Civ VII - Predictions for features

[Haig]

So this is not a wishlist, but rather what direction you think the franchise will take on seventh title.
My take:

- Back to more realistic graphics. One of the two biggest gripes I've seen for Civ VI has been for it's stylized and more cartoon-like art style, reminding of Civ IV and CivRev. Personally I have nothing against it and I love the expressive leaders and units, but I bet they tune it down for Civ 7.

- No more one unit per tile. The combat AI is the second biggest gripe I've seen, easiest solution is simply going back to stacks in some form I bet.

- Tactical combat screen like Age of Wonders/Humankind etc.
Interestingly I remember Ed Beach interview where combat screen was an option for Civ VI but they didnt go for it. I 100% belive we get stacks for units, for combat screen I'm like 50%.

- Maps with more topography. I think this is a logical step for Civ VII.

- Navigable rivers. This one has been in so many fan requests, like canals used to be, that I think they introduce them for Civ 7


There will probably be something big that will be first time introduce to the series but for what my imagination doesn't tell me!

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

So this is not a wishlist, but rather what direction you think the franchise will take on seventh title.
My take:

- Back to more realistic graphics. One of the two biggest gripes I've seen for Civ VI has been for it's stylized and more cartoon-like art style, reminding of Civ IV and CivRev. Personally I have nothing against it and I love the expressive leaders and units, but I bet they tune it down for Civ 7.

- No more one unit per tile. The combat AI is the second biggest gripe I've seen, easiest solution is simply going back to stacks in some form I bet.

- Tactical combat screen like Age of Wonders/Humankind etc.
Interestingly I remember Ed Beach interview where combat screen was an option for Civ VI but they didnt go for it. I 100% belive we get stacks for units, for combat screen I'm like 50%.

- Maps with more topography. I think this is a logical step for Civ VII.

- Navigable rivers. This one has been in so many fan requests, like canals used to be, that I think they introduce them for Civ 7


There will probably be something big that will be first time introduce to the series but for what my imagination doesn't tell me!

Agree with all, with a couple of comments:

The realistic graphics will not be completely realistic. Humankind's maps are realistically gorgeous, but much less informative and easy to read for game data. If anybody is thinking at Firaxis, they will be looking foor a comprosie that is both more pleasing/realistic to look at and easier to play on.

I suspect any tactical Combat Screen will include an option for small (1 on 1 for sure) combats to be resolved on the main map to save time. @Victoria pointed this out in another Thread, and I've noticed it in pre- and post-release Humankind, but constantly 'dropping' out of the game map to resolve every little battle can get time-consuming and very old, very fast. One possibility is, for at least the pre-gunpowder battles, to have a much more 'stylized' battlefield and battles: in most such battles, the armies drew up facing and in sight of each other, somebody charged, maybe some general managed a flank attack, but the huge majority of battles were straight-up attack and defense with morale, numbers, and weapons deciding far more actions than tactics did. That means the game could resolve those battles by Line Up Troops, Weight one wing or flank and maybe have a few other options if you have a Great General in charge, and then the battle Auto-Resolves - that would speed things up dramatically, and also make the battles as chancy as they were in real life - without superior troops, weapons, numbers, or Massive Self-Confidence, nobody would seek out battles they didn't have to fight - shades of Sun-Tse!

More Variety on the Map - they could bring back the Continent distinctions from Civ V, with more differences between the continents in vegetation and appearance - and animals available, at least at first.

And one thing I would add: I think they'd be fools not to at least investigate a Wandering Start/Neolithic Age for Civ VII. There are even Mods that approach the idea for Civ VI, and Humankind's example has generated a lot of positive comment and interest and shows (partially) what can be done with it, but didn't go anywhere near far enough. Wandering groups could build monuments like Gobekli Tepe, the Tarxian Temples, Watson Brake or Newgrange, settle down temporarily to either 'jump start' an early city or leave behind Ruins for later archeologists - and lots of specific Technologies originated long before cities, like Pottery, Animal Domestication, Net Fishing, etc. Lots could be done with a Pre-City Age at start of game.

