Civ VII how people get it all wrong...

[Lazy sweeper]

Saw many videos on youtube, other than on the Civfanatic forum, where people discuss about how would they like CIV VII to be, what should keep from CIV VI, what do they expect.
I see some mixed impressions switching from Youtube, where there is a more general audience, and here on the forum, where the core of the players is.
Generally speaking is really hard to find some tactical videos on Civ on youtube, or some videos that would explain how maps are generated, to make an example; what the YT vids focus on is mostly... viewers... sometimes AI battles. Otherwise it seems they completely miss on the basic core aspects that made civ II, III and IV, great 4x games. Whilst from Civ V onwards, they are no more 4X games, but 6X games!
Tactics has been reduced in favor of Aestethic appeasement and immediate reward system.
How do you keep a game experience play out fast when everything is so slow one turn can take five minutes to begin with that you need min 30 turns before you can churn out your second city??

I speak of some of the strong points that makes civ III so good in this vid, and why I hope civ VII will maintain 4X characteristics and not 6X ones. You don't need to watch the entire video, if you read till here, you already know what it is about.

Less city building and more tactic.
I'd like to automate builders to focus on the Adrian wall, the Great China wall, the Maginot line.
Maybe citizens could go working tiles like mines as if they were actual units. Mantaining the units there would allow for stone supply necessary for building said walls or roman roads. Roads and wall diversity and mantainance supply lines are part of a better tactical overview. These units could have to move back and forth to form a supply chain.
That would be a drastical/radical new idea.
Speed is the limit. Take time away from tactical/wars efforts, will make civ more and more a Sim game.
I see this trend prevailing. There can be no balance once the threshold has moved past a certain point.
It need to be moved back or else, radically swapped.
Right click menus should come back also. Cleaner interface is a must.
I loved the builder with charges idea, but it needs to move on...

 

[Heyesey]

You want a world building game that doesn't focus on building?

 

[Lazy sweeper]

You want a world building game that doesn't focus on building?

NO, I just would like a civ game that let you play whichever style you want to play, without interrupting you every two seconds with some micromanagement stuff, and where you can build a settler in few turns, not 50 turns per settler while you need only 14 for the Pyramids!!!
By 1700 when this CIV VI game ends I have 8 cities, in Civ III by 1400 I have 80 cities!
A sprawling empire, huge army... as other have pointed out, civ Vi forces you to play tall, and here is just some points where all of this comes into play.... it is just about timing and structural weakness that I hope will not be passed on future generations...

 

[Gedemon]

You want a world building game that doesn't focus on building?

I suppose it's about balance between building the different parts of your Empire, and in my opinion civ6 is too much of a city builder, with not enough focus on building diplomacy, trade, military, ...

 

[Kupe Navigator]

I for one wish many years to Fraxis and hope they would continue make many good games!
You can't stop me from being positive.

Moderator Action: Edited out troll's quote. leif

 

[leif erikson]

Moderator Action: Trolling posts removed. Please be civil in your discussions.

 

[Lazy sweeper]

Ctp was the only 4x game that gave unique units for both Fascism and Communism... ultrarail or what are levitations rails called... or to say, that IS the ONLY game that improved on the ROADS to this day....
I'm 100% with you on this...

CIV II also had the best trading view of every single CIV out there, and probably the best AI of all... it lacked in workers automations, making it a bit tedious compared to CIV III, which I love btw and only reason I still play it over Ctp is that my Ctp disc was lost ages ago...

Graphics anyway plays a big factor and I can understand Civ V has the most realistic graphics, so is the best game. To me ideas are an important factor but even more, how those are implemented. Diplomacy in Civ VI is so painful to me, a time-wasting experience forced on you on every end turn that literally ruins the game experience. I'm not giving this or that the crown for best CIV ever as it is a road to nowhere...

 

[civac]

How do the maglev rails work in CtP?

You can expand at a pretty reasonable speed in Civ6 in the early game. Eventually the silly settler cost scaling will catch up with you though. I got the 70 ICS base/city experience in SMAC. It has its upsides but I really don't want it back. Some newer Civ games have gone way too far in the other direction but Civ6 is OK on that front.

 

[PiR]

NO, I just would like a civ game that let you play whichever style you want to play, without interrupting you every two seconds with some micromanagement stuff, and where you can build a settler in few turns, not 50 turns per settler while you need only 14 for the Pyramids!!!

