Feature requests for Civ VII

[kotpeter]

- The ability to transform landscape, or at least to chop woods

- Highlighting of goody huts when a scout is selected (it's hard to spot them huts sometimes)

- No AI city gifting after war, unless I surrounded this specific city with troops

- Overlay for city borders and building highlights with icons/colors (to distinguish between science/economic/etc, and see which tiles belong to which settlement). Different coloring or icons for different rural tiles would be cherry on top.

- On city yield screen, if "minus deductions" is specified, I want to expand and see what those deductions are

- Toggle to enable automatic growth for cities and towns (tile to grow on is picked according to chosen priority yield like in civ vi, or maximum total yield of the tile)

- Overlay for military tactics (view impassable landscape aka cliffs, roads, tiles that end movement, and fortified districts that need to be captured)

- I don't care that the ai is suffering from war weariness, if I'm not alone in this camp, please remove this notification

- Map search. We have build queue at launch (which wasn't in Civ VI for long btw), but we lost map search.

- More flexibility to place rural/urban tiles (e.g. the ability to place a district near a wonder regardless of whether it's connected to other districts)

- Better balancing of victory conditions for different game speeds (e.g. modern economic is too slow on online game speed)

Curious to know what you feel is missing from Civ VII!

 

[CliffCo]

I'd like to see the Hall of Fame added in addition to some of those you mentioned.

If you can use mods there's at least one map search mod.

 

[Krikkit1]

- The ability to transform landscape, or at least to chop woods

Disagree with this one. (Although Urban Land Tiles should automatically have a Road for no movement penalties for friendly units)

 

[99-percent-sure]

Let us harvest/sacrifice resources so we can build on hexes if we need the space more than the resource.
Let us build dams to prevent flood damage.
Give us a way to connect settlements to the trade network via land if a fishing quay gets cut off, and let us move treasure fleet resources over land to a nearby settlement's port.
Give us a five-turn countdown to the end of the age.

 

[MutilationWave]

I'd like to see the Hall of Fame added in addition to some of those you mentioned.

If you can use mods there's at least one map search mod.

Mods fix at least six of their requests.

 

[sixty4half]

Disagree with this one. (Although Urban Land Tiles should automatically have a Road for no movement penalties for friendly units)

But why? Why is chopping forests a bad idea. We do it ALL the time irl. I think it's a great idea. The ability to trade a production or science.tile for a food tile is an ability I'd like to have. Or remove a pesky forest thats slowing my units. More options are always a good thing.

 

[WeirdDud]

I've some UI requests:
Ideology icons on the leader banners during the modern age.
Religion icons on the leader banners during the exploration age.

Both are fairly prevalent for their entire respective age, and I'd like to see those at a glance. It's cumbersome to need to dive several menus to remind myself who's who or to check if someone has yet to adopt one.

 

[Tuvok694]

Here's a simple one: I would like to SEE if a player is at war with somebody when he requests an alliance.
I find it so annoying that I have to change menus with several clicks to get this information and then get back to the alliance request.

 

[CliffCo]

Here's a simple one: I would like to SEE if a player is at war with somebody when he requests an alliance.
I find it so annoying that I have to change menus with several clicks to get this information and then get back to the alliance request.

Even if you form an alliance with someone who’s in a war, you get the option to decline supporting them, so it doesn’t bother me. If I really want to keep up with who’s at war with eachother I monitor the global relations mod as it gives me that info.

 

[MutilationWave]

Even if you form an alliance with someone who’s in a war, you get the option to decline supporting them, so it doesn’t bother me. If I really want to keep up with who’s at war with eachother I monitor the global relations mod as it gives me that info.

That's a good mod. I used to hate alliances because of the relations hit for refusing to go to war, then I realized not taking the alliance is the same penalty, and can be applied more often. In my current game Hatshepsut wanted an alliance, I declined, so we were back to friendly. Two turns later due to something or other, she became helpful and asked alliance again. So I ended up with -60 to my relationship when I could have accepted the alliance and only taken the -30 to refuse the war.

 

[99-percent-sure]

That's a good mod. I used to hate alliances because of the relations hit for refusing to go to war, then I realized not taking the alliance is the same penalty, and can be applied more often. In my current game Hatshepsut wanted an alliance, I declined, so we were back to friendly. Two turns later due to something or other, she became helpful and asked alliance again. So I ended up with -60 to my relationship when I could have accepted the alliance and only taken the -30 to refuse the war.

I've accepted an alliance, declined a war a couple turns later, then had the same civ request another alliance a few turns after that. I'm not sure it's avoidable sometimes.

 

[MutilationWave]

I've accepted an alliance, declined a war a couple turns later, then had the same civ request another alliance a few turns after that. I'm not sure it's avoidable sometimes.

