I am aware of the fact, that civilization VII will not change fundamentally anymore.
I don't want to rant about civilization VII either.
So I list what I miss from the other iterations, which were more sophisticated as far as I am concerned:
The tech-tree in civ I was amazing and has been dumbed down with civ 5, so every game feels the same. You had tio choose from a randomly list while not being able to choose the same kind again.
You could transform tiles, changing yields.
Blocking enemy units with your own bombers, circumventing the enemy's city.
Too high production would pollute the land.
There was a slider to determine gold, science and luxury.
Buildings increased output by a percentage and not a flat number.
Corruption - the farther away from your capital the higher.
Different forms of governmernt, which played differently.
You could build caravans to contribute when building wonders.
You could pay the difference to complete a building/unit - not having to pay full price.
In civ II I loved the paratroopers!
In civ IV the borders would expand and claim foreign territory, if your culture was higher than theirs.There were different nationalities within cities.
You could build anything on resources and there was a choice what.to build and which yields to "harvest".
Bombing oil resources to deny them to the enemy with severe impact of the war.
Culture-bombing was a thing in Civ V too, but it had way less impact.
Some mechanics are too complicated for the AI:
adjacency boni.
settling on or near fresh water.
highly trained units, and therefore keeping them alive and targeting enemy units better to really kill them. With the generals it is similar.
I assume, that looking for fancy stuff like unique units, buildings etc. has removed the focus to provide a good base game. And with all the different boni the game is hard to balance.
Anything that makes civ less railroaded and more open to meaningful choices is welcomed.
I don't want to rant about civilization VII either.
So I list what I miss from the other iterations, which were more sophisticated as far as I am concerned:
The tech-tree in civ I was amazing and has been dumbed down with civ 5, so every game feels the same. You had tio choose from a randomly list while not being able to choose the same kind again.
You could transform tiles, changing yields.
Blocking enemy units with your own bombers, circumventing the enemy's city.
Too high production would pollute the land.
There was a slider to determine gold, science and luxury.
Buildings increased output by a percentage and not a flat number.
Corruption - the farther away from your capital the higher.
Different forms of governmernt, which played differently.
You could build caravans to contribute when building wonders.
You could pay the difference to complete a building/unit - not having to pay full price.
In civ II I loved the paratroopers!
In civ IV the borders would expand and claim foreign territory, if your culture was higher than theirs.There were different nationalities within cities.
You could build anything on resources and there was a choice what.to build and which yields to "harvest".
Bombing oil resources to deny them to the enemy with severe impact of the war.
Culture-bombing was a thing in Civ V too, but it had way less impact.
Some mechanics are too complicated for the AI:
adjacency boni.
settling on or near fresh water.
highly trained units, and therefore keeping them alive and targeting enemy units better to really kill them. With the generals it is similar.
I assume, that looking for fancy stuff like unique units, buildings etc. has removed the focus to provide a good base game. And with all the different boni the game is hard to balance.
Anything that makes civ less railroaded and more open to meaningful choices is welcomed.
