Future Update - Speculation Thread

[Jarms48]

I would love to see:

Additional Features for Global Warming:
- Tsunamis and Earth Quakes: We already have continent’s, so this would just be tying the 2 systems together. They would start on continent borders/fault lines and effect X tiles around them. Tsunamis would have a chance of flooding lowland tiles, or submerging an already flooded lowland tile. Which would also bring that mechanic a little earlier in the game, but nowhere near as severe as global warming but could help accelerate coastal flooding if global warming remains unchecked.
- More severe tourism, diplomatic, amenity, loyalty and world congress penalties. If you’re a heavy polluter, say for example bigger than the 2nd and 3rd polluter combined there should be a negative 25% tourism modifier placed on you, there should also be negative amenities and loyalty applied to cities affected by global warming.
- Add another level of global warming to 100% ice melted and another level of flooding.
- Add another building to the industrial zone that allows renewable power to extend to other cities much in the same way as a normal power plant. This building would be completely clean but wouldn’t offer much yields by itself.

Plagues and Disease:
- Tied to housing, if you have cities over your housing cap then there should be a greater risk of attracting disease. These could then be spread locally if the city is connected to another by roads (say within 6 tiles) additionally they could be spread internationally if you have a trade route in that city to a foreign city. This could result in a negative tourism modifier to any civilisation you have spread the disease to, have a diplomatic penalty, an amenity and/or a loyalty penalty if the disease goes unchecked and potentially lose citizens in cities which don’t have health buildings.

Religion:
- Everyone should be able to form a religion unless a player converts them to their religion first. Arabia’s UA might need to be changed.
- We need to have more beliefs added for variation.
- Players should have the ability to reform a religion if they capture another holy city and convert it. They would then be able to swap a belief with one of the opponents or take one if they’re own beliefs aren’t full.
- There needs to be some kind of great apostle. Once you earn a great prophet and found a religion your great prophet points start to earn great apostles. Passively they could increase the religious strength of nearby religious units and/or be used to increase passive religious pressure. Their abilities could be similar to similar to great generals, great scientists and great engineers. Such as: Spawn a religious unit earlier than normal (perhaps even with a promotion level), instantly builds a shrine and all shrines produce +1 faith, etc.
- Civs with the same religion should get a positive tourism modifier of +25% and Civs with different religions should get a negative modifier of -25%.
- Citizens in your cities and who are also followers of your religion should intrinsically produce 0.3 Faith.

Citizens and Settlers:
- Citizens should intrinsically produce 0.5 production. This would help balance tall and wide play, as larger cities would have some means to out produce more cities. This would also help mitigate bad production starved starts.
- Citizens should intrinsically produced 0.3 faith. See above. Provided they are followers of your religion. This promotes having a strong local religion.
- Citizens working as specialists should also earn great people points. This again helps balance between tall and wide play. Wide players will get more points from having more districts whilst tall players have more citizens that can be used as specialists.
- Settlers should be able to increase a cities population by 1. This would be an easy way to represent immigration. I could then either produce new settlers to increase the population in new cities. Captured settlers used this way would keep their religion (if they have one) and their previous nationality. Which could have a temporary effect on loyalty.

Builders:
- Allow builders to place roads.
- Should be able to chop outside their borders again, but doing so will reduce yields (based on distance).

Military Engineers:
- Should be able to speed up wall construction.

Great Generals and Great Admirals:
- Should be able to increase city loyalty provided that their passive ability is still viable.

Capturing Cities:
- We need puppet cities back. There’s already so much micro management in game already.

There’s probably more I can add, just can’t think of them at the moment.

 

[Horizons]

Tiles have features like woods or rainforest.
But it seems you were implying removing game mechanics like loyalty or great works etc.

The entire religion system needs to be reworked IMHO.

 

[Loerwyn]

Talking of religion, in another topic I had an interesting idea.

