Civilization VII Wishlist

[Naokaukodem]

I like those tough decisions.

I'm just embedding into the discussion from this point, but to me it was more like silly than clever, eventhough they remain tough.

On a side note, I would like to be able to pick multiple bonuses like multiple "pantheons", after all a pantheon is a grape of gods that are supposed to give you different benefits. Maybe by investing more faith points, you can obtain all the pantheons that interest you greatly ? I know it would disminish their impact and opportunity cost, but maybe not that much. (for example 2 pantheons may delay your pick of a religion ?)

 

[InsidiousMage]

But I think you can get all of that with the existing systems we have.

I think this feels a lot more organic and less contrived than a pop-up message telling you '+25% Production to Harbors' after you arbitrarily settle 3 cities on the coast.

I agree and disagree. I agree because, yeah, you can choose specific bonuses related to some specific things but I don't think that's really what people want out of customization. Like, you choose to do all of those things regardless of whether or not you are coastal. You can pick Goddess of the Sea even if you haven't even encountered a marine resource. Not to mention that maybe three to four production per coastal city isn't terribly impactful, it literally the production of one mine, or even that flavorful.

What I think what people want are essentially Golden Age type bonuses for doing certain things. Once you have X cities which are Y% of your empire, you get choose one of several bonuses related to thing you are going, like settling coastally. I really do think Civ could, and should, do more to react mechanically to what the player is doing. I honestly think terrain bonuses should work like this so that a tundra start isn't an automatic restart for anyone that isn't Canada or Russia and a non-tundra start is automatic restart for Russia or Canada. So like, I'm playing Rome and all of my civ and leader bonuses are military and infrastructure related but I don't have to worry about a tundra start because I know that I can later get a bonus for settling tundra that negate there inherit disadvantages. Maybe even have your first city count extra towards getting those bonuses as well.

 

[pokiehl]

I agree and disagree. I agree because, yeah, you can choose specific bonuses related to some specific things but I don't think that's really what people want out of customization. Like, you choose to do all of those things regardless of whether or not you are coastal.

I don't think that's a knock against the approach though. We should be able to pick bonuses that aren't optimal or useful. The openness is part of the fun.

I agree and disagree. I agree because, yeah, you can choose specific bonuses related to some specific things but I don't think that's really what people want out of customization. Like, you choose to do all of those things regardless of whether or not you are coastal. You can pick Goddess of the Sea even if you haven't even encountered a marine resource. Not to mention that maybe three to four production per coastal city isn't terribly impactful, it literally the production of one mine, or even that flavorful. What I think what people want are essentially Golden Age type bonuses for doing certain things. Once you have X cities which are Y% of your empire, you get choose one of several bonuses related to thing you are going, like settling coastally. I really do think Civ could, and should, do more to react mechanically to what the player is doing. I honestly think terrain bonuses should work like this so that a tundra start isn't an automatic restart for anyone that isn't Canada or Russia and a non-tundra start is automatic restart for Russia or Canada.

Terrain bonuses as civ abilities are definitely flawed as you've pointed out. Terrain-dependent abilities encourage rerolling nonstop and make for a samey playstyle. So I agree that bonuses like that should be gained in other ways.

So like, I'm playing Rome and all of my civ and leader bonuses are military and infrastructure related but I don't have to worry about a tundra start because I know that I can later get a bonus for settling tundra that negate there inherit disadvantages.

We do already know that we can get that bonus, though, right? We can pick Dance of the Aurora as your pantheon, focus on St. Basil's Cathedral, or focus on enhancing ancillary aspects of that terrain (if the tundra area is heavily forested, we can focus on Woods bonuses too, etc.)

I appreciate your perspective and I'm not trying to be obtuse. I just don't see how the end result is any different than what we have. My hunch is that for some people, it's a matter of "flavor" even if they don't realize it. Maybe it's more enticing to have a golden glowing box pop-up and tell you that you earned a bonus, or give you a box to click to choose your bonus, even if it ends up being the same as what we have now in the end.

If people want that flourish, that's fine, but what I find fundamentally worse with this approach is that it negates opportunity cost and decision-making. Civ 6 gives us plenty of flexibility to work with our surroundings because we have so many ways to get bonuses, but implicit there is that picking those bonuses stops us from using other ones.

