[CiVI] Let the speculation begin!

[Boris Gudenuf]

I agree this is a major problem, and one that has always been in the series. I think one way to achieve this is to make the techtree (or tech web if they go in that direction) less linear and more layered. By this, I mean that there should be stubs of technologies that opens up for units (including unique units) or buildings (including wonders) but which are not prerequisits for advancing in the overall tech tree.

To give an example, one could imagine if you research Architecture, this would open up for a new technology called Vaulted Ceilings which would allow you to build the Cathedral buildings as well as the Notre Dame wonder. However, the Vaulted Ceilings technology is a dead-end, meaning that you don't need to research this technology if, say, someone else has already build the Notre Dame and you don't focus on religion.

Some technologies could also be "technology wonders" - i.e. at technology that can only be researched by one Civ who then has the monopoly on this technology in the game. One could have restrictions, for instance you can only research one of these technologies in each era, and you can only research it while you are in that specific era. Imagine for instance you are the first to research "Composite Bows" (allowing the regular unit Composite Bowman), then there could be a unique sub-tech called "Longbows" which would allow you to build the unique Longbowman unit. Only one civ can get this unit in a given game - however, one could have some techs tied with specific civs, for instance England could always have the option for the Longbows technology, similar to how Longbowman is a UU for England in Civ5.

The benefits of a tech system like outlined above would be that a player that is behind in technology can bypass many of these dead-end tech to catch up with the other players. On the other hand, the player who is ahead in technology doesn't get all the wonders as freebies, but have to stall by researching these side-tech in order to unlock the wonders, thus making it likely that others will catch up with him. It would also make it more possible to specialize in certain tech areas depending on your game style (science, growth, production, culture, religion, economy, land military, naval military, etc.) Of course there could still be wonders and units placed also in the general techs, giving still some advantages to being ahead.

This could combine with a page from BE's Tech Web idea: Technologies and Applications (of those Technologies).
A Technology would be just what we have now: Bronze Working, Writing, Agriculture, etc.
Applications would be 2 - 4 specifics for each Technology that allow you to apply the technology in ways most useful.

For instance, one of the starting Technologies, Agriculture, might have the following 'Applications':
Irrigation: + 2 Food from any farmed desert, plains or tundra tile with direct access to fresh water (oasis, river, lake)

Terracing: + 1 Food from any farmed tile on a hill

Forest Gardening: + 1 Food from any otherwise unimproved Forest tile

Plant Genetics: + 1 Food, Gold OR Production from each different Plant Resource (can be researched multiple times for multiple Resources)

Let's say you can simultaneously research 1 Technology (as now) AND 1 Application. Applications take about half the research time of their Technology. Therefore, you will almost never be able to research all the Applications, and so each civilization will develop its technology in a slightly different way, based on its situation. For example, Bronze Working has Applications of Bronze Tools and Bronze Weapons. If you're not at war, you'll research the Tools first, because it speeds up dramatically all your construction projects, but if you're at war, you'll pound that bronze into spearpoints ASAP. Very soon, of course, you'll want both applications, because they are too fundamental to further development of your Civ.

Which brings up another point: Lose the Eras. They are 'way too Euro/Western-centric. Instead, have Seminal Technologies - Tech that changes most of what you do later - that trigger the kind of changes represented by 'Eras' now. A quick list might be:
Agriculture (possible starting Tech)
.....Apps: Irrigation, Terracing, Forest Cultivation, Plant Genetics
Animal Husbandry (possible starting Tech)
.....Apps: Leatherworking, Animal Breeding, Exotic Domestics, Composites
Writing
.....Apps: Literature, Bureaucracy, Temple Schools, Accounting
Bronze Working
.....Apps: Bronze Weapons, Bronze Tools, Alloys, Casting
Philosophy
.....Apps: Academia, Criticism, Theoretical Investigation, (Rationalism)
Iron Working
.....Apps: Cast Iron, Primitive Steel, Iron Tools, Long Swords
Mathematics
.....Apps: Geometry, Mechanics, Surveying, Probability
Scientific Method
.....Apps: (Skepticism), (Humanism), Mathematical Proof, Calculus,
Gunpowder
.....Apps: Fireworks, Chemical Medicine, Deep Mining, Advanced Masonry
Printing Press
.....Apps: Mass Literacy, Public Schools, (Iconoclism), (Propaganda)
Steam Power
.....Apps: Mobile Engines, Static Engines, Precision Machinery, Popular Literature
Electricity
.....Apps: Lighting, Telegraphy, Galvanism, Public Transport
Internal Combustion
.....Apps: Power Tools, Automobiles, Mass Transit, Highways
Atomic Energy
.....Apps: Nuclear Medicine, High Energy Physics, Nuclear Propulsion, Nuclear Power
Solid-State Electronics
.....Apps: Personal Computers, Satelites, Internet, Direct Communications

