Civilization VI Wishlist or Ideas

[Infantry#14]

The problem with that idea is that with all the development resources that have to go into modelling, animating, and texturing a 3d leader, it significantly limits the total number of civs that can be released.

That's why this is the wish list. Maybe it's possible in an expansion or two. Also they can recycle artwork from Civ 5.

 

[lacond]

A new barbarian system!

I would like that each barbarian camp could be able to conquier some territory, tile after tile, ( for example first tile in 25 turn, second tile in turn 50) then being involved in a barbarian city, more stronger, ( that you could conquier or let grow up) with a random name of something existing in the world. then if the city suceed in keep his freedom, well it can being involved in a kind of city state, more harder to ally, and also able to conquier!

In a another case, when two nearby barbarian camp would become cities, they also be able to allie themselves, at the point they can found a new civ, during the game!

this system could cooperate with civ expansion and the city state mechanic!

 

[lacond]

When I say "each barbarian could be able to become city and later civ, I mean that it could be a possibility of evolution. It would be bored if each barbarian camp automaticaly become a city.

As the metaphor of spermatozoid, many are called and rare are the chosen!

 

[cerushdor]

-limited terraforming such as canal like suez or panama (might be treated as a wonder)

-events system

- climat change that can be aggravated with nukes ...

 

[fredrikslicer]

More cosmetic differences between civs it is a bit wierd watching african civs fielding white warriors or Japan using medival knights its not a question of gameplay but immersion

 

[sw00p LEV]

I think it would be cool if resources could shape your units more. for example, if you start near elephants you can use them in your cavalry instead of horses, or if you have no iron u could use copper instead, and if you start near a forest your early game units could have wooden weapons but if you start in the mountains or near a quarry or something you could have stone weapons. and the usage of different resources would affect things like unit speed, strength, and health.

 

[ThisNameIsTooLo]

I hope that the source of cultural resistance is not Culture itself, but Governments and Civics.

When it comes to obtaining Governments and Civics, you should have two choices: researching them yourself with Culture Points, or borrowing them from other civilizations. (Domestically-researched Civics/Governments are your civ's color; borrowed ones are the color of a foreign civ.)

Borrowing a Government type or Civic instantly "researches" it on the Culture Tree; it colors the Civic/Government in the foreign empire's color, and you can use it right away regardless of your actual Culture Tree progress. However, each Civic you adopt from a foreign empire makes you susceptible to that empire's influence. You can't "re-research" it to change it to your own color, either.

If you want a Cultural Victory, you have to borrow as little as humanly possible, and also encourage your rival civs to adopt most of your Civics and Governments by outpacing them in Culture Points.

 

[Felis Renidens]

A small thing - when you kill an enemy spy don't use that civ's defeat text. They only lost a spy, not their cities (although if they do it too many times they will lose their cities).

 

[darko82]

A seperate soundtrack for each civ progressive though the eras. Easily changable.

 

[Iapetus303]

Navigable rivers.

Climate change (including natural local/regional changes such as desertification, Little Iceage, etc).



Distinct barbarian 'civilizations' that you can conduct diplomacy with (e.g. to pay them to stop attackign you, or to attack a rival). They should also be able to diplomacy each other, with the chance that multiple barbarian groups will ally to attack you. Also, as others have suggested, there should be a way for them to occasionally turn into proper civilizations.

 

[TRoosevelt]

I usually played Civ5 mostly on Giant Earth Map (180x94) with all civs in a custom gamespeed (mix of epic and marathon) ...

WOW! How do you ever finish a game? I bet it's fun though.

Please provide a Giant Earth Map for Civ6 from start.
Please provide a Map Editor (preferably for ingame-usage).
Please support bigger maps like 360x180 or even bigger. (Europe is too small on most world maps to place all european civs.)
(If distances on the map become to big, the player might still mod movement speed of modern units, roads, rails, or use airlift.)

Please do not limit the number of players/civs by a small hardcoded number. It would be great to be able to place 100 different civs on a giant map, even if most of them are conquered by Medieval Age.

I second the fact that the maps are too small for all of the civs to fit, and too small for 1upt to work properly. If they are not going to have a larger scale tactical combat map in which to fight battles, then they need to make the map probably twice as big as it is now. And maybe to keep more cities popping up all over the place, maybe they need to implement a sustainability test for each city site in which if there isn't enough food (especially) and/or resources to sustain a city somewhere, then no one can build one there. That would keep every civ from spamming cities all over on a huge map.

