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. andreafin

    andreafin Prince

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2014
    Messages:
    323
    Location:
    uk
    oh yes also on the list now; better movement for AI. i am getting a little irritated by stupid behaviour when you tell a unit to move a few squares. i recently had an embarked unit (archer i think) which i wanted to sail in a more or less straight line up the coast because there were mountains blocking the way (in south america). the stupid thing wasted movement because it took a right turn to disembark onto land meaning it had to embark the next go to carry on round the mountain blocking the coastal land!
    another example. i wanted the same unit some time later to head towards an possible barbarian camp; all it needed to do was move east 2 then south east one in snow. instead it went south into a forest wasting the rest of the moves, and was going to go around a lake it had just put in its way through another 3 forest tiles! it would take 4 times as long that way and i had wanted to have it in position to support another unit...i had to hold the operation up while i single moved he archer back out of the forest next turn then where it should have gone one tile at a time. not very smart. the thing with embarked units heading off to land unnecessarily really annoys me tho. they seem to head for land even when its nowhere close to the tile you tried to aim it for, unless you click the tile right next the unit and move one step at a time.
     
  2. andreafin

    andreafin Prince

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2014
    Messages:
    323
    Location:
    uk
    i prefer to have spies like in civ rev that i can build an academy someplace then station spies in all my cities. i also liked the espionage % in civ iv; you could set it, balancing it against gold and culture. i dont know if ai spies only target your capital or ever target another city, and having just one or two spies total, and having to pick where to send them when its possibly just pure luck if the AI targets the city the spy is 'guarding' is very unsatisfying. waiting until the renaissance for any spies is also unrealistic. there were spies in classical times, and in medieval times. ninjas were spies as well as assassins and saboteurs - the black clothing is a kabuki theatre convention signifying you cant see the character if its in black; actually ninja usually wore civilian or enemy clothes. maybe have an option to convert some scouts to spies in periods before the renaissance, once they reach certain level, and you build a specific building to train them; having been scouts they will have more knowledge of enemy territory they have been scouting and it makes sense for them having a spy 'promotion'. diplomats and spies have almost been interchangeable terms - you have embassies then at least one of the diplomats is intel gathering.
    of course if the AI never goes for cities other than capitals, then having one spy for espionage and one for counter makes sense but the list of cities you can move them to in your civ makes me think enemy spies can choose to steal tech unopposed from unprotected cities. i would prefer being able to build spies to defend every city.
     
  3. andreafin

    andreafin Prince

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2014
    Messages:
    323
    Location:
    uk
    ok i had a little more experience of it (i have 2 spies now both in defense of my highest potential cities).
    i dont like the passive nature of it. trying to steal techs takes so long that u research them long before the spy does anything. they have no options to unsettle the populace, any of the cool things from civ iv
    first lets correct the terminology; u send intelligence officers not spies to do these jobs. they usually then recruit (by various means including blackmail) spies - foreign citizens who provide the intelligence. so u send an Int Off into a city, he can either do some high risk attempt (usually because of time critical factor) like try to steal advanced tech or deployments, or take a few turns to set up a cell of actual spies, which is slower but has greater chance of success in gathering intel at lower risk of discovery. of course counter intelligence agents might be able to infiltrate this cell...so u may get bad intel, meaning ur new tech turns out to not work when u try in combat or ur nuclear reactor meltsdown on turning it on...and u lose the network plus ur officer. where as in the emergency situation theres a greater chance to fail and he prolly gets captured and can be exchanged for the enemys officers u catch on neutral ground (city state - this gives another reason to keep those alive and unconquered)
    also the emergency attempt to steal is all or nothing; he fails and gets caught OR gets high value intel. with the other method less chance to be caught but never quite sure if ur intel is real or not
    'spy rings' are more real for intel gathering and sabotage; for counter intel u need to have the buildings, and probably need tech for both 'eavesdropping' allowing the equiping of both types of intel operators with electronic bugging, secret cameras etc thus increasing chances of success in their operations, and a more military one u could bundle into the discovery of radar and radio (and enhanced later with internet ) ; which is a NSA/GCHQ type of comms monitoring in large scale
     
