OzzyKP
Deity
Have you played Rhye's and Fall of Civilization? He had a great mod for Civ4 that did just this, he is working on a similar mod for Civ5 too.
Civ 7 Feature wishlist, whether reasonable or not!
- Thread starter iammaxhailme
- Start date
Prester John 2
Warlord
Yes, of course. I've played RFC and RFC Rand to the death
and also tried a similar mod for Civ6 (Historical Spawns).
Lazy sweeper
Mooooo Cra Chirp Fssss Miaouw is a game of words
I don't know for certain, it's just an impression, but there was a point in Civ VI when AI would spam units and just fill every available tile.
I am playing now an Immortal game, and Gaul is really well defended, I'm struggling to keep up my offence, for every man at arm that I kill,
Gaul spam three more per turn, plus knights and trebuchet. Walled cities in hill terrain. Very hard to get by. I can hardly get near with pikemens.
Trebuchets and Crossbowmens get one shooted two tiles away. So yeah, I'm not certain about COD being removed at one point or just adjusted.
I can say 100% that in Civ 3 AI do not build armies anymore after the last patch was rolled out. Steam exe come with the last patch and there is
nothing that can be done to undo the last patch; only mods will get AI to build back armies.
civilizationfanatic2000
Prince
emergent civilizations in general is a good idea. Germany only started being a world player during the 1900s and still beat up everyone. It shouldn't be predetermined. It should be based on certain conditions that can occur everywhere at any appropriate time.
Canadian Bluebeer
King
Better reports on cities etc:
1) Sorting trade routes by city name!
1a) When you get the ability for a new trade route, TELL US WHERE!
2) Sorting the city reports by name!
3) Unit list, sortable, and ability to do upgrades/promotions from there. (CQUI had this.)
This one is really nice when you have a LOT of upgrades/promotions to do. Current way is soooo tedious!
The inability to do the above is rather aggravating. (especially trying to figure out what cities don't have trade routes)
1) Sorting trade routes by city name!
1a) When you get the ability for a new trade route, TELL US WHERE!
2) Sorting the city reports by name!
3) Unit list, sortable, and ability to do upgrades/promotions from there. (CQUI had this.)
This one is really nice when you have a LOT of upgrades/promotions to do. Current way is soooo tedious!
The inability to do the above is rather aggravating. (especially trying to figure out what cities don't have trade routes)
Yeah, let's be honest: Civ 6 turned out well overall, but its presentation of information was ABYSMAL by any metric. Key information was hidden, reports were all but useless and without sorting or clickthroughs... I think this was really the largest and most bewildering deficiency.
(There's an argument to be made that it was the poor AI, but it more or less got the job done, good AI has never been a hallmark of Civilization, and at least one can recognize that good AI is hard. Decent UI... not so much.)
Trav'ling Canuck
Deity
- Joined
- Feb 7, 2018
- Messages
- 3,485
Attention to detail was not a Civ 6 strength. Cool new ideas was. As a marketing strategy, it likely made sense and contributed to the success of the game. There are only so many fanatics who want to pour through trade reports, so their functionality isn't important. No different than the end stage of Civ 5's development. How many people decide whether to buy or not buy the game based on where Krakatoa spawns? Realistically, we should expect similar in Civ 7
A functioning city list in a game that's primarly about managing cities is not an esoteric feature. And screens in which you're being asked to make a decision but don't have access to any of the information on which the decision should be based are not well designed. This part of game UI design is not rocket science, and there is nothing about the design choices in Civ6 that made the normal way of presenting this kind of information less doable (or less obvious). I'm not a huge mod guy, but I wouldn't still be playing Civ6 if it were not for several key UI mods... and that's not a compliment to the Firaxis folks who were responsible for designing the UI.
And I would say that Civ6 was the least different from its predecessor than any Civilization in the series to date. It had districts, which was a big change... but that was about it.
When 6 came out, Climate Change was the talk of the town, and they made an expansion about that.
This time around I hope they tackle migration, which is the hot topic these days. Could tie in nicely with trade, open/closed borders, growth mechanics, cultural or loyalty influences, etc. Lots to play with here!
I PRAY that they re-implement vassalization and colonies, those are tremendously important concepts in the history of the world, and lots of fun as an imperial ruler in Civ. As an aside, I also want to be able to grant autonomy to my cities, so that they manage themselves for a boost to happiness, and I only get to give them a priority (military, finance, research, growth, or culture)
I hope canals make a comeback, those are so important to ensure your navy's utility is maximized. Building on that, navigable rivers and no district-based shipbuilding (such that only a city center adjacent to water - navigable rivers included - can build ships). Additionally, I should be able to build transport ships, allowing up to 3 or 4 units to embark and move vastly faster on the seas and oceans, in order to keep up with naval warfare units.
