Civ 7 Feature wishlist, whether reasonable or not!

[mitsho]

I also think it overly encouraged artillery. Personally, I want a combat system that takes less time to resolve. Whether it's forming armies and having them fight as a complete army or whatever they think of, I don't want Civ3's game where you had probably 50 units in a stack and had to fight through all of them.

My personal take is to have them form an army (and move it as an army). Your army would have more combat effectiveness based on the units in it (the strength of the individual units, the total number and health of the units, and how "balanced" it was). Then it would play out like a Total War battle on auto-resolve. There are obvious downsides of this idea, but it would be different from what came before while still being reasonably immersive.

My idea is to have different sizes of units where the level equals their influence range. A scout or trader is 0 and just occupies his own tile. A combat unit is 1. Later armies can go up to 5 or so. They can have different units in them, but they are not stacks, instead spread out over all the tiles where they have influence. When these overlap, a fight starts. It doesn't have to be resolved right away. To put cities under siege, you have to engulf them. So we unstacked the cities, let's unstack the armies.

Also naval warfare works differently with larger ranges, and maybe even like airwarfare, to get players used to that. Just like the range 0 and 1 warfare od ancient times is very similar to civ 6 and 5.

That would be geometrically impossible, however triangles within hexagons are possible.

This has in fact been a concept that I've posted about on the forums at least once, possibly multiple times, and would love to see. You could also use the triangle grid for terrains (meaning you can have multiple terrains on a single hexagon), unit stacking limits (1 per traversable triangle in the hexagon), river tiles, et cetera.

I would like to have general districts with a few triangle spots (not 6 otherwise it will not look good). Each slot can have a building. Wonders or special buildings take up more. If you cluster science buildings together, you get a super science district. If you mix them with production ones, you get a bonus towards practical research. Throw in a barracks for faster unit build time. A watermill would be nice, but there's no river on this tile. So, what's the best mix for your environment, for your civ and for your goal? That's the puzzle!

 

[GeneralZIft]

They should take the Ages system and slam dunk it through a building and forget about it forever, I never want to do a list of chores ever again

 

[McSpank01]

I would like a system in Civ 7 that actually punishes civs that go too wide too fast. Civ 6 it's possible to play tall, sort of. Depending on the Civ you are playing as, but even then it's optimal to have about 8-10 cities. I like to play Civ almost as a Sim City game sometimes and take creative pride in my cities and the way they are built. I'd like a game that helps that process and doesn't just punish it by rewarding players for basically spamming the map with cities.

On that, another element I would like in the game would be to make it feel less like a game. Sounds weird I know, but often you end up optimising numbers, playing to a victory type.. it all feels very gamey and immersion breaking. I want to be immersed in my civ and feel like it's something I created, but the current games feel more throwaway because it's mostly just a job of optimising endlessly.

Another point, I want to try to somehow get away from the snowball effect. It happens with almost all 4x games, but essentially the early game is difficult, but if you do your job right then the late game is just an end turn simulator where you are just waiting for numbers to tick up to the correct level. I'd like loyalty mechanics that threaten to blow your empire apart at any moment, cultural rifts or civil wars. It could all be frustrating if handled badly, but I do think it's possible to make late games more interesting. Civ 6 tried to basically add mini games to the late game to add interest (collect antiquities etc) but it never really worked.

 

[The_goggles_do_nothing]

I want models to be able to write AI clients to play againts. I'm not saying they would be better then the default AI but it would add some unpredictability if you were playing against several different AI designs at once.

I mainly want a well-integrated game. My example I've used several times is I should be able to place a map tack and that will show up as a suggestion in the build queue, or if I'm teching towards Military Tactics that building a spearman to get the eureka.

 

[pokiehl]

I hope we’re able to use mods in online multiplayer as seamlessly as we can in Civ 6.

I also really hope they keep bringing back the “teams” function for coop. Can’t take for granted that it’ll be there: Humankind still doesn’t have a team setup.

 

[civac]

I want models to be able to write AI clients to play againts. I'm not saying they would be better then the default AI but it would add some unpredictability if you were playing against several different AI designs at once.

From experience modders do write better AI than Firaxis.

 

[Gedemon]

unreasonable wish:

• combine the best of Oldworld and civ6 modding capabilities

reasonable wish:

• an AI that knows how to use all units on release (looking at you air units) or a way to control all AI units from mods.
• a layer of RP over the board game rules or a way to control all Diplomacy from mods (I'd be curious to see if LLM could work for diplomatic proposals/decisions for example)

 

[Krajzen]

• a layer of RP over the board game rules or a way to control all Diplomacy from mods (I'd be curious to see if LLM could work for diplomatic proposals/decisions for example)

One of the most interesting proposals I have ever seen. How exactly would it look like from your perspective?

