Civilization 6: Ideas

Tussilago said:
Here are a few of my expectations:

1) Fix the diplomacy system so it makes sense. Civilizations should act from a rational self interest that in some ways can be understood and reasoned with and it should relate to their historical situation in game, not according to "playing to win" the game.
Click to expand...

So your proposal is specifically distinct from that of altering the incentives of the game (and the representations) so as to make historical rationality more commonly the 'playing to win' move?

Now I must ask what you mean by historical rationality. You could mean many things, very different. I can imagine three, and the possibility of something I can't imagine:

-The civilization is led along a progression of policy choices as in world history.
(then there are no alternative histories, frankly no choices, and this isn't Civ but instead a historical-themed TBS, there are board games and abandonware for that.)
-The civilization chooses self-interest to become stronger and/or more secure
(but isn't playing to win? This is a contradiction; the A.I. not managing to compute self-interest is a problem of A.Is. are hard to make, not that it is over-obsessed with anything different from that goal.)
-The civilization chooses self-interest to become stronger and/or more secure interpreted through the anthropology of its citizens
(extremely ambitious)

I'd prefer to do you one better and take the last route, except also make the conceit of the game include the anthropological , and now, instead of being about incentivizing those choices or not (and coming back to historical simulation: the movie), we have either/or different choices in which we see players selecting and diverting those very named phenomena toward the strategic end of the game; or we have a game that is upfront about challenging you to enact those very named phenomena via a different battery of options entirely.

So is this "Civ" game that we want, really, one that must have a different economy entire? That food/hammers/gold can only get a kind of game as we see so far?

In some ways this is not a huge redesign. All mechanics after food, hammers, settlements, and working tiles, are implicit anthroponomies modeled in the game. The social policies of Civ: V purport to describe ways of social organization that are comprehensible and feasible to citizens living in particular technological eras - and have meaningful absences of policies that you can define but are not adoptable at all. The tech tree shape lays down the manner in which philosophic thought can proceed from technology to inspiration. The happiness device is a kludge that stipulates a people who are sorely uncomfortable with their own kine multiplying in the land (i.e. is a nonsense to the lens of Reality).

Civ's skeleton is enough to support any design of arbitrarily many "local" properties of cities, measured in numbers or otherwise, and empire metrics atop that. Local property modularity is very powerful; the Community Balance Patch's take on happiness proves the expressive power of that degree of freedom for design (even if I agree no way with their alternative).

I believe, and some research I've done is showing me, that drilling down a little bit to the anthropic level, can generate this satisfying macroscopic dynamic of the systems you refer to... of getting diplomacy incentives organically, of cohering to a persisting civ identity that is "rational and can be understood and reasoned with", without banging it into hardwiring or a 'computerizing' attitude modifiers system. I bet it can make trade ubiquitous too, thanks for pointing me in that direction. I was stuck on a pacing problem for war; maybe peace will provide the answer.
 
Civ V really improved the game's economics, and Civ VI might really need to be creative to live up to that. Maybe a supply vs demand feature can be implemented to increase the value of certain commodities, and even a stock market could be established in the later game. Cities should be able to specialize in certain goods/resources and be able to undergo projects like canals to allow more trade routes to be available. Also, geographical importance could be placed on cities to make them more prominent and important (it should be a significant advantage if a city is founded on a strait where a lot of trade routes pass; maybe a tariff system could be used in this case for example).
 
You praise Civ V's economics, and then you propose taking Civ VI's economy design in the completely opposite direction that Civ V did.

:confused:

Supply vs demand does not need to be simulated. It exists. If you want to show an effect of little economic actors in the cities, then all you need is a bust and boom cycle... but that would just be slightly fluctuating profits and only after the timescale slows to 1yr per turn. I don't understand the point to what I can figure you mean.
"Doing things to make money" is building city improvements that give you money - improvements and buildings and the wealth project, so Civ V does anything you might have meant in that respect. Recreating the sinusoid of the market dynamic is very little reward in gameplay experience, I doubt that's what you mean. If you mean actually drilling down to create an economy of little people who have supply and demand, then I tell you: Supply and demand can't be created, and can't be destroyed. The 'little economy' is what has to be created. Any ideas?

