Civilization 6: Ideas

[HorseshoeHermit]

The stack of doom is a problem because of the rules for engaging a stack not supporting the vision of the game as tactical. And it's not a total failure, because stacks do have weaknesses. The trouble is those weaknesses don't manifest when the totals involved get a little bit big, and then the stack-engagement rules favor size/might and that only.

I would say the tactical aspect can return and needs unit stacks to do it, possibly even limitless stacks again. Either that, or if it uses 1upt, to actually take a page from tactical 1upt games that are successful, and do at least one of the things those games do. You know, to support 1upt. Here's a few:

You can't repair damage by just not moving
Units can resupply each other
Supply exists
Veterancy is difficult to obtain and marginal

 

[Lachlan]

Why not Iron stacked with Coal or Uranium ?

Why only one type of ressource at once ?

Do you agree for a possibility to have on the same hexe : 2 Iron stockpiled with 1 Coal and 3 Uranium ?

In Iron Age you have Iron, later your discover Coal at same place and even after Uranium !

Is it not a good idea ?

Sorry my english is very weak...

 

[Healz]

What is a full LUA API index in plain English please? Just never heard the term before and wondered whether you would clarify what that was please.

 

[HorseshoeHermit]

I would guess that means someone recording what the actual LUA hooks are, in totality.

It boggles me that the repertoire of LUA abilities is supposedly in the game but documented by no one.

Before having multiple features on a tile, you'd have to use multiple improvements on a tile. And before -that-, you'd have to return to allowing multivariate improvements on a tile, which Civ 5 for some reason abolished. Simplicity is not a good reason for this change, and it sure wasn't performance.

 

[Lachlan]

I would guess that means someone recording what the actual LUA hooks are, in totality.

It boggles me that the repertoire of LUA abilities is supposedly in the game but documented by no one.

Before having multiple features on a tile, you'd have to use multiple improvements on a tile. And before -that-, you'd have to return to allowing multivariate improvements on a tile, which Civ 5 for some reason abolished. Simplicity is not a good reason for this change, and it sure wasn't performance.

As i understood, i shouldn't ask this feature, because prefer Civ 5 to Civ 4...

Civ 5 is a real pleasure and well documented...
Civ 4 could enjoyed but not enough explained in its game mechanics...

That's all

 

[Gamling80]

My opinion of civ V is that it looked good and with the expansions finally got fleshed out. But since it takes to long time to build things are the game reduced to just managing building ques. And since the AI has to cheat to compete, does it complete too many wonders to early.

More units should mean more fun, but since in Civ V does many units go obsolete before you manage to attack with them, would I rather have had 3-5 unique types of units for each civ and maybe a couple tiers less.

But my main issues is that the 1 unit per tile and city bombardment and ranged attacks in general did not work out well. It became way to easy to defend and many games gets decided by who is settling the good spots first. Full scale war in civ 5 is not fun just tedious nagging.

The best thing I would like for civ 6 if we would skip the 1 unit per tile and maybe have armies that could consist of like max 7 or 9 units and be led by generals. But my main idea is to add some sort of semi automated tactical combat where the setup, terrain, possible flanking from other hexes and composition of armies matter. This would be played out in animated battles maybe top 1 min long for full scale battles with 9 vs 9 units.. The generals following the armies would learn certain setups tactics that is chosen before battle and would boost certain types of units against others certain terrain or be extra defensive/offensive. But by choosing that tactic you are more vulnerable against some opposing tactics. The setup tactic would be a bit like rock, paper, scissors it would matter but not decide the battle by itself. The strengths of the units army composition would stills matter more. You would need more units which would be built faster but since you would move most units in army groups instead of alone would it not slow down the game. I also recon the armies would make a faster smarter AI concerning the warfare and unit movement.

Single unit combat would still work much like in Civ 5 with no army setup extras or animated battle scenes. Also only cannons, artillery airplanes and some ships (not cities) would have the bombard ability on the strategic map much like in civ 3-4.

 

[unpossible251]

Lots of exciting ideas about unit stacks, heres my two cents

Real world militaries have struggled with the value and cost of specialisation vs diversification, and that should apply to civ too. So, what might that look like in civ? 1 upt as in civ 5, but with the option to combine 3 units in 1 tile. A mixed unit of 3 different types would have the highest combat strength, but lose any special abilities (ranged attacks, moves at the speed of the slowest unit, etc). A mixed unit of 2 of the same and 1 different has an intermediate combat strength, and keeps any special abilities of the dominant unit. A mixed unit of 3 of the same unit has a lower combat strength, but gains a special upgrade to reflect the units specialization.

