Features that Civ 7 Could Do Without

I forgot about this. I don't necessarily dislike them, but controlling them manually is very annoying. They should find a way to make them automatically act like trade routes. Another thing, being bought by faith is just meaningless. They should be bought by gold and with a specific policy that allows them to be bought, because once you have more economic power and incentive, the greater the chance of global celebrities popping up there.
I don't mind Rock Bands either. That being said I wouldn't care if concerts also went back to Great Musicians either giving them something else to do.

If not I think there needs to be certain buildings that go with each of them. Bring back the Opera House as an Industrial Era building able to store multiple Great Work of Music and Writing. Then let the Broadcast Center generate mainly tourism based off Rock Band concerts. They can still hold one Great Work of Music because there still are Classical Music stations.:)

If they act more like trade routes let them travel between a city of yours with a broadcast center and other civilization's city with a proper concert venue (amphitheater, university, stadium etc.).
 
OK about Rock Bands.

Can devs at least name them Music Stars? If the idea is to have "flavor" a bunch of generic names for the very specific genres of Rock,lacking any famous name because copyrights add no flavor neither from real great rock bands neither immersion for all the variety of civs. Rock is very deterministic, specific and gratuite that do not even add what the name of Great Musicians and their works could add.

Play Japan and make Enka popular.
Play Argentina and make Tango popular.
Play Yoruba and make Fuji popular.

After all, were not Rock Bands supposed to be used for YOUR CULTURE to win?
 
Speeding through Ancient and Classical Eras; Trying to develop and prepare a Civ for the Modern and beyond eras, becomes quite challenging when the earlier era are rushed through. Either reduce the year increments. or have earlier starting years such as 10,000 BCE. So we are not still using Archers in the 20th Century.

The actual source of this problem is something almost nobody except me complains about: there are simply way too many separate eras for "modern world" in comparision to preindustrial ones. Seriously, in civ6 we have four eras before industrial (5800 years), and four after industrial (1900 - 2050). This is ridiculous. Compare with Humankind where there are six eras, of which just one is devoted to the period 1900 - 2020. Okay, maybe this is too much, maybe divide modern eras into two, for example (1900 - 1950) and (1950 - 2020). But not four! Especially as late game is always the weakest, and I'm certain most of people prefer atmosphere of earlier eras vs very modern ones.

Limits of Strategic Resources; Once a resource is obtained it should be good for the entire Civ. And not exhausted so easily. It makes no sense to only build a few Tanks that exhaust the oil supply.

Those "few tanks" are actually "few tank divisions", totally numbering like few thousand tanks ;) Otherwise, however, I'm really neutral about the very existence of strategic resources in general, except coal, oil and uranium. Horses weren't really that rare for the scale of this game to completely disallow cavalry for any nation in Eurasia and northern half of Africa (they weren't present in the rest of the world for 'unfair' reasons that shouldn't be in the game anyway). Iron was quite common metal almost everywhere (I don't remember why it wasn't used in Americas). Niter/saltpeter are especially stupid strategic resources, I have never ever met with the notion of 'and then country couldn't have more guns because of lack of niter' outside this game. Aluminium I don't care about at all. And coal, oil and uranium all arrive in the similar time period, so you could just rebrand strategic resources into something you only need since industrial era, without OCD need to have some nonsensical strategic resource for every era and every unit.

Rock Bands;
This was a cute idea. But it didn't really fit with this game. And it can become an annoyance and disruption of game-flow.

Rock bands are one of the most anti - gravitas, immersion - breaking, not - fitting - majestic - empire - building, micromanagement - annoyances of civ6. This is especially silly idea because it doesn't make any sense until like last 50 years of human history, and then it is utterly Euro (US?) centric, because the entire concept only really works for US - Europe cultural relations, and on top of that it is the shallowest possible understanding of 'cultural influence' - to make popcultural music celebrities its most important tool in a game about global empires. As a person from Poland, bombarded constantly by Western cultural influences and with collective self - esteem issues, I'd say music is the least important aspect of foreign cultural influence here. Polish music holds very well against outsider music, and the same seems to be true for most countries of the world. The real cultural invasion is in terms of languages, mentality, economic and political systems, academic disciplines, institutions of all kinds, cinema, popular literature... There are so many ways to display realistic Cultural Domination over other civilizations, and music is the least important of those aspects.
 
