[CiVI] Let the speculation begin!

[whyidie]

Count me in among the group who would rate combat a low priority. 1upt was a nice change for me, but I'm so combat weary at this point I'd easily go back to stacks or even accept mini-maps as long as I had auto-resolve.

To meet the beetle speculation requirement, I predict :

They will keep 1upt and focus on untangling the map size, production, unit movement problem. 1upt lead to reduced production due to map size constraints. Typical 2 movements per tile coupled with 1upt and all of the movement restrictions (jungle, hills, forests, rivers) resulted in combat and exploration being barriers to fun after many hours. Movement was a chore.

On to wishlist :

Free the game up. Movement (no waypoints, no grouping, no escorting, questionable pathfinding 1upt, terrain penalties) of a large empire became too realistic at least in terms of frustration. Make moving from place to place easy so I can enjoy exploring and fighting again.

Free the game up 2. Expansion was for the experts or the the low level players. You had to be really good or play on a low level (in which case the AI added nothing to the game because it was a paper tiger) to be able to build a sprawling empire. Would like to seem them loosen the belt on expansion a bit in the next iteration.

I loved that cargo ships tipped the balance to coastal cities. Enjoyed rivers getting the gold bonus in earlier versions. Thought they did well in other terrain types to provide a chance (oil/petra for desert starts) for other terrain. Did I quit more tundra starts than I played ? Sure! But I'd prefer that result to every game being blandly balanced.

Visual uniqueness. Let the players and AI do something with the maps that changes the visuals. Roads were fun to tweak in prior versions but became a luxury due to worker (no masses of them anymore) and cost constraints. Half the fun of building the Great Wall in this game was for the visual aspect of it. None of the other wonders stood out on the main map. Booh! Forts were ugly or I would have built more. Trading posts weren't fun to tweak. I don't know what the solution is, but give us and the AI a way make changes to the visuals of each city. I loved running into the occasional AI that spammed trading posts/mines/farms. Unfortunately each city looked the same more often than not. Make the visual differences more pronounced.

Tell me whats happening. So much of the complexity of the game was lost because it was not readily apparent. Japans wartime expansion sputtered because they had no iron ? Mongolia wasn't Mongolia because of a lack of access to horses ? Lack of aluminum lead to shuttering of Koreas space dreams ? Portugal screwed because that ocean turned out to be a lake ? Spain buoyed by discovery and settlement of fountain of youth ? Sweden is desperate for coal so they can pop ideologies ? So much happens in the game that you have to dig for. Make it easier for the casual player to create a narrative for their game by bringing some of this information to the fore. As tacky as it was those little newspaper flashes from prior versions would be a step in the right direction.

 

[KevinLandwaster]

As far as aesthetic changes, the guiding principle of a new generation of an industry-leading title is to do what could never have been possible in the older generation. The size, detail, realism and immersion would be increased as much as possible for today's hardware (with the ability to lower settings for those with less fortunate setups).

 

[Hakan-i Cihan]

I kinda wonder what will happen to city-states. The dumbed down stations in BE are not very appealing. So I hope in Civ 6 they will not take that route. The barbarian cities of Civ 4 were fun feature too, would they reintroduce them?

 

[nokmirt]

Civ6 will use a totally new 64 bit engine based on the new Oxide engine specialized for strategy games.

http://www.oxidegames.com/nitrous/

Let's hope they do something like that. Their current system is old and the AI is laughable and really bad. Civ 5 is still great and the AI can surprise you sometimes.

