Trade agreements should run forever unless explicitly revoked. It's useful to add a period of maybe 10 turns where they can't be revoked to avoid some exploits.
Civ 7 Feature wishlist, whether reasonable or not!
- Thread starter iammaxhailme
- Start date
GeneralZift
Professional
- Joined
- Feb 25, 2019
- Messages
- 1,165
This is probably worse than you think for the average player. You'll probably find you might forget that you accepted an agreement many many turns ago and find that you are still overpaying for something you don't need.
SupremacyKing2
Deity
Not sure if this has been mentioned but I hope civ7 does not have the small borders that expand 1 hex at a time. I hate that about civ6 because it makes your early empire look like a bunch of disjointed city states. Plus, it is really slow to wait for your borders to expand 1 hex at a time, in a random direction, so you can't even control the direction unless you buy the hexes you want. Also, the borders don't look natural. I hope civ7 has borders that follow natural barriers like rivers and mountains and wrap around your cities. Interior space between cities should automatically fall inside your borders. It is weird how in civ7 you can have 2-3 hexes that are clearly inside your empire and yet fall outside your borders.
Boris Gudenuf
Deity
Make city radii/borders more flexibille. Give the gamer/player methods to extend borders in the direction you want instead of having to passively wait or pay to expand one tile at a time.
Fo instance, allow you to build Forts or Settlements outside your borders or for them to expand your borders when built: build a settlement on the edge of your border, it automatically takes the neighboring tiles. You might not be able to work those tiles for a while, but they would be under your Civ's influence and allow you to have some more realistic looking and common borders among and between your cities.
Last edited:
mitsho
Deity
The only way I can find my trade agreements is to circle through 6+ diplomatic screens. Not sure that is better. There should be an open market where I can put my resources up for sale and everyone can buy it. Set a price and civs to not sell to and you got a easy to understand userfriendly interface.
There are many many examples of regions inside empires that were theoretically under control, but not practically. Be it wilderness or just poor regions that don't really matter or that are prone to attacks from the neighbouring horse nomads. So it makes sense that it is hard to get everything under control. But I do agree, what civ does is just throw in random obstacles in your way. Need that iron, too bad, there's no way to reach it without destroying your city plan. So yeah, the borders should expand faster and also more logically. Claiming land should be easy, developing it not that much.
Leyrann
Deity
I would like to see the ability to claim land, including overlapping claims (which would obviously cause friction and conflict!) and thus also a separation between claimed and controlled lands.
I think there should be a middle ground. It's annoying in the game when a trade deal runs out and I only figure it out when I notice my gpt drop and ask myself why it seems low. Like at least maybe we need a notification that's like "trade deal X ran out. Renew now?"
- Joined
- Mar 5, 2017
- Messages
- 4,111
What would fix all of the problems you’ve noted is a territory system like Humankind. Founding a city in a given territory automatically claims all tiles in that territory. Reduces crazy border gore and also gives you more freedom into figuring out what the best spot to settle is in a given area without worrying about compromising on tiles between cities
I really don't like territory system from Humankind, it is too restricting and aritificial and territories are too large and symmetric.
On another hand I agree with SupremacyKing2 how I also don't like the borders slowly spreading like mold and early era "empires" looking like a disjointed mess. I would like if the entire territory claiming mechanics were reworked, so for example you can claim large swathes of land using military/political power but settling, defending and maintaining them is hard.
On another hand I agree with SupremacyKing2 how I also don't like the borders slowly spreading like mold and early era "empires" looking like a disjointed mess. I would like if the entire territory claiming mechanics were reworked, so for example you can claim large swathes of land using military/political power but settling, defending and maintaining them is hard.
- Joined
- Mar 5, 2017
- Messages
- 4,111
I didn’t like it at face value but the more I played the more I came around to it.
I think most civ players instinctively think “restriction = bad” but it ended up being the best part of the game to me. It wasn’t enough to make me like Humankind altogether but it left an impression. My impression talking to people about it is that most people who dislike it haven’t actually played the game to see how it feels.
Put another way, in the long laundry list of complaints about Humankind, the territory system usually doesn’t come up as to why players rate the game negatively.
Overall I think there’s a lot of value to be had for Civ rethinking how city settling works.
GeneralZift
Professional
- Joined
- Feb 25, 2019
- Messages
- 1,165
There is, the AI will automatically offer the trade deal IF they want to renew it. Otherwise it's implied that the trade deal remained expired because they do not want that deal.
GeneralZift
Professional
- Joined
- Feb 25, 2019
- Messages
- 1,165
I kinda agree actually. I like the idea that the territories are sort of automatically adjusted to the natural elements, rivers, cliffs etc.
I think there's a slight element of unfairness though. And also the territories are HUGE. Other people might have already said that.
The nice thing about Civs existing border system is it feels way more intimate.. it feels more natural to grab one tile at a time.
But for HK, it's an instant enormous grab.
Maybe they should mix the two. Such that your city expands over time to cover the whole territory. Then you can have HK's expansion system if you want super-cities.
SupremacyKing2
Deity
I've thought about the Humankind system of territories. I like the concept a lot but I agree with Krajzen that the Humankind territories are too artificial and too big. If you made the territories smaller. I think it could work. But if civ does use territories, the size of the territories should be customizable in the settings. That way players can tweak the size based on their personal playing styles. Some players might like a map with big territories. Others might want lots of small territories.