  4. andreafin

    andreafin Prince

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2014
    Messages:
    323
    Location:
    uk
    limited stacking; my idea is, when u create a military unit, have it be a basic unit (for sake of example call that a division). have 3 divisions able to combine to form an army, and only one army can occupy a tile. civ rev does this, u can have a basic warrior or u can combine 3 in a tile to form an army, but in civ u can stack other armies in same square. im suggesting a 3 unit or 1 army limit.
    now how about instead of just creating armies from the same type (such as a warrior army being 3 times more effective than its divisions were each), allow the player to combine different types! 1 warrior with one cavalry, and one archer. it would be limited to move distance of slowest unit, but it would be able to hit a target from distance like an archer, or have 2 melee attacks (cavalry would always attack first then warriors would follow in; this army's attacks would be same as if u had just stacked the units and were moving them as a stack). or another example, in modern era instead of a large tank army with an artillery army following it and a mech infantry army to finally follow up and occupy a city, you could have one unit able to soften up a target then hit it and follow up with mop up infantry...OR maybe skip the infantry and have organic sam defence against air attacks?
    i would recommend u were not able to 'battery' sam units into army size. but maybe do so for anti aircraft guns. u could ring important cities with dedicated anti air units composed of 2 anti air guns and 1 sam in same unit in one tile...effectively the only ways to attack from the air is by stealth bomber to evade the anti air entirely or to use air sweeps before the bomber force arrives to use up the air defence.
    once created the armies would earn promotions from scratch (i think this would help balance out the extra power a bit) and maybe breaking them back up into units shouldnt be allowed or if is allowed removes all the promotions (as if u just created the 3 units in cities)
    naval vessels should be treated similarly...a task force of a carrier, missile cruiser and a destroyer, but submarines should never be able to group like this. subs are solitary units. the only difference is maybe a missile sub which has nuclear deterrent on it could be grouped with an attack sub to defend it.
    aircraft could be grouped either in airwings of same type or mixed - 2 fighters and a bomber. one fighter as air cover, one to do air sweep duty on raids. obviously the damage done by this raid would be far less than a successful bomber wing would do to the target but has a better chance of getting through the air defence. this would be because its all in one unit, where if u do a sweep of a fighter wing it gives more warning that a bomber raid is incoming than if it all happens at once.
     
  5. daft

    daft The fargone

    Joined:
    Dec 19, 2013
    Messages:
    1,398
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    New World
    Agree. Players should be able to create larger armies, up to 8-12 units per army. By diversifying several different types of units in an army you would be able to both scout, range attack, capture cities and fight open battles with one army stack. For example: an army consisting of 2 archer units, 2 catapults, 2 horsemen, 2 spearmen and 2 swordsmen would be able to attack, defend and capture cities. During every turn the army would be highlighted and you'd be able to select a unit or 2 and give it a different order or keep moving your army, although it would only move as fast as the slowest moving unit type within the army.
    I like your idea about map enlargement. In Civ2 and Civ3 I'm able to build nations of 50-200 of own settled cities, in later civ games(especially in Civ4) it's difficult to do so. I like marathon games, like playing against 7-12 opponents, no less, sometimes a few more. The map could be divided into 4 squares(hemispheres) for example, which would constitute 4 huge maps-of present size. You could travel to the other 3 hemispheres to keep growing your empire after developing Astronomy, something like that.
    Like in Colonization would like to be able to name rivers, lakes, seas, mountains and mountain ranges. Names of terrain would be in native language to the tribe you're playing as and taken from Geography, History or in case of lack of such(who knows how the Sumerians called the Persian(Arabian) gulf? simply made up. Naming of terrain types might only be possible by using scouts and with astronomy-explores. By naming certain terrain type you'd be claiming that land, but would have to settle it, or your claim's gone, along these lines.
    I also think that building of medics(doctors), shaman, druids and so on should be allowed. They'd help with quicker healing of units, instead of units healing themselves.
    Supply wagons could be added to supply armies in foreign territory.
     
  6. andreafin

    andreafin Prince

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2014
    Messages:
    323
    Location:
    uk
    i think i posted elsewhere about having lines of supply to your armies and how this would make units like paratroops more effective tactically. if those lines of supply to friendly territory had supply units shuttling along them to and fro, u could resupply paratroops by capturing supply units, although i think this would need separating pillage into two functions from industrial era on; sabotage where you destroy infrastructure for limited resupply, and maybe just raiding the supply lines by catching supplies in transit but leaving the route open. the danger of that is highly mobile detached force can use unpillaged road or rail to catch a slower moving paratroop and destroy it

    i suppose also in industrial era on u could have a settler construct field hospitals near to fortified units or stable battle lines to accomplish the healing. its up to the other side to decide if bombing or shelling the hospital (war crimes anyone?) would be performed to speed the battle along, or if u just do more damage than the surgeons can heal.
     
