Features you would NOT like to see repeated in Civ 7

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

Well, firstly is not just yellow and gold, altough mainly yellow and gold, white is also prominent in the greater coat of arms of Sweden (see spoiler below). I personally consider a blue on white scheme for sweden a funny nod to its (temporary) domination of Finland.

Considering the design is based off of the three golden crowns with the blue background, I'd rather it just stay like that.

I agree the choice and the reduction/simplification of colors that came with the Jersey system should be removed as well as the awful selection of some jerseys, but not the Jersey system itself.
Ideally, you shold be able to re-pick one of the civ jerseys at any time in the game (i.e. having it as a selectable menu in the leader portrait).
I've modded my own colors in the game (you can expand the pallete as much as you want), and re-colored all civs to make use of it while having all interesting and relatable colors, and I love it.

I've modded in colors back in too. A majority of them I keep to the limited color pallet but there are some colors I liked from the base game that I found in the files and manually put them back in such as Aztecs, France, Poland and China's original ones.

Of course though I don't like it, I know some do so I would like for it to be optional like the game modes.

 

[aieeegrunt]

I don't know if you have played the Endless Legends game, but a single tactical battle can easily take 30 minutes. And because they have 1UPT (in a sense) as well, they have similar 1UPT problems as well.

Having more movement points would solve a LOT of the frustrating juggling problems with 1UPT

If you don't want to just scrap world congress, which I can see both sides of, they definitely need to add a "defy resolution" option. After all, the history of the LoN and UN in the real world is literally full of countries defying the consensus.

Just get rid of it

I just had another world congress decide that my apostles should get a +10 in religious conflict.

An interesting religious war with Russia just deflated because my units arbitrarily got buffed

The only thing that would have pissed me off more is if they had buffed Russia instead

It’s random and stupid and often utterly breaks the game, like when the “target player gets all their trade routes cancelled” happens

Or hey, your luxuries suddenly stop working

What is this? Doki Doki Civilization Club or something?

AT LEAST LET ME TURN THE GODDAMN THING OFF

 

[hawkseye17]

The current version of World Congress. I'd much rather have Civ5's

 

[Lord Lakely]

I don't want most features to be thrown out - I would like to see them improved.

> World Congress that actually allows for politicing and lobbying
> Religion as a subset of 'Culture', with the option of going secular/animist if you wish. Or alternatively, Religion as a relevant mechanic from the start.
> Agenda's as part of the leader's strategy, rather than them dominating the leader's personality.
> Amenities expanded, as opposed to a nebulous system of checks and balances.
> Grievance system improved to better reflect the player's actions (were you a backstabber? a warmonger? a pacifist? a loyal ally? All of these things should have different impacts and yet they are thrown into the same pot.)
> Loyalties reworked to factor in ethnicity, religion and commodities in a more meaningful and representative way.
> More punitive end-game environmental effects, more environmental effects in general (Earthquakes)
> City States becoming more powerful with time, if left alone. (encourages conquering or vassalizing them, which is their purpose, after all)
> Better espionage, including better missions and stronger diplomatic reprecussions.

Honestly? I would be okay with specialty Districts being gone. I like the idea of utility districts (Airports, Harbours, Suburbs, Aqueducts/Cisterns, Resource Silos, Fortresses) and the current placement rules for Wonders, but specialist buildings belong inside the city centre i m o. Replace them with more buildable infrastructure.

 

[Josephias]

Agree with most points above, but two

> More punitive end-game environmental effects, more environmental effects in general (Earthquakes)

Depending on implementation and AI handling. Rising sea level as it is now almost kills the game for me as the only way to counter is are highly-intrusive (in terms of "presence" and "visibility" in the map) improvement. Would not mind increased disaster levels and specific buildings/infraestructure to counter them.

Maybe, disasters would be more interesting if you were able to flexibilise city positions and there were not, as traditionally, fixed from first location. This brings me to the second point

Honestly? I would be okay with specialty Districts being gone. I like the idea of utility districts (Airports, Harbours, Suburbs, Aqueducts/Cisterns, Resource Silos, Fortresses) and the current placement rules for Wonders, but specialist buildings belong inside the city centre i m o. Replace them with more buildable infrastructure.

I am not sure "specialist buildings" belong to the city center. Instead, I would say some city centers have grown up out of "speciality Districts", and that is why we consider now speciality buildings belong to city center. I.E: many, old and new university campuses were built in a quiet location outside the city center, but as the university become involved in other topics, a new city grew around it. Maybe the exception could be TS and EC (whose buildings might belong in city center or neighbourhoods/suburbs, but I think Campus, HS, CH, and IZ follow more this philosopy.