What I'd like to see is the possibility for individual cities to capitulate. When an undefended city is attacked, the troops just march in, which prevents destruction of buildings, loss of population. (Although foreign occupation would play with the migration mechanics and induce exodus)
Internally shared food and minerals: a common theme in history/geopolitics is to describe a given territory as the breadbasket of a region or polity. It should be possible to have cities share food and resources (which would contribute to growth and production) once they are connected, doing so more efficiently when connected by rivers, railroad, modern trucks. The Civ 6 internal trade system is just too clumsy. With such a system, I could have a breadbasket city for my empire, another dedicated to mining and yet another to manufacturing/trade/culture/science (say, where trade routes intersect).
Quasi-wars: I think it would be interesting if you could take offensive action such as attacking shipping lanes and vessels at sea, or combat between land units on a third-continent (not your or your rival's original continent) without declaring an outright war.
Edit: Oh, I wanna add another!
Externally shared science: It's well understood that civilizations that interact with each other IRL develop roughly the same technologies. IME, science-focused Civs are always OP. Thus, though a science-focused Civ in my system may still benefit from being a trailblazer and obtaining a tech before others, once that tech is discovered, civilizations that interact (by trade, war or migration) with the discoverer should get significant bonuses towards that tech.
This introduces some diminishing returns on trading and "training your enemy" (as Napoleon said, "Do not fight too often with one enemy, or you will teach him all your art of war."), as well as on isolation which would now come at the price of limited scientific development. It is understood that relative isolation is what led to China's technological stagnation. Having dominated its region, it was under no pressure to innovate.
I don't think eurekas should make a comeback at all, they force the player down a railroaded storyline. The player's circumstances should guide their scientific development. After all, it is said that "necessity is the mother of invention".
This time around I hope they tackle migration, which is the hot topic these days. Could tie in nicely with trade, open/closed borders, growth mechanics, cultural or loyalty influences, etc. Lots to play with here!
I PRAY that they re-implement vassalization and colonies, those are tremendously important concepts in the history of the world, and lots of fun as an imperial ruler in Civ. As an aside, I also want to be able to grant autonomy to my cities, so that they manage themselves for a boost to happiness, and I only get to give them a priority (military, finance, research, growth, or culture)
I hope canals make a comeback, those are so important to ensure your navy's utility is maximized. Building on that, navigable rivers and no district-based shipbuilding (such that only a city center adjacent to water - navigable rivers included - can build ships). Additionally, I should be able to build transport ships, allowing up to 3 or 4 units to embark and move vastly faster on the seas and oceans, in order to keep up with naval warfare units.
What I'd like to see is the possibility for individual cities to capitulate. When an undefended city is attacked, the troops just march in, which prevents destruction of buildings, loss of population. (Although foreign occupation would play with the migration mechanics and induce exodus)
Internally shared food and minerals: a common theme in history/geopolitics is to describe a given territory as the breadbasket of a region or polity. It should be possible to have cities share food and resources (which would contribute to growth and production) once they are connected, doing so more efficiently when connected by rivers, railroad, modern trucks. The Civ 6 internal trade system is just too clumsy. With such a system, I could have a breadbasket city for my empire, another dedicated to mining and yet another to manufacturing/trade/culture/science (say, where trade routes intersect).
Quasi-wars: I think it would be interesting if you could take offensive action such as attacking shipping lanes and vessels at sea, or combat between land units on a third-continent (not your or your rival's original continent) without declaring an outright war.
Edit: Oh, I wanna add another!
Externally shared science: It's well understood that civilizations that interact with each other IRL develop roughly the same technologies. IME, science-focused Civs are always OP. Thus, though a science-focused Civ in my system may still benefit from being a trailblazer and obtaining a tech before others, once that tech is discovered, civilizations that interact (by trade, war or migration) with the discoverer should get significant bonuses towards that tech.
This introduces some diminishing returns on trading and "training your enemy" (as Napoleon said, "Do not fight too often with one enemy, or you will teach him all your art of war."), as well as on isolation which would now come at the price of limited scientific development. It is understood that relative isolation is what led to China's technological stagnation. Having dominated its region, it was under no pressure to innovate.
I don't think eurekas should make a comeback at all, they force the player down a railroaded storyline. The player's circumstances should guide their scientific development. After all, it is said that "necessity is the mother of invention".