 

[Haig]

I agree they might do a bit faster and streamlined combat, there was an 90s scifi strategy game "Spaceward ho!" where you gave some general order to your fleet and then an animated battle played out with the small ships and large capital spaceships duking it out.

 

[HorseHead]

The realistic graphics will not be completely realistic.

I hope with this, that they do not make the maps more realistic. I personally am a big fan of the bright maps but the leaders should be far more realistic and dark like V. No more bug-eyed Gandhi.

More Variety on the Map - they could bring back the Continent distinctions from Civ V, with more differences between the continents in vegetation and appearance - and animals available, at least at first.

I am almost certain this will be added and feel like it will be a step in the right direction for the franchise.

- Maps with more topography. I think this is a logical step for Civ VII.

- Navigable rivers. This one has been in so many fan requests, like canals used to be, that I think they introduce them for Civ 7

I think this could work well but at least for the second one I don't necessarily feel like it will be added for sure. It would need to have different types of ships for different types of rivers and they could be used to raiding places earlier in the game.

Personally, I think we will see a major buff to trade and the importance of it. I also believe that we will see a major overhaul of the diplomatic system in the game though I am not sure of the specifics of it.

 

[Zaarin]

I agree with Boris that they're not going to go with a grimdark or gritty art style like Civ5's. Look around: it's not in fashion anymore. I think they'll choose a different style, but the art direction will still be stylized. Personally what I see being "in" at the moment is a painterly look, and I wouldn't be surprised to see Civ7 have a map that looks like a Romantic or Impressionist landscape. For leaders, I just hope they pick a style, any style, and stick with it; Civ6 has a problem where it doesn't have an art direction. The majority of the leaders look great (with a few exceptions), but the majority also don't look like they belong in the same game with each other.

 

[Zegangani]

- Back to more realistic graphics

I see that as Boris Gudenuf and Zaarin. A Map with semi-realistic Appearance yet easy to capture/play is more likely.

- No more one unit per tile.

I actually think that the Devs might stick with 1UPT since they have more exprerience with it now, with CiV and Civ VI in the account. So they might as well want to expand on this systeme and experiment more with it (maybe also to not copy Humankind's Unit Systeme, which is the optimal thing to do with Stacks).
If they DO go back to stacks, I don't think they will allow for "Stacks of Dooms". it's clear that they're not fans of it, since they switched directly to 1UPT with Civ5 and 6, but didn't try to just limit the stacks or make something similar to how Humankind have done it. I'm excited to see what they are planning (or have planned) for this.

I agree they might do a bit faster and streamlined combat, there was an 90s scifi strategy game "Spaceward ho!" where you gave some general order to your fleet and then an animated battle played out with the small ships and large capital spaceships duking it out.

I would Love that! Imagine if we could just set the Battle Strategy/Tactic (maybe predefined for each Armee, that you can just change and save) and let the AI play the Battle and you see the outcome either after the end of the battle, or watch the actions of the battle while it takes place. It would be similar to how the X Manager Titles work (Like Football Manager). So that everything the Player has to be in charge of is building the Units, maybe grouping them with others, assigning a Task to them (Go to this Tile and make an Outpost, fortify, protect this Trader/Settler, participate in this Battle...etc) and set their Strategy. Great Generals/Admirals could be used as the (main) Strategist/Tacticians for each Group of Units (improving the effectiveness of the Units, and for higher chance of winning the Battles), that have predefined Attributes (Defense/Durability, Attack, Speed, Efficiency, Authority...etc), that affect The Group's Perfrmance, that can be improved with experience (best start with fighting Barbarians to gather enough Experience). Maybe each GG/GA could have it's unique Strategy/Tactic (and Military Cards could affect them as well). This way, the only micromanagement will be the GG/GA, who would also have a Promotion Tree (all the Units in a Group will get Promotions/Abilities with the GG/GA - less micro here). No more clicking each Unit individually and tell it what to do.
1 GG/GA to rule them'all!