On another note. I am fine with the current map sizes. What we need is something that limits the number of units somehow. A manpower pool or something like that. Maybe limited stacking could work. An infantry unit that can have close in artillery support, for instance. Tanks with a machine gun company. Maybe specialized combat forces can be attached to units. Those specialized units are stacked, or there is a unit interface which is used to attach special units or unique abilities to a unit. This would keep the map from overcrowding. An example, I have a GW infantry unit and I want to add a specialization to it, such as a trench mortar company, a machine gun company, or a flamethrower company. As a unit gains experience it can gain more specialization. This system can be used for all eras. My spearmen could attach a group of slingers, or horsemen for support. Something like that. Air units can get upgrades, bi-planes can get machine gun upgrades, fuel upgrades for longer range, bomb upgrades, and so on. I am not sure if this is a good idea or not. Even if it was partially used it would reduce overcrowding, and it would imo make dealing with your military a bit more interesting. You can mold your army to your own liking.

 

[Browd]

Moderator Action: This has turned into an Ideas & Suggestions thread. Thread moved.

 

[hugojackson18]

That would explain the marketing survey for civ they've been pushing.

What are those surveys you're talking about? I'd love to take part

 

[Ikael]

Change:

Combat: Limited unit stacks. Yes, 1UPT had its problems, but it was, by all means, vastly superior to Civ 4's inifinite stacks of death. A good way to solve it would be to either give a maximum of units per tile according to terrain type (say, 2 units in a flat tile, 1 in rough) or to form armies a la Civilization Revolutions. A "strategic view" combat a la Endless Legend, while interesting, might end up being far too much of a deviation from the core game, me thinks.

Diplomacy: I never quite liked the City State mechanics, as it vastly limited your expansion and always felt too game-y. We need a proper, deep "player to player " type of diplomatic system. Secret pacts, diplomatic capital, cassus belli, whatever, just give me options for backstabb or conspire with another major civ.

Culture system: Go wild here. I love social policies, but culture is an incredible flexible concept open to many interpretaions so it is cool to see it reinvented from game to game, as long as it is properly integrated with other aspects of the game and its mechanics.

Preserve:

- Unique civilization traits: Because differenciation and different viable strategies is the spice of life. And strategy
-Common projects (world's fair and the likes)
- Archeology. Or some kind of late-game exploration mechanic. Seriously, this is a great concept
- The tech tree. No need to reinvent the wheel here. I have yet to see an alternative that works as well
- Trade route economy: It coul be tweaked and improved, but I love its concept of gaining gold by controlling strategic cities / chokepoints (as it happened in real life)

Add:

- A proper expansion limiting mechanism. Happiness was a failure, so we should go back to the drawing board, me thinks
- A more powerful, easy to use modding tool since day 1
- Goverments!

 

[TheMarshmallowBear]

Some of my suggestions

- Stability as a anti-measure to prevent snowball effect
- It's a yield that is modified. If it starts to degenerate then you're in trouble
- The further the city is from. The more Instability it causes. (simulates colonies)
- You can puppet cities for lower Stability penalty (they cost less to maintain). You can vassalize city/states nations (you can see what they are doing, they are 50% under your control and provide % of their yields for you.
- Low stability causes your nation to collapse. Forming new minor nations (they don't expand, but each minor civ that is formely a major nation has a unique trait that acts like an agreement from BERT.
- City States are no longer divided into "types" but have their own minor traits.

Diplomacy
- Bring in a simplified method of trade. Each item on the list has a price. Depending on your relationship with another civ, you can ask for 25% or they will demand 25% more back (GuardedHostile civs will only buy something at the 75% price. And sell at 125%, vice versa for friendships.
- War Score is back. The same system from BERT is in. But when asking for peace, you can ask for items with their corresponding prices.
- You don't outright conquer cities, you occupy them, it disables them until they are taken back or war is over. They cost 50% less in a peace deal than a non-occupied city.

