Easy way to make Civ 7 good in 7 easy steps (Doctors hate it)

[Naokaukodem]

Well I could play communists (i'm kinda communist myself) but Stalin was such an ego-centric monster, so I guess I could go with other leaders as bad as I know them.
As to Hitler... sure his ideology had something fascinating in the way he speeched it (some times in the bathroom in front of the mirror I raise my hand and shout as a crowd "Heiiiiiil, 'Hitla" , just because I can't prevent myself to ask me how it is to be bad) but his mischiefs seems so horrible that it may be displaced to integrate him in Civ, especially if it's to incarnate him. (other games had swastikas in them but they were the bad guys)

Happilly we already had Napoleon for the revolution/conquer the world, but I don't think Napoleon was nearly as bas as Stalin as a person.

 

[jsciv69]

Well I could play communists (i'm kinda communist myself) but Stalin was such an ego-centric monster, so I guess I could go with other leaders as bad as I know them.
As to Hitler... sure his ideology had something fascinating in the way he speeched it (some times in the bathroom in front of the mirror I raise my hand and shout as a crowd "Heiiiiiil, 'Hitla" , just because I can't prevent myself to ask me how it is to be bad) but his mischiefs seems so horrible that it may be displaced to integrate him in Civ, especially if it's to incarnate him. (other games had swastikas in them but they were the bad guys)

Happilly we already had Napoleon for the revolution/conquer the world, but I don't think Napoleon was nearly as bas as Stalin as a person.

I could see a return of Stalin. But I think if we go Soviet-Era Leader for Russia. I would prefer a Cold War icon. For me that would be Khrushchev. Ruthless in his own way. But was know to go a little crazy sometimes. And if we can remain open minded regarding ruthless leaders. Why not. Fidel Castro. A character tailor-made for the Civ- series. We have to get the Beard in this somehow. I can already see The Cigar Factory as a major building.

 

[GeneralZift]

I also hate old style civ1 - civ4 unit stacking just as much or maybe even more than civ5 - civ6 1upt, I propose a third way which is very different from both.

/thread

spreadsheet battles sound like the worst idea on earth

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

Keep in mind this series has featured Queen Isabella at least 3 times. Plenty of blood on her ruthless hands. And Genghis Khan was not exactly an angel of mercy. neither was George Washington. So ruthlessness is not shied away from in the series.
So if you-know-who is featured. I could counter with the likes of Castro or Khrushchev. They don't all have to be saints

No, but ruthless leaders usually in the later part of the 20th century are because of how recent they impacted people alive today.

As to Hitler... sure his ideology had something fascinating in the way he speeched it (some times in the bathroom in front of the mirror I raise my hand and shout as a crowd "Heiiiiiil, 'Hitla" , just because I can't prevent myself to ask me how it is to be bad) but his mischiefs seems so horrible that it may be displaced to integrate him in Civ, especially if it's to incarnate him. (other games had swastikas in them but they were the bad guys)

A friendly reminder that this would get Civ 7 banned in Germany, and probably other European countries, if he was depicted as basically being playable. So there's no chance, except for mods.

 

[Krajzen]

spreadsheet battles sound like the worst idea on earth

Then devs can create something different from 1upt, doomstacks and spreadsheet as well, if all those three models have a huge anti fanbase (I agree spreadsheet battles sound very un - Civ like and I'd hate them in this game, just mentioned them as an example of a third way combat system instead of this false dichotomy between civ4 and civ5 combat)


As for you guys who discuss Stalin, I don't know what are you talking about, it was obviously a joke. Here in Poland and Ukraine we often joke about Stalin, Hitler etc - after all that's one of the ways you can emotionally cope when living in a country where there is no town not impacted by genocides of twose two morally equivalent human beings we discover bones to this day

But seriously, we should not enter this political offtopic for too long, instead we should discuss serious proposals.

