Civilization 7

[Brianstorm]

Well what do you do if you're given free reign over Civ VII? For me I'd make the early game last longer and religion and technology mechanics both be more out of your control. Religion should spread organically from however many factors and a Nationalistic Religion for sure should not be founded until let's say the Apostle stage of religion in Civ 6, which would be half the battle. Think of how it seems Spain is religious in every iteration but they went from Phoenician religion and/or Celtic to Roman to Christian to Islam back to Christian and never "invented" a religion.

As far as length of eras, every era should be equal in playtime or just about. Having similar turns means the later eras with more cities and units and mechanics last way longer than the earlier eras. Make the Industrial Era be quick but powerful, just as it was in real life. Maybe the AI can get off their ass with upgrading units and deploying new weapons of war.

Technology being researched makes sense but once someone sees plate armor, they know about plate armor! Not sure how to implement this exactly but it needs a fresh look since it's been the same forever in the series.

I'd also focus heavily on city states being the default way of building your Civilization until at least the medieval era. You could build outlying towns and outposts (similar to Civ 3) but only with certain buffs would you be able to control a second/third city. The transition from having 3 cities and some towns to having 7 or 8 legit cities should be huge. Anyways these are just some quick ideas so feel free to throw yours in.

 

[Starwars]

I would love to pull Religion back into being a more passive thing. I personally wouldn't mind it if it was more like Civ IV again, where it's not a competition of sorts but is really important in the diplomatic game.

Would love to have *some* sort of stacking mechanic for units. Alternatively, go the route of Old World and have maps where there's a lot more room. The traffic jams of Civ VI are really annoying. And of course, it cripples the AI a lot.

Way less "interruptions" in gameplay, mostly in terms of the other leaders. If they have an offer, that's fine but no more than that. And I would love for the leader screen to go away and have a smaller window that lets me access everything else at the same time. Again... like Civ IV. More functionality and ease of use, less showing off animations.

It'd be cool to have the game be shaken up somehow by the time the Industrial era rolls around.

 

[Morningcalm]

I would make new continents appear in the late Renaissance to make exploration more valid in that era, and create new crises with "quests" in the modern era, including destructive environmental issues that one could plan for. I would allow trading of "bonus resources" and give each luxury and bonus resource an inherent value beyond the "stats" for improving tiles with them. I would make the main menu and unit icons less "blue plastic" and more "epic, aspirational" (doesn't have to be art deco like Civ V, but I did like that approach).

Wild animals and barbarians alike would attack players (or not) in the early eras, with wild animals hurting barbarians as well as player units if crossed.

I would make the Civilopedia accessible from the main menu. I would make art for buildings as well as units more culturally appropriate (right now, we have ethnic variety in units in Civ VI, but districts still overall employ the same art, which can cause some odd combinations). I would make buildings have different sound effects when constructed. I would give leaders more lines, and make their backgrounds not smudged paintings edged with darkness and inanimate objects, but instead brighter and more open. I would allow vassalage.

There would be limited stacking (with abilities to stack further in later eras), as well as the current corps system of Civ VI, and economic victory. There would be more methods by which one could train spies. AI design would be a focus. There would be no weird diplomatic quirks like an AI asking whether your units mean war being interpreted as a promise to move units away.

I would appoint Henry V as leader of England, Cardinal Richelieu or Henri IV (the "Good") as leader of France, Hatshepsut as leader of Egypt, Catherine the Great as leader of Russia, Wu Zetian or Kangxi as leader of China, Ashoka or Nur Jahan as leader of India, and Jigonhsasee as leader of the Haudenosaunee.

 

[Brianstorm]

There would be limited stacking (with abilities to stack further in later eras), as well as the current corps system of Civ VI, and economic victory.

Disagree, they should go to stacks with Total War style battles finally. It's been 15 years since Medieval 2 and Civ 4, but I have to hope one of them figures out how to combine diplomacy with real battles eventually.

 

[AriochIV]

I don't think I see a strong case for a Civ VII at this time. I don't see much in the way of possible technological improvements that would justify a new iteration, without turning Civilization into Total War or Age of Empires or Age of Wonders or something else that it's not. Civ VI is really just Civ V plus districts... I would want a more significant change to justify a seventh iteration, and right now I'm having trouble imagining it.

I'd rather Firaxis try something new before starting another retread.

 

[The Civs 6]

... It'd be cool to have the game be shaken up somehow by the time the Industrial era rolls around.

So I think the possibility of getting sophisticated tech or religious systems is rather low. Civ is sticking to the tech tree idea, even though it is now 20 years obsolete.

But this is what I have hope about. Civ 5's ideology would completely shake up the diplomatic structure of the game and lead to a lot of fun chaos. Civ 6 just lacks anything like that. I can definitely see a Civ 7 adding more chaos by, paradoxically, adding more of an "authored" experience to the game. The best part about ideology, and religion in Civ 4, was that they gave a sense of direction to the AI. World congress doesn't do that because it is a complete unfun joke.

The other thing I want to see, and I think it is possible to get, is a rethinking about how terrain works. The introduction of natural wonders has opened my eyes to new possibilities. Why should terrain all be essentially the same blob with some variations here and there? The Nile river system and delta is extremely unique and its potentialities lead to Egyptian civilization being the way it was. Same with China's river systems, Mesopotamia, but also the rocky coasts of Greece and the central asian steppes. In short, my vision is a Civ game where every 6 x 6 terrain blob was unique, with unique yields and other unique influences on your civilization.