I suggested adding leaders like Akhenaten and Henry VIII (though not necessarily him, as 3 leaders for England would be a bit much), as they were quite important in their countries and cultures at their respective times for sweeping religious reforms. Perhaps Martin Luther would be a better replacement for Henry (and still be contemporary to him), and allow you to change or alter your religion at some point.

The issue I have in mind is how to make ones like the free settler/builder free, because they're particularly strong religious beliefs to take.

 

[OmegaDestroyer]

I really, really hope they fix the idiotic Diplomatic victory condition. It is complete garbage. Twice now I have been voted to lose points, the first time losing 25-27 and the next time 30-33. It really is fun losing that many points and having to wait an interminable amount of time dragging the game out to hit an awful victory condition.

As far as I'm concerned, the only viable victory conditions are domination, culture, and science. Religion, score, and diplomacy are not remotely fun.

 

[Gwydden]

(Also, there is something to be said about even being a global power in the 21st century. I see a lot of members on here minimizing modern civs as not having been around for centuries like ancient and medieval civs. However, between increased globalization forcing competition and collaboration with literally every other state on the planet (as opposed to immediate regional neighbors), and the exponential growth of technology and cultural consciousness, it is absolutely a historical feat to be on top of the current meta.)

I can't speak for others, but it's not a question of accomplishments for me. It's not that America/Brazil/Canada/Australia shouldn't be civs because they haven't stood the test of time yet (there are some relatively short-lived pre-modern civs like the Timurids I'd love to have), but that they shouldn't be in because "being on top of the current meta" is by definition not historical.

 

[Nikolai II]

I can't speak for others, but it's not a question of accomplishments for me. It's not that America/Brazil/Canada/Australia shouldn't be civs because they haven't stood the test of time yet (there are some relatively short-lived pre-modern civs like the Timurids I'd love to have), but that they shouldn't be in because "being on top of the current meta" is by definition not historical.

Tell that to me and others who have specialized in modern history. I wrote my master thesis on 2000-2010 in 2012.

 

[Gwydden]

Tell that to me and others who have specialized in modern history. I wrote my master thesis on 2000-2010 in 2012.

Ah, you're one of those! I remember your type from my time as a History major. Everytime I thought "But that happened barely a decade ago! Shouldn't you be in the IR or Political Science department?"

Jokes aside, the game covers five thousand years. The last century is a tiny portion of that.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

I can't speak for others, but it's not a question of accomplishments for me. It's not that America/Brazil/Canada/Australia shouldn't be civs because they haven't stood the test of time yet (there are some relatively short-lived pre-modern civs like the Timurids I'd love to have), but that they shouldn't be in because "being on top of the current meta" is by definition not historical.

As much as I was initially perturbed by Canada's inclusion, it does make since why they got in:
1. People classify it as an Anglophone nation, but the way it's presented in game with Wilfred Laurier, you could consider it more diverse and add Francophone as well.
2. Releasing Canada with the new World Congress and Diplomatic victory is smart as they are known for their world peacekeeping efforts.
3. Sid Meier was born in Canada. (Maybe not this one)

 

[Jeppetto]

And that you start collecting the resource immediately if you have a district over it with no effect on the yields of the district but have to build a mine if there's nothing there. As if mine tunnels magically appeared under the library or amphitheater when you somehow discovered coal there.

But what about wonders. Them garden-maids watering my plants and uranium in Hanging Gardens, the sudden explanation that all the visions from the Oracle might be related to all the sniffed coal, the Petraleum...

 

[Zaarin]

As much as I was initially perturbed by Canada's inclusion, it does make since why they got in:
1. People classify it as an Anglophone nation, but the way it's presented in game with Wilfred Laurier, you could consider it more diverse and add Francophone as well.
2. Releasing Canada with the new World Congress and Diplomatic victory is smart as they are known for their world peacekeeping efforts.
3. Sid Meier was born in Canada. (Maybe not this one)

I probably wouldn't have batted an eye at Canada if it weren't for Australia. Of all the new modern nations in Civ6, Canada's inclusion bothers me the least (though I would have chosen Champlain for leader). But even Laurier is fairly inoffensive; I kind of like how he switches back and forth between French and English, which I believe is a trait he shares only with CdM and Gandhi.