- Navigable rivers.

I'm not sure. I think it's very likely that Rivers will take a big role with Trade Routes in Civ VII, but navigable with Units . . . the issue is that in 4X Games in the dimension of Civ and Humankind, the Rivers are very small and the Unit Models rather huge (Mods aside). So I think this will depend on how the Map Graphics are designed. If Rivers are wider than in Civ 6, the Models of Naval Units could change size when moving through Rivers. (SQL Artdefs in combination with PlotProperty Methode usable for most of the Assets would perhaps open the possibilty for a Mod that does this, if Firaxis wouldn't do it).

The things I think that will most likely be in Civ VII are:
- Administrators/Governors: most Players like Governors, and Secret Societies is, as how as I interpreted it, the most favored Game Mode by the Players (I'm more a Fan of another Mode that I'm still waiting for a Fix for it ). Firaxis might expand on this and go an extra step, perhaps with unlockable Governors, or even Unique Governors. (especially since Civ is taking the Lead on Great Person Types, ala Immortal Leaders and Great People). I think this will be included in Vanilla Civ VII.

- Stockable Strategic Resources: although this adds more to micro management, but not really much. it's actually simple, straitforward and requires the Player to just plan its settlements (or Conquest Target) and the Production of its Units, and it also encourages for more Diplomay with resource Deals (Connecting many aspects of the Game: Conquest/Domination, Diplomacy, Trade, Policies, Governors...etc). It's just that in Civ 6 most of the resource requiring Units have questionable resource requirements and Diplomacy, which should play the biggest role in acquiring strategic resources, is already one of the weak points of Civ 6.

- Barbarian Clans: I don't see why Firaxis wouldn't include this in the base game. Not doing this would feel like going a step backwards (even if they add it later with a DLC). They might perhaps expand this to Goody Hutts, with which you could Trade, and they could then turn into Trade CSs or Naval/Maritime if they are on Coast.

- Better Modding Capabilities than Civ6: even without access to the DLL Source Code of Civ6, Civ 6 is greatly moddable, especially Assets. The Database Modifiers are like direct access to DLL functions that can be customised with requirements and other options. And we actually only need a small set of lua Objects for each Game Systeme/Mechanic to be able to customize the Game as we wish (maybe even hardcoded AI behaviour, which would still be better than how it's currently).
So my bet is that Civ VII will be even more moddable than Civ 6, because the Devs have actually, actively, set quite the framework for a greatly moddable Civ 6 (they even made the Civ5 Skin Mod just to showcase what's possible with the Asset Tools), they, for whatever reason, just didn't finish what they've started. I think the initial Idea was to release the DLL (back in 2019(or early 2020?), Anton Strenger (I think) clarified that there is currently no plans for releasing the DLL), but post GS the Plan may have changed. So if the Devs are of the impression that there is no chance of Firaxis releasing the DLL for Civ7 at some point, they will surely put their Efforts in making Civ VII more moddable that Civ 6, because, I think, they DO care about the moddability of the Game (they are CivFans like as, just with the privilege of working directy on the Game, including their own Ideas into the Game.. well, having some influence on the design of the Game. But leave it to them, they surely wouldn't hesitate to release the DLL).

