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. kaspergm

    kaspergm Warlord

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2012
    Messages:
    4,477
    Just have to chip in and say that I disagree completely with everything except the greyed out part. I think 1UPT is fine for Civ, even though AI obviously needs some help in handling it. The entire dynamics between ranged and melee units is what makes combat interesting for me, so to remove that would flatten game a lot because that makes units much more similar. Civ 5 just hit the balance wrong - ranged units do too much damage, they do too much damage to cities, and they are too durable against melee attacks. This, combined with the fact that cities in general do too much damage on their own and has too high defence against melee units effectively renders melee units useless which obviously is a major flaw.
     
  2. Sedwick

    Sedwick Parent, then Civ'er

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2014
    Messages:
    308
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Waukesha, WI
    Being able to have citizens move between cities to affect production/science/gold/faith outputs could prove quite useful. Perhaps you'd offer money to the citizen, and the price they'd accept would depend on the prosperity and environments of the source and destination cities, as well as whether or not the citizen is currently unemployed. If the cities are different religions, the pressure stats might shift, at least until the citizen changes faiths, which may or may not take a few turns to happen. The relocated citizen may not produce anything for a turn as they adjust or transit. An Autocracy and/or Order tenet may enable forced relocation for 0 gold, which could have a several-turn unhappiness penalty.
     
  3. Thormodr

    Thormodr Servant of Civ Supporter

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2005
    Messages:
    4,807
    Location:
    Vancouver, Canada
    Get a new game engine and have it be 64 bit.

    Take your time to do it right and don't release another half baked mess.

    Take until 2017 if you have to but really get it right.
     
  4. OnceAKing

    OnceAKing Chieftain

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2013
    Messages:
    242
    I like the idea of building out of the city state/Venice concept. When they subvertical basic rules of Civ I think it makes for far more interesting play versus percentage upgrades verse another base unit. If every civ was vastly different like the Huns who start with animal husbandry and a Venice with no settlers, it would eliminate the concept of "optimal" play


    I'm also looking into some type of mod that simulates the concept of rising from out of a city state and into an empire like Carthage, Rome, Macedonia or Athens, etc.

    Even Great Britain was drastically smaller then an empire but maybe not just one city. There should be a way to simulate the idea of conquest, colonization, and diplomacy to expand into an Empire.
     
  5. Greatest Ally

    Greatest Ally Chieftain

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2014
    Messages:
    2
    Just throwing in some more ideas:

    Cities:
    Creating a settler cost 1 citizen and require the city to have X amount of stored food (stored food can be traded between cities and civs)
    Cities take some turns to settle, and start out with really low defense
    City growth rate doesn't slow down with higher population

    Military & workers:
    Military units and workers created from citizens
    Military costs and workers costs food to maintain, equal to citizens
    Earlygame units can be build in a set number of turns regardless of production, while lategame military units take a minimum number of turns to make, but also rely on production and may take much longer if the city has low production output

    Military units and workers can be converted back to regular citizens
    When a city is taken in conquest, all defensive building are destroyed (I'm actually not sure if this is already a feature)

    Technology and science:
    Techs can have specific requirements: sailing require a city at the coast, iron working require source of iron near a city
    Science no longer based on population size

    Culture:
    Rather than unlocking social policies, culture is the base for tourism
    Tourism provide money, and other civs will take a contentness hit for starting a war with you if you have a lot of visitors from that civ

    Contentness:
    Replaces happiness. Low contentness cause rebellion and less military effectiveness, rather than slowed growth
    After discovering currency you have the ability to tax the people of your empire, higher tax give more money, but less contentness

    Spawned rebels reduce city population, can take control over entire cities, rebels can either be killed by the military or you can make a deal with them to make them stop
    Contentness add to golden age counter like happiness used to

    Another idea is arming the people, which cost some money per pop, and increase city defense, but also make rebels more dangerous. Then if you want to disarm the people, you could move military units into cities to search and disarm by force (killing some citizens and damaging the military unit, reducing contentness), or use money on a no-gun campaign, which only work when the people are fairly content, removing all their guns after some time
    People from other civs may emigrate to other civs with a higher contentness

    Resources:
    Strategic resources more important for cities: example, factories could boost production/economic output +50% each, making coal supply very important. Iron allows building a steel mill, +20 production etc... Bring on the resource wars.
    Cities can produce consumer goods as a luxury resource that only lasts temporarily
     
  6. steveg700

    steveg700 Warlord

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2012
    Messages:
    3,188
    Likewise, a generally dismissive disposition like the one you're demonstrating isn't particularly helpful in discussing...well, anything really.

