Civ VI to Civ VII: What to Keep, What to Change or Discard Part One: Civs and Leaders

[InsidiousMage]

They aren't going to get rid of civs like Spain, America, and especially the Ottomans. That would be the death of the franchise.
They've continued to mix in new civs with old, and I don't see why that's a problem.

I've seen too many games do things that would "kill the franchise" or otherwise displease a vocal part of the fanbase but then went to on have some great success to believe this. Fundamentally, gameplay is what matters is what matters. Will some people complain if their favorite civ or that a franchise staple is not in the game? Sure. Will they not buy the game because of that? Highly unlikely.

That being said they've been working on the game for 5 years or so and started to design civs radically different which is the reason why Vietnam and the Maori feel more inspired than Rome currently. Of course Rome at least to me has a more interesting design than in past games.

Given that part of the thread is how can Civ compete with CK3, OW, and HK the fact that Civ6 is a place were the devs can keep releasing more civs based around some kind of unique gameplay is something that can give the game an edge. If Civ7 comes out a year or two after the end of NFP then those three games will have probably announced if not already released some DLC or expansions then Civ7, with it's same old civs as before would look kind of stale comparatively, barring some kind of gameplay innovation.

Personally, if Civ7 came out and it was mostly the same old civs and leaders I would definitely not immediately buy it and probably pick OW again. Dramatically changing which civs are in the game is a way for to differentiate itself from not only it's competitors but previous editions of the game as well.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

I've seen too many games do things that would "kill the franchise" or otherwise displease a vocal part of the fanbase but then went to on have some great success to believe this. Fundamentally, gameplay is what matters is what matters. Will some people complain if their favorite civ or that a franchise staple is not in the game? Sure. Will they not buy the game because of that? Highly unlikely.

There were groups of people that said initially they wouldn't buy the game on launch if the Ottomans and Persians weren't in it.

Considering Civ 6 is at 50 civs, I see no reason why to not bring a lot of civs back for Civ VII, while at the same time add in others, or replace others, to reach close to 60.

Personally, if Civ7 came out and it was mostly the same old civs and leaders I would definitely not immediately buy it and probably pick OW again. Dramatically changing which civs are in the game is a way for to differentiate itself from not only it's competitors but previous editions of the game as well.

Considering the base game has always had America, Aztec (basically), China, Egypt, England, Germany, Greece, France, Japan (sort of), India (though they could de blob it), Rome, and Russia, I doubt there will be any changes as far as these are concerned and deserve to be in the game.

Others that should at least stay as staples:
Americas: Inca, Maya, Iroquois (if we are going to get at least one North American tribe from U.S. or Canada it should be them), Brazil (should be at least the other post-colonial nation in game besides America.)

Europe: Spain, Netherlands, Portugal, Viking civ (Norway, Denmark, Iceland? ), Celtic civ (Scotland, Gaul, Ireland etc.), Byzantium in some form, other Northern/Central European civ that's not Germany (Sweden, Poland, Austria, Hungary etc.)

Central/East Asia: Mongolia, Korea, Khmer (at least the staple for SEA), Early game Steppe nomadic civ (Scythia, Huns etc.)

Middle East: Arabia (some Medieval Caliphate), Sumer (was the cradle of Civilization but needs to reflect it in game), Babylon (been in all games), Persia (Classical or not), Ottomans (Turks), Phoenicia or Carthage

Africa: Zulu, Ethiopia, Mali/Songhai/Ghana, Morocco/Berbers, Nubia

Oceania: Polynesian civ (Maori, Hawaii, Tonga etc.)

That's about 39- 40 "returning" which could make room for 20 new ones, at least. That's not counting the possibility of civs like Indonesia, Canada and Australia that keep on returning though, which are likely.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

Unique means different things in different contexts. Right now, you can divide all the Uniques in the Civs and Leaders in Civ VI into two basic types:
Those based on some peculiarity of the Civ's historical terrain/climate/geographical location
Those based on some peculiar aspect of the development of the Civ or Leader personality.

