Civ 7 Feature wishlist, whether reasonable or not!

[aenima]

IA diplomacy should take into account positions (power, science, cultural etc) and adapt the messages to the situation. And have a sort of coherency (not as Alexander the great who doesn't stop to encourage you to do war, but if you do so, you have griefs and after he is angry about you because other civs have griefs ...... non sense for me)

A real difficulty level, not avantages, maybe with machine learning that can learn from your games to propose a better ia behaviour.

 

[Ordnael]

Keep the districts...I LOVE them...even if I might suck at proper planning / placing them.
Keep the colourful palette and cartoony feel of CIV VI, if not just don't go towards realism aestethic please...unless i can have gibs from killed units.
Allows us to donate military units, CS included. Also you attack my vassal CS I get the option to trigger Causus Belli on that...don't allow alliance CIV to attack you vassal...it's just stupid!
I want a warrior leader for Portugal...Afonso Henriques please! Run moors run!
Can we have Morgan Freeman to narrate the game this time?

 

[Roald Amundsen]

I really hope they take a good look at the orders system in Old World. This is brilliant 4x game design.

 

[fy00sh]

Keep the districts...I LOVE them...even if I might suck at proper planning / placing them.
Keep the colourful palette and cartoony feel of CIV VI, if not just don't go towards realism aestethic please...unless i can have gibs from killed units.
Allows us to donate military units, CS included. Also you attack my vassal CS I get the option to trigger Causus Belli on that...don't allow alliance CIV to attack you vassal...it's just stupid!
I want a warrior leader for Portugal...Afonso Henriques please! Run moors run!
Can we have Morgan Freeman to narrate the game this time?

absolutely agree on the colorful palette and districts. the whole reason i ended up loving civ6 as much as i did was the districts, theyre in fact the main reason i havent ever really bothered to try out civ5, i just cant imagine really liking the game nearly as much without em, same with unique tile improvements. also agree on donating units.
as for cartoonyness, i mostly just hope its *consistent*. plenty of civ6 leaders just look jarring placed next to each other

 

[TreVor_ish]

I would like to be able to work (put a specialists on) any tile that belongs to a city, not just within 3 tile radius.

 

[The_goggles_do_nothing]

Area of Effect to be calculated based on the same rules as movement.
Hovering over a Wonder (or district, building, or improvement etc..) shows which cities or tiles receive its benefits.
Impassable desert and tundra. Can be unlocked by tech.
More advantages for settling on the coast.

 

[pokiehl]

I want the map to be spiced up visually in 2 ways:

1. Bring back the way different landmasses have different mountain, forest, desert, etc. textures. It was this way in Civ 5 and added a lot of cool visual flair and broke up the monotony of the map. It also enhanced the feeling of exploration.
2. I'd like to see a purely aesthetic "season" system that changes the appearance of everything. There is some evidence in the Civ 6 database that such a system was planned for, but never implemented.

 

[Prester John 2]

What I really would love for later civs to spawn at their estimated time, Rome in 753 BC, Germany in 909, Arabia in 600. They would get boosts appropriate to their area, the development of their neighbours, and would spawn from city states or barb camps (Franks, Mongols).
I'd also like to see civ-themed achievements or a set of partial mini victories that have an impact within the game, not just on Steam: For India to found Hinduism, for Rome to conquer Gaul, for Persia to conquer Babylon and Egypt.

 

[The_goggles_do_nothing]

What I really would love for later civs to spawn at their estimated time, Rome in 753, Germany in 909, Arabia in 600. They would get boosts appropriate to their area, the development of their neighbours, and would spawn from city states or barb camps (Franks, Mongols).

I can see this as a mode being introduced at some point. Have civs be designed to have a city state version and full civ version which could be switched mid-game.

 

[Angry_Sand]

I’m putting this here because I’ve seen a lot of other posts about better civil wars, different expansion, and prevention of forward settlement, and for those points, I think some of my own wish list items could work.

Note: This is part of a much larger wishlist with many features crossing over to this one, and this recommendation is only slightly edited from the original for time constraints. I am also primarily a Civ 5 VP player, so if I’m a little rusty with mechanics in Civ 6, that's why. These are all also marked spoilers because it's a long list alright. Sorry for the text wall.