    Case in point:
    You're apparently supportive of Civ's system of keeping units reduced to a couple of generic stat blocks. Or perhaps more accurately, you're dismissive about the idea of a more robust system which results in "options for the sake of having options", or some equally reductive sentiment.

    If the application of a strategic resource just unlocks a stronger unit, and research just unlocks stronger units, then what the discrepancy btween units like the swordsman and pikeman reflects isn't simply "bad balancing on the tech tree". It's the likely result of boiling a unit's quality down to something homogeneous.

    In addition, it's also inimical to having tactical battles where different armies have diverse areas of strength, which rewards players for planning their armies intelligently around the types of battles they expect to get involved in. If you're just building piles of strength, then one size fits all, tactically speaking. Even at strategic level, you're just deciding where on the map to assign the highest amount of strength.

    If there's a compelling argument against unit diversity, it's the desire to keep things simplified. But you've dismissed my comments about the desire for streamlining as an unhelpful generalization without really providing an alternative argument as of yet.

    You are espousing generalizations based on personal tastes. I accept that in a game with tactical combat that it may well be desirable to auto-resolve battles when empires grow large and war is an epic thing. I don't see that as indictment. It may well be that critical battles of merit attention whereas for less-deserving battles you just click the "Smash Stacks Together" button.

    The mechanisms of EL to which I referred in no way necessitate its fantasy theme. They're quite transferrable. You opine otherwise because you've dismissed it as a roleplaying game on a hex map, but that is in and of itself is a reductive generalization that is not helpful to the discussion. The victory conditions are very much those of a 4x strategy game. The mechanisms of expansion, wealth, production, and research that drive a player's engine towards those victory conditions are those of a 4x strategy game. The units are just reskinnings of conventional wargame units (swap a helicopter for a flying monster, swap a tank for a troll, swap a mortar for a wizard, etc). The only mechanical design element I can think of that connects EL to an RPG are the occasional quests that occur, which in and of themselves just represent side activities--and for that matter, we even have missions in Civilization issued by city-states, which are the equivalent of EL's minor factions. That you regard design features like unit customization as inherently linked to the fantasy genre seems indicative of empirical bias. It's no great difference from designing ships in your standard space 4x game.
     
  7. steveg700

    steveg700 Warlord

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2012
    Messages:
    3,188
    Was not aware of that. I'm sure I have it in my Steam bundle somewhere.


    Well, like I was saying to Phil before, the big issue with ranged units is that with a range greater than 1 is that they can focus fire on targets too easily. It is not verisimilitude that had Firaxis limit the range of gatling guns to 1 when they were introduced in G&K (and are often considered less scary than groups of crossbowmen).

    Single shots from ranged units do no great amount of damage against a unit of similar era. What makes them overpowered is that A) moving melee units into an attack position is a slog due to map congestion, and B) three or four archery or artillery units can pile on attacks consecutively.

    Units need to be able to maneuver more easily (which means more tiles on the map) or ranged attacks ought to have a more limited opportunity to fire. The latter is vexing because one of the things 1UPT has to offer is the ability to screen archers with infantry, but that requires them to have a range of 2, which is what allows them to focus fire so effectively that they scarcely require a screen.

    It probably requires a more radical fix than just tweaking attack and defense numbers. For example, perhaps when a melee unit attacks, it actually goes into the target's hex, and thus firing on them would mean firing on a friendly unit as well. This would mean that you can't just accept the "bump" from a melee unit, lose your 25 or so HP, and then leave it stuck next to you with 0 movement, obstructing its own units behind it, ready to be a pincushion when your turn comes.

    Or perhaps allow melee units to make slow, defensive advances--essentially allowing them to move one tile and then fortify.

    Or limit firing opportunities through a mechanism other than messing with their range, like no move-and-fire, or fire only every-other-turn.
     