In that sense, It might be interesting to push an idea to see different types of city.

> Administrative: the ones you settle, with Palaces and gubernamental buildings. Provide improved loyalty. Also, you could include probably here those that could be achieved by promoting an Encampment to "city" status. They would starts with walls
> Universitary: achieved promoting a Campus to "city" status. Bonuses to science production (probably to culture as well)
> Economic Hub: achieved promoting a Commercial Hub or Industrial Zone to "city" status. Bonuses to gold production. (Note I think it makes more sense to nclude the IZ than making a "production" city as a super-manufacturing city normally is subject to an Economic one that controls the output of that production).
> Pilgrimage site: achieved promoting a holy site to "city" status. Bonues to faith production.

Any city, on the other hand, any city could be "demoted" to a "Historic City", with district-rank, and associated to a different city, and providing a tourism bonus. This would allow to mimick real wold rise&fall of some cities which were once great but lost preeminence to other cities due to wars and conquest, shift on peoples needs, or natural disasters/change on environment conditions. Cities bult out of a speciality district will contain (or be able to complete) the buildings of its origin district in the city center, maybe with increased specialist bonus, along with the city center districts themselves.

 

[Lord Lakely]

The big issue of the Environmental system in Civ 6 is that it isn't punitive at all. You rush Computers and then spam inexpensive Flood Barriers, what's the problem? Then, you can build Coal Power Plants everywhere, raise Carbon emissions through the roof, cripple your opponents, then dial down on emissions via Carbon Recapture, earning yourself an easy Diplo win. It's so counterintuitive and broken it should be considered an exploit.

As far as base-building is concerned, I prefer the system of Stellaris to that of Civ. Every planet has its own environmental map, and the buildings you place are more or less efficient based on whether where on the planet they're located and next to which over facilities.

City planning in Civ can follow a similar pattern. A mill can be more efficient if placed on elevation or next to water. A shop generates more income if placed near houses. Factories have anti-syngeries with residential and commercial buildings. Hospitals and Universities build adjacent to each other buff each other's effects. Only cities with a "city map" that includes a river bank or a beach can build a dock.

In the endgame, buildings can be stacked on top of each other creating a skyscraper or expanded horizontally, like adding a dormitory wing to a University to increase its science output, or commissioning a statue in the Market Square to improve environmental beauty.

I don't dislike Civ 6's system of base building at all. It is, by all means functional. However, it has its limitations and I'd like to some alternatives explored.

 

[oSiyeza]

Gone features:

• Diplomacy favor separated from grievances
• Diplomatic penalties separated from diplomacy
  
• Religious combat (magic lighning, unfun, shallow, built around repetition)
  
• Tunels
  
• Military engineers (join to builders)
  
• Cards
• Airports as improvements
• Magical aceleration of spaceships (no room for completely making up the laws of physics)
  
• Victory points
• Envoys separated from diplomacy
  
• Charges (replace by cost of use)
  
• Shallow game design based on piling number modifiers
• Focus on no negative consecuences
• Faith as a game currency to buy units with
• Focus exclusively on wide play with constantly increasing micromanagement, making the game more and more boring.

Complete rework:

• World congress (useless resolutions, not tied to diplomacy, no decission making involved, horrible guess game to get points)
  
• Governors
  
• Chop mechanics (too exploitable, too senseless)
  
• Disasters (no consequences but micromanaging repairs)
  
• Global warning (useless and with no consequences without desertification, exploitable)
  
• Spy missions (lack of meaningful missions)
  
• Religious game
• Culture game
• AI (senseless diplomatic choices, bad cityplaning, bad pathfinding, unable to challenge on domination, not pursuying victory, all turning to pacifists as game progresses, exploitable trading, random congress resolutions, unable of dealing with walls, unable of using loyality, unable of using properly join wars or casus belli, or naval units, or air units, or atomic bombs, or any distinct late military unit)
  
• Diplomacy
• Exploration units (late ones)
  
• Housing
• Museum minigames (terrible UI, boring and inconsequential)
  
• Ages system (no negative consequences)
  
• Era score
  
• Map builder (still non functional)
  
• Agendas (just a poor substitute for proper personality that barely works)
  
• Railroads
• Repair mechanics (terrible micromanagement)
  
• Competitions (another system to get weird currency points)
  
• Join Wars (useless in single player) and emergencies.
  
• Eurekas (remove variety and freedom, dictate choices).

