in Civ 6, and realistically any of the civ games other than Civ 5 which was harder to go wide in, is to conquer a neighbour with some sort of rush in an early era. Especially on difficulties where the AI get more settlers, you can often triple the size of your empire early game, at least one of the conquered cities being comparable to your capital. It sets you up for the rest of the game really effectively regardless of what victory you're aiming for, and it's wild that putting yourself in the position of a minority population trying to violently repress the larger proportion of your empire's population that also are the overwhelming majority of people in the actual cities you now rely on is not just a reasonable choice in 2000-1000 BC, but is typically going to last until the end of the game in a way that is not just stable but absolutely optimal. That is the key thing that I think this search for an effective stability system is about, and it's absolutely not just targeting Domination victory - functionally all victories get a huge boost out of doing this, and making it harder isn't just working against Domination victories.
2. Domination victory is such a boring victory, IMO - almost all the victories it gets pretty obvious that you're going to win by the time you're getting close, but Domination is one where the whole design feels like it can't avoid this. When you've successfully conquered (and are now receiving the benefits from the land of) 80% of the civs in the game, you're really not going to face much of a challenge from the rest. Theoretically there's nothing stopping other people from being just as close to a science victory as you are at the end, or a culture victory, or a diplomatic victory. Religion is basically just "Domination, but with a different set of combat troops", so it runs into the same problem. If a stability mechanic made it so that conquering and holding all those cities is implausible, I think that'd be a perfectly good outcome for the fun of the victory. We have plenty of examples of smaller states coming out to challenge much of the rest of the world in violent conflict and doing very well - Imperial Japan, Napoleonic France, Prussia and then WW1 and WW2 Germany, etc. We also have examples, often in earlier eras, of larger states continuing to expand and conquer. Both could be possible victory types in a revamped Domination victory - it could even be one where you can try and push for that bigger conquest in the earlier eras, and if you fail, Stability pushes you back to a smaller empire, but your military experience can still be very useful in going for a more WW1 Germany style of Domination victory. I think it'd be a struggle to sell this to players to be honest, losing a large chunk of your empire is difficult for people to come to terms with (especially given current expectations around the 4x genre), but at its core I think it'd be a much more interesting experience than the current domination victory.
3. Core game mechanics work against certain victory types all the time. Splitting the tech tree into a science + culture tech tree - and putting useful things for the space race in the culture tech tree - is absolutely a core game mechanic that is biased against a Science victory. That's fine, it's an interesting mechanic, and the Science victory is still interesting and not overly difficult (in fact, as you say, it's probably the most straight-forward victory in the game right now). It's certainly an area where some careful attention should be given to how the victory type is going after the core game mechanic change, but it's not like you can't do it. You just need to make sure it's still balanced afterwards.

 

[Prester John 2]

#Arcaian: I really like your suggestion to redesign the domination victory around a new stability mechanic. I think Humankind and probably ARA History untold try to achieve this by awarding prestige and fame respectively. Then it doesn't count how many cities or capitals you actually hold until the end of time/game but how far you reached. The Roman or Mongol empire may break apart but prestige/fame/whatever points gained during conquest pushes your civ to the top.
For instance, have a look at France. France, in Civ terms, had a moment of greatness during the culture and science bloom fromm Louis XIV and during the enlightenment, which gave them a certain amount of art,culture and science points. Then again during the Napoleonic age when each city or state conquered gave them points, though they loose these conquests afterwards. Then again during the colonial age. So points can be awarded per conquered cities multiplied by the time you can actually hold them.
Mongolia might have gained much more points from conquest, given how large and early their empire was, but to the shortlivety of their empire this number is not multiplied by many time points.
Persia and Rome also get many points because of the early time they accomplished their conquests.

So fame/prestige/victory points for conquest/domination are awarded by number of cities conquered * amount of time they are kept * the era they are conquered.

 

[AffineConstant]

#Arcaian: I really like your suggestion to redesign the domination victory around a new stability mechanic. I think Humankind and probably ARA History untold try to achieve this by awarding prestige and fame respectively. Then it doesn't count how many cities or capitals you actually hold until the end of time/game but how far you reached. The Roman or Mongol empire may break apart but prestige/fame/whatever points gained during conquest pushes your civ to the top.
For instance, have a look at France. France, in Civ terms, had a moment of greatness during the culture and science bloom fromm Louis XIV and during the enlightenment, which gave them a certain amount of art,culture and science points. Then again during the Napoleonic age when each city or state conquered gave them points, though they loose these conquests afterwards. Then again during the colonial age. So points can be awarded per conquered cities multiplied by the time you can actually hold them.
Mongolia might have gained much more points from conquest, given how large and early their empire was, but to the shortlivety of their empire this number is not multiplied by many time points.
Persia and Rome also get many points because of the early time they accomplished their conquests.