Or conversely, if someone did build in a bad spot (not enough food, little or no water, no rich resources, next to a soon-to-explode volcano = one big unhappy, dying group of settlers), that city might decay over time to the point of vanishing and becoming a ruin - aka - an antiquity site. That would be interesting. It certainly has happened in real life. Look at Pompeii, Carthage, or Egypt. It would be nice to be able to discover an actual ancient city ruin that really existed using our archeologists, or for that matter, ancient battle sites. Oh, but that's a whole separate idea.

I would like to see the game with a lot more civs in it (100?? idk), but I fear all of the diplomacy with all those civs would bog the game down to a crawl. One solution that could help is that you can only have relations with those immediately around you. Historically, until European nations tried to expand their empires, I'm sure none of them really cared what happened in Asia. Only when they started seeking rich exotic goods such as silk and spices from there (luxury resources) did they try to influence events in the area to keep their supply steady.

So I would propose (in all games really), that until your trade routes are extended to reach civ B, then the only dialogue between you and them is a simple acknowledgement that you both exist. The more things you share in common such as: borders, trades, neighbors, common enemies, etc., the richer the dialogue would be. Basically, the farther away you are from Civ B, the less he is going to care about what you are doing, and the less he is going to (should) try to initiate any sort of dialogue/trade/demands with you or from you.

Also, to keep diplomacy from bogging a game down, it would be nice to group all other civs as one of the following: allies, friends, trading partners, neutral (no relations), boycotted/denounced civs, hostile, and enemies. That way, I can select who I want to talk to, and who I don't. If a civ that I don't wish to talk to wants to communicate with me, it can be through a pop-up message on the side. Actually, every civ that wants to communicate/trade with me should post a pop-up message on the side (where it lists the news) and, according to what group they're in, that pop-up message could be color-coded like this:

A) Allies (per every 20 turns) = one gold star (up to five - supersedes any designation below)

B) Good Friends-DoF (per every 20 turns) = one silver star (up to five - supersedes any designation below)

C) Active Trading Partner (per every 20 turns) = one gold dollar $ (up to five)

D) Potential Trading Partner = one "top-half black/bottom-half gold" dollar

E) Boycotted Civ = one black X

F) Denounced/Hostile Civ = two black X's

G) Enemy-DoW Civ = three red X's

H) Any Non-Hostile Civ with news/intrigue/rumors = one silver key (in addition to any other symbols above)


I think if such a system was implemented so that we could only choose those civs that we want to talk to and/or have something in common with, instead of making us click on every dialogue box that pops up, it would probably make the game run a lot smoother (faster). I hate having to close every dialogue box that opens up just because I now have a resource that everybody wants. Trading needs a major overhaul, IMO.

Please allow to switch from animated Leaders to simple Leader Screens. As far as I remember, Leader Animations were a big problem in Civ5 limiting the number of civs in a game. In Giant Earth Games the diplomacy with dozens of animated leaders was long. The option for a simple leader screen would also make it easier to add new leaders/civs.

I agree. There should be a generic leader animation for all of the lesser civs in the game, with their civ's name on a flag behind them so you know who you're talking to, but make about four generic leaders for each area of the world: Native Americans, Africans, Asians, and Europeans.

Please allow to choose a custom leader with custom traits at start.

That would be great!! Imagine if out of all the different leader traits, we got to choose three to give to our leader/civ. How much more interesting (read: exciting) would each civ be to play then if the basic traits could change from game to game?

Please allow to raze/remove/move conquered capitals and own cities.

It goes without saying that as leader of my civ, I should have free reign to do what I want. If I captured an enemy capital city that is just in the wrong spot (for me), I should be able to raze it and rebuild. Ditto for my own cities, I mistakenly placed one somewhere when I should have placed it just two hexes away - now I'm stuck with it. (Didn't know you couldn't raze your own cities until that happened. Be more careful the next time. DOH!)

Navigable rivers.

I forgot about that one. Yes, lack of navigation on rivers is a major game failure to me. Trade originated by river, and it was the only way for a long time to effectively get goods from the hinterland to port cities to export overseas. And without river navigation, you can't have gunboats, and without gunboats, you can't have gunboat diplomacy - one of the reasons I chose Teddy Roosevelt as my online persona, and I presume one of the reasons Firaxis chose Teddy Roosevelt as the new American leader.


