Civ VII ideas from Old World

[ggalindo001]

I must first admit that I am really enjoying Old World -- and I never thought I would. I'm not that big of a fan of this time period, and I always love taking my civilization into the modern "space age" eras. In spite of that, I have just been gobsmacked at how much I am enjoying this game, and several concepts that I believe should be contemplated in the (hopefully) future Civ VII. All of these, but one, could potentially be added into Civ VI to make that game go into the stratosphere -- in other words, these are not complex changes and mostly "no-brainers" in terms of forwarding the genre forward. And most importantly, all can be easily max-min by the AI to make for a very solid opponent at higher levels without "cheating".

1. Technology choices limited to selection of what is drawn at a given time -- To me, this is BY FAR the most important item that should be contemplated into the Civ series. Instead of "fast tracking" research and civics, now I have a bit of the luck of the draw in terms of the tech tree. It is not constraining -- but because of the implementation, if there is a tech you really want, you have to really weigh the strategic choice of selecting now vs. waiting for the "deck" to be reshuffled. And the introduction of the "wild cards" of free X really also make decisioning interesting. I know there are other "systems" that appear to be more impactful -- but in my opinion, this very understated item, must be ported over to Civ 7 to really put more interesting, strategic choice into research and civics.

2. The introduction of multiple "currencies" (strength, money, civics, growth, etc.) -- It takes a little getting used to, but once I realized the power of this, it because very intuitive and incredibly flexible in wide vs tall. To those that do not have the game, if you are building a unit, you use the city's strength currency to build it -- meanwhile other currencies in the city go to the empire-wide stockpile. On the strength side in particular, it leads to the strategic decision of building units in city in a powerhouse strength city vs. allow it to go empire-wide and be used in the field. Again, a very interesting decision to make.

3. The introduction of orders -- For most folks that I have read reviews of in comparison, this is what they cite as the biggest -- it clearly is the most obvious. Another clear no-brainer -- and it makes for some very interesting strategic decisions esp. when at war. I have found myself having to make very critical decisions on my precious orders and often have to make strategic sacrifices for my greater goal. And everything requires orders -- healing requires orders, promotion requires orders, building requires orders, changing governors requires orders. In critical situations, you often cannot do everything you want or need to do. It creates significant strategic tension for the player.

4. City Combat -- I find in Old World that it is still a little difficult for the AI to take a city, but not nearly as impossible post walls for the AI in Civ 6. Basically, the way it works is that you do have city defenses (which can be enhanced by walls, moats, etc.) and then if there is a unit in the city, that unit takes a some of the damage away from the city defenses. If you don't have a garrisoned unit in the city, your cities can fall quickly to the invaders - and without the Civ 6 "ranged fire" mechanism. If you do have a unit in the city, then you can fire back, etc. while still having material defensive city defenses. This approach feels a lot more balanced than what you see in Civ 6 where city capture by the AI is almost impossible after walls.

5. City Placement -- One of the more controversial items is that you can only found cities in specific spots on the map. I think this also adds to strategic tension early in the game (and ostensibly protects against suboptimal city placement by the AI) -- if I saw this ported over to Civ 7, I would do this on the initial map, but then once a particular technology is founded (a late Renaissance or early Industrial era technology), then you can found cities anywhere on the map. In the Civ series, this would make early wars necessary to expand, and in the late game, the removal of the restriction would allow for both colonized expansion and national growth.

6. One Unit Per Tile done better -- I will first say that I am a fan of limited stacking of units (there is a mod in Civ 6 that allows for one melee, one ranged, one mounted) in a tile -- and would like to see something like this get some prominence in Civ 7 -- however, I am very much a fan of how Old World dealt with 1UPT and certain units. Ranged units hit their intended target, and collateral damage units that surround the target. Spear classes "penetrate" the intended target and create damage to the unit behind the target. Axemen have "cleave" capability which hit their intended target and then collateral damage to the units to the left and right. Small changes but create some depth in terms of staging the attacking units (and setting up your defensive positions).