Specializing in resources is a next step for trade routes. If Civ:VI took the exhaustive listings of industries from Caveman2Cosmos implemented through local resources, and reused the BNW resource-difference profit engine, then that's a pretty good approximation to your wish, I think.
.... with a 'little economy', I guess you'd have the little resources modifying themselves somewhat over spans of time, improving the local profitability; ... having consequences for the actual import/export market-

OOOOHHH das gudd idea


The actual implementation of trade routes and city connections, indeed, could substantially evolve, including number of routes.

Geographic location can be emphasized if route range was more restrictive , making that which enables routes more intrinsically valuable. Also, a simple modification to route-pathing so that trade units cannot route through territory except with (A) the destination civ, or (B) trade-open borders with intervening lands, would accomplish the underlying material for a tariff system built on top. That is, diversifying the "Open Borders" trade deal to many different kinds, including one for just trade units.
 
I Posted this on Reddit, didn't get any discussion (which is not surprising, I'm bad at explaining my ideas).

Spoiler :
The trade caravans and cargo ships introduced in BNW are great, but it always seemed odd to me that there were two completely separate "trade" mechanics with no interaction- the trade route system, and the diplomatic trade deal system. This gave me an idea for a whole new trade and resource system for future civ games that I felt like sharing.

First off for this idea to work, happiness/loyalty would have to be city based, and strategic resources would have to either be an accumulate-able resource spent on construction, or just a requirement for construction, rather than something used to actively maintain units. Also there should be a "escort" order for military units to try and follow trade units as closely as possible. In addition trade routes would auto adjust to avoid enemy territory and cities when possible (they would only do this when the unit was at either end of the route). Trade routes would be cancel-able, though the unit would need to reach the end of the route before it can be reassigned.

Now on to the actual idea: first off, resources would now be held locally rather than globally. A city would be able to use and extract resources from within three tiles, no more on its own. Caravans and cargo ships would now be used to connect and share the strategic and luxury resources of cities, this would be an important new part of gameplay.

So how does international trade use this system? Well, when either of two civs have the other within trade range of any their cities, their would be a display showing the cities acting as "centers of trade" between the two empires. Either side could change their center as long as it was within range of the other side's center. You could request/bribe the other side to move their center, though they might not agree. If there is not already a trade route, to make a deal involving resources or gold-per-turn, one side must have a free trade unit in their center of trade capable of reaching the other center of trade. When the deal is made it will create a trade route, if the trade unit is looted or destroyed it will cancel the deal. New deals made after a trade route already exists would be added to the old one. If a route is already active you could not change your centers of trade unless you cancel existing trade deals, which could be done at any time (the deal will stop instantly but the unit would need to finish the route to return). To prevent exploits with letting a route be pillaged intentionally/declaring war, resources/open borders/gpt could not be traded for lump sums of gold or other one time un-cancel-able deals. Declaration of war would cause the unit to simply disappear instantly.

Allied city states would now send their resources in trade routes, which would come from "nowhere" (the city state does not need to build them) and would only go if you had a city in range. If destroyed they would take a time to respawn. You could request a city state change the destination if there were multiple in their range, they would always agree.

Finally, it would be possible to impose trade tribute on other civilizations so that they would have to pay you for any of their trade routes passing through your territory, to "guarantee their safety". This would be a fixed amount per route to prevent exploits. Trade routes would auto-adjust to avoid paying tribute when possible, (they would only do this when the unit was at either end of the route) as they would with enemy territory. Taking tribute would cause diplomatic penalties of course.

(One thing: having to build units for trade deals might be annoying. If so it would work more like the city state routes also in this proposal, and the unit would belong to both sides, and there would have to be a gold penalty and respawn time if it was lost).

