1. We have added a Gift Upgrades feature that allows you to gift an account upgrade to another member, just in time for the holiday season. You can see the gift option when going to the Account Upgrades screen, or on any user profile screen.
    Dismiss Notice

Civilization 6: Ideas

Discussion in 'Civ - Ideas & Suggestions' started by Pepo, Oct 6, 2013.

  1. Pepo

    Pepo Chieftain

    Joined:
    Nov 27, 2012
    Messages:
    313
    I have play both civ IV and civ V and i agree with what people said that the best game will be a mix of both.here are my suggestions:
    -take out 1Upt but make stacks less usefull:in my opinion the 1upt system doesn't work.the human player has much more advantage than the ai because the ai doesn't know how to use units well.i have found that one easy way to defeat civ V in a war is just to wait in your cities and kill all their units and then counter attack.so please bring back stacking but fix it a bit.big armies should be slow but powerfull while smaller stacks are faster and better at irregular terrain(the bigger the stack is,less defensive bonus it gets from forests).in the stacks the powerfull units will move while hit & run units are more effective separated(more abour that latter).

    Also transports should make a return now that there is more than one unit in each title.and take out the cities range attack

    Ranged combat:it need a big rework.in civ V is seriously unbalance :melee units are almost useless until the industrial era because they are killed by range attacks.so i suggest that range attacks should be reworked:
    -the normal range should be one (except for capital ships and late game artillery)ranged attacks also are less powerfull but still usefull:they can't kill units but reduced their health too make enemies less dangerous against your units
    -ranged attacks are more effective in plains than in forest
    -explosive ranged attacks produce collateral damage
    -if used in cities,there are chances of destroying buildings(only explosive weapons)

    Skirmishers vs line troops:apart from the classic rock paper system,civ VI combat should be a bit more mobile adding skirmisher units.this units are weaker than normal units and are worst at defending due being disorganized and are really bad against cities.horewer they have a number of advantages:move faster,retreats and being able to hide in forest with promotions.basically this units will weakend enemy stacks by attacking and then retreating.of course they are just complementary to your main force:most units will defeat then when attacking.in this group there are:ligth infantery,late game cavalary,helicopters and raid ships

    More economic control(civ IV tech money )civ IV health and happines system and civ V trade routes should be returning features

    I will add more of my ideas latter
     
  2. plastiqe

    plastiqe Grinch

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2004
    Messages:
    597
    Location:
    Canada, eh
    I agree on the principle of mixing the two games, Civ VI should take the best from both. Now depending on who you ask there will be a lot more "best" in one game than the other lol.

    I agree that limited stacks should make a return but I don't like your idea that small groups are better than big groups. It doesn't make any sense if you think about real armies.

    Pretend your Caesar IRL. Would you rather have 5 Legions or 10 Legions? Do your Legions get less effective the more you add? So if you had 20 Legions it would always be better if you split your Legions up and spread them out into small groups. What if you're fighting an equal army of 20 Legions? The enemy would just pick them off one by one. So I disagree with you about that.

    I have an Armies and Logistics post in this section with my idea that you can read if you like. I wouldn't say small armies are totally useless. The could do some things that a big army couldn't do, such as quick movement or scouting.

    Also, I posted a thread in the CFC Feedback section that the Civ6 Ideas and Civ5 Ideas should each get their own section. I think it's a really good idea as more and more people start posting their thoughts about the next game.
    http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=511141
     
  3. Pepo

    Pepo Chieftain

    Joined:
    Nov 27, 2012
    Messages:
    313
    @plastique:ok true.i'm going to change my idea and add other ones
     
  4. plastiqe

    plastiqe Grinch

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2004
    Messages:
    597
    Location:
    Canada, eh
    Ok I read the first post again. I'm not sure if I remember 100% what it was like the first time lol. It's a good idea if you're gonna rewrite it to note what you changed. : P

    It sounds more and more like we're thinking along the same lines with armies so I'll comment this time on ranged units. Civ IV in this respect got it totally screwey with suicide catapults. Civ V was better but overpowered as you say. I think you need to go all the way back to Civ III for the basic idea. In Civ III the Catapults could bombard with a range of 1 and do some damage to a unit. Later on Artillery could hit from 2 tiles away and do tons of damage and they were awesome units. I would add that Artillery/Cannons (but not so much Catapults) can do extra damage if they are bombing a tile with multiple units (or an army) with collateral damage like Civ IV had.

