Features that Civ 7 Could Do Without

[CritterCipher]

A lot of the speculation threads lately have been focusing either on new features that people want to see or old features that people dislike strongly and want to see removed. I wanted to focus on something different instead: what are the features of Civ that you don't really dislike strongly but wouldn't mind losing in a future version of the game? Here are a few that come to mind for me:

1) Spies. In real life, the primary purpose of spying is to gather information about enemy activity. In Civ, this is the least useful thing that spies do. The Spy unit in Civ 6 is a jack-of-all-trades who can harm your enemies directly (stealing Great Works, sabotaging Industrial Zones and Spaceports) but at other times just happens to sit in enemy territory while raking in money or helping you to catch up on your research. If spies only did offensive operations and counter-spying, and those offensive operations were a significant part of the mid-game and late-game, their inclusion might make more sense, but, as the system is now, it feels like fan-service is the primary motive for its inclusion.
2) The Corps/Army/Fleet/Armada system. I don't really mind having the system in the game, but I don't feel like it adds much, and I suspect that Firaxis included the system in Civ 6 just to pay lip-service to 1UPT haters. "Look, guys! We brought back unit stacking--sort of!"
3) Support units. I like the premise, but I hardly ever built them. Why build a Battering Ram when a Warrior is much more versatile and can function on its own? If support units were significantly cheaper than normal military units or they were the only way to compensate for certain weaknesses that normal units have, they might be more valuable, but I would be fine having a Civ game without them.
4) Archaeology. As it is now, archaeology is just another modern-era minigame that you can ignore safely if you're not pursuing a culture victory. Removing it might make the late game a little less tedious.
5) Individualized Great People. Having unique abilities certainly makes Great People more interesting, but it also makes the system much less scalable. (Firaxis couldn't just add 500 new Great Person names in a single patch if every one of them needed some distinguishing feature.) On top of that, it seems a little weird to have Great People who help you with things outside their specialization (e.g. Sun Tzu writing The Art of War).
6) Multiple leaders for some civilizations. Another feature that feels more motivated by fan-service than by the goal of adding depth to the game.
7) Eurekas and Inspirations. They make the process of earning techs and civics a little more fun, but they also add an extra layer of human-AI asymmetry to the game since AI players don't use them.
8) The ability to levy City-States' militaries. I think I only ever levied a City-State's military once in all my time playing Civ 6, and that was to get an achievement.

New versions of Civ always scrap some of the old content to make room for new mechanics, so what are the features that you wouldn't miss?

 

[Zaarin]

It's an unpopular opinion, but I strongly agree with your first point. The espionage game is tedious, and there's nothing fun or interesting about it.

Points 2, 3, and 8 I have no strong feelings one way or the other for. Point 7 I also don't feel strongly about, but I feel more like the Eureka system was an interesting idea that could be refined rather than tossed out.

To Point 4, I feel more strongly about its inclusion than Point 7, but I also feel like it's a system that needs refinement.

I don't have a problem with multiple leaders for one civilization (leaders leading multiple civilizations is a gimmick that needs to never return), but Firaxis either needs to use the feature more fully or leave it as a framework for modders like they originally said. Civ6's tepid and arbitrary use of multiple leaders is awkward.

I disagree quite strongly with Point 5. Making Great People and City-States more unique was one of Civ6's best ideas, and I hope they double down on that in Civ7.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

I don't actively dislike any of the features but the one thing that I definitely can live without for Civ 7 is the loyalty system.

I'd rather a different approach to culture flipping that deals more with having a dominant culture in a city based off of ethnic groups than outright city flipping to a whole other civilization. I wouldn't mind a possible revolution system either but that still would be different than the current loyalty system we have now.

I'd also like to note that I would want to keep spies/espionage in the game. You can always refine it. Wu Zetian or Elizabeth I needs some sort of leader ability @Zaarin.

 

[Zaarin]

I'd also like to note that I would want to keep spies/espionage in the game. You can always refine it. Wu Zetian or Elizabeth I needs some sort of leader ability @Zaarin.

I mean, Elizabeth I obviously gets a bonus related to her patronage of literature so no espionage system necessary. There are a lot of directions you could take Wu, though filling CdM's "Black Queen" role is certainly one of them (rumors abounded of her assassinating her way into office, though scholarly consensus is that those accounts were exaggerated...if not fabricated). However, Wu's also a pretty good candidate for culture bonuses. She lavishly supported Buddhist temples and monasteries, and, like Elizabeth, Wu also presided over a literary renaissance in which she dabbled herself. Since Wu was most admired for her statecraft, if Civ7 has some way to represent bureaucracy or good management, she's a prime candidate for that, too.