My other issue is that I think it would homogenize gameplay a lot. Then we're right back to square one, but with even more bonus bloat. (I hope Civ 7 tones way down on the quantity of bonuses)

 

[InsidiousMage]

We do already know that we can get that bonus, though, right? We can pick Dance of the Aurora as your pantheon, focus on St. Basil's Cathedral, or focus on enhancing ancillary aspects of that terrain (if the tundra area is heavily forested, we can focus on Woods bonuses too, etc.)

What if you aren't playing a religious game though? What if you don't settle coastal/tundra until the mid-game? A lot of the customization options are fairly narrow or require an early commitment, which limits your options. I also don't think they have a particularly noticeable impact on the game, outside of the holy site adjacency bonus pantheons, which is another thing I think people want.

If people want that flourish, that's fine, but what I find fundamentally worse with this approach is that it negates opportunity cost and decision-making. Civ 6 gives us plenty of flexibility to work with our surroundings because we have so many ways to get bonuses, but implicit there is that picking those bonuses stops us from using other ones.

I mean, so do these kinds of bonuses. Like, I'm not saying you should get unlimited options but I feel something like two or three "customization abilities" would add some more variety to your games, even when replaying the same Civ. For example, you settle enough coastal cities and you then get several options to choose from. Like, harbors provide science equal to their adjacency bonus, harbor buildings provide +1 culture, or harbors provide major adjacency bonus for industrial zones. Then, later you get to choose for tundra bonus like district construction discounts for districts built on tundra tiles, the ability to build farms on tundra tiles, or +1 production on mines, quarries, and lumber mills on tundra tiles. And you are taking those bonuses instead of, say, military or religion based bonuses. They are also impactful enough that you actually notice them.

My hunch is that for some people, it's a matter of "flavor" even if they don't realize it.

I also think the current approach isn't giving the sense of change and evolution that I think people also want. Your civ and leader remain fundamentally the same throughout an entire game regardless of whatever modifiers you are currently using and I think that people advocating for these changes also really want - a sense of growth and change based on what they are doing in game and I think that is something that would actually add a lot to the game.

 

[pokiehl]

I also think the current approach isn't giving the sense of change and evolution that I think people also want.

I agree that a sense of dynamism is important and helps prevent a stale feeling as the game goes on, but I truthfully don't know what the right answer is or how that should look. The idea you're presenting could very well work and be executed well, I'm just having a hard time envisioning it...I can't think of any other strategy/4X games where a similar mechanic is used, so my limited imagination is being challenged

Part of my aversion is that I think Civ 6 is overloaded with possible bonuses from top to bottom, so I am craving a more streamlined approach that relies more on engaging core mechanics than bonuses.

 

[InsidiousMage]

I can't think of any other strategy/4X games where a similar mechanic is used, so my limited imagination is being challenged

Its been awhile since I've watched anyone play Humankind, but I seem to remember them having something along the lines I've presented but I've never actually played the game so I can't say for sure.

Part of my aversion is that I think Civ 6 is overloaded with possible bonuses from top to bottom, so I am craving a more streamlined approach that relies more on engaging core mechanics than bonuses.

I definitely agree that Civ 6 has too many bonuses to stack and would definitely appreciate more engagement with core mechanics. I don't find min-maxing all that interesting and I'm not a huge fan of micromanagement so I would definitely prefer a few but impactful bonuses instead of a bunch of smaller ones. I'm fine with getting rid of policy cards because I feel they definitely encourage the, like, tedious kind of min-maxing microing without really providing a sense of flavor or variety. I would love to see a few more government types that have some set bonuses and then each type has, say, 10-ish policies that you choose two or three to use when you switch to that government in Civ 7 as opposed to what we have in Civ 6, which encourages too much min-max micro while each government type don't feel terribly distinctive outside of how many policy slots they have.

 

[aieeegrunt]

I agree with you in sentiment.