I think this would add a lot to gameplay, in peace you would have to manage your trade and resources, in war attacking and defending trade units would be alot more important. Or you could try and use strategic positions to extract tribute from other civilizations (this would work especially well if they added canals)

Edit: roads would still be useful, they would increase unit movement speed and extend the range of caravans travelling along them. Also to be clear cities could be connected through other cities to share resources, they do not need to be linked directly.


Also, to be clear, because it wasn't so obvious in the original post, this system would replace the old trade routes of BNW, not be added in addition to them. One new thing I thought of, is that the way bonus resources work could be changed so that they could be shared between cities this way also.
 
There great many things that I wish for a new Civ 6 game:

- Introduce a mechanism that would ensure that the bigger the civ, the more vulnerable it will become to non-military attacks (spyionage, cultural influence, independentism, etc) a a means to avoid snowballing civs

- Public opinion and trade becoming a factor in diplomatic negotiations. And conversely, diplomacy having an effect in commerce. Please, do desing interconnected systems. Also, you won't need CS if you have a propery designed and complex diplomacy system

- Wonder / policies / buildings that gives bonuses conditioned to a certain yield threshold would make a great way to specialize cities (ex: +1 production in tiles that generates 5 or more food)

- A trade-route system far more dependant of terrain rather than a fixed number of hexes. Are you surrounded by jungle, tundra or mountains? Yep, you're ed. Do you have access to rivers or the sea? Awesome. Do you control a particular coastatal straight or chokepoint pass between mountains? Economic powerhouse, there you go! Never, ever forget that historic principles can make for great gameplay too: Geography is destiny being one of them ;)

- Trade routes generating both gold production and food with no regard of external VS inner trade routes. Create your breadbaskets, industrial centers and the likes so you can specialize your cities and make them working parts of a greater leviathan (your empire!)

- City titles (special bonuses) earned by pairing certain wonders inside the same city (ex: Eiffel tower + The Louvre => City of light: +5 happiness)

- Implement a system that deters mindless expansion and forces you to think the implementation of each city, a la civ 4's manteinance...

- ....but create enough incentives so you can start a second wave expansion during the age of discovery - mid game

- Preserve social policies and the exploration / archeology system. These were awewsomesauce. The whole "excess of happiness leading to golden ages" is an intriguing idea that might be re-utilized again too

- Rework the culture system on its entirety. This is my favourite part since its introduction back in the days of Civ 3: You can really go into many direction with this. I have my own ideas about it, but they are extensive and I don't want to monopolize the thread

- Give several Unique traits to each civs. Differenciation is good! You could even take a page from Civ Revolutions and add unique civ traits tied to certain ages

- Do not go back to stacks of doom. Do expand, however, the 1UPT concept. One unit max on rough terrain, two units in flat terrain, make it so up to 3 units could be stacked in cities and armies on special circumstances. There you go
 
Ikael said:
- Do not go back to stacks of doom. Do expand, however, the 1UPT concept. One unit max on rough terrain, two units in flat terrain, make it so up to 3 units could be stacked in cities and armies on special circumstances. There you go
Click to expand...

I could get behind that. As much as everyone likes to whine about 1UPT, in the real world there would be a simple limitation as to how many units can physically occupy the same area. For me, SoD conjures up the image of units literally stacking up on top of each other--think a bowman standing on the shoulders of a pikeman piggybacking a knight whose horse is riding a catapult. On the flip side, you'd think there'd be some reasonable finite limit. At least let a unit cut through another on a multi-turn move--what, they can't step or roll their stuff out of the way? (damaged units would have less soldiers/machines to go around anyway)

EDIT: I'd even accept overlapping units during said move being unable to attack (full strength), since due to crowding they couldn't operate optimally.
 
Sedwick said:
At least let a unit cut through another on a multi-turn move--what, they can't step or roll their stuff out of the way? (damaged units would have less soldiers/machines to go around anyway)
Click to expand...

Ooh! How about if two units of same type but differing HP numbers occupy the same tile, they can (with player's permission) mix and average out their health?
 
Removing workers is the most terrible of all terrible ideas. Why?

1) When to build a worker, and the prioritation of that in the early build has a huge strategical impact on the game.

