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. wyqtor

    wyqtor Chieftain

    Joined:
    Jun 15, 2009
    Messages:
    9
    I'd like an elevation and terraforming system based on that in Alpha Centauri. Let the geography determine tile yields. And maybe expand on the natural wonders (which I liked both in AC and Civ 5)
     
  2. Playsoneasy

    Playsoneasy Chieftain

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2012
    Messages:
    72
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    West Midlands, UK
    There used to be something like that in Civ2, where engineers were able to "transform" terrain, even being able to transform mountains into hills, and hills into grasslands.

    Why not re-introduce engineers for Civ6? Workers could be promoted to engineers once explosives are discovered, much like settlers were replaced with engineers in Civ2 with explosives.
     
  3. Thormodr

    Thormodr Servant of Civ Supporter

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2005
    Messages:
    4,807
    Location:
    Vancouver, Canada
    I think it'd be nice to be able to plant forests and have mixed terrain like forest/hills.

    Draining swamps as well and bring back peat!!! I miss peat. :sad:
     
  4. andreafin

    andreafin Prince

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2014
    Messages:
    323
    Location:
    uk
    hmm i ran into GG and settler/worker + military unit stacking again and then i thot, why not have GG have an ability to attach permanently to a military unit. perhaps the unit should have to be an elite one with a certain number of promotions? and then the GG becomes a GG promotion thing that gives that unit the same ability as a GG - including being sacrificed to build a citadel. that would be an expensive citadel tho. but at least then you can move civilian units through the tiles without having to remove the GG first, and thus its bonus to one or more units you deployed someplace as deterent.

    oh and they cant separate from the unit again. you could even have an extra ability, that even if defeated you could rebuild that elite unit, but it costs double and takes twice as long to build and can only be built in a city with barracks and military academy? that might not be possible since the game would have to store unit details of promotions for units that had a GG permanently detailed to it.
     
  5. andreafin

    andreafin Prince

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2014
    Messages:
    323
    Location:
    uk
    did i mention that i would love even bigger maps? bigger than yaemp map even?
     
  6. sam44hill

    sam44hill Always go for the Kill

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2013
    Messages:
    57
    I wouldn't mind having a WWI scenario. I was hoping Firaxis would give us one for the Centennial this year, but I'd settle for one next Civ.
     
  7. Jayman1000

    Jayman1000 Warlord

    Joined:
    May 6, 2006
    Messages:
    255
    I really like your ideas. Lets hope the developers/designers of CiVI will agree on this
     
  8. bcyy

    bcyy Warlord

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2014
    Messages:
    138
    IMHO, The following changes would be nice:

    1. A new currency system - civilizations who do not have a gold resource should not have gold as their currency, etc. Each currency should only apply to each individual civ, and currency exchange deals should be signed before interciv monetary interaction. Fiat currencies are available after researching banking or some other tech, before which only a certain amount can be "printed", depending on how many of the corresponding resource the civ has access to.

    2. Tech prerequisites - e.g. One must expend a great engineer to unlock researching The Wheel, Currency must be unlocked by expending a great merchant and gaining access to a resource that can be used as a currency, Bronze Working requires access to a metal in a city that has forests around it, fighting a war for 40+ turns for military science, etc. Realistically, many ancient civs which never came across certain resources could never have developed the corresponding techs (The Incans had neither horses nor iron, and therefore could not possibly have had horseback riding or iron casting skills when the Spanish came across them). This way, players will spend more time thinking about what actions can advance their technology, rather than blindly pumping beakers into the tech tree.

    3. No upkeep or drastically reduced upkeep for guided missiles.

    4. Different turn system for combat vs peaceful development. In the current turn system, it takes about as many turns to fight a war as it does to progress from the rennaissance era to the atomic era, and half the war can be spent ferrying units to and fro so they can be upgraded before being sent back to the battlefield. Perhaps stuffing 5 combat turns into each regular turn would do the trick?