However, Civ 6 has, I think, more ways to customize our empire than any prior civ game.* The problem is it doesn't really FEEL that great because a lot of these bonuses lack permanence or weight. We change policy cards and government types practically without any consequence, and with these bonuses so transient and easily undoable, our choices lack weight and permanence. Likewise, city-state suzerain bonuses can be quite good, but they are hardly immutable. Whether I'm slotting a policy or sending an envoy, I never get the sense that I'm making a crucial, permanent decision--because I'm not!

In contrast, the Civ 5 policy tree choices were completely permanent and the bonuses were impactful all game. Investing your Culture into those bonuses was a weighty decision. I really like the way that felt. There was also an element of planning that policy cards and governments in Civ 6 lack. If a policy you want was gated behind two others you didn't necessarily want, you had to really consider your investment. I like those tough decisions.

*(As an aside, this is why I always get confused when people ask for stuff like "let us choose our own civ abilities, we should be able to adapt to our maps." We already have that - all these bonuses we pick, from pantheons to governors to religious beliefs to policies to governments are literally customizing our empire as we go along, based on our emergent gameplay conditions).

Optimum playstyle requiring you to constantly micromanage Policy Cards adds a lot of decision fatigue to this game, especially later on when having a bigger civilization means many more other decisions as well, so a Civ5 style policy tree would really help

I honestly feel like Decision Fatigue is a big part of why the game feels less “fun” and engaging the further into it you go

I also like that the Civ5 Policy Tree made certain things exclusive. You should not be able to have authoritarian oppressive things like serfdom side by side with things like free inquiry or whatever.

Just a competent AI. That's it.
I haven't played 6 in about a year, despite having all the content. Still play 4 and 5 frequently. Honestly I hated 6 the more I played it.

You need a stack of mods to make the AI anything more than a punching bag

I have a combo that makes it possible to lose to the AI in a normal competative way

 

[Timothy001]

Sid instilled a philosiphy of 1/3. 1/3 New, 1/3 reworked, 1/3 same.

• Districts. Maybe add a few new ones (Same)
• Buildings in districts, Specialize some more (Rework)
• World Congress. Something othe then what we have. Maybe take a page from Humankind (New)
• Units. Unsure. I'm divided on this one. I love Humankinds system, however I do not think it would work with CiVII (?)
• Wonders. Add New, rework a few underwhelming ones (Rework)
• UI. Needs upgrades. Why do we have to search to find info, that some mods provide right there. Some simple ones tell us what each policy card provides. Another tells us the district/improvement yields with map pins, and updates based on other pins or districts already placed. (Rework)
• Graphics. Unlike most people, I happen to like both CiV and CiVI's graphics (Same?)
• AI. Less upfront bonuses on higher difficulty, more focused play on higher levels. Currently, if you have a small army, AI will not attack. Possibly make the deterent number higher (ie low levels 3-6 units will deter, but on Diety 10-15 will deter)

 

[UWHabs]

Optimum playstyle requiring you to constantly micromanage Policy Cards adds a lot of decision fatigue to this game, especially later on when having a bigger civilization means many more other decisions as well, so a Civ5 style policy tree would really help

I honestly feel like Decision Fatigue is a big part of why the game feels less “fun” and engaging the further into it you go

I also like that the Civ5 Policy Tree made certain things exclusive. You should not be able to have authoritarian oppressive things like serfdom side by side with things like free inquiry or whatever.



You need a stack of mods to make the AI anything more than a punching bag

I have a combo that makes it possible to lose to the AI in a normal competative way

Yeah, maybe somehow mixing in the 5 and 6 styles of systems. I've enjoyed both of them - 5 I think was too permanent, but 6 is maybe too flexible. Maybe the answer is to somehow mix them. I wonder if policy cards should act almost more like governments do in 6, in that, once you swap it out, it becomes a pain to swap it back in with some sort of anarchy or other penalty.

 

[Alextheglorious]

I've always wondered how interesting a mechanic it would be that instead of building world wonders you have the option of building more elaborate versions of the same structure which then at some point they eventually become world wonders and gain additional bonuses.

e.g. Instead of building the great pyramids you have the option of building standard pyramids. You can invest 100 hammers in them and they generate 2 culture and faith per turn. Or you might decide to go for 150 hammers and they instead give you 3 culture and faith per turn.

