[CiVI] Let the speculation begin!

[algeriangeneral]

A 3d terrain would be appreciated, I mean with different elevations, this could make the "board" more alive and organic

 

[epicivfreak]

I hope the switch to hex tiles for Civ 5 was a conservative move by Firaxis to gauge the fan reaction before wrapping those hex tiles onto a sphere in Civ 6...

I'd almost be willing to pay full price for Civ 6, if all they did was take Civ 5 Complete, wrap the tiles onto a sphere, do a bit of optimization to improve the game performance, and improve the AI a bit.
Of course, I just started playing Civ 5 a few months ago, so I'm probably the only one that would be willing.

 

[Gorbles]

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.

[...]

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)

1. More modern doesn't automatically mean better, absolutely. Sorry if I gave that impression.

That said, it mostly corresponds (see: the later paragraph you agree with). The usual case of taking a backstep (usually mechanically, graphics doesn't tend to) will normally be down to a lack of time to get that feature integrated, or a complete incompatibility with the new technology base that needs time to be redeveloped from the ground-up (similar to my first line, but actually in terms of software development really different). Stuff isn't always cut because it sucks, no.

2. Case in point - Governments! Everyone seems to like 'em. I'm not that fussed but from a mechanical perspective they make sense as a previous core feature that would integrate well into the gameplay to restore a level of depth that wasn't available in CiV.

Sensible set of suggestions there really, they actually mirror what I'd like to see (I was always a fan of Archaeology in CiV, though it got a bit repetitive after a while. Improving on that would be great).

I don't think Diplomacy needs to go, I think it's a core part of dealing with other players (including giving the AI characterisation). The work done in Beyond Earth alone I think shows that Firaxis as a whole are still willing to do significant iterations on that concept (whether it succeeds or not, is obviously up to the end result).

 

[MadDjinn]

I don't think Diplomacy needs to go, I think it's a core part of dealing with other players (including giving the AI characterisation). The work done in Beyond Earth alone I think shows that Firaxis as a whole are still willing to do significant iterations on that concept (whether it succeeds or not, is obviously up to the end result).

The systems that were put in place for 'diplomacy' in CivV and BE:/RT were bad.

fake choices -
:: get a pop up to respond to an AIs taunt and find that both choices are null value returns. Ie, no matter the choice it did not affect the relationship between you and the AI. This is where most people would have expected 'diplomacy', but it was lacking.

AI trading --- all this really did was open abuse of the AI for selling them stuff they didn't want or need, but they'd buy it regardless. More nuance or effort could have been made here. Some stuff wasn't even things that should be 'sold'.

AI peace deals --- better near the end in CivV (7 layers) but the AI was never taught bartering. Ie, this city is worth 'x' value. gold is worth 'y' value. remove a city from the trade deal, how much gold would you give instead?

(BE's direction was a bit better, but totally misguided on what should have been in the peace deals).

etc etc


All of that stuff can happily burn in a pile and get replaced by a more interactive, choice fulfilling, style of diplomacy.

 

[Gorbles]

Hey, I wasn't evaluating their success, just saying the Firaxis are open to re-doing the system as a whole

People shouldn't be put off by one iteration of it, imo.

 

[Ikael]

1. More modern doesn't automatically mean better, absolutely. Sorry if I gave that impression.

That said, it mostly corresponds (see: the later paragraph you agree with). The usual case of taking a backstep (usually mechanically, graphics doesn't tend to) will normally be down to a lack of time to get that feature integrated, or a complete incompatibility with the new technology base that needs time to be redeveloped from the ground-up (similar to my first line, but actually in terms of software development really different). Stuff isn't always cut because it sucks, no.

I get where are you coming from, several of my friends works in game development too but this is a valid critic, me thinks, specially because many features are not merely add ons like, say religion in Civ 5, but some are downright integral to the workings of the game, due to the inter-relationship with other systems.

Hence why releasing the game without finishing said systems first is a really bad idea, because the game doesn't merely become "incomplete", it gets downright unplayable. And it is specially infuriating when the "incomplete" part is not even something as labor intensive as a whole system to be implemented (like, say, religion) but rather is something as trivial as a simple labour of theoretical game design or beta testing (that is, number adjustement). The whole "buildings which were not worth their production costs" of Civ 5 vainilla or "wonders worse than regular buildings" of Beyond Earth were sheer infamy.