 

[GeneralZift]

Then devs can create something different from 1upt, doomstacks and spreadsheet as well, if all those three models have a huge anti fanbase (I agree spreadsheet battles sound very un - Civ like and I'd hate them in this game, just mentioned them as an example of a third way combat system instead of this false dichotomy between civ4 and civ5 combat)


As for you guys who discuss Stalin, I don't know what are you talking about, it was obviously a joke. Here in Poland and Ukraine we often joke about Stalin, Hitler etc - after all that's one of the ways you can emotionally cope when living in a country where there is no town not impacted by genocides of twose two morally equivalent human beings we discover bones to this day

But seriously, we should not enter this political offtopic for too long, instead we should discuss serious proposals.

Or they could just stick with 1UPT. The simplest and easiest one to understand. The one that's in both the most popular Civ games.

Offtopic;
Dunno why everybody wants to complicate everything...
Don't you guys ever learn that simpler is better? Less is more? Something like that

 

[criZp]

Or they could just stick with 1UPT. The simplest and easiest one to understand. The one that's in both the most popular Civ games.

Offtopic;
Dunno why everybody wants to complicate everything...
Don't you guys ever learn that simpler is better? Less is more? Something like that

What is hard for you to understand about putting multiple units together?

 

[bene_legionary]

#1 Remove Governors

Governors are clunky in Civ 6, but if they were more like social policies in Civ 5 with Civilization-wide bonuses, I'd like governors a lot more. If I had more time right now I'd make a mod around it.

#2 Remove Era Score

Era score is okay. I didn't like historic moments, though. It's meant to show "The History of [your] Empire" but it ends up showing a bunch of times you got a goody hut or settled near a volcano. Era score and dedications could have been much better.

#3 Remove the aids in Loyalty

Loyalty is fine, but it needs things that affect your cities from the inside, not just amenities or religion.

#4 Spread out the stuff in Tech & Civics trees better or just combine them

CFiraxis could do a different Tech system in VII, like a tech web, to combine the two systems. But whatever they do, unless it's crap, I wouldn't complain.

#5 Replace the World Congress with an actually-good-World-Congress-system (the one from Civ 5 or better)

Yes.

#6 Make Wonders more competitive between players

I don't know what this means, do wonders have to become more general or more specific to become competitive? Do their placement restrictions have to become less annoying? Do civs have to buy wonder blueprints and compete that way?

#7 Simplistic understandable Civ bonuses, not 30 essays

Some things could definitely be combined. For example, differences in Mountain tiles in district tooltips could just be combined to "+1 Faith" or "+1 Science from Mountains tiles" instead of sticking all of the mountain types in the tooltip. A visual guide can help too.

 

[pineappledan]

#9 - remove unique Great People :: This is honestly one of the things that annoyed me most going from civ 5 to civ 6. The added complexity of unique bonuses from all GP types is not worth it at all. Great people were better when they were strong, consistent bonuses, not a grab-bag of narrow, highly-variable perks.

 

[Krajzen]

#9 - remove unique Great People :: This is honestly one of the things that annoyed me most going from civ 5 to civ 6. The added complexity of unique bonuses from all GP types is not worth it at all. Great people were better when they were strong, consistent bonuses, not a grab-bag of narrow, highly-variable perks.

Thank you for writing this because I had mixed feelings on this topic for a long time and I was not sure how to express that or if anybody else has this problem. I have an intuitiom that this may be one of levels of 'unnecessary complexity which changes nothing substantial and overloads the game with tiny choices' the kind of which civ6 excels at.

I'm not sure if I wouldn't prefer great people to go back to being generic in effect, just us getting their visage and quote after activating them - same as with great artists/writers/musicians.

 

[pineappledan]

I definitely like how they all have a civilopedia page where you can look up all the great people, but I don’t think anything of value was gained by having all these tiny bonuses. It’s just another list of effects for us to memorize

 

[aieeegrunt]

That's a strawman. Nobody is suggesting infinite stacks. I am certainly not. I am suggesting limited stacks. It does not have to be one or the other, either 1upt or infinite stacks.

I find it equally silly that you can't even put 1 archer unit in the same hex as a warrior unit and have to shuffle units around just to move an archer one hex. What a fun mechanic!