But it wouldn't just be the initial investment that would give it world wonder status (securing bonus tourism and culture)... trade routes from and to the city would boost its reputation, diplomats could be sent to rivals to publicise it, being pillaged or affected by disasters would lower its appeal.

 

[aieeegrunt]

Yeah, maybe somehow mixing in the 5 and 6 styles of systems. I've enjoyed both of them - 5 I think was too permanent, but 6 is maybe too flexible. Maybe the answer is to somehow mix them. I wonder if policy cards should act almost more like governments do in 6, in that, once you swap it out, it becomes a pain to swap it back in with some sort of anarchy or other penalty.

Perhaps card bonuses is something that slowly ramps up over time, instead of “instant bonus”

Or it could have a legacy effect like governments used to have in Vanilla Civ6, where the longer you were in a government, the more of a permanent bonus you would accumulate that persisted even if you switched out of it

For example, and picking numbers out of a hat because I am working from memory; picking Oligarchy gave you a +20% unit experience bonus. It would go up say 1% for each 10 turns you were in Oligarchy, and that increase was permanent

So if you were in Oligarchy for say 50 turns, the bonus would increase by 50 divided by ten = 5% to a total of 25

If you switched out of Oligarchy, that extra 5 percent was permanent. So even if you switched to say Republic, you’d still get a 5% bonus to new units

This definetly made swapping willy nilly a much more nuanced decision, and it also gave you civ a bit of a custom flavour over time reflecting it’s past activities

I've always wondered how interesting a mechanic it would be that instead of building world wonders you have the option of building more elaborate versions of the same structure which then at some point they eventually become world wonders and gain additional bonuses.

e.g. Instead of building the great pyramids you have the option of building standard pyramids. You can invest 100 hammers in them and they generate 2 culture and faith per turn. Or you might decide to go for 150 hammers and they instead give you 3 culture and faith per turn.

But it wouldn't just be the initial investment that would give it world wonder status (securing bonus tourism and culture)... trade routes from and to the city would boost its reputation, diplomats could be sent to rivals to publicise it, being pillaged or affected by disasters would lower its appeal.

I just want the whole “getting sniped” thing to get taken out behind the woodshed and executed.

It is literally the only thing I save scum over

 

[vorlon_mi]

Yeah, maybe somehow mixing in the 5 and 6 styles of systems. I've enjoyed both of them - 5 I think was too permanent, but 6 is maybe too flexible. Maybe the answer is to somehow mix them. I wonder if policy cards should act almost more like governments do in 6, in that, once you swap it out, it becomes a pain to swap it back in with some sort of anarchy or other penalty.

I agree.

• Civ5 permanent choices felt very confining, to me. I would often *open* some policy trees, but not complete them. Finish Tradition, yes, but sometimes the Honor opener or the Patronage opener, but focusing more policies in Rationalism. This model is a ratchet, clicking onward, one notch at a time.
• Civ3 governments had such an anarchy penalty for switching, that optimal play is to switch once and be done.
• Civ6 policy switches happen very often. Even when I don't want to switch, I have to change a card and change it back, just to move along. No penalties to my empire for swapping cards in and out.
• Civ4 civics were unlocked with different techs; one could switch into an unlocked civic at almost any time. A brief anarchy period (less than 5, often 1 or 2 turns) would result, unless you were in a golden age. Switching religions was also possible, with a similar small anarchy penalty.

Other than re-thinking governments using personality traits (like BERT did), perhaps Civ4 had a good balance of permanence vs. changing costs.

 

[sammoraj]

Civ 5 and 6 consistently suffer from weak AI, or perhaps it is simply too easy to defeat them in detail.
I believe the issue is to do with 1 unit per tile. My second Civ 5 game I won on deity; and my third Civ 6 game was also victory. In general the AI simply can not overcome the limits of not being able to throw massive numbers at the human. I saw a good mod for civ 4 that used logistics per tile. It very effectively limited the unit stacking without crippling game play. Just take the time to properly teach the AI to use it right.

Amenities is overly complex and half hidden behind text and tab walls. Simplify the numbers and make it have a clearer. Remember how clear and straight forward civ 3 happiness was? Even if we do not go for that level of simplicity, it should definitely be that simple to see what is happening with a mouse over.