2. Case in point - Governments! Everyone seems to like 'em. I'm not that fussed but from a mechanical perspective they make sense as a previous core feature that would integrate well into the gameplay to restore a level of depth that wasn't available in CiV.

Sensible set of suggestions there really, they actually mirror what I'd like to see (I was always a fan of Archaeology in CiV, though it got a bit repetitive after a while. Improving on that would be great).

I don't think Diplomacy needs to go, I think it's a core part of dealing with other players (including giving the AI characterisation). The work done in Beyond Earth alone I think shows that Firaxis as a whole are still willing to do significant iterations on that concept (whether it succeeds or not, is obviously up to the end result).

I say HELL YES to bringing goverments back! and archeology too! They are incredible game mechanics! Goverments adds another layer of complexity to the game and to the factions, while archeology gives the player a second awesome "wave of exploration" once the world map has already been revealed. I wholly agree!

As for diplomacy, I think that it was undoubtely one of the weakests points of Civ 5, albeit that also got aggravated by the poor AI. Also, I am glad to see that Firaxis acknowdegling the problem and toying with new diplomatic systems on Beyond Earth. I would really like to see something along the lines of diplomatic capital / cassus belli acting inthe next installment of civilization, some preassure force with in game consequences that will "tilt" your civilization towards backstabbing and compromises. There's certainly room for improvement here.

 

[beetle]

...many features are not merely add ons like, say religion in Civ 5, but some are downright integral to the workings of the game, due to the inter-relationship with other systems.

This is where I don't think Brian Reynolds gets enough credit. The City State mechanics are a huge change from previous iterations. Correct me if I am forgetting something, but is that aspect of the game not unchanged from release? Also fundamentally unchanged from release is hexes and 1UPT. Obviously the latter choice remains controversial, but again a huge change previous iterations -- and one that Firaxis has not backed down from at all. Even Global Happiness, again a pretty major shift, seems to me works the same as it did at release. I think I would put the decreased yield from plot improvements in this category as well.

In terms of major new game mechanics, I am of the opinion that V has needed less patching than what we experienced with IV and III.

OTOH, the change from 10 HP base to 100 is pretty fundamental. And I am not sure it is much of an endorsement for me to be arguing that V was less broken upon release than III and IV were!

 

[SupremacyKing2]

As for diplomacy, I think that it was undoubtely one of the weakests points of Civ 5, albeit that also got aggravated by the poor AI. Also, I am glad to see that Firaxis acknowdegling the problem and toying with new diplomatic systems on Beyond Earth. I would really like to see something along the lines of diplomatic capital / cassus belli acting inthe next installment of civilization, some preassure force with in game consequences that will "tilt" your civilization towards backstabbing and compromises. There's certainly room for improvement here.

I think civ6's diplomacy should be the best of both worlds (best parts of civ5's diplo like the trade table and the best parts of Rising Tide's new diplo like the leader traits and agreements) with a more conversational tone added to it.

 

[cazaderonus]

Me, i hope Civ VI focuses on AI and diplomacy.I'd also love to see more micro management of the empire through governments.

On war, i'd love to see a more complex system regarding occupied territory and conquering cities. Maybe have bigger city limits with bigger maps, with more point added toward siege etc... Like maybe being able to use benefits from tiles occupied even if war is still ongoing. Maybe being able to shift borders after a while. Would maybe add more suddle layers in the reason to go into conflicts with an opponent.

Finally, please keep 1UPT with maybe wider maps to avoid too frequent land bottlenecks (which goes with my point on cities and war).


And the big question, when do you guys think we'll hear about civ VI now that XCOM2 is pretty much released ?

 

[dunkleosteus]

I just hope you can't exploit city states by early worker stealing, like in Civ5. This was the most game breaking thing to me, especially in multiplayer. Took so much away from the early game priority build. Bad for singleplayer too of course, since this possibility easely becomes too tempting, and the consequences are benefits over the AI and a less interesting decission making process in the early game.

I'd also like to see alot of focus on the empire management aspects of the game, and hopefully they aim for a bigger and more epic game then ever with loads of hard, long term decissions to make.