 

[Krajzen]

1) I really think we will see a big evolution of a combat system, especially when Humankind released and has combat much easier to create good AI and military challenge for (like seriously, Humankind in beta felt more militarily challenging than civ6 after years of development), and I think devs definitely know everybody complained about this for so many years, but they couldn't improve it much without tanking turn time processing
Of course I'm not saying that civ7 will copy that system, but it is really hard for me to imagine devs checking on their competitor, seeing that and not concluding with 'goddamn we really should innovate our own combat system'

2) More realistic but still stylized graphics style

3) Another big suspicion of mine is fundamentally reworking how the map engine works in some ways, generally going for more depth, diversity and dynamism. What am I trying to say, civ6 feels very similarly to civ5 in how the map and player interaction with the map works (besides districts), in comparision to how different map systems of civ3, civ4 and civ5 felt when compared to one another. I'm not sure what are they going to do though. Some of my suspicions are: several height levels (like Humankind), much more diverse biomes (like Humankind), climate very slowly changing yields across ages, soil fertility, spreading crops that can be replanted into appropriate climate (think of coffee spreading to Brazil from Old World, potatoes from Americas to Europe etc), prospecting and discovering and even exhausting minerals across ages instead of 'here you get fixed mineral tiles at turn 0' etc. Or changing how the map works for the player - how borders are claimed (I really dislike civ's recent 'very constrained, claustrophobic city borders, slowly and painfully expanding like an organic mold).

4) I agree that Barbarian Clans are probably going to be present on civ7 release, it really feels so damn much better and more cool than the previous barbarian system, also more in line with the individual character of city states. I also think the fact they dynamically develop into city states may be hinting towards devs in civ7 experimenting with more dynamic political map of the world, where new players can emerge during the game.

5) Religion rework also will probably happen IMO, because it seems unlikely that we'd get three games in a row with essentially the same religion system as civ5 G&K, especially as many people criticized how shallow and tedious religious victory is.

6) Some sort of fundamental redesign how population units work seems likely to me, as once again, otherwise we'd get many games in a row with the same pop dynamics, and there could be so much more done here - like social classes, migrations, uprisings etc.

7) Things from civ6 that I think will remain: individual city states, the entire climate and disaster stuff, leaders separated from civs, power, corporations, national parks, geographic area naming etc.

8) Things from civ6 that I think won't remain: all stuff involving happiness, stability, city caps, and failed R&F attempts to curb snowballing and introduce dynamism to the game, replaced hopefully by some system that actually helps underdogs and provides dynamism. Also, I think the same mechanics will be responsible to the shift from extreme 'wide' meta. Civ5 was too unbalanced towards 'tall', civ6 was too unbalanced towards 'wide', I think civ7 will try to find the middle ground between tall and wide and between rewarding winners and helping underdogs.

9) Similarly to the previous point, I think devs will try to find the middle ground for obligatory 'political tenets and government system' between civ5 'you slowly develop your policy trees and can't really change already taken paths' and civ6 'you can casually change policies all the time no strings attached'.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

As said above I would be surprised if some form of Barbarian Clans, as well as Monopolies and Corporations, does not make it into the base game.

If they decide to really focus more on leaders I'd expect even more alternate leaders than we had in Civ 6.

In terms of features that don't really affect gameplay, adding names to rivers, mountain ranges, deserts etc.is one of the few things they should bring back for all games. Probably the best thing about Civ Rev series that they could bring into the main series games.

What are the chances that health makes a comeback over something like housing? I don't think it's too soon personally.

 

[criZp]

Housing in civ 6 was a health mechanic under a different name.

 

[Krajzen]

What are the chances that health makes a comeback over something like housing? I don't think it's too soon personally.

I have played that mod for civ5 which introduces random devastating pandemics to the game, and it was exciting and dynamic in a way, but also super frustrating and you couldn't do much against it for the most of the game (just like IRL!) as it killed 1/3 of your pops in few turns, so I don't think pandemics will come back to the game, they are too random and impossible to deal with.

However I really hope that civ7 devs see how great random events feel in 4X (yes I'm talking about Humankind) as long as they are presented as 'dilemmas with drawbacks and benefits' and not 'rocks fall you lose 1000 gold lol'. And introduce random events to civ7. But I didn't write it in my list of what I expected, this is just my personal little hope.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

I have played that mod for civ5 which introduces random devastating pandemics to the game, and it was exciting and dynamic in a way, but also super frustrating and you couldn't do much against it for the most of the game (just like IRL!) as it killed 1/3 of your pops in few turns, so I don't think pandemics will come back to the game, they are too random and impossible to deal with.