Districts should be destroy able. My 3 thousand year old city should be capable of change. Industrial centres move and neighbourhoods are abandoned. District should absolutely be replaceable, although perhaps at some cost.

The environment and weather systems are fantastic additions to the game. The global flooding is horrible. IRL the earth's ice caps are not melting despite 40 years of "everything will melt and we will flood in 10 years." We are still here.
However, I do feel that Civ 7 could go further into environment effects. Some cities/nations around the world suffer from stupid decisions they made. Disease and pollution of surrounding tiles should be back. Introduce water limits. Metropolises consume vast amounts of water.
Over clearing forests could create dust bowl or desertification. Some cities in the world are sinking under their own weight having been built on marsh. Others are suffering from having drained the natural aquifers dry. Some are sinking into the sea because their ground water has been pumped out. Some are choking on their own smog.
There are a lot of options in this area. Plus some of these, especially around the forests and desertification do no only apply to late game. Want to chop EVERTHING for an early rush? Yea, 20 turns later the desert has started eating your farm land.
But all environment effects should come with tools to mitigate them at least to some extents. Mankind's history of building has been a steady Conquest of nature. Floods have dams, desertification can be reversed, and rivers can be cleaned etc.

1. Logistics per tile, NOT 1 unit per tile.

2. Clear the fog of amenities

3. Districts replaceable/destroyable/relocatable.

4. Remove global flooding; BUT greatly expand on environment effects. Especially human impact on our local environment through time.
4.1 Water as a limited resource.

 

[sammoraj]

I've always wondered how interesting a mechanic it would be that instead of building world wonders you have the option of building more elaborate versions of the same structure which then at some point they eventually become world wonders and gain additional bonuses.

e.g. Instead of building the great pyramids you have the option of building standard pyramids. You can invest 100 hammers in them and they generate 2 culture and faith per turn. Or you might decide to go for 150 hammers and they instead give you 3 culture and faith per turn.

But it wouldn't just be the initial investment that would give it world wonder status (securing bonus tourism and culture)... trade routes from and to the city would boost its reputation, diplomats could be sent to rivals to publicise it, being pillaged or affected by disasters would lower its appeal.

Very interesting idea. Most (though not all) "Wonders" in history were just bigger versons of what they already were doing,

I vaguely recall that one of the civ games had a mechanic where very old wonders increasing gold income from tourism as they aged.

 

[InsidiousMage]

I believe the issue is to do with 1 unit per tile.

Its not. Old World uses also uses 1 unit per tile but the map is designed around that so the AI is actually a lot better at war and you can't out play a significantly stronger a opponent the way you can in Civ6. 1 unit per tile can work if the game takes into the account, which Civ6 doesn't do well.

 

[Xur]

I would rather ask if anyone actually enjoys war with 1upt? I avoid war because I hate moving all the units. Stacks of doom might be simple, but it was faster and helped a great deal to combat endgame fatigue.

 

[vorlon_mi]

Very interesting idea. Most (though not all) "Wonders" in history were just bigger versons of what they already were doing,

I vaguely recall that one of the civ games had a mechanic where very old wonders increasing gold income from tourism as they aged.

Civ3 definitely had gold income from wonders after 1000 years. It's been too long since I played Civ4 BTS to remember if it had this also.

 

[civac]

All culture general buildings including wonders double culture after 1000 years in Civ4 but that's it. Maybe you were thinking of Civ3 as vorlon_mi indicated.

Moving around a huge stack is very convenient. Most micro is in the actual battles, checking odds of individual units, promoting and healing units, deducing the correct order of attacks (that's sort of formulaic most of the time though). Those are usually the fun parts anyway. Where you get the annoying micro in Civ4 is reinforcements and logistics. Late game you can have enormous stacks and once units reach them that's fine but getting them from city to stack is a hassle which consumes a significant portion of the time spent on each turn. There are waypoints and infinitely repeating buildordes to help with that though.

I watched exactly one Let's Play of Old World. For most of the game the 1upt combat worked very well. There was enough room to maneuver, units weren't overly numerous and moved satisfyingly quickly. However, in the late game the AIs definitely had build carpets of doom. Most tiles of their territory were covered by crossbows. Player was still fine.