What you are describing is called slavery, when a larger, more powerful civilization invades a smaller one and captures civilians to take back to their own cities for cheap labour.

 

[dunkleosteus]

Civ V introduced hexes instead of squares, I'd like to see more innovation with terrain. Hexes make for interesting movement and strategy, I think it would be interesting to have altitude variations- with different altitudes offering different climates. It doesn't have to be amazingly complex, you just have to have a few discrete elevations, but I think it is interesting to have river valleys, low lying flats and plains, escarpments, etc. Moving into higher elevation takes extra movement while moving out of it (may) not, depending on the situation. Some areas may have impassable cliffs between elevations while others have gradual inclines (in some manner) to allow movement between them.

I think 1upt is very important. It makes terrain vitally important, and that is why I don't like having an alternate combat screen for warfare. I cannot plan my battle until I open the combat interface and can see the terrain. If the terrain is always static in this interface, we lose all sense of strategy- there will be one supreme design to beat the opponent. If the terrain is unique to each battle, I have no idea how to plan and coordinate my troops until this window opens and therefore I MUST take time to examine the field when it opens. This means each tile of combat could take up to 5 minutes while I organize my units. AI might be able to be programmed for this, but in a multi player game, a single turn of war might take half an hour. This is horrible.

I'd like to see a change in how religion exists in the game. Religion and culture are so deeply intertwined in reality it's a shame that they are so separate in civ. I think players should have more options for customizing the culture of their people. Sure, we have "policies" but that's more of a political decision, isn't it? I want my people to hold festivals for their gods, or to develop elaborate costumes made from their local silk in dramatic performances. I want them to have myths and stories and foods and traditions, all wrapped up together. I want flavour from my civ, not the same old Tithe-Pagoda religion every game.

 

[SupremacyKing2]

I think 1upt is very important. It makes terrain vitally important, and that is why I don't like having an alternate combat screen for warfare. I cannot plan my battle until I open the combat interface and can see the terrain. If the terrain is always static in this interface, we lose all sense of strategy- there will be one supreme design to beat the opponent. If the terrain is unique to each battle, I have no idea how to plan and coordinate my troops until this window opens and therefore I MUST take time to examine the field when it opens. This means each tile of combat could take up to 5 minutes while I organize my units. AI might be able to be programmed for this, but in a multi player game, a single turn of war might take half an hour. This is horrible

I agree terrain should be important. But the game could make it better by adding better combat modifiers. For example, cavalry on higher ground gets a +30% attack bonus. I don't think 1upt should be saved just to make terrain relevant.

And in my tactical map idea, the terrain on the tactical map would always match the terrain on the strategic map so that would solve your concern. Players would know from the strategic map, what the terrain would be like during the tactical combat phase. Plus, the tactical map would be small enough that it would not take very long to resolve battles. All the strategy and terrain considerations that you want would still exist, it would just be moved to a tactical map where it belongs. The strategic map should be for strategic level movement, not tactics. In other words, 1upt belongs on a tactical battle map, not the strategic map.

 

[dunkleosteus]

I agree terrain should be important. But the game could make it better by adding better combat modifiers. For example, cavalry on higher ground gets a +30% attack bonus. I don't think 1upt should be saved just to make terrain relevant.

And in my tactical map idea, the terrain on the tactical map would always match the terrain on the strategic map so that would solve your concern. Players would know from the strategic map, what the terrain would be like during the tactical combat phase. Plus, the tactical map would be small enough that it would not take very long to resolve battles. All the strategy and terrain considerations that you want would still exist, it would just be moved to a tactical map where it belongs. The strategic map should be for strategic level movement, not tactics. In other words, 1upt belongs on a tactical battle map, not the strategic map.

I think I'd have to see it implemented before I could decide if I liked a system like that.

 

[daft]

I've heard nothing but constant complaint about 1UPT up till recently, but now, since the new iteration is upon us and quite to my amazement, it's to the contrary!

Most of the posts in this thread state how they expect this insane concept back in CIVVI!

Combat, throughout ages has been based on ARMIES! the whole 1UPT baloney makes no historical/geographical/military sense at all!

Combine different types of units into armies, with a army unit maximum of course, upon start of battle select the order and direction in which each of the units in your army engages the enemy.

