Civ 7 Speculation: Fundamental changes.

[AntSou]

Civ 7 needs to be a significant enough departure from Civ 6 to justify the purchase. Here are some fundamental changes I speculate we'll see:

1. They'll replace the big leaders and complex movements with simplified portraits similar to Civ IV;

2. They'll ditch the millennial Civs/Leaders in preference of modular leaders:

- Each Civ represents a specific phase in the game: Early, Mid or Late;
- Each Civ comes with a pack of two or three leaders;
- The player may only pick a single leader to represent that Civ in a given game.

At the end of a phase, you lose the leader and the leader ability, but you retain the Civ's Legacy Bonus. You then acquire a different Civ in the Mid phase, and select one leader from its options.

This replicates some of the creativity introduced by Humankind, while retaining the focus on leaders which is such an important aspect of the Civilization franchise.

It also facilitates the proper representation of civilizations and cultures, and it's a continuation of the type of modularity we've seen being introduced in Civ VI.

3. Terrain Elevation and Biomes

The first seems like a development that will sooner or later be implemented, the latter is a continuation of the idea of a world map which isn't merely static and a given, but a game element which shapes and is shaped by Civilizations.

4. Armies, Generals and Formations

They might adopt Amplitude's approach in regards to Armies because:
a) It allows combat AI to be programmed in a vacuum with a stricter set of decisions, which should improve its decision making;
b) It declutters the map and reduces turn times.

Military Formations may have to be researched (culture tree) before they can be employed in the battlefield. This is the approach used in Through the Ages.

Great Generals provide buffs to the armies they command.

5. Less cartoonish leaders. I prefer Civ VI's and IV's art style over V, but a new game will likely require to be a visual departure from the previous iteration.

 

[Zaarin]

Point #3 sounds amazing, but #1 and #2 would be deal breakers for me. Civ5 and Civ6 set expectations for leaders that Firaxis can't really go back on at this point. As for point #5, there are a million different styles that they could pursue that are neither Civ6 vibrant nor Civ5 "real life is muddy brown."

 

[8housesofelixir]

As for point #5, there are a million different styles that they could pursue that are neither Civ6 vibrant nor Civ5 "real life is muddy brown."

I have some sight problem and the entire display of Civ V looks like a muddy cluster of grey and brown patches to me, without city name labels I cannot tell where a city is. Civ VI's vibrant style in this case is a life-saver. I also prefer VI's resource icon, IV's and V's icons all look too large on the map.

I would say a combination of two - for example, the V texture mod for VI - work well.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

I'd like something similar to Humankind's map, with Civ 5 leader screens, and Civ 6's music please.

As far as cities are concerned, for Civ 7 I would like to have the ability to put districts and wonders inside the city with the improvements outside the city on hexes like they are now.

 

[Evie]

Simplified portraits would have to be justified with a significant trade-off, which would almost have to be a much wider variety of leaders (and possibly a mechanism that allows a player to swap leaders). Otherwise, you're turning back on a standard that has been established for little actual gain.

Rather than the "acquire a different civ" Humankind approach, I would just have a variety of leaders for your civ that reflect its historical evolution...including changes that modify your civilization flag and name if appropriate (though you could chose to have the leader continue using the original name and flag). So you would play as the same civilization (that's the point of the game), but the specific manifestation of the civilization may change along the way (eg, Rome -> Venice -> Italy).

Then you could have additional mechanism; for example Byzantium could be the Medieval manifestation of Greece, but if Greece is not (or no longer...) in the game, then Rome gain the option of transitioning to a Byzantine leader instead of a Venetian or Tuscan (or Papal) one in the Middle Ages. Which encourage you, if you're Rome and want to switch to Byzantium, to annex Greece early.

 

[Zaarin]

I have some sight problem and the entire display of Civ V looks like a muddy cluster of grey and brown patches to me

I have perfect vision and Civ5 still looks like a muddy cluster of grey and brown patches to me.

Civ 6's music please.

I have such mixed feelings about this. Civ6 has a gorgeous soundtrack, but hearing the same ~8 songs for a game you can sink 10 hours in just for a single game is ill-advised. I'd prefer Civ7 focus on singular themes using more authentic instruments (oh, hello, cello in every. single. medieval. theme) and add in a lot more ambient music.

Simplified portraits would have to be justified with a significant trade-off

100%.

Rather than the "acquire a different civ", I would just have a variety of leaders for your civ that reflect its historical evolution...including changes that modify your civilization flag and name if appropriate (though you could chose to have the leader continue using the original name and flag).

This idea always makes me very hesitant. There are a select few civs you could kind of make it work for--Persia, China, India, maybe a few others. In most cases though this risks being hilarious (I started as Rome and now I'm Russia, the Third Rome!) to potentially really insensitive (I was the Haudenosaunee but now I'm America!).

 

[8housesofelixir]

As far as cities are concerned, for Civ 7 I would like to have the ability to put districts and wonders inside the city with the improvements outside the city on hexes like they are now.

Currently, the only 3d management game I know that use this particular mechanism is Industries of Titan. In that game, there are two different interfaces: you build buildings on the map like a normal city builder, and you can also go inside every building - which gives you an "inside" interface and a different UI system - to manage what happens in the building.