7. Scouts that actually work -- In every Civ game, Scouts are generally throwaway units after the early discovery phase. In Old World, they are vital across the entire game. In the early to mid-game, they are needed to understand if a major attack is coming from beyond -- and in the late game, to know what you will need to bring to the table in an attack/counterattack. Their "hide" ability in the woods make them perfect map revealers throughout. I find myself building a few strategically placed scouts throughout the game.

These were the "easy to implement" no-brainers.

I also think some of the other items that Old World brings to the table should be contemplated, though they are not "easy to implement"

1. Families and Dynastic leadership -- This is another item that at first I thought I would absolutely turn off -- I don't want to care about all of these families, etc. What I found is that it not only adds a level of color to the game, it adds unbelievable strategic depth that can make or break your macro strategic goals. All within your relative control. And this could be very much "evolved" based on the nature of your industrial era governments (democracy -- you have to keep the "families" (now Political Parties) happy or you can be voted out, communism -- you have to keep the "families" (now Politboro) happy or you will be overthrown, etc.) This would not be an easy add, and it would have to evolve over the life of a civilization game -- but it is a dynamic that could add a lot to the game. And the fact these families can influence pockets of your units as well -- and slow down production for cities that are not happy with you.

2. Events that range from small to major -- I think there is a real reluctance on the part of Civ 6 to not have "bad events" that you cannot somehow control. I think that is a mistake. I've had several situations in Old World where an event happened that forced me to do something that I didn't want to do. Most of the time, it is having to choose a side in a war between 2 other empires -- and by choosing a side, you are going to be declared war on by the other. Civ 5 had something similar with the ideologies, this was a real miss in Civ 6 where I could just be-bop around and not have to choose. This has added tremendous challenge to the gameplay as a result.
.
3. AI that at least isn't brain-dead -- My biggest gripe on Civ 6 is the brain dead AI -- the Old World AI still has issues, but it still must be respected. You can no longer get away with building a few units and go full builder mode -- you must have a defense or you will be overrun. Combat AI is decent -- not perfect, but certainly way better than Civ 6. I did have one game of Old World where the AI Babylon had clear technological superiority, but because I had lots of units on defensive positions, they never attacked. This was on "Strong" (medium) difficulty. I have a feeling had that been on one of the upper difficulties, they would have gone after me. And the toggle of Ruthless AI is helpful in this respect as well. What is impressive about the AI is the "builder AI" --- because of many of the items above that can be Max-Min by the AI, even with non human combat AI, it serves as a formidable challenge. I've had more than one situation where the AI "suckered" me into a war thinking I would clean up, only because of bad scouting, they unleased hordes of units against me once my units were exposed in open terrain.

And I wanted AI to be the last item here, as much as it is far superior to Civ 6, I wanted this to be mostly a discussion beyond AI.

Two final thoughts

1. I really want Civ 7 to be awesome -- I like the mechanics of Old World, but I really would want this on a Civilization series wide scale. And there are a lot of things that Civilization does well that Old World doesn't even attempt -- so this isn't meant to bash Civ 6 (except maybe the AI) but ideas on improvement.

2. If you haven't tried Old World -- I would highly recommend it. Outside of the Civilization series, it is the only game I have played in the 4x genre that gives me that "one more turn" feeling.

 

[Zaarin]

5. City Placement

I love Old World, but it's a very different game from Civ. This would probably make Civ7 a no-buy from me. Limited settling spots are a feature I already hate in OW and what have kept me from enjoying the game more than I otherwise would.

1. Families and Dynastic leadership

Replacing leaders, this would be another no-buy from me, but as a separate dynamic akin to ES2's political parties I think this could be very interesting. I'm very interested in mechanics that make your empire feel more like a collection of people and less like an engine that you control with godlike autocracy. Noble houses/families/factions would be one such force. Citizens with ethnic, religious, and political identities would be another that I've suggested before. Religions that exist outside the Civ-level (whether on a popular level representing folk religion or on a super-Civ level representing organized religions like the Catholic Church) are another I've suggested. These things would make the game feel much more dynamic and lived-in.

