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. AnonymousSpeed

    AnonymousSpeed Pink Plastic Army Man

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2014
    Messages:
    370
    Gender:
    Male
    Thank you all for the positive feed back. I also made a few updates with ideas I neglected to mention at first or decided on later.

    Not actually. This is just the idea for vanilla, and the Dutch have never been a vanilla level civ. However, if there were to be, say, and expansion pack...

    Spoiler Netherlands :
    Leader: Willem of Orange
    Start Bias: Coast
    Dutch East India Company: Retain a portion of the happiness when you trade the last copy of a luxury away.
    Unique Unit: Sea Beggar, replaces Caravel. Starts with the Coastal Raider 1 and 2 promotions, as well as the Supply promotion, so it can heal anywhere.
    Unique Unit: Fluyt, replaces Cargo Ship. Cheaper to build, only costing as much as a caravan. Has 40 range by default instead of 30, and can cross deep ocean immediately. Provides +1 gold for each resource being given by the Netherlands to the receiving civilization.
    Unique Improvement: Polder, available at Guild. Must be built on Marsh or Floodplains. +3 food, +2 gold and +2 production after Economics.


    A very potent gold making civ, literally every bonus the Netherlands has is geared towards making money or making trades. The Fluyt is a bit of an unconventional unique unit, but I think it's pretty interesting: It's main draw is more opportunities early on.


    Now, this of course leaves a lot of civs still to be added, some of which would take precedent over the Netherlands. One notable example is Spain, and I'd probably include the Incas with them, and they two are probably a higher priority than the Netherlands, despite their massive trade empire. That still leaves plenty of civilizations to add though.
     
  2. Lglenhaber

    Lglenhaber Chieftain

    Joined:
    Nov 5, 2014
    Messages:
    57
    You could defenetly have a 5% in the beginning, and have a social policy of boosting up that number

    Perhaps someones unique ability is to have that number higher?
     
  3. Dunabar

    Dunabar Chieftain

    Joined:
    Sep 5, 2014
    Messages:
    55
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    United States
    If you go by the whole Peaceful, Neutral, or Hostile affinity sort of idea. I think this could easily work. However, I think it should also be determined by the two extremes (IE: Peace and Hostile). Being Neutral and leaning either Peace or Hostile, should be about that border point between a happy civilization, or a civilization that may do certain things really good, but the citizens are constantly unhappy with your unclear leadership (IE: Trying to be both Peaceful and Hostile at once)

    The idea should be that you try to keep your leadership clear to the people & other Civilizations, but if you do/have to do anything that may be against what your civilization was founded on. It should cause not only conflict with your citizens, but it should also cause conflict on the political scale in the game. It would be like if the United States went from the idea of Freedom of Speech that is supported by 8 civilizations, to limited open speech to gain favor with some other 8 civilizations. Suddenly the people are enraged by this and civilizations that normally were right up there with you, are suddenly starting to turn away from you because you've changed the ideals your civilization was founded on and that they found common ground with you.
     
  4. UWHabs

    UWHabs Warlord

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2008
    Messages:
    3,998
    Location:
    Toronto
    What I'd like to see most:

    1. I like 1UPT, but I'd change things to go to 1 unit type per tile. ie. I can have a melee unit, an archery unit, a siege unit, and a mounted unit on a tile, but only one of each. Archery and siege units will deal a small amount of damage to every unit on a tile. Mounted or melee units attacking a tile will go against the opposing melee unit first. Archery units on a tile will deal a "first strike" defense to any attacking unit as well. I think this would be a good way to avoid the stack of doom, but still allow mixing.
    Then you can also add other rules - maybe forests can only have archers or siege units on them, for example. Or some special units like Keshiks would be mounted archer units, so would take up 2 spots, but would be extra powerful.