I'm not opposed to an espionage system if it's much more passive and less intrusive than Civ6's--or Civ5's. Remove spies from the map and take away the micromanagement. I'd be fine with something like Birth of the Federation's espionage where you throw some money at it and it just passively does things behind the scenes.

 

[BuchiTaton]

5) Individualized Great People. Having unique abilities certainly makes Great People more interesting, but it also makes the system much less scalable. (Firaxis couldn't just add 500 new Great Person names in a single patch if every one of them needed some distinguishing feature.) On top of that, it seems a little weird to have Great People who help you with things outside their specialization (e.g. Sun Tzu writing The Art of War).

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

I mean, Elizabeth I obviously gets a bonus related to her patronage of literature so no espionage system necessary. There are a lot of directions you could take Wu, though filling CdM's "Black Queen" role is certainly one of them (rumors abounded of her assassinating her way into office, though scholarly consensus is that those accounts were exaggerated...if not fabricated). However, Wu's also a pretty good candidate for culture bonuses. She lavishly supported Buddhist temples and monasteries, and, like Elizabeth, Wu also presided over a literary renaissance in which she dabbled herself. Since Wu was most admired for her statecraft, if Civ7 has some way to represent bureaucracy or good management, she's a prime candidate for that, too.

Yeah I'd much rather Elizabeth get the literary renaissance bonuses over Wu.

I do think it would be interesting if they managed to work internal espionage into an ability representing her statecraft somehow though.

 

[Xandinho]

Most of the things you mentioned should not be taken out of the game, but polished. Individualized Great people is one of the best things about Civ6, I just hope they grow the list further and include new types of Great People. I also like Eurekas and Inspirations, although some of them are unrealistic. I'm fine with how archeology works, they could include archeological site as another option instead of collecting items. I'm indifferent to the Corps/Army/Fleet/Armada system.

The systems I really don't like are:

Loyalty: as said, cultural and ethnic pressure would make a lot more sense.

Global Warming: I don't like how it works. This happens too soon and takes most of the coastal tiles away and AI sucks at dealing with that.

Agendas: perhaps the worst thing included in Civ6. Also, I also don't like leaders calling me warmonger for wars that happened millennia ago or leaders halfway around the world furious at my "bellicosity" that has nothing to do with them. Sometimes they call me a warmonger for wars they haven't even witnessed, this is bizarre to say the least.

 

[MistroPain]

Adjacency bonuses. I'd rather not plan the future of my cities infrastructure in the ancient era thanks.

 

[dagriggstar]

I always wondered if we could do without a happiness/amenity/luxury system.
I think we can do without faith and tourism as resources but I don't mind them either.

 

[Zaarin]

Agendas: perhaps the worst thing included in Civ6. Also, I also don't like leaders calling me warmonger for wars that happened millennia ago or leaders halfway around the world furious at my "bellicosity" that has nothing to do with them. Sometimes they call me a warmonger for wars they haven't even witnessed, this is bizarre to say the least.

Yes, the agenda system absolutely needs to go away and never come back. Civ6 has a lot of good ideas that were poorly implemented, but the agenda system was a bad idea that was badly implemented.

 

[Zegangani]

I agree with Point 1, If Firaxis doesn't make Espionage less micro and more passive like @Zaarin said, then I wouldn't mind having it excluded in Civ7.

2) Yes, The Corps/Army/Fleet/Armada System was made in Civ 6 as a substitute for the lack of Stacks. I can do without it, but I think they can make more out of it. How it was made in Civ 6 didn't help much with the Issues of 1UPT.

3) it remains to be seen how the Unit Combat System in Civ 7 will be. It also depends on what Civ 7 will change in 1UPT. But I agree, they need to be more important in Civ 7.

4) I think Civ 7 will double down on this, because Great Works, Relics and Artefacts are one of the best Features that Civ V and VI have improved on. If Tourism will still be a thing in Civ 7 (which I believe it will be), then I'm not seeing this removed. But I do hope that Tourism will get a mean rework.

5) Can't agree here, but on Point 6, Yes.

7) I like the System, it's a new thing that was added in Civ 6, so I hope Civ 7 will expand on it, and use it as an interconnection point with the Civics Tree/Policies and other things.

