Civilization Wishlist for Civ VII

BuchiTaton

King
Joined
Jul 8, 2019
Messages
649
I didn't catch that there was talk of Romania or Bulgaria replacing Byzantium. I don't see that happening either as Byzantium has been appearing in the games longer than Poland. If they were going to merge Byzantium with Rome, I think they would have done this already after games with multiple leaders for civilizations.

I dont see Byzantium leaving either, still personally would prefer Bulgaria over Rome 2.0.
The point is that even if clearly more popular Byzantines share with Bulgarians and Vlachs be medieval, balkanic and orthodox.
 

Zaarin

Diplomatic Attaché to Londo Mollari
Joined
May 14, 2016
Messages
10,781
Location
Babylon 5
I wouldn't be surprised if the Sanguine Pact was a test run for a possible Romanian civ in the future. :mischief:
I still don't think an actual Romanian civ would so transparently reference vampires beyond inevitably having Vlad Tepes as the leader. :p

The point is that even if clearly more popular Byzantines share with Bulgarians and Vlachs be medieval, balkanic and orthodox.
True, and I agree that Bulgaria is competing for the same design space as Byzantium and therefore unlikely to be included unfortunately. I don't see Romania as competing for the same space, however, thanks to its more West-facing orientation. This puts it more in conflict with Poland, Hungary, and Austria (and, hypothetically, Bohemia) in my mind.
 

BuchiTaton

King
Joined
Jul 8, 2019
Messages
649
I've mentioned it before, but I'd love for them to do this for city-states/minor nations.
This.
Some relatively small additions could add more flavor to non-playable factions.

For example you can have the diplomatic menu of "minor factions" with the portraits of the "Priest-King of Mohenjo Daro" or "The Lord of Sipán".
 
Joined
Oct 17, 2017
Messages
8,393
Location
Texas
I still don't think an actual Romanian civ would so transparently reference vampires beyond inevitably having Vlad Tepes as the leader. :p
Well he would still need his gothic castles, at least. :p
I could definitely live without a "vampire" unit.

I dont see Byzantium leaving either, still personally would prefer Bulgaria over Rome 2.0.
True, and I agree that Bulgaria is competing for the same design space as Byzantium and therefore unlikely to be included unfortunately.
Well if we get Basil II again, one could argue we are also getting Bulgaria as well. :mischief:
 

Zaarin

Diplomatic Attaché to Londo Mollari
Joined
May 14, 2016
Messages
10,781
Location
Babylon 5
I mean, Khan Krum with a blinged out skull cup would be a nice visual
Back before we got the Inca I suggested that Atahualpa swigging from his brother's gilt skull would be quite the "big personality." :lol: It would kill Firaxis' E10+ rating, though. :shifty:
 

Naokaukodem

Millenary King
Joined
Aug 8, 2003
Messages
3,596
Maybe, but a civilization without a face might as well be a spreadsheet. As I've said before, Civ is not the best 4X game on the market; what it has going for it is flavor and atmosphere. It needs more of that, not less, if it wants to stay competitive. When a studio does something well, they should probably keep doing that--no one asked BioWare for a multiplayer shooter or Bethesda for an MMO, and after receiving one certainly no one asked for a sequel.

I can't agree more. I'm certainly for more atmosphere, especially other-than-current-times ones, alas I'm disappointed by that side also. Civ6 music cycling doesn't help, and I do see leaders as empty slap heads.

Okay, I misunderstood you. I understood your post as saying that people aren't actually interested in the leaders except as jokes, and for me that's very much not the case. Since you were wondering why people are attached to leaders, let me explain why I am. For me the leaders turn the AI civilizations into "characters"; without them, the AI civilizations are just data. I am not a hardcore strategy game; for the most part I play narrative-focused games like RPGs, point-and-click adventures, and walking sims. I do play some strategy games (mostly for the building elements TBH), but what draws me to Civ in particular is the element of emergent narratives: the leaders give the civilizations personality and a face. It gives something--or rather someone--for the player to connect with. For me, that's very important for what I want from Civ. If it lost the flavor the historic leaders bring to the table, I'd probably move on to other 4X games.