2) Compared to Public Works in Call to Power, workers have the advantage of being in danger of being raided by barbarians or other foes, adding even more to the game to concider.

3) Prioritising how to use your workers are not meaningless micro, it has a great impact on game strategy. A good example is how much better and more targeted you can make your city development strategies by microing your workers compared to letting the ai handle them for you. Do you cut forests for completing a Wonder or a unit faster, do you improve a ressource early, or do you prioritise a farm or a mine? Do I take my chances improving that great tile not too far from a barb camp? When do I build that road? Loads of meaningfull choices to be made.

4) It's Civ-tradition. Then I also include Civ1 where settlers had the role of workers.
 
I also wonder if workers couldn't get promotions, earning experience with each improvement, with more advanced improvements having higher XP ratings. Here's my suggestions:

Journeyman: Granted to "regular" workers. Improves tiles +25% faster.
Foreman: Granted to Journeyman if no other Foreman in same 3-tile range of the city. Other workers in range except other Foremen and Union Bosses each improve tiles +20% faster.
Union Boss: Granted to Foreman if no other Union Boss in same 3-tile range of the city. Other workers in range except other Union Bosses each improve tiles +15% faster.
 
Horseshoe_Hermi said:
So your proposal is specifically distinct from that of altering the incentives of the game (and the representations) so as to make historical rationality more commonly the 'playing to win' move?

Now I must ask what you mean by historical rationality. You could mean many things, very different. I can imagine three, and the possibility of something I can't imagine:

-The civilization is led along a progression of policy choices as in world history.
(then there are no alternative histories, frankly no choices, and this isn't Civ but instead a historical-themed TBS, there are board games and abandonware for that.)
-The civilization chooses self-interest to become stronger and/or more secure
(but isn't playing to win? This is a contradiction; the A.I. not managing to compute self-interest is a problem of A.Is. are hard to make, not that it is over-obsessed with anything different from that goal.)
-The civilization chooses self-interest to become stronger and/or more secure interpreted through the anthropology of its citizens
(extremely ambitious)

I'd prefer to do you one better and take the last route, except also make the conceit of the game include the anthropological , and now, instead of being about incentivizing those choices or not (and coming back to historical simulation: the movie), we have either/or different choices in which we see players selecting and diverting those very named phenomena toward the strategic end of the game; or we have a game that is upfront about challenging you to enact those very named phenomena via a different battery of options entirely.

So is this "Civ" game that we want, really, one that must have a different economy entire? That food/hammers/gold can only get a kind of game as we see so far?

In some ways this is not a huge redesign. All mechanics after food, hammers, settlements, and working tiles, are implicit anthroponomies modeled in the game. The social policies of Civ: V purport to describe ways of social organization that are comprehensible and feasible to citizens living in particular technological eras - and have meaningful absences of policies that you can define but are not adoptable at all. The tech tree shape lays down the manner in which philosophic thought can proceed from technology to inspiration. The happiness device is a kludge that stipulates a people who are sorely uncomfortable with their own kine multiplying in the land (i.e. is a nonsense to the lens of Reality).

Civ's skeleton is enough to support any design of arbitrarily many "local" properties of cities, measured in numbers or otherwise, and empire metrics atop that. Local property modularity is very powerful; the Community Balance Patch's take on happiness proves the expressive power of that degree of freedom for design (even if I agree no way with their alternative).

I believe, and some research I've done is showing me, that drilling down a little bit to the anthropic level, can generate this satisfying macroscopic dynamic of the systems you refer to... of getting diplomacy incentives organically, of cohering to a persisting civ identity that is "rational and can be understood and reasoned with", without banging it into hardwiring or a 'computerizing' attitude modifiers system. I bet it can make trade ubiquitous too, thanks for pointing me in that direction. I was stuck on a pacing problem for war; maybe peace will provide the answer.
Click to expand...

This is one of the most intelligent posts I have seen on Civ Fanatics

As for Civ6 I want it to come polished unlike Civ5 and be actually good unlike disappointing BE and total failure Starships :p

I want one tiny decent thing: AI.