3. The introduction of orders

2. Events that range from small to major

Nothing specific to add beyond 100% to these.

1. Technology choices limited to selection of what is drawn at a given time

I have mixed feelings about this. I want to see the tech situation shaken up; I'm just not sure how I feel about randomization. I grant it's worked well for several games, including OW, but this kind of RNG can be frustrating when you don't get the tech you want/need at the moment.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

I tried very hard to enjoy Old World, but never had a single hour of playing it in which I could say I was having fun.
One if the major problems I had with so many parts of the game were the innoative and original mechanics they introduced which, in almost every case, made sense only as bandaids over inadequate basic concepts in the game. You have identified a couple of the worst, so they are worth commenting on at length:

1. Technology choices limited to selection of what is drawn at a given time -- To me, this is BY FAR the most important item that should be contemplated into the Civ series. Instead of "fast tracking" research and civics, now I have a bit of the luck of the draw in terms of the tech tree. It is not constraining -- but because of the implementation, if there is a tech you really want, you have to really weigh the strategic choice of selecting now vs. waiting for the "deck" to be reshuffled. And the introduction of the "wild cards" of free X really also make decisioning interesting. I know there are other "systems" that appear to be more impactful -- but in my opinion, this very understated item, must be ported over to Civ 7 to really put more interesting, strategic choice into research and civics.

This is one of the most obviously Game Mechanic features without any historical basis at all, introduced, as far as I can tell, simply to avoid having to produce an adequate Tech Progression in the first place.
- And inadequate Tech Progression is built in to the game, since the factions provided are fixed in place temporally by the historical characters provided as Leaders.
Blinding Flash, people: the Hoplite was the standard military unit in Greece for 400 years before Phillip of Macedon was born: neither he nor his son have any reason to have to 'research' the Hoplite.
Second Flash: the Persians arrived on the Iranian plateau already riding horses: they have even less reason to have to 'research' riding or Horsemen.
Third Flash: Massed Spearmen are first attested in pictoral form in 2600 BCE: At Least a thousand years before most of the Factions in OW appeared. Nobody has any need to 'research' Spearmen.

They were producing a 4X sort of game, so they had to have a Tech Progression Thing, but it makes no sense in the context of the game, and adding an artificial limitation of a 'card deck' for Techs is just adding a bow on top of a compost pile: it makes no sense and doesn't particularly help anything.

5. City Placement -- One of the more controversial items is that you can only found cities in specific spots on the map. I think this also adds to strategic tension early in the game (and ostensibly protects against suboptimal city placement by the AI) -- if I saw this ported over to Civ 7, I would do this on the initial map, but then once a particular technology is founded (a late Renaissance or early Industrial era technology), then you can found cities anywhere on the map. In the Civ series, this would make early wars necessary to expand, and in the late game, the removal of the restriction would allow for both colonized expansion and national growth.

Again, an utterly artificial mechanic to keep everything in the game simple except the artificial dynastic politics that appear to be the main point of the game.
First, because their Leaders identify the Factions pretty tightly in time, and by the time most of the Factions are depicted they aren't founding a lot of cities at all: BUT it's a basic and fundamental part of 4X games, so they had to throw it in, and few gamers like to be presented from Turn One with a fixed or semi-fixed starting set-up of already-running cities and cultures and politics.
Second, many of the Factions will have some pretty different ideas about what constitutes a good place to 'found' a City, so putting out One City Site Fits All Players is simply Wrong.
When the Greeks were founding cities all over the Mediterranean and Black Sea basins, they always placed a new foundation on a littoral location: if a Greek city was inland, it was still connected to the coast somehow. In contrast, the Persians, Hittites, and Assyrians were all Inland people: the sea meant little or noting to them. Babylonia and Egypt used the sea for transportation, but had relatively few city sites on the coast.
I hope the point starts to sink in: the fixed City Sites are utterly artificial and do not in any way represent where all of the Factions presented in the game would agree to put a new city.