However, this mechanism will very likely require a redesign of the game engine, and I personally cannot see it happen. I would image a "bigger" city - it makes the immediate 6 tiles surrounded the city center as part of "the city itself" instead of "countryside belong to that city", and you can (only) build districts and wonders within them - in the future, which is more viable than an additional interface.

In most cases though this risks being hilarious (I started as Rome and now I'm Russia, the Third Rome!) to potentially really insensitive (I was the Haudenosaunee but now I'm America!).

I think you can actually do this "From Haudenosaunee to America" case in Humankind...

 

[Evie]

I think the way I see it would have to stay within a fairly well defined civilization. If Rome-to-Russia is possible at all (I'm far from sold), it would require some very specific sheananigans requirement. Like "Must have formed Byzantium. Must have lost your original capital and your first replacement capital." That kind of transition should be achievement material. Russia has much more business crossing over with Scandinavia than with anyone else.

Using a three step process (Ancient-Classical to Medieval-Renaissance to Enlightenment-Industrial-Modern-etc - of course these are broad guidelines to be adjusted to the specific history - and what we know of it - of each civilization), your leader options as Rome going into the Medieval-Renaissance era would be more likely to include assorted Medieval Italian options, eventually leading into unified Italy into the third age. You could also branch into Byzantium-Greece, provided the original greek civ no longer exists (or was never on the map to begin). In all cases you would have the option of retaining your old civ name regardless of leaders.

Haudenosaunee into America would indeed be a problem. Then again, if the last-tier starts with roughly Enlightenment, most of the North American natives can just remain themselves into the final third of the game - it's finding them *earlier* leaders that will be teh challenge! The Western Confederacy could also be an interesting final era option for the Great Lakes region and surroundings. In our history it fractured after the Northwest Indian War, but the notion of a united front of Northeast Woodlands (plus some allies) nations has real potential. More difficult to find late leaders for the Incas and Aztecs, but Inca-Aztecs into Peru-Mexico is a very different matter as I understand it than Haudenosaunee-America.

An interesting potential of this idea is that this could allow the Wendat in as a different branch of the Iroquoi(an) civilization - much like the Gorgo/Pericles situation in VI allows Greece to be both Athens and Sparta, one could have the choice between a Wendat or Haudenosaunee leader in the second tier of the game.

America, for its part, would be a leader option for the English civilization in the late stages of the game (that would rename the civilization to Americas). Same with Australia, and Canada except in that last case it would be a late-game option for both France and England.

 

[Shiva2929]

I like to see a different type of victory ECONOMY
When war starts gold decreases .. take a loan by mortage a city for some turns if it expires ..It will become a free city .. buy cities with gold. the more the city close to capital the more it costs and border cities to other civs can't be bought by money. Coastal cities cost more than inland cities.
Gold can be changed to currency after currency tech ..
Currency rates to gold .. if at war it decrease to 0.5 to 0.1 and if not at war it can be 0.6 to 0.8 .

 

[Zaarin]

@Evie I get what you're getting at, but to me it just feels too messy--especially for representing short-lived-but-significant civilizations. Or even civs that aren't short lived but have no clear cultural successor--e.g., I'm not thrilled with the idea of Babylon>Arabs>Iraq (especially when the earliest attestations of the Arabs are from Babylon) and Babylon>Persia>Seleucia>Parthia>...doesn't seem much better.

I think you can actually do this "From Haudenosaunee to America" case in Humankind...

You can (taking for granted America will be a contemporary culture, of course), but HK has the extenuating circumstance that 1) it's not prescribed and 2) in most cases you'll choose an intervening culture in the Industrial (I feel like transcending is going to be the exception, not the rule).

 

[Evie]

Babylon into Arabs does feel weird. On the other hand, America-Canada-Australia-Brazil-Gran Colombia in 4000AD doesn't feel much better. And unchanging immortal leaders have their own issues.

Babylon into a specific Islamic Mesopotamian entity might work (we could even label it Bagdad if nothing else works). In which case it's the *Arabs* civs who would have the option of venturing into the Babylon/Mesopotamian tree (if Babylon doesn't exist), rather than the Babylonians becoming the Arabs. It's not strictly historical, but it looks better than Babylon becoming the Arabs. In general, that'd be my approach to Islamic conquests - don't merge all those states into "Arabs" but use specifc post-Arab conquest polities that ruled over the specific regions and populations (eg, Carthage into Maghreb (Morocco?) (or Spain) with Berbery Corsairs being another possibility; Egypts into Ayyubids into the Eyalet of Egypt.)

An alternate way to address the problem would be a variant of the Humankind Transcending mechanism - then you may chose to retain your old leader. You do not get the additional, era-appropriate bonuses of a new leader, but might gain a more general bonus (something like culture/tourism, faith and diplomatic favor) to represent maintaining ages-old traditions. Then you could simply retain Ramses II (or Hatshepsut, or Cleopatra if we must have her) into the later phases of the game, and thus remain ancient Egypt.