Influence and Territory:

Spoiler Influence and Territory: :

Influence is the new mechanic I propose to allow for a lot of what you guys are asking for. This would include a new mechanic for territory control, civil wars, and has large impacts on expansion. In my mind it would act like a hybridized version of religious pressure and a tile yield, spreading out from your cities in two types, local and global. Global (national, civilization, state) influence is your civilization’s influence, it's the type that guarantees loyalty of your cities both close and afar. All of your cities will produce national influence, based on proximity to your capital or ‘core’ region, further augmented by trade routes, policy types, military units, buildings, and great people. National influence will spread out from your cities until it conflicts with a different nation’s influence, at which time it will define a clear border and begin to ‘stack’ on those tiles. If your influence greatly exceeds the adjacent nation’s or tribe’s influence, yours can ‘spill’ over and begin spreading through their territory.

The other influence type is ‘Local’ (regional, city, colony) influence. Local influence is produced by cities and regions, it is submissive to empire influence, and will spread at a reduced speed when compared to national influence. Local influence is different from national by the fact that it does not decay at nearly the same speed as national during times of crisis (minus razing or mass population loss). Local influence will also help secure your borders acting as additional national influence at half strength, meaning there is some merit to fostering its growth. However, if local influence exceeds national influence, the city or region in question may start festering rebellion.

There are a few reasons for why local influence might overcome national influence. Distance, especially in early game, will have reductions in both spread and strength of national influence, while city output will remain consistent regardless of location, only based on population and administration buildings. Ignoring city issues for long periods of time, allowing cities to be repeatedly attacked, or prolonged separation from the core region might result in ‘independent actions’. These could be things like the city fielding its own workforce to build tile improvements, spawn militia units to fight off attackers, siphon production for amenities, or steal gold for corrupt officials. Each independent action taken will boost local influence generation, so allowing these actions to occur is not always in your best interest, even if at first glance, the idea of free military units and workers might seem nice. Local influence might also be higher for other reasons, such as a strong cultural, religious, or demographic make up of a city or region.

You should also be able to produce influence in foreign nations by spreading your language, religion, culture, or population to them.

Non-nation territory and internal divisions:

Spoiler Non-nation territory and internal divisions: :

Influence on the map would form regions within and outside your empire, similar to Humankind’s territory zones, although they could change instead of being static. Non-empire influence will be produced by local ‘tribes’ and later, ‘minor nations’, but will still function as neutral territory that can be moved through and interacted with until certain theory, policy, or international law is put in place. Generally speaking, a neutral territory will have a capital town and other outlying settlements, and over time, these would evolve into other non-player nations like City states, confederations, etc. Attacking tribes, waging war across their territory, and other hostile actions may cause them to attack you. Do this to multiple tribes in the same region, and they may form a confederation to resist you.

Inside of your own territory, distinct regions may develop along local influence lines, and would serve as the basis for a state, oblast, province, or county equivalent. Governors could be assigned to lead regions which may contain multiple cities and towns vice just 1. Internal regions could also be manually split as a way to counter strong local influence from gaining too much momentum.

Loyalty:

Spoiler Loyalty :

Loyalty is a measure of your units’, regional governors’, and cities’ commitment to your nation, and much like influence, is split into regional and local loyalty. Units will be given a Loyalty value based on where they are built, and how far away they are from the capital. This also applies to settlers, colonists, and pioneers (more later). Governors assigned to a region may relay city concerns to you, which if ignored, could lead to independent actions by cities within that region, boosting local influence and decreasing governor and city loyalty. If loyalty decreases enough, and local influence supplants national, every turn spent in that configuration increases the chance of a secessionist movement, peasant uprising, or declaration of independence. There is also the potential situation that loyalty will decrease to low levels but influence will stay high. This may result in things like resistance movements, terrorism, and units auto disbanding or revolting.

Building military units in regions that have higher local influence will decrease their loyalty to you and raise their loyalty to the city or region of origin. If a civil war were to occur, some of these units may flip to the rebels. If a city is attacked and you have no forces in the region, the city may field militia units that will fight without your input. The more successful these units are at defeating attackers, the greater the influence of the city will grow in comparison.

Lastly, Generals will also have a loyalty value, and if this decreases enough, units within its army that have loyalty to that general that exceeds national loyalty, will flip. This army might march on your capital or to a different location, but if it captures sufficient population, could form an independent state.

Implications for Expansion:

Spoiler Implications for Expansion: :

When expanding, your government type really matters. Traditional based empires will focus on building up their influence per tile, leading to lower risk of secession the closer to their core cities are founded. Liberty would focus more on expanding influence outward, and give buffs to influence on the founding of cities and city-capital connections. Honor would increase influence generation by military units and fortifications, while also reducing local and opposing influence from tribal territory or competitors. There's tons of other options beyond the starting 3 in Civ 5, Imagine how a piety, trade, patronage, or commerce based civ might work (Venice UB could be sick).