The first type includes things like terrain bias for Tundra, Desert, Mountains/Hills, etc and any Naval/Sea Trade bias, which presumes something close to a Coastal Start on a body of water that is not isolated (I can still remember numerous Arctic ice-bound sea coastal starts in Civ V while trying to play as Carthage or Venice). These are heavily dependent on a good Map and Starting Placement generator, which Civ VI lacks.

The second type, to me, represent those aspects of a specific civilization or culture that don't have an easy and singular cause and so have to be simply directed regardless of Game Condition: the difference between a Lavra and ordinary Holy Site, the efficiency of the British Royal Dockyard establishments, etc.

It seems to me, therefore, that we could get extra flexibility even within the game's "standard" Civs (Rome, Greece, Britain, America, etc) by making the Geographical Unique Aspects a separate category that apply only if the In-Game map situation applies, by choice.

For example, a Norway/Norse/Viking Civ might be able to choose a Unique of Better Sea Raiders ONLY if they have a coastal start for their first, or their first X Percentage of Cities (depending on when in the game we want the choice to be available - that can vary also). If that situation does not arise, other Norway/Norse/Viking Uniques might be available that don't rely on the Map: ability to trace Trade Routes for extra distance along rivers, or ability to Hire Out military units as Mercenaries (this, of course, could also be Harald Hardradda's Leader Unique, if he's in the game).

By dividing Unique Attributes into those inherent in the Civ/Leader and independent of the starting position or map situation and those that are unique to a Civ only if it has something resembling its historical geography - and some that might even be 'generic geographical uniques' but only choosable by a single Civ in the game, like Religious Beliefs are now - we could achieve two things:

1. Avoid games in which the Unique of the Civ you are trying to play is incompatible with the map. My favorite examples (from frustrating personal experience!) being Restarting the game 9+ times and never getting a coastal start as England or a desert start as Nubia. To me, that is Immersion-Breaking before I even place my first city!

2. Provide more flexibility and differentiation among the presented Civs. Instead of a designed England that has the same Uniques in every game with the same Leader(s), you could have an England that has, say, one or more Uniques peculiar to England all the time - something like Rule of Law or Longbow medieval UU or a Pub Amenity Building - one or more Uniques peculiar to the Leader, and one or more Uniques selectable from a list of both England-peculiar and 'generic' geographical sets based on the in-game geography for each particular game: say, an England-particular set of Unique Buildings, Districts or Units based on a Coastal affinity with the option to instead choose from a more 'generic' set that includes possible Desert, Tundra, Mountain, Marsh, Rain Forest, or Forest-heavy starting positions.

This has the potential to 'expand' the number of initial designed Civs offered from 18 or 19 to 72 to 144+ based on the mixing and matching of Unique Attributes based on variations in geography, Leader, and choices for each Civ.

 

[InsidiousMage]

Unique means different things in different contexts. Right now, you can divide all the Uniques in the Civs and Leaders in Civ VI into two basic types:
Those based on some peculiarity of the Civ's historical terrain/climate/geographical location
Those based on some peculiar aspect of the development of the Civ or Leader personality.

The first type includes things like terrain bias for Tundra, Desert, Mountains/Hills, etc and any Naval/Sea Trade bias, which presumes something close to a Coastal Start on a body of water that is not isolated (I can still remember numerous Arctic ice-bound sea coastal starts in Civ V while trying to play as Carthage or Venice). These are heavily dependent on a good Map and Starting Placement generator, which Civ VI lacks.

The second type, to me, represent those aspects of a specific civilization or culture that don't have an easy and singular cause and so have to be simply directed regardless of Game Condition: the difference between a Lavra and ordinary Holy Site, the efficiency of the British Royal Dockyard establishments, etc.

It seems to me, therefore, that we could get extra flexibility even within the game's "standard" Civs (Rome, Greece, Britain, America, etc) by making the Geographical Unique Aspects a separate category that apply only if the In-Game map situation applies, by choice.