 

[Xandinho]

As much as I was initially perturbed by Canada's inclusion, it does make since why they got in:
1. People classify it as an Anglophone nation, but the way it's presented in game with Wilfred Laurier, you could consider it more diverse and add Francophone as well.
2. Releasing Canada with the new World Congress and Diplomatic victory is smart as they are known for their world peacekeeping efforts.
3. Sid Meier was born in Canada. (Maybe not this one)

I probably wouldn't have batted an eye at Canada if it weren't for Australia. Of all the new modern nations in Civ6, Canada's inclusion bothers me the least (though I would have chosen Champlain for leader). But even Laurier is fairly inoffensive; I kind of like how he switches back and forth between French and English, which I believe is a trait he shares only with CdM and Gandhi.

Curiously, of all modern nations in Civ6, I find Canada the least necessary due to many reasons (they don't even cover an empty TSL, we already had Cree). On the other hand, it is one of the most fun civilizations to play, I particularly had a fun match playing as it, they have a unique gameplay.

 

[SammyKhalifa]

I can't speak for others, but it's not a question of accomplishments for me. It's not that America/Brazil/Canada/Australia shouldn't be civs because they haven't stood the test of time yet (there are some relatively short-lived pre-modern civs like the Timurids I'd love to have), but that they shouldn't be in because "being on top of the current meta" is by definition not historical.

You have do do some pretty serious mental gymnastics to convince yourself that both UK/England and USA don't both belong in any serious civ lineup.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

I probably wouldn't have batted an eye at Canada if it weren't for Australia.

Australia's bonuses are fun to play with though.

Curiously, of all modern nations in Civ6, I find Canada the least necessary due to many reasons (they don't even cover an empty TSL, we already had Cree). On the other hand, it is one of the most fun civilizations to play, I particularly had a fun match playing as it, they have a unique gameplay.

That was my exact thinking initially.
Since that wasn't the case then there isn't a reason why we couldn't get Argentina with the Mapuche. I know the Mapuche were originally from modern day Chile, but it's close enough for some people to think it may overlap.
Plus another NA tribe overlapping with America is almost guaranteed.

 

[Zaarin]

Curiously, of all modern nations in Civ6, I find Canada the least necessary due to many reasons (they don't even cover an empty TSL, we already had Cree). On the other hand, it is one of the most fun civilizations to play, I particularly had a fun match playing as it, they have a unique gameplay.

For me, Australia is the least necessary. TSL isn't a consideration to me, and Australia is just a local manifestation of the English culture. By all means include them in Sid Meier's Nation-States, but they don't really have a place in Civilization. (And before someone jumps in to point out all the differences, civilizations vary across time and space. If you've lived in more than one place in the US, you know that Maine, Mississippi, and California have wildly different cultures. For that matter, California and Utah, separated only by a single state, have wildly different cultures. Yet I don't think anyone wants to see the California Republic, Deseret, or the Republic of Texas added as "civilizations.")

Australia's bonuses are fun to play with though.

I keep the Australia DLC disabled. I have a visceral, physical reaction to the didgeridoos.

Plus another NA tribe overlapping with America is almost guaranteed.

Depends on how you define "overlap"; Powhatan or any one of the so-called Five Civilized Tribes are really the only likely options that are going to start next door to Teddy on a TSL map. The Iroquois or Sioux would encroach far more on Laurier, and any other likely tribe won't really be close to either. (To be clear, I'm talking specifically about Firaxis' tiny TSL Earth Map that I'm reasonably certain no one uses in a world where YnAMP exists. )

 

[Codeword Iroquois]

Plus another NA tribe overlapping with America is almost guaranteed.