OW made a great many decisions and decided on a number of mechanics to stuff a 4x sort of game into a fixed place in time and space: The "Old (Mediterranean and Near Eastern) World" of roughly 1200 - 300 BCE - I say roughly, because not all of the Factions in the game in fact ever existed at the same time, or even within centuries of each other.
But the result is a game largely limited in time and space and full of compromises to accommodate its limited basis. It's a lousy basis for any game that, like Civ, is trying to represent the world and all the potential Factions/Civs that existed for 6000+ years in a wide variety of biomes and terrains and conditions.

 

[Zaarin]

OW made a great many decisions and decided on a number of mechanics to stuff a 4x sort of game into a fixed place in time and space: The "Old (Mediterranean and Near Eastern) World" of roughly 1200 - 300 BCE - I say roughly, because not all of the Factions in the game in fact ever existed at the same time, or even within centuries of each other.
But the result is a game largely limited in time and space and full of compromises to accommodate its limited basis. It's a lousy basis for any game that, like Civ, is trying to represent the world and all the potential Factions/Civs that existed for 6000+ years in a wide variety of biomes and terrains and conditions.

I think you make some good points, but most of what you say is also true of Civ. Despite its much narrower focus, OW is no closer to being a historical simulator than Civ is; it's simply a 4X game set in antiquity. I absolutely agree with you about disliking OW's fixed city locations; I dislike them far more than HK's regions, even though HK is in most ways the inferior game in every sense. Now, I have to confess, that while I've very much enjoyed OW and think it has some great ideas, across dozens of hours in OW I've never actually finished a game. I have three fundamental problems with the game: the first is that it's not ugly but it's not pretty either. The painted art is nice, but the map itself is direly lacking in character. The second is fixed settlements; this is an extremely frustrating mechanic. The third is related to the second: peaceful play is simply not viable as independent factions gobble up all the free settlement slots.

ETA: But even in Civ's timeframe, the entire map should be filled with cities or at least settlements. This is just a genre conceit.

 

[ggalindo001]

I have mixed feelings about this. I want to see the tech situation shaken up; I'm just not sure how I feel about randomization. I grant it's worked well for several games, including OW, but this kind of RNG can be frustrating when you don't get the tech you want/need at the moment

They were producing a 4X sort of game, so they had to have a Tech Progression Thing, but it makes no sense in the context of the game, and adding an artificial limitation of a 'card deck' for Techs is just adding a bow on top of a compost pile: it makes no sense and doesn't particularly help anything.

I know it is a bit "random" in terms of what cards come up, but I do like that you cannot just beeline for one tech that is 4 levels deep in the tech tree, and I also like that there are interesting choices around Free X vs an actual technology. And that I know if I pass on the Free X, it gets destroyed forever, and if I pass on a tech, it drops to the bottom of the discard pile. I feel like when I play Civ (5 or 6), I just have my pattern of techs/civics that I pursue and it becomes second nature. This mixes it up for me a lot. In playing any of these games, there is quite a bit of suspended disbelief anyway -- I thought the "random" tech trees in Civ 6 really helped with breaking the patter, but this approach to me makes it more of a strategic decision than just some random draw of a tech tree.

Replacing leaders, this would be another no-buy from me, but as a separate dynamic akin to ES2's political parties I think this could be very interesting. I'm very interested in mechanics that make your empire feel more like a collection of people and less like an engine that you control with godlike autocracy. Noble houses/families/factions would be one such force. Citizens with ethnic, religious, and political identities would be another that I've suggested before. Religions that exist outside the Civ-level (whether on a popular level representing folk religion or on a super-Civ level representing organized religions like the Catholic Church) are another I've suggested. These things would make the game feel much more dynamic and lived-in.

In OW, I at least feel like I have some 'control' over the changing/replacing of leaders. I absolutely do not like what Humankind has done, and I wouldn't want to go anywhere near that direction. I like how you described it better -- a collection of people with different interests, politics, religion, etc. That feels very dynamic to me, and requires a level of management, vs. just a builder simulation.