 

[ldvhl]

I would like a system in Civ 7 that actually punishes civs that go too wide too fast.

Why do people not want to play 4x games when they play 4x games? It's like wanting to plant flowers in Call of Duty.

 

[pokiehl]

Why do people not want to play 4x games when they play 4x games? It's like wanting to plant flowers in Call of Duty.

That’s not really a fair analogy.

Expansion should be a viable approach should be challenging to manage. That’s what the poster was saying. In Civ 6, expansion is essentially unchecked and spamming cities is the best strategy by far. That’s boring.

 

[ldvhl]

That’s not really a fair analogy.

Expansion should be a viable approach should be challenging to manage. That’s what the poster was saying. In Civ 6, expansion is essentially unchecked and spamming cities is the best strategy by far. That’s boring.

For you, maybe, but it's how some people play 4x. That's literally what one of the Xs stands for. Why people would want the game to "punish" people for playing the way they want is bizarre.

 

[pokiehl]

For you, maybe, but it's how some people play 4x. That's literally what one of the Xs stands for. Why people would want the game to "punish" people for playing the way they want is bizarre.

So you just want things to be easy and be unchallenged?

I don't think it's "bizarre" that people want to be challenged in their games. That's why everyone clamors for better AI. Fair challenge is engaging and keeps the game fun. Victory isn't fun if there's no chance you can lose.

 

[Futumch]

I'd like a more flexible jersey system. For starters, more than just a primary and secondary colour per jersey. Also, instead of being limited to four discrete colour selections, let me have more control over the primary, secondary and tertiary colours for the civ I am playing in my game. If there's clashes, then by all means, warn me - but ultimately that's my choice.

 

[The_goggles_do_nothing]

I don’t know if moders would make a better ai but they could make ai customized for civs. Norway flossing the world with longboats etc.

 

[DeckerdJames]

Honestly, dark and golden ages are a great concept, but they do desperately need a rework. Once you get the snowball running currently, it's far too easy to just string them along. I'm pretty sure I've had games where I literally had a golden age every single age until the game ended. And that's while playing on Deity and without conquering anything.

Also, going into a dark age to get a heroic age is gimmicky, and even if you're not hitting a golden age every time, you still feel like you're getting your golden age after you were doing great things, instead of while you were doing great things.

A better concept might be to have some kind of general value that increases if you conquer, build wonders, or achieve stuff, and decreases if you lose conflicts or don't achieve anything, where the higher it becomes, the more benefits you get, and the lower it becomes, the more penalties you get. Above a certain value, you hit a golden age with additional bonuses, below another certain value, you hit a dark age with additional penalties.

Or something like that. I don't know, I came up with this on the spot.

What if there were golden ages and dark ages related to different areas which trigger base on relativity? Due to the nature of yields, at least in Civ 6, you could be ahead in culture, but behind in culture. Or building a wonder could trigger a golden age.

 

[ldvhl]

So you just want things to be easy and be unchallenged?

I don't think it's "bizarre" that people want to be challenged in their games. That's why everyone clamors for better AI. Fair challenge is engaging and keeps the game fun. Victory isn't fun if there's no chance you can lose.

I never said anything about wanting things to be easy or unchallenged so I don't know why you're trying to put words in my mouth.

 

[Core Imposter]

Seems like there should be climate change, not as if was in Civ IV where the world degraded, but from the beginning of the game there should be a random shift of climate across the world so that, for example, it would model the fall of early South America civs and give the game civs tools to mitigate and exploit changing climates. Civilization is certainly old enough to have witnessed this. Rivers have changed course, the Nile for example.

 

[Krajzen]

Seems like there should be climate change, not as if was in Civ IV where the world degraded, but from the beginning of the game there should be a random shift of climate across the world so that, for example, it would model the fall of early South America civs and give the game civs tools to mitigate and exploit changing climates. Civilization is certainly old enough to have witnessed this. Rivers have changed course, the Nile for example.

The problem is you realistically shouldn't have any tools to mitigate that - there was no way for old civilizations to predict or really counteract climate change, and it would be frustrating gameplay experience "whoops, temperature on your continent changes, now there is no way for your home biome to sustain agriculture anymore and you must abandon your capital, all other players are unaffected"

Oh, river suddenly flooded and changed course requiring me to rebuild/move 20 tile improvements and cutting my capital off fresh water and trade connection, what a great feeling

 

[Leyrann]

o****eract

Did it really censor 'counteract'? Or did it do so because you typo'd the order of the c and o?

Silly either way imo...

 

[pokiehl]

Did it really censor 'counteract'? Or did it do so because you typo'd the order of the c and o?

Silly either way imo...

It’s not censored for me…that’s weird.