Apps in ( ) may also have immediate and major effects on Social Policy and Religious Belief adoptions.

Notice that I list two possible starting Techs. That's because I really, really want the option of starting as a nomadic or semi-nomadic culture with a different 'development path' for the first part of the game... but that's gist for another post.

 

[kaspergm]

This could combine with a page from BE's Tech Web idea: Technologies and Applications (of those Technologies).
A Technology would be just what we have now: Bronze Working, Writing, Agriculture, etc.
Applications would be 2 - 4 specifics for each Technology that allow you to apply the technology in ways most useful.

Yes, that's exactly what I have in mind also. I was quite excited when I read about BE's tech system, but I haven't tried it yet, and I hear people are pretty lukewarm in their reception of it, but hopefully they can use BE as a testing platform to get it done in a good way in Civ 6.

 

[beetle]

With regard to the Tech Tree, my preference is for the SMAC approach where one could choose a category but not (unless you were playing the aliens) pick the specific technology within that category.

Two things which I find immersion breaking with the V approach are: (1) possibility for wildly divergent technology (e.g. Internet, but the best ship is Privateer); and routinely making the calendar anachronistic (e.g. Apollo Project completed in the 1700's). I would like to see some firebreaks (which would no doubt frustrate the best players), since Civ is something of a history simulator, where no technology was available more than a quarter-era before it was discovered in reality.

 

[HorseshoeHermit]

The lion's share of civ fanbase insists on simulationism/realism in the game - for instance, beetle is by no means alone in wanting technology discoveries to match the real world timeline. These limitations make a strategically balanced MP mode not too likely. Single player is set against multiplayer. The designers cannot please everyone; when you try, you'll please no one.

 

[dagriggstar]

It seems we are making this more of a wishlist than a speculation list...

I think unit stacking was a problem but 1UPT was too extreme a solution. Would rather something like unlimited stacking but have anti-stack measures such as
1) Ranged units that can cause significant damage to all units occupying one tile (CIV 4 "collateral damage" imo wasn't high enough damage, you need to be able to kill units with it alone.)
2) Light cavalry units where as an attacker you get to pick what unit you attack out of a stack
3) Higher flanking bonuses (In essence a combat penalty for stacking units on the same tile)

Also singleplayer should be focused on simulation/realism or whatever. Mod and Scenario support for multiplayer is a must. Scenario's should be the focus of the multiplayer scene - they are shorter in length and over time we as a community should be able to come up with enough balanced ones to keep things interesting.

 

[nokmirt]

I would like to see 1UPT stay, but we need to have some combat rules added. Things like retreat and supply, perhaps even rugged defense. The idea of a manpower pool is not a bad idea, which will deal with overcrowding. Of course the AI will have to be far better at hex combat.

There is one other thing that would irritate me. Civ VI should come out with the capabilities we have now in Civ V. Trade routes, world congress, etc. Instead of giving us the bare minimum game, like we had with vanilla Civ V. Then having to wait for two years to get the game back where it is now.

Also, modding should become more user friendly. I would like to see more units in the game, along with a more in depth techtree. Specialization should play a big part of that. Whether it be for cities, or your military. This new version of Civ should break new ground and be more advanced than any Civ before it.

 

[kaspergm]

Two things which I find immersion breaking with the V approach are: (1) possibility for wildly divergent technology (e.g. Internet, but the best ship is Privateer); (2) and routinely making the calendar anachronistic (e.g. Apollo Project completed in the 1700's). I would like to see some firebreaks (which would no doubt frustrate the best players), since Civ is something of a history simulator, where no technology was available more than a quarter-era before it was discovered in reality.

