Civ 7 Feature wishlist, whether reasonable or not!

[AriochIV]

Having units built instantly would be realistic in terms of the time scale of the game, but it has gameplay problems, given that the core of the game is about management and planning. Don't need to plan for defense if you can just snap your fingers and create an army at any moment you need one.

Having extremely fast units, again, is realistic in the sense of time scale, but hurts gameplay in a turn-based game. If I can attack you before you even know an attack is coming, there's not much counter-play to that.

 

[fy00sh]

Totally agree!

I just don't want district adjacencies, because those force you to plan minutiae way too far in advance. But I do like to see them on the map.

hard disagree on the adjacencies thing. in fact, i'd love it if they leaned even further into the importance of adjacencies. make a campus district in the mountains or next to reef (or however civ7 gives those adjacencies) even stronger, and to counter the minutiae-planning issue a little bit, instead of having there only being able to be one campus in each city, one city can build a bunch of campuses, but the number of copies of a district type you can have in your entire empire is maybe dictated by some combination of total number of cities, empire-wide population, and population of the city trying to build its second or third campus.
that way if you see like 4 amazing campus spots all next to each other you dont think "oh how can i cram 4 cities within 3 tiles of this area", you think "oh i NEED to put one city there and fortify it to hell and back, and that will be The Science City of my empire where all my campuses are. i just need to find a way to build a population big and industrious enough to support all that"

 

[GeneralZift]

There's too many balancing problems with adjacency bonuses.
I mean it's enough if they have adjacency bonuses with other districts but once the map starts too matter too much, then you'll get shafted just for Not starting next to Mountains. It doesn't really feel very fair.

By the way, by this I mean, the map already matters a lot. But if it matters more and more and more then it's going to feel even worse

 

[Leyrann]

There's too many balancing problems with adjacency bonuses.
I mean it's enough if they have adjacency bonuses with other districts but once the map starts too matter too much, then you'll get shafted just for Not starting next to Mountains. It doesn't really feel very fair.

By the way, by this I mean, the map already matters a lot. But if it matters more and more and more then it's going to feel even worse

Imma be honest.

Campuses really aren't that important. As a result of which not starting next to mountains doesn't matter all that much.

The most important districts are commercial hubs and harbors, neither of which depends overly much on what terrain you get.

Like don't get me wrong, campuses are good, but they're a luxury item; you build them once you're done building the essentials. I'd actually argue that a flood plains area (which can be filled with aqueducts, dams and industrial hubs for high adjacencies to the latter) is more game-changing, in particular if you've got two or more rivers (and thus dams).

 

[civilizationfanatic2000]

Having units built instantly would be realistic in terms of the time scale of the game, but it has gameplay problems, given that the core of the game is about management and planning. Don't need to plan for defense if you can just snap your fingers and create an army at any moment you need one.

You need to account for manpower, technology, money, infrastructure, and more.

Having extremely fast units, again, is realistic in the sense of time scale, but hurts gameplay in a turn-based game. If I can attack you before you even know an attack is coming, there's not much counter-play to that.

more units that move faster = more exciting wars.

 

[civilizationfanatic2000]

??????????

i can explain 3:

Why I am still here (10 years+) New ideas to share?

I just received a new badge, I was just logging in to check about civ VII news... So it's more than 10 years that I got this avatar; actually I have been registered for more than 10 years, going to the old forum... :king: Anyway, I HOPE THERE WILL BE CRUSADERS fron CIV VII Vanilla!!! AND Some...

forums.civfanatics.com

 

[OmegaDestroyer]

After having 11 population killed and 39 titles pillaged by a blizzard and next turn having a tornado kill 3 population, pillage 14 tiles, and kill a worker, I hope we never see weather in the game again.

 

[b81a98]

There's too many balancing problems with adjacency bonuses.
I mean it's enough if they have adjacency bonuses with other districts but once the map starts too matter too much, then you'll get shafted just for Not starting next to Mountains. It doesn't really feel very fair.

By the way, by this I mean, the map already matters a lot. But if it matters more and more and more then it's going to feel even worse

I think it is because of the policy card from district, and no science improvement that every Civs can use(most the times, you only have farm and mine, and the resource improvement was fixed, you don't have any choice)
Actually a mountain is a dead tile, the bonuses from the mountains makes it more "balance"
But +100% to high adjacency districts is too powerful.

 

[AriochIV]

more units that move faster = more exciting wars.

In a turn-based game there is a limit to how fast units can move before they become impossible to track and counter.

I remember what I think was a mod for Civ4 where they jacked up ship movement rates to "realistic" levels in which you could easily move your entire fleet across the ocean, obliterate the few defending ships and land an invasion force before the enemy even knew you even in the area. There's nothing "exciting" or fun about getting stomped without any possible counter-play.

 

[ViktorGamer]

I want to see more leaders that are competitive like the legendary Montezuma:
Playing against him was always a challenge and worth playing.