For example, a Norway/Norse/Viking Civ might be able to choose a Unique of Better Sea Raiders ONLY if they have a coastal start for their first, or their first X Percentage of Cities (depending on when in the game we want the choice to be available - that can vary also). If that situation does not arise, other Norway/Norse/Viking Uniques might be available that don't rely on the Map: ability to trace Trade Routes for extra distance along rivers, or ability to Hire Out military units as Mercenaries (this, of course, could also be Harald Hardradda's Leader Unique, if he's in the game).

By dividing Unique Attributes into those inherent in the Civ/Leader and independent of the starting position or map situation and those that are unique to a Civ only if it has something resembling its historical geography - and some that might even be 'generic geographical uniques' but only choosable by a single Civ in the game, like Religious Beliefs are now - we could achieve two things:

1. Avoid games in which the Unique of the Civ you are trying to play is incompatible with the map. My favorite examples (from frustrating personal experience!) being Restarting the game 9+ times and never getting a coastal start as England or a desert start as Nubia. To me, that is Immersion-Breaking before I even place my first city!

2. Provide more flexibility and differentiation among the presented Civs. Instead of a designed England that has the same Uniques in every game with the same Leader(s), you could have an England that has, say, one or more Uniques peculiar to England all the time - something like Rule of Law or Longbow medieval UU or a Pub Amenity Building - one or more Uniques peculiar to the Leader, and one or more Uniques selectable from a list of both England-peculiar and 'generic' geographical sets based on the in-game geography for each particular game: say, an England-particular set of Unique Buildings, Districts or Units based on a Coastal affinity with the option to instead choose from a more 'generic' set that includes possible Desert, Tundra, Mountain, Marsh, Rain Forest, or Forest-heavy starting positions.

This has the potential to 'expand' the number of initial designed Civs offered from 18 or 19 to 72 to 144+ based on the mixing and matching of Unique Attributes based on variations in geography, Leader, and choices for each Civ.

This all just seems needlessly complicated. While I agree some civs could use a stronger starting bias this wouldn't get rid of the need to constantly re-roll starts. If Norway gets a special unit that is only available on coastal starts then I'm going to re-roll until I get it. Giving civs bonuses that accumulate based on the current game is fine, like get a bonus for building a certain number of Harbors for a civ that doesn't get any kind of water based bonuses, but tying that to a specific civ in a specific situation again, just seems needless complicated and limiting. The pick-and-mix seems like it could maybe have some potential but strikes as something the AI could not handle at all, especially if what the AI get is randomly chosen when the game is created. Not to mention coming up with all of the parameters that unlocks this or that unique could be so complicated that you get them only once in ten games and I don't think that is going to be fun to play. Other the hand, make it too easy and the paradox of choice kicks in and it's not fun in another direction, which seems to a big problem with these suggestions in general.

There were groups of people that said initially they wouldn't buy the game on launch if the Ottomans and Persians weren't in it.

Which didn't seem to effect Civ6's sales. There was a bunch of uproar when it was rumored and then confirmed that Cyberpunk 2077 was completely in first person and didn't stop it from break digital sales records. Gameplay is the most important aspect of a game. If it is fun to play then people will play it. Numerous people have said the consider Portugal and the Iroquois to staples of the franchise yet neither have mods. I think Firaxis can be a lot less conservative with their choices and not negatively effect the game.

 

[Ryansinbela]

Perhaps you don’t need to start there but at least have a city or port near the coast

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

Which didn't seem to effect Civ6's sales. There was a bunch of uproar when it was rumored and then confirmed that Cyberpunk 2077 was completely in first person and didn't stop it from break digital sales records. Gameplay is the most important aspect of a game. If it is fun to play then people will play it. Numerous people have said the consider Portugal and the Iroquois to staples of the franchise yet neither have mods. I think Firaxis can be a lot less conservative with their choices and not negatively effect the game.

