Civ 7 Wishlist

Chekko

Warlord
Joined
Mar 26, 2011
Messages
169
Location
Sweden
1. More mechanics at least when it comes to the later stages of the game and implement (maybe as a separate gamemode at first) a new Civ that does not represent any nation or person but more of what the player makes of the Civ. It gets Forest bonuses if you spend a lot in the Forests, you get your own Unique Slinger-tree unit during your first Golden Age if you have a highly leveled Slinger-tree unit or just love using that type of unit. You gain bonuses and units based of your history, your playstyle and your environment.

2. Rework 'armies' by instead be able to stack 5 Units. Be able to play Tall/Wide and be able to make those really huge cities.

3. Somehow not have the way of producing stuff and researching Tech/Civic to be so linear.

4. More uses for all the Buildings and Districts than mostly just giving out yields. Make Golden Era and Dark Era affect more. Make it into a strategy to push your Civs into a Dark era.

5. Maybe have your cities resources be more of something you generate, maintain, trade and can send instead of just some yield.

6. Changes to Flying Units

7. More ways to learn science than having science yields. For example have a chance to learn technology from winning wars if the enemy used a technology you did not know. More to Faith than Religion. More to Culture than Civics and defense vs Tourism.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Oct 17, 2017
Messages
8,610
Location
Texas
Oh for sure, it's never going to happen, but I just think if they went through the trouble of making that civilization/leader split in Civ6, they could actually Use It. We use the term Greco-Roman to imply a more or less continuous cultural sphere. If you wanted both in the game you could make 2 leaders, like what they did with Gorgo and Pericles, except really stick to their guns by concocting a definition of what "civilization" means to a group like the Romans.

If maybe 25% of the power of a civ came from a "civilization" bonus, you could still make leaders/empires from the same civ feel distinct. If the power was derived mainly from Leader-related bonuses then that would define the playstyle of the faction.
  • Culture bonuses would be generic economic or military bonuses to things most players do anyways, like:
    • yield increases on common actions, like trade routes, or killing units, or to certain building types.
    • fairly generic military bonuses, like training archers faster, or yields from kills, etc.
    • Bonuses that align with the player's start bias, like the ability to build on or move through certain terrain more easily, or more yields from certain generic improvements
    • Civilian components would need to be limited to buildings, districts, and maybe national wonders, if those were a thing. Things with less visual impact on the map than improvements
    • The buildings could just be a numbers boost over a base component, or maybe unlock earlier.
  • The leader/empire components would then be much stronger and much more dynamic,
    • The Leader ability could unlock entire new abilities or unique actions, or give enormous incentives to existing actions, such that the leader ability defines the faction's playstyle.
    • open the civilian bonus up to unique improvements and great people (if generic GPs made a return), and also give them bonuses or abilities strong enough to define the gameplay of the faction, beyond straightforward steroid bonuses
    • It's probably less important that the leader-bound UU is made much stronger than the culture-bound UU, since UUs are only temporary bonuses for a certain era, but some thought could be put into making sure the UU reflects the character and time of the leader, and if it combines with the culture UU to make a large power spike in a single era, or if it maintains your civ as a military threat through multiple ages.
  • I think this system would skew civs and leaders into earlier eras. This would be great, because it would allow for a return of ideologies as a late-game mechanic, and each ideology could come with its own unique unit(s) that define the late game

Spoiler Roman/Greek examples :

Mediterranean culture
Culture bonus: Arete - Adopting new policies is % cheaper
Culture building: Hippodrome - Entertainment/happiness building. Romans had their own form called the Circus, but use the Greek name
Culture unit: Ballista - Siege unit. Thought most often connected to the Romans, two-armed Torsion engines were widespread throughout, yet entirely unique to the Mediterranean world

Rome - Augustus
Leader Bonus: Pax Romana - Something leveraging conquest into internal trade
Leader unit: Legionary - Heavy Classical infantry
Leader Improvement: Villa - culture/gold improvement

Athens - Xanthippus
Leader Bonus: Delian League - Something to do with City States
Leader Unit: Trireme - Classical Melee Ship
Leader Building: Acropolis: Defensive/Military District or improvement
Well it's definitely a different idea which in theory could work. But I don't see it happening because I feel if that were the case we'd still probably get at least 4 Mediterranean leaders in a civ game (Rome, Athens Greece, Byzantium, and Alexander leading Macedon somehow). And of course 4 leaders sharing some of the same bonuses wouldn't necessarily make them feel unique.
 

pineappledan

Deity
Joined
Aug 9, 2017
Messages
8,241
Location
Alberta, Canada
Well it's definitely a different idea which in theory could work. But I don't see it happening because I feel if that were the case we'd still probably get at least 4 Mediterranean leaders in a civ game (Rome, Athens Greece, Byzantium, and Alexander leading Macedon somehow). And of course 4 leaders sharing some of the same bonuses wouldn't necessarily make them feel unique.
Hence why I think you would need UUs and UBs at both levels, to mollify people over the sharing of components giving the perception of less content. The easiest fix to change that perception is to double the amount of content attached to each leader. In civ 6 you functionally got 2 UAs, 1 UB, 1 UU. Sometimes a 2nd UU was part of a UA. My proposal would be 2 UAs, 2 UBs and 2 UUs as a baseline for everyone.