However I really hope that civ7 devs see how great random events feel in 4X (yes I'm talking about Humankind) as long as they are presented as 'dilemmas with drawbacks and benefits' and not 'rocks fall you lose 1000 gold lol'. And introduce random events to civ7. But I didn't write it in my list of what I expected, this is just my personal little hope.

Humankind's Random Events, EU's Events and Decisions (which was also Modded into Civ V), even something as specific as Old World's Sudden Death of individuals important to your Civ could all provide a basis for a system to keep the game always interesting - if done Right.
1. No Random Event should be RageQuit Devastating - no Pandemics removing a large percentage of your population, no Volcano removing an entire City, no Communist Revolt that dismembers your Civ.
2. Random Events should have variety: some Positive, some Negative, some results depending entirely on what else is happening when they Trigger.
3. Random Events should affect other systems - like 'nudging' Social Policy or Civics or Religion or Government Type choices in certain directions, or Stability/Happiness. As a bottom line, Civ VII does NOT need a repeat of Civ VI in which too many different systems in the game do not interact with each other meaningfully - when they should.
4. Some Random Events should be whimsical. There is no excuse for taking a game like Civ with the fantasy elements inherent in it (immortal Leaders, oversized soldiers, thousand-year-long Unchanging Social Policies) Seriously. Throw in the occasional "off the wall" event - and then be prepared for someone to find a near-exact historical parallel, because you cannot imagine all the odd things that real people have done to each other over the centuries!

 

[criZp]

So I'm gonna be the one guy who say I don't want a random event system. It's just an interrupting pop-up with some buttons randomly increasing some yield. The most annoying thing about humankind events is they are all about some people in your civilization, people that don't actually exist on the map. Made the events feel completely detached from what I was doing.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

So I'm gonna be the one guy who say I don't want a random event system. It's just an interrupting pop-up with some buttons randomly increasing some yield. The most annoying thing about humankind events is they are all about some people in your civilization, people that don't actually exist on the map. Made the events feel completely detached from what I was doing.

Humankind's Random Events and EU's Events and Decisions both usually require you to choose some direction for the outcome or process, so the results are not random unless you are making all your in-game decisions with a coin flip (which, come to think of it, would be a neat way to simulate some of the more notorious Historical IRL decision-making).
And the fact that Humankind got hoist by its own suspenders trying to 'personalize' the Random Events when in fact the game contains no personalities at all just means that Civ with its myriad points of personality from Leaders to Great People to named governors, can potentially do it much better.

And, of course, you should always be able to turn it off in your specific game if you can't stand the interruption, but given that the game itself is just a pop-up interrupting Real Life I don't have a problem with it.

 

[Sirsquier]

One thing I'll say is here to stay from civ 6 is districts. They completely gave tiles more worth and made it a harder discission (since you can't remove a district). In civ five, if you didn't like what was on a tile, you removed it.

 

[HorseshoeHermit]

The way to help an underdog is to not do so.

The only thing you want is to bake in a subsystem, forming one kind of input to each player's engine, that is at the same magnitude of impact for all players regardless of where they currently are in the other metrics. Something that is ongoing throughout the game that trickles into your hands to make choices with, but there is no multiplier from your situation that makes any leaders ahead of the pack get "more" out of it, and your correct decisions can get you to pull past players who might make poor decisions in that subsystem. And then of course that subsystem has a good enough effect ON your situation. You cannot give a bonus for losing. Making the good decision means it makes you better off, that's what strategy gameplay is. You address snowballing by making one part of the game not snowball, you don't have to rubberband.


I predict Civ 7 continuing to have cities with a number of people there called the population and they make the city do stuff by yielding productivities from tile attributes nearby.
My boldest hope for what may happen is that the combat system will try something new. On the level of individual military units I mean, with combat resolution and resource requirements, not so much tiles and terrain.