RELIGION
- You don't use a Prophet to enhance, you spend Piety points (inspired by Piety & Prestige
- Concept of State Religion is back.
- Each religion grants +1 culture/faith in cities with a Majority Followers (i.e 50% of the citizens follow, but you don't have it as a State Religion)
- Additional +1 culture/faith in cities if Majority Followers and State Religion (so +2)
- +5 Culture and Faith in Holy Cities
- Piety points unlock the Beliefs
- Pantheon is back. And is earned via Faith like in G&K/BNW
- Use a Prophet to found a religion, it starts a religion in the city you used, but you only get to pick a Founder Belief. If a Holy city is conquered, control of the religion is granted to the person in control of the Holy City. Each Belief costs say 150 faith. (or more). If you happen to control two or more, then the non-state religion is 100% more expensive to "enhance"
- Belief types include
- A Founder Belief (a bonus that helps the Founder/Holy City controller, a perk only they gain advantage of. I.e Happines for every X cities that follow this religion.
- A Follower Belief (a perk that everyone who has this religion as State Religion.
- A Building Belief (unlocks a line of buildings, similiar to that of Civ 4, i.e Monastery > Temple > Pagoda/Cathedral/Church etc.
- A Wonder Belief (like in Civ 4) that grants an additional bonus. But can be built by anybody (so watch out)
- An Enhancer Belief (something that enhances how the religion is spread. Additional Spread by Missionaries, stronger Missionaries, cheaper faith purchases etc.

I also want Apostolic Palace systems (Congress on Majority Religion and grants bonuses to those who are part of it, and punishes those who aren't) as well as World Congress/U.N.

A combination of Government, Social Engineering/Civis and Policies

- Government are a constant perk that you get as lon gas you are in that GOvernment. For example. Communism could increase gold between cities but decrease trade opportunities with other civs. Democracy would make your people happier (represntation of freedom of speech and stuff. Id unno. exmaples here).
- Social Engineering (like in Alpha Centauri) could adjust your yields. (including Health, Happiness, Stability etc.)
- Civics could unlocks smaller perks (Forced Labor, use population to purchase things/finish things off. But Every Civic would give something good and negative. Forced Labor would decrease both unhappiness and stability when used.)
- Policies (would be a similiar to current system. Perks that enhance your empire.

Each Civic and Policy category would match. So there'd be policies in Government and Civics in Government

---

Adjusted UI. I really hate the "lists" of buildilngs, it's very confusing.

How about a "upgrade/tier system". Each "yield" would have it's corresponding buildings (Health = Aqueduct, Food = Granary, Science = Library, Production = Workshop)

Instead of having a list of buildings you'd just have a box and just choose it this wya, with seperate areas for Terrain Based, Resource Based and Wonders. Units would be alot similiar. Would de-clutter late-game lists (oh my god the late game lists!)

--
I think they should introduce The Events and Decisions system.

In additional to regular quests. Each Civ would have a set of three unique goals they can acheive (For example, Elizabeth could have a goal that requires you to colonize X landmasses). This, when completed, would unlock a perk (reduced stability for new land-mass cities). Yes, inspired by RFC but I think it would help each game to go in unique differences. As unique as all the civs are, I noticed that you still end up using the same strategieis, regardless of what nation you are. But the Events and Decisions mod actually encourages you to do new stuff outside of your typical strategy.


In hindisght, what I want is that every turn I need to do something interesting so you NEVER end up just clicking "NExt Turn"

I don't see any harm in them borrowing ideas from EU4. Why? Because EU4 is a Real-Time Strategy. They don't need to go overboard and complicate it to the max, they could add simpilified mechanics and just go from there. Especially since they can just introduce mechanics slowly (like they are now, Religion starts around Classical Era at latest, Congress at Renaissance etc.)

I just want more toys to play with. I want Civ 6 to be more of a Empire Management game that combines Boardgame elements rather than being one or the other.

I think it's possible tbh.

 

[SantoshKashyap]

I used to play Civ5 a lot, for the last 4 months when i started playing EU4, I don't play Civ5 much. EU4 holds much charm.

Diplomacy is something Civ5 is worst at. Trade is conceptually very different, but there is nothing wrong introducing what is better.