  7. Durgat

    Durgat Chieftain

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2011
    Messages:
    8
    I would like to see Kohans company creation model adopted into Civilization. Imagine taking the unit scale from R.E.D. Xtreme, and then giving it the company creation system. It would look amazing.
     
  8. HorseshoeHermit

    HorseshoeHermit 20% accurate as usual, Morty

    Joined:
    Apr 5, 2013
    Messages:
    1,274
    Location:
    Canada
    Take social policies and ideological pressure to the next level. A completely new, sophisticated culture system. Possibly leading to a new, culture victory. I have a feeling that Devs already are thinking about this, from certain comments made in interviews.

    Make the city screen more complex. I want the gameplay to be about that screen. Make your "government" as above affect how you yield resources from cities and are allowed to control them.

    This. Like zooming in on the hexes we have now. Cities would occupy a field of tiles, and spread out beyond that. Zone of Control might make more sense.

    Warfare has to change. So long as 1UPT stays as it is, warfare will be all archers and the horseman; it has to go. War should be about controlling the right locations, and using deception.
    Merging wounded units to get a healthier, single unit ought to be taken from other war simulations.

    Spoiler :
    The trouble comes from the meaning of "unit". When producing military, "unit" means the kind of weaponry, arming a handful of bodies, that are able at minimum to occupy and defend a tile. When deploying military, due to 1UPT, a "unit" means "a kind of platoon that wholly fills a geographic location." This is silly, the game needs partial stacking back.


    City states I largely like. Coup system needs to be rebalanced with way more risks. I think CS should have a moving bar for friend and allied status both, with a more viscous influence meter.

    And last, have A.I.s bear an appropriate attitude to other A.I.s or the player when they sprint off to victory! I want AIs that play to win. (Even if they'll do it extremely badly.) Stop them from conceding so many cities to each other when in fear of a superpower. Perhaps a setting that toggles between "roleplay" behaviour and competitive behaviour at game start, is needed.
     
  9. Phrozen

    Phrozen King

    Joined:
    May 7, 2012
    Messages:
    863
    One of the problems that Civ5 has is that science rules everything. So for Civ 6 I would have two different tech paths. A science path and an arts path that would run parallel with science going towards science and culture going towards arts.

    Science would still let you tech up with most buildings, units, and reveal resources. Arts would let you build culture buildings, discover religion, social policies, discover luxuries, deeper diplomacy options etc.

    Build in businesses, the Great Merchant is less than useless currently unless you are Venice with the MoV. The Great Merchants should form businesses that open up a lot of bonuses for their civ.

    On the big map you have stacks of units, once battle is engaged it zooms in to 1UPT. Military units have both offensive and defensive scores.
     
  10. andreafin

    andreafin Prince

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2014
    Messages:
    323
    Location:
    uk
    right now its easy to move units into the sea to embark, too easy in some cases. where for instance it interacts with some less than ideal movement ai if u to a unit to move to a tile and it decides to embark into the sea rather than use a perfectly good road, thus taking 3 times as long as it should. that leads to micromanaging every move of every unit even in non critical situations of transit, just to avoid wasting time. but i digress...
    i think the coasts should have a few more impassable areas, clifflines due to erosion and maybe reefs immediately offshore (maybe u could have random storm events wrecking units in transit through a reef off the shore with appropriate casualties and survivors beached and needing to heal.) as this would lead when the world is more settled to realistic invasion beach assaults like d-day; you would have to attack at places which could be predicted and fortified against (new improvement beach defences) or maybe use paratroops to assault artillery units on headlands covering invasion beaches, and air power to weaken defences...you would have to plan more, if a bit less of the coast was open to invading. workboats could build mulberry harbors off invasion beaches to decrease time needed to disembark (for example it uses all remaining movement to disembark onto a beach, although combat by amphibious assault units on defenders to clear the beach should be the first step. but once the beach is taken and its safe to do so workboats create artificial harbors that last so many turns before they are wrecked by weather, and u can move into them with no move penalty onto land?
     
  11. Alexey86

    Alexey86 Chieftain

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2014
    Messages:
    79
    Do you miss transporters? I thought they were cool and risky. The meltdown when you loose so many units in one go because of a submarine.
     