    2. A more elaborate defense. As it stands now, I barely ever build walls, but if you look at pretty much every city in existence, they all had city walls. I think I saw it on the forums, but I would change the city defense to the following:
    *A newly built city will have some defense.
    *A city cannot bombard attacking units unless if it has walls. Walls allow it to shoot 1 tile. Also, generally range bombardments should be changed to 1 tile. With the multiple units stacking, that should still be reasonable. Later game units can get longer range, or maybe there could be some promotion that a unit gets a range 2 if attacking from a hill, for example.
    *Building a castle in a city will increase defense, and possibly range as well.
    *Build a fortress to allow indirect fire
    *etc...

    3. Along with 2, the battles should be fought more on fields. To help with that, you can change your civ into a "mobilize for war" setting, where essentially unit production increases significantly, at the cost of money/science/etc... Cities will not be able to build other buildings, but will be able to pump out units nearly constantly.

    4. Inflation costs for buildings, like there are for units. A library in a city of size 2 should obviously cost less to maintain than a library in a city of size 16. So if a library gives 1 science for every 2 citizens, it should cost 1 gold per 2 citizens as well.

    5. More tile improvements, and more diversity. Given the scale of the game, unless if you're playing on a huge map, every tile should be able to have multiple things on it. It would be cool if early game, each tile could have maybe 2 possible improvements on it, and end game it could be up to 3-4. We'd obviously need more improvements, but that would also count stuff like forests. So a tile may be partly farmed, partly forested earlier in the game, then later you add a lumber mill to it. This would help keep workers busier as the game goes on. I'd also like to see the return of the "doubly improved" farm from earlier games. So maybe instead of magically getting the second food on farms with irrigation, you should actually have to send a worker to irrigate farms for the second food.

    6. Finally, I'd like to see a change to great people and wonders. While it might be annoying, I think the wonders should essentially be organized into groups per era. Instead of unlocking the wonder with a tech, it should only be unlocked with both a tech and a great person. You would use an engineer to unlock the pyramids, then when you do that, maybe you have a certain exclusive period to build them in. If you can't complete them in 50 turns, then either nobody builds it, or someone else's engineer can build it. We'd likely need a ton more wonders, as a lot won't be built, and obviously would have to have more great people spawn early, but I think that change would more closely reflect real life. I mean, it's not like you have 4 different empires building a large pyramid structure, and only the guy who finishes first gets any benefits. To balance this, I'd go back to a global counter for each great person, no longer a different one per city. So if you only generate science, you can only get science wonders. If you want to have a chance at a merchant-based wonder, you'll actually have to run a merchant.


    I think these changes would provide for a more organic feel to the game, and while it would certainly be a change to some core mechanisms, I think if done well and balanced properly could add whole new dimensions for how to manage your games.
     
  5. HorseshoeHermit

    HorseshoeHermit 20% accurate as usual, Morty

    Joined:
    Apr 5, 2013
    Messages:
    1,274
    Location:
    Canada
    That is inelegant. Under such a configuration, players will be arbitrarily hobbled from stacking two horsemen or two archers when they judge that would be strategically what they want to do. Further, this setup only encourages a stack of doom, in the sense of obviously being maxxed out by putting one of every kind of unit you can in the tile.

    I want you to look at it semantically. Is there a difference of kind between a mounted unit and a foot? They are different units because they have different abilities you can use in yet the same way. If you actually change the map to a series of slots, then you are literally no longer making a decision to use a horseman rather than a footman on any occasion; you are only deciding whether to use -this- footman or -that- footman at each tile. By creating slots you've made all the unit types the same.

    And now for something completely different
    I think this is just a consequence of players minmaxxing in a game which is about winning. In the real world, real people are much more afraid of "losing" - read: dying - than they are or ever will be in games. Also, the real world has complex political struggles which do not exist at least in the Civ style of grand strategy games; you have supreme power over your public, which is only influenced in a minor way by a few systems that take control away from you. (I mean, yeah, you have "governments" and unhappiness and uprisings and all that, but at the end of the day you controlled every unit movement, every attack, every citizen tile assignment; and you often have some kind of higher-order control over your type of government even if that government exercises pooh-poohing of your actions.)