Rock bands are one of the most anti - gravitas, immersion - breaking, not - fitting - majestic - empire - building, micromanagement - annoyances of civ6. This is especially silly idea because it doesn't make any sense until like last 50 years of human history, and then it is utterly Euro (US?) centric, because the entire concept only really works for US - Europe cultural relations, and on top of that it is the shallowest possible understanding of 'cultural influence' - to make popcultural music celebrities its most important tool in a game about global empires. As a person from Poland, bombarded constantly by Western cultural influences and with collective self - esteem issues, I'd say music is the least important aspect of foreign cultural influence here. Polish music holds very well against outsider music, and the same seems to be true for most countries of the world. The real cultural invasion is in terms of languages, mentality, economic and political systems, academic disciplines, institutions of all kinds, cinema, popular literature... There are so many ways to display realistic Cultural Domination over other civilizations, and music is the least important of those aspects.
I mean if you do include cinema as part of a cultural invasion I don't see why music shouldn't be part of that as well?

I think the problem with Rock Bands isn't what it represents but the name as mentioned above. I'm sure if the name was changed to not be so Eurocentric it wouldn't be as jarring. Because isn't K-Pop all the rage now? :mischief:
 
To briefly diverge back to the topic of Corps and Armies, I honestly think they're a great concept that's worth keeping but are almost meaningless because of how late into the game they are introduced. If the ability to combine units came into play right when managing your armies became a little tedious (such as Late Classical-Early Medieval), then I think they'd be a welcomed feature that people would love. But because they only appear when your armies are exclusively comprised of a handful of highly-promoted units, they don't even come close to fulfilling their purpose.

Personally, I certainly enjoy combining units in the later eras, and think that introducing that ability earlier would not only massively reduce tedious micro-management but also add another fun mechanic to the military game. It's a shame that earlier Corps and Armies don't really exist in the current iteration of Civ VI.

And before someone mentions it, I am aware that the Zulus unlock Corps and Armies earlier. While I think that ability is cool for the Zulus, it's held back by the fact it's exclusive to the Zulus. Why not let me make medieval era Corps with any Civ?

As a final note, while I can confidently claim Corps and Armies come too late from a player standpoint, I have no clue if their late arrival is historically accurate. If so, that at least provides some merit to the strange design decision. I'll just leave that to @Boris Gudenuf :D
 
As a final note, while I can confidently claim Corps and Armies come too late from a player standpoint, I have no clue if their late arrival is historically accurate. If so, that at least provides some merit to the strange design decision. I'll just leave that to @Boris Gudenuf :D
Army sizes have gotten larger as history has progressed (the armies of hundreds of thousands that Mesopotamian and Egyptian kings boasted of would have been logistically and demographically impossible); one assumes that is what late Corps and Armies are meant to represent. I agree with you that they'd be more useful if they unlocked earlier.
 
As a final note, while I can confidently claim Corps and Armies come too late from a player standpoint, I have no clue if their late arrival is historically accurate. If so, that at least provides some merit to the strange design decision. I'll just leave that to @Boris Gudenuf :D
Curiously looking into it looks like the concept of forming corps were implemented by Napoleon, which explains why it comes so late in the Industrial Era.

If Rome gets a different UU I would argue we could use the term "legion" as an early equivalent Classical Era. :mischief:
 
Curiously looking into it looks like the concept of forming corps were implemented by Napoleon, which explains why it comes so late in the Industrial Era.