Portugal did have one, at least it was compatible with the base game.

 

[Zegangani]

As I said above most of the initial civilizations were praised in the base game for being more unique than their Civ 5 counterparts.

Of course right now they do feel bland compared to GS and NFP pass civs. I wouldn't be surprised for Civ 7 if they did try to make maluses/interesting gameplay for the base game civs.
On that note I was hoping that Kublai would have a malus toward naval combat, which he could have brought to a base game civ and R&F civ.

In GS, we have Canada as a great example of that. Not being able to declare war (and declared a surprise war on), is a major malus that differentiate it completely from other Civs. But still, it's just a single aspect, that doesn't tie to other mechanisms of the Game (which is another Problem of the Game). So you can still strive for a Science/Culture Victory, being a Production Civ...etc. In other Words, Civs are not relied on something for their survival, as it should be the case. For example: Norway/Vikings could have major Bonusses at sea raiding, but they would also be relied on that, because otherwise they cannot compet with other Civs in Science and Gold accumulation. Which would make them distinct from Other Sea/Ocean Civs like Maori and Phoenecia/Cartage aswell.

For example, a Norway/Norse/Viking Civ might be able to choose a Unique of Better Sea Raiders ONLY if they have a coastal start for their first, or their first X Percentage of Cities (depending on when in the game we want the choice to be available - that can vary also). If that situation does not arise, other Norway/Norse/Viking Uniques might be available that don't rely on the Map: ability to trace Trade Routes for extra distance along rivers, or ability to Hire Out military units as Mercenaries (this, of course, could also be Harald Hardradda's Leader Unique, if he's in the game).

I think the problem relies on the RNG of the Map itself and not on the Civs and their Traits. So the Solution to that Problem would be just a good Map generator, which would take in account the Civs selected for the Game and their Biases. This way, England and Norway could always have a coastal start, and Egypt and Nubia a Desert start...etc.

2. Provide more flexibility and differentiation among the presented Civs. Instead of a designed England that has the same Uniques in every game with the same Leader(s), you could have an England that has, say, one or more Uniques peculiar to England all the time - something like Rule of Law or Longbow medieval UU or a Pub Amenity Building - one or more Uniques peculiar to the Leader, and one or more Uniques selectable from a list of both England-peculiar and 'generic' geographical sets based on the in-game geography for each particular game: say, an England-particular set of Unique Buildings, Districts or Units based on a Coastal affinity with the option to instead choose from a more 'generic' set that includes possible Desert, Tundra, Mountain, Marsh, Rain Forest, or Forest-heavy starting positions.

This has the potential to 'expand' the number of initial designed Civs offered from 18 or 19 to 72 to 144+ based on the mixing and matching of Unique Attributes based on variations in geography, Leader, and choices for each Civ.

This! That would be a fabulous way of making Civs more dynamic without needing to introduce alternative Leaders that cost a lot of Time and Resources. So even a Game with the same Civs as always would feel different.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

This all just seems needlessly complicated. While I agree some civs could use a stronger starting bias this wouldn't get rid of the need to constantly re-roll starts. If Norway gets a special unit that is only available on coastal starts then I'm going to re-roll until I get it. Giving civs bonuses that accumulate based on the current game is fine, like get a bonus for building a certain number of Harbors for a civ that doesn't get any kind of water based bonuses, but tying that to a specific civ in a specific situation again, just seems needless complicated and limiting. The pick-and-mix seems like it could maybe have some potential but strikes as something the AI could not handle at all, especially if what the AI get is randomly chosen when the game is created. Not to mention coming up with all of the parameters that unlocks this or that unique could be so complicated that you get them only once in ten games and I don't think that is going to be fun to play. Other the hand, make it too easy and the paradox of choice kicks in and it's not fun in another direction, which seems to a big problem with these suggestions in general.