Such a system would indeed result in a few instances of 2 leaders to a single culture on initial release, but that's partially the point: To actually make good use of that culture/leader split that civ 6 had. To demonstrate this system in Civ 6, they released 2 leaders for a single civ who lived 1 generation and 213 km apart. And then they split Byzantium up into its own culture, separate from Rome anyways. What a waste. I didn't care to have 2 Greek leaders, AND Macedon, did you? Their split system resulted in them expending more effort on even narrower categories.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Oct 17, 2017
Messages
8,610
Location
Texas
Such a system would indeed result in a few instances of 2 leaders to a single culture on initial release, but that's partially the point: To actually make good use of that culture/leader split that civ 6 had. To demonstrate this system in Civ 6, they released 2 leaders for a single civ who lived 1 generation and 213 km apart. And then they split Byzantium up into its own culture, separate from Rome anyways. What a waste. I didn't care to have 2 Greek leaders, AND Macedon, did you? Their split system resulted in them expending more effort on even narrower categories.
Well as you can tell by my profile name I'm sort of a Hellenophile, and a fan of Alexander the Great in general, so yes I didn't mind. :p

Of course I'm also perfectly fine with getting rid of Macedon as long as Alexander goes back to being one of the Greek leaders. He can replace Gorgo as a militaristic Greek leader.

I just feel this kind of format might get honestly controversial especially when it comes to portraying a bunch of leaders under one shared Germanic culture, or even Slavic culture. :shifty:
 

Krajzen

Deity
Joined
Oct 23, 2013
Messages
3,294
Location
Poland
Include West African civ which is not Songhai, Mali or medieval Ghana, etc - Islamic Sahel States Trading Salt and Gold.

We have already seen this group of civs in the game three times in a row, I mean I have nothing against it and its cool, but it would be really nice to go for very different West African vibes and gameplay archetypes and for example employ Pagan Forest civilization of Akan, or Yoruba, or Igbo, or Benin/Edo, which have been consistent tier 1 African nations for the entire last millenium until this day. Also, somehow they are super obscure for pophistory except maybe Benin (I mean obscure even for traditionally ignored African civilizations :p ) so it would double as a glorious educational mission. Like seriously I see them on par with Mali, Songhai, Ethiopia or Nubia in terms of tier 1 African civilizations, time to give them some love :(

(Other tier 1 candidates would be Hausa or Kanuri, but both are much more similar to SMG in many aspects; but for this reason they could fill a separate second slot, replacing SMG group this time as West African Muslim Guys!)
 
Last edited:

Evie

Pronounced like Eevee
Joined
Jan 5, 2002
Messages
10,188
Location
Ottawa, Ontario
"On par with" is a form of comparison that's just asking for trouble.

But I would say Mali's global reach and influence both in Africa and beyond it far exceeds any of the Forest States. It should be as much of a series staples as Germany,

Not that I'm opposed to a Forest State, far from, just not as a "this should represent West Africa instead of Mali".
 

Krajzen

Deity
Joined
Oct 23, 2013
Messages
3,294
Location
Poland
"On par with" is a form of comparison that's just asking for trouble.

But I would say Mali's global reach and influence both in Africa and beyond it far exceeds any of the Forest States. It should be as much of a series staples as Germany,

Not that I'm opposed to a Forest State, far from, just not as a "this should represent West Africa instead of Mali".

I have mixed opinions on this, I partially share and aprtially don't share yourbsentiments and arguments

Don't get me wrong I love Mali civilization very much and I want some Islamic civilization from Sahel to be a recurring staple - Mali should be the main course here occasionally changed for Songhai, Ghana, also Hausa, Kanem civs
(it's also one of the biggest pains of mine in terms of "glorious past of a given region versus its current state", if not the biggest, reading about modern Sahel after its precolonial past is like coming back to your best friend and discovering he's homeless, crippled and on meth)

But I don't think Mali overshoots those other civs that much for it to be a constant staple even within this region. It was not the first major civ there (Ghana was), it didn't establish Trans Saharan gold salt trade nor brought Islam down there (centuries older process), it wasn't the biggest one (Songhai was although just slightly), it didn't exist as a major power much longer than Songhai (definitely much shorter than Ghana and Kanuri kingdoms), and its internal cultural, economic and social complexity is comparable to Songhai at least (for example iirc it was actually under Songhai when local science was doing the best and local cities were at their biggest size). It wasn't even the only civ of Mande peoples (they had Ghana among others).