Agree about point (1). This is mostly caused by the fact that Civ5 tech tree does not wrap around the upper and lower edges, which means the technologies that lie in the top and bottom row generally are completely uncoupled from each other. This is a basic flaw in the tech-tree design of Civ5, and could (and should) be solved in one of two ways: a) Make a tech-web like in BE, or b) wrap the tech-tree around a cylinder to make connections between the current top and bottom rows. Good examples of current missing connections are Sailing/Optics -> Iron Working (can build Colussus and get a cargo ship without having researched Sailing, and even more absurdly, later you can build the Iron Clad without knowing Sailing!), Gunpowder/Chemistry -> Navigation (can build Pirivateers and Frigates without knowing about Canons), and Computers -> Telecommunication (can research the Internet without knowing about Computers).

I disagree about point (2). As long as years and turns of the game are connected, these are abstract numbers and will always depend on difficulty etc. with regards to when certain tech are discovered. Of course you could decouple years from turns, so that instead your tech progression determines the calendar year but not the turn number, I guess that could work. But for me personally, years are an abstract in the game and so it doesn't really matter.

 

[MadDjinn]

since Civ is something of a history simulator

The lion's share of civ fanbase insists on simulationism/realism in the game - for instance, beetle is by no means alone in wanting technology discoveries to match the real world timeline. These limitations make a strategically balanced MP mode not too likely. Single player is set against multiplayer. The designers cannot please everyone; when you try, you'll please no one.

no worries. the designers of every civ title to date know, and repeat loudly, that Civ is not a simulation game. It's alt-history with alt-happenings with civs and stuff 'inspired by' history; and not even indepth research. Else, we'd only start with name tribes from long long ago and the player would just have an advance button with no ability to interact. Otherwise called a book.

SP is not set against MP in that way though, to be fair. any suggested 'catch up' system, or 'slow down' system, would exist for both. And then unbalanced by going on quick speed for MP

 

[beetle]

^^ Yes, simulator was a poor word choice on my part. Sandbox would have been better.

I like kaspergm idea that the year displayed is based on what is going in the game. The game is very turn focused of course, and that works fine, it is just every so often looking at the year and thinking ??? The developers should almost not have bothered! Again, I am only complaining because it is one of the few things that I find immersion breaking.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

I like kaspergm idea that the year displayed is based on what is going in the game. The game is very turn focused of course, and that works fine, it is just every so often looking at the year and thinking ??? The developers should almost not have bothered! Again, I am only complaining because it is one of the few things that I find immersion breaking.

This assumes that History As It Happened is the Only Way it could have happened, which, it seems to me, is the opposite of the philosophy driving Civilization games.

This would also be extremely difficult to implement in practice. Just for a Semi-Technology example, the 'Order' Ideology is intended to represent 'Communist' ideology. Then the first adoption of an Order Ideology by anyone would be year 1917, the year of the (Communist) Russian Revolution? Ah, but there was also a Communist revolution in Paris in 1871, the Paris Commune. Had it succeeded, would 1871 be the correct date?

With only one example, we've already got a spread of 46 years. We now know that Hero in Alexandria had working model steam turbines and pressurized cylinders in 200 - 100 BCE. The Greeks were also capable of designing and building intricate clockwork geared mechanisms. The Romans had industrial-sized enterprises doing everything from grinding grain (14 waterwheels in one place!) to manufacturing armor and weapons.

Does the Industrial/Scientific Revolution start in the 19th century AD or the 1st century BC?

The fact that things could develop differently, and Civilizations develop differently, is what makes Civ games fascinating, IMHO. If the 'unhistorical' dates are a bother, then perhaps the 'in-game' dates could be artificial For That Particular Game.

Take a page from the current Civ V 'Mayan' civilization, and allow, for instance, your civilization to establish a dating system based on when your religion is established (most common 'start' for historical dating systems) or when your capital or major city was founded, or a completely artificial 'date'. Then, every civ in the game would have a separate set of dates but a common set of turns, until one World Congress action could be 'standardize calendars'!

 

[Volcanon]

It would be cool if the overworld looked like a stone drawing in the early ages, progressing as time goes on into a modern-looking grid or something.

Fix the absurdly long AI turn times and you've already made a better game.