If Rome gets a different UU I would argue we could use the term "legion" as an early equivalent Classical Era. :mischief:
I mean, dividing armies up into parts certainly wasn't new to Napoleon. Consider this text from the Hebrew Bible: "So I took the leaders of your tribes, wise and reputable individuals, and installed them as leaders over you, commanders of thousands, commanders of hundreds, commanders of fifties, commanders of tens, and officials, throughout your tribes." (Deut. 1.15)
 
I mean, dividing armies up into parts certainly wasn't new to Napoleon. Consider this text from the Hebrew Bible: "So I took the leaders of your tribes, wise and reputable individuals, and installed them as leaders over you, commanders of thousands, commanders of hundreds, commanders of fifties, commanders of tens, and officials, throughout your tribes." (Deut. 1.15)
Yeah what I meant is the word "corps" wasn't officially used until Napoleon used the term to describe some of his formations in his army.

As I said earlier the Roman army was also definitely divided into many different legions.
 
Unit sizes and organizations down to the 'squad' level go back to Ancient times: the Egyptian army had companies ('Sa') of 200 - 250 men or 50 chariots, Pedjets of 5 Sa, or 1250 men or 250 chariots. Sumer/Akkad/Babylon had units of 60 and 600 men or 6 and 60 'battle cars'. Pastoral central Asian groups seem to have all usd decimal organizations of 10, 100, 1000, 10,000 men, the last being the Ordo, Horde or Tuman depending on whether you were speaking Turkic or Uralic.

None of that means anything in the game, though. What is important in-game is how many men/weapons (chariots, etc) you can control in an Army - what the modern military calls the 'span of control'. That requires a chain of command in which leaders and sub-leaders can control their units and all can respond to orders from above. That was a lot rarer until long after the game starts.

For example, the Greek Phalanx was divided into Files of 8 or 12 men and larger units of X number of files representing the Tribes or Demes of the individual City States, but there was no chain of subordinate Leaders to respond to commands, so the whole army simply formed up 8 to 12 men deep and went forward to engage and drive off the enemy. The Strategos of 'general' simply fought in the front rank as another infantryman, because there was no one he could give orders to except the men that happened to be standing near him.

At Gaugamela both Alexander's and Darius' armies were divided into Wings, and Darius, at least, had subordinate commanders on both wings: Bessus on his left, Mazaeus on his right, but the organizatin was all put together as they marched to the battlefield and formed up, and nobody seems to have given any orders once the battle started. Rome, of course, had Legions, but the Legion was not a Battlefield Organization, it was an administrative one. On the battlefield the forces were maniples and later, cohorts, but it was normal for a Tribune to take command of a number of cohorts and lead them in a separate attack, or flanking move: precisely the kind of action by a sub-Unit that we think of as happening on a 'battlefield' (and which Humankind precisely replicates in its battle system, which therefore allows far too much control for most of the game and many of the armies!)

In the (European) Middle Ages 'armies' were divided on the battlefield into Van, main Battle, Left and Right Wings, but the division was done on the battlefield: there were no military 'units' larger than the Lance, which was simply a Knight and his personal servants, squire, and followers.
Spanish Colunelas of the mid-15th century were 1000 man units that were 'permanent', so they had a fixed Leader and learned to work together before they actually went into battle. Three of those were soon combined into the famous Tercios. By the early 17th century they were joined by the Dutch Battalions and Swedish Squadrons of permanent pike and shot units.
By the late 17th century, everybody (in Europe) had infantry organized into Regiments, which fought in Battalions on the battlefield - but everything larger was improvised on the day of battle: brigades of 3 - 5 battalions organized into Wings, Center, and (rarely) Reserve.

It was 1732 CE before de Saxe wrote that brigades should be combined into Divisions as permanent larger units, 1760 before Marshal Broglie of the French Army actually formed Divisions, and 1767 before Russia formed Divisions that were permanent military Units. Divisions were 'unitary' in that Infantry Divisions were all infantry with perhaps a company or two of artillery, and Cavalry Divisions were all mounted troops.
Napoleon's Corps took that a step further in that each Corps contained both infantry and cavalry divisions and enough supporting artillery that they could act like 'little armies' - you could move separated as individual Corps, but whichever Corps engaged the enemy, even if outnumbered they could hold out until other Corps joined the fight and overwhelmed the enemy.
The Division and Corps and Army organization has remained the basis for all army organizations ever since.