Historix69, I like your ideas and a lot of other ones, including Iapetus's. I guess it's too late to hope for any of them to get added to CIV6, but I certainly wish they would at least take a poll of what we would like to see in the next iteration. Sometimes, I like to dream about what CIV could be like in the future. And I wonder, how long is that going to take to become reality?

 

[darko82]

What I really want to see are the re-mastered soundtracks from Civ 1 and 2.

Soundtrack divided by eras, leaders, and war/peace themes.

 

[migkillertwo]

Realistic world Economy: allow for more specialization in cities and civilizations so that you don't need a local source of resources. If the real world operated on Civ principles, Hong Kong, Las Vegas and Singapore could not exist.

Overhauled nuclear weapons: Nuclear weapons have always been portrayed rather unrealistically in Civ games, and this is admittedly just because Civ is a turn-based strategy game. But so much of nuclear strategy in the real world deals with the fact that these wars would be over in a matter of hours. So I propose an entirely new mechanic: make nuclear conflicts resemble a real time strategy game. Give the AI and players the opportunity to respond as the turn is being processed.

 

[ThisNameIsTooLo]

Realistic world Economy: allow for more specialization in cities and civilizations so that you don't need a local source of resources. If the real world operated on Civ principles, Hong Kong, Las Vegas and Singapore could not exist.

Internal trade routes in Civ5 BNW allowed isolated and desert cities to grow despite having few local sources of food. So would you simply want to expand on that mechanic, or are you thinking of something else?

Overhauled nuclear weapons: Nuclear weapons have always been portrayed rather unrealistically in Civ games, and this is admittedly just because Civ is a turn-based strategy game. But so much of nuclear strategy in the real world deals with the fact that these wars would be over in a matter of hours. So I propose an entirely new mechanic: make nuclear conflicts resemble a real time strategy game. Give the AI and players the opportunity to respond as the turn is being processed.

Anything that requires quick thinking and reflexes would definitely be a bad addition to a game that's otherwise all about deep thinking and long-term planning.

 

[Iapetus303]

Anything that requires quick thinking and reflexes would definitely be a bad addition to a game that's otherwise all about deep thinking and long-term planning.

Maybe have the option to set up launch contingencies.

E.g. 'If London gets nuked, submarine #1 fires on Moscow'.

(Of course, when you chose that contingency, you would have been assuming it would be Russia that would be nuking London. If it was someone else that did it - well, that's when things get interesting).

 

[migkillertwo]

Maybe have the option to set up launch contingencies.

E.g. 'If London gets nuked, submarine #1 fires on Moscow'.

(Of course, when you chose that contingency, you would have been assuming it would be Russia that would be nuking London. If it was someone else that did it - well, that's when things get interesting).

I don't want to have to learn how to program in order to use nukes in Civ VI.

So maybe we wouldn't want to turn nuclear combat into an RTS. I was thinking of turning it into its own "mini game" if you like.

We've already seen two kinds of districts confirmed from game footage: airports and encampments (which I assume will upgrade to "forts" or "military bases" as time progresses). I propose, then, a new type of building that each of those districts can house: a radar station. This radar station will affect nuclear combat in the following way:

Suppose that you launch a first-strike against another player. You will be able to launch a certain amount of nukes that are guaranteed to hit their targets. The amount of nukes that will make it through before the enemy can respond will be a function of the amount and locations of radar stations that the enemy player has. The more radar stations, the fewer nukes you can use in a first-strike.

Some nukes will also give less warning to an enemy. For instance, a nuclear bomb delivered by a bomber will give lots of warning to an enemy and you may only be able to use that single strike before the enemy can respond. However, a nuclear missile launched from a submarine close to the enemy shore will give less warning, and so you can launch more SLBMs than gravity bombs.

So perhaps there can be a "points" system where certain types of nukes exhaust more points than others. When your points are dry, it is now the enemy's turn.


After you reach a certain limit, the enemy now has a *single* turn in which he can use his leftover nukes how he wishes. After he has *launched* all the nukes (as in, the nukes have not yet reached their destination) that he wants, you, the first-striker, will be able to use your remaining forces how you wish. After you have launched all your nukes, or you press "end turn," the nukes launched by your enemy and the followup nukes that you launched will strike their targets.