    I'm of the opinion that, of the first thing mentioned, strategy games played iteratively in competitive environments by professionals reveals that the genuine truth in reality is that aggressive strategies do have a higher chance of success than defensive ones.* Everybody in Civ says: You're "supposed" to be fighting your opponent in his territory, not yours, so you don't build walls. And walls only do something if either you -really are- attacked and the walls give you something greater than what hammers could get you otherwise, or you aren't attacked, but would have if you didn't have the walls, but also the thing you don't lose because of the walls (which can only be: the city's industry), is more valuable than what you might have gained with the hammers another way.
    Actually, the most technically correct condition for walls being worth it, which I can see, is if you satisfy the following:

    (below, costs and benefits are expressed as absolute values)

    "the walls prevent losing something" & "Nothing else could prevent that" & "the opportunity cost of the hammers is no greater than losing that thing"
    OR
    (there's nothing the walls prevent losing but) "the opponent -actually- takes a certain actions" & "the walls cause this action to inflict a cost onto the opponent" & "that cost expressed as a benefit to you is the highest possible benefit available for that many hammers"
    OR
    (there is no action the opponent actually takes such that the walls make this inflict a cost on him or her, which necessarily implies =>) "the opponent -doesn't- attack you" & "the opponent would have attacked you without the walls" & EITHER (i) "if he attacked then you would have lost more than any value you could make up spending those hammers any other way" or (ii) "if he attacked you then -he- would pay an opportunity cost compared with developing in another way, which, expressed as a benefit to you, is greater than the opportunity cost of the hammers for the wall"

    These are necessary conditions; I don't think I rigorously checked them enough to say they're sufficient, but they might be.

    The same story for basically any defensive move ever.

    Of civ's style of absolute control, I yearn for a game that includes more of real politics in it, but I would never want that to be a Civ game. Civ is pretty soundly on its own extreme of that design choice, and that has value I appreciate.


    *An interfering factor is the fact that a game is designed to eventually end, which means that the modern craft of game design makes sure to make aggression (strats that get closer to ending) stronger in the abstract than digging in. But this definition is different from aggression: offense. Civ: Beyond Earth is a failure at most recent patch right now in part because it's actually impossible to hurt your opponents for a huge part of the game; but it's still that players are proceeding towards victory - just by "peaceful" means. The issue is noninteractivity, not passivity. If you had a game that rewarded actions that evaded loss at the expense of moving further from victory yourself, for instance a fighting game with viable stalling, or Magic: The Gathering before the New World Order, then you'd have an issue with aggression.

    The point being, games are engineered to underrepresent stabilizing and nonaggression strategies , and so they fail to capture those parts of -reality- in which nonaggression, stalling, and other passive strategies are optimal. And of course, reality doesn't even have a win condition, it just has a big obvious loss screen with a million ways to get there, some of which we don't even know.
    edit: I guess you lose at life if either you die, or you become a horrible evil monster . So, two loss screens.
     
  6. Lglenhaber

    Lglenhaber Chieftain

    Joined:
    Nov 5, 2014
    Messages:
    57
    As well, you could have another modifier, the global perception of you.The global perception is a modifier to your happiness, as well as peoples relations.

    For example, if you are peaceful, and many people are hostile, your global perception is negative. This gives penalties in your relations, and a small amount in your happiness (for being not in your times). But, if you were to declare war on many people, or take many hostile policies, your global perception would rise, but because your people don't think you are representing them, you would have rioting because of an unstable government.
     
  7. killmeplease

    killmeplease Mk Z on Steam

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2007
    Messages:
    2,794
    Location:
    Samara
    cities should not be able to bombard invaders, just fight back assaults.
    city str calculation should be more clear
    like
    str = 6 + 0.25 * era * pop + 4 for palace, + 4 for walls, + 4 for hill, + 6 for castle etc
    hp = pop * 50, and with each 100 hp lost a city should lose 1 pop (not half a pop on capture)

    def buildings can have guard specialist slots
    each guard increasing a city's str by 2% per turn, for the max of +20%
    so buying walls wont help much when invaders come, you have to set up guards in threatened cities to rise your defences before you're attacked..
     