    For Archers, I think a rage of 1 is realistic. Maybe not for the first Archer unit you get in the Ancient age but for sure starting with Longbows. Archers should get a defensive bonus sometimes in Armies (they get to shoot first if you attack their army).

    Horse Archers should be able to execute all the moves that mounted units can do and all the units that Archers can do. Mongols could have a special ability if their army was 100 mounted.

    Melee units on their own with a shield should be able to defend themselves from arrows. They could do this automatically with the right promotion as long as it wasn't a surprise attack. Likewise attacking, you can attack a defensive Army that has Archers better if you put Melee units with Cover in your Army.

    I have a couple other posts in this section in threads like yours where I go into more detail on other things, such as front/rear facing for Armies. At some point I'm gonna collect it all and add it to the Armies and Logistics post like maybe in a spoiler or something. It's fun talking with other like minded people and bouncing ideas off each other tho. ; )

    Edit: I saw you responded to my thread too so thanks for that, I'm gonna go check it out now. I have another Civ VI thread with zero replies : ( about victory conditions so if you wanna read that one it's in this section too.
     
  5. Pepo

    Pepo Chieftain

    Joined:
    Nov 27, 2012
    Messages:
    313
    I agree with most of your post but i don't want to get too much in detail-i'm just pointing out things that IMO need to be changed.i will later make a post about combat and ranged combat but this is more a general outline
    Also the idea of the shield is really good-is one of those small changes that radically change strategy

    Ok now i'm going to post a few more ideas:
    -religion:i'm neutral on this one.i like civ4 religion system but civ V is more original and extensive,althougth is severely unbalanced.so for civ 6 i will go for a religion system that allow customization but that traits also have negative aspects-so you can improve your civ in some ways while losing on others,but civs without religions aren't underpowerfull
    -i had said it before but bring back happines ,tech and health has they are WAY more complete than civ V.i mean the global happines system is IMO broken.i mean,the ai get's so many bonus because they don't know how to manage it!
    -improve combat ai-yes please
    -city states: i found this system strange.apparently all city states are losers that need to ally with great powers to survive even thougth there are great examples in history of great city states.so i propose the following idea: -city states appear in maps like barbarian cities in civ 4.they work like normall civs except they can just stay in one cities.however if they think you are weak they can attack you and capture your cities.they can also be ally so they can be helpfull if the are near an enemy.if there are two city states together they can form a bigger nation and at the end of the game they can become great powers.
    -civ 4 diplomancy should return but be improved.civ V diplomacy is just stupid
    -spying should work like civ 4(i hear that civ 3 has really good spy system).horewer players should be allow to build diplomants to boost your culture in enemy cities
     
  6. plastiqe

    plastiqe Grinch

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2004
    Messages:
    597
    Location:
    Canada, eh
    Generally Civ IV was more complex than Civ V so a lot of IV's systems will be better. Overall I'd say VI could be about 50% Civ IV, 20% Civ V and 30% new.

    On the topic of City States I agree that it's strange to have minor civs that are designed to be somebody's b*tch all game long lol.

    If you have different levels of Civs like that they should be able to grow out of it. Control without conquering is nice but they should be able to break out of that too. Sometimes you had ancient Civs that had to give tribute, like all the peoples Rome controlled that weren't really Roman. Eventually those are the same tribes that invaded Italy and sacked Rome centuries later.

    I dunno if anything that complex could ever be in Civ but one nice feature maybe for an expansion would be Revolutions where Civs can split to form two sides. You could have peaceful Revolutions like when England granted India home rule or violent ones like right afterwards when part of India became Pakistan.
     