 

[Prester John 2]

I also agree bonuses and decisions should be more permanent and mutually exclusive: If I choose communism I should not be able to choose liberalism. You should be able to change your government but have to face some repercussions such as revolts, non-electability of certain civics and so on.

 

[aieeegrunt]

Civ 5 and 6 consistently suffer from weak AI, or perhaps it is simply too easy to defeat them in detail.
I believe the issue is to do with 1 unit per tile. My second Civ 5 game I won on deity; and my third Civ 6 game was also victory. In general the AI simply can not overcome the limits of not being able to throw massive numbers at the human. I saw a good mod for civ 4 that used logistics per tile. It very effectively limited the unit stacking without crippling game play. Just take the time to properly teach the AI to use it right.

Amenities is overly complex and half hidden behind text and tab walls. Simplify the numbers and make it have a clearer. Remember how clear and straight forward civ 3 happiness was? Even if we do not go for that level of simplicity, it should definitely be that simple to see what is happening with a mouse over.

Districts should be destroy able. My 3 thousand year old city should be capable of change. Industrial centres move and neighbourhoods are abandoned. District should absolutely be replaceable, although perhaps at some cost.

The environment and weather systems are fantastic additions to the game. The global flooding is horrible. IRL the earth's ice caps are not melting despite 40 years of "everything will melt and we will flood in 10 years." We are still here.
However, I do feel that Civ 7 could go further into environment effects. Some cities/nations around the world suffer from stupid decisions they made. Disease and pollution of surrounding tiles should be back. Introduce water limits. Metropolises consume vast amounts of water.
Over clearing forests could create dust bowl or desertification. Some cities in the world are sinking under their own weight having been built on marsh. Others are suffering from having drained the natural aquifers dry. Some are sinking into the sea because their ground water has been pumped out. Some are choking on their own smog.
There are a lot of options in this area. Plus some of these, especially around the forests and desertification do no only apply to late game. Want to chop EVERTHING for an early rush? Yea, 20 turns later the desert has started eating your farm land.
But all environment effects should come with tools to mitigate them at least to some extents. Mankind's history of building has been a steady Conquest of nature. Floods have dams, desertification can be reversed, and rivers can be cleaned etc.

1. Logistics per tile, NOT 1 unit per tile.

2. Clear the fog of amenities

3. Districts replaceable/destroyable/relocatable.

4. Remove global flooding; BUT greatly expand on environment effects. Especially human impact on our local environment through time.
4.1 Water as a limited resource.

Soil, water and other resource depletion, if done in a way that isn’t Paradox Games obtuse and annoying should be in the game

This has happened many, MANY times over the course of human history. Easter Island, Chaco Canyon, the Mayans etc. Even within living memory; I’m old enough to remember Lake Erie being on fire. Iraq used to be The Fertile Crescent (thanks Mongols). The Caspian sea is now a polluted marsh etc

I’m not sure about whether humans ruined the Sahara, but it wouldn’t surprise me

These things should be in the game; if nothing else it would help balance Chops, which has always been a problematic mechanic

Even Civ3’s Random Pollution was better than what we have now.

I would rather ask if anyone actually enjoys war with 1upt? I avoid war because I hate moving all the units. Stacks of doom might be simple, but it was faster and helped a great deal to combat endgame fatigue.

Having to solve a sliding tile puzzle to move your units is agonizing tedium, and AI is hopeless at it

I’ve tried stacking mods and it immediatly makes the AI far more dangerous (more so in V than VI).

1 UPT also makes ranged units broken.

The worst part about this, is that this is a *solved design problem*

Consim board games of the SPI heyday iterated rapidly to three units per hex as the sweet spot of flexibility, utility and management. Three units can easily be depicted graphically without needing any seperate “stacking” interfaces, same thing with selecting and moving units. It allows you to create different flavours of armies without any other mechanics.

I’ve tried 3UPT for both V and VI and it works really well, even given that neither game was designed for it

I also agree bonuses and decisions should be more permanent and mutually exclusive: If I choose communism I should not be able to choose liberalism. You should be able to change your government but have to face some repercussions such as revolts, non-electability of certain civics and so on.

I definitly enjoyed the civics in V and IV a lot more for this very reason