I'm more excited for Master of Orion, especially if it's as good as MOO 2.

 

[noto2]

I find that to be one of the bad things for GalCiv 3. It's too skewed to strategic side (which is also pretty thin), so there's nothing to do except make the ships pretty. And a lot of the time you're too zoomed out to see them anyways. Watching combat is a waste, because it's the game making decisions, not the player. It actually takes away strategic decisions wrt ship design because you can't even give the ships basic battle plans.

Sorry I forgot 3 was out already, I haven't played it, I'm talking about GC2

 

[Human Crouton]

I just want information. I've never liked how I get information in any civ game. I shouldn't need infoaddict to see what is happening in the world.

 

[KevinLandwaster]

I would speculate that Civ VI would place an emphasis on multiplayer compatibility. This is the one element that this game almost completely lacks, and there seems to be quite a bit of demand for it. Their customer base would probably expand dramatically from it as well.

If it was up to me, I would focus on making it feel like a true-to-scale world, rather than a Risk board. The passage of years could also be made to feel more proportional to the actions and developments in the world. The mechanics of how the world works, and how things progress in history, could be much more true-to-life.

A truly immersive experience would be if a player asked himself "What would I do if I were building an empire?" then, when the player acts on this logic, the game would depict things in a realistic way. In such a simulation, one understands immediately what they did wrong and how to improve. This creates a desire to play over and over again, because you know each time you will learn something and have a more satisfying experience. That combination of an extremely difficult goal, but the feeling of making steady progress is what makes something extremely fun.

 

[KevinLandwaster]

This assumes that History As It Happened is the Only Way it could have happened, which, it seems to me, is the opposite of the philosophy driving Civilization games.

This would also be extremely difficult to implement in practice. Just for a Semi-Technology example, the 'Order' Ideology is intended to represent 'Communist' ideology. Then the first adoption of an Order Ideology by anyone would be year 1917, the year of the (Communist) Russian Revolution? Ah, but there was also a Communist revolution in Paris in 1871, the Paris Commune. Had it succeeded, would 1871 be the correct date?

With only one example, we've already got a spread of 46 years. We now know that Hero in Alexandria had working model steam turbines and pressurized cylinders in 200 - 100 BCE. The Greeks were also capable of designing and building intricate clockwork geared mechanisms. The Romans had industrial-sized enterprises doing everything from grinding grain (14 waterwheels in one place!) to manufacturing armor and weapons.

Does the Industrial/Scientific Revolution start in the 19th century AD or the 1st century BC?

The fact that things could develop differently, and Civilizations develop differently, is what makes Civ games fascinating, IMHO. If the 'unhistorical' dates are a bother, then perhaps the 'in-game' dates could be artificial For That Particular Game.

Take a page from the current Civ V 'Mayan' civilization, and allow, for instance, your civilization to establish a dating system based on when your religion is established (most common 'start' for historical dating systems) or when your capital or major city was founded, or a completely artificial 'date'. Then, every civ in the game would have a separate set of dates but a common set of turns, until one World Congress action could be 'standardize calendars'!

I think the question comes down to, is this a game where you progress through Earth's History, or is it a game where you create a civilization from the ground up, and completely re-write history? The Civ franchise obviously emphasizes the experience of Earth's actual history.

A true simulation would be you and the other civs write history from scratch. You could still have the same historical people and events popping up, but only if and when you and the other civs create the circumstances for these things. Without wars, famine and natural disasters, a civilization might get to Alpha Centauri in 500 years (as may have been the case if the ancient Greeks had been allowed to progress unhindered or unconquered). On the other hand, a civ may be stuck in the medieval age for 4 thousand years because of religious dogma, wars , or what-have-you.

 

[beetle]

I would speculate that Civ VI would place an emphasis on multiplayer compatibility.

That would be breaking with their track record and tradition. I think Firaxis will very much play it safe, so then VI will be very much oriented to the single player experience. SimCity pretty much proved that even an AAA franchise can be seriously derailed by incompetence. Frankly, I would not be surprised if VI didn’t support MP at all. From Firaxis’ perspective, they might think we are being ungrateful!

I would not be surprised by a CivRev iteration that was interactive in the tradition of something like Farmville. I kind of shudder at the thought!