Who doesnt love solving a sliding tile puzzle every time you move your units!!!

 

[Chekko]

#1 I want my Civ 5 Policies back. That policy sound effect makes me more happy than getting that +1 governor thing.
#2 Yes
#3 Yes
#4 Yes
#5 Eh I prefer this one than what Civ 5 had with those random luxury resource bans everywhere
#6 I only play single so I don't know
#7 is ok
#8 The moment Mannerheim or Simo Häyhä is the Civ leader of Finland

 

[enjay]

I would state only two things:
1. AI, AI, and again AI. It needs to be challanging, even with the same start for both player and AI. They have to focus on it!
2. Even though I like Civ 6’s cartoonish style I still prefer visuals of 5. I want to build and lead magnificiant empire in a beautiful land, not Looney Toones cartoon state But at the end graphics doesnt matter that much obviously, gameplay is the most importatnt, competent AI that feels real and alive.

 

[GeneralZift]

What is hard for you to understand about putting multiple units together?

It's not that it is hard to understand... but more that it is unnecessarily complicated to fit multiple units to one tile, especially if they are different units.
Most of what makes sense in a strategy game (eg. counters and so on) do not have the same effectiveness.

#9 - remove unique Great People :: This is honestly one of the things that annoyed me most going from civ 5 to civ 6. The added complexity of unique bonuses from all GP types is not worth it at all. Great people were better when they were strong, consistent bonuses, not a grab-bag of narrow, highly-variable perks.

God suggestion, this gotta be my honorary #9. But remember it's only 7 cos it's Civ 7

 

[Marla_Singer]

It's not that it is hard to understand... but more that it is unnecessarily complicated to fit multiple units to one tile, especially if they are different units.
Most of what makes sense in a strategy game (eg. counters and so on) do not have the same effectiveness.

I really struggle to understand what you mean here. It's pretty easy to visualize that multiple units are located on the same tile and check which ones are, that was well done in Civ4. But more essentially, it makes moves a lot more simple: each unit can go anywhere it wants following the road without having to bother about crossing other units for instance

 

[GeneralZift]

I really struggle to understand what you mean here. It's pretty easy to visualize that multiple units are located on the same tile and check which ones are, that was well done in Civ4. But more essentially, it makes moves a lot more simple: each unit can go anywhere it wants following the road without having to bother about crossing other units for instance

It's even easier to understand one unit per tile. It's also more balanced.
Don't forget, they try and design these games to be accessible as well.

Arbitrary limits on stacks would feel restrictive and artificial. Infinite limits would be broken and rather counter-intuitive.

1UPT is obvious. You can tell what units are on what tiles at first glance.
Stacks are stacks. It's inherently more complicated.

It's just game design. You might enjoy stacks more. But 1UPT is better design. And designers make games for the silent majority and not for the talkative elite minority on forums.
Sorry to say it that way.

 

[Marla_Singer]

It's even easier to understand one unit per tile.

It's not from an AI point of view. It makes AI pathfinding a real headache to program, artificially multiplying obstacles. And in a cluttered environment, it freezes everything.

As told in the other thread, it's all a matter of density of units. Let's imagine that you would play chess, but you would still be able to produce new chess pieces all through the game. You would end up with your chessboard being all stuck, that would be totally ridiculous.

It's also more balanced.
Don't forget, they try and design these games to be accessible as well.

You keep insisting on that point but I still can't understand it. I don't feel there's anything "unintuitive" in the idea of units sharing the same tile. After all that's still done with civil and military units. Would you argue it shouldn't any longer because it makes things too complicated?

Arbitrary limits on stacks would feel restrictive and artificial. Infinite limits would be broken and rather counter-intuitive.

1UPT is obvious. You can tell what units are on what tiles at first glance.
Stacks are stacks. It's inherently more complicated.

It's just game design. You might enjoy stacks more. But 1UPT is better design. And designers make games for the silent majority and not for the talkative elite minority on forums.
Sorry to say it that way.