  7. Pepo

    Pepo Chieftain

    Joined:
    Nov 27, 2012
    Messages:
    313
    have you try rev mod for Bts? i think is a really interesting feature that could be add in latter games
     
  8. plastiqe

    plastiqe Grinch

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2004
    Messages:
    597
    Location:
    Canada, eh
    Heard about it be never tried. I've played a fair amount of RFC/RFC-DOC which as revolutions from stability which is kinda the same thing. I would never put something like stability in a general Civ game but it works on a scripted earth map like Rhye's.

    Lately the only mod I play is K-Mod AI which is fitting since I just made the K-Mod Fan Club social group a few days ago. : )
     
  9. Pepo

    Pepo Chieftain

    Joined:
    Nov 27, 2012
    Messages:
    313
    -civs UA shouldn't be based on random effects-it makes all the game just a thing of luck(spain is a good example)also some balance in future games should be needed
    -return the domination victory of civ 4-i think it is much better than just taking the capitals of your enemies.it requieres a lot of battles,but it also help that your empire had many population.also,you should be able to change capital by building a palace
    -units expending resources :i think is a good idea.it limit somewhat unit spam,and makes resources more important.of course if stacks return the number of units being able to produce from a resource should increase
    -air units not completly killing units
    -policies.i like both civ4 and civ V system,althougth i think is much more balanced civ 4 one.so i was thinking on doing a mix between then:
    -civics are unlocked by researching technology
    -once a city reach a high cultural level,a civic can be improved:for example despotism could be improved to make people happier.each civic has two umprovements.it would also make some early civics more powerfull than latter ones until this ones are improved
     
  10. plastiqe

    plastiqe Grinch

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2004
    Messages:
    597
    Location:
    Canada, eh
    That's a nice take on Governments. What if it was like:
    • Unlock Civics with techs.
    • Switching to new civics costs empire wide Anarchy like in Civ IV.
    • Each Civic has 2 levels, the first level is what you get when you first switch and the second level is the improved version you only get after staying X amount of turns in the civic.
    That way you would have to invest time to get the most out of civics, but the new ones could start off kinda meh before they got really good like you said. Eg. Democracy takes some time getting used to if you've been a level 2 Monarchy all game long.

    Also kinda simulates a stable regime is better than one that changes a lot.
     
  11. Pepo

    Pepo Chieftain

    Joined:
    Nov 27, 2012
    Messages:
    313
    Yes,that will make a really interesting system.i also think that if your empire is smaller it should be faster in gaining bonus than wider empires
     
  12. searcheagle

    searcheagle Chieftain

    Joined:
    May 24, 2004
    Messages:
    1,139
    Location:
    Pennsylvania, USA
    I really want transports to return. It makes it hard to make an overseas campaign when you have to move a dozens and dozens of units to a spot across the ocean.
     
  13. plastiqe

    plastiqe Grinch

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2004
    Messages:
    597
    Location:
    Canada, eh
    Dynamic, I like it. You can have the Spiritual ability like in Civ IV for no Anarchy, or another ability that lets a Civ assimilate a new civic faster. Call it Progressive.

    Units carrying magic boats around is kinda hard to wrap my head around lol.
     
  14. Vaclac

    Vaclac Chieftain

    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2012
    Messages:
    58
    I like this thread - I've thought a mix of Civ IV and V would be best too and agree on an attempt to find something in between stacks of doom and 1UPT - My idea is an attrition based system that would discourage huge armies traveling together in stacks, loosely inspired by a Europa Universalis type system.

    So if multiple units finish the turn in the same spot, then they all take damage from doing so, and the damage could increase with the number of units finishing on the same spot. So you could still maneuvre through your own troops when you needed to and could temporarily gather a large stack for an important battle, but it would have costs and not always be optimal.