Totally agree with that last part. The cost of settler going up is a lazy and uneffective way to limit wide.

 

[Zaarin]

Civ V has the most realistic graphics, so is the best game.

That is extremely subjective. First I'd point out that Civ5's graphics are better described as "gritty" than "realistic" because there are colors other than brown in real life, but that aside I personally think Civ5 was one of the ugliest games ever made. "Realistic = best" is an extraordinarily subjective value statement, not a fact. Personally I think realism became outré the day the camera was invented. If a machine can achieve perfect realism, what artistic merit is there in imitating a machine?

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

That is extremely subjective. First I'd point out that Civ5's graphics are better described as "gritty" than "realistic" because there are colors other than brown in real life, but that aside I personally think Civ5 was one of the ugliest games ever made. "Realistic = best" is an extraordinarily subjective value statement, not a fact. Personally I think realism became outré the day the camera was invented. If a machine can achieve perfect realism, what artistic merit is there in imitating a machine?

Ansel Adams might have a thing or two to say about that . . .

But, overall you are right in that "realistic" does not necessarily mean "better game graphics". On the other hand, there are 'realistic' game graphics of a 4x-type map that are stunningly beautiful, evocative, and also good GUI: take a look at the Settlers 6 game, a beautiful depiction of Medieval terrain and towns, or Anno 1800, which makes even a gritty Victorian coal-smoked industrial landscape look good. Given that the pressure is on Civ VII fo have better graphics from the comments that Humankind maps have received, I think/hope that we will see a much better graphic design in VII than either V or VI: V went to dull and gritty, VI maps kept me expecting to see Elmer Fudd and Bugs Bunny chasing each other across the cartoonery excuse for a map.
We deserve better than either, and I suspect they need to do much better to stay competitive.

 

[Lazy sweeper]

How do the maglev rails work in CtP?

They worked as zero movement cost, whilst railroad gave a 10x movement increase on base unit movement, and roads a 2x increase.
I do not remember exactly what kind of resources those maglev used, perhaps they consumed electricity per square other that other resources such as aluminum? Not sure.

If I remember well they could also be built on water tiles once the technology for acquatic-undersea domed cities was also researched. They would change to something similar to Hyperloop underwater tunnels in deep water and stay over water on coastal tiles, but I might be wrong, a lot of water has passed under the bridge...

 

[civac]

Well, that's the same as railroads in Civ2/3 and maglev rail in Smac. There is a reason they ditched 0 movement coast rail. It enables completely undefendable military invasions, especially if there is a 2+ movement worker unit like in Civ2 and Smac.

 

[Zaarin]

Ansel Adams might have a thing or two to say about that . . .

I was definitely being deliberately snarky. I can admire the technical proficiency it takes to create realistic artwork, even if it's not what I would do if I had any artistic talent. (To clarify, abstraction isn't my favorite, either. But I do love an artist who has an evocative style like Pascal Campion or Bis Biswas.)

But, overall you are right in that "realistic" does not necessarily mean "better game graphics". On the other hand, there are 'realistic' game graphics of a 4x-type map that are stunningly beautiful, evocative, and also good GUI: take a look at the Settlers 6 game, a beautiful depiction of Medieval terrain and towns, or Anno 1800, which makes even a gritty Victorian coal-smoked industrial landscape look good.

Yes, I think it comes down to art style. You can aim for realism and still have a charming, evocative art style. I'm hard pressed to think of examples--Kingdom Come: Deliverance is lovely but I wouldn't call it stylish--but it can be done.

Given that the pressure is on Civ VII fo have better graphics from the comments that Humankind maps have received, I think/hope that we will see a much better graphic design in VII than either V or VI: V went to dull and gritty, VI maps kept me expecting to see Elmer Fudd and Bugs Bunny chasing each other across the cartoonery excuse for a map.

Well, I disagree about VI's map, which I think is breathtaking, but I do agree that I want to see something different. I was thinking about your previous suggestion of evoking Romantic paintings. Age of Empires IV could be doing better on the units front, but they're more or less doing that for the terrain and it looks nice. (Maybe a little more Impressionist than Romantic.) The rather bland but visually sumptuous walking simulator Draugen also went explicitly for a Romantic painting vibe. So I think it's not only possible but also very likely an idea that's on the devs' radar.