The greatest edge of Mali over other civs within this niche is that it really got into popculture because of legends involving its gold trade (which was somewhat typical for that era and region, not sure if that peaked that much at this time) and that silly story of Musa's gold causing inflation in North Africa - iirc its utterly debunked, which didnt surprise me as it always sounded to me like a tropical Herodotus tier fantasy story that will be shared all over Reddit as an empirical fact.

I also feel that there is this notion involving African civs that there were few of them that were vastly and greatly more sophisticated than all others (especially Ethiopia and Mali). I am genuinely not sure at all if early modern Yoruba and Akan civs could be described as less complex than medieval Mali and early modern Ethiopia after reading about all of them next to each other, so I wouldn't find it super crazy if the latter got instead of former, although as I said I would prefer for West Africa to simply get two civs at once, one Islamic Sahelian and one forest pagan ;)
 
Joined
Jul 3, 2021
Messages
372
Assorted reflections on Civ IV...

Trade Routes:
-I would like for trade routes to be automated on the city-level again, perhaps even tied to basic geography. For example, each city would start with one trade route, cities on rivers or coast would start with a bonus route, and cities on river mouths would claim the cumulative bonus.
-Land routes would naturally establish roads, while river and sea routes would benefit from range and commercial yields. This early network of trade routes would carry passive spread of religion, culture, and other relevant game mechanics.
-Rather than trade routes carrying resources as in Humankind, trade routes could develop a more lucrative version of Civ VI's yields, with an increased modifier for the source of gems when a player is importing them.
-It would also be nice to have local benefits for the cities trade passes through, like a buffed trading post. Global trading hubs could have more flavor, more so if they rise and fall with conflict.
-Open borders, tariffs, and social policies would be among the ways a player can interact with passive spread via trade routes.

I have shared some thoughts on Diplomacy from Civ IV elsewhere, but would add here that it remains the only Civilization game where I have been carved up in the manner of a colonial war. While that experience over a decade ago was fairly unpleasant, it is all the more impressive from the subsequent decline in competitive AI. Part of this is the diplomatic side, where AI in Civ IV can be more conflict-prone in addition to possessing a greater capacity for siege and conquest. One way this could come up in Civ VII would be an AI dimension like tolerance. Humankind presents this with some flavor particularly through civics. Their Monoculturalism/Multiculturalism binary could be useful for designing AI that are open to religious and cultural diversity vs. those that are dedicated to their heritage and traditions at the expense of others, possibly to the extent of foreign intervention on their group's behalf.
 

Vandal Thorne

Warlord
Joined
Mar 26, 2008
Messages
163
I'd like to see different sizes and kinds of "cities". Like some are outposts that take up just one tile. Some are rural things like the fishing village, mining colony, and farming town districts in the civ lights (iirc) mod, with limited tile aoc.

Beyond that I would like to see more variety in everything from civs to civics and techs to city states, etc., etc.
 

historix69

Emperor
Joined
Sep 30, 2008
Messages
1,346
After Civ 5 and Civ 6 with all their expansions it will be hard to come up with some new ideas for Civ 7 if devs stick to the Civ theme alone.

I would try to include the economy system from Colonization with workers, specialists, production buildings and a huge number of tradeable goods including food which can be moved from city to city.
City growth then should be less based on local food surplus since food would be tradeable and working population would be able to move between cities as well.
A spherical map based on triangles or hexagons and 12 pentagons (icosahedron, Bucky Ball) would be fine, too, if the devs can manage the weird graphics at those unique areas where hexagons meet the 12 pentagons.
As usual the game should be moddable.
Map sizes should not be restricted by some hard coded constants so that players can choose their own map size and use giant maps again. Please add options to reduce details to allow even bigger maps. In general it would be helpful to code the graphics so that the parts of the map which are not visible do not allocate immense resources. Older Civ games like Civ 3 supported much bigger maps.

If this experimental concept for Civ 7 fails, many people will be glad if Civ 8 is just another canon Civ game while some others may stick to Civ 7 and mod it until it is perfect.
 

Naokaukodem

Millenary King
Joined
Aug 8, 2003
Messages
3,618
I would try to include the economy system from Colonization with workers, specialists, production buildings and a huge number of tradeable goods including food which can be moved from city to city.

Obviously that would be awesome but this style is maybe reserved for another Colonization. Another experimental concept can be seen in my signature. :)
 

aieeegrunt

Emperor
Joined
Jan 8, 2021
Messages
1,176
I really enjoyed the Barbarian Clans mode, this is definitly the best feature of Civ6 so I want that to return.