I hadn't encountered that since I changed my stance on alliance. Probably would have gone the same in my scenario.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

But why? Why is chopping forests a bad idea. We do it ALL the time irl. I think it's a great idea. The ability to trade a production or science.tile for a food tile is an ability I'd like to have. Or remove a pesky forest thats slowing my units. More options are always a good thing.

"Chopping" forests is a Fantasy mechanic - another bad idea from Civ VI that should have been left behind.

For most of history people did not chop down entire forests for some abstract benefit, chopping down old growth trees was hard work - and hauling the wood away to where you could use it was even harder work.

So, IRL people chopped down forests because they were going to immediately convert the land to a different use.

Some figures:
Overall, 29% of the land area on earth is either Ice/snow/glaciers (including high mountain areas) or 'barren land' - deserts, salt flats, beaches, sand dunes, exposed rocks (mountains again)
The remaining 71% or so is 'habitable land' - forests of all kinds, shrubs, grasslands.
5000 years ago that was divided into 55% Forest, 45% grasslands/shrubs
By around 1700 CE it was 52% Forest, 3% Farmland, 40% wild grasslands, shrubs, 6% grazing (pasturage)
By 1900 CE it was 47% Forest, 8% Farmland, 27% wild grasslands, shrubs, 16% grazing

In other words, Forests were largely converted into Farmland, wild grasslands into controlled grazing land and pasturage.

Which is what we do in the game every time we place a Rural Improvement on a tile.

But note that for most of the game's time over half of the habitable land area should be Forest - not 'vegetated', but Treed: either arboreal conifers, temperate deciduous, or tropical rainforest.

 

[sixty4half]

So, IRL people chopped down forests because they were going to immediately convert the land to a different use.

That's literally what I said

 

[MutilationWave]

"Chopping" forests is a Fantasy mechanic - another bad idea from Civ VI that should have been left behind.

For most of history people did not chop down entire forests for some abstract benefit, chopping down old growth trees was hard work - and hauling the wood away to where you could use it was even harder work.

So, IRL people chopped down forests because they were going to immediately convert the land to a different use.

Some figures:
Overall, 29% of the land area on earth is either Ice/snow/glaciers (including high mountain areas) or 'barren land' - deserts, salt flats, beaches, sand dunes, exposed rocks (mountains again)
The remaining 71% or so is 'habitable land' - forests of all kinds, shrubs, grasslands.
5000 years ago that was divided into 55% Forest, 45% grasslands/shrubs
By around 1700 CE it was 52% Forest, 3% Farmland, 40% wild grasslands, shrubs, 6% grazing (pasturage)
By 1900 CE it was 47% Forest, 8% Farmland, 27% wild grasslands, shrubs, 16% grazing

In other words, Forests were largely converted into Farmland, wild grasslands into controlled grazing land and pasturage.

Which is what we do in the game every time we place a Rural Improvement on a tile.

But note that for most of the game's time over half of the habitable land area should be Forest - not 'vegetated', but Treed: either arboreal conifers, temperate deciduous, or tropical rainforest.

I think part of the point here was that when we make that plantation, or turn the tile into an urban district, it should no longer stop movement completely or make it impossible to fire ranged weapons through. For that matter why can't a catapult or at least a trebuchet fire over a vegetated area?

What really gets me is when I'm taking an enemy city, fighting district to district, and having to constantly mouse over the quarters and districts to see where the roads are, or the forests that will block my ranged fire. If there's a brickyard and a university on a tile, there's a damn road there and the forest is long gone. It's unbelievably stupid, another thing that should be an easy fix that just pisses me off. If it's functioning as intended then whoever made that decision hasn't played the game.

While I'm ranting, hills being replaced by rough terrain - why? The ability hills gave for extra sight and the ability to fire over the tree line were great. They added to the tactical decisions of exploration and combat, while making the landscape nicer to look at. If we must have rough terrain, why not also have hills. Right now the variation between the tile height is essentially sea level or Mount Everest. I swear the designers didn't play the game any decent length of time.

Having forest tiles in the middle of dense urban environments is honestly just stupid if that was intended and lazy if it wasn't.

 

[simklay]

The ability to remove resources. Too many times have I been blocked out of expansion by a line of mountains/resourses.
Either let us delete/remove them (which defeats the purpose) or count it as an urban district so we can build through them.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

I think part of the point here was that when we make that plantation, or turn the tile into an urban district, it should no longer stop movement completely or make it impossible to fire ranged weapons through. For that matter why can't a catapult or at least a trebuchet fire over a vegetated area?