The Arab civilization itself should probably start with the Nabateans, Sabaeans and friends, definitely not in Babylon either way.

 

[Zaarin]

On the other hand, America-Canada-Australia-Brazil-Gran Colombia in 4000AD doesn't feel much better.

That's partially why I prefer to keep Modern (or even Industrial) civs and leaders to a minimum. Even aside from its being my least favorite period in history, the Industrial/Modern civs stand out.

And unchanging immortal leaders have their own issues.

I've never really had a problem with this. Civ isn't a sim; the leader is more a face for the civilization than a Paradox-style leader.

In any case, I'm loving what I'm seeing in Humankind, but I'm not sure I want it to come to Civ. Part of what makes Civ fun is the "what if" of ancient empires like the Phoenicians or Babylonians not being conquered but surviving to form new empires. (That's also why it annoys me that Sumerian civilians have Arabic names in the modern era or Aztec civilians have Spanish names in the modern era.)

 

[Ryansinbela]

How would governments work?

 

[AntSou]

Simplified portraits would have to be justified with a significant trade-off, which would almost have to be a much wider variety of leaders

Oh, it's the other way around in my view. It's the need for more and better representation (that is, more leaders and civs) that necessitates the simplification of leaders. There would be no point in simplifying them for the sake of it.

As for point #5, there are a million different styles that they could pursue that are neither Civ6 vibrant nor Civ5 "real life is muddy brown."

I doubt they'll do something like Civ 5, since it clearly doesn't age well. Civ IV manages to look better than CIV V imo, despite being an earlier title.

 

[Zaarin]

Oh, it's the other way around in my view. It's the need for more and better representation (that is, more leaders and civs) that necessitates the simplification of leaders. There would be no point in simplifying them for the sake of it.

In my opinion, Civ5 and Civ6 have set expectations for leaders that they'd have to offer something far more compelling than "more leaders" in exchange for.

 

[Evie]

That's partially why I prefer to keep Modern (or even Industrial) civs and leaders to a minimum. Even aside from its being my least favorite period in history, the Industrial/Modern civs stand out.


I've never really had a problem with this. Civ isn't a sim; the leader is more a face for the civilization than a Paradox-style leader.

In any case, I'm loving what I'm seeing in Humankind, but I'm not sure I want it to come to Civ. Part of what makes Civ fun is the "what if" of ancient empires like the Phoenicians or Babylonians not being conquered but surviving to form new empires. (That's also why it annoys me that Sumerian civilians have Arabic names in the modern era or Aztec civilians have Spanish names in the modern era.)

That's a good point. I still like the idea of being able to swap between leaders and get into the later civilizations that way (so people who want to play late-history civ can, they just have to get there), but there definitely needs to be a legitimate game choice (and not just "you get higher score for keeping your older civ") between keeping Babylon or Phoenicia alive or moving into Islamic-era Middle Eastern polities. Possibly a choice between getting an additional leader ability (if you pick a new leader) or a more powerful version of your civilization ability (if you chose to hold the course with the old ways).

Note that when I'm talking of eras I'm thinking less in terms of the in-game tech/civic ages and more the government tiers, roughly. Hence a tier of leader for the ancient government (including the starting governments), one for the medieval-renaissance second tier govts, and one for the enlightenment-industrial-modern third-tier (as it's too early to chose leadaers, the fourth-tier governments should be disregarded). In that case, your leader change option would probably come whenever you first adopt a government of the appropriate tier.

 

[Ryansinbela]

This thread reminds me of this
https://forums.civfanatics.com/threads/ideas-for-the-perfect-4x-historical-game.654805/

 

[AntSou]

This thread reminds me of this
https://forums.civfanatics.com/threads/ideas-for-the-perfect-4x-historical-game.654805/

That thread is much wider since it aims to answer "How might the perfect historical 4x look like?", and that allows for some great brainstorming.

I'm starting from the position "Given Civ 6 exists, Civ 7 must be sufficiently different. In what ways?" I don't think points 1,2 and 5 would make much sense in that thread, though 3 and 4 could.

 

[The googles do nothing]

The most fundamental change for Civ7 should be that it's two games: Ancient to Renaissance, and Modern to Future. You should not 'win' the early game and 'finish' the late game, I don't know how they should how be done but i'm looking for decisions that have the same magnitude of placing cities and choosing your early builds.

Why do the leader portraits need to change? So they could integrated the leader integration with the map screen?

I would put the Governments ahead of Leaders in need of an injection of creativity. You could just call the current governments A,B and C. I can see the Leaders being integrated into the Governors into a 'Government Officials' mechanic.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

I have such mixed feelings about this. Civ6 has a gorgeous soundtrack, but hearing the same ~8 songs for a game you can sink 10 hours in just for a single game is ill-advised. I'd prefer Civ7 focus on singular themes using more authentic instruments (oh, hello, cello in every. single. medieval. theme) and add in a lot more ambient music.

By brother doesn't like Civ 6 at all except for the music. The other day he heard Byzantium's theme for the first time and played it all the way through again and again.

All in all if I have to hear the same 8 songs for a single game, I'll take most of the Civ's themes over many other music out there.