Modding, I think, will be in. I doubt it will be any better supported though. Having your customers providing free labor to expand and enhance your product? Why would a company restrict that?

Hexes and 1upt seem popular enough that they will both stay. Sure, lots of people complain, but 1upt makes the game quite accessible to someone new. And plenty of veterans of the series find it to be an improvment.

Native tablet compatibility, as I mentioned before, is a very predictable feature.

I would speculate there will something radically new, as much as CS and ideologies were with V, and vassals was with IV. I have no ideas on that front...

I would be interested in speculation on CS and ideologies. Will they be in VI? They are both compelling features, but so were vassals!

 

[MadDjinn]

That would be breaking with their track record and tradition. I think Firaxis will very much play it safe, so then VI will be very much oriented to the single player experience. SimCity pretty much proved that even an AAA franchise can be seriously derailed by incompetence. Frankly, I would not be surprised if VI didn’t support MP at all. From Firaxis’ perspective, they might think we are being ungrateful!

I'm not sure which track record you're talking about.

Civ III came out with play the world as an expansion to make MP exist for Civ.

Civ IV made it core to the engine and gameplay balance took MP into consideration.

Jon didn't do MP much for vanilla Civ, but Civ V (under Ed) slowly but surely made MP workable within the limitations of Jons initial work.

BE MP works a bit better than CivV MP, though needs work still.


So I don't see how they'd leave MP out of Civ VI.

 

[Naokaukodem]

If it was up to me, I would focus on making it feel like a true-to-scale world, rather than a Risk board. The passage of years could also be made to feel more proportional to the actions and developments in the world. The mechanics of how the world works, and how things progress in history, could be much more true-to-life.

A truly immersive experience would be if a player asked himself "What would I do if I were building an empire?" then, when the player acts on this logic, the game would depict things in a realistic way. In such a simulation, one understands immediately what they did wrong and how to improve. This creates a desire to play over and over again, because you know each time you will learn something and have a more satisfying experience. That combination of an extremely difficult goal, but the feeling of making steady progress is what makes something extremely fun.

I agree with this. Making the game realistic would make it more enjoyable in my opinion. (more immersive, and obviously epic !)

I didn't see such a learning curve in Civ5, where things are imposed to you and mislead you for ever. (unless you watch let's plays on Youtube)

For example, I wouldn't have said that melee units are trivial, which they are if you play on Immortal / Deity in order to win. If you don't spam range units, you are condemned to play like the AI, and the AI on Immortal / Deity has plenty advantages so that it's impossible to win if you play like it.

Another example is global happiness : it prevents you to play like Civ3 or even Civ4, that captured well the essense of the game, it is to say GROW / EXPAND / CONQUER. If this has been changed, it's because the essense of the game felt like repetitive on the long run.

First off, it's not the fault of the game (Civ3 and maybe 4), but of the player : playing too much can bore. Second, if the game basics are boring, just elaborate them ! But don't remove them.

If some number of players keeps playing Civ5, it's, I discovered it lately, because of uniques ! However, uniques seem shiny, but they are empty. We rarely interact deeply with them during a game. It's just a feeling some people have by reading the UAs, seeing the UUs, UBs, UIs, etc... this diversity seems wonderful. But it's even worse than religion. In religions, if you can't prove they are right, you can't prove they are wrong. Uniques ARE with no doubt illusions however, I experienced it myself.

So, we need to elaborate the system and stop giving excuses to the poor one of Civ5.

 

[beetle]

I'm not sure which track record you're talking about...

The emphasis being on MP versus the emphasis being on SP, as KevinL explicitly speculated.

So I don't see how they'd leave MP out of Civ VI.

Because MP was so poorly implemented with V that they are facing litigation. Had they not offered the feature, there would not be those lawsuits! On the Apple side of things, there is the “Campaign Edition” which is distinguished by (1) never being on sale, and (2) not supporting MP. If that little experiment was financially rewarding, we might see more of that in VI.

 

[Acken]

I have some wishes but I have no idea what they are working on.

If there was one big thing I'd want is for them to work on combat/armies. Either take the EL/AoW route with stacks expanding into a tactical map. Or reduce the scale of armies compared to terrain (example: city takes 7 tiles while units take 1). Or similar ideas.

Less clogging, more movement, less static battles please.