Oh and I think they will evolve City-States, yeah. Barbarian clans could easily be ripped, and City-States is something they'll probably roll as something slightly different from Civ6 and Civ5 just as they are slightly different from each other.

 

[Zegangani]

The only thing you want is to bake in a subsystem, forming one kind of input to each player's engine, that is at the same magnitude of impact for all players regardless of where they currently are in the other metrics. Something that is ongoing throughout the game that trickles into your hands to make choices with, but there is no multiplier from your situation that makes any leaders ahead of the pack get "more" out of it, and your correct decisions can get you to pull past players who might make poor decisions in that subsystem. And then of course that subsystem has a good enough effect ON your situation. You cannot give a bonus for losing. Making the good decision means it makes you better off, that's what strategy gameplay is. You address snowballing by making one part of the game not snowball, you don't have to rubberband.

As far as I understood you here, you basically suggesting a Subsystem that interacts directly with each Player seperatly, that doesn't require any envolvement from other Players. Maybe Something like Events where you have to make decisions that can give Bonuses as well as having real consequences, and based on the options they might be strong but for short term, and weak but for long term?

I like the Idea, it would make the (Human) Player focus more on internal things instead of being dependant on the AI to get some challenge from. But I don't think that a single System would suffice for this, it would need a complete redesign of many of the Game's Systems/Features actually, like the way you build your Cities. In Civ 6, you build your Cities to get the Benefits, rather than getting Bonuses for the way you build your Cities, which should actually be the case. And the District Adjacencies are a perfect example for this, Players shouldn't get Bonuses right away from building Districts (which AI really can't handle), instead they should get bonuses based on how you place them and then only from the Buildings inside, like if you have a Campus with a Library next to another Campus with a University then the Library should get more Science, but if the Campus with the Library is adjacent to a TS with an Amphitheater, then the Library should get Culture, (and even production from Workshops, because it would be easier for the Workers to hand over knowledge if it gets written on Paper that many people can use)...etc This way the AI won't be punished for not placing Districts in places that may produce the Most Yields (which requires thinking ahead and planning, which AI completely fails at), and the Player will still have something to plan for AND it allows for dynamic District Placement.

IMO a Gameplay Design around AI, it's strengths and weeknesses, (including Movement and Combat Systems) and with many Mechanisms for the Player that don't require any envolvement from AI, would immensely improve the challenge one gets from a Game. Civ is a Singleplayer Game not a Multiplayer One, so we should get some more challenge in Singleplayer games instead of relying on Multiplayer Games for that, which Civ 6 really isn't designed around. that's really perplexed

re, Snowballing: I think the best way to solve this, is to make real limits or penalties for how far a Civ can push through the Game, there should be consequences for going very wide and excelling at science should require real investment in form of resource costs and at the cost of neglecting other Fields. Going to War for too long and having lots of Occupied Cities should mean a very unstable Empire in form of unhappy and disloyal Citizens and also with bolded Players that aren't inclined to interact with you (No Trade, no anything). But Firaxis's has left its Hands away from Punishing Gameplay Features, so . . .

 

[Gedemon]

My predictions are almost opposite to my wishlist, so please make me wrong Firaxis

I'm pretty sure 1UPT will still be here in civ7.

They'll need to sell it on multiple platforms too I suppose, so no bigger map, but maybe more spaced cities and some other mechanisms to unclutter the map and simplify movements of armies. Districts will stay.

Leaders will still act like players, and not like, well, leaders.

Even more/easier access to modding assets, but even less access to modding gameplay.

 

[Lonecat Nekophrodite]

Agree with all, with a couple of comments:

The realistic graphics will not be completely realistic. Humankind's maps are realistically gorgeous, but much less informative and easy to read for game data. If anybody is thinking at Firaxis, they will be looking foor a comprosie that is both more pleasing/realistic to look at and easier to play on.

