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.
Espionage can be loads of fun in stategy games - Master of Orion allowed you to steal techs or sabotage buildings and then frame other players for it. In that game and its successors, Spies weren't individual units, but functioned like a resource. You spent production to create a certain amount of spies, then assigned them to the race you wanted to spy on. You could have 15 spies at home doing counter espionage, 5 infiltrating the Psilon to steal techs, another 7 infiltrating the Sakkra to sabotage their infrastructure, another 3 in the Sillicoid empire to hide and feed you information on the fleet. Every Spy also cost credits to maintain, meaning the races with Eco bonuses (the ones that also tend to have bad production/armies) were generally the best at this game. It was loads of fun! Why wouldn't Civ 7 simply steal this entire idea and transpose it into a historical context? I see no reason why they couldn't.
While they're at it, also steal MoO's diplomatic victory system because Civ 6's
blows.
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.
More or less. I hate the aesthetics more than anything. The idea is good, but the name "rock band" is so niche and it's an awkward fit for what they're actually trying to do. No rock band *ever* inspired me to visit a city half the world away. They bare mechanics are good, but it needs a reskin.
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.
Hard agree. Agenda's make for a garbage substitute for actual personality. I don't mind having Agenda's but not at the cost of nuanced AI behaviour. Civ 6's leaders have a lot of personality in their design however, so if Civ 7 could combine Civ 6's designs with Civ 5's coding we would have a game that would feel a lot more immersive.
This is particularly a problem for Writers. We need more Great Work of Writing slots (e.g., why can't
libraries hold
books?
), and this is
especially a problem for Russia where eventually you own every single GWAM in the game and have long since run out of spots for their works.
Great People in general just need more roles. Currently, most Great People serve their general purpose and a unique purpose depending on which one you got. That's two possible uses, which is really meagre. And most
personalized GP bonuses aren't even good enough to warrant their use over immediately popping them!
Frankly I find loyalty flips FAR more grounded in reality than culture flips based on producing culture in terms of changing the allegiance of cities. Immigration from nearby urban centers (so a loyalty penalty from large cities from other civilizations being nearby), lack of support from the motherland (so a loyalty penalty from lack of your own nearby large cities, but a loyalty bonus from governors and certain policies), are much more significant factor in cities and territories joining a different country (think: Texas) than music, literature, movies and the ilk.
Cultural pressure working to affect ideologies is a wholly different thing, and would be great, but it should be separate from the city flipping mechanism.
I think ethnicity should affect city happiness, really. You would forget that's a thing in Civ 6 because it sheer lack of impact Amenities have on actual gameplay. But I do believe Civilians should have an Ethnicity, like they have a religion, and managing your empire's stability in times of peace should be centered around dealing with it. Ethnically different citizens, migrants or whatnot, should have access to cultural amenities in the same way a religious man needs a place for prayer. Familiarization should make outsiders feel more at home, making them less likely to feel as if society is going to cast them out.
One could open a can of worms on how to deal with Ethnicity, and man there are plenty of possibilities some of which dark-sided. EU4 basically has ethnic cleansings as a mechanic (euphemistically named "culture conversions"), but several of that game's other ideas such as Adopting Cultures (maybe spending Culture on that?) could work if Civified properly. Certain Civs, such as America and Assyria, could have bonuses specifically tied to it.
Now as for flipping, to me it makes sense IF (1) the city feels culturally closer to you than it's owner either due to its ethnic make-up or you being its founder (2) the city is REALLY unhappy under its current ruler (3) the owner's empire is unstable and they have no army to deal with the riots. Inventing a mechanic that implements these is possible, although the devs would have to start from from the ground up. I think Firaxis needs to look at Amenities again. It really is
city happiness that should determine how loyal a city is, not the size of nearby cities, or shared religion or whatever.