Civ Ideas & Suggestions Not-Worth-Their-Own-Thread

[Jeppetto]

Oh no, the Portugal is leaking

 

[Naokaukodem]

Also, the pettiest of complaints: if we get replay timelapses post game showing how the map evolved in time, it would be really great if it didn't follow the horrible idea "not just land but also water tiles get colored according to the ownership", hence making the maps completely lose their purpose. Like imagine if in the real world countries like Greece or Indonesia were just displayed as round blobs due to all their internal seas being given the color of their lands.

Wait. I indeed want this as an easily togable option, sometimes it's cool to see really owned "land", or rather map, including oceans. Just to stick with the actual big real map you know. (but it may be useful especially ingame)

As to realism I don't think that the topic, since nations in reality don't really have sea territory, they are shared by several at best by accords and such. Maybe something to consider for Civ8 ? That links to my idea of "Civ3 corruption according to the shape of the land" too. Sure tiles expanding on land rather than on sea is a good step in the right direction, but I could see a comeback of Civ3 corruption that could be useful for "peninsula" starts or something like that, or in a mod.

 

[Ordnael]

So the Nintendo Switch 2 just got revealed on a tiny 2plus minute First Look trailer

and at mark 1:10 you can see the new mouse functionality being teased and I am now wondering if the CIV VII port for the Switch 2 is being built with this feature in consideration.
I mean CIV VII and couch potato Nintendo with mouse support would be a match made in heaven, don't you think?

 

[Uberfrog]

So the Nintendo Switch 2 just got revealed on a tiny 2plus minute First Look trailer

and at mark 1:10 you can see the new mouse functionality being teased and I am now wondering if the CIV VII port for the Switch 2 is being built with this feature in consideration.
I mean CIV VII and couch potato Nintendo with mouse support would be a match made in heaven, don't you think?

I think it’s very likely Civ 7 will be available on the Switch 2 in its full form when the console is released.

 

[devillock]

A usurper crisis, where your most leveled up army commander (and army) goes rogue, turns against you, and has to be defeated.

 

[Krajzen]

An obvious problem with this is, well, it's really frustrating to lose my beloved commanded which I have leveled up for hours at least unless it is a predictable system of personal loyalty - but again, when it is predictable, it can be managed and optimised so you eventually never encounter loyalty crisis

I think it's better for the game to have some warning signs of an upcoming loyalty crisis and then generate some high quality usurper general "out of thin air" - you can always justify it by saying its one of X officers or other generals who rose to power (after all it's not like we assume only in-game general units are commanding our armies in-universe) and you don't have your favorite army and general snatched from under your nose

 

[Hellenism Salesman]

A Next Action key.

 

[ButtBillionaire]

The UI has (rightfully) been discussed to death, but I'd like to list a few annoyances I experienced in just three hours of play, since it never hurts to know where improvements can be made and I'd like to see them improved.

1. Slotted items, such as policy cards, resources and great works/codices, cannot be dragged to their slots. Instead you have to click the item and then click the slot you want to put it in. Certainly doable, but I found this counterintuitive, especially as someone who is used to how the Government screen worked in VI, and had to repeatedly remind myself that they can't be dragged.

2. When the game wants to show you that you have an attribute point available before you can proceed to the next turn, it always takes you to the very first tab of the Attributes screen (Cultural, I believe?), instead of the one you have earned a point in.

3. While the game transitions smoothly into the diplomatic interaction screen, it just blips out of existence once you're done with the interaction, sometimes before the other leader is done reacting to your action. (Generally everything about the UI is very 'static.' VI's UI, though not perfect either, had a far more slick presentation as far as animations go)

 

[Nineliveslost]

oh lord , combat needs work. No explanation why you can't or can attack. Scouts can't attack . I have surrounded a unit and no one can attack them , no clue why. This game is beta and we paid full price to test it.

Another thing, it seems it got vetted by 1% deep die hard Civ fans and ignored the 99% fun Civ fans . This game is getting worse the longer I play it

 

[GeneralZIft]

I believe when cities are conquered in this game, they automatically become a town. Well, instead, you should have to choose to either keep it as a city or downgrade it into a town. Similar to the Annex or Puppet choice from Civ5.

 

[Piranga]

Terrible spacing in city build menu's. The modifiers always look like they belong to the yields on the right because of the poor UI spacing.

 

[devillock]

An obvious problem with this is, well, it's really frustrating to lose my beloved commanded which I have leveled up for hours at least unless it is a predictable system of personal loyalty - but again, when it is predictable, it can be managed and optimised so you eventually never encounter loyalty crisis

I think it's better for the game to have some warning signs of an upcoming loyalty crisis and then generate some high quality usurper general "out of thin air" - you can always justify it by saying its one of X officers or other generals who rose to power (after all it's not like we assume only in-game general units are commanding our armies in-universe) and you don't have your favorite army and general snatched from under your nose

Well since army commanders when defeated aren't actually eliminated permanently, it would be easy to use narrative events to reintroduce them at a later point (minus army units of course). If the point of all these crises is to nerf snowballing, adding a new commander to wage war against kind of defeats the purpose.

