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

[utahbutmakeitatheist]

I really think they should try to split it up evenly among the regions- Civ 6 came out so heavily saturated with European civs and then added a bunch of Asian and American civs after the fact, when if they had started the dev cycle off more balanced, it wouldn't feel as much of an issue.
I broke the world up into 4 regions- Europe, Africa, Asia/Oceania, and the Americas- and tried to disperse them (somewhat) evenly off of that. For mainstays (5+ games), we have England, France, Greece, Rome, Russia, Spain, Egypt, Zulu, Babylon, China, India, Japan, Mongolia, Persia, America, and the Aztec. The only one from this group I cut was Spain, and that's honestly because I feel like it isn't a very exciting civ. That leaves us with 5 European civs, 2 African civs, 6 Asian civs, and 2 American civs, and a grand total of 15. I feel like 24 is a nice round number to start a game off with so that'll be the target. In the category of returning civs that I think should be brought back into this draft, I have Portugal, Celts, Ethiopia, Siam, the Maya, and the Iroquois, bringing our total up to 21 spots filled. This leaves space for 3 more brand-new civs (which is consistent with Civ 6). To fill these spots, I picked the Swahili, a new 'Polynesian' civ (my preferred choice is Hawaii, my second would be Tonga), and the Navajo.

This leaves us with 7 European civs, 4 African civs, 8 Asian/Oceanian civs, and 5 American civs. There is still an imbalance, but ideally this would be evened further in the expansions.

Edit:
tl;dr: lineup is England, France, Greece, Rome, Russia, Portugal, Celts, Egypt, Zulu, Ethiopia, Swahili, Babylon, China, India, Japan, Mongolia, Persia, Siam, Hawaii, America, Aztec, Maya, Iroquois, Navajo

 

[AsH2]

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.

But wouldn't this risk to be "another step in wrong direction" (as many old Civ fans think) since Soren Johnson left?
Wouldn't it be better to really address the various preferences and split current base game into an epic (IMHO "sensible") play mode and a classic play mode (containing preset civ with leader on TSL map) along with scenario play mode..
I think keep on make compromise will compromise it all.

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

No, no, no.. Let's try avoid putting posts about "content but no context" in there..

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.

AFAIK Old World's "shared market" is based on Offworld Trading Company..

Spoiler from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soren_Johnson :

..an economic real-time strategy game for Microsoft Windows and OS X using an extended and more detailed version of his signature resource system first seen in his earlier Civilization titles..

..so please let's not set Amplitude too much..

 

[Zegangani]

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

That's the Idea. Why should you play as Russia with an Islands Map without any Tundra/Snow and expect to have an easy Game? It would be more fun (and realistic) to pick a Civ like Maori or Civs that are specialized on colonization like Spain, England or the Dutch for that. Otherwise, why implementing different Civs at all? just make customisable Civs. But that wouldn't be a Civilization Game anymore.

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

No one in this Thread suggested to rip off mechanisms from other 4X Games. Nevertheless, Games taking inperations from other Games of the same genre, isn't something new, but common. And Civ VI has already took inspiration from Amplitude by implementing Districts.

Fans are imploring Firaxis since years to implement mechanisms that succeeded in other Games, such as the shared Market systeme from Endless Legend. And it wouldn't be just copying things from other Games. It is something that should be in any 4X Game.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

I really think they should try to split it up evenly among the regions- Civ 6 came out so heavily saturated with European civs and then added a bunch of Asian and American civs after the fact, when if they had started the dev cycle off more balanced, it wouldn't feel as much of an issue.

The only European civ that maybe shouldn't have been in the base game was Norway, considering we could have got them later in the Viking DLC pack. Spain I gave a pass because it was one of the few civs that went with the new religion victory type.
Of course if you are talking about the first 4 DLC as well, which were mostly European, I agree that between those and the base game it should be more balanced.

Edit:
tl;dr: lineup is England, France, Greece, Rome, Russia, Portugal, Celts, Egypt, Zulu, Ethiopia, Swahili, Babylon, China, India, Japan, Mongolia, Persia, Siam, Hawaii, America, Aztec, Maya, Iroquois, Navajo

I understand balance but no Germany?

 

[AsH2]

..
I understand balance but no Germany?

They're in the Celt-blob..