The list started to grow so much, that I may start thinking I dont really enjoy the game, but instead play it for what could have been.

 

[Xandinho]

There is another thing that I forgot to mention that I'd like to see out of the game: Global warming.
I really like all natural disasters, but the way how Global warming works is completely nonsense to me: very early, very destructive and I don't like that flood barrier which is very ungly on the map, imo.

 

[Naeshar]

There is a lot already in here, a lot to pick from. Actually, most of them changers would like an entirely remade game. My list:

1. Flat yield bonuses. (all of city state buffs, random adjacency rules, unique improvements - mostly related to science and culture. prod/faith/gold are pretty ok)
2. Leader agendas. It was fun, but quite bland. I would like to see warmonger expansionist and civilized perfectionist leaders again.
3.1upt and tactical combat. The army/formation system might give good ideas instead.
4. Fixed eras/ages. Not all civilizations get the same pacing and being in golden is not related to past events that much as it is to current.
5. Amenities. Right now they are not rewarding enough. They should be a way to direct you how well are you taking care of your people, not just a case of improved luxuries. Anyway, I am convinced that amenities break AI from warring properly. It should be about sacrificing money and progress to maintain stability - which is currently a granted since you pretty much never reach into rebels levels. Nor does the AI.
6. Quests. Eurekas. Inspirations. Citytstate quests. Great moments. So many quests the game always follows the same trajectory. And mound unnecessary clicks.
7. AI difficulties by the means of handicaps. Better AI employs better strategies, not steroids. Each war should have a goal (thats not same as "I dont like you") and actually pushing it.
I will keep it short at 7. There are many more points, but these should go to history, I believe.

 

[Socrates99]

Not a feature but a lack of. I hate that I can't set cities to autobuild. I know districts kind of make auto awkward but maybe just add a prompt when a city has a free slot. I like micromanaging when my empire is small but once I get big I'd rather just micro the important cities and auto the little ones like I did in earlier iterations. Late game Dom is tedious because I can't do that.

 

[CyberPhy]

Secret societies and hero's
I hate the fancy elements they added

 

[Socrates99]

Secret societies and hero's
I hate the fancy elements they added

Those are modes dude. AKA developer made mods. Dont like em? Dont use em.

 

[criZp]

Top 3 things
- Policy cards, theoretically nice flexible bonuses that firaxis couldn't execute well, making them poorly balanced and a micromanaging hell
- Districts, having cities that expand horizontally as well as vertically is fine, but they stopped the map from looking anything like a real world, instead it's just lots of random disconnected colors everywhere
- Agendas, this one is so bad it does not need any explaining

 

[Gedemon]

Those are modes dude. AKA developer made mods. Dont like em? Dont use em.

developer made mods, yes, forgot that one, something I really do not want to see repeated in civ7, it gives the impression that they've kept the core locked (comparatively to civ4 and civ5) so that they could sell mods.

 

[The Civs 6]

developer made mods, yes, forgot that one, something I really do not want to see repeated in civ7, it gives the impression that they've kept the core locked (comparatively to civ4 and civ5) so that they could sell mods.

Or in general, I would prefer not to pay quite a lot of money (relative to the market) for developers to work on a product that is essentially within the scope of the amateur (not to diminish the fantastic quality of modders, but just to say that my expectations from the very company that engineered the game in terms of content is fundamentally different from those who design it for fun).

 

[The googles do nothing]

GIT RID of settling on resources giving you the resource. I'm fine with being able to settle on any resource - strategic included - but you should not benefit.

If there is going to be leader screen trading it should take some time to complete. A least the time of a trade route. I'm fine with it being optional because it makes some sense for team multiplayer for instant trading.

 

[duckstab]

GIT RID of settling on resources giving you the resource. I'm fine with being able to settle on any resource - strategic included - but you should not benefit.

I think this would be a terrible idea unless it were limited to resources that were already revealed at the time of settling or building a district. It could be absolutely game-breaking if you inadvertently settled on a resource that you didn't even know was there. What, you mean I actually settled on my only source of Oil on turn 1?!

 

[Lord Lakely]

Thought of one this morning: Builder Charges. The AI cannot properly improve their owned tiles because of the restrictive nature of builders. Get rid of them.

 

[aieeegrunt]

Thought of one this morning: Builder Charges. The AI cannot properly improve their owned tiles because of the restrictive nature of builders. Get rid of them.

That is bad AI, not a bad mechanic

 

[Lord Lakely]

If an AI cannot use it properly, then you should ask yourself whether it is a good idea.