Apparently did not make myself clear.
If Norway has a Unique Unit that is a naval unit or related to naval movement (Drakkar or Knorr, for instance) that is a Geography-Based Unique and would not be available unless you have the proper Geography. A middle of the continent start with nothing wetter than an Oasis tile won't get you that Unique as an Option.

And the point of differentiating between the Geographical and Inherent Uniques is so that we don't have to try to come up with all the parameters for the latter: I've tried that on a small scale, and even on a small scale it is a large scale Pain in the head and lower anatomical areas - and almost inherently subject to potential Massive Abuse by the human player and potential Unintended Consequences with the AI. Instead, Norway might have an initial 'inherent' Unique of Longer Distance/More lucrative Trade Routes traced along Rivers, and maybe a choice between Stave Church and a Hirdsman cheap 'militia' Spearman that is more effective as a Raider. A Leader like Harald Hadradda might allow you to hire out units as Mercenaries (since that was his profession for years before he became any kind of 'political' leader) and wage some kind of war cheaply (a nod to the 'Viking' heritage).

These are just examples, but the point is/was to allow Uniques that are not tied to geography unless the geography in-game is appropriate, while also allowing some 'flex' within the Civ without relying on the manpower-expensive separate/new Leaders

I think the problem relies on the RNG of the Map itself and not on the Civs and their Traits. So the Solution to that Problem would be just a good Map generator, which would take in account the Civs selected for the Game and their Biases. This way, England and Norway could always have a coastal start, and Egypt and Nubia a Desert start...etc.

Civ has not had a "good map generator" in either Civ V or VI: that's a lot of years of game development time in which they have failed to solve the problem and I'd rather not wait for another X Years until they do.

 

[InsidiousMage]

Apparently did not make myself clear.
If Norway has a Unique Unit that is a naval unit or related to naval movement (Drakkar or Knorr, for instance) that is a Geography-Based Unique and would not be available unless you have the proper Geography. A middle of the continent start with nothing wetter than an Oasis tile won't get you that Unique as an Option.

No, I got that point. I would still re-roll since I'm playing as Norway and would want to play a naval game because why play as Norway otherwise.

These are just examples, but the point is/was to allow Uniques that are not tied to geography unless the geography in-game is appropriate, while also allowing some 'flex' within the Civ without relying on the manpower-expensive separate/new Leaders

Civs need to be well defined otherwise there is no point in having them. When playing Civ you know what kind of game you are going to play as soon as you select your leader and rarely do you deviate which how the game is built around. These ideas might work well as a game in and of themselves in which you start as a blank slate and develop an unique civilization as the game goes on but not for Civ. Again, something like building a bunch of Harbors as the Cree or Rome and getting some bonus to water tiles at the end of an era since they are not an inherent part of those civs playstyle is a workable idea in part because they can be applied regardless of the civ being used. Not all civs can have that kind of depth nor does it solve the problem of the Achaemenids always representing Persia or Spain representing the Iberian peninsula instead of Al-Andalusia and so on.

Adding more choices to a game does not necessarily make it better. I don't want five flavors of Norway, I want Norway and four other different and distinct flavors.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

Apparently did not make myself clear.
If Norway has a Unique Unit that is a naval unit or related to naval movement (Drakkar or Knorr, for instance) that is a Geography-Based Unique and would not be available unless you have the proper Geography. A middle of the continent start with nothing wetter than an Oasis tile won't get you that Unique as an Option.

That's an interesting idea in theory, but what would you get if Norway happened started in the middle of a desert?

Probably considering no Norway uniques are tied to deserts I could see you getting the standard berserker or hirdman melee units. Or if a mountain is near you can get a Norwegian ski Infantry because everyone knows you can ski on desert mountains.

 

[Zegangani]

Civ has not had a "good map generator" in either Civ V or VI: that's a lot of years of game development time in which they have failed to solve the problem and I'd rather not wait for another X Years until they do.

I extra went to check the Database of Civ VI's Terrain start biases for Civs, and there isn't any for Egypt!! Norway got a too low likelyhood bias for coast (and much less for forest). No wonder why we always have to re-roll our Games. The Only Civs that have a high likelyhood for a coast terrain start are the 3 CSs, Lisbon, Lan-Madol and Rapa-Nui.