 

[TheMarshmallowBear]

I used to play Civ5 a lot, for the last 4 months when i started playing EU4, I don't play Civ5 much. EU4 holds much charm.

Diplomacy is something Civ5 is worst at. Trade is conceptually very different, but there is nothing wrong introducing what is better.

I think it's universally agreed that the Diplomacy system and AI are the worst things about Civ 5.

 

[dagriggstar]

Barbarians should be more powerful and specifically target the stronger civs in the game. If you think about it, makes sense for the barbs to go after whichever civ has a lot of gold/land/power. Imagine having a barb leader spawn on your borders with a bunch of units. That is your true runaway civ deterrent, much more simple than most other suggestions.

 

[beetle]

Okay, here my latest prognostication:

VI will give you the option for AI opponents that use variants that have been “trained”. These will versions of the main civs that have learned over time what tactics works well and what does not. One example is retreating units into the water “for safety”. Everything is all “opt-in”, so no real privacy concerns. I am not sure what they can do to have the AI learning from good players and not poor ones, but maybe statistically that does not matter? It will take a couple of years to tell if the feature is working...

 

[Sync]

I hope they forget about Civ5 altogether. All I want is a game that enhances on the features of Civ4.

Civ5 went for mainstream appeal, and forgot all about empire management as a result. I played it less than a week in 2010 before going back to Civ4. Been waiting that long for a decent sequel.

 

[Ikael]

Take the best of the 2 worlds:

Civilization 5 hexes & combat (or perhaps Limited Units per Tile, as opposed as just one. Whatever you do, do not bring back stacks of death please)

+

Civilization 4 empire building and administration aspects

=

Best. Civilization. Game. EVER

 

[Matthew.]

I hope we get some info on Civ 6 soon. I would be happy with a couple of screenshots, even if it is just alpha, just to get an idea of the art direction. Of course I say that now, but if we did get screenshots, then I would still want more

I'm not too picky on the specifics. As seen from this website alone, fans of the game have very different ideas of what Civ "should be", and I naturally don't expect Civ 6 to be catered to me personally. The one thing I do want is for them to take a step back and look at the game as a whole. Many of us could write pages of what went wrong with BE, but overall the main problem for a lot of us was it just simply wasn't fun to play, which is a problem of the core.

I'm sure we will still be complaining about things like "why is so and so the chosen leader?" or "why isn't Canada in the game?" or "stack of doom vs. 1UPT", but those things are minor to me. If the game is fun to play, that is my main concern.

 

[nimling]

I won't have any interest in Civ VI most likely. Maybe 3-5 years after its initial release, if Firaxis learns how to make decent games and stops making Zynga games with crappy DLC. The basic game has to be something worth playing though. If you have to tell yourself that the expansion fixes everything, you are fooling yourself. Fortunately, Civ4 has enough replay value and mod potential to still be fun after a decade, and there are far better turn-based games on the market. Some day a developer will get the balls to make a straight-up replacement for the series and Firaxis will lose their cash cow, if they repeat the same mistakes.

If the current people at Firaxis are in charge, they've stated in interviews that they're committed to 1UPT, so it does not bode well for any potential Civ hopes - unless Firaxis does an about face and was just trying to sell a broken product without fixing it.

One thing that can be done to vastly improve MP would be to implement true simultaneous turns, instead of the bad RTS garbage that makes Civ5 MP a total joke on top of the game's inherently bad design. How to go about it is a tough decision - should it be the basis of the game's design and thus alienate old-timers that want a traditional turn-based SP game, or should simultaneous turn resolution be an option turned off by default?

If Civ5 had that feature alone, it would make MP a bearable experience. Of course, 1UPT makes it impossible, but that is yet another reason why 1UPT is horrible.

 

[Gorbles]

Civ 4 is a terribly-flawed game that is only made playable through the existence of the fantastic mod scene. I wish I knew why people hyped it up as a good example of games design. It was decent for the time it was released, in the genre? Sure. But these days design has evolved, and for good reasons.