 

[Buktu]

I understand balance but no Germany?

I would swap Portugal for Germany since Portugal was always one of the last civs to be added in the recent civ games.

 

[DBPirate]

tl;dr: lineup is England, France, Greece, Rome, Russia, Portugal, Celts, Egypt, Zulu, Ethiopia, Swahili, Babylon, China, India, Japan, Mongolia, Persia, Siam, Hawaii, America, Aztec, Maya, Iroquois, Navajo

Why would we go back to the Celtic blob? Outside of that, I think this is a good selection, though I agree that Portugal should be swapped with Germany. Maybe one less NA civ. Save the Navajo for DLC, otherwise there won't be any NA civs taking advantage of expansion mechanics.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

Why would we go back to the Celtic blob? Outside of that, I think this is a good selection, though I agree that Portugal should be swapped with Germany. Maybe one less NA civ. Save the Navajo for DLC, otherwise there won't be any NA civs taking advantage of expansion mechanics.

I was assuming by Celts he meant a specific Celtic group, like Ireland, though they could easily be saved for DLC too.
I also just noticed that neither Arabia or Ottomans are there either and I would definitely have one of the Islamic civs from the Middle East in the base game too.

 

[DBPirate]

I was assuming by Celts he meant a specific Celtic group, like Ireland, though they could easily be saved for DLC too.
I also just noticed that neither Arabia or Ottomans are there either and I would definitely have one of the Islamic civs from the Middle East in the base game too.

That makes more sense. I agree the Celts would be better saved for DLC and then Arabia would replace them in the base game.

 

[aieeegrunt]

They're in the Celt-blob..

This is like saying you can cut Ethiopia because it’s in the Egyptian blob

 

[The googles do nothing]

I was assuming by Celts he meant a specific Celtic group, like Ireland, though they could easily be saved for DLC too.
I also just noticed that neither Arabia or Ottomans are there either and I would definitely have one of the Islamic civs from the Middle East in the base game too.

It seems like people are talking about two different : Which civs should be included at the start of the game, and which what civs could be included in the game as some point. For me exactly which civs are or are not included at the beginning will have little or nothing to do with if the game is good compared to game play.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

Edit:
tl;dr: lineup is England, France, Greece, Rome, Russia, Portugal, Celts, Egypt, Zulu, Ethiopia, Swahili, Babylon, China, India, Japan, Mongolia, Persia, Siam, Hawaii, America, Aztec, Maya, Iroquois, Navajo

There are various forms of Balance: Geographical, Temporal, or Cultural Type, for examples. So we could ask:
1. Are all geographical areas that spawned Civilizations covered as equally as possible? This is really, really tough, but I would point out that your list has no civilization of any kind from South America: cue the screams of outrage from Brazil, Argentina, Inca-enthusiasts. In addition, your African representation is all North, South or East African (Egypt, Ethiopia, Swahili, Zulu) with nothing from Central (admittedly, difficult) or West Africa. But Africa is a hard continent to cover: there were major differences between north, central and south and east and west, and for some regions very marginal choices given the Civ requirements for Named Personalized Leaders and Uniques in several categories. Given the Civ V and VI precedents, I think, though, that one from among Songhai/Gao, Mali, Kongo, Benin, Oyo or similar is very likely.

2. Do we have a mix of culture/technological types? That is, the pastoral horse-nomads, heavy population agriculturalists, etc. The interaction between very different cultures and technologies has, after all, driven a lot of history. Given that the game has never represented pastoral groups very well, this is another really difficult aspect. Your list has Mongols, which are almost a Historical Requirement given their impact, but none of the nomadic horse-cultures from North America nor any of the pre-Mongol Eurasian types until after they settled down (Persians)

3. Temporal: If I want to play a game of Classical Conquest, are there enough Civs that had their basis in the Classical Mediterranean? Or enough to recreate the European Wars of the Renaissance - Industrial Era? Or China Versus Everybody in the Far East? This is a real 'judgement call' area and may be of no importance at all to many players, but I suspect it is one reason why 'temporal opponents' to more popular Civs get included: Carthage/Phoenicia for Rome/Greece, Germany/France/Russia/England as a group to 'recreate' everything from the 100 Year's War to WWI.