8) The same as you, but I think it's still a good Feature. I just don't use it often because I'm more of a Peaceful Player who avoids going to War. Besides, it isn't really a big of a Feature, it just adds more usefulness to CSs.

Things that I wouldn't mind loosing in Civ 7:

1) I agree wholeheartedly with @Alexander's Hetaroi about Loyalty. It's just a means to balance the Wide vs Tall Play and kinda also act as a Revolution System with Free Cities, but a Culture Diffusion/Pressure Mechanism would be much better IMO. Revolutions and a Balance System for Tall vs. Wide Play should have their own Systems that can better represent them and solve their Issues (balance).

2) I also agree with @Xandinho about Global Warming. The way it's done in Civ 6 is too gimmicky. I'm also not a Friend of the Disasters and how they are implemented in the Game. They shouldn't take multiple Turns but be a 1 Turn Event (now Forest Fires taking several Years to spread to other 1000 hectare tiles?), like with River Flooding. I'm still disappointed though, that we didn't get Earthquackes (I want something that shakes my Game/Civ (literally)). But Solar Flares? Really?

(Yes, the main Features of RnF and GS that I'm not excited about to see again, but wouldn't mind at all in the case of Disasters)

3) Goody Huts. I usually disable them, because they make AI use its Civil Units to explore the Map.I think at this Point Firaxis can make more with those Goodies, like making them as Tribes that can be part of your Civilization and add to your Culture and that you can trade with. Perhaps they could still give you Benefits when you meat them, as kinda getting Gifts, but in order for them to join your Civ you need to give them Gifts too. But you still should be able to popp them out if you want.

4) Historic Moments Timeline. I don't see any Value in keeping this in the Game. It doesn't tell the Story of my Civ at all.

5) World Congress. If they don't make this much better than how it is in Civ V and VI, then I can do without it.

 

[Zaarin]

4) Historic Moments Timeline. I don't see any Value in keeping this in the Game. It doesn't tell the Story of my Civ at all.

I like it. It could be improved on for sure, but I think it's a good feature.

5) World Congress. If they don't make this much better than how it is in Civ V and VI, then I can do without it.

I have no confidence in Firaxis's ability to make an interesting World Congress because it's been a burden in every game that's featured it. I'd rather they focus on making regular diplomacy more in-depth.

 

[Krajzen]

Spies as active units you have to micromanage and do many weird or meaningless things (weird - spy stealing gdp of an entire empire, meaningless and weird - global empires bothering to send spies to steal individual paintings). This may sound weird but I actually prefer civ5 system, where spies were a separate off - map tiny minigame mostly revolving around realistic espionage. Uncovering fog of war, secrets, stealing tech, diplomatic hooks, coups in city states - that's sensible espionage, not yet another micromanagement of some petty sculpture stealing, absurd billions of dollars stealing, or very frustrating to deal with (but also useless) sabotage of one building in some city.

Civilizations having a metric ton of different small bonuses from all those uniques, up to and over a dozen, you cannot remember them anyway. Just give them less but more interesting and unique bonuses you can remember.

Intense micromanagent of tile yields.

Disasters and climate, they are shiny toys that actually change very little in the game.

Tourism, the cultural influence game can be summarized by ideas with much more gravitas, realism and influence across many eras, than through the notion that only became somewhat important over what, last fifty years?

Ages and points, because they have utterly and miserably failed in making empires 'rise and fall' (like the entire R&F expansion), therefore they are meaningless.

Active spread of religion with physical missionary units, adds nothing to the game but a ton of tedium (and a lot of immersion - breaking), this could be abstracted.

Eurekas and inspirations, they get old and mindless quickly, and AI cannot deal with them.

The entire dualism of science tree va culture tree - introduces no more depth, makes eras go very fast (instead of one big tree with longer eras), and is actually more historically questionable than one integrated tech tree, not less.

I won't comment on the subject of loyalty and agendas because the goal of a thread is "things you could live without", not "things you really hate".

Actually I shall still comment on one of those things, warmongering penalties,
because not only I hate it and it doesn't make any historic sense, but it also still utterly fails its purpose of stopping runaways (like everything in the game).

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

Agendas: perhaps the worst thing included in Civ6. Also, I also don't like leaders calling me warmonger for wars that happened millennia ago or leaders halfway around the world furious at my "bellicosity" that has nothing to do with them. Sometimes they call me a warmonger for wars they haven't even witnessed, this is bizarre to say the least.