I want government stuff being more interactive and impactful than a bunch of bonuses stuffed together (Social Policies).

I want proper statistics in game without need to use Info Addict. And more ergonomic interface.

I want basic ethnic skins for civs - jesus, please at least give Africans black skinned models...

I want climate changes and interactive environment.

I want flavour like events from Civ4 or great works from Civ5.
 
Horseshoe_Hermi said:
So your proposal is specifically distinct from that of altering the incentives of the game (and the representations) so as to make historical rationality more commonly the 'playing to win' move?

Now I must ask what you mean by historical rationality. You could mean many things, very different. I can imagine three, and the possibility of something I can't imagine

*SNIP*
Click to expand...

OK, I feel compelled to reply to this excellent post, because this dylemma is the crux of the matter for this series: Realism VS Game-ism. Or Historical rationality.

I much like this term, for that is the path that I would like for Civ 6 to follow: Not a full blown, Paradox-like historic simulator nor a boardgame designed to be "playing to win", but rather, a game where rules and winning conditions encourages the player to behave following an historic logic, thus creating "plausible historical scenarios" on an organic, rather than a forced manner.

Let me put it in this way:

Historically accurate simulator:

- In order to win as France, you must keep allied with England in order to mantain the "Entente cordiale", and defeat Germany in order to win the First World war

This is an extremely flavourful, albeit very rigid and straightfoward type of game. Yes, it does put you indeed in the shoes of early XXth century France, but it heavily constrain your options as a player, and it bodes ill for multiplayer competition.

Pure board game:

- In order to win as France, you should beat all the other players just like any other civ. So you need to randomly flip out and declare the war to longstanding allies like England and mortal enemies like Germany alike.

This is a very competitive type of game, yes, but it is utterly generic. This makes for little characterization and worst, it homogenizes the game even more, as it pidgeonholes the player into following the same script in any situation: It doesn't matter if you're bloothirsy Aztecs or diplomatic French, you go and declare the war always, "playing to win". This has been the problem with both Civ V vainilla and Beyond Earth.

Board game with historic logic behind

- In order to win, you have many options. French civ bonuses, however, clearly favours a diplomatic approach. Also, there are game mechanics in place that heavily penalize backstabbing your longstanding allies (England in this particular game, but it could be any other civ that you've been peaceful with for a long time) with happiness, commerce and diplomatic penalties. Germany, however, has declared you war several times over. And game mechanics also favours possessing cities nearby to your frontiers, which have less manteinance costs. And Germany does have tempting cities near your frontiers too. Hmmmm.

Yes, you finally arrive to the conclussion that it would be better to mantain the alliance with England, and keep being hostile with Germany, just like it happened in real life. But hey, perhaps it would be better to strenght the ties with both nations and aim for a diplomatic victory instead. Or turning your economy self sufficient, and go for a domination victory by backstabbing both nations once you don't depend from them.

This latter model encourages and nudges the player towards behaving "historically" without pidgeonholing him into a single strategy, thus not only increasing replayability, but competitivity as well: You can indeed opt for many different strategies (agression, going tall, cultural, etc) but in order to execute them you have to behave historically and most importantly, you have to behave coherently: Consolidate territorial gains after expanding militarily, strenght your diplomacy using trade, go tall using your culture, etc.

I would really, really love if Firaxis goes trought this approach :)
 
Luckystrike77 said:
Removing workers is the most terrible of all terrible ideas. Why?

1) When to build a worker, and the prioritation of that in the early build has a huge strategical impact on the game.

2) Compared to Public Works in Call to Power, workers have the advantage of being in danger of being raided by barbarians or other foes, adding even more to the game to concider.

3) Prioritising how to use your workers are not meaningless micro, it has a great impact on game strategy. A good example is how much better and more targeted you can make your city development strategies by microing your workers compared to letting the ai handle them for you. Do you cut forests for completing a Wonder or a unit faster, do you improve a ressource early, or do you prioritise a farm or a mine? Do I take my chances improving that great tile not too far from a barb camp? When do I build that road? Loads of meaningfull choices to be made.