 

[Ikael]

Nah, both Civ 5 & 4 with their full expansions are terrific games in their own right. The only thing that I would critisize harshly is Civ 5's vainilla horrible semi-beta release state. That wasn't a finished product, and I do hope that Firaxis try a bit more betatesting before releasing their games like that.

Other than that, both games follow quite different game philosophies. Civ 5 drew lots of influences from board games and Panzer Generals, while Civ 4 went trought a more "realistic" (less abstract) route. I now wonder which will be the inspirations for this new entry on the series!

 

[Gorbles]

I was being overly-pointed, heh, but "in their own right" is, for me, "at the time they were released". The games development scene is constantly evolving - the original Civilisation was stellar at the time (and I sank countless hours into it) but I wouldn't call it a good game by today's standards. It is a notable and important part of the genre's history, sure. As is Civ 4.

But people keep hyping it these days - Civ 4, that is - as a game that stands up by itself? Nah, it's the mods that do it. I had a friend who was amazingly into Fall from Heaven, back in the day. Almost sold me on the game itself. But that was a while ago, 2008? 2009? I forget.

CiV isn't perfect either, but it's the most recent iteration and brings more modern design principles to the table. People can scream about "dumbing down" but complexity for the sake of complexity / to please people who just want artificial complexity is bad, as well.

The concepts that are omnipresent throughout the Civilisation series are the ones that stand "the test of time", hah. Some versions of the game might not have all of these concepts, but if they're good concepts at their core they will always return in some form - that's how games development works. To be fair it's how any creative endeavours work - see the instant and massive rise of "bullet time" themes in the days since the Matrix. The concept has since died back down and is sometimes utilised to a moderate extent for a significant impact. It's how things evolve.

 

[Ikael]

But people keep hyping it these days - Civ 4, that is - as a game that stands up by itself? Nah, it's the mods that do it. I had a friend who was amazingly into Fall from Heaven, back in the day. Almost sold me on the game itself. But that was a while ago, 2008? 2009? I forget.

CiV isn't perfect either, but it's the most recent iteration and brings more modern design principles to the table. People can scream about "dumbing down" but complexity for the sake of complexity / to please people who just want artificial complexity is bad, as well.

More modern doesn't mean necesarily better. And while I also don't like "overdesigned" systems nor complexity for complexity's shake, complexity does have its place. In fact, a lot of the Civ 5's mistakes steam from the fact that the developers employed the boardgame design mentality of "the less complex the better, the more board presence the better" route. Take the happiness system for example, and how it needed to be made complex and heavily reformulated in order to work and avoid city spam. Previous mechanisms such as corruption and manteinance worked better in that regard because despite of them being complex, they were also invisible to the player's eye (calculous were made in the background) and thus, were non-intrusive, which is a luxury that board games don't have. Like most things in life, game design is a balancing act, me thinks.

The concepts that are omnipresent throughout the Civilisation series are the ones that stand "the test of time", hah. Some versions of the game might not have all of these concepts, but if they're good concepts at their core they will always return in some form - that's how games development works. To be fair it's how any creative endeavours work - see the instant and massive rise of "bullet time" themes in the days since the Matrix. The concept has since died back down and is sometimes utilised to a moderate extent for a significant impact. It's how things evolve.

I strongly agree with this, that is a very smart observation! Good ideas gets carried on into the next installments (culture, religion, manteinance, etc) while the not-so-good ones gets tossed aside or reinvented (health, corruption, stacks of death, etc).

Taking that into account, this would be my "evolutionary choices" for the saga:

Preserve: Culture, Archeology, limited-units per turn, trade route economy, hexes, unique abilities
Scrap: Hapinness system as an expansion limiting mechanism, the diplomatic system
Bring back: Goverments (!), manteinance system as an alternative to the corruption & happiness systems (make cities an investment, so to speak)