So fame/prestige/victory points for conquest/domination are awarded by number of cities conquered * amount of time they are kept * the era they are conquered.

Not denigrating the idea, but pointing out this sounds a bit more like a cultural victory than a conquest one, at least to me.

 

[Prester John 2]

Well, a culture victory would be in these terms if you gained fame/prestige points for investing heavily in theatres, great works of art, preservation of nature etc.

 

[Vincent_lacruz]

#Arcaian: I really like your suggestion to redesign the domination victory around a new stability mechanic. I think Humankind and probably ARA History untold try to achieve this by awarding prestige and fame respectively. Then it doesn't count how many cities or capitals you actually hold until the end of time/game but how far you reached. The Roman or Mongol empire may break apart but prestige/fame/whatever points gained during conquest pushes your civ to the top.
For instance, have a look at France. France, in Civ terms, had a moment of greatness during the culture and science bloom fromm Louis XIV and during the enlightenment, which gave them a certain amount of art,culture and science points. Then again during the Napoleonic age when each city or state conquered gave them points, though they loose these conquests afterwards. Then again during the colonial age. So points can be awarded per conquered cities multiplied by the time you can actually hold them.
Mongolia might have gained much more points from conquest, given how large and early their empire was, but to the shortlivety of their empire this number is not multiplied by many time points.
Persia and Rome also get many points because of the early time they accomplished their conquests.

So fame/prestige/victory points for conquest/domination are awarded by number of cities conquered * amount of time they are kept * the era they are conquered.

In CIV culture victory is more of a "soft power" approach. Domination is far more direct, and could be for example be illustrated by the conquest of the US by the colons (military might, control and integrate the natives)...

Also a point system is rather easy to understand (have more cultural influence than local ones), but for domination victory the ceiling to reach to be considered victorious is far more difficult to comprehend... Would it be a set number of points? A number of points depending on the age? And what would that target represents "in real life"?? Also, wouldn't that kind of victory be redundant with cultural victory???

 

[Patine]

but for domination victory the ceiling to reach to be considered victorious is far more difficult to comprehend..

Domination victory is not difficult to understand, at all. Like in all previous Civ iterations, or segue games like SMAC, you conquer all opposing civ's, and/or turn them to vassals.

 

[Navelgazer]

Eurekas / Inspirations from capturing a city and its infrastructure rather than having to build infrastructure.

This reminds me of an idea I had a while back in the Civ6 cycle, which I think would be really cool (if somewhat tricky to implement):

When you meet a new civ and they send you a delegation, the Leaders have dialogue lines we've all seen a million times now, like "I bring you the freshest Pecorino Romano," etc. Now, when you receive a delegation from Genghis Khan, he says "I am sending you gifts—surplus horses, a youth's bow, and airag to fortify you. Drink up!"

This made me think, instead of, or in addition to, the 25G for accepting/sending a delegation, it'd be cool (and make a lot of sense) for civs/leaders to have an additional "gift" or set of gifts that come from meeting them. Like if, when Genghis Khan sent you a delegation, you actually received 20 horses and/or the eureka for horseback riding. For Magnificence Catherine, maybe a free copy of a unique luxury. For Mvemba a Nzinga, maybe a free Great Prophet Point per turn, etc.

I mention these ideas specifically because it'd be possible to tailor each civ/leader's "gift" towards something which would indirectly benefit the leader sending them. Genghis Khan wants his enemies to have cavalries that he can convert to his own. Magnificence Catherine wants her rivals to have enough luxuries that they can have spare ones to trade. Mvemba a Nzinga wants his neighbors to be founding religions to send to him.

But it also makes it more of a judgment call as to whether you send neighbors a delegation yourself, since the benefits to them might more greatly outweigh the benefits to yourself.

Anyway, just a thought I had which I think could add some cool flavor to the game.

 

[Roman Citizen]

Bring back corporations from civ iv
Bring back the ideology system from Civ V; Brave New World
Give air units there own Great person, The Great Flying Ace
Having a separate paleontology unit to go along the archeology unit.
Reform archeology and museum mechanics in Civ VII to be more functionally useful.
Push the start date back to 5500 BC and the end date to 2100 AD
Have a map mode toggle that can show you the ideologies, Religions, ext.

 

[Krajzen]

Push the start date back to 5500 BC

Why this date in particular?

 

[Roman Citizen]

5500 BC was the start of the Ubaid Period of Mesopotamia. Where some say was the start of Sumer.

 

[b81a98]

Actually, what prevented the expansion of great empires was transportation capacity, not stability.
Even in 16th century (Ming Dynasty) China, most taxes could not be collected to the treasury.
Most are consumed or looted in transit, or misappropriated.
The army must keep attacking a new land for looting supplies, and if they stop attacking, it means they can't keep those army anymore.
And if there was nothing special about these conquered lands, they would not provide any benefit for the empire, except giving a way to let the army to pass though it.