 

[JJOne]

Technology being researched makes sense but once someone sees plate armor, they know about plate armor!

Everyone knows about nuclear weapons since 1945. There are still countries now which are trying to make their first one (or so says the media).

 

[XX36789]

I want to zoom the camera all the way out to space and spin the globe around like in Civ4

 

[Elhoim]

- More territory per city and bigger distance between them. I like how in Old World cities can work tiles from any distance, and the idea of Humankind of "merging" cities in the late game is extremely interesting. That would make late game city management similar to the early game instead of managing what is built in each of the 30 cities you have. Basically, it would be better if you manage a civilization instead of a collection of cities.
- Bigger emphasis on resource management. Everything should cost resources, and the late game could create "resource chains".
- Combat similar to Humankind, with armies that spread over the terrain for the fight.
- Something that changes the civs according to eras. I doubt immortal leaders would go away, though. Perhaps you create a "team" of them and you can change them during gameplay?

 

[steveg700]

Get rid of the sham "multiple paths to victory" that essentially tell pour all efforts into a single channel of gameplay. The only way to have multiple paths to victory is to have a victory condition that draws together a variety of aspects of the game.

 

[Morningcalm]

I do hope Civ VII will bring some truly new fresh ideas that aren't just flavor buckets of stats.

(Of course, I wouldn't mind seeing Firaxis do a Civ spinoff, like Civilization: Mythology, with King Arthur, Osiris, Theseus, Gilgamesh as leaders, with fewer civs, more differences between civs, RPG elements, etc.)

Disagree, they should go to stacks with Total War style battles finally. It's been 15 years since Medieval 2 and Civ 4, but I have to hope one of them figures out how to combine diplomacy with real battles eventually.

That's not likely to be Firaxis' strong suit. They would need to program a whole new AI to fit "Total War style battles".

 

[Futumch]

I'd like to see what that new Civ-style game "Humankind" brings to the party, and then shamelessly rip off anything innovative in it.

I liked the way research agreements worked in Alpha Centauri, I'd find some way to implement something like that.

 

[bbbt]

The biggest for me is I want to see mechanics change throughout the game instead of just adding more. Start with food being local, it's global by industrial era. Same with trade routes - start with individual, end with a global market. Luxuries that might be appealing in the ancient era aren't in the modern era, etc.

Sid had hia famous one third old/one third new/one third improved maxim for the new versions of the games. I want to see that within the game itself, so the mechanics change and disappear and appear as the game progresses.

 

[Prester John 2]

As I said many times before one of the main hindrances to a dynamic and enjoyable gameplay - although I enjoy Civ 6 very much - is the lack of dynamism, substantial change and challenge in the later part of the game. After medieval you've made or you're lost.
One of the reasons is that we build our civs up from the very beginning and thus can plan millennia ahead.
I would include a vamped up stability system that could see whole empire break apart due to over expansion and from its ashes would emerge new empires. New civs would also emerge from city states and barb camps. They would get boosts depending on the era (many units, techs, gold) in order to be able to conquer and settle their surrounding area.
This would be a regular feature, not a sign of defeat.
I would seriously simplify combat rules in order to ease conquest for the AI. You could either conquer and expand very much and then see your empire eventually fall apart or stay small but stable.
That's why I like the fame mechanism in Humankind. It allows you to score during the game, not only at the end. So it wouldn't be so bad for your empire to disintegrate if you had acquired much fame during your run.

 

[Jimdigriz]

I want to zoom the camera all the way out to space and spin the globe around like in Civ4

Good point! The Civ 4 huge map really was huge - why can't we have that again? I remember printing out the map to try and work out strategies when I wasnt playing. Lets have proper HUGE maps again and the ability to zoom right out!

 

[The Civs 6]

Cleopatra? I mean really, let's have Sobekneferu or Hatshepsut, who were REAL EGYPTIAN female leaders, and not just a Greco-Macedonian cosplaying one.

If I am thinking about the battles over leaders to fight, I'm going against fictional leaders (Kupe, Dido) and leaders who were not the head of their supposed state (Eleanor of Aquitane) over a real leader who had an impact, albeit one who is not really associated with the nation as represented in the game.

 

[AriochIV]

If I am thinking about the battles over leaders to fight, I'm going against fictional leaders (Kupe, Dido) and leaders who were not the head of their supposed state (Eleanor of Aquitane) over a real leader who had an impact, albeit one who is not really associated with the nation as represented in the game.

They're not going to do that, because that would eliminate the majority of the female leaders.

 

[The Civs 6]

They're not going to do that, because that would eliminate the majority of the female leaders.

That's not necessarily true! I'm not saying an empress or queen isn't really the head of state. Queen Victoria, Cleopatra, even Livia or Theodora if they ever choose to use them would be okay by me. I just really dislike Eleanor - who ruled neither France nor England in that capacity (while both of those states existed), and didn't even live in either France or England. I also levy this criticism at Simon Bolivar, but everyone seems to love him so much that it's a pointless case to make.

 

[steveg700]

Good point! The Civ 4 huge map really was huge - why can't we have that again? I remember printing out the map to try and work out strategies when I wasnt playing. Lets have proper HUGE maps again and the ability to zoom right out!

Oh yeah, the smallness of maps and general congestion of civ's starting so close to each is a huge negative.

 

[steveg700]

I'd like to see what that new Civ-style game "Humankind" brings to the party, and then shamelessly rip off anything innovative in it.

I liked the way research agreements worked in Alpha Centauri, I'd find some way to implement something like that.

Hey, worked with Endless Legend!