What would be so friggin' hard about that? And wouldn't that be more fun and make a lot more sense?

 

[cazaderonus]

I've heard nothing but constant complaint about 1UPT up till recently, but now, since the new iteration is upon us and quite to my amazement, it's to the contrary!

Most of the posts in this thread state how they expect this insane concept back in CIVVI!

Combat, throughout ages has been based on ARMIES! the whole 1UPT baloney makes no historical/geographical/military sense at all!

Combine different types of units into armies, with a army unit maximum of course, upon start of battle select the order and direction in which each of the units in your army engages the enemy.

What would be so friggin' hard about that? And wouldn't that be more fun and make a lot more sense?

I m all for 1UPT because civ IV was just stupid with the infinite stack of doom. What was better in having armies of 30 units occupy one small piece of land ? Imo The real issue with civ V is really the scale of units vs land. Units too way too much space to make 1UPT remotely strategic. And i'm sure the strength of units and the overall kinda meh combat dynamic comes from here.

Now, i would agree with a system that allows to mix units with an impact on the fused unit behavior. For example, mix an archer and a melee unit, get one unique unit that gets a range attack before going melee, and has the perk of having a melee defense when attacked by a melee only unit.

Or i could live with a 3 units per tile system i guess. But then i'd like to see a visual of all 3 units on the tile and not switching between units like in civ IV.

But despite which system is picked, as long as its not civ IV's infinite stack, i'd really like to see a better scale. Like one CIV V tile becoming 6 to 10 separate tiles. Obviously you'd need to scale movements, city limits, worker speed, resources etc...

But moving armies, strategy in approaching a target etc. would be a lot more interesting with 1UPT or something like 3UPT.

I hope what i mean is understandable

 

[Ikael]

I think that nobody wants the return of the stacks of death. Hell, I am the biggest Civ 4 fan there is, but even I can admit that its combat system was horrible.

I think that as a way to solve this problem would be a middle of the road solution: Limited units per tile.

- Oceans and flat terrain: You can stack up to 2 military units inside the same hex

- Rough terrain: You can only have one military unit per hex

- Cities: You can initially only station 1 unit inside the same hex, but you can increase their capacity trought defensive buildings (a castle would give +1 to city garrison, a military base would increase it even further, and so on)

- Armies (created trought great generals): You can stack up to 3 military units under the same hex. They can only traverse flat terrain or rough terrain with roads.

- Fortress improvement can increase in 1 the units that you can station in the hex

Such a system would have many advantages:

- It avoids both Civ5's "carpet of death" and Civ 4 "stack of doom" problems
- It offers a real distinction between flat VS rough terrain VS naval warfare VS city sieges, with terrain heavyly conditioning player's strategies
- The distinction between civilizian VS military units allows the hassle-free flow of missionaries, merchants and the likes between military borders
- It Allows the player the creation of their own army composition and combos, allowing deeper complementary roles for units paired together
- It gives defense buildings a more meaningful role
- It makes armies and great generals a "doomsday weapon"
- It relates city improvements and warfare, making it useful to have workers in the frontlines as it happened in the real world (so they can build fortresses for stacking up more soldiers and roads so your armies can traverse rough terrain)

In terms of major new game mechanics, I am of the opinion that V has needed less patching than what we experienced with IV and III.

OTOH, the change from 10 HP base to 100 is pretty fundamental. And I am not sure it is much of an endorsement for me to be arguing that V was less broken upon release than III and IV were!

Oh God I already forgot about that XD seriously guys, Civ 5 vainilla on its release date was on a beta state, to put it kindly. And a lot of its flaws were infuriating because they were existed not due to incompletion or rushing release dates, but were things that could be solved by minimum effort by sitting down and thinking about the game itself for an hour or so, as in, extremely basic game design flaws.

 

[beetle]

I've heard nothing but constant complaint about 1UPT up till recently, but now, since the new iteration is upon us and quite to my amazement, it's to the contrary!

Interesting, as I would characterize the situation as exactly the opposite!

Civ 5 vainilla on its release date was on a beta state, to put it kindly.

Yes, but are still selling it in that format! Does that not imply they think Vanilla is a good enough product?

But I could easily be forgetting about some broken fundamentals! (As opposed to the broken fundamentals we still have, say around Diplomancy and MP.)