 

[UWHabs]

In a turn-based game there is a limit to how fast units can move before they become impossible to track and counter.

I remember what I think was a mod for Civ4 where they jacked up ship movement rates to "realistic" levels in which you could easily move your entire fleet across the ocean, obliterate the few defending ships and land an invasion force before the enemy even knew you even in the area. There's nothing "exciting" or fun about getting stomped without any possible counter-play.

Oceans are already too small in civ maps (most users want to play on a map that's more like 2/3 land not 2/3 water). You can already usually move across in 1-2 turns, and given that there's no open ocean "rough terrain", to defend you have to put boats on nearly every tile on defense.

The suggestion before about really cheap to build units is actually one I sort of like, as long as maintenance costs are super high. Like if you take the current civ 6 units but had maintenance costs of units be 10x what they are now. So you want 5 tanks to roll towards your neighbour? That costs you 5 oil and 300 gold per turn. Also if units were cheaper, you wouldn't care about losing them as much, and could more realistically scale down your army between wars. Current maintenance costs are so small that there's no penalty to just keeping your full army around for hundreds of years.

 

[Timothy001]

1. More building options for districts. We have Barracks/Stable. Add a 3rd Option Archery Range for Ranged/Siege Units. We have Armory, add Weaponsmith, Gives bonus attack. Options like these.
2. Ability to Combine Armies. Both Millennia and Humankind did this. Moving units between them is easy. For combat, similar to Millennia. Each unit has an order of attack. ie Infantry always goes against infantry first.
3. Rework disasters. Some or very week, some are overpowered. ALso give the ability to eventually counter most of them. For floods we have dams. Sand and snowstorms, a tech that strengthens buildings vs disaster.

 

[Nikolai II]

After having 11 population killed and 39 titles pillaged by a blizzard and next turn having a tornado kill 3 population, pillage 14 tiles, and kill a worker, I hope we never see weather in the game again.

I'd like them in, but not that harsh!

 

[Canadian Bluebeer]

After having 11 population killed and 39 titles pillaged by a blizzard and next turn having a tornado kill 3 population, pillage 14 tiles, and kill a worker, I hope we never see weather in the game again.

heh. Apoc mode sounds like.

I remember having one poor city under a drought pretty much the whole game. (then get obliterated by the first large meteor)
(btw, the droughts were OVERLAPPING stacked up to 5 deep. huh?)

I've had volcanoes go off 2 turns in a row. (so now I move the units out of the city after the first blast)

Blizzard, Boobiestorm, Tornado, Hurricane. (I have had dust storm and hurricane collide. ouch)

I DO like the disaster slider. Set to zero, none of this happens. Crank it up, and ..... well..

 

[The_goggles_do_nothing]

Boobiestorm

So it wasn't all bad

 

[AffineConstant]

Imma be honest.

Campuses really aren't that important. As a result of which not starting next to mountains doesn't matter all that much.

The most important districts are commercial hubs and harbors, neither of which depends overly much on what terrain you get.

Like don't get me wrong, campuses are good, but they're a luxury item; you build them once you're done building the essentials. I'd actually argue that a flood plains area (which can be filled with aqueducts, dams and industrial hubs for high adjacencies to the latter) is more game-changing, in particular if you've got two or more rivers (and thus dams).

I think this is the problem with districts, the "Strategy" just ends up being "what terrain am I next to" with hubs/harbors being at the top of the priority list, and that's it. I'd love to see districts have a continuous impact and series of strategies across time.

There needs to be some sort of tradeoff here, a "short term vs long term benefit tradeoff" or something. In VI it doesn't really feel that way.

 

[Bosque]

National Parks seem overpowered for Cultural Victory. After the first one, subsequent parks should only receive 1 point towards CV, rather than 3. But there should be an exception made for contiguous parks that protect broader ecosystems. In that case, the higher number for cultural victory points should remain. Here is an example.

 

[Bosque]

realistic ocean currents and wind currents, so that realistic trade routes can be made for players to exploit

Yeah, it really bugs me when I see hurricanes in the ice caps. Or a hurricane in the northern tropical zones moving west to east.

 

[Leyrann]

National Parks seem overpowered for Cultural Victory. After the first one, subsequent parks should only receive 1 point towards CV, rather than 3. But there should be an exception made for contiguous parks that protect broader ecosystems. In that case, the higher number for cultural victory points should remain. Here is an example.
View attachment 695026

Uhm, are you confusing tourism and era score?

They're very good for generating era score, yes, but era score doesn't help you get a cultural victory (unless through a golden age dedication modifier). And for tourism, national parks are good but not gamebreaking in any way.

 

[Bosque]

Uhm, are you confusing tourism and era score?

They're very good for generating era score, yes, but era score doesn't help you get a cultural victory (unless through a golden age dedication modifier). And for tourism, national parks are good but not gamebreaking in any way.

Oops. My bad. You are certainly correct.
I still think connected National Parks should be more valuable than isolated ones.