[GS] Future Update?

[Duuk]

There have been several mechanics mentioned. Trade route update for a (pre-ideology) economic victory, ideology victory, health-and-epidemics (hello Italy/Portugal civs!). The advanced trade routes would lead to better colony mechanics making the colonial era ACTUALLY A THING for the first time in a Civ game. An entire era of human history that NO CIV GAME HAS EVER GOTTEN RIGHT.

 

[acluewithout]

Plus a higher cost, of course. The smaller DLCs provide far less content per dollar than the large expansions do.

I mean, yes. Also, no. Also, maybe.

Maybe it's less features per dollar, if you just literally measure features divided by dollars. But maybe the features are better developed, more time spent on them, so overall its less but better quality?

There's also just the plain issue that computer games are woefully underpriced. So, if people want the nice things, then one way or another they have to be paid for.

The big mechanic that many people have been suggesting other than ideology (which I know @acluewithout has been pulling for) is an economic victory/corporations added to the game. That's somewhere they could also try to pull from a la Civ IV, but they are running out of mechanics ideas, I agree.

Yeah, I think economics is the other obvious area where the game could be expanded. That could end up fitting really well with mechanics around Ideology as well, given that the three ideologies in the game are largely about how a nation structures their economies.

...One of three ideologies, communism, would be obviously not using [corporations]...

I thought real world communist countries had corporations / companies?

Corporations and companies are a legal concept, i.e. an institution that is given a separate legal personality, allowing it to own property and contract in its own right and sue / be sued in its own name. My understanding is that communist countries had those. The only difference was that these companies were owned by the State not by investors (i.e. the market) and those companies obviously didn't operate in a market economy.

I believe some of these Communist companies also engaged in trade and commerce, albeit outside their own countries, partly as a way to raise foreign currency.

Anyway. I don't think the Civ franchise has historically done a particularly good job of representing companies. Previous implementations were very similar to religions, which is cute but really, really doesn't make a whole lot of sense.

Given Civ isn't really a game about economies and economics, I'm just not sure Civ can ever do a really great job of representing global capitalism including things like multinational companies. I mean, Civ 6's approach to representing popular music - Hey, a rock band unit! It's like a GDR for Tourism!?! - was cute but doesn't inspire confidence.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

Diseases? I think if they wanted they'd introduce them in GS, not just scenario. Besides, civ6 devs are afraid to introduce any mechanic with only negative side (they had to add nonsensical bonus yields to every environmental disaster).

The devs mentioned that the reason they put diseases in a scenario is they didn't want to introduce it into the regular game, yet. Because of this statement I think some more mechanics might be on the way.
Also tornadoes, best of my knowledge, give no bonus yields after reeking havoc.

I thought real world communist countries had corporations / companies?

Corporations and companies are a legal concept, i.e. an institution that is given a separate legal personality, allowing it to own property and contract in its own right and sue / be sued in its own name. My understanding is that communist countries had those. The only difference was that these companies were owned by the State not by investors (i.e. the market).

I believe some of these Communist companies also engaged in trade and commerce, albeit outside their own countries, partly as a way to raise foreign currency.

Anyway. I don't think the Civ franchise has historically done a particularly good job of representing companies. Previous implementations were very similar to religions, which is cute but really, really doesn't make a whole lot of sense.

Pretty sure in Civ when you found a corporation, whatever it is, it would be the equivalent of a state run company, since you are playing the leader of any given Civ. So, therefore, actually founding a corporation under communism would make more sense than democracy or fascism.

 

[nauberry]

I’m just throwing some ideas on how trade between different ideologies/governments could be done more interesting in upcoming DLC/expansion.

Each of the three governments would have different possibility to trade in the initial phase.

- Communist governments can initially only use internal trade routes, with big boosts to food and production on those trade routes. Later they can unlock a policy card that allows them to trade with other communist nations and allied nations of any government.


- Fascist nations could initially trade domestically or with other fascistic nations, smaller benefit to food and production, but also benefit to gold on both trade routes. They would later unlock a policy card that would allow trade with democratic governments and allied communist governments. They could possibly also unlock a card that would limit trade outside of their nation and boost production and food further.


- Democratic nations would get purely benefits on gold on trade routes, both foreign and domestic ones. They could initially trade only with other democratic nations. Later they would unlock the ability to trade with fascistic nations and allied communist nations.


What do you think about this? If anyone has good suggestions or better ideas that would represent history, please, tell them .

 

[RohirrimElf]

I`m not interested at all in civ 7 at this point. I just want the development last so long that civ 6 is a better game then civ 5 at some point in development. 3 years after launch just is not good enough. A civ game needs longer support then just 3 years.
Dont get me wrong. I would get very excited about a third expansion. But only because i hope it has multiple overhauls of current systems.
Dont mind extra leaders, wonders, units, national wonders, disasters (earthquakes) and some other meaningfull stuff. And it this is how firaxis wants to make its money. I`ll buy it and support the game this way.
I agree it would not be wise to put civ 6 on pretty much any platform and not milk it further with dlc. Consumers spend crazy amounts of money on cellphone cosmetics alone.

 

[Gedemo]

if Firaxis is already running out of ideas after only one extension on the golden ages and another on disasters ("we love the King days" and Volcanoes are old revamped concepts), it would not make sense to launch a new civ game 7.

 

[agonistes]

I'm still waiting for a diplomacy upgrade. Too bad that is not sexy enough to be the central theme of an xpac.

