[CiVI] Let the speculation begin!

[WiseGreen]

With CiV still hitting top10 most played games on steam on an almost daily basis, I think a new engine is a given. There'd be no reason for a new game instead of resuming developing new content for CiV otherwise.

 

[Sussemilch]

With CiV still hitting top10 most played games on steam on an almost daily basis, I think a new engine is a given. There'd be no reason for a new game instead of resuming developing new content for CiV otherwise.

I'd like to see a new engine. I've got a pretty spiffy PC and I can't finish a full game without disabling the unit animation, and bigger empires are a lot more interesting.

If they gave me a smooth-running version of Civ V that supported larger worlds and a smidge more detail I would pay for it immediately.

 

[TheMarshmallowBear]

I'd like to see a new engine. I've got a pretty spiffy PC and I can't finish a full game without disabling the unit animation, and bigger empires are a lot more interesting.

If they gave me a smooth-running version of Civ V that supported larger worlds and a smidge more detail I would pay for it immediately.

What were the options/rankings for the survey Firaxis made few weeks back? I know that people had the option of choosing mechanics over graphics.

I don't need fancy graphics (Except the beautiful farms), I just need a stable engine that can run ALL the civs in one go instead of a limited set with 10 minute turn time in the first 50 turns

 

[cazaderonus]

All i hope is 1upt stays in civ vi.

That maps are bigger to make 1upt more fun with bigger armies.

A solid game out of the box, that doeznt need two dlcs to reach its full potential

And obviously, a huge huge huge focus on AI behavior

 

[duckstab]

Just having bigger maps isn't the best solution for late game overcrowding and unit micromanagement because it would affect so many other aspects of gameplay. How close are civs going to be to each other? How closely spaced can cities be? What about resource density? How fast can units move relative to the new map size?

A much better solution would be to move tactical combat to a separate map, so they can go back to stacking units for strategic movement and retain 1UPT for combat. And the days of "route to cancelled" would be over as well

 

[bison21]

All i hope is 1upt stays in civ vi.

That maps are bigger to make 1upt more fun with bigger armies.

A solid game out of the box, that doeznt need two dlcs to reach its full potential

And obviously, a huge huge huge focus on AI behavior

I wholeheartedly agree. I think larger maps because that way 1UPT can be kept by allowing more movement and less endgame carpets. I don't want to have some-units-per-tile because I think it overcomplicates the mechanics.

My wish would be: keep 1upt, different leaders for same civs, more prevalent culture flipping of tiles. Improved AI warfare should be a given if they keep the 1UPT.

 

[TheMarshmallowBear]

I wholeheartedly agree. I think larger maps because that way 1UPT can be kept by allowing more movement and less endgame carpets. I don't want to have some-units-per-tile because I think it overcomplicates the mechanics.

My wish would be: keep 1upt, different leaders for same civs, more prevalent culture flipping of tiles. Improved AI warfare should be a given if they keep the 1UPT.

Why is this always solution?

How come nobody seemed to have brought up "Manpower" as a yield? i.e a limit. say every city allows 4 additional units. and Barracks and other buildings increase it.

Plus few adjustments not to over exploit it. (counter balance Stability system to prevent carpet of cities strategy and increased maintenance for units).

 

[Wojciech_R]

How about:
1upt but you can escort units:
Swordsman can escort catapults, or maybe even archers. That gives us 1.5 upt

Also 1upt should not be applied to workers&settlers. Few worker units could work on the same tile creating the same improvement - but instead of 200% efficiency we would get 150%

How do you feel about octagons?

 

[Heathcliff]

No chance civ 6 comes in the next half year.
They need at least half a year to build up the hype.

No chance for Stellaris either, Paradox is infamous for presenting their games before they are half finished, so I think it will be a few years before it is finished.

 

[TheMarshmallowBear]

No chance civ 6 comes in the next half year.
They need at least half a year to build up the hype.

No chance for Stellaris either, Paradox is infamous for presenting their games before they are half finished, so I think it will be a few years before it is finished.

When was Civ 5 announced and released?

 

[Naokaukodem]

Just having bigger maps isn't the best solution for late game overcrowding and unit micromanagement because it would affect so many other aspects of gameplay. How close are civs going to be to each other? How closely spaced can cities be? What about resource density? How fast can units move relative to the new map size?

A much better solution would be to move tactical combat to a separate map, so they can go back to stacking units for strategic movement and retain 1UPT for combat. And the days of "route to cancelled" would be over as well

I think those problems would auto-solve just as they are in Civ5 with different map sizes, not even considering the possibility to add more civs on the map hence modifying the proximity to each others.

Now, it's true that one can disagree with the defaults. For example, I always wished I can find more types of different kinds of resource near my starting point. (it would be win-win : more resources makes for more happiness, but i have to connect them which require an effort and competition from other civs) I think this cannot be modififed in Civ5, even if you increase dramatically the number of civs.

Also, people can want bigger maps for other considerations than mere logistic. For example, to have a better sense of the gigantism of the world. For things being more immersive and epic. What I have to say about Civ5, is that it dramatically lacks of epicness according to me. First thing, everything seems worldwide very early. (denouncing... so UNO) There's no this feeling you are a part of a small culture among others in savage times, for example. Even the style of the interface shouts it.
There's also a problem with exploring / rights of passage. Either you shouldn't know the world so early, either some remaining blanks are not realistic gameplay speaking. So either exploring shouldn't have such a range, either the absence of rights of passage shouldn't prevent you from exploring. All depends on what we want to represent with exploring in Civ. Most of the time most people just knew their direct environment. But, people migrate mostly by need (which implies "free lands" in some circumstances at least -people by themselves, and even cities, occupy an insignificant portion of the land). People trade. People talk, they can hear rumors. So what is exploring ? Is it having a precise notion of geography or just the ability to enter in contact or simply having some knowledge ? It's crucial for determining what type of feeling we could have in a Civ game, and as to consider it more like a board game or like a grand History immersion.