  12. andreafin

    andreafin Prince

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2014
    Messages:
    323
    Location:
    uk
    yes and no; the units now have transporters sort of organically. if we had limited stacking back we could form convoys for more secure (not 100% secure tho) transit across seas. of course as eisenhower said, once in nuclear age; D-Day could never happen again because so much concentrated force would be too vulnerable to nuclear attack. i miss the SDI defence from civ rev against nukes.

    talking about convoys and stacking, destroyers stacked with carriers or transports would defend a bit against subs...but i dont think subs should have ANY stacking limits except with other subs (collision risk). they can be underwater after all.
     
  13. cairnsy44

    cairnsy44 Gooner - first class

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2006
    Messages:
    619
    Location:
    Vermont
    Certainly would add to the realism. Though I think that cities should not have an attack capability but should have a defense. So a wandering barb could not easily conquer a city with no garrison. The size of the city would obviously make it a tougher nut to crack.
     
  14. Tyrantis123

    Tyrantis123 Chieftain

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2013
    Messages:
    20
    If you ever read the beliefs and philosophy of what the company thinks made Civilization successful was a set solid complexity. Civ V failed to reach masterpiece standards due to the massive backlash of the vanilla version that should be prevented in Civ VI.

    Things I want to see
    1. AI improvements and superior optimization

    2. All features must interlock with each other as equal importance, otherwise you are playing 6 different mini games at the same time when only one of them mattered.

    3. Since this is Civ 6, I highly recommend these possibilities

    -Possible for Civilizations to go totally bankrupt and turn into multiple city states
    -Possible for Civilizations to get conquered by warfare and other means
    -Possible for a city to flip back to its owner if inadequate military forces are in the city during a revolt after capture (your military units also take damage in the city during a revolt!)
    -Possible for Civilizations to irreversibly destroy the world they live in at any era
    -Possible for Civilizations to go backwards in technology (before scientific theory is invented, after scientific theory it should always be forwards)
    -Possible for every improvement and tile type in the game to have a impact on the battlefield (for example, deserts would give penalties to knights and swordsmen in armor, and mines would add a 5% increase in defense on hills)
    -Possible for cities to shrink from not only starvation but plagues with poor sanitation levels. (yes add sanitation as a factor to the game)
    -Possible for every city to be razed even if it is a capital city and all wonders are destructible during a siege

    More suggestions please, I really don't give a **** about graphics, but the gameplay mechanics could make this the best Civ game to date a full 5 steps forwards. It will be historically accurate without compromising the fun in gameplay

    THINGS THAT STILL NEED IMPROVEMENTS
    -needs something to shake the game up a bit like natural disasters or events
    -Modern combat needs to be way better, Civ 5 does a piss poor job of representing guns and ranged combat in the late era. Please keep nuclear weapons
    -make other victory types more engaging
    -please release a X-com related DLC, not include X-com units randomly in a expansion the game when some people don't want them in their Civ games
    -The option for the game to end at a specific Era or technology to not go beyond a specific age
    -Needs both tribal villages and ruins to be a part of the game (tribal villages have a risk to spawn barbarians, but they count still reward ruins if you get lucky)

    I can spend hours, bombarding the civilization development team with endless ideas. I seriously think Civfantics needs to start working on Civ 6 suggestion forums and not link everything on one post. Thank you for reading this, Together our community can carry this game to legendary status, The Last of Us for strategy with your favorite game series of all time.

    Tyrantis123 :king:
     
  15. janboruta

    janboruta Artistriarch

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2011
    Messages:
    2,140
    Location:
    Tarnów, Poland
    Principal Civ 6 idea: don't make it yet, we have mods for 5 to do.
     
  16. Bulldog Bats

    Bulldog Bats King

    Joined:
    Oct 18, 2013
    Messages:
    701
    I have seen this mentioned in other discussions, but I would like to see continents uninhabited by civs, so that you have a "new world", so that there is more reason to have later expansion.

    In real life, the native inhabitants of the New World (North American and South America) were little more that CSs. Here, when you find an new continent, even assuming there are decent places to put a city, it is already dominated by a major AI. Certanly would give a reason to explore - chance to find new resources (of course, it would have to include either more incentive to play wide and/or colonies).
     
  17. Alexey86

    Alexey86 Chieftain

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2014
    Messages:
    79
    That would be cool, but also the old Alpha centauri idea that I made a thread of, is bassically the same.
     