Specifically, then, I'd say that this list's major lack is South American representation - either Native or contemporary or both.
Secondary problem might be the North American native representation, since the Navajo as a group are really another agricultural city-builders with major irrigation, and that also is covered by both Mayans and Aztecs. To get better Cultural/Technical variety along with the Geographical balance it might be better to replace Navajo with Commanche or Apache.

Finally, I think one near-imperative for Civ VII is to Avoid Blob Civs as much as possible.
In some cases, that will be very, very difficult, at least in any initial offering. After all, India as a single politically-homogenous Civ is a strictly modern result of Foreign Conquest (like Greece, actually) but 'de-Blobbing' it will result in Too Many Civs from a single geographical area almost immediately: Chola, Mughul, Mauryan, etc.
In the list, though, the big No No is the 'Celtic Blob'. You might as well try to market a Civ called Northwestern Europe, because there were separate Celtic cultures from Ireland to the Balkans, among them a number of which were or became historically distinct 'political' entities: Gaul, Wales, Ireland, Pictland, Scotland, Brittany, Galatia. Depending on which 'temporal' balance you want, a specific Celtic Civ could be picked that has Classical, Medieval, or Early Modern importance: Gaul/Galatia, Pictland/Wales, or Scotland/Ireland respectively, for instance.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

It seems like people are talking about two different : Which civs should be included at the start of the game, and which what civs could be included in the game as some point. For me exactly which civs are or are not included at the beginning will have little or nothing to do with if the game is good compared to game play.

Though I agree there are some civs that are kind of needed to market for the base game. I would put some historical Islamic power at least in the base game no matter who it is.

Specifically, then, I'd say that this list's major lack is South American representation - either Native or contemporary or both.
Secondary problem might be the North American native representation, since the Navajo as a group are really another agricultural city-builders with major irrigation, and that also is covered by both Mayans and Aztecs. To get better Cultural/Technical variety along with the Geographical balance it might be better to replace Navajo with Commanche or Apache.

No Navajo should stay over the Comanche or Apache.
But I agree that it would be best saved for a DLC if we were to have the Iroquois too, and that spot could go to the Inca or some civ from South America.

 

[aieeegrunt]

You need the “traditional” Mongols, China, India, Aztecs, America, England, France, Rome, Greece, Germany, Russia, Persia and Egypt as launch civs, non negotiable.

The only one on that list that is stupid but you are stuck with it because sales/marketing is America.

If you are going with 24 at launch, that leaves you with 11 more to flesh out the rest of the world, which is more than adequate, plus DLC stuff

 

[9gkj548hkm20vk79dj689bnj4]

you could try playing as leagues or confederations of several different city-states (a.k.a. tribes, peoples, or "minor" civilizations) instead of single civilizations.

1. I mean do we really need a half dozen separate Mesopotamian civilizations? They're all going to have some sort of ziggurat anyway. Maybe you can switch between the one you want to play as similar to switching governments like in Civ6: Babylon, Assyria, Sumeria, Akkadian, etc.

2. For American Plains Indians just call them "People of the Plains" or something like that and each city could be a different tribe. The bison could be a unique bonus resource inside each of their territories.

3. Same with certain Polynesian civilizations. Their overarching trait being the ability to cross oceans early.

4. I know some people don't like Canada and Australia, but what about a "British empire civ" where you start out as several colonies and then become independent. Maybe include New Zealand or South Africa (?) too. (England would have to spawn in the game as an adversary)

5. The one I want, Italy, can begin as different city-states somewhat close together and your goal would be to bring all of their borders together contiguously and become "Italy".

6. Something like Holy Roman Empire might simply flip and become either France or Germany or Austria later in the game, retaining both its old HRE bonuses and its more modern nation bonuses

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

you could try playing as leagues or confederations of several different city-states (a.k.a. tribes, peoples, or "minor" civilizations) instead of single civilizations.

1. I mean do we really need a half dozen separate Mesopotamian civilizations? They're all going to have some sort of ziggurat anyway. Maybe you can switch between the one you want to play as similar to switching governments like in Civ6: Babylon, Assyria, Sumeria, Akkadian, etc.

2. For American Plains Indians just call them "People of the Plains" or something like that and each city could be a different tribe. The bison could be a unique bonus resource inside each of their territories.