Sorry for the hard answer, but... I don't get it so much. Leaders are empty, no matter how many expression or body gesture you put in them : that makes them even more ridiculous... and annoying. Personnally I desactivate the animations, because otherwise it takes too much time to not see their ugly faces anymore. They are so disconnected that it puts me totally off any emergeant narrative. The only way I could tell one of my game of Civ is precisely by ignoring leaders and put the civ names instead, like if they act as political entities rather than cyclotymic caricatures of personnalities.

I don't disagree that the game needs better AI that behaves more rationally and more in-depth diplomacy; I just don't see that as mutually exclusive with leaderheads. The art department isn't programming the AI.

They could put less art designers and more game designers on the game, for the same cost ?
 

sukritact

Artist and Modder
Joined
Sep 21, 2010
Messages
2,923
Location
Bangkok
They could put less art designers and more game designers on the game, for the same cost ?
You can't always just throw more people at a project though. You can’t always just shift resources around to develop the game faster or make more of something.

Like having a programmer work on something locks down that section of the code, because you really can’t have more than a few people working on it or no one knows what’s happening. Having more artists means you may need more people to make sure all the art is in the same style and up to par. Game design too, because everyone also has to know what else is going on or else you end up with these absurd combos, or horribly imbalanced matchups, etc. It’s not that it’s impossible to scale up work on game design, but at some point you do need to reconsider pipelines and project management and the side effects of scaling up, even if you ditch some of the art burdens. There are always bottlenecks beyond “we’re spending too much on art”!

Like better AI would mean game designers to define what the goals are (what does better mean? Better at war? Conveys more personality during diplomacy? Are you even talking about the AI, maybe you just want a more complex diplomacy system and the AI is actually already okay), programmers to implement it, engineers to make sure it doesn’t affect tech requirements to adversely, QA to check for bugs and balance, researchers to check and make sure players will actually like this better AI (playing against a Grandmaster Chess AI who never blunders would not be fun for instance, and no there isn’t a “smartness” parameter you can just Tune up and down to add difficulty levels)

You might need even need UI/UX designers to support the changes, and the artists you were going to layoff to support the UI/UX guys in turn.

It’s not always as simple “layoff 2 artists and hire 2 game designers instead”.

----------

Back on topic: assuming 18 civs for base game, here's my list:
  1. England
  2. France
  3. Rome
  4. Russia
  5. India
  6. Egypt
  7. Ethiopia
  8. Swahili
  9. Hausa
  10. China
  11. Japan
  12. Sumer
  13. Siam
  14. Arabia
  15. Hawaii
  16. Lakota
  17. Mayans
  18. Inca
 
Last edited:
Joined
Jan 10, 2019
Messages
1,472
You can't always just throw more people at a project though. You can’t always just shift resources around the develop the game faster.

Like having a programmer work on something locks down that section of the code, because you really can’t have more than a few people working on it or no one knows what’s happening.
Game design is similar, because everyone also has to know what else is going on or else you this these absurd combos horribly imbalanced matchups, etc.

----------

Back on topic: assuming 18 civs for base game, here's my list:
  1. England
  2. France
  3. Rome
  4. Germany
  5. Russia
  6. Egypt
  7. Ethiopia
  8. Swahili
  9. Hausa
  10. China
  11. Japan
  12. Sumer
  13. Siam
  14. Arabia
  15. Hawaii
  16. Lakota
  17. Mayans
  18. Inca
My discussion thread regarding to Siam as full civ in Civ7. https://forums.civfanatics.com/threads/if-siam-to-be-a-full-civ-in-civ7.674566/ so far you haven't present any ideas as yet.
 