  8. kaspergm

    kaspergm Warlord

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2012
    Messages:
    4,477
    Well I just disagree with, I think it is a question of tweaking attack and defence numbers. I think the problem with Crossbowmen in game is that they have too high defence power combined with the fact that mounted units got nerfed to the ground after the vanilla problems with Horsemen trashing towns too easily. However, the latter problem is easily solved with a penalty against cities (which they also got, ironically).

    You are correct that melee (foot) units don't effectively counter ranged units because they'll be targeted by multiple units. That's only a problem, however, because current game allows you to move large groups of ranged units virtually unprotected over the map - which you should not be able to do, because mounted units should be the primary counter against ranged units, with their high movement and move-after-attack ability. Mounted units should trash ranged units in a 1:1 combat, and currently they don't - and that's a major balance issue.

    I'm not saying it will solve all problems, but I do think that making mounted units more powerful by increasing their strength and/or give them specific promotion against ranged units (which will give them an actual purpose) and making ranged units less powerful on defence and against cities (which will make siege weapons more meaningful) goes a long way. In fact I play mods that does exactly this and I think it works great, but of course multiplayer people will probably find new weaknesses to abuse in such a setting, as I don't think there's any thing like perfect balance.
     
  9. ThorHammerz

    ThorHammerz zzz

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2014
    Messages:
    836
    If you think it is merely a question of tweaking attack and defence numbers, why don't you try it out in a custom mod and get back to us on how that turns out? You would not be the first one to do so. You can certainly make certain unit classes hard counter one another (a-la-Starcraft where A > B > C > A), but then you run into a whole slew of other problems in terms of accessibility, mobility, clutter, and whatnot.

    1UPT in theory is great. That's why so many people are sold on it, and will desperately cling to its concept even though it's so badly integrated into Civ 5 despite all its problems and shortcomings.

    1UPT as implemented in Civ5 and Civ:BE is horrible, as the factors limiting the battlefield/contributing to the problem in its current state (i.e. not enough tiles to manoeuvre around, ranged units being overly overbearing - there's a reason why massed longbowman can be insta-win) are there because Firaxis attempted to fit 1UPT into the scale of past Civs (i.e. on a map with tile size/numbers that were originally meant for infinite-UPT) - their success on trying to merge a board-game with a macro-micro strategy game has evidently been up for debate for quite a while now.

    You can't have your cake and eat it too.
     
  10. Socratatus

    Socratatus Chieftain

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2007
    Messages:
    1,636
    On further research, I have to say you look like you`re correct.

    Glad I never bought the game after all.
     
  11. Lexicus

    Lexicus Warlord

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2007
    Messages:
    21,683
    Location:
    Sovereign State of the Have-Nots
    Well, I would like to see more intermediate stages between barbarian and civilization, not just city-states. There should be nomads and minor civs, tribal confederations, things like that. Not sure how they would work this into the game mechanics, of course.
     
  12. kaspergm

    kaspergm Warlord

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2012
    Messages:
    4,477
    Like I said, I already did, and I think it works fine.

    But there are things that doesn't fix, like the AI issues - and I'm not only talking about grand schemes like AI planing and managing a large army on long-term scale, but about extremely simple things like AI under siege choosing to move it's archer out of town and embark it next to an enemy ship instead of keeping it in town and firing on enemy units, etc.

    Definitely agree with this, and particularly, I would like some dynamics to reflect the colonial age, i.e. a time where major civs start annexing the areas of minor civs as colonies in a strive for resources. This should be coupled with some sort of coorporation mechanism where you can put your resources to work in factories to produce manufactered goods which would then give your empire trade, growth, production and happiness benefits. This would make post-industrial era game much more exciting.
     
  13. Browd

    Browd Dilettante Administrator

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2012
    Messages:
    11,595
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Washington, DC
    Moderator Action: Since this thread has firmly moved into ideas territory, moved to Ideas & Suggestions.
     
  14. Vandal Thorne

    Vandal Thorne Chieftain

    Joined:
    Mar 26, 2008
    Messages:
    152
    I'd like it if they would scrap diplomacy as it is now and just make influence and espionage base yields from specialized buildings, like embassies. It would greatly simplify and improve AI performance. Also it would smooth gameplay and move away from a level of diplomatic micromanaging that I don't care for while expanding the espionage options.
     