Example from classical technology:
Composite bowman - strength 14 - ranged attack
STACKS
3 composite bowmen - strength 20 - free upgrade (+1 range) - ranged attack
2 composite bowmen + 1 pikeman - strength 26 - no free upgrade but has ranged attack
1 composite bowman + 1 pikeman + 1 horseman - strength 32 - a slow, melee only unit

Example from modern technology:
Tank - strength 50 - moves 4 tiles
STACKS
3 tanks - strength 75 - free upgrade (blitz) - moves 5 tiles
2 tanks + 1 infantry - strength 88 - no free upgrade, moves 4 tiles
1 tank + 1 infantry + 1 machine gun - strength 105 - moves 2 tiles.

It would open up a new level of tactics in the war fighting part of the game - do you make mixed units with high combat strength but dont do anything in particular? Or focused units that may fall apart badly, but might carry the win with special upgrades? Or not stack at all, so you can cover a lot of ground and attack from all sides?

---

One last thing I would want to see would be late game policies with freedom, order, and autocracy. The fact is American democratic freedom is different to French freedom, and its different again to Indian freedom. Same with communism - Russia and China took it in different directions, not to mention, arguably, Norway or Denmark. Japan and Germany had different outcomes with fascism, and IMO apartheid South Africa & Sukarnos' Indonesia would probably fit into the Civ group of Autocracy.

How Civ could do that would be to offer, say, 20 options for 12 teir 1 tenants, 16 options for 6 teir 2 tenants, and 10 options for your three top tier tenants.

 

[Iapetus303]

Another SMAC feature that would be good to bring back: fast units can flee from combat is losing.

 

[killmeplease]

Another SMAC feature that would be good to bring back: fast units can flee from combat is losing.

in civ5 slingers and caravels can flee
technically all units could do that, its a promotion effect

 

[Iapetus303]

in civ5 slingers and caravels can flee
technically all units could do that, its a promotion effect

It should probably be handled similarly to the withdraw-on-attacking ability in Civ 4: some/all fast units (and possibly skirmish-type infantry as well) start with an inate ability to withdraw when attacked. Then have a promotion (or series of promotions) to increase this ability.

Although now I think about it: the usefullness of this ability depends on whether combat is to the death (as in all Civ versions before V), or can last several turns (as in V).

 

[Marla_Singer]

Although now I think about it: the usefullness of this ability depends on whether combat is to the death (as in all Civ versions before V), or can last several turns (as in V).

This is simply not true. Combat doesn't lead to necessary death since Civilization 2.

 

[killmeplease]

Although now I think about it: the usefullness of this ability depends on whether combat is to the death (as in all Civ versions before V), or can last several turns (as in V).

yeah now its pretty pointless. maybe there should be an ability to exit combat before the attacker gets damage but it sounds too similar to the ranged combat.

i think something like opportunity fire from civ3 or artillery duels from smac would be great. dont know why did the devs scrap it.

 

[IFailFYI]

Maybe this has been said or commented on but man trade in civ 5 was pitiful and boring. I would really like to see it be made more interesting even if the brought back call to power's ideas when it comes to trading and piracy. It just needs something more than click click forget for 20 turns.

 

[Iapetus303]

This is simply not true. Combat doesn't lead to necessary death since Civilization 2.

Sorry, I worded that badly.

What I mean is that Civ V combat works completely differently than all previous versions.

In the older versions, normal combat* normally involves two units hitting each other until one is dead. Combat ending without a death is unusual, and depends on special circumstances, such as (in SMAC) a fast defender fleeing if it is losing, or (in Civ IV), an attacker with a withdrawl % stopping the attack if it is losing.

Civ V is completely different, with an attack resulting in one or both units taking damage, but not enough to kill a healthy unit unless it is completely out-classed.


However combat in Civ VI would work, I think it would need:
* A way for defending units to flee a battle if losing.
* A way for attacking units to flee if losing, and/or to make harrasing attacks that cause less damage but allow the attacker to escape more easily.
* A way to prevent the enemy from fleeing, and force them to fight to the death.
* Possibly, a way to encourage an enemy to flee rather than fight to the death.