 

[eduhum]

Civ4 was best. I miss worldbuilder. Most games, i would from time to time load worlbuilder and apply a touch or two to the map to suit my purposes better. Nothing much, just changing a fish tile to be near a new city, changing a couple tundra tiles to steppes... Also when i was bored of the game i would load it up to see the whole map just out of curiosity.

I love playing wide. My best games have been Aztec 18 civs where i colonised the entire america with 40 cities and got faster tech than the 15 eufrasian civs, then i would conquer the world. Good times.

 

[BuchiTaton]

Beyond color and style I would like to talk about scale and representation: I also think that is better to have more cities with least detail than few cities with more detail. CIV is an empire building not a city building game series.

Just look to historical world/regional maps (example). Most of these maps represent cities just with a couple of buildings (mainly the more iconics, plus some wonders-like) while the same maps have "titanic" humans figures (also others animals, trees and ships). The base design should keep these proportion as possible.

Of course for the Contemporary Era cities grew bigger and faster than never before, so a significative change from rural to urban could be noticed on the latest eras. But for real, districts like Water Park, Goverment Plaza or Diplomatic Quarter are unnecessary map fillers, just put the chancery and corresponding goverment building at the capital city center/plaza and the "water park" as a building for harbors.

Also I am of the idea that towns/villages should be the on map unit that exploit most of the resources on the map before industrialization. All they need is to yield more from the resource they are build over, but also can improve to gain from adjacent tiles, that way the map would feel more natural and lest crammed.

 

[mitsho]

The next civ games needs to have three distinct phases: The exploration / city building game followed by one where you manage big empires and lastly a end-game after Industrialization has set in where you lose control as the player and your citizens get a nasty mind of their own. I‘m not saying that‘s realistic, I‘m saying that would be a good gameplay that avoid the micromanagement trap that the op seems to be going about. I hate that as well, more and more systems come in during a civ game. I‘d say, some of the old ones also would need to go to allow for the gameplay time a truly well designed world congress requires.

 

[Zaarin]

Beyond color and style I would like to talk about scale and representation: I also think that is better to have more cities with least detail than few cities with more detail. CIV is an empire building not a city building game series.

Just look to historical world/regional maps (example). Most of these maps represent cities just with a couple of buildings (mainly the more iconics, plus some wonders-like) while the same maps have "titanic" humans figures (also others animals, trees and ships). The base design should keep these proportion as possible.

Of course for the Contemporary Era cities grew bigger and faster than never before, so a significative change from rural to urban could be noticed on the latest eras. But for real, districts like Water Park, Goverment Plaza or Diplomatic Quarter are unnecessary map fillers, just put the chancery and corresponding goverment building at the capital city center/plaza and the "water park" as a building for harbors.

Also I am of the idea that towns/villages should be the on map unit that exploit most of the resources on the map before industrialization. All they need is to yield more from the resource they are build over, but also can improve to gain from adjacent tiles, that way the map would feel more natural and lest crammed.

Cities in civ have always been understood as "regions" with the city-center being the major metropole; what Civ7 needs to work on is making that more visually obvious. Likewise, districts were meant to be smaller civic centers, and again the visuals need to better reflect that next time around.

lastly a end-game after Industrialization has set in where you lose control as the player and your citizens get a nasty mind of their own.

That's more appropriate to a grand strategy game than a 4X game. I wouldn't mind seeing more forces beyond the player's control, like religion and possibly even something like Endless Space 2's political parties, but primary control should always be in the hands of the player in a 4X game.

 

[PiR]

lastly a end-game after Industrialization has set in where you lose control as the player and your citizens get a nasty mind of their own

primary control should always be in the hands of the player in a 4X game.

Agree, but still there can be incentives. One example is the civic Emancipation in IV:

Emancipation: Citizens become unhappy if other civilizations have adopted the Emancipation civic and you have not. The more civilizations that have adopted emancipation, the more unhappy become the citizens of the remaining holdouts.

I find this kind of mechanic a very good balance: with time, you have a constraint, a pressure, coming from your citizens. If you do not respond to it, then you will have some penalty. You're free, but have to face consequences.

 

[Zaarin]

Agree, but still there can be incentives. One example is the civic Emancipation in IV:

I find this kind of mechanic a very good balance: with time, you have a constraint, a pressure, coming from your citizens. If you do not respond to it, then you will have some penalty. You're free, but have to face consequences.

I agree. I think the key is to offer the player interesting choices rather than directly removing their control of some aspect of their empire.