In any nuclear war between two nations that have nuclear parity, the side to strike first has a large, but not insurmountable advantage; a first strike rarely guarantees victory. In Civ V, however, a first strike will guarantee victory. That's not realistic, nor desirable.

 

[ThisNameIsTooLo]

@migkillertwo: You know, I've suggested a (More) Realistically Paced Wars system a while back. It sounds like your idea would integrate very well with mine.

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=568824

 

[Fromage10x]

Dream cVI:

Eliminate 1UPT: Introduce a global troop supply limit that limits the amount of units in a tile. If we're really shooting the moon, have units need unobstructed supply lines to their cities that can be cut off.

Eliminate Embarkation: With the beast that is 1UPT slain we can just go back to the sensible way this was handled in IV. Possibly add a merchant shipping option to transport ala airports in an earlier age, it just takes longer and costs some gold (probably should really cost to do this with airports too) available once you build a harbor.

Fix City States: Boring boring boring as they stand. I recommend making city state a step in the development of new civs. Barbarians, if in sufficient number, can form a city-state. City states, if prosperous long enough, can become a full fledged civ. Full fledged civs that lose all but one city for long enough can become a city state again, and struggling city states may break up into a barbarian expansion.

Spying: Ok, so this has never been gotten right...typically it just ends up being an annoyance if you're ahead or a consolation prize if you're behind. Ultimately taking spies off the map is, I think, a mistake. Certainly doling them out automatically based on age is a pretty big cop out and means that you cannot devote resources to it if you want to (or only very rarely, via a wonder). So, yes, spies back on the map, give them the ability to infiltrate a city, or even an opponent's unit.

Tech trading: In the game. I understand why it was taken out, believe me, but there is balancing that could be done to make this work, such as the AI taking the amount of tech the other player has already when trading with them (even just a flat penalty based on how much more tech you have compared to the person with the least tech would probably work).

Religion: This is a tough one. To be honest I kinda like the bonuses from V, but the fact that once one religion believes in a sea god no one else can is kinda a bummer and doesn't make a lot of sense to me, not to mention that there are absolutely no downsides to religions, pantheons are some kinda weird first tier, holy cities can never be converted or destroyed, or the idea that there is some sort of time limit where new religions can no longer form.

Civ IV's version also had problems, mainly how generic each religion is.

So, I'd say have no limit to religions first of all. Also, allow adopting another civ's religion as your own (perhaps if the holy city changes hands, if the new owner is of that religion he gets to control the religion now). Religions would start with a foundational god and could add additional gods as they met new civilizations. You could dedicate temples built to these gods and that would effect how well they were loved not just by your civ, but by others as well. You'd get low level bonuses from each god you'd add and could add new bonuses (or improve existing ones) to the gods with faith. Your relations with others civs would also depend somewhat on which gods you prefer. When you generate a great prophet, you'd have an opportunity to reform your religion, and depending on what techs you'd unlocked this would mean you could do things like choose one god to be your true god (along with increased version of their basic bonus you'd also gain a penalty) and form a monotheist religion, or amp up the benefits of your multiple gods but add a downside to each (less severe of course but more diverse penalties) or natural religion (like Buddism or Confusionism) where you choose an overarching idea and all your gods gain a slight bonus that follows that idea...or even humanism where all of your gods lose their bonuses completely, but you get double the bonus for having similar gods with other civs....OR EVEN atheism where you get a very good flat bonus, but negatives for each god your people believe in that get worse the more they believe. Obviously the specifics there would need some tweaking and it would require a ton of balancing but that would be the basic framework.

Maps: Huge, to me, is tiny. We need bigger maps, and they need to be globes...or, at least, globes need to be an option. I know it's a math limitation, but there are potential ways around it, for example with occasional pentagons. Fully admit I'm not sure this could work, but fact remains that I would love to see it.

Civs: Separate leaders from Civs, give them their own bonuses/penalties and balance them, then let anyone be used with any civ (with of course an option to lock leaders to their own civ). Also, give me the option to start out as a barbarian and develop all the way to a civ as above and have everyone else start out the same way, or more or less advanced (I could be a civ playing against 12 city states and a barbarian NPC or vise versa).

Corporations: Bring 'em back. Pretty much just like IV...really spiced up the end game.

Umm....that's all I can think of right now, heh.