4) It's Civ-tradition. Then I also include Civ1 where settlers had the role of workers.
Click to expand...

-I didn't say remove workers altogether I just said that some tile improvements like farms could be improved by the city population working that tile - just like in civ 4 how trading posts get upgraded to town gradually. Read my post again.

-You would still need workers to build mines, quarries, chopping forests, roads, forts, trading posts etc just cut some of the tedious micro with having to build farms everywhere.
Anyway on Diety everybody steals 1-2 workers from the AI because that is the only means to compete with the AI. Is that really a balanced system??? You turn a losing game to a winning game just by capturing 2 workers with a scout than making peace with the AI in 10 turns and they don't care that you enslaved their people. It's hardly strategy since you are almost guaranteed to lose Diety if you don't capture workers. Players just base their gameplay around an exploit.

-Barbarians are still just as dangerous as they would pillage every tile (even those farms) under construction which would set your cities back considerably. No different from pillaging Towns in Civ 4 which sets them back to trading posts. Heck they could even make barbarians a real threat so they could actually conquer cities in civ 6?

-As far as strategy goes I feel there are plenty of ways that Civ 6 can add new mechanisms and systems that increase immersion.
More complex diplomacy, citystate relations, religion mechanics, social policies/government, trade, resource & economic management, maybe even an events and decisions system like Sukritacts mod to add a bit more roleplaying with each civ, religion & government. The reality is that removing a tedious feature (building farms on every tile) free's up more of the players focus to be spent on new and more immersive features - im sure thats going to make the game on the whole a lot more interesting.

-stacks of doom was also civ tradition prior to civ 5.
 
I would like to see implemented a map script able to create worlds similar to the Earth. Besides, I think it would be great to have particular zones of these planets which would be prone to have earthquakes, tsunami, flooding etc. which could be mitigated with engineering works in later eras and which would require in some cases to have workers fixing 2-3 tiles.
 
Sedwick said:
I could get behind that. As much as everyone likes to whine about 1UPT, in the real world there would be a simple limitation as to how many units can physically occupy the same area. For me, SoD conjures up the image of units literally stacking up on top of each other--think a bowman standing on the shoulders of a pikeman piggybacking a knight whose horse is riding a catapult. On the flip side, you'd think there'd be some reasonable finite limit. At least let a unit cut through another on a multi-turn move--what, they can't step or roll their stuff out of the way? (damaged units would have less soldiers/machines to go around anyway)

EDIT: I'd even accept overlapping units during said move being unable to attack (full strength), since due to crowding they couldn't operate optimally.
Click to expand...

In contrast i always felt it daft that only one unit can occupy what is essentially a huge segment of land.

I would like hexes to be broken into smaller hexes when it comes to units ONLY...obviously if we made hexes smaller across the board it would simply be bigger maps. So a big hex contains say 6 smaller hexes that are for units (so they arent stacked)

Failing that i would like to see limited stacking (3 units perhaps) the traffic jams do happen and are annoying, and nothing to do with skill. I also doubt the AI will ever handle 1UPT properly.

Anyway i would love to see more complex handling of economies. As a small example- right now factories are just a production bonus, but the options for them could be diversified to producing goods in demand (using resources to produce value added goods) or war production etc.


Mostly though i am disappointed with diplomacy and the AI and think that is where the work should go into civ 6.
 
Ok, I really have no idea if this has already been mentioned because I haven`t gone through all the posts...so I will just say it.

I would really want to see NATURAL DISASTERS in civ such as earthquakes, tsunamies, tornados, hurricanes, volcanos...

Tsunamies - would destroy improvements on tiles near Sea and would perhaps destroy some buildings in coastal cities and kill population.

Tornados, Hurricanes, Earthquakes - Same as tsunamies but inland. Could also prevent cities from working, having limited or no output for a while, similar to Anarchy...but only for the affected cities. Each of these disasters could have slightly different effects though.