I suspect any tactical Combat Screen will include an option for small (1 on 1 for sure) combats to be resolved on the main map to save time. @Victoria pointed this out in another Thread, and I've noticed it in pre- and post-release Humankind, but constantly 'dropping' out of the game map to resolve every little battle can get time-consuming and very old, very fast. One possibility is, for at least the pre-gunpowder battles, to have a much more 'stylized' battlefield and battles: in most such battles, the armies drew up facing and in sight of each other, somebody charged, maybe some general managed a flank attack, but the huge majority of battles were straight-up attack and defense with morale, numbers, and weapons deciding far more actions than tactics did. That means the game could resolve those battles by Line Up Troops, Weight one wing or flank and maybe have a few other options if you have a Great General in charge, and then the battle Auto-Resolves - that would speed things up dramatically, and also make the battles as chancy as they were in real life - without superior troops, weapons, numbers, or Massive Self-Confidence, nobody would seek out battles they didn't have to fight - shades of Sun-Tse!
.

1. Will this results in something similiar to Call to Power combat screen thing? or something very RPG ish combat screen?

2. So there will be no MANUAL RESOLVES like Heroes of Might and Magic series?

^ One thing I like about Heroes of Might and Magic series is the siege mechanism. Catapults are siege engines and will not become active until player attacks enemy city with AT LEAST one defending element. In open field battles, catapults will not be active.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

Call To Power had a lot of good ideas in it, but most were very badly implemented (shades of Civ VI!)
The tactical battle screen was one idea that I think should have been further developed. For most of history, you could simply divide the 'battlefield' into center, left flank, right flank, reserve, allow an army to set up by areas with some restrictions (there's little sign of anybody keeping any reserves until the late Classical) and then Auto-Resolve. This would speed up battles dramatically for at least the first half of the game. Great Generals could allow some flexibility and be in keeping with Civ's emphasis on Personalities in rthe game.

Having all siege equipment be In-Siege Only is also Humankind's method: Catapults, Battering Rams, Trebuchets only appear as you build them 'in place' during a siege, which is exactly correct historically. On the other hand, Humankind had to leave out the very important Bombard unit because that was a major Siege Unit that could not be built in lace but had to be laboriously dragged to the siege and so would have required an entirely new 'Siege Mechanism' starting in the Early Modern Era.

 

[Lonecat Nekophrodite]

^ With this.
1. One army should have 'Siege' slots. (Beginning with 3, Maximum of 5, obtainable with General level up promotions (Similiar to Heroes of Might and Magic II and the rests of the series), where siege engines of any types will be placed but only usable in sieges.
2. Unit clases that can use siege slots.
2.1 Siege Engines (Pre Gunpowder, exists only with materials until the Siege is declared)
- Ram
- Siege Tower
- Helepolis (Siege Tower with ballista on it)
- Ladder / Cloud Staircase
- Catapults (Traction Trebuchet for Asians)
- (Counterpoise) Trebuchet
2.2 Artillery (Starting with gunpowder tech, must be trained entirely from player cities just like any units)
- Bombard: One shot in field battle, immobile in battle. can fire more rounds in siege, Line of Sight
- Mortar: Non LOS (Ignores obstacles, highly variated damage attributes) . Siege only
- Cannon: Line of Sight. Has scattershot ability that provides one-time strong defense against charging enemy (capable of removing an entire unit), also wall breaker
- Howitzer: (Refers to Swedes siege artillery developed by the Late 17th Century), Non LOS, has Scattershot ability.
- Modern Artillery: Upgrades from everything above (Including early Siege Engines). Line of Sight and Non LOS capability. Siege and Field combat capables.
- Self Propelled Artillery: (depending on how combat scene is done. if tactical phase is added so this unit)
- MLRS Artillery: LOS and Non LOS capable, Can target up to three enemy stacks at one round.
3. Any units that uses Siege slots cannot use ordinary unit slots. Nor vice versa.