Towns, a new tile mechanic, can be used to further bolster your influence on tiles further from your cities in which settlers would be too expensive or cumbersome to send. These will work their adjacent tiles, can become cities if they meet distance requirements, or could be absorbed by cities and function as a district. Towns are a good way to expand locally, and tradition based civs will receive buffs to their construction and influence generation. Towns can also be built outside your borders in neutral territory, but must be monitored closely to ensure they do not fall to local or competitor influence.

Settlers, colonists, and pioneers can also settle in neutral tribal zones. In the influence mechanics, I described the stacking mechanic at borders with opposing influence, settling or building towns outside your borders in adjacent territory would partially bypass this mechanic, essentially ‘linking’ influence and allowing for more rapid spread in the targeted territory. Settlers could be directed to build different types of settlements too, such as a trading post or cultural center for different benefits. This would essentially function as the primary means of expansion in the game, slowly supplanting local populations, absorbing them, or potentially in honor based civs, conquering them (more later).

Military ‘honor’ focused civilizations would be able to do much the same as other nations, except their influence buffs come from fortifications and units. They’d focus more on conquest and local influence suppression as their primary means of integrating new areas. In order to conquer a tribe, military civs could attack neutral units or occupy the towns of the area, both suppressing local influence and boosting your own. This might lead to resistance from the region, or potentially multiple regions, which would seek to unseat you from power to regain control of their settlements. If they are successful, it will increase their local influence, much like how a city’s ‘independent action’ would, and if this value is high enough, it may cause that region to evolve into another category of non player state.

A Colonist unit would function as expensive settlers that will produce higher national influence for a period of time after settling and remain stable for longer even after prolonged periods where no capital connection exists, and are much less sensitive to distance than a mere settler. Colonists however are quite expensive, and would have to be for balancing, else they’d be spammed as the preferred method of expansion. So, if you wish to expand further into an area, it may be more beneficial to build towns around the colony or build settlers to move forward. This is an issue however, because under the national influence will be local influence, and settlers, towns, or pioneers settled nearby colonies will receive a loyalty value to that colony and produce that colony’s influence on top of national, vice purely local. So if a colony were to flip or declare independence, it could result in much more than just 1 or 2 cities and a handful of towns going, but rather, it may be entire regions and their units which are loyal to them.

This would also mostly prevent forward settling until things like colonists could be deployed.

Example:

Spoiler Example: :

Let’s say you’re playing as the Roman empire. You have great empire influence due to your policy selections, enough to overpower your neighbors and make them much easier to conquer or integrate into the empire. You expand by both military means and economic means by building fortifications and trade centers in adjacent regions, establishing trade routes to them and placing garrisons in order to further boost influence spread.

One of your enemies is attempting to undermine your influence in a neutral territory and claim it for their own. To counter this, you decide to launch a small conquest and move in your forces to occupy the regional capital and surrounding towns. The locals aren't very happy about this, so they muster a few units and try to take back their territory, and mostly fail. But you fail to eliminate the revolt, and after a few turns, the tribe confederates with two other regions which launch a counter force towards your occupation force and your own territory. To make matters worse, your advisory has begun donating units to this confederation. This pins your forces down in a slugging match for multiple turns, eventually resulting in you moving some of your forces from their respective garrisons within the empire to replenish your forces, leaving portions of the empire vulnerable.

Now of course, you’re the Roman empire, so most people don’t want smoke, but some smaller Nomad tribes in the middle east begin attacking your Levant region, not enough to constitute redeployment of your main force, but enough to where Jerusalem and Tyre field militia units to beat back the attackers, followed by workers to repair a series of damaged tiles, boosting their local influence for each independent action. Normally this wouldn’t be sufficient to push local influence over the empire’s, but the region is home to a minority religion, christianity, which has been steadily gaining followers and boosting local influence in the levant. Even this however, is not enough to tip the scales, only after two of your cities adjacent the confederation are sieged does your national and Local Levant gain equality. Then a great general is killed. Your empire's influence decreases in response to the death of a glorious general and the sacking of two cities, enough for the Levant’s local influence to rise above it, and the next turn, they launch a rebellion.

You still had some units in the area, but most were built in cities in the Levant, and even with high loyalty due to you being Rome and all, several still flip, on top of the militia units in the region already deployed by the cities. This also has the effect of severing your land connections to Babylon further east and Petra to the south, causing national influence to weaken in these areas each turn. You do win the war with the confederation, but cannot dislodge the rebellion before another crisis arises in the north, and after a few turns they form a new nation, we’ll say the Phonecian Republic. Because you were unable to quell the rebellion, national influence decreases even further, and both Babylon and Petra flip to the Republic. Now, national influence is being generated from this new faction and by christians still within your territory, further complicating the matter.