I have mixed feelings about this. On one hand I like the idea of every leader having their own personalities but I agree it wasn't implemented in the best way. Some definitely do not make sense at all, even historically. It would make much more sense if that was the way they could implement ideologies.

Global Warming: I don't like how it works. This happens too soon and takes most of the coastal tiles away and AI sucks at dealing with that.

I forgot about global warming. I don't necessarily like rising sea levels either. I still would like to keep normal disasters though.

4) Historic Moments Timeline. I don't see any Value in keeping this in the Game. It doesn't tell the Story of my Civ at all.

That's honestly my favorite part of R&F even though it has no real effect on gameplay whatsoever. I just like the concept of your own personal timeline.
I feel the same way about named geographical features in GS.

 

[Zaarin]

I have mixed feelings about this. On one hand I like the idea of every leader having their own personalities but I agree it wasn't implemented in the best way. Some definitely do not make sense at all, even historically. It would make much more sense if that was the way they could implement ideologies.

To me, I felt like the AI traits in Civ5 gave leaders much more personality than the neurotic fixations that are agendas.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

To me, I felt like the AI traits in Civ5 gave leaders much more personality than the neurotic fixations that are agendas.

Civ 6 is the first one I've owned and played extensively, rarely playing Civ 5, so it's hard for me to say which one I'd like more without having that much experience with AI traits.

Maybe the best way is to implement is a mixture of the two? Still have a main agenda or goal that is influenced by your major traits?

Like I say I have mixed feelings on agendas so it doesn't really matter if they do away with them, or not. As long as leaders like Pericles continue to protect city-states, and Alexander isn't continuously portrayed a pacifist, traits would be fine.

On the flip side I'll gladly welcome Pedro not denouncing me for every GP I recruit or Menelik II wanting to own every hill tile.

 

[Zaarin]

Civ 6 is the first one I've owned and played extensively, rarely playing Civ 5, so it's hard for me to say which one I'd like more without having that much experience with AI traits.

Maybe the best way is to implement is a mixture of the two? Still have a main agenda or goal that is influenced by your major traits?

Like I say I have mixed feelings on agendas so it doesn't really matter if they do away with them, or not. As long as leaders like Pericles continue to protect city-states, and Alexander isn't continuously portrayed a pacifist, traits would be fine.

On the flip side I'll gladly welcome Pedro not denouncing me for every GP I recruit or Menelik II wanting to own every hill tile.

Civ5's traits had a much more profound impact on how leaders behaved than Civ6's agendas. In my experience, it led to certain metagame relationships with leaders that went beyond just hating Dom Satan. You could rely on Attila, Montezuma, Shaka, and Genghis Khan being rabid warmongers--but if you befriended Genghis, he'd also be a loyal friend whereas Attila and Monty would be backstabbers. Oda Nobunaga would always be a recluse in diplomacy; Dido would be friendly but might backstab you. Etc. It was a much better way to make leaders feel lively and rational; Civ6 leaders act more or less the same except about which transgression they'll throw a hissy fit over. While I'd like to see diplomatic options expanded considerably, I think only minor refinements/expansions to Civ5's AI traits would already be an enormous step forward in diplomacy from Civ6.

 

[jsciv69]

City Zone Of Control; This is something I would like to see vanish. Way back in Civ III, we were able to settle cities anywhere not occupied by a rival Civ. We were even given the ability to settle cities within our own territories. Let's do away with this Zone Control once and for all.

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.

Unnecessary Prerequisites For Units; Needing oil to build Infantry and Artillery Units didn't make much sense. These should be available once Gunpowder is discovered.

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.

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.

 

[Xandinho]

There's another thing I forgot to mention about Global Warming is the Flood Barrier. These barriers just sound too ugly on the map, and not very nice to visualize. I'd rather not see them again in Civ7.

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.

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.

 

[Zegangani]

I like it. It could be improved on for sure, but I think it's a good feature.

That's honestly my favorite part of R&F even though it has no real effect on gameplay whatsoever. I just like the concept of your own personal timeline.
I feel the same way about named geographical features in GS.

If they make it more historical and Story telling, like with less "Agressive City Placement", "Splendid Campus Completed" and "Fist Civic/Tech in new Era" but more of "Your People in City X have completely acclimated to the Desert Climate of the City's Region", "Your Campus in City X has originated a Great Person" and "Your People are celebrating a new reform of the Civilization's Government that will redeem the Realm from its unpleasant Past und lead them into a new Era of Prosperity and Peace", then I would love to see the Historic Moments again in Civ 7.