Last edited:
civilizationfanatic2000
Prince
Loss should be inevitable and accepted, because what determines the destruction of a state is not the destruction of a civilization. I've said this before. There should be a bigger divide between state actions (actions the state(s) do) and civilization actions. For instance, Ancient Greece would be many states, meaning there would be dozens of State Actions you could do, include declare war on yourself, but there would be one set of Civilization Actions for all of your States. The difference between a multi-state civilization and a singular-state civilization is that one would be basically a person with multiple personalities in their head, who may agree or disagree with one another. Perhaps to ease the burden on the player the States are controlled by A.I and can be hijacked at any time by the human. For instance, Sparta goes to declare war on Athens- until you intervene and get them to change their mind, slowly but surely. However, if the underlying cause for war is not fixed, you'll have to do this over and over again. That's something a Civilization Action can fix.
Vahnstad
Emperor
More native representation (we only had Mapuche & Cree really... other than Maori/Aztec/Maya/Inca which are staples in a civ game that had the most civs ever)
More complex diplomacy mechanics (instead of "research alliance)
More ideology & complex politics system and more focus on them
More civ abilities like Maori that give you a reason to play them
Rework of map generation & biomes, i want them to be larger, more meaningful generally
Colonialism
More complex diplomacy mechanics (instead of "research alliance)
More ideology & complex politics system and more focus on them
More civ abilities like Maori that give you a reason to play them
Rework of map generation & biomes, i want them to be larger, more meaningful generally
Colonialism
Leyrann
Deity
That wouldn't be Civilization anymore.
GeneralZift
Professional
- Joined
- Feb 25, 2019
- Messages
- 1,184
Fake parliament you have to convince every time you want to change a policy. You write the essay from predetermined sentences and then AI recreates pretend reactions and votes. Would really add a lot to my experience
The Black Market
Some thoughts about rethinking Barbarians. And the creation of a Black Market
Playing as Barbarians
How many would like to play the part of marauding bands of invaders, scavengers, and ransackers. Best known as Barbarians. I would certainly like that option. We start the game with an outpost, battle units, and a Peddler unit. We send our units to attack/raid cargo ships and storehouses. The Peddler Unit then sells these goods to any Civ, City State, or even other Barbarians. Thus the creation of a Black Market
From Barbarians to Pirates
As we progress toward the Modern Ages. Our Barbarian Outposts begin to produce Pirates. ARG. Also we should have the ability, starting from the Ancient Eras, to recruit citizens from Civs, City States, and other Barbarians. Those we recruit can be sent abroad as Peddler units to expand our enterprises.
Black Market
Illicit trade has been around for a very long time. I would like to see how this can be worked into the Civilization series. The goods that are traded can include Narcotics when we get to the modern era. Opinions about the Drugs industry can vary. But it's a very real part of history. Each Civ, City State, Barbarian Outpost can produce Peddlers. these peddlers become Pirates, then become Mafia Gangs that sell "obtained" goods and services. Goods including Narcotics, Booze, Fabrics, Weapons etc. Services can be hired to perform certain functions.
Of course this is just a rough idea. But I think it's worth exploring.. I borrow from a most famous line and say. It's an offer we can't refuse.
Some thoughts about rethinking Barbarians. And the creation of a Black Market
Playing as Barbarians
How many would like to play the part of marauding bands of invaders, scavengers, and ransackers. Best known as Barbarians. I would certainly like that option. We start the game with an outpost, battle units, and a Peddler unit. We send our units to attack/raid cargo ships and storehouses. The Peddler Unit then sells these goods to any Civ, City State, or even other Barbarians. Thus the creation of a Black Market
From Barbarians to Pirates
As we progress toward the Modern Ages. Our Barbarian Outposts begin to produce Pirates. ARG. Also we should have the ability, starting from the Ancient Eras, to recruit citizens from Civs, City States, and other Barbarians. Those we recruit can be sent abroad as Peddler units to expand our enterprises.
Black Market
Illicit trade has been around for a very long time. I would like to see how this can be worked into the Civilization series. The goods that are traded can include Narcotics when we get to the modern era. Opinions about the Drugs industry can vary. But it's a very real part of history. Each Civ, City State, Barbarian Outpost can produce Peddlers. these peddlers become Pirates, then become Mafia Gangs that sell "obtained" goods and services. Goods including Narcotics, Booze, Fabrics, Weapons etc. Services can be hired to perform certain functions.
Of course this is just a rough idea. But I think it's worth exploring.. I borrow from a most famous line and say. It's an offer we can't refuse.