And yes, the size of armies has vastly increased. In ancient Egypt and Mesopotamia, the largest 'Unit' in every case is simply called a Host and represents Everybody Who Shows Up - and can be as few as 600 men for a small city state! Alexander the Great, by contrast, regularly put 30,000 - 40,000 men on a single battlefield, and the Roman Republic and Empire up to 80,000. Tang Chinese armies are reported to have been up to 100,000 - 200,000 men, but tellingly, a majority of those were men carrying supplies - the fighting strength ranges from 80,000 down to a single unit of 1000 heavy armored cavalry with lances and bows.

The other part of the Army equation is dispersion. Ancient, Classical and Medieval Armies formed up in about the same amount of space per man - roughly averaging 1 square meter per man (100,000 men covered 1 square kilometer, roughly). By the Industrial (smoothbore muskets and artillery) that was 20 square meters per man, and by World War Two 100,000 combat troops covered 3000 square kilometers, or were about 3000 times more dispersed than their ancient counterparts.

That means, in game terms, Ancient, Classical, Industrial and Modern Units cannot be the same actual size, because they will take up wildly varying amounts of space on the map, whether you use one of Humankind's 'Battlefield Maps' or keep everything on the game/strategic map.
 
Setting aside civ7 featuring a combat system more similar to Humankind for a minute, support units as a system are a fantastic addition the to series. It's just that it was never fleshed out.
Many units should be support units rather than standalone. Personally, I think a combination of support units and the "tech upgrades" of the GDR could make a combat system people would be fanatically addicted to. (Trivial example: ironworking boosting the combat ability of ancient era units like spearmen, while also unlocking classical units. Might even be accompanied by a graphical change.)

The structure is all there, it's just not used.

I personally think that support units should basically be combat utility that you add to actual combat units to mix things up. We already have siege equipment, but I would like to see, for example, anti tank guns being something you might attached to infantry to give them a defensive bonus vs tanks. Whereas, say, a machine gun support unit might assist when fighting other infantry.

Personally, I would scrap the promotion system we have now in favor of adding those things via support, tech, or some other system, and just letting "promotions" grant +1 combat strength per level. Call it veterancy, idk. But the promo system we have been slowing inheriting from civ4 kept the devs from being willing to merge, trim, and create new unit lines as needed, and that really messes up game balance. Helicopters really shouldn't have the same combat class as horsemen. Archers shouldn't end up as machine guns. They should be folded into gunpowder units at riflemen. Etc.
 
Setting aside civ7 featuring a combat system more similar to Humankind for a minute, support units as a system are a fantastic addition the to series. It's just that it was never fleshed out.
Many units should be support units rather than standalone. Personally, I think a combination of support units and the "tech upgrades" of the GDR could make a combat system people would be fanatically addicted to. (Trivial example: ironworking boosting the combat ability of ancient era units like spearmen, while also unlocking classical units. Might even be accompanied by a graphical change.)

The structure is all there, it's just not used.

I personally think that support units should basically be combat utility that you add to actual combat units to mix things up. We already have siege equipment, but I would like to see, for example, anti tank guns being something you might attached to infantry to give them a defensive bonus vs tanks. Whereas, say, a machine gun support unit might assist when fighting other infantry.

Personally, I would scrap the promotion system we have now in favor of adding those things via support, tech, or some other system, and just letting "promotions" grant +1 combat strength per level. Call it veterancy, idk. But the promo system we have been slowing inheriting from civ4 kept the devs from being willing to merge, trim, and create new unit lines as needed, and that really messes up game balance. Helicopters really shouldn't have the same combat class as horsemen. Archers shouldn't end up as machine guns. They should be folded into gunpowder units at riflemen. Etc.