There's a lot of potential for emergent storytelling with systems like this, and even if it's something completely different, I’d love to see this level of complexity in the game.

 

[Jesper87]

A beg Firaxis
Please use call to powers 2 battle engine where you can stack up to 12 units in an army that all attack at onve. Moving one stupid unit at a time is so tedious. Also use ctp2 public works instead of using stupid workers.

Then make it possible to build underwater tunnels, and tunnels through montains.

 

[Brackenspore]

The presence of several UAs for Civilizations/Leaders (for all or for the greatest), one of which can be chosen when creating a game. The presence of several Unique Units for Civilizations/Leaders (for all or for the greatest), one of which can be selected. The presence of several Unique Infrastructure Objects for Civilizations/Leaders (for all or for the greatest), one of which can be chosen. This will make the structure of civilization more flexible and diverse. The number of uniquenesses may vary among civilizations.

Example:
France
UA1: military orientation
UA2: cultural orientation
UA3: religious orientation
UU1: Musketeer
UU2: Char B1
UI1: Chateau
UI2: Salon

When creating a game you choose one UA, one UU, one UI.

 

[civilizationfanatic2000]

1: https://forums.civfanatics.com/threads/civ-vii-tech-idea.684032/
2: https://forums.civfanatics.com/threads/losing-is-fun.687992/
3: war time
4: others

 

[Amadhe]

One tile wide navigable Rivers and better Boats. Give me Dreadnoughts and Cruisers plz.

 

[Lazy sweeper]

I'm going to predict a new combat system. I think it would be a mistake to go back to stacks of doom, but I think they'll want to try something else.

I just hope that once they will introduce some form of Generals, or units upgrades system, they will stick to it, and make the game HARD for players.
Then just use the game difficulty bar, to adjust AI about using all of combat mechanics, or dumb it down, so it would never build an army, for example.

Every single Civ game in the past have had the AI feature of building strong armies, removed in one way or another, before abandoning development.
Civ VI had a very bad Carpet of Doom update at one point, in trying to make the AI stronger. It was completely removed.

Now, if I start a Civ VI game, I would like to be able to choose the AI difficulty more ferally.
I would rather choose to have COD instead of this final AI iteration.

A more complex options menu from the beginning regarding AI perks, would be neat.
Try to include as many variations as possible, with effectiveness bars, for example.

AI can build armies - slide from 0% to 100% probability.
AI will prioritize aggresive behaviour - 0 to 100% probability slide.
AI will prioritize SOD tactics - 0 to 100%
AI will prioritize COD tactics - 0 to 100%
AI will go WIDE vs TALL - Wide vs Tall slide.
AI will ignore leader agenda - 0 to 100%
AI will ignore Wormongering - 0 to 100%
AI will try Hystorical accuracy - 0 to 100%
AI will use patch X, Y, Z, K, but ignore Q and F... in other words do not force all updates like windows 11, but leave players the power to choose which patch to apply from start to finish.

When an History record of patches like that is made possible, a lot of people will now have a multitude of open options to choose from.
Alternatively, allow modders to be able to acces all of these properties, and do not restrict them.
But this has to be made possible in Vanilla from day one, otherwisethe game will go on development, and reach a point where it
will be too complex to make changes to the 'base' game, and nothing will be done to fix new issues.

Civ VI base game only traders would build roads, and these would often choose sea routes if shorter, negating the players
important roads, and nothing could be done to fix this bc 'base' game was not modifiable.
A detailed History record preference menu could minimize the rollout problems.

 

[pokiehl]

Every single Civ game in the past have had the AI feature of building strong armies, removed in one way or another, before abandoning development.
Civ VI had a very bad Carpet of Doom update at one point, in trying to make the AI stronger. It was completely removed.

I’m not sure what you’re talking about. What was removed in Civ 6?

 

[Lazy sweeper]

Carpet of Doom was removed

 

[pokiehl]

Can you be more specific? What was changed?

 

[Ordnael]

I'd like for wonder production cost to hike akin to bonus production for the AI so as the player can choose any difficulty level above King and still be allowed to build most wonders.

 

[Canadian Bluebeer]

1: better map generation. Meaning that when I click the option to make circumnavigation easier (ie no land tiles touching north/south edge of the map), it actually works!

2: submarines can operate under ice again. (or at least nuclear subs)

3: limited unit stack size again. (ctp1 had a limit of 9. just pick a number.) said stack is an army (or whatever)

4: no more combining units into corps/army etc, see #3 instead

5: SEA CITIES!

6: spies/diplomats: let them actually do something useful if there in a diplomatic role. (ok, that IS wishful thinking. heh)