  18. Bulldog Bats

    Bulldog Bats King

    Joined:
    Oct 18, 2013
    Messages:
    701
    I would like to see some alternative to the preferred tall style. In real like, there was a HUGE push to settle/colonize, be it the Orient or the Western Hemisphere. The countries that did received large long-lasting boosts. England was one. So was Portugal, as long is it remained a leader in exploration. France and Spain both shrunk in world stature when they gave up their new world colonies.
     
  19. Wodan

    Wodan Deity

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2005
    Messages:
    4,867
    Location:
    In transit
    I would be perfectly willing to pay Firaxis for a FFH mod or SMAC mod as DLC for Civ5.
     
  20. _EL_

    _EL_ Chieftain

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2014
    Messages:
    13
    Location:
    Brazil
    SO many ideas... but I want to share to see if they are right or kind of in the right direction (extracted from my steam forum participation) :

    Idea 1
    Make the CS more agressive (at least the millitaristic ones),
    Otherwise there are useless. Human players will declare war on me and they only attack the tropps that PASS near their territory. I guess an ally would behave in a more agressive way. Then humans would think;" damm he is allied of all city states, If I attack him im screwd unless I have a really big army".
    Without that is a matter of moving the troops in the right tiles and slaughter. This would bring life to multiplayer. OR we could se the AI strategy for ally citi states wih a menu with options (because thats what allies do! They plan!):
    1 Attack: 1.1 city a 1.2 city b
    2 Defende 2.1 city a 2.2 city b

    Idea 2
    This one is kinda funny because I think it doesnt make sense:
    Why cant helicopters be on the same tile as ground troops?
    Or submarines with maritme troops?
    I mean this would really stack up a huge army within a few tiles and it makes sense AND it would be fun to do and watch lol.

    Idea 3
    Make cenario maps playable as a normal sp game so we could change everything and still play on it. I think it can add more options of gameplay, it will be fun and it requires just some little effort to get done.

    Idea 4
    Make a follow option to when we want our non military units protected, this way the we would spare some movements, focus on other tasks etc. Specially helpfull with big civs and or armies.

    Idea 5
    I was think about wonders. After reading about a specific civ founder (Gengis Khan - Mongolians) I found out about some real wonders for them and then I thought: how lame is building statue of zeus or piramids if this civ has so much to offer? And this is just one example of a VERY UNKNOWN civ. I can only imagine what other better know civs have had in the wonder department. Also, I thought that some wonders could be just for that civ to build (another bonus) but to get things kind of balanced they would take longer to build.

    Well some examples are: Burkhan Khaldun: the holly mountain gengis khan went to pray before his wars (as the greeks had their olimpus whatever). This could be turned in a massive religion bonus for the mongolians ingame (as hapenned in history). Avrag was their origninal capital and gengis' sun founded karokorum. Avrag is really old so how about they begin with Avrag already founded with some horses as they already had and no setlers?
    Mongols have always been shamanism as long as historians go back in history. So how about they start with shamanism and change if the player wanted to? (as they changed over history!)
    Or a special bonus could be awarded to the civ that actually founds the religion that it had in anciente times. This second options seems cool to me. And that would mix up religion ingame from the begining. Many games I just ignored faith and when they got like 6k I bought whatever I could. Religion seems dislocated from the rest of the gameplay sometimes.

    Making the suggestion general for other civs: the individual bonus for every civ could be enhanced with a little research of history to make things more fun and acurated. I know that this might be a lot of effort due to the amount of civs ingame already but hey, better than just "keeping adding shallow civs so we can have little insignifcant bonuses that does not make one civ so different than the other". I feel that after a while all civs are the same. They should dig in all civs to do that I think. So we already have "one per player" and "one per world" wonders. I suggest a few "one for this X civ" kind of wonder.


    There might be a mod for every single idea I posted and I would not know yet. Still, as ideas or mods, I think some of this possible features would be good to add. The main thing about those ideas is improving what we already have rather than adding new civs or brand new features. I feel that after a while, all civs are the same: one or 2 bonus troops or buildings are not enough to make one civ very different than the other after a lot of playing. After a while we same same troops, same tactics, just different colours. And it is cool! I play, I enjoy. I just think that about civ 6 things can be greater and astonishing.

    All my hopes for a good game whenever it will be made.
     

Share This Page