3. Same with certain Polynesian civilizations. Their overarching trait being the ability to cross oceans early.

4. I know some people don't like Canada and Australia, but what about a "British empire civ" where you start out as several colonies and then become independent. Maybe include New Zealand or South Africa (?) too. (England would have to spawn in the game as an adversary)

5. The one I want, Italy, can begin as different city-states somewhat close together and your goal would be to bring all of their borders together contiguously and become "Italy".

6. Something like Holy Roman Empire might simply flip and become either France or Germany or Austria later in the game, retaining both its old HRE bonuses and its more modern nation bonuses

1 - 3. Unfortunately, what you are suggesting is Blobbing Mesopotamia, the American plains natives, and Polynesia/Pacifica. Aside from giving @Zaarin apoplexy by Blobbing ancient Mesopotamia, nobody else much likes Blob Civs either.

4. I could definitely see some type of Scenario of Colonial Wars of Independence, based either, as you suggest, on the British Empire or on the Spanish Empire in the Americas, or even a variation with the Roman Empire breaking up into constituent parts: Britannia with or without Germanic invaders, Gaul/France, Spain, etc. Civ V had a Fall of Rome Scenario, why not again, but this time focusing on what you build afterward rather than what you lose?

5. Same with a Scenario or set of Scenarios based on Unite The Motherland - Italian city states, Greek city states, Medieval Russian city-states, etc - heck, you could even do one based on turning the disparate American Colonies from a non-working Confederation of States into the Constitutional government we ended up with, or a Build the European Union Post-Modern Scenario.

6. I would dearly LOVE to see some way in Civ VII to play as a progressive historical Civ so that, say, I could start as Gaul and progress to France or start as Carolingian East Francia and end up as Germany. In the case of multi-faceted 'states' like the HRE, or the Roman and Persian multi-cultural Civs, for that matter, I am coming around now to the idea of making them a separate type of Civ that can on the one hand impose Loyalty beyond the individual cultural/linguistic group but on the other hand Collapse on occasion to give us more of a real Rise And Fall dynamic in the game.

 

[Zaarin]

You need the “traditional” Mongols, China, India, Aztecs, America, England, France, Rome, Greece, Germany, Russia, Persia and Egypt as launch civs, non negotiable.

I'm not sure the Mongols have ever been in the base game. Persia sometimes has been, sometimes hasn't been. Aztecs were only in the Civ6 base game by a technicality (day one DLC). TBH I think the Maya should be the staple and Aztecs the DLC, but Firaxis loves their mascots of which Monty is one...

 

[DBPirate]

you could try playing as leagues or confederations of several different city-states (a.k.a. tribes, peoples, or "minor" civilizations) instead of single civilizations.

1. I mean do we really need a half dozen separate Mesopotamian civilizations? They're all going to have some sort of ziggurat anyway.

This would only be true if they were as poorly handled as they were in Civ VI. The civilizations in ancient Mesopotamia are unique enough to be their own civs. I hope Firaxis makes them a priority in VII over choices like Canada or Australia, but the chances of that seem slim.

 

[Evie]

You need the “traditional” Mongols, China, India, Aztecs, America, England, France, Rome, Greece, Germany, Russia, Persia and Egypt as launch civs, non negotiable.

Mongols (In the first expansion), Persians (in the Persia and Macedon pack) and Aztecs (preorder bonus, only made available to everyone else 90 days after launch) weren't launch civs in VI, and the Mongolians had previously missed out on Civ III (they were in Warlords). So no, they are not non-negotiable.

Realistically other than the great classical civs (Rome, Greece, Egypt, and probably India and China too), there's no non-negotiable civs, just civs that you need to weight carefully.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

1. I mean do we really need a half dozen separate Mesopotamian civilizations? They're all going to have some sort of ziggurat anyway. Maybe you can switch between the one you want to play as similar to switching governments like in Civ6: Babylon, Assyria, Sumeria, Akkadian, etc.

I for one would love it if we got to 3, let alone half a dozen.

I'm not sure the Mongols have ever been in the base game. Persia sometimes has been, sometimes hasn't been. Aztecs were only in the Civ6 base game by a technicality (day one DLC). TBH I think the Maya should be the staple and Aztecs the DLC, but Firaxis loves their mascots of which Monty is one...

Considering they've been in all the game since Civ 1, which there were no expansions, I'm sure they've been in several base games.