Here is a list of the start biases for the Civs in Civ VI that have a high likelyhood:
Tier 1:
- Canada (Tundra)
- Mali (Desert)
- Maya (Flat Grass and Flat Plain)
Tier 2:
- Russia (Tundra)
- Indonesia (Coast)
- Nubia (Desert)
- Phoenecia (Coast)
- Ethipia (All Hill types except Snow)

Everything else is 3 or below (the higher the Tier Number the less likely it will occur. For instance, Norway has a tier 3 start bias for Coast)

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

I extra went to check the Database of Civ VI's Terrain start biases for Civs, and there isn't any for Egypt!! Norway got a too low likelyhood bias for coast (and much less for forest). No wonder why we always have to re-roll our Games. The Only Civs that have a high likelyhood fot a terrain start are the two CSs, Lisbon and Lan-Madol for coast.

Egypt does have a start bias for Floodplains which is pretty high, but is considered a feature, not a terrain.

 

[Ryansinbela]

Should there a culture based mechanic where Civs can get uniques of other Civs (Either through Cultural influence or some other means)

 

[Zegangani]

Egypt does have a start bias for Floodplains which is pretty high, but is considered a feature, not a terrain.

Yes, I noticed. But nothing for Desert. I guess it would be otherwise too restricted so it would be too much dependant on the Map generation.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

Yes, I noticed. But nothing for Desert. I guess it would be otherwise too restricted so it would be too much dependant on the Map generation.

It was probably designed that way because in the base game floodplains would only spawn in deserts next to a river, so there was no need for a desert bias for Egypt.

Of course that's changed in GS and I don't think has been updated.

 

[Zegangani]

It was probably designed that way because in the base game floodplains would only spawn in deserts next to a river, so there was no need for a desert bias for Egypt.

Of course that's changed in GS and I don't think has been updated.

The no desert start bias makes sense now. now it's just a tiny tier 5 bias for rivers (which is the lowest).

Hopefully they will change that with the April update too.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

All of which reinforces my point, that either a LOT of work has to be done on geographical biases in map generation, or any geographical Uniques have to be rethought for the game.

 

[aieeegrunt]

I think the Problem with Civilizations/Leaders in Civ is the Lack of real Uniqueness. The Civs have Traits that differenciate them a little bit from each other, but when you play with them they all feel the same. Yes, Egypt is immune against floodplains and Norway have bonuses for sea-raiding, but their gameplay feels the same. Just a bonus here and there. What is missing is gameplay uniqueness, strong Bonusses with strong Downsides/Penalties. And NFP Civs make a good step in that direction. An Egypt that has huge Culture, Production and Food from Rivers and Oases Bonusses, but Penalties in Expansion and Sea Military, would deferenciate it's gameplay enormously from a Rom that has Bonusses in Expansion, Land Military and Diplomacy but Penalties in Science, Faith and Infrastructure Production. A Phenecia/Cartage that has Bonusses in Sea Trade would be much different than Vikings who have bonusses in Sea raiding. Arabia, Babylon and Korea could have huge bonusses in Science, but penalties in Production...etc
It should be hard for Civs to go a way that they're not familiar to, like for Russia to settle on Desert Tiles, and on Tundra/Snow Tiles for Mali. And striving for a Faith victory rather than Science as China. This way the Game would be challenging with all Civs, despite them all having huge bonusses in a specific field.

Having civs be that overspecialized makes them basically unplayable on a bunch of map types and/or starts is a terrible idea

I've seen too many games do things that would "kill the franchise" or otherwise displease a vocal part of the fanbase but then went to on have some great success to believe this. Fundamentally, gameplay is what matters is what matters. Will some people complain if their favorite civ or that a franchise staple is not in the game? Sure. Will they not buy the game because of that? Highly unlikely.