 

[frnknbry]

1/The ability to modify the speed of science and production in the Game setup
2/Canals either as a wonder (Suez or Panama) or the ability to build them say for a distance of two to three hex's across an isthmus to create a pathway for naval vessels and shipping/traders.
3/Corporations I missed that from Civ4.
4/Truly upgrade-able scouts maybe to explorers/sniper/scouts?
5/An in game editor!

 

[Iapetus303]

Dream cVI:

Eliminate Embarkation: With the beast that is 1UPT slain we can just go back to the sensible way this was handled in IV. Possibly add a merchant shipping option to transport ala airports in an earlier age, it just takes longer and costs some gold (probably should really cost to do this with airports too) available once you build a harbor.

Any large-scale overseas invasion or colonization should require transport ships, but I think embarkation should be allowed for certain units over short distances. In particularly, to avoid the hastle in early game of getting units across narrow straits (especially when you want to use a worker to develop tiny islands just offshore withing the radius of a mainland city).

Maybe limit it with one or more of the following:
* Only available to civilian units (possibly infantry as well).
* Must end turn on land (so you can cross narrow straits, but not seas).
** Alternatively, take damage if you end a turn at sea.

Religion: This is a tough one. To be honest I kinda like the bonuses from V, but the fact that once one religion believes in a sea god no one else can is kinda a bummer and doesn't make a lot of sense to me, not to mention that there are absolutely no downsides to religions, pantheons are some kinda weird first tier, holy cities can never be converted or destroyed, or the idea that there is some sort of time limit where new religions can no longer form.

Civ IV's version also had problems, mainly how generic each religion is.

So, I'd say have no limit to religions first of all. Also, allow adopting another civ's religion as your own (perhaps if the holy city changes hands, if the new owner is of that religion he gets to control the religion now). Religions would start with a foundational god and could add additional gods as they met new civilizations. You could dedicate temples built to these gods and that would effect how well they were loved not just by your civ, but by others as well. You'd get low level bonuses from each god you'd add and could add new bonuses (or improve existing ones) to the gods with faith. Your relations with others civs would also depend somewhat on which gods you prefer. When you generate a great prophet, you'd have an opportunity to reform your religion, and depending on what techs you'd unlocked this would mean you could do things like choose one god to be your true god (along with increased version of their basic bonus you'd also gain a penalty) and form a monotheist religion, or amp up the benefits of your multiple gods but add a downside to each (less severe of course but more diverse penalties) or natural religion (like Buddism or Confusionism) where you choose an overarching idea and all your gods gain a slight bonus that follows that idea...or even humanism where all of your gods lose their bonuses completely, but you get double the bonus for having similar gods with other civs....OR EVEN atheism where you get a very good flat bonus, but negatives for each god your people believe in that get worse the more they believe. Obviously the specifics there would need some tweaking and it would require a ton of balancing but that would be the basic framework.

That sounds interesting, but quite complicated. And are these going to be real religions in name, or generic/custom?

Personally, I liked Civ IV's method of tying named religions to specific technologies (so they appeared in vaguely the right eras). Civ V's customization was interesting, but I agree it shouldn't be 'only one religion can have X effect'. Also, giving named religious buildings to the wrong religion (Protestant mosques, etc) is silly. It would be better for each named religion to have its own name for certain buildings (i.e. all religions have a temple building, but the name for a temple depends on the religion). The effect of a temple could then be customizable.


Another thing that might be interesting would be able create modified versions of other civ's religions. So if you have enough people following a religion, you can use a Great Prophet to create a new religion that is based on that one (different name, mostly same effects, but with one or more changes). You would then get some followers for that religion (some new, some converts from the existing one).

Depending on your civics/virtues, there should be penalties or dangers from having multiple religions in your civ, or religions that are not your state religion, so this would act as a balance to stop this being an easy way to found an advanced religion with lots of followers. (So e.g. you can't found Protestantism unless you are already mostly Catholic, but fo

Another thought: perhaps the multiple-religion penalties could be affected by how a religion has been customized. So e.g. effects that grant powerful military, loyalty or production bonuses (i.e. things that represent stiring up the population towards a particular goal and/or against outsiders) also come with big penalties regarding other religions. (E.g. unrest if other religions are present, or inability to build buildings of non-state religions). Whereas religions that grant weaker effects (e.g. minor cultural bonusues), are more tolerant of other religions.


As for all your other suggestions: agree, agree, agree.