    The idea behind this is that troops need to be apply to supply themselves, and you can only feed/supply so large an army off a small piece of land at a time. With this justification you could allow more units to stack together within your own cultural borders than outside them, since you can more easily supply your troops within friendly territory. You could also have the penalty-free number increase over time with techs representing improvements in military logistics. This would also work well gameplay-wise as the map tends to get more cluttered as the game goes on and the problems caused by 1UPT get worse as it goes on.
     
  15. plastiqe

    plastiqe Grinch

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2004
    Messages:
    597
    Location:
    Canada, eh
    Don't like the idea of my units taking damage for grouping. I get where you're going with a risk/reward type deal but it seems counter productive to kinda dangle the ability to group but then punish the player for doing it.

    The system I mention with upkeep maintenance is basically the same thing, you lose gold instead of HP for bigger groups but I think gold payments are more acceptable and abstract than watching units slowly die. Players are used to paying for things. I wouldn't mind if (in a upkeep system) when you ran out of money your armies started losing health to represent the loss of supply.
     
  16. Vaclac

    Vaclac Chieftain

    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2012
    Messages:
    58
    Yeah, that would work too, and maybe feel a little less punitive. I guess I feel like the damages forces you to do something about it, whereas I could imagine accidentally throwing away tons of money having a huge army just standing there, though I guess notifications could let me know I should really be moving them. You would have to make the money penalty quite substantial to deter people from still using stacks of doom during wars I would think.
     
  17. plastiqe

    plastiqe Grinch

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2004
    Messages:
    597
    Location:
    Canada, eh
    Well when your not using it you could put an army on sentry/sleep mode in your territory that would cost much less. Kinda like keeping troops in reserve that you could activate and then mobilize for war.

    I agree 100% that the cost should be high to wage war with a 'stack of doom'. Operating in enemy territory would be like going beyond your safe supply lines so the cost would increase. Paying for a long drawn out war the advantage would go to the defender because they can maintain cheaper armies in their territory.
     
  18. cooldude1128

    cooldude1128 Chieftain

    Joined:
    Jun 6, 2012
    Messages:
    322
    Why not have first off two types of hills like in the Planetfall mod? The hill, and then the highlands. Ridges, the second type of hill, have an extra production, adds an extra production to mines, and can only be accessed by way of a hill or the guerrilla II promotion that gives the ability to climb them in addition.

    This ties in with my second idea. Have all three elevations have a meter that starts at 100 for a flat plain, 65 for a hill, and 45 for a ridge. Forests subtract 15, and a jungle 20. Every unit takes up a certain amount of these points, with the most powerful/biggest unit taking the most and scouts and infantry taking the least. This effectively limits stack size and also provides a new gameplay dynamic.
     
  19. Syailendra

    Syailendra Chieftain

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2011
    Messages:
    420
    Location:
    south east asian jungle
    remember termophylae? Xerxes have built a stacks of doom, but the spartans blocks them by using terrain condition, this is something that needs to put in the game.
    My idea, you can stacks troops on a tile as long as the areas around that tile is supportive. Example, plains and grass give 1 support, so a tile with 6 adjacent plains and grass can be stacked with 6 units, while hills, forrest etc, give 1/2 support, and mountain 0 support. River instantly give 2 support, thus the max units can be stacks is 8. You still can stacks as many units as you want on a tile but you'll have desertion (losing unit health), and a very slim chance of rebellion unit (become barbarians).
     
  20. Olson

    Olson Chieftain

    Joined:
    May 5, 2013
    Messages:
    283
    Location:
    Long Island, NY
    Given Civ's map scale, even ranged units should only impact combat in or adjacent to the ranged unit's hex. The presence of ranged units could be expressed by the (under-the-hood) combat resolution following something such as:

    Combat Phase
    - attacker's long range units fire; defender takes damage
    - defender's long range units fire; attacker takes damage
    - defender's short range units fire; attacker takes damage
    - attacker's short range units fire; defender takes damage
    - melee initiative is determined; higher initiative inflicts damage, lower initiative inflicts damage

    The above allows ranged units to inflict damage on melee units before the melee units fight without letting ranged units shoot 'across the English Channel'.
     

Share This Page