 

[Piranga]

Probably said before, but needs to be said again.

Enemy explorer, merchants, and missionaries need to be able to be killed.

I'm in a modern era war right now and my enemy has a stack of 8 sitting explorers in my nearest city, then more throughout my empire.

 

[Piranga]

Aerodome commanders (after upgrading the Raids path and getting the skill Formations) give +5 combat bonus when using the ground attack commander ability.
"Ground attack: Order eligible attack air units to attack a ground target"

However using this can end up being a complete waste of units. Say you have 4 dive bombers in the commander tower and you use this skill your entire stack will attack the target even if it that enemy unit dies on the second attack. The 3rd and 4th bombers will attack the empty tile. That empty tile should count as an ineligible target...since there's no ground unit there and dive bombers can't attack infrastructure/districts. The 3rd and 4th dive bombers shouldn't have their turn wasted.

(I know other commanders have similar abilities but haven't tried them enough yet..but none should waste unit turns like this)

 

[99-percent-sure]

Probably said before, but needs to be said again.

Enemy explorer, merchants, and missionaries need to be able to be killed.

I'm in a modern era war right now and my enemy has a stack of 8 sitting explorers in my nearest city, then more throughout my empire.

Apparently, Firaxis didn't intend for the AI to stack explorers that way, and it's going to be addressed in a future patch. The issue is mentioned on the Civilization Issue Tracker site. That will help, as it really screws up the dynamics of artifact collection in a not-very-fun way.

 

[Head_North]

I would like to have hills back in the game.

And more realistic/beautiful mountain ranges.

 

[ThichN]

Not sure where else to put this, but this is in regards to urban tiles as roads.
I would actually like to defend the current system, or propose minor tweaks. I like that urban tiles are not roads because it makes combat / capturing cities more fun. You can create chokepoints on the road into the city, and depending on the shape of the city (long, following a river? clustered around a mountain?) the combat is different. If each urban tile is a road, it will turn into unit spam around cities and eliminate much of that strategy.

Some ideas, though: a "Resistance" policy card that makes urban tiles roads for your troops. The opposite, too: some kind of lightning warfare card that makes them roads for the opponent at the expense of, say, buildings (maybe buildings are destroyed as you move thru).

Use it as a chip in the game rather than a catch-all.

 

[GeneralZIft]

Not sure where else to put this, but this is in regards to urban tiles as roads.
I would actually like to defend the current system, or propose minor tweaks. I like that urban tiles are not roads because it makes combat / capturing cities more fun. You can create chokepoints on the road into the city, and depending on the shape of the city (long, following a river? clustered around a mountain?) the combat is different. If each urban tile is a road, it will turn into unit spam around cities and eliminate much of that strategy.

Some ideas, though: a "Resistance" policy card that makes urban tiles roads for your troops. The opposite, too: some kind of lightning warfare card that makes them roads for the opponent at the expense of, say, buildings (maybe buildings are destroyed as you move thru).

Use it as a chip in the game rather than a catch-all.

It would be cool if friendly urban tiles are road-like and enemy urban tiles are not, so that would represent the urban 'homeland' bonus (i.e. your people know their way around the city but the enemy don't)

 

[Auraiz]

I'd like to see the settlement limit split between towns and cities, or until/if that's not possible, modified weights between a town (0.25) and a city(1.0)

Introduce balancing so that each additional city starts increasing either culture/science costs (5% to 10%), or (my preference) a nationwide gold inefficieny/corruption cost (-5% to -10%).

I like the the town city split, and the balancing act between them, but the straight unhappiness modifier just isn't enough. Having local negative happiness heavily affecting local yields seems to be what they hoped to address this but the system needs another lever. Cities are too good if you have the town connections available to justify growth, and once you understand juggling happiness issues the settlement limit becomes irrelevant.

Gold is an interesting spot. All these things are true:

1. Gold is weaker than production
2. Gold is too powerful
3. Gold is too plentiful
4. Gold is too scarce

1 is always true by nature of hammers are more efficient than gold. 2 is always true by nature of the strategic flexibilty of buying your production instantly anywhere anytime on the map. 3 and 4 will vary on your civ/leader combo, the age you're in, and your choices. Generally it's too easy for 3 to be true.

Having cities balanced to increase global corruption/inefficiency, reducing gold production feels like the right lever to balance. Towns remain to feed growth to cities, claim resources, and easy gold for your economy. Cities are powerhouses of culture/science but convert too many and your ability to maintain productive towns through gold spending weakens.

 

[devillock]

I would like to have the ability to capture and ransom army commanders.