Check to all.
The current Promotion System is a combination of technical upgrades, tactical changes, and just plain silly words thrown in to mean things they never meant originally. It needs to be separated into Technical (technology OR Civic Upgrades) and real Promotions wich reflect the effects of Experience and professionalism.
ALL military Units throughout history include 'Support' - non-combat or semi-combat people tagging along to keep the combat troops capable of fighting. The average Hoplite army of Classical Greece included 1 - 3 servants for each Hoplite, carrying his shield and armor before they got to the battlefield, cooking meals, carrying food, and looting the enemy dead if things go well. Chinese Classical/Medieval Armies from the few decent statistics we have seem to have also averaged 2 - 3 'support' non-combatants for every Combatant, even when the combatants were conscripted peasants. I've posted before, since World War Two (game Modern/Atomic Eras) every soldier in the front line or combat support units also has 2 - 6 non-combatants in uniform hauling supplies, ammunition, driving trucks and wagons, cooking rations, writing press releases. There is always a 'tail' to the combat teeth.

The trick is to make the basic Support invisible - it's simply an extra cost built in to each Unit, which allows you to move that unit normally. The extra Support would be all the extras required to, say, move a Unit through the desert, or supply it across the sea, or provide the hundreds of tons of ammunition and fuel required by modern (20th century) militaries anywhere, and investing in it would be, to some extent, your decision as a Gamer/Personification of the Civ: don't invest, and you end up like Germany, barely able to project military power more than 500 kilometers outside of Germany. Put a mass of resources into Support, and like the US military, you can put a million men clear across the Pacific Ocean complete with fuel, food, ammunition, and lavish air and naval support.
- Or send a Roman Army to Africa to finish off Carthage: it's the same in every Era, just different Technologies and capabilities available.

Combat Support is things like Carroballistae (small portable catapults) added to Roman Legions in the Empire, or antitank guns. antiaircraft guns, combat engineers in modern Infantry or Tank/Armored Divisions, or 'battalion guns' - light artillery added to musket-armed infantry Units in the 18th century. Some of those can simply be technical Upgrades, others are more complicated, because there were also Brigade-sized Units of antitank or antiaircraft guns used to Mass their effects where needed to counteract massed air or tank attacks. I think these will have to be thought out on a case-by-case basis, and some of them will probably wind up as Unique attributes for certain Units in certain Civs.

Technical Upgrades I've been beating the drum for in other Threads, like Unit Ideas for Civ VII. From that Thread, here is a partial list of potential Technical Upgrades for ground units from Ancient to (approximately) Industrial Eras and their base effects:

Light throwing spears** - Has 1-tile Ranged attack
Light shields* - Bonus against Ranged attack
Secondary Melee Weapon (sidearm) - Bonus Melee Combat Strength
Metal weighted Weapons - Bonus Melee Combat Strength
Leather/cloth Body Armor* - Bonus against Melee attack
Lead Sling Shot - Bonus Ranged attack against Ranged or Scout Units
Metal Body Armor* - Bonus Melee Combat Strength, Bonus against Ranged attacks
Composite Bows* - Bonus Ranged attack
Heavy Shields* - Bonus against Ranged and Melee attack
Metal Tired Wheels - Bonus Tactical Speed for any Chariots, additional Support from Wagons
Heavy Spear/Lance* - Bonus Melee Attack when Charging
Heavy Throwing Weapon** - Penalty to opposing Melee Combat Factor
Torsion Propelled - Bonus Catapult Ranged factors
Cart-Mounting* - Bonus Movement for Catapults
Articulated Plate Armor* - Bonus against Melee and Ranged attacks
Halberds* - Bonus against Mounted or Infantry in Melee
Iron Cannon Balls - Bonus against Fortifications for Bombards or Field Cannon
Corned Powder - Bonus Combat/Ranged Factor for all Gunpowder units
Elevating Screw - Bonus Ranged Factor for Field Cannon
Cannister - Bonus against Melee attack for Field Cannon, Howitzers
Precision Bored Barrels - Bonus Combat Factor for Gunpowder Units
Manual of Arms Drill - Increased effectiveness of Amateur or Professional Gunpowder Units
Mixed Formations** - Allows mixing of Units and ‘converged’ factors and effects.
Volley Fire** - Increased Ranged Factor
Rifled Carbines* - Increased Combat Factors for Mounted Units

** = Could require a new animation
* = could be shown by a new Skin: brown or cloth colored for leather/cloth armor, bronze, gray, or shiny for bronze or iron/steel armor, etc, or by an additional Graphic irtem: shields, carts, different weapons.