    5. A "threaten" mode for the diplomacy screen. I want to be able to tell Monty that if he does not stop his attack on Paris immediately, I will not sign any more research agreements with him, and that if he is successful in taking Paris, I will do my best to bribe Genghis Khan to attack him, and he will have to trade with someone else for the silk, wine, iron and horses that I am currently providing him.
     
  9. Thormodr

    Thormodr Servant of Civ Supporter

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2005
    Messages:
    4,807
    Location:
    Vancouver, Canada
    More meaningful resources as well as more meaningful diplomacy? I like it. :)
     
  10. arkguy

    arkguy Warlord

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2010
    Messages:
    165
    Location:
    Arkadelphia, AR
    Windmill, temple, academy, advanced Shielding, fur trader's post, natural defences, waterefinement, air defense tower & Archbishopric.
    Be able to build MORE than one of an improvement. Towns have more than one bank, church, factory, library and airport if they are big enough. A windmill could be built for every 2 levels, temple for every 3 increase in population and an academy for every 7 levels.
    Factory, aqueducts, airport, unit factories, banks, bazaar, radiology center, hologram theater, arcology shielding & water sport resort.
    SAM missile battery, coastal fortification, Martello towers, weaver’s house, anti-ballistic missiles and publishing house.
     
  11. _ViKinG_

    _ViKinG_ BERSERKER

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2013
    Messages:
    304
    I like what the 1 post says. Make the maps in Civ 6 round, not flat as it is now. That would be so cool to play on a round and real earth map. And maybe make the game with earth map scenario with many civs in a game like the real world is, without the tiles going everywhere. I would like more diplomacy in the game to. more options to talk with other leaders. Like threaten them with war if they attack a civ that im friend with and other stuff. I like the 1 upt so i want it to stay like that. make the ai better to fight instead. i like to play on big maps with many units so i like the fighitng with 1 upt.
     
  12. joncnunn

    joncnunn Senior Java Wizard Moderator

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2008
    Messages:
    8,621
    Location:
    Missouri
    Moderator Action: The two active Civ 6 Ideas threads merged.
     
  13. Dinoman193a

    Dinoman193a Chieftain

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2014
    Messages:
    2
    I think that armies and production should be revamped. It is stupid and tedious that a village with 1 citizen and a metropolis with 10 should both only be able to produce 1 unit. I think that each time a new citizen is born in a city, a new slot is added. Each slot could produce 1 unit. This would make building units much easier and quicker, allowing you to enter total war production in the event of war.

    In addition, army units should be added. It would be invisible, and its strength determined by its subordinate units. You could create a unit system, such as divisions, corps and field armies. This would make battle more realistic and command easier. Why give orders to each individual unit when just tell one of your three corps to advance against a certain area.

    Also, most of the time the leader(you) does not personally command the army, but his generals do it for him. Perhaps make Generals Ai. They could advise on tactics, come up with plans along with you, and launch campaigns. It would make having generals matter. Also, you could appoint from a wide range of historical generals, like Lee, Rommel, Napoleon, or Patton. Each could have a personality, i.e, defensive or aggressive, tactical or strategic, capable or inept. There would be a huge list of generals, and you could appoint a general from the list who is not already taken by another civ. You could still personally command armies, but you could also just sit back and watch you generals fight it for you.
     
  14. meowschwitz

    meowschwitz Warlord

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2013
    Messages:
    156
    Location:
    NY
    I think the thing that can make CiV combat a mess wasn't necessarily 1upt, but that combined with a lack of scale,City bombardment and inherent defense, and lack of ability to traverse mountains.

    One hex now should look the same except have itself also broken down into 6 hexes that are for units. This will make traversal, tactics and army composition, and positioning actually have the importance that they were hoping for originally. Unit costs should go down and there should be a way to preserve unit formations inside larger hex groupings. City defense should rely on things like walls (I know that I don't build them currently) to have any tangible natural defense. Bombardment, upon getting the proper infrastructure in a city, is one to two small hexes.