Leucarum
Deity
- Joined
- Dec 21, 2018
- Messages
- 2,745
I will have to give humankind credit that their territory system impressed me for how reliably their map creator resulted in sensibly demarcated territories. There were more flaws than upsides to humankind but they did well here. It also did a good job of spreading cities out around the map. I wouldn't be too mad if Civ implemented similar.
Yeah, I mean for a lot of resource deals maybe the system needs to be a little less strict. If last time I traded a lux for 11 gold per turn and 18 gold, I'd love to have an "auto-renegotiate a deal somewhere between 9 and 14 gpt".
Or even a note that they do not want to re-negotiate, since at least that gives you a "oh I probably have a furs to trade now even if Gorgo doesn't want to deal with me anymore for them."
Vincent_lacruz
Warlord
Well, you could have a "cultural conflic" with your neighbours, which would steal tiles from other civ if your culture is higher than them (the farther the tile, the less impact you city would have, kind of like loyalty in CIV 6).
Having military units near your border would both reduce the ennemy's impact, and increase yours.
Those effect could be amplified or reduced with different government and policies (for example, propaganda would increase you gains, totalitarism would prevent tiles from swithcing, etc...).
Leyrann
Deity
Humankind's regions are far too big imo.
The only game that has regions that I don't abhor is Age of Wonders IV, where they're usually like 20-30 tiles in total (on a map where a single tile is less meaningful than in Civ - cities will expand out 3-4 regions from their home region, and units can cover 5-10 tiles per turn based on terrain and presence/absence of roads).
The thing is, large regions always feel arbitrary and often inconvenient. The only way to avoid this is by making individual regions too small to invoke this feeling, which still allows the benefits from having regions.
But honestly, it's hard to put this into Civ. I think you'd genuinely have to make regions of 4-12 tiles each in order to make it work on the scale we're used to, with units having 2 movement points, and even then cities would probably have to become a bit bigger (at 8 tiles per region on average, that's just a hexagon, the six hexagons adjacent to it, and one free choice hexagon, just five regions would already be more tiles than a city can work in Civ 5/6) to work with the new system. Which should itself probably come with an increase in map size, although there's an argument to be had for that anyway, as pointed out in another thread I read just before this one.
In fact I want to see an increase in map sizes anyway; from Civ 4 to Civ 5, the number of tiles a city can work increased from 21 to 37 (note: including city center), and Civ 6 introduced many unworkable tiles, which made city overlap much more undesirable, yet map sizes stayed the same. Imo, a map in Civ 6 should have like twice the number of tiles to feel equal in size to a Civ 4 map in terms of the number of cities and how much overlap there is between them.
The only game that has regions that I don't abhor is Age of Wonders IV, where they're usually like 20-30 tiles in total (on a map where a single tile is less meaningful than in Civ - cities will expand out 3-4 regions from their home region, and units can cover 5-10 tiles per turn based on terrain and presence/absence of roads).
The thing is, large regions always feel arbitrary and often inconvenient. The only way to avoid this is by making individual regions too small to invoke this feeling, which still allows the benefits from having regions.
But honestly, it's hard to put this into Civ. I think you'd genuinely have to make regions of 4-12 tiles each in order to make it work on the scale we're used to, with units having 2 movement points, and even then cities would probably have to become a bit bigger (at 8 tiles per region on average, that's just a hexagon, the six hexagons adjacent to it, and one free choice hexagon, just five regions would already be more tiles than a city can work in Civ 5/6) to work with the new system. Which should itself probably come with an increase in map size, although there's an argument to be had for that anyway, as pointed out in another thread I read just before this one.
In fact I want to see an increase in map sizes anyway; from Civ 4 to Civ 5, the number of tiles a city can work increased from 21 to 37 (note: including city center), and Civ 6 introduced many unworkable tiles, which made city overlap much more undesirable, yet map sizes stayed the same. Imo, a map in Civ 6 should have like twice the number of tiles to feel equal in size to a Civ 4 map in terms of the number of cities and how much overlap there is between them.
Boris Gudenuf
Deity
That took a lot of work. I remember playing on maps during the pre-release period in which Territories would stretch across half a continent in a long, snaky line that made no sense at all and dramatically hindered movement and play.
And the size of Territories can be altered, I believe, but even the smallest territories are still Artificial.
More important, they cannot be altered easily, whereas the definition and boundaries of regions, territories and such were altered constantly either by political fiat or natural population changes.
Better, IMHO, to let the players set Territorial boundaries by what they are doing (or what their populations are 'invisibly' doing) as the game progresses.
That's basically the current (and Forever) Civ system, but it has to be made much more flexible. Posted on this already, but for example, Millenia, in one of its few good ideas, allows a beginning city to also form a Settlement/Town at the edge of its territory which grabs a radius around itself - extending the city territory. Make that a standard in the game, and allow several Settlements per city IF your political structure can handle it, and you can grab quite a bit of early territory per city beyond what the city itself can even work. That, in turn, allows tiles out on the periphery to be 'contested' with another Civ's expanding territory, so that, for instance, you can only extract a Resource in those tiles by placing a Fort next to it to 'force' control - and, possibly, give the other Civ a Diplomatic pretext for war.
Leyrann
Deity
Honestly, just replace Settlers entirely (or make them a later-in-the-game thing, for colonization and the like). Instead, you expand by building Settlements which can then develop into full-fledged cities over time.
Similar threads