The reduced micromanagement of less unit density is wonderful, but the 1 UPT and low movement allowance is awful. You are solving a sliding tile puzzle everytime you move your units.

I think there is ample middle ground between 1 UPT and the dreaded Stack O Doom. I think three units per hex and the movement bumped up by one would work so much better
 

Nassim

Chieftain
Joined
Jan 30, 2020
Messages
75
More civs with asymetric playstyles, it's nice to have civs with not just bonuses but also constraints (even just no surprise war or no great writers even if those weren't the most interesting, or even better constraints on districts like Vietnam and Gauls or full playstyle like Kongo) or maluses (like Mali, Maya or Babylon)... I find them pretty fun as they really force you to change the way you play.
 

Krajzen

Deity
Joined
Oct 23, 2013
Messages
3,294
Location
Poland
After Civ 5 and Civ 6 with all their expansions it will be hard to come up with some new ideas for Civ 7 if devs stick to the Civ theme alone.

I respectfully very much disagree, human history especially in its entirety (as Civ series basically cover all of it) offers infinite complexity and infinite number of ways to explore it.
And since civ5 and civ6 were very far from perfect video games and portrayals of history and had plenty of issues, there is infinite potential for change, evolution, revolution, shakeup, innovation, addition of new stuff, and sometimes also deletion of things that didn't work.

Civ6 was, for this series traditions, unusually very conservative transition from previous iteration, maybe because of the same lead dev watching over civ5 expansions and then an entire civ6; he's gone now. Civ4 -> Civ5 was very radical change, and so was Civ3 -> Civ4, and I think Civ7 will go back to revolutionary shakeups. Especially as devs some time ago contemplated in the interview how they think something is fundamentally amiss from the entire Civ diplomatic system, and how its economic basis went too far into micromanagement.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Oct 17, 2017
Messages
8,610
Location
Texas
Civ6 was, for this series traditions, unusually very conservative transition from previous iteration, maybe because of the same lead dev watching over civ5 expansions and then an entire civ6; he's gone now.
Wait did Ed Beach leave Firaxis?
 

Krajzen

Deity
Joined
Oct 23, 2013
Messages
3,294
Location
Poland
Wait did Ed Beach leave Firaxis?

I am not sure what to respond because I was referring to https://forums.civfanatics.com/threads/civ-vi-lead-left-firaxis-final-nail-in-the-coffin.674607/ was about Anton Strenger, and that made me realize I am, in fact, not entirely sure who in Beach/Strenger duo did what and when :p

Especially as in the same time I have vague memories of a recent discussion about "lead dev change may lead to civ7 moving away from boardgame - like mechanics" and I was certain Ed Beach is the great lover of board games and the subject of that discussion :p
 
Joined
Oct 17, 2017
Messages
8,610
Location
Texas
I am not sure what to respond because I was referring to https://forums.civfanatics.com/threads/civ-vi-lead-left-firaxis-final-nail-in-the-coffin.674607/ was about Anton Strenger, and that made me realize I am, in fact, not entirely sure who in Beach/Strenger duo did what and when :p

Especially as in the same time I have vague memories of a recent discussion about "lead dev change may lead to civ7 moving away from boardgame - like mechanics" and I was certain Ed Beach is the great lover of board games and the subject of that discussion :p
Ah okay. If my memory is correct Ed Beach definitely did the base game and then, I believe, was the lead for GS. Anton was in fact the lead designer behind R&F and most likely the New Frontiers Pass.

Either way I do believe that if Anton hadn't left then he would have been the front runner for a lead Civ 7 designer, if not Ed Beach again.
 

Absolution

King
Joined
Mar 6, 2010
Messages
821
Location
Israel
Every game of Civilization failed to portray the historical rise and fall of civilisations.
The wonderful Civ4 mod did well to give us a hint at what it should be like, but was too determinist.
RevolitionMod was the closest one to what I imagine.

Only few civs should start at 4000 BC. The rest should emerge later.
Either from dividing nations, from colonies, from barbarians consolidating into a civ, or randomally around fertile plains.
Civs should also emerge in proximity. As cradles of civilisation, like in real history. Proximity will make the Ancient Era extremely more interesting and more realistic.

I've played with WB scenarios of that sort for Revolution Mod on civ 4, and the problem was that the early and distant civilisations always won. So some countering mechanisms should be in action to make it very interesting.
Civs of the central world will be more advances and cultural, while distant ones could have more populations and more resources, etc.
But ancient warfare will no longer be a century old trail of a few warriors to plunder some tiles - but real intense border clashes.
 
Top Bottom