 

[Krajzen]

I'm still waiting for a diplomacy upgrade. Too bad that is not sexy enough to be the central theme of an xpac.

One thing I cannot understand at all

Why not only is this not a feature over last TEN YEARS in both civ5 and civ6 and four expansions but nobody is demanding it:

Several civs in one big alliance, for example 5 small civs against 1 powerful one, or 3 civs versus 3 civs, so they all declare war and peace in the same time against the same enemy civ/alliance.

And no, the situation "civ X is in war with Y, civ Y is in war with Z, civ Z is in war with A and B, and civ B is in war with civ Y" doesn't count. I demand two (or more) powerful alliances, such as those in thirty years war, ww1, ww2, napoleonic wars, goddamn you don't even need modernity there were a lot of huge power blocs in medieval era too - two such blocs existing, competing and then there is a spark and one side is against another.

How on Earth can this game feature ideologies to simulate world war II and cold war but no mechanic enabling "Capitalist Alliance" to fight "Communist Alliance", "Axis" versus "Allies". 90% of wars are 1 vs 1 and if one civ fights 5 and allies 5 then it's usually 10 separate disconnected relations.

Damn, okay, I don't even need huge power blocs "if you attack one of us you attack all of us" (although they'd be really, really useful to properly recreate modern, atomic and maybe industrial ages). Europa universalis 4 or rome 2 total war don't have such thing, but they still end up with tangled web of alliances so frequently 5 factions fight 4 in one conflict etc. Why in civ wars are such individual 1v1 duels?

Why does this game has complicated, messy, entirely new mechanic of 'emergencies' instead of just making several AIs ally against overwhelming empire for a prolonged time period? It's the same crazy mechanic as with new abomination world congress - instead of some sensible, somewhat realistic solution, let's introduce new crazy arcade mechanic with no connection to reality and which does a lot of stuff but fails its simplest purpose.

If there are things third xpac could definitely introduce for me, it's this - world wars and whole ideology mess (with revolutions, cold war etc, like civ5). You wanna endgame shake up? You get endgame shake up.

By the way, I find it hilarious that Firaxis devs stated both before R&F and GS how this expansion will certainly solve end game stagnation and linear rise of empires, and both expansions failed completely, the game is as "early challenge late certain victory" as ever was. I think that's because they are really afraid to include really challenging, dangerous mechanics in this game that could terrify the player without any "positive aspect" - I really dislike how even damn climate disasters in GS got nonsensical bonus yields (yeah sure a ton of bonus currencies after harsh winter blizzard). Just in case player went into depression because of temporary setback without some shining points dopamine shot.

 

[Bitterman]

Power blocks would be a thing if having a religion form medieval onwards and tier 3 government after had some consequences.

In civ V, other ideologies caused you huge sparks of unhappiness, so at least there was a reason to unite against the one causing them if both of you were the same ideology. In VI that doesn't even affect alliances at all. Tier III governments are only new sets of bonuses but have 0 impact on diplomacy, which I find bland.

There is certainly room for improvement in diplomacy/international relations.

 

[Disgustipated]

plain issue that computer games are woefully underpriced.

I disagree with this statement. For a game I love (like Civ6), perhaps this is true. But I've made so many game purchases of games I did not play more than 10 hours or finish. Games like Divinity Original Sin 2 which got such high reviews, but I disliked the combat system and never finished. For many people, they may have purchased Civ6 and not liked it. After all, there are still plenty of Civ5 purists around who dislike Civ6. So you can't price a game so high that no one will ever buy it. Much of their income may come from people who purchase the game, but never play more than 10 hours. For me personally, I'm willing to spend a lot of money on civ6. 2 factors: I have a lot of money, and I absolutely love Civ6. But this isn't the case for many people.

 

[nauberry]

-snip-

I would love that religion would cause a bigger role in the game. The power block sounds a very good way to do it in my opinion. It would be also nice to have crusade emergencies against offensive wars started by foreing religion/ideology.

 

[conorbebe]

The main thing I'd want to see is an overhaul of the UI. There are a lot of elements that make incredibly poor use of space, especially the diplomacy and World Congress screens on monitors with a high resolution. But this is unlikely because a new UI is hardly exciting enough to sell an expansion.

Any new features added I'd want to complement existing systems, rather than be entirely independent from them. The game already feels quite bloated to me. Additional polish and cohesion would be most greatly appreciated by me.

 

[acluewithout]

I disagree with this statement. For a game I love (like Civ6), perhaps this is true. But I've made so many game purchases of games I did not play more than 10 hours or finish. Games like Divinity Original Sin 2 which got such high reviews, but I disliked the combat system and never finished. For many people, they may have purchased Civ6 and not liked it. After all, there are still plenty of Civ5 purists around who dislike Civ6. So you can't price a game so high that no one will ever buy it. Much of their income may come from people who purchase the game, but never play more than 10 hours. For me personally, I'm willing to spend a lot of money on civ6. 2 factors: I have a lot of money, and I absolutely love Civ6. But this isn't the case for many people.

Games are underpriced, in that the prices paid don't adequately reflect the costs to produce them. Razor thin margins, poorly paid employees. Stuff like that.

Games not being subjectively worth the price you pay for them is sort of a different issue. But it's related, because one reason AAA games can be a bit rubbish - e.g. look good, but buggy and poor gameplay, or design is conservative / safe / derivative so the game is boring - is precisely because of those thin margins. You have to make cut