Exactly how this would work would depend on the combat system, but could involve one or more of unit type, unit speed, promotions, innate abilities, terrain, zones of control, stack composition, etc.


*I.e. ignoring artillery bombardment and the like.

 

[Yigit007]

1 - Game Replays.
2 - GG button so that game ends and we can have end game statistics with details like how many of which unit is produced and lost. Total culture produced. Science graph.

 

[Howitzer]

1) Simple, viable yet importantly neglected idea at civ 5 which was available at 4.. Allow air units and naval units (provided they are in range) to bombard resources. It affects strategy of war.
1 UPT even "hybrid" as they intend to have it in Civ 6 if accompanied by resources bombing, military tacticians around here, would love to destroy an empire long before they even have to invade it.

2) "Colonies" : Allow certain units, I dunno, workers or even better explorers, to setup 1 tile "colonies" over really remote resources. Colonies would not have to be anything special in terms of presentation/graphics, just have one tile coloured under the founding civ's territorial colors.
Rules: If enemy civ enters colony tile, it's DOW.very simple 0 defence he gets your resource.Want to defend it and keep the resource? Add a fortified unit on it for garison! Want better protection? Build a city near or on it. Else keep it for nearly free but suffer an easy and predictable loss

 

[sw00p LEV]

I've seen videos and youtubers talking about the sprawling cities where there would be different sections of your cities on surrounding tiles. I really like that idea, though I would like to see the buildings in the districts to have the same colours and basic architecture of the cities. For instance if i'm playing as Japan I don't really want to see buildings that look like there from Europe, cause it would clash too much with the other sections of my city. Also I don't really mind the bright visual appearance, I'll just get used to it. but I really don't like how some parts, particularly the farms look like claymation, its just a little too child-ish looking. I don't want to be waging war with my enemies over a field of playdough.

 

[Mort_Q]

1. Make each map a sphere formed by hexagons.

I can't take credit for this idea. This was the brainchild of someone else on CivFanatics, but I can't remember his username. He realized that if hexagons were connected in a certain way, the result would be an almost perfect sphere. Civ6 could have spherical, 3-D maps instead of flat ones. The player could simply zoom, drag, and release to find a desired location on the map. Just like Google Earth! This feature would make the next Civ game even more realistic and immersive.

You wouldn't even need to make it that fancy in the interface; just allow the map to scroll in 2 dimensions instead of 1.

Not that I'd complain about a cool interface like that.

 

[Darth Tribble]

What about civil wars?

Several nations have had civil wars in their history, so why not in Civ?

Basically, each city has a happiness meter, if it gets to low, the city may spawn military units tha function as barbarians. To quell the rebellion, you must force the city to surrender by either attacking it or cutting off resources. If the rebels capture the capital, you either get a game over or just play as the faction that took over.

You could also help cities rebelling against over civs by either funding them, giving them soldiers or joining them in the war.

Happiness just one factor of rebellion, it could also be affected by distance, being on separate landmasses, influence from another civ, or that they are a foreign people you conquered.

They can also outright declare independence and essentially become a city state and maybe form a military alliance with other revolting cities. In this way you can essentially reenact the American Revolution or the Civil War.

There can also be diplomacy so you don't have to let them go but can grant them their independence and negotiate peace treaties.

This could also be a way for 'extinct' Civs to refound themselves.

 

[skshrews]

Add Modern Era special units and buildings.

None of the Civ games has ever made the modern era interesting. As the game progresses, the uniqueness of civilizations disappears (I would love to see "Internet Geek" as a special Modern Era unit for the USA). "Ideologies" in Civ V was a good idea but wasn't executed well. The ideologies should have been more unique and more of a unifying factor between civs in the game.

Let cities and citizens engage in trade, culture, religion, technology spread on their own. If you were very close to another civ, and open to new ideas with your policies, you would pick up new techs and trade automatically. Or, you could be like 18th century Japan and shut yourself off from the world. Either way, it would be very hard to shut yourself off completely from the rest of the world, unless you were very geographically isolated.

Everyone loves the early, Ancient Era. Allow for faster builds, more trade, more special people, more military units in the early game. More and more, it's clear from recent research that the ancient world was a dynamic period and people came into contact from much greater distances than we had previously thought.