Please Cherokee, Please!

 

[Zaarin]

Please Cherokee, Please!

Please, no. The vast majority of their leadership betrayed their own people for personal gain. The Creek were more historically important, and the Choctaw and Chickasaw had better leaders. The Choctaw in particular are probably the best choice on account of Paramount Chief Pushmataha. (Choctaw/Pushmataha + Shawnee/Tecumseh would make a great double pack. They were contemporaries and rivals.)

 

[Eagle Pursuit]

Please, no. The vast majority of their leadership betrayed their own people for personal gain. The Creek were more historically important, and the Choctaw and Chickasaw had better leaders. The Choctaw in particular are probably the best choice on account of Paramount Chief Pushmataha. (Choctaw/Pushmataha + Shawnee/Tecumseh would make a great double pack. They were contemporaries and rivals.)

I would love to see Tecumseh in Civ.

 

[Francel]

Why the bias against modern civs and leaders? Humans have lived much longer than the 5000 years represented in the game, but the pace of development has increased drastically. The late game honestly needs the most attention.

It’s a game not a university course.

Personally, even tho I vote blue, I think Dubya would make a fun leader for the US.

Some ideas for abilities are “coalition of the willing” which would augment alliances, possibly +1-3 strength for every active alliance level, and also “strategic national reserves” which would interact with late games resources such as oil, aluminum, and uranium in some way.

Unique building: Dept of Homeland Security, replaces foreign ministry and adds a penalty to certain enemy spy ops in your cities.

Unique unit: predator drone - replaces the drone and adds an attack, including the ability to target units in cities or districts.

Also, new world wonder of NORAD - buffs air defense and possibly mitigates WMD damage.

I think that would make a fun late game civ.

 

[Zaarin]

Why the bias against modern civs and leaders?

Speaking for myself, lack of interest. My interest in history declines sharply starting around ~1500 and pretty much ceases to exist around ~1800. (Not that I'm not familiar with history post-1800, but that's not what I'm going to read about in my free time.)

the pace of development has increased drastically.

That's a limited perspective. That increase began about 2,000 years ago and has continued since then without abatement. (Contrary to popular perception, the Middle Ages were a booming time for technology. The pace of technological development in the Middle Ages far outstripped that of Rome.)

The late game honestly needs the most attention.

GS suggests that Firaxis' idea of "giving attention to the late game" is to make it longer and more tedious...

I think Dubya would make a fun leader for the US.

If the person is alive or has been in the past fifty years or so, there are legal issues with using a person's likeness for monetary gain. Consent would have to be given and royalties would have to be paid. Even if Firaxis were interested in doing such, it wouldn't make economic sense to do so. There's a reason Giselle isn't a Disney Princess (because Disney can't afford to pay Amy Adams royalties apparently ).

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

For that matter, California and Utah, separated only by a single state, have wildly different cultures. Yet I don't think anyone wants to see the California Republic, Deseret, or the Republic of Texas added as "civilizations.")

You've obviously never lived in Texas.

Depends on how you define "overlap"; Powhatan or any one of the so-called Five Civilized Tribes are really the only likely options that are going to start next door to Teddy on a TSL map. The Iroquois or Sioux would encroach far more on Laurier, and any other likely tribe won't really be close to either. (To be clear, I'm talking specifically about Firaxis' tiny TSL Earth Map that I'm reasonably certain no one uses in a world where YnAMP exists. )

Geographically I meant any Native American tribe would overlap with the current U.S. map.

But I also agree on what you said though I think that the Sioux would be closer to the Cree, in terms of geography and even similar culture of having some of both groups migrating west to the Great Plains, in the sense of Poundmaker who is a Plains Cree.

All of this is why I think a SW tribe is the best bet, and the Navajo are the closest thing I think we can get to a "non nomadic" tribe, since the Pueblo are out of the question.
Both the Apache and the Comanche would be too militaristic for my liking although Geronimo would be an interesting leader.