Jeremitus I

Chieftain
Joined
Sep 28, 2013
Messages
4
I would like for horses to switch fro strategic to luxury resource later game. Maybe vice versa for some of the metals resources.
 
Joined
Mar 11, 2012
Messages
4,667
Location
north of Steilacoom, WA
I still don't think an actual Romanian civ would so transparently reference vampires beyond inevitably having Vlad Tepes as the leader. :p .

Can't say anything about his UU, but Vlad Tepes' Unique "Improvement" would be the Stake:

Instantly removes a point of his own Population, but any enemy Unit adjacent to it immediately retreats to its own Capital mumbling "Never fight anybody who's That crazy . . ."

As mentioned, of course, any semi-realistic Graphic for the Stake would also immediately downgrade the game's rating to Stomach-Turning . . .
 
Joined
Apr 3, 2020
Messages
135
For a base game, my 18 are:
1. America
2. Aztec (or Inca/Mayan)
3. Coast Salish
4. Brazil
5. Tonga (or Hawaii, Samoa, Maori, etc.)
6. Japan
7. China
8. India
9. Ashanti
10. Arabia
11. Egypt
12. Swahili
13. France
14. Russia
15. Pagan
16. Rome
17. Greece
18. England
 

Zaarin

Diplomatic Attaché to Londo Mollari
Joined
May 14, 2016
Messages
10,781
Location
Babylon 5
my 18, by continent

American
Mayan

Inca
Muisca
Argentina


English
French
German
Greek
Roman
Russian

Assyria
China
Mongolia
India
Japan

Egypt
Zulu
I like your list, though I'd remove Argentina, Muisca, Mongolia, and Zulu for Arabia, a North American Native civ, a SEA civ (Siam?), and another Sub-Saharan African civ. Mongolia and Zulu will inevitably return in an expansion and I'd love to see Muisca as well, but this would get us a non-Western Pop Culture African civ, a SEA civ, and a Native North American civ in the base game--and I just can't imagine the game launching without Arabia.
 
Joined
Oct 17, 2017
Messages
8,393
Location
Texas
a SEA civ (Siam?)
After the positive reception that Vietnam got, I wouldn't be surprised to see them included in the base game. But this time maybe with a historical leader.

I'd love to see Muisca as well, but this would get us a non-Western Pop Culture African civ, a SEA civ, and a Native North American civ in the base game
What about Muisca instead of Inca, at least for the base game, considering we'd know we'd get the latter eventually? :mischief:

and I just can't imagine the game launching without Arabia.
Like Civ 1? :p
We need some first day free DLC. :lol:
But seriously I do expect Arabia, Ottomans, or some sort of Middle Eastern Islamic representation, in the base game.
 

Zaarin

Diplomatic Attaché to Londo Mollari
Joined
May 14, 2016
Messages
10,781
Location
Babylon 5
After the positive reception that Vietnam got, I wouldn't be surprised to see them included in the base game. But this time maybe with a historical leader.
Yes, that would work, too.

What about Muisca instead of Inca, at least for the base game, considering we'd know we'd get the latter eventually? :mischief:
I'd be delighted with that.

We need some first day free DLC. :lol:
Assuming we got a list like this one, I'd expect Spain as the day one DLC.

Like Civ 1? :p
The operative word here is "Civ1." :p
 

Xandinho

Deity
Joined
Feb 11, 2013
Messages
2,206
Location
Brazil
After the positive reception that Vietnam got, I wouldn't be surprised to see them included in the base game. But this time maybe with a historical leader.

Or first DLCs as a solo inclusion, I think we're going to get Indonesia in the base game. Anyway, I expect something different from Thành next time Vietnam is included in the game. I love Vietnam design, but Thành is the only boring thing about it.
Other Civs I think could sell well in solo DLCs: Spain, Korea, Ottomans, Arabia, Iroquois, Italy, Brazil, Sumer, Zulus, Phoenician/Carthage, Sweden, Netherlands.
 
Top Bottom