Fasten the game and make it more fun

[Naokaukodem]

It is redundant in that we don’t need 2 different ways to settle a city when settlers do it just fine, and I don’t see how it would make the game “more fluid” or somehow “kickstart” the early game when it could easily just be achieved by having settlers make the cities,

But it's not redundant the way I put it, it is to say need to build + move, it is two totally different things that I guess you qualify the same just to say "no it's you, nah nah nah".

in fact I say it might make the game less fun if the surrounding lands around your capital suck since now you have to settle your second city in a bad spot just to get to actually decent places to settle cities in a good spot.

It is a good argument in theory, but in practice we all know that it wouldn't be that different from Civ6 GS especially with all the loyalty pressure going on. Actually, the cases where you want to/ can settle far away from your capital are if you find an excellent natural wonder that could make all those movements pay for themselves.

The tile is still useless unless you build a building, no matter if we use what we currently have now or your suggestion so I do not see the point

Yes but why would you insta build a district that takes up a tile if it is to not build a building ? Of course you would do it immediately, or wait until you need it / can do it. Mind you that in the current state, you can build a +0 district without buildings, but it takes time on top of that. The only reason you might still want to do it is the increasing cost, but I dislike that.

and your only other reason is that it makes the game easier, which is something that in my opinion doesn’t need to happen.

Easier to play, yes, not easier to master at all costs.

My argument there was based off of you saying that improvements could be done from the city queue and your general want of getting rid of civilian units everywhere, not on your suggestion for settlers.

It could be managed in an other way than simply "increase cost everytime built", which I dislike. Like base cost on city size ? (so that it would be more or less constant during all the game)

 

[Something12]

But it's not redundant the way I put it, it is to say need to build + move, it is two totally different things that I guess you qualify the same just to say "no it's you, nah nah nah".

They are redundant, we don’t need two different ways to settle a city when settlers do it just fine, it would only contribute to feature creep.

It is a good argument in theory, but in practice we all know that it wouldn't be that different from Civ6 GS especially with all the loyalty pressure going on. Actually, the cases where you want to/ can settle far away from your capital are if you find an excellent natural wonder that could make all those movements pay for themselves.

The game tells you where their are city locations that would receive loyalty pressure, and even then it’s not like you place a city outside of a 6 tile range of one of your other cities mean it will instantly rebel, and I would consider getting a actually decent spot worth settling a little farther than your suggestions maximum range.

Easier to play, yes, not easier to master at all costs.

???

It could be managed in an other way than simply "increase cost everytime built", which I dislike. Like base cost on city size ? (so that it would be more or less constant during all the game)

Yea, that sounds reasonable.

Yes but why would you insta build a district that takes up a tile if it is to not build a building ? Of course you would do it immediately, or wait until you need it / can do it. Mind you that in the current state, you can build a +0 district without buildings, but it takes time on top of that. The only reason you might still want to do it is the increasing cost, but I dislike that.

The tile is still useless while your building the buildings, which your suggestion doesn’t fix.

 

[Naokaukodem]

They are redundant, we don’t need two different ways to settle a city when settlers do it just fine, it would only contribute to feature creep.

LOL

The game tells you where their are city locations that would receive loyalty pressure

And then ? It's usually spread out all the way anyway.

and even then it’s not like you place a city outside of a 6 tile range of one of your other cities mean it will instantly rebel

It's a bad feature IMHO still.

and I would consider getting a actually decent spot worth settling a little farther than your suggestions maximum range.

You would have to set up a line of cities towards (or one additionnal middle distance city) the spot you want to settle then. Or it would simply be out of your influencial range for a while, and it would be fine.

The tile is still useless while your building the buildings, which your suggestion doesn’t fix.

Again, it's not only about that... And again, it's better to have the tile useless while building a building than having the tile useless while building the district + having the tile useless while building a building, just saying... but I'm sure you got this, you're just trying to be annoying.

 

[Malexander]

I appreciate the idea but it would depend on how roads/railroads work. I would reject everything that makes them covering the whole map, as that concern has been taken in the last two iterations. (not that I, personnaly, do mind - I mean, I don't mind the spaghetti roads, I think they even add a touch of "human vs. nature" / industry)

Correct me if I am wrong but I don’t think Civ VI had any railroads.

However, in my ”vision” railroads would be costly to build, like they are in real life. Especially in early stages when the tech is first discovered. Therefore it would be unlikely to be able to cover the whole map with rail connections.

 

[Naokaukodem]

Correct me if I am wrong but I don’t think Civ VI had any railroads.

You can build them with an engineer. (that you can recruit with an encampment with a tier II building I believe) You build railroads tile by tile. I don't know if they cost maintenance.

However, in my ”vision” railroads would be costly to build, like they are in real life. Especially in early stages when the tech is first discovered. Therefore it would be unlikely to be able to cover the whole map with rail connections.