    The problems that would come with this would be increased demand on the systems and potentially more managing of more units (but less in terms of total scale and portion of the map).

    Combine that with things like rivers, improvements, roads, terrain (actual elevation system would be nice), and maybe even variable city size taking up different amounts of these smaller hexes and we've got a much nicer, strategic, and potentially rewarding combat system at the cost of increased focus on the micro gameplay mechanics and lessened game performance.
     
  15. SupremacyKing2

    SupremacyKing2 Deity

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2014
    Messages:
    4,232
    Location:
    Indiana
    Here is an idea to help with city specialization. Each time you settle a new city, the player could choose a bonus for that particular city, similar to the colonist choice in CivBE. There would be a special icon next to the city to help the player remember what bonus they picked for that city.

    The choices could be something like:
    religious: more faith generated in city
    economic: more gold generated in city
    military: units start with more XP
    cultural: more culture generated in this city
    industrial: more production generated in this city

    This means that each city in your empire could get a different bonus. I think this would really make each city more unique and special. The specific bonuses would have to be picked carefully for balance of course.
     
  16. Thormodr

    Thormodr Servant of Civ Supporter

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2005
    Messages:
    4,807
    Location:
    Vancouver, Canada
    While I will say that the diversity of civs in Civilization 5 was impressive, I'd like to see them scale back on the leader graphics (as they are very costly to make and eat up a fair amount of the budget) and make multiple leaders for each civ. It's a good tradeoff, IMHO.

    For example, I love to play the Mongols as I have always been fascinated with Mongolia and Mongol history and culture. I loved the fact that you had an option in cIV to play as a more peaceful, culture generating Kublai Khan instead of the warlike Ghengis Khan all the time. That was really fun for me as I am typically not a warmonger. :)

    So, plenty of civs and multiple leaders per civ would be cool. Although I am not a big fan of DLC, I wouldn't mind it if these were made as DLC.

    Oh and I must repeat again, please, please, please don't use 1UPT in Civ VI. Go to MUPT with intelligent stacking. Be creative. I know you guys can do it! :)
     
  17. phaethon16

    phaethon16 King

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2013
    Messages:
    719
    We should have two units per tile. I hate the stacks of units, but at the same time I see how the UPT was flawed as well. I think a nice compromise is that you can have two units per tile, which enables you to have a denser army if need, or you can spread your army out and control the map that way. It would allow archers and siege units to get close to the action without immediately being cut down, and it would allow a single tile to be more useful defensive.
     
  18. ViterboKnight

    ViterboKnight King

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2006
    Messages:
    786
    It's nice to have threads like this. I hope Firaxis will take these things into account when it will be finally developing Civ 6.
    Although I must admit that Firaxis hadn't heard too much at players arguments: support had been quite poor, and most requests hadn't been considered.
    Finally, I quitted playing Civ 5, prefering going back to Civ 4 that is largely more more playable and fun (in my PERSONAL opinion!).

    Good and bad aspects of Civ4 and Civ5:
    - 1UPT: revealed to be BAD: AI is totally unable to handle it.
    - UI: Civ 4 wins. Player needs a LOT of information, and easily. He doesn't have to scroll hundreds of logs and messages to remind if something particular has happened, or to remember where a particular unit is going with a former GOTO command. The game is for beginners also, not only for pros.
    - unit movement and range: again Civ 4 wins. This is NOT a war game, is a world-scaled game, so better to keep a 1 movement and 1 range for ranged units, quite more realistic.
    - city states: interesting concept. Go with it! Good for Civ5!
    - vassals vs puppets: I prefer vassals. Score for Civ4!
    - religions: good question. Too generic in Civ4, too complicated and mathematics in Civ5. I'd go well with either of them. It's a draw!
    - Faith: definite score for Civ5! Excellent "commerce" concept, keep it!
    - Espionage: i find Civ5's too complicated to follow. In Civ4 you can easily choose to go easy with it and survive (just a spy in each city and you're fine). In Civ5 you're forced to actively follow each spy activity. IMO, score for Civ4.
    - Trade routes: in Civ5, too complicated to calculate, choose and handle. Also they are almost a must (without them, you are easily bankrupted). Better the Civ4 way (automatic).
    - Victory concepts - domination: i completely HATE civ5's domination way (cannot raze capitals, and conquest capitals only). Civ4 "conquest" and "domination" victories are enough.
    - Victory concepts - diplomacy: Civ5 added an interesting feature in using city states for diplomatic victories, but it must be managed better. City states alliances should be BUILT over time, with lots of activities, and not just built with gold the turn before the election. Not quite a score for Civ5, but a penalty kick!!
    - Victory concepts - culture and tourism: Civ4 and Civ5 have completely different culture victory mechanisms. Hard to choose between them, they are both good. Maybe, they could be two different victory types (Civ4's is culture victory, Civ5's is Tourism victory).