Volcano eruptions - Would completely destroy and terraform nearby tiles in let`s say 5 tile radius over the course of I don`t know 15 turns? Resources like cattle, sheep....gone and replaced by minerals like gold, stone, iron, copper...

This idea would also need an introducion of Geologists who would determine, by exploring the area, which areas are likely to have any of these disasters and how frequent would this happen. Ofc they would happen to be wrong also. It might be easier to predict earthquakes becuase of determining the earths plates than predicting Volcano erupting. Then there are also floods and fires but that would need other specialists to find out the rainfall and annual temperatures and such...

There could also be buildings to negate effects from particular disaster, similar to bomb shelters against nukes for example.

This is just a raw idea, pretty certain there is more to come from this if thought out properly. Should be kept as simple as possible though but also realistic and fun at the same time...

It would make you think twice where to settle and would definitely take the course of the game to next level. No victory is guaranteed untill it is achieved because it is Mother Nature that has the final word :)
 
How about Spanish Inquisitors being 50% stronger?
 
twilson1972 said:
In contrast i always felt it daft that only one unit can occupy what is essentially a huge segment of land.
Click to expand...

I think if there's one place that's perfect for a unit workshop it's in 1upt games.
But the workshop needs one more innovation beyond that to ever work. It would otherwise always succumb tot he criticism that designing the units is a one-time novelty and optimal arrangements are pre-ordained.

Well, not if you also research the unit fab. And definitely not if the components correspond to certain military dispositions rather than the might/move/etc measures directly. Like... in Civ:BE you choose perks for your army, and those perks are neat as perks that cover your entire force and exclusive of the other choice, because there's this idea that they're at parity in the abstract but will come through for a particular way of playing. For example, attacking a lot, or surrounding a lot. Or using better fortification to stretch military investment more, vs. ..... whatever.
The key feature, I'm pretty sure, is the perks are conditional. It doesn't matter how complex or simple the combat system itself is, or how nuanced the perk interaction with the combat mathematics are. Adding up pieces that make a formula will still become a math and maximization game, which will be solved statically. What you want are decisions that affect the strategy, maybe even the grand strategy, which means conditional activation.

The tie-in can be that your choice becomes one of military culture. It's very interesting in BE to make this choice which is a commitment, and becomes a a like a military tradition. It's a shame that military cultures don't evolve like that from the start of the orthodox civ series.
If things get -too- alternate history though, you don't have a meaningul Civ choice. For Firaxis to make a satisfying AI and to maintain the Civ part of Civ, it may have to become a more scenario-like game. The "alternate history" part of the vision really pulls toward its own needs.
 
^^ there were natural disasters in civ iv... to be honest they were incredibly annoying to me, but as long as they are selectable then why not put them back :)

I would like to see a return of the vassal system myself... end game on continent maps the world would often be split into two super powers... a true world war, and it was quite exciting.

Other ideas i see here have been done before.. CTP replaced workers with public works to do improvements, it also had quite a neat 'army' feature as well.

As i have said before though, i want firaxis to focus on the AI so that it

1) Can use its units and build intelligently without needing massive bonus's
2) Gives a 'real' feeling diplomacy feel. Seeing diplomacy modifiers such as 'they think your trying to win the game the way you are' or 'you built wonders they wanted' is so lame. I want them to try to 'win' (ie take over the world or head into space). But also act like a head of a country, so modifiers such as 'years of friendship and trading have strenghened our bonds' should definitely be there.
 
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Marla_Singer
How would you improve combat in Civ7?
5 6 7
Replies
122
Views
9K
Malexander
M
D
Random ideas about unit stacking
Replies
1
Views
404
Alexander's Hetaroi
Alexander's Hetaroi
R
Compilation of Civ 7 suggestions I have collected from Reddit:
2
Replies
20
Views
2K
The_goggles_do_nothing
T
Lonecat Nekophrodite
Desperate Units
Replies
16
Views
641
BuchiTaton
BuchiTaton
kryat
Borders and True Diplomacy in Civ VII
Replies
1
Views
345
luca 83
luca 83
Top Bottom