• We need to know your opinion about our social media accounts! Tell us here if you follow us on social media and what we could improve.

Civilization VII Wishlist

A city should be allowed to have one military unit stacked pr "citizen", or mybe an other way of regulating defence capacity.

Traderoutes should increase ca the same way; upgraded trading gives extra trader. Some civs should have more trader than others, like the vikings that
were first of all traders.

Units should not jump into oceans and "swim"like they do now, we need boats to cross water.

Civs should not appear until about their historic appearance, leaders should change by time.
 
A city should be allowed to have one military unit stacked pr "citizen", or mybe an other way of regulating defence capacity.

Traderoutes should increase ca the same way; upgraded trading gives extra trader. Some civs should have more trader than others, like the vikings that
were first of all traders.

Units should not jump into oceans and "swim"like they do now, we need boats to cross water.

Civs should not appear until about their historic appearance, leaders should change by time.

Strongly opposed if I infer your meaning correctly. Would your example mean you cannot choose Harald unless you start the game in the medieval era? :nono::undecide:
 
If Firaxis wants to truly improve the game, and not just cash in on the next sequel in the franchise, they need to focus on two things:

1. By far the most important thing is to make each age/era interesting. The early game is good - it's chock full of exploration, choices, planning, etc. It's a downhill slide from there, though, almost always leading to a 'meh' late game that is mostly an efficiency slog. The only challenge here is managing to see it through to completion. Late game should culminate in 20th century style world wars centered around ideology and world dominance, wars that are only won by effective use of combined arms warfare. The tools are there, I just hardly ever have to use them (unless I'm steamrolling an incompetent opponent in a domination run that I haven't managed to win yet for some reason). Late game should be the most exciting part of the game (what a thought!). I'm not saying every game has to exactly re-enact WWII, but that should be the general gravitational pull, instead of the yawn that currently occurs.

2. An AI that can play the game well, in a varied and interesting fashion, and be more than just a speed bump on the player's road to eventual victory. Challenge that is based on more than just stacking numerical bonuses for a mediocre AI. This would be a philosophical shift for the game, and so I realize this probably won't happen... but many players nowadays are far more interested in high stakes, rogue/rogue-lite type games, and I for one am ready to play a Civ game where my opponents can actually win, and not just potentially slow down or frustrate my plans.

I really feel that if Civ 7 is just "Civ 6 with more stuff," it'll be the first real failure of the franchise. Civ 6 has hit the limit for me on complexity and bloat - I want a leaner game that is more interesting because of the gameplay, not the mechanics.

I don't know where I posted this a long time ago, but I once thought out a bit of a system to keep exploration interesting. I opted for a zone of attrition outside of your borders. Units would lose health outside of their borders the further they went outside the capital (see this as people growing too old to travel vast distances, food not being able to be supplied easily, etc). Scouts could deal with this better and thus explore further, but still not explore all the way. This way, with new advances in technology, more of the map could be explored. It would make war more tactical, it would make exploring more rewarding in later ages. It's by no means a flawless idea, but I think there is a basis for it.
 
Strongly opposed if I infer your meaning correctly. Would your example mean you cannot choose Harald unless you start the game in the medieval era? :nono::undecide:

Depends on what Harald you`re thinkin off, Harald Fairhear was the first to unite the tribes up in Norway. Tribes like the Ruges, the Hords, the Arochis and others. Norway has been populated for thousands of years but we do not know much about that period.

My point is that we should try to be time-correct as far as it is possible to avoid characters like George Washington to appear in pre bronze age
 
Depends on what Harald you`re thinkin off, Harald Fairhear was the first to unite the tribes up in Norway. Tribes like the Ruges, the Hords, the Arochis and others. Norway has been populated for thousands of years but we do not know much about that period.

My point is that we should try to be time-correct as far as it is possible to avoid characters like George Washington to appear in pre bronze age

I'm sorry for not making myself clearer but I was under the assumption that since we were talking in a Civ VI forum it could easily be inferred that I was talking about the Harald from Civ VI. No need to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harald

But, to use your example then to rephrase my question (since you didn't answer me really), do you mean we would not be able to play America then from the classical age? Would it also mean the Cree start out technologically less advanced than other civs?

I totally agree with @pokiehl, if I inferr correctly what you say it takes away everything that Civilization is.
 
Bring back slavery, genocide and other dark parts of history.

In Civ 3 your citizens had an ethnicity; in a conquered city other ethnicities would often create happiness and related issues. A solution would be to produce settlers or workers to move ethnicities around (forced relocation) or simply starve the city down in size (genocide). In another feature, draft converted population into inferior military units.
In Civ 4 ethnicities were replaced by culture and culture pressure could create similar issues. Your options here are less brutal, though you by default committed cultural genocide when conquering a city by auto destroying all culture buildings. Disease was introduced and plagues were available in mods.
In Civ 5 slavery as used in previous editions (sacrificing population for production, captured workers requiring less upkeep) was only hinted at by having the option of returning a captured worker to its original owner.
In Civ 6 there is none of that. Bring back the nasty bits please.
 