Last edited:
Vahnstad
Emperor
Films as "Great Works" would also be a good idea for culture, like "The Godfather as a great work", we could have Film Theatres (instead of art or archaeological museums) and Great Directors as great persons
20 Great Directors just as an example of how it could look like.
Moden era
Auguste and Louis Lumière
Georges Mélies (Le voyage dans la lune)
Charlie Chaplin (City Lights, Modern Times, The Great Dictator)
Fritz Lang (Metropolis, M)
F.W. Murnau (Nosferatu, Sunrise)
Buster Keaton (Sherlock Jr., The General)
Atomic Era
Billy Wilder (Sunset Blvd., The Apartment)
Andrei Tarkovsky (Solyaris, Stalker)
Alfred Hitchcock (Rear Window, Vertigo)
Akira Kurosawa (Rashomon, Seven Samurai)
Ingmar Bergman (The Seventh Seal, Persona)
Francis Ford Coppola (The Godfather & Apocalypse Now)
Martin Scorsese (Taxi Driver & Goodfellas)
Jean-Luc Godard (Breathless, Vivre Sa Vie)
Sergio Leone (The Good, The Bad and the Ugly, Once Upon in a Time in the West)
Agnes Varda (Cleo from 5 to 7, Vagabond)
Stanley Kubrick (2001: A Space Odyssey, A Clockwork Orange)
Steven Spielberg (Jaws, Raiders of the Lost Ark)
Information Era
Quentin Tarantino (Reservoir Dogs & Pulp Fiction)
Kar-wai Wong (Chungking Express, In The Mood for Love)
20 Great Directors just as an example of how it could look like.
Moden era
Auguste and Louis Lumière
Georges Mélies (Le voyage dans la lune)
Charlie Chaplin (City Lights, Modern Times, The Great Dictator)
Fritz Lang (Metropolis, M)
F.W. Murnau (Nosferatu, Sunrise)
Buster Keaton (Sherlock Jr., The General)
Atomic Era
Billy Wilder (Sunset Blvd., The Apartment)
Andrei Tarkovsky (Solyaris, Stalker)
Alfred Hitchcock (Rear Window, Vertigo)
Akira Kurosawa (Rashomon, Seven Samurai)
Ingmar Bergman (The Seventh Seal, Persona)
Francis Ford Coppola (The Godfather & Apocalypse Now)
Martin Scorsese (Taxi Driver & Goodfellas)
Jean-Luc Godard (Breathless, Vivre Sa Vie)
Sergio Leone (The Good, The Bad and the Ugly, Once Upon in a Time in the West)
Agnes Varda (Cleo from 5 to 7, Vagabond)
Stanley Kubrick (2001: A Space Odyssey, A Clockwork Orange)
Steven Spielberg (Jaws, Raiders of the Lost Ark)
Information Era
Quentin Tarantino (Reservoir Dogs & Pulp Fiction)
Kar-wai Wong (Chungking Express, In The Mood for Love)
Hygro
soundcloud.com/hygro/
I want the leader / diplomatic screen to be less immersion breaking. Civ2 did it with 3rd person impartiality. Civ3 tried updating the leaders by era which as a concept was cool. Seeing modern tech in an ancient era meeting always threw me off.
I like the leaders to be inside the game and not “pretend these are your out of game opponents at your board game get together”.
Definitely some adjusting for the era and the tech would be cool. There’s a lot of ways they could do this elegantly. And if they really wanted, could go deeper in having the attire reflect the material conditions that give rise to different attire.
I like the leaders to be inside the game and not “pretend these are your out of game opponents at your board game get together”.
Definitely some adjusting for the era and the tech would be cool. There’s a lot of ways they could do this elegantly. And if they really wanted, could go deeper in having the attire reflect the material conditions that give rise to different attire.
I like it.
To piggyback on some of this, would be nice to have the option to pay Barbs, city-states and Civs to attack another, whether it's to mount an invasion, create a distraction by pillaging, target trade routes, etc.
I definitely want to see more effort expended towards "Barbarians" which should not be called "barbarians" well beyond the Classical era. Give me bandits, highwaymen, pirates, insurgents, rebels and the like! And that flavour should be reflected in behaviour and features, naturally.
To your black market suggestion, presumably you would fund the black market to introduce narcotics in a rival Civ? And they'd have to hit black market locations / rogue city-states to put an end to it? Could be interesting.
I would also really like for the leaders to be mroe immersive, but given the way they do leaders now I think this would both be a) much more work than they probably want to put into leader art, and b) hard to do without being comical for certain leaders unless the art style is a little cartoony. Hunter-gatherer Winston Churchill and Corporate Executive Shaka Zulu can't help but be a little silly.
Hellenism Salesman
Emperor
Let’s not forget used-car salesman Genghis Khan.
Similar threads