Given that part of the thread is how can Civ compete with CK3, OW, and HK the fact that Civ6 is a place were the devs can keep releasing more civs based around some kind of unique gameplay is something that can give the game an edge. If Civ7 comes out a year or two after the end of NFP then those three games will have probably announced if not already released some DLC or expansions then Civ7, with it's same old civs as before would look kind of stale comparatively, barring some kind of gameplay innovation.

Personally, if Civ7 came out and it was mostly the same old civs and leaders I would definitely not immediately buy it and probably pick OW again. Dramatically changing which civs are in the game is a way for to differentiate itself from not only it's competitors but previous editions of the game as well.

Do you know what the number one killer of an established franchise is?

Chasing the new trend.

Throwing your established fanbase under the bus trying to me too onto the new trend is stupid and usually backfires badly.

The smart move is NOT to try and rip off OW and/or HK mechanics because a) you are late to market, and b) the people who preferr Civ are now pissed off so you lose twice

I could see doing some evolutionary changes and refinements of the existing Civ formula, but most of the ideas in this thread so far are excellent ways to fast track bankrupcy

Things like not having the “big name” civs in favour of obscure nonsense 99% of the playerbase has never heard of, or ditching the Immortal Leader thing etc I mean this is “go make the game you actually want to make” territory.

Civ 7 is mostly likely gonna be a few years after OW and HK come out, and that would be the perfect timing for the bloom to be off those two roses and for people to be wanting the Tried and True thing

 

[InsidiousMage]

Do you know what the number one killer of an established franchise is?

Chasing the new trend.

You know another way for franchises to die? Not keeping up with trends. Today's "fashionable" trend is tomorrow's standard gameplay feature. Today's genre defining franchise is tomorrow's boring and staid franchise that people are surprised to find out is around. Things are constantly changing and franchises need to keep up. Should Civ borrow CK3's and OW's dynasty system? No but that doesn't mean those game have zero ideas that Civ could borrow. OW has a shared market that you can sell resources into and buy from without having to interact with other players in the game. That is something that Civ could easily borrow from.

Things like not having the “big name” civs in favour of obscure nonsense 99% of the playerbase has never heard of

Alternatively that "obscure nonsense" convinces some to try the game because they find it interesting or because it has meaning to them. Games are meant to be played and whether or not a game is fun to play determines it success. Civ is a compelling enough game that it could probably ditch half of the core staple civs and be fine as long it is fun to play.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

Please re-read the First Post. I started this Thread precisely because I do NOT believe that Civ VII should be a radically different and completely redesigned game from everything that ever went before in Civ. It will, I sincerely believe, have firm and deep roots in the Civ elements that Define the Franchise: animated Leaders, Unique attributes for the Civs, and a mixture of 'standard' and 'obscure' Civs and Leaders. But equally, I do not think the franchise can survive by simply repeating without innovating.

Discussing places to Innovate and places to Retain in Civ VII is the reason for this Thread.

For completely radical and Change Everything Ideas, see the Ideas for The Perfect 4X Historical Game Thread, in which Anything Goes.

And part of this discussion, I should think, would be what ideas from other games can provide inspiration for changes to Civ's mechanics and systems.
The above example of OWs "shared market ", for instance, appears to be similar to the resource Market in Endless Legend, so the question is, would that work with Civ's resource system, and how, and how should it or the Resources be modified to make something like that work? And then, how would it interact with or require changes to Civ's Diplomacy system? And how do you integrate City States into that Market?

Personally, I like the idea of a World Commodities Marketplace in the game, but I personally would like also to see it cover ALL the Resources, and re-define Resources so that they are not separated into rigid Strategic-Bonus-Amenity/Luxury categories. That could make the World Exchange/Market a free-wheeling place where you can trade/sell your Coal to Peter to power his Factories, while also selling some to Victoria who wants it to manufacture coal-tar artificial dyes to enhance her Cheap Cloth Trade Goods from her emerging Textile Mills.