    That's all for the moment!
     
  19. andreafin

    andreafin Prince

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2014
    Messages:
    323
    Location:
    uk
    it could be interesting if you the supreme ruler could only command units depending on ideology. for the sake of argument lets say autocracy represents...fascism type rulers, order socialist/communism (and freedom is obvious...).
    autocratic leader would be able to personally command all armies, overruling any general in command at any time if using dinomans model for command. this would result in situations where the ruler demands a captured city be defended by an army to the death like 6th army in stalingrad for example. doing more harm than good to the war effort potentially, when the general would have saved the troops by retreating. the worry with this is, that since it offers the player most control its a powerful reason to go autocracy, and could be very unbalanced.

    freedom rulers would only be able to change the general in command of an army group, rather than directly move units. this might result in civ unhappiness and low morale with the troops if generals get replaced too often especially popular ones. i am thinking of george mcclellan - popular with the troops but replaced for timidity and incompetence in strategy by lincoln as i understood it. but the danger is players find lack of ability to control the armies directly frustrating and boring (due to ai doing stupid movement rather than a general being incompetent ai).

    order would be a sort of middle ground - the ruler can choose an army group to use but all others would move according to their generals, although the ruler would recall and replace (and execute) generals who fail. they would generally have more troops but lose more in combat due to the inefficiency of the bureacratic way of command. generals would be slightly handicapped in their choices of actions by ideological decisions, that is similar to autocracy but more likely to learn (although they still execute generals who argue)
     
  20. glider1

    glider1 Deity

    Joined:
    May 29, 2006
    Messages:
    2,784
    Location:
    Where animals hop not run
    Hi there
    I think the solution to the 1UPT/MUPT problem is get rid of tiles altogether in terms of unit movement and just keep tiles for the purposes of working the land around cities and for constructing buildings and improvements.

    Rise of Nations (RON) showed us that it is possible to have 1UPT on a gridless map where the armies have interesting formations, and can be grouped and told where to go in one click. Pathing is calculated using very fast trigonometric and vector maths functions on integers. The RON AI was also good at it (about the same as the Civ5 AI was on release).

    Without the constraint of tiles, armies can have their own scale independent of other elements on the map. When players zoom in they see the independent units. When they zoom out they see one icon representing the army that when you hover over the icon shows the basic stats and the state of that army.

    If players are zoomed out and see the iconic version of armies, when those armies engage in combat they engage via auto-combat (AI calculated combat). When the player zooms in, auto-combat is turned off and manual combat takes over.

    Traditional tiles should only exist in rings around a city so that the land can be worked in the traditional civ way. Armies are not restricted by them.

    Also, I would love it if buildings were laid out on the map in 1(building)PT or M(building)PT fashion so that when armies arrive at a city, the defense of the city depends on the layout of the buildings in the cities. That is also how RON did it and it was wonderful for builders and urban planners out there who love to control the layout of cities.

    So this is a hybridised solution between the brilliant concepts in RON with the complexity of Civ.
     

Share This Page