OW made a great many decisions and decided on a number of mechanics to stuff a 4x sort of game into a fixed place in time and space: The "Old (Mediterranean and Near Eastern) World" of roughly 1200 - 300 BCE - I say roughly, because not all of the Factions in the game in fact ever existed at the same time, or even within centuries of each other.
But the result is a game largely limited in time and space and full of compromises to accommodate its limited basis. It's a lousy basis for any game that, like Civ, is trying to represent the world and all the potential Factions/Civs that existed for 6000+ years in a wide variety of biomes and terrains and conditions.

Fair point -- and ironically, it is in a fixed place in time and space that I have very little real interest in to begin with. Ironically, I think this also helps the AI as well given the more limited timeline. What you said about OW is how I feel about Humankind -- I played that once and decided it just didn't do anything for me, even with some of the mechanics of that game that were different.

 

[ggalindo001]

I think you make some good points, but most of what you say is also true of Civ. Despite its much narrower focus, OW is no closer to being a historical simulator than Civ is; it's simply a 4X game set in antiquity. I absolutely agree with you about disliking OW's fixed city locations; I dislike them far more than HK's regions, even though HK is in most ways the inferior game in every sense. Now, I have to confess, that while I've very much enjoyed OW and think it has some great ideas, across dozens of hours in OW I've never actually finished a game. I have three fundamental problems with the game: the first is that it's not ugly but it's not pretty either. The painted art is nice, but the map itself is direly lacking in character. The second is fixed settlements; this is an extremely frustrating mechanic. The third is related to the second: peaceful play is simply not viable as independent factions gobble up all the free settlement slots.

I know the fixed city locations are very controversial and I very much agree that there would often be more "optimal" city placement locations (for resources, or for offense/defense, etc.) -- but it does not bother me and drives a quick decision early in the game as to method of play (tall or wide). I can see why players get frustrated by it, but I think it is preferable to the possible ICS that would happen otherwise (at least in OW).

I'm not a fan of the map, I'm not a fan of how difficult it is to read the map in terms of buildings/districts, etc., and the static nature of the maps generated. I like Civ 5 and Civ 6 graphics, maps, etc. far more so.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

I will freely admit to all that part of my problem with OW is Familiarity. I studied as an undergrad with Dr Eugene Borza, one of the half-dozen or so experts on Alexander the Great in the USA, and did my advanced thesis on the historiography of the Battle of Gaugamela (a subject which could put a Hyperactive Child into a coma: I have no illusions that it was or is a fascinating topic to anybody) .
Consequently, I cannot help automatically critiquing every decision made in OW's game design by comparing it to the real reasons and reasoning that informed actual historical events, effects, and people of the time and place.
I also will not argue and am not arguing that OW is necessarily a bad game for anybody else to play and enjoy, just that the apparent design philosophy and decisions made is the complete opposite of anything that I would ever enjoy and, in the event, proved to be impossible for me to play without stopping every few minutes to beat my head against the keyboard in frustration.

Come to think of it, not too dissimilar to my reaction to Humankind by the mid-game . . .

 

[Zaarin]

I will freely admit to all that part of my problem with OW is Familiarity. I studied as an undergrad with Dr Eugene Borza, one of the half-dozen or so experts on Alexander the Great in the USA, and did my advanced thesis on the historiography of the Battle of Gaugamela (a subject which could put a Hyperactive Child into a coma: I have no illusions that it was or is a fascinating topic to anybody) .
Consequently, I cannot help automatically critiquing every decision made in OW's game design by comparing it to the real reasons and reasoning that informed actual historical events, effects, and people of the time and place.
I also will not argue and am not arguing that OW is necessarily a bad game for anybody else to play and enjoy, just that the apparent design philosophy and decisions made is the complete opposite of anything that I would ever enjoy and, in the event, proved to be impossible for me to play without stopping every few minutes to beat my head against the keyboard in frustration.

Come to think of it, not too dissimilar to my reaction to Humankind by the mid-game . . .