Costly to build or maintain ? (like in Civ5 : 2GPT each tile if I'm right) Because costly to build could be very tedious, like for example if it would require a builder charge. It would be less tedious than to require engineer charges like roads (and yes, I mean roads and not railroads, engineers in Civ6 can build infinite amount of railroads or must spend one charge to build a section of road, look for the error...) in 6 though, as builders are common.

 

[GeneralZIft]

I wish to never see the incredibly inconvenient "builder charges" again

Lets make it simple: Bring back the Workers and have them build quicker, but instead, you need to pay a Gold cost for the improvement you make.

It would drain gradually from your bank until it's complete.

 

[Naokaukodem]

I don't think that paying gold for improvements would be very fun : actually, the builders/workers represent your labor force and it should cost nothing or be exploited.
But we could replace builders by slaves, and re-introduce workers. Slaves can be bought with gold or be a part of conquered population. From time to time a slave appears near a city, if you are running a state slavery card or something. Hunters-gatherers/barbarians can provide you with slaves too, either bought for an advantageous price or either conquered.
Ultimately you can build improvements directly from the city.
---
However you cannot buy tiles anymore, unless they belong to another entity, your borders still expand through culture but you can acquire tiles by building military forces. (each time you build a military unit, you borders expand by 2-3 tiles, this represents your means to control territory - EDIT : or every military unit has one charge that can been spent in another city the unit was built) Or, you can still buy tiles but they will revert to unpossessed if you have not the required military, but that would trigger boring accounts booking. (unless there's a panel that indicates the number of "land points" your military sustains)
Ultimately the population pressure would also be a factor of territory growth : for each citizen born, a new tile is acquired.

 

[Malexander]

You can build them with an engineer. (that you can recruit with an encampment with a tier II building I believe) You build railroads tile by tile. I don't know if they cost maintenance.

Costly to build or maintain ? (like in Civ5 : 2GPT each tile if I'm right) Because costly to build could be very tedious, like for example if it would require a builder charge. It would be less tedious than to require engineer charges like roads (and yes, I mean roads and not railroads, engineers in Civ6 can build infinite amount of railroads or must spend one charge to build a section of road, look for the error...) in 6 though, as builders are common.

I imagine a system where building rails would reserve iron resource for the duration of finishing a tile. If a civilization would have only one iron resource, it could not begin other projects that require iron while the resource is reserved. Something like this would increase resource value and could motivate civs to be more willing to accept fair trade agreements.

 

[BackseatTyrant]

It doesn't make sense that in Civ6, compared to Civ5, you have to build a commercial hub or harbor + a market or lighthouse AND then a trader to get any trade route going.

If I remember correctly, it was implemented because Firaxis deliberately wants to keep the trade route capacity as low as possible, so that each trade route felt like a meaningful choice. Also, it used to be that you only needed to build the district, but during playtests, it was found that player never improved said districts

 

[Naokaukodem]

If I remember correctly, it was implemented because Firaxis deliberately wants to keep the trade route capacity as low as possible, so that each trade route felt like a meaningful choice.

Civ5 had it more correct IMO.

Also, it used to be that you only needed to build the district, but during playtests, it was found that player never improved said districts

Well during the expansions playtests then, because vanilla didn't need market or lighthouse. As to never improve this crappy district (like all others ? Except harbors on non-coastal cities ), if nobody builds in, I don't see why we should be forced to do so for the sake of it...

 

[Lazy sweeper]

Civ 3 had an option to supercharge production, by default, not a mod. A 10X in crease in production for every city.
It was very nice (It is) because you can build up massive empires in no time, and then just focus on war, with actual enemies
that same as you have access to early massive armies. It's good that it is optional, bc sometime you just want to focus
on expansion, and don't like invading armies of hundreds of units every few turns to just pop at your borders...

Expansion and city limits, minimum distance 1, maximum number of cities, etc.
It is very unlikely we will see early civs bigger than 12-15 cities each.
Even civ 6, with min. distance mod set to 1, CPU tends to stay under this limit of 12-15.
To get something similar to an Early Roman Empire in civ is like having conquered 5 or 6 neighbour civs, that is to have a civ of 50-60 cities.

That kind of achievement is only possible in Civ 3.
I totally agree that the game pace should stay streamlined and as fast as possible.
I hate leaders for this very reason. I hate they interrupt my game, and make between turns a pain... adding minutes...
whilst in civ 3, and 4 also, between turns is basically instantaneous.

Forget about workers, we will not get them back.
But press Enter to End turn immediately should be there.
AND EVERY INTERACTION IS SKIPPABLE BY PRESSING ENTER ONLY!
Cycle between all units should be avoidable as well.
Fortification and other shortkeys should be allowed by default.
Close diplomacy should be an option ( deny ANY cpu interaction if not initiated by you) like middle age Japan close to foreigner policy.
This would prevent CPU to take time away from you. And fasten in between turns a little bit.

Civ 6 and HK are such a chore to deal with that you forget how to build an empire, you lose focus on Expansion.
In HK to have more than 4 (4!) cities is basically suicide... just as another example... I'm very scared of what Civ 7 might turn into...