In a nutshell, 1UPT is better "because it's better", it would help if you would be a bit more factual. The problem expressed about 1UPT is about excessive restrictions on movement particularly in a cluttered environment. That's pretty factual. What's your answer to it?

 

[SupremacyKing2]

Arbitrary limits on stacks would feel restrictive and artificial. Infinite limits would be broken and rather counter-intuitive.

1upt is also restrictive and artificial. It is very restrictive to movement. Units can be frequently blocked simply because other units are in front of them. It can be a pain just to lay siege to a city because units can't move into position. It is also a completely arbitrary rule that two military units are not allowed to share the same hex at the same time. There is no in-game or thematic reason for the rule. 1upt is an overcorrection to the problem of infinite stacks.

Also, arbitrary cap on stacks or infinite stacks are not the only options. You could do soft caps where players can stack but there are increasing penalties for larger stacks. Soft caps would not be overly restrictive or arbitrary since they would be based on in-game mechanics and they would also prevent infinite stacks.

Obviously, if you just have a unit on the map with no info about what other units are in the stack, that would be terrible design. You need to give the player info on the map about what is in the stack. But it would be easy to have a "General" unit to represent a stack and have a number next to the General to show the number of units in the stack and/or a number next to the General to show the total stack strength. Players would see the General on the map and instantly know that it is a stack and see the number and get a sense of the power of the stack. I would have a "General" unit with stars to show the rank of the General and a number to show the total stack strength. This would give the player all the info they need about the stack at a quick glance. But players could of course right click on the General to see the details of the units in the stack. So with the right UI and design, stacks can be just as intuitive as 1upt.

Lastly, 1upt is good design for games like Panzer General or Field of Glory. But the reasons that make 1upt good design for those games don't apply to civ. In those games, the maps are tactical in scale, there is more room to maneuver, number of units are finite or regulated (limited reinforcements at predefined times), and maps are preset. So there is finite number of units that have plenty of room to maneuver. And preset maps means the AI can be hardcoded to handle the maps. In civ, the maps are strategic, there is less room to maneuver and players can produce more units which will make things more cluttered over time. And since the maps are random, the AI has to figure things out each time from scratch which makes it harder for the AI.

 

[GeneralZift]

It's not from an AI point of view. It makes AI pathfinding a real headache to program, artificially multiplying obstacles. And in a cluttered environment, it freezes everything.

As told in the other thread, it's all a matter of density of units. Let's imagine that you would play chess, but you would still be able to produce new chess pieces all through the game. You would end up with your chessboard being all stuck, that would be totally ridiculous.

You keep insisting on that point but I still can't understand it. I don't feel there's anything "unintuitive" in the idea of units sharing the same tile. After all that's still done with civil and military units. Would you argue it shouldn't any longer because it makes things too complicated?

In a nutshell, 1UPT is better "because it's better", it would help if you would be a bit more factual. The problem expressed about 1UPT is about excessive restrictions on movement particularly in a cluttered environment. That's pretty factual. What's your answer to it?

The main reason, I keep repeating, for 1UPT is it is easy to gauge how big an army is and also just understand the composition of an army at first glance than it is for Stacks.
It's therefore better for accessibility and for new players.

That's just facts.

Secondly, from a strategic POV, 1UPT emphasises terrain. If units ignored it, then you can force them all through a chokehold at the same time and the effect of the terrain is reduced.
It's not a huge reason, but it's still prevalent.

I'm almost 100% certain you all are just nostalgic for the old mechanic when the new one works perfectly fine... Civ 6 has it such that you can combine them to save space... You really don't need any more than that??

You can't expect to fit as many units as you want on one tile. It's just not clean from a game design perspective.

I don't know why that's hard to understand.

Civilian units fit on military units because they are definitively two different types of units. Different symbols that can overlay on the same tile.
Military units on top of military units would be confusing.
Just how would the combat work??

Even if you can answer all these questions, please for the love of God, please consider that designers make games for NEW PLAYERS and OLD PLAYERS.
Not just those who play Civ for 30 years.

Although all of this is beyond the scope of the original thread.