My master's program was, alas, very Americentric, but I actually have somewhat the same problem in that OW is focused on an era I have studied extensively on my own and is my own personally favorite period of history. Though the comparison to Humankind is unfair. HK is something even worse than a bad game: a mediocre game that has no clue what it wants to be and seems to have been designed by corporate committee.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

My master's program was, alas, very Americentric, but I actually have somewhat the same problem in that OW is focused on an era I have studied extensively on my own and is my own personally favorite period of history. Though the comparison to Humankind is unfair. HK is something even worse than a bad game: a mediocre game that has no clue what it wants to be and seems to have been designed by corporate committee.

My academic work concentrated on the classical Mediterranean and Near East (at the time, the only two professors in PSU's History Department that taught anything before Medieval were experts in Alexander and the Hellenistic period (Borza) and a Byzantine expert (Harris). Everyone else in the department taught modern European or US history except for one Chinese professor refugee from the Mainland who taught "Asian History" (which she defined as Magnificent China and all those other Barbarian Scum) and one man who taught Southeast Asian History - chiefly hired because the Vietnam War was raging at the time and most students couldn't even find Vietnam on a map.
Ironically, as soon as I left school I became intrigued by the utterly one-sided (German sources only) accounts of the war between Germany and the Soviet Union 1941 - 1945, so taught myself to read Russian and never looked back.

My view of Humankind is slightly different, though. My opinion is that the game has some things that it does very, very well but only almost well enough: the artwork, both map and unit graphics and the still art used in the Tech Tree and Faction displays is first-rate visually but suffers from not conveying needed information adequately for a functional GUI. The sheer amount of detail in the structures and effects within each city is very impressive - but it's almost impossible to keep track of what you have and have not built and where all the numbers in your city are coming from. Overall, I think they did a better job than Civ at compressing the essence of a Civ/Faction into a few in-game effects - but they were aided in that by the fact that each faction only covers a small segment of the total time-frame. Their Diplomacy display and available interactions is far and away better than anything Civ has done in the past 10 years, IMHO, but the 'generic' Leaders they display make it hard to tell exactly who you are interacting with: these guys are Mongols now, weren't they Babylonians a minute ago?

So all those excellent elements don't add up to a great, or even very enjoyable, game. Old World I can't stand to play or even look at (graphics that are bland beyond any reasonable definition of Blandness). Humankind I love to look at - for a few minutes - then I turn off the game and go play another hour or two with my latest village in Farthest Frontier or set up another island in Anno 1800 . . .

 

[Zaarin]

My view of Humankind is slightly different, though. My opinion is that the game has some things that it does very, very well but only almost well enough: the artwork, both map and unit graphics and the still art used in the Tech Tree and Faction displays is first-rate visually but suffers from not conveying needed information adequately for a functional GUI. The sheer amount of detail in the structures and effects within each city is very impressive - but it's almost impossible to keep track of what you have and have not built and where all the numbers in your city are coming from. Overall, I think they did a better job than Civ at compressing the essence of a Civ/Faction into a few in-game effects - but they were aided in that by the fact that each faction only covers a small segment of the total time-frame. Their Diplomacy display and available interactions is far and away better than anything Civ has done in the past 10 years, IMHO, but the 'generic' Leaders they display make it hard to tell exactly who you are interacting with: these guys are Mongols now, weren't they Babylonians a minute ago?

I think the map's models look very nice with the elevation and rivers and whatnot, but the textures make it look very bland and generic. The artwork also looks nice but kind of generic. It all feels very soulless. I do agree about the diplomacy, though. I wanted to love HK because I loved ES2, but despite some innovative ideas I feel like none of its systems actually adds up to an enjoyable game. It was okay to play a couple times, but it hasn't tempted me back. (Ironically, I think the snarky narrator may have been their best idea...until you've heard everything he has to say.)

 

[HorseshoeHermit]

The use of orders, and dynastic simulation, are, in my mind, too close to the individual innovation of Old World. For another game to copy them is, no two ways about it, just ripping off Old World. But even separate from artistic appropriation in game design, those two mechanics are mutually supporting and define the game as being... about a dynasty, not a civilization. I literally cannot accept a game that seriously reproduces "leader" concerns as a Civilization game. We have state-to-state relations, and matters of internal cohesion, stability, or revolution. Like, we don't lose because we lose an election; that's never going to be a rule. That's Democracy 4. Changing the form of power domestically can be simulated, but is not an existential matter to the player, because we aren't roleplaying as an emperor or autocrat, we are playing out a scene with figurines, I guess you could say, except instead of a simple figurine we push the complex (computer) object of the civilization about. We're making a story within rules, with the figurines, not us.