What really gets me is when I'm taking an enemy city, fighting district to district, and having to constantly mouse over the quarters and districts to see where the roads are, or the forests that will block my ranged fire. If there's a brickyard and a university on a tile, there's a damn road there and the forest is long gone. It's unbelievably stupid, another thing that should be an easy fix that just pisses me off. If it's functioning as intended then whoever made that decision hasn't played the game.

While I'm ranting, hills being replaced by rough terrain - why? The ability hills gave for extra sight and the ability to fire over the tree line were great. They added to the tactical decisions of exploration and combat, while making the landscape nicer to look at. If we must have rough terrain, why not also have hills. Right now the variation between the tile height is essentially sea level or Mount Everest. I swear the designers didn't play the game any decent length of time.

Having forest tiles in the middle of dense urban environments is honestly just stupid if that was intended and lazy if it wasn't.

Urban areas, even composed of 1 - 2 story mudbrick structures, notoriously block sight lines and restrict movement: they are not easy for troops in any kind of formation to fight through, and full of dangers you don't get on a regular battlefield.

Jason of Thessaly, a near-contemporary of Alexander the Great, was killed when someone dropped a heavy ceramic roof tile on his head while he was riding through a 'conquered' city - not the sort of thing one expects to worry about out on a grassy plain.

Depending on how you visualize Plantations - planted fruit or olive trees, rows of vines, etc, they could also restrict vision and movement for troops on foot. British troops in the Peninsular War in the Napoleonic Wars found that marching or advancing through Spanish vinefields was dead easy if you were going down the rows between the vines, almost impossible if you tried to move through the vines, even with swords and bayonets and light axes to chop through them.

And frankly, I don't mind the change to 'rough' terrain at all. Hills can provide extra sight lines, but they also, with modern long range weapons, make you a prime target - being on the crest of a hill has been nearly suicidal throughout the 20th century, so any 'Hill' rules would have to be rewritten for almost each separate Age. Also, hill slopes are tricky: there is a difference between the geographical crest of any hill or ridge and the 'military crest' - the former may leave part of the lower slopes out of sight and prime avenues to approach without being seen or fired on, the latter is usually lower but allows the entire hill slope to be covered by direct fire.

Sorry for the digression - I'm beginning to feel like I'm back at the Artillery School lecturing on Terrain in Fire Planning . . .

 

[MutilationWave]

Urban areas, even composed of 1 - 2 story mudbrick structures, notoriously block sight lines and restrict movement: they are not easy for troops in any kind of formation to fight through, and full of dangers you don't get on a regular battlefield.

Jason of Thessaly, a near-contemporary of Alexander the Great, was killed when someone dropped a heavy ceramic roof tile on his head while he was riding through a 'conquered' city - not the sort of thing one expects to worry about out on a grassy plain.

Depending on how you visualize Plantations - planted fruit or olive trees, rows of vines, etc, they could also restrict vision and movement for troops on foot. British troops in the Peninsular War in the Napoleonic Wars found that marching or advancing through Spanish vinefields was dead easy if you were going down the rows between the vines, almost impossible if you tried to move through the vines, even with swords and bayonets and light axes to chop through them.

And frankly, I don't mind the change to 'rough' terrain at all. Hills can provide extra sight lines, but they also, with modern long range weapons, make you a prime target - being on the crest of a hill has been nearly suicidal throughout the 20th century, so any 'Hill' rules would have to be rewritten for almost each separate Age. Also, hill slopes are tricky: there is a difference between the geographical crest of any hill or ridge and the 'military crest' - the former may leave part of the lower slopes out of sight and prime avenues to approach without being seen or fired on, the latter is usually lower but allows the entire hill slope to be covered by direct fire.

Sorry for the digression - I'm beginning to feel like I'm back at the Artillery School lecturing on Terrain in Fire Planning . . .

Nah don't be sorry, I always enjoy your posts and learn from them.

I'm just saying this is a game, and I want it to be consistent. If we wanna say urban warfare is like it is in real life and you can only move one tile or attack each turn in urban districts, that's cool. Just don't make it based on where a forest was 2000 years ago while the rest of the city is free game.

Same for plantations or any rural tile. Just make it consistent and I'm happy.

 

[luca 83]

Solve the problem of the ages by using historical mechanisms and random winds and economic and political mechanisms, better improved diplomacy, stop, random leaders and useless wonders, better ai

 

[CliffCo]

The ability to remove resources. Too many times have I been blocked out of expansion by a line of mountains/resourses.
Either let us delete/remove them (which defeats the purpose) or count it as an urban district so we can build through them.

Totally agreed, ive seen it twice in my current game, one of which in one of my cities. I had a narrow peninsula with 2 resources blocking expansion, 2 tiles from my city center so i couldn't build anything but a rural improvement on the other side of them, i could have placed my city one tile further away from them but then it wouldn't of had access to fresh water.