  8. HorseshoeHermit

    HorseshoeHermit 20% accurate as usual, Morty

    Joined:
    Apr 5, 2013
    Messages:
    1,274
    Location:
    Canada
    Right, but, it's not necessarily "the city can perform a bombard" or even "the city can initiate an attack action"" (which makes even less sense); it's just that a tile with a city on it can, at least some of the time, do something to repel an invasion. And I think only being able to passively resist being sieged is neither good enough for gameplay nor realistic.

    Sure, require a unit to be in the tile as a garrison. But at the least, the city being there and having the right defensive battlements should enable that garrison to proactively repel invaders from nearby lands at -less- than the normal cost in casualties to such an offensive. If combat is Civ V mmodeled, this is satisfied automatically if the city gives a defensive bonus to the garrison after their attack, as now they have an incremental advantage over the N turns it takes to destroy any particular invader. Under Civ IV's "combat leads to somebody dying", I have a hard time seeing how this could be true, as the city never makes any attack from the garrison more profitable.

    So it doesn't have to be a bombard - bombards maybe should go away - but there's got to be something because the alternative is that hiding out in the garrison means invaders can camp indefinitely right outside a castle at no more cost than regrouping anywhere else on the battlefield. The fact that positioning on the Civ IV map never matters (you don't even have surround bonuses? Are you kidding me?) really bothers me.
     
  9. killmeplease

    killmeplease Mk Z on Steam

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2007
    Messages:
    2,794
    Location:
    Samara
    dont see a problem here. if you want to make a sally, use a garrisoned unit for this. you can build it even under siege. maybe there should be some cheaper militia unit available whcih is only useful for this kind of action, to build in emergency (reqs armory/arsenal?)

    partisan warfare may be modelled by attrition mechanic, when invaders lose some little amount of hp every turn while in your cultural borders.
     
  10. HorseshoeHermit

    HorseshoeHermit 20% accurate as usual, Morty

    Joined:
    Apr 5, 2013
    Messages:
    1,274
    Location:
    Canada
    sally?
    Militia sounds kind of neat, can you expand on that?
    Cultural borders inflicting damage is ew. Just ew.
     
  11. brewgod

    brewgod Chieftain

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2006
    Messages:
    339
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Jet City
    I wish they would implement which some have already mentioned...the Corporation. Civ 4 had the Sushi and Diamond and other Corps that you could build. With today's CPU chips and Graphic Cards I am sure the programmers could make a great dimension to this game and add a specific Tree to Corps kinda like the whole Ideology Spider Web or levels.

    Also I have been wanting the option to build ships on rivers for the longest time. There are huge rivers in the world which have major ship yards. They slowly sail out to sea. I agree with the 1 hex movement until hitting the open seas. Also if this is implemented then you should be able to build additional Harbors and or Ship Yards on river tiles. Make them different and unique than Harbors since not all Civ's and or AI would have rivers in their game.

    Lastly the Space Victory has never impressed me. Once your Ship launches and you win the graphics and just boring...a guy jumping out ? I loved it when the space ship actually landed on a planet which was more realistic to me. I believe that was only in Civ 1 and Civ 2?

    That's my 2 cents.

    Brew God
     
  12. Krajzen

    Krajzen Warlord

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2013
    Messages:
    2,461
    Location:
    Poland
    - Tactical Combat solved like in Endless Legend: units move in stacks but when two stacks fight their units ''spread'' around on hexes of actual world map and after resolved battle return to stacks.
    - BETTER AI
    - Diplomacy: Casus Belli and less random AI...
    - Ethnic Unit Graphics for civilisations from Europe/Asia/Africa/Middle East/America!!!
    - Enhanced Demographics a la Info Addict

    Ideas.
    - Optional: global climate simulation! Natural Cataclysms, Global Warming, Little Ice Age, Environmental Damage, Nuclear Winter...
    - Possible ''Zombie Pandemic'' in late game.
    - Random Events
    - Plagues
    - Emigration
    - Civil Wars
    - Colonisation
    - more interactive Barbarians
     
  13. killmeplease

    killmeplease Mk Z on Steam

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2007
    Messages:
    2,794
    Location:
    Samara
    by sally i just mean attacking from a city plot
    militia may be a cheap melee unit, with some major drawbacks making it only effective as a last resort. e.g. increased maintenance + can heal only in the home city.
     