Perhaps a middle of the road position is one which had been written by a few, which is maybe to simulate internal politics as actually requiring internal or external tension to change / to go through revolution. Your monarchy will stay a monarchy, though you may want to desist, until something cannot bear that weight any more. At the very least, what could stand to be added is *some factor*, so that transitions between the mass character of social policy are not emulated to go as if we merely could rearrange ourselves with one decision; are emulated with some kind of inertia. The merest bit of an addition so that we get a feeling of extra depth, to the next iteration in the series. In this instance: a feeling of politics being a conflicted negotiation.
As the first introduction of such a system, it can depart from realism vastly; the objective is to feel something to chew on, something abstract enough to play around in, with the mind, between the concrete meanings the game actually gives. Not borne out by any real mechanic, but not contradicted by any hard line either?

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

Internal Politics in all its ramifications at least needs to be hinted at in a Civ game, because it restricts and channels many other actions. The problem is, such restrictions, IMHO, make for a more accurate set of circumstances for the player, but gamers do not care for 'artificial' restrictions on what they can do, if it is possible to do it in the game.
Example: the USA had the power to conquer and occupy Canada at virtually any time in the 20th century - there was even a General Staff plan for the invasion of Canada, one of 40+ General Staff plans for various potentially-required military actions developed in the 1930s - but at no time did any US military or civilian authority seriously consider doing it. In the game, if I am playing America and am sitting next to Canada with a 10:1 superiority in units and nuclear weapons, what's to stop me?
Rather than a single, blanket rule that "America does not attack its neighbors" (which all of its Native American neighbors and Mexico will start hooting at), I'd rather make such a restriction due, as much as possible, to something related to the Real reasons: by the time the USA had the industrial and military power to successfully fight and win a war against Canada and Great Britain, there were sound economic, political, diplomatic, and even cultural reasons not to do it. That's harder to formulate than as simple blanket prohibition or restriction, but is far better suited to a game that is trying to represent potentially any cultural/government type in world history since 4000 BCE.

 

[Zaarin]

In the game, if I am playing America and am sitting next to Canada with a 10:1 superiority in units and nuclear weapons, what's to stop me?

Wilfred Laurier, single-handedly, smirking at you as you vainly hover your mouse over the "Declare Surprise War" button.

 

[Phrozen]

I would add for Humankind that wonders don't seem that wonderous. Basically here is some bonuses and that is it. There was some good ideas there but the execution was flawed. Ideally I would take those ideas out of the history 4x sphere and create a fantasy game where you go through the ages of fantasy from Hyborian to Urban fantasy.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

Wilfred Laurier, single-handedly, smirking at you as you vainly hover your mouse over the "Declare Surprise War" button.

My point exactly. The USA DID attack Canada during the revolution and the War of 1812 - both related more to attacking Britain than the Beaverish Canadians, but still full scale invasions in both cases, as much as they had the resources for. A flat Fiat From the Game Designers leaves no room nor reason for the changes in internal politics, government, and/or culture that made such attacks unimaginable 150 years later.

 

[BuchiTaton]

Internal Politics in all its ramifications at least needs to be hinted at in a Civ game, because it restricts and channels many other actions. The problem is, such restrictions, IMHO, make for a more accurate set of circumstances for the player, but gamers do not care for 'artificial' restrictions on what they can do, if it is possible to do it in the game.
Example: the USA had the power to conquer and occupy Canada at virtually any time in the 20th century - there was even a General Staff plan for the invasion of Canada, one of 40+ General Staff plans for various potentially-required military actions developed in the 1930s - but at no time did any US military or civilian authority seriously consider doing it. In the game, if I am playing America and am sitting next to Canada with a 10:1 superiority in units and nuclear weapons, what's to stop me?
Rather than a single, blanket rule that "America does not attack its neighbors" (which all of its Native American neighbors and Mexico will start hooting at), I'd rather make such a restriction due, as much as possible, to something related to the Real reasons: by the time the USA had the industrial and military power to successfully fight and win a war against Canada and Great Britain, there were sound economic, political, diplomatic, and even cultural reasons not to do it. That's harder to formulate than as simple blanket prohibition or restriction, but is far better suited to a game that is trying to represent potentially any cultural/government type in world history since 4000 BCE.