  15. Vandal Thorne

    Vandal Thorne Chieftain

    Joined:
    Mar 26, 2008
    Messages:
    152
    Frankly I think it would be helpful if a specific technology was required for the "zone of control", something like nations, developed in the Classical or Medieval Era. A system for settling towns and hamlets that have their own citizens and work tiles, pooling resources into global pools or the nearest city's pools. Some preliminary ideas of what this would look like can be found here: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=502749
     
  16. RyanTheGreat

    RyanTheGreat Chieftain

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2011
    Messages:
    109
    Location:
    Toronto, Ontario
    Im really surprised we don't have spherical maps by now. Hoping they will finally introduce it
     
  17. WarpCircuits

    WarpCircuits Chieftain

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2015
    Messages:
    29
    Democracy 3 + Civ 5 + Working Multiplayer = My hopes for Civ 6
     
  18. daft

    daft The fargone

    Joined:
    Dec 19, 2013
    Messages:
    1,398
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    New World
    I concur with some of the previous posts. Most likely Civ VI release date is Dec. 2016.
    No doubt it will once again amaze and quickly addict all it's fanatics, such as you and I.

    As for gameplay improvements I would suggest the following:

    Civilization 6 Vanilla Version:
    15-20 Historically most influential Civilizations, taking into account the length of existence, cultural and scientific influence and discoveries, military might and territorial domain. Each of these civilizations would come with at least 3 different historically accurate great leaders to choose from(each with their own set of unique character traits and ideologies-multiple) as well as 3 UU's and 3 UB's for each (vanilla) civ.
    In an expansion pack(s) additional 30 or so civilizations. However, as 2nd tier civs (less influential throughout the course of history of human civilization on Earth), these Civs would only have 1 or 2 Great Leaders to play as, limited ideology choice and 1 or 2 UU's and UB's each.

    Each Civ would look (cities looking different on game map, buildings within cities, citizens, advisors and generic armies-not only the UU's) different when played as due to national and cultural differences between them.

    Tech research should be more unpredictable, no visible tech tree to go by, just several choices each time you discover a new one, and so on.

    Another suggestion, although I'm not sure if implementable, is dividing all playable nations into four different Types of Tribes: Barbarians, Minor Tribes, City States and Cultured Civilizations. with players having the ability to play as one of any of the nations included within these four groups of tribes. Each nation within each group of tribe would have a Great Leader (only Cultured Civilizations multiple Leaders), UU and UB, again, Cultured Civ's having 2 or 3 of each of those and others only one.

    Playing as one of the Barbarian tribes you could win through domination or conquest, expanding quickly territorially by founding new encampments, very slow and limited (mostly military) scientific research would be included. Barbaric tribes might have a chance at becoming a Civ if they conquer a capital of a Cultured Civilization? just a thought.

    City State tribes could gain the ability to expand their empire by sufficient cultural/tech/civic gain and from that point on compete with other Cultured Civs as equals.

    As 1 of the Minor Tribes you would be able to expand but your research would be slow compared to Cultured Civilization tribes and would have to gain enough culture and techs(perhaps civics) through quick expansion, exploration, conquering of Cultured Civ's cities-gaining tech for each city taken, to finally gain status of a civilization and from then on develop and grow on par with other Cultured Civs.

    Of course the point system would have to be revamped to ensure playing as non Cultured Civ-at least at start would be more rewarding due to a more complex challenge.

    Well, Cheers!
     
  19. beetle

    beetle Chieftain

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2004
    Messages:
    5,808
    Location:
    Frederick, MD
    Rifting on this idea: Maybe pretty much keep the CS mechanics but erase the explicit distinction between major civs and CS? That is, at map generation time, about two thirds of the AIs are locked to OCC, and would have other attributes similar to CS or maybe like Venice. Or maybe turning into a CS happens at turn 50 or maybe to the lowest ranked AI? It would be most interesting I think if this is dynamic, and the player cannot be sure who is a CS and who is a major when first met.
     
  20. Sedwick

    Sedwick Parent, then Civ'er

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2014
    Messages:
    308
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Waukesha, WI
    The 2-tile range of combat boosts provided by great generals and great admirals would increase with Radio.
     

Share This Page