As to city density, it's all related to ICS. Do we want to settle cities regardless of space and resources, or should we make it so that we take attention to them when settling ? I would say it is of no importance if we want to fully settle the map as i want. Because, instead of settling cities right next to each others, you will settle them right spaced of each others. You will simply increase the space there is between them, not considering or not if you plant a new city or not. There will just be cities better than others, but nobody can ever avoid it. The "avoiding ICS at all costs" philosophy brang to Civ5, with full spaces full of nothing, which is a complete aberration history wise.
I suggest instead than we settle a new system of cities. For example, ICS should be natural at first. I would even say : for each tile, you may have a city / village / settlement. Later on, some cities can take more importance than the surrounding villages / settlements. At last, we have the rural exodus. (industrial revolution)

 

[rschissler]

When was Civ 5 announced and released?

Don't remember the dates, but it wasn't close to a "half year" of hype.

 

[Ribannah]

Some wishes for Civ6

1. Gameplay on a globe, with no more map distortions.
2. Conquering the world should be harder, rather than always be the fastest win.
3. Warfare for different purposes than conquest.
4. Programmable AI.
5. Designable, mixed units (e.g. 20% archer, 20% chariot, 60% spearman).
6. Larger visible area at the start of the game.
7. City growth to be calculated last.
8. Exploitation of the solar system.

 

[Browd]

When was Civ 5 announced and released?

Don't remember the dates, but it wasn't close to a "half year" of hype.

Civ V was announced in on February 18, 2010, with release targeted for "Fall 2010". The game was released on September 21, 2010 (technically the first day of Fall, I believe) -- 7 months from announcement to release.

 

[HorseshoeHermit]

Some wishes for Civ6


5. Designable, mixed units (e.g. 20% archer, 20% chariot, 60% spearman).

No, no unit workshop please. I see what you're saying as a middleground for the 1upt issue. I would prefer prefab units of set types just with melee + ranged support , pure melee, pure ranged. Design workshop, after theorycrafting, becomes just busywork unless using the workshop has a cost like C-evo.

Starting visibility I would like also. It would be interesting to play at the very end of the nomadic period into the beginning of sedentary life, and this could achieve organically an explored terrain to start.

 

[Haig]

No, no unit workshop please. I see what you're saying as a middleground for the 1upt issue. I would prefer prefab units of set types just with melee + ranged support , pure melee, pure ranged. Design workshop, after theorycrafting, becomes just busywork unless using the workshop has a cost like C-evo.

I think a solution that would work well and would satisfy most of the people would be limited stacking, a way to create "armies" of small stacks, let's say maximum of 5 to 10 units each.
You could have an army with 5 riflemen, supported by 3 artillery and 1 machine gun for example, or just a fast moving and attacking stack of just knights/tanks etc.
Navy units could be merged for fleets in this way too.

Would be more easier for AI to control these than just 1-unit-per-tile, and AI could be programmed for pre-set plans for stacks, siege stack, defensive etc.

* * * * * * *

As I type this it's the first day of 2016, anniversary day for Civilization.
I think we will get the big announcement any day now, only problem is that Xcom2 is arriving in february, so the announcement might be in March or so..

I'm hoping for Ed Beach as the main designer, he did great work with Civ V expansions.

 

[scarzo]

Just bring stack off doom again and many late game performance issues will be solved

 

[Sherlock]

How about:
1upt but you can escort units:
Swordsman can escort catapults, or maybe even archers. That gives us 1.5 upt

Also 1upt should not be applied to workers&settlers. Few worker units could work on the same tile creating the same improvement - but instead of 200% efficiency we would get 150%

How do you feel about octagons?

Very good ideas, that.

A swordsman/catapult combination might be pretty OP, but they could work it out.

 

[HorseshoeHermit]

This thread is fairly pointless though, it's just dividing the Civ VI speculation yet another way. One guy giving a 3 month-error-bar on a release date is nothing to chew on. What are we gonna do, debate an agree/disagree?

That said, leaving such justifications to Zeus, I will say again a unit workshop would be bad, but something's gotta give for the whole unit & combat question in Civ. Whatever decisions are made for unit mechanics, they need to support the tiling system choice, and the design schema on the 4-levels of war referenced in http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=559414 .

Unit positioning is supposed to matter on a strategic level. Invention of superior weapons is supposed to matter on a strategic level. I find the combat of Civ more compensating for the fact that tactics will enter into the outcome of conflict rather than designing for it, but I will receive resistance on this point.

Truly, a return to stacks (or the reinforce mechanism of ANY tactical 1upt game worth a bit), but with Civ V's manpower limits, flanking bonuses, could be enough to scrape this out without resorting to a design workshop, or... the kind of piecemeal (and stale-tasting) designs you'd have with prefab escort combos.

It's a Sophie's choice. Stacks / Tedium / Broken tactical system

 

[noto2]

For Civ 6, they MUST do one of two things, to improve the franchise:

Either spend most of their resources on improving the AI... the AI being the focal point of the new iteration, or

Spend most of the focus on making the game multiplayer friendly.

All other considerations are secondary. Everything depends on the AI, unless playing MP, which currently is not realistic due to the nature of the game.