  14. UWHabs

    UWHabs Warlord

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2008
    Messages:
    3,998
    Location:
    Toronto
    The biggest things corporations did for me in 4 was that it gave a use to excess resources. In the current game, once I have the X coal I need to build factories, there's really no purpose to picking up extra. Or there's no use for iron after you're past frigates. Even if not a corporation, if there was some mechanism for rewarding those excesses (ie factory bonus changed to +1 production per excess coal in empire, forge to +1 prod per iron), then it would actually give a purpose to settle lands. Maybe it's worth it to plan a city in the tundra to pick up 6 iron, if those resources can be used for the corporation.
     
  15. Naokaukodem

    Naokaukodem Millenary King

    Joined:
    Aug 8, 2003
    Messages:
    3,086
    Rewards always wide empires, and as wide empires are also often the most powerfull ones, it would just made the most powerfull more powerfull yet. :)
     
  16. andreafin

    andreafin Chieftain

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2014
    Messages:
    323
    Location:
    uk
    ok someone made a canal mod and im going to be an ungrateful sod and complain about it.
    i HATE using the fortification graphic for it. it looks wrong. it has the same defensive value as a river (approximately), but more vulnerability since not many uncontrolled rivers can be easily diverted, whereas a raised area of a canal can have someone sabotage the bank on a raised section and drain at least part, or flood an area.

    if we cannot add new manmade terrain graphics (how hard can a straight band of water be to make? its position in the centre of a tile rather than an edge should be a giveaway also), then why not have a special unit? you build a number of them (call them canal/bridge engineers) and the ONLY use they have is to build canals and bridges across narrow channels of sea after say the modern era is reached. you put them in position and fortify them and they rotate to face any adjacent fortified engineer or sea tile. make it so they cannot go more than 2 hexes from land or into deep water. make it so they enable sea and land units to travel freely on top. make them look like a canal on land or a bridge section in sea/lakes. and leave the fort alone.
     
  17. Lglenhaber

    Lglenhaber Chieftain

    Joined:
    Nov 5, 2014
    Messages:
    57
    New Space Victory
    Spoiler :
    You can put as many boosters/population modules into your ship, and then you can launch it. When you launch it, it takes X turns to get to the next planet (it is shorter with more boosters) and then it needs to develop. When it reaches 5 population, you win.

    SO, if someone else has launched a rocket, you can try to take their capital, or even make your own, faster rocket
     
  18. Naokaukodem

    Naokaukodem Millenary King

    Joined:
    Aug 8, 2003
    Messages:
    3,086
    That's how it worked in some previous Civs. (apart from the development part)
     
  19. eduhum

    eduhum Aahh the gold old days...

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2008
    Messages:
    680
    Location:
    All of this was field back in days
    Based on the release dates of all the Civilization titles, 6 should have been at least announced. Civ 4 came in 2005, Rev in 2008, Civ5 in 2010, CivBe 2014.
    Firaxis is big. They should be working on it right as we speak, and, I would bet, in a very advanced stage.
     
  20. Primacide

    Primacide Settler

    Joined:
    May 2, 2014
    Messages:
    602
    Location:
    California
    I'm guessing BE was their next big splash. With the push they had for its release, I am assuming that Firaxis will have its hands full for awhile patching that game to increase sales. I suspect it will be a long time before we see civ vi. I'm still enjoying V a lot though, so I don't mind if they take their time.

    This is all just speculation of course. They could release the game tomorrow for all I know.
     

Share This Page