Have actual population with identities, necessities and ideologies would be a way to give real sense to diplomatic and cultural victories, also to goverment and religions.
People Matters: Each population unit should have identity values Class (profession), Belief (religion) and Heritage (culture) as decisive parameters that would affect their opinion about players actions. These like the other sources (amenities) could cause low levels of happiness therefore gain or lose pop related bonus, emigration and in the worse case rebelion. Some examples:

- ECONOMY: If you put a Trade Embargo to a civ important to your merchant's business (corporations, trade routes, tradegoods) their would start to take their capital/taxes to another civ.​

- CULTURE: Civs that export cultural goods (textiles, pottery, movies, cuisine, etc.) and attract a lot of tourism would gain a high level of cultural influence that translate in opposition to actions agains that civ.​

- RELIGION: Shared religion should be relevant not just for the diplomacy between leaders with the same religion, but also your population units would react if you take actions againts a civ of that religion, same if you take actions againts your pops of X religion any civ of that belief would not be happy about it.​

- GOVERMENT: Specific ideologies are preferred by certain classes, for example Theocracy by clerics, Fascism by warriors, Communism by laborers, Capitalism by merchants, etc.​

*NOTE*: Obviously the relevance of this effects would be (in general) more significative in late game than in early game, since new ideologies like Emancipation, Constitutionalism, Secularism, etc. Would provide powerful bonus but would be balanced turning population happiness and good diplomatic relations in a more relevant elements.

So in general in late game a more ideological free civ would have great bonus, but once implemented fail to these ideologies would shatter your authority.

 

[Xandinho]

I would add for Humankind that wonders don't seem that wonderous. Basically here is some bonuses and that is it. There was some good ideas there but the execution was flawed. Ideally I would take those ideas out of the history 4x sphere and create a fantasy game where you go through the ages of fantasy from Hyborian to Urban fantasy.

In Civ6 most wonders aren't wonderous either. Basically it goes like this: 1/3 is useless or not worth the effort to produce; 1/3 has very situational bonuses or is only useful for a specific type of victory; 1/3 is good or great. Humankind has some wonders with fun bonuses, such as the Great Mosque of Djenné and the Maracanã Stadium.

 

[dagriggstar]

As someone who really enjoyed Old World but has not played it in a long long time.

1) I am neutral on this, on one hand it did mean I would research cheap techs just to get a redraw, which would avoid weird beeline situations, on the other hand as a player I did find it restrictive. I actually prefer a little bit how technology works in At The Gates actually, in the sense that you aren't going to research absolutely everything. Like, when I enter the Medieval era I want to be able to build pikemen by default, but I can research Halberbs if I want, which will give them extra strength.

2) I like it in Old World, but I think civ is more zoomed out and needs a more simple system. Like, old world civics can be covered by civ 7 culture.

3) I'd really like to see an orders system for civ 7. Generally, more authoritarian governments have more orders, but free governments get yield bonuses or citizens do things (like build improvements) on their own. More centralized governments incur penalties for using orders away from your capital too.

5) I enjoy how civ 6 handles city placement.

6) I want to go back to stacks. I do enjoy old world combat more than civ 1UPT, but I think also think stuff like splash damage with 1UPT works better on Old Worlds map scale. What I really want is archers that deal equal damage to every unit on a stack kind of stuff.

I think leader names for flavour would be nice. Like, if you complete a world wonder, for it to come up "(Generated name) the (Title) completes (Wonder)". But not like gameplay changing.
I want to limit internal factions to the different religions and different corporations. Stuff that spans multiple civilizations.