 

[UWHabs]

Actually, what prevented the expansion of great empires was transportation capacity, not stability.
Even in 16th century (Ming Dynasty) China, most taxes could not be collected to the treasury.
Most are consumed or looted in transit, or misappropriated.
The army must keep attacking a new land for looting supplies, and if they stop attacking, it means they can't keep those army anymore.
And if there was nothing special about these conquered lands, they would not provide any benefit for the empire, except giving a way to let the army to pass though it.

At some level, the old civ 4 maintenance system sort of simulated that, since if you expanded too far too fast, you could crash your economy. Not exactly the same, but basically if you stretched too far cities would be a negative for you until you developed the infrastructure to support them.

 

[Prester John 2]

#b81a98
I would argue that transportation/logistics is a part of what constitutes stability. If I want to control an empire I need to send army and police units and messengers, tax collectors etc. around to supply and control the empire. For instance, the Roman empire functioned so well over so many centuries because troops could be deployed rapidly across the empire on roads and the mediterranean sea. So cities could get a stability boost by connecting them to roads and harbors. If a rebellion happens these can be subdued by bringing policing troops along the roads.
Stability could be maintained for the British empire due to the new sailing techniques and then the steam engine boats and trains.

Another part of your post is the importance of loot to maintain an empire, which I agree on. Conquest fuels conquest, lack of conquest put pressure on the treasury. Once the loot starts dwindling the size of the army gets smaller. That was a major problem for all Islamic empires, from the Umayyads to the Abbasids to the Ottomans.

 

[Leyrann]

At some level, the old civ 4 maintenance system sort of simulated that, since if you expanded too far too fast, you could crash your economy. Not exactly the same, but basically if you stretched too far cities would be a negative for you until you developed the infrastructure to support them.

Imo, Civ 4 had the best system to limit expansion. You never reached an optimal amount of cities for the long-term, unlike in Civ 5, but you did reach a point where you had to develop what you had before expanding further. On top of that the flavor made sense - larger empires require exponentially more administration costs.

Oh, and also, the costs you incurred would only increase upon player action. Whereas in Civ 5, global happiness would drop due to passive city growth, meaning you could suddenly get in trouble while you weren't even expanding at all, just developing.

 

[pokiehl]

Imo, Civ 4 had the best system to limit expansion. You never reached an optimal amount of cities for the long-term, unlike in Civ 5, but you did reach a point where you had to develop what you had before expanding further. On top of that the flavor made sense - larger empires require exponentially more administration costs.

Oh, and also, the costs you incurred would only increase upon player action. Whereas in Civ 5, global happiness would drop due to passive city growth, meaning you could suddenly get in trouble while you weren't even expanding at all, just developing.

I agree, but I think it’s important to recall that the optimal action in Civ 4 was still very much “expand as much as possible.” Civ 4 handles it much better than Civ 6 does, but still, I’d like to see a system in which expansion is not always the optimal end goal.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

I agree, but I think it’s important to recall that the optimal action in Civ 4 was still very much “expand as much as possible.” Civ 4 handles it much better than Civ 6 does, but still, I’d like to see a system in which expansion is not always the optimal end goal.

I suggest that achieving this would require not only in-game mechanisms that make continuous expansion continuously more difficult, but also changing Victory Conditions so that Victory does not require continuous expansion, and in fact some Victories might become more difficult due to expansion.

I've posted before on using the continuous action in the game rather than the conditions on the Last Turn to calculate Victory, so that, for instance, achieving a Happiness Victory based on the percentage of your population in Ecstatic or Happy mode for the longest time would gain a Victory. Obviously, this would be much easier with a smaller population - as long as you are not being overrun by larger neighbors for most of the game!

 

[Leyrann]

I agree, but I think it’s important to recall that the optimal action in Civ 4 was still very much “expand as much as possible.” Civ 4 handles it much better than Civ 6 does, but still, I’d like to see a system in which expansion is not always the optimal end goal.

I don't.

Once your empire is sufficiently developed, expansion should always be the optimal decision, because it's the simplest way to grow.

Or, put in another way, expansion should only cease being optimal temporarily, namely when you need to consolidate the expansion you've made. If done right, you'll naturally stop expanding not because you don't want to, but because you either cannot do so anymore, as all land has been claimed, or because you've reached the end of the game.

 

[Arcaian]

I don't.

Once your empire is sufficiently developed, expansion should always be the optimal decision, because it's the simplest way to grow.

Or, put in another way, expansion should only cease being optimal temporarily, namely when you need to consolidate the expansion you've made. If done right, you'll naturally stop expanding not because you don't want to, but because you either cannot do so anymore, as all land has been claimed, or because you've reached the end of the game.

They better put in a hell of a lot of work to make it less of a pain to manage all the cities then, because I do not want to be manually deciding the production queues of 20+ cities again, early Civ was too much and I do not wish to go back