But, to use your example then to rephrase my question (since you didn't answer me really), do you mean we would not be able to play America then from the classical age? Would it also mean the Cree start out technologically less advanced than other civs?
I don't want to leave America out of the classical age but Civ6 made them an early domination civ which felt odd.
In Civ 6 there is none of that. Bring back the nasty bits please.
Some policies are close to what you are suggesting. "Triangle Trade" is the sanitized name of the slave trade.

Add to the wishlist of not only be able to share starting seed but starting posistion.
 
Firaxis please hire the guys that made AI for CIV5 Vox Populi because your team can't do AI lol
 
Firaxis please hire the guys that made AI for CIV5 Vox Populi because your team can't do AI lol
As far as I know it shouldn't be a problem of being able to do AI but rather the desire to make it not too hard even in Deity. For example, myself I played Deity quite regularly but got frustrated by early wars declared by me that couldn't work or being disasters (I don't play them anymore, I have learned to recognize them), especially vs. ranged units (and even in multiplayer - to the point I wonder what the game would look like without ranged). Also, every Deity Civ6 game I won I was struggling in science with the AI until the end or not that far from it. And yes, I feel it's an achievement to be able to beat the game in Deity, if it were harder I probably couldn't beat it and it would frustrate me. I guess I'm like a lot of players : I want challenge but not THAT MUCH impossibleness (having to use exploits, unobvious synergies and civs abilities to cook up a game where I could beat it, spoiler Civ6 specifically has plenty of those because the mechanics are too numerous and puzzled). As you pointed out there is always mods for higher difficulty levels, there is for Civ6 too. (Deity++ or something like it)
 
The Civ 5 AI bonuses are even bigger than in Civ 6.

There was once a post comparing them and the difference was surprisingly big in higher levels.
 
The user above is incorrect. Civ 5 AI, vox populi mod or not, gets cheats just like any other civ game.
Note that he didn't say that, *I* was assuming it. (unless you meant me) Anyway I assumed that the AI in VP cheated *less*, which I don't really know, I just know that Civ6 or Civ5 AIs can have smart moves, especialy while defending. (I recall a barb archer switching place with a severely damaged barb warrior, putting it safe and killing my own warrior with an archer in Civ6, and a multiplayer game in Civ5 where I was at war with a player, my war was going slowly because he played well but you know what ? This player quitted and I suddenly realised I was playing against AI all along ! 😆 I probably finally noticed it because "he" was doing some weird moves though)
 
I find it baffling that the civ 6 AI is so bad economically, given how far the AI (at least on deity) can get ahead of you in the first 60-70 turns or so. I've never looked into what exactly they are doing wrong, but its ridiculous that a 15 city empire pursuing SV, with all the deity AI bonuses, struggles to produce 500 science in the late game. I mean how hard would it be to implement an AI that does the following:

If on T100 they rank higher in science than culture, diplo, and military ----> pursue science victory

If pursuing science victory:
-Build a campus in every city
-Build a library, university, and research lab in every campus
-Always run the rationalism card
-Always run the natural philosophy or five-year plan card
-Always put at least 6 envoys into every scientific city state

I guarantee adherence to these rules would shave 50+ turns off a deity AI SV. Similar hard and fast rules could be applied to other victory conditions although SV tends to be the victory condition the AI can achieve the fastest.
 
Last edited:

I basically made the AI worse in the early game but better in the late game. It doesn't play differently, it just gets different bonuses (Higher adjacencies, better yields from buildings) that more naturally scale with the game.
 
@Naokaukodem Civ AI is bad because Firaxis is consistently terrible at writing AI. There are mods with significant AI improvements for both Civ4 and Civ5. A substantial part of the AI for the Civ4 expansion was also lifted from modders iirc. The mods in Civ6 seem unsatisfactory. Probably because lack of access to the source code. In the improbable event of AI improvements making the game too hard you could just lower the AI bonuses. The Civ6 AI being unable to do things like take a city is not just an issue for deity players. It hurts the immersion and variability of the game for the most casual of players too.
 
@civac , I'm a Prince/Regent level player on most of the games in the franchise. I've lost cities to the AI in Civ3, Civ4, Civ5, and BERT. I probably lost cities also in Civ2, but it's been more than 15 years since I played, so the memories are fuzzy. I've not had one of my cities seriously threatened by a Civ6 AI. My experience -- definitely less than many Civ6 experts on these forums -- is that the Civ6 AI is particularly non-threatening from a military point of view. In my experience, it is not a consistent track record.
 
My problem with the AI is that it is the same AI for all civs - it feels like they play as one giant entity. They cant even take over the world if you play an AI ONLY game with conquest as the only winning option. They are all equally passive/aggressive/dumb. Older versions of civ had better AI in this regard.

I’ll probably skip civ7 unless I see an AI conquer at least half the map on youtube post-release.
 
Top Bottom