Most of these would require a new Technology to implement, in some cases (shields, body armor) they could apply to numerous different units, in other cases (cart-mounting for catapults, Lead Shot strictly for Slingers) they are specific to a single Unit type.
 
For me literally everything that was added after the basic game except some of the civs

Which would cover just about all of this thread.

Spies are absolut stupid. How is a spy sabotaging the industrial infrastructure of an entire region?
 
I'd be very happy to see the archaeology game go away. I find that I don't build theater squares much, and when the archaeology sites suddenly appear all over the map, I have dozens of tiles I cannot use unless I build theater squares, then amphitheaters, then archaeology museums, then archaeologists to remove . . . three of them. To me, archaeology sites are a form of pollution (like in Civ2) and I don't like having to remove them to make the tiles accessible again.

On a larger level, the idea that digging up buttons and javelins and putting them under glass would help a civilization defeat its rivals is just beyond silly.

I think the promotion system of Civ6 should go. It's rigid and boring. Just seven options, and only two or three available at any one time? At most there are two different pathways for most units (a defensive path and an offensive path) and for some units, like ranged, one pathway is clearly better than the other. As is the case for SO MANY THINGS, I don't know why the Civ4 promotion system was abandoned. It was so fun to build different units with different abilities - some super medics, some all-around strong units, some specialized for attacking cities or working in jungles or hills. I suppose that the human player could exploit the system better than the AI can, but that's true for many systems; that never stopped the developers from implementing things the AI couldn't handle.
 
Last edited:
On a larger level, the idea that digging up buttons and javelins and putting them under glass would help a civilization defeat its rivals is just beyond silly.
...You don't think we've benefited in any way from archaeology or museums? :huh:
 
...You don't think we've benefited in any way from archaeology or museums? :huh:

I do think people in the future will benefit from our museums, even though most of them will be under water . . .
 
...You don't think we've benefited in any way from archaeology or museums? :huh:
Speaking of museums I wouldn't mind if they went back to just one museum building instead of the art/archaeology split. That being said it would nice if you had a choice to fill it up with Great Works of Art, Artifacts, or a mixture of both. :)
Only if that would make it possible to have a Opera House/Broadcast Tower choice later in the game. :mischief:

I do think people in the future will benefit from our museums, even though most of them will be under water . . .
Before that they will become virtual, if they haven't already. :shifty:
 
Before that they will become virtual, if they haven't already. :shifty:

There are a lot of Virtual exhibits and expansions of exhibits using virtual technology, but (so far) it is all based on actual, physical exhibits from somewhere (or many somewheres). The whole point of a museum is to have the physical connection on some level to the artifact, art, and people represented.
 
Speaking of museums I wouldn't mind if they went back to just one museum building instead of the art/archaeology split. That being said it would nice if you had a choice to fill it up with Great Works of Art, Artifacts, or a mixture of both. :)
Only if that would make it possible to have a Opera House/Broadcast Tower choice later in the game. :mischief:
They also need to do something about theming while they're at it. I know small museums focused on a particular kind of art or even a particular artist exist, but most major museums house a variety of art.
 
Hey, I love love love museums. Museums of all kinds —art, science, history, everything. But the cultural victory, consisting of building ski resorts and sunbathing beaches and themed museums seems silly to me. I don’t mind it as a game component, but it’s just not the same as building a rocket to Alpha Centauri or conquering all other countries.

I liked Civ4’s cultural victory: build three cities of legendary culture. That was hard to do but kind of made sense.
 
Top Bottom