Vanilla, as compared to GnK, has remarkably simple gameplay. But is that bad if you are trying to hook people new to the series?

Compare that to IV (and I think III as well) where the balance patches for the first year (maybe longer) were such that you couldn't compare earlier experiences. There has been some of that, but I don't feel my games without cocoa and bison are not about the same as the later ones!

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

1UPT versus MUPT: Let me throw in a few thoughts.

Personally, I think the way to go is a Tactical Battlefield into which all the tactical complexities can be thrown to keep the whole enchilada off the main, Strategic Map. BUT it appears I am in the minority on that, so here are some 'strategic map' thoughts...

'Pure' 1UPT with each unit completely differentiated is space-intensive. We've all watched with, I am sure, varying degrees of amusement/frustration as we watch the AI , or ourselves, try to maneuver melee, mounted, ranged and deranged units into position on the map, while avoiding the dreaded ranged factor from a medium-sized City Unit and threading units between mountain tiles... It ain't pretty. To 'expand' the map and numbers of tiles so that there is a semi-tactical space available for units is a Losing Game: limits of CPU and GPU power, AI power and even human brain power make maneuvering masses of Individual Units a nightmare - or at least a Night Shetland Pony. By the end-game, or even the late middle-game (Industrial Era and later) the numbers of 'units' proliferate, unless you have selected the most Pacific AI Opponents available, and even then - well, we all know that even AI Gandhi will Nuke you to Nirvana if you push him...

IF we must have Stacks, they must be limited. This is both common sense and historical. I suggest, however, that the limitations vary with technology available as well as terrain throughout the game, and be based on the ability to Supply a concentration of people in one place.

For example, from the start you might be able to stack 2 military units plus an equal number of 'civilian' units (Settlers, Workers, Great People, etc). BUT, on Tundra, Ice, or un-bonused Desert tiles, that total is Halved - there is no way, in 4000 BCE, to feed any great number of people in that terrain. You might even absolutely Prohibit units moving through Tundra and Ice terrain (without taking Damage) unless they are Scouts or 'natives' - barbarian camps that spawn on those terrain types would obviously know how to thrive there, and could be hired to fight there, as well. Some 'regular' Civ Unique Units (or even a Promotion?) might make it easier to move and fight in Bad Terrain - Norwegian Ski troops come to mind, or Camel Archers in the desert.

IF a stack can trace a Supply Line to a friendly city or cities, as many units as there are population points in the city can be 'supplied' wherever they are. BUT note that at the beginning of the game, the only 'supply line' that can carry enough food to supply any large number of troops will have to be along a river or along the coast - no overland route using animal-drawn vehicles or pack animals can carry more than about 100 - 200 miles before the draft animals eat up the equivalent weight that they are carrying - Zero Sum Supplies, and this held true from Alexander the Great to the horse-drawn German supplies on the Eastern Front in WWII - it has almost the weight of Historical Law.

You can extend supply lines - roads will do it for a few tiles, but no further. Later in the game, railroads extend supplies virtually indefinitely, and powered ships likewise over sea and up and down rivers, and Depots can be built and stocked (possibly requiring expenditure of a Great General?) to act as Supply Sources. By the time you get to the middle Industrial Era you can supply huge stacks just about anywhere there are cities.

Until some enemy submarine or light cavalry/tank force cuts your supply line.

You can 'live off the land' if the land will support you: All-Mounted Cavalry units of certain types (Huns, Mongols, Commanche Riders) were notoriously good at this. Razing farms, in game terms, might act to feed X units in a single stack, but of course that means (and this is also historically accurate) your stack has to keep moving - no settling down to besiege or attack a city without taking nasty casualties to starvation, accompanied by disease and desertion.

Those are my thoughts on Stacks and Stacking.

Now, about the single units.

Right now, Civ V (and previous Civ games, for that matter) defines a military 'unit' pretty vaguely. Most units are called by the name of the individual in the ranks: Keshik, Janissary, Archer, Swordsman, Rifleman, etc. Some, however, are designated as a military unit - the Roman Legion springs instantly to mind. Depending on the time period between about 300 BCE and 400 CE, a 'Legion' could be 1000 to 5000 men, and composed of armored swordsmen, spearmen, javelin-throwers, with varying numbers of cavalrymen, slingers, archers, and unarmored light infantry attached.

So, why not designate every 'unit' on the strategic map as a Military Unit from the start?

Initially, it will be pretty primitive: a Band or Group of archers, warriors, spearmen OR a mix of them. Early armies simply didn't have the organization, hierarchy, and structure to be sophisticated, and so foot and mounted tended to act entirely separately, archers fired until they ran out of arrows and then went home leaving the warriors and spearmen to hack at each other all by themselves.

So, initial Military Units would be Bands of, perhaps, 2 - 3 'counters' or Sub-Units (the current individual Units in the game). IF the total Ranged Factor is higher than the Melee Factor, the resulting unit will act like a Ranged Unit - they will not charge or initiate a melee. BUT if the Melee Factor is higher, they are willing and equipped to 'get stuck in' while, perhaps, some accompanying archers/slingers/javelin throwers fire a volley or two in support. This extends the current Zulu Impi 'Fire and Charge' to more units, in more situations, at more ranges. On defense, attackers could take (especially in the late game) serious casualties from the Ranged element before reaching the Melee elements in the unit.

By the time you get to Gunpowder weaponry, almost all 'Melee' units would also have 'Ranged' factors BUT, units like Riflemen, Infantry, Landslips, Tanks, and such would have Melee Factors higher than their Ranged factors, because their Purpose on the battlefield is to Close With and Destroy the Enemy (to quote the US Army's Infantry School). Artillery of any kind, normally, does not 'charge' - its Ranged Factor is so much higher than its Melee Factor it would be Suicidally Stupid to do so. Same thing is true of archers, longbowmen, and other pre-gunpowder 'ranged' troops - no Longbowman also bothered to wear full armor and carry a longsword - he didn't have time to train to use both the bow and the sword, and armor would just slow him down when it came time to Run Like Hell if the enemy got too close or he ran out of arrows before he ran out of targets.

Later in the game, the Military Units could each have up to 5 'slots' for 'counters', and they would each represent, notionally, a Brigade or Division - and do so much more accurately than the 'Units' in Civ V do now.

For instance, a German Panzer Division for most of WWII (1941 - 45) in game terms would consist of 1 Panzer, 2 Infantry (Motorized), 1 Artillery (Motorized) and one either Antitank (Motorized) or another Panzer counters. This Unit has a massive Melee Factor, can all move at the Panzer Speed, and also has a nasty Ranged Factor on Defense (infantry, antitank, artillery) and Attack (Artillery, Infantry).

Individual counters would have to be 'built' separately at first, but by the Industrial Era, I suggest a Military Maneuver/Training Area Improvement (Munsterlager, Fort Hood, Salisbury Plain, Kubinka Polygon, just to name some historical examples) could form the 'combined arms' Military Unit automatically right out of the Production Queues for any set of cities linked to it by rail or sea Trade Route/port/harbor.

You could 'customize' your Units or use Historical Examples - but I would point out there is, in some cases, a wide, wide range of Historical Examples, sometimes for each individual unit. Just for examples, there were at least 3 - 4 different varieties of 'Roman Legion' during the time legions were used, and the German 'Panzer Division' in just 10 years went through at least 3 major revisions in its components.

Something like the 'Military Organization' unit, even with 1UPT, would go a long way to reducing the 'traffic jam' effect of 1UPT on the 'strategic' map, and the historical/technological progress of the game would allow a logical increasing concentration of 'combat power' in the Military Units, so that the increasing proliferation of individual units in the late game is matched by increasing concentration in Military Units and reduction of individual units/counters all over the map.

 

[Thormodr]

Get a new game engine that can handle huge maps and can process turn times efficiently.

Ditch 1UPT and go to limited stacks.

Get rid of global happiness and it being chained to luxury resources and find a better way. The local happiness model with the Community mod looks promising.

Keep the creativity of the different civs.

Can't wait for Civ VI. The even numbered ones have always been the best. (Although Civ I was excellent, as well.)

 

[dagriggstar]

....Can we please get rid of ranged units ? And cities being able to use ranged attacks ? (Defending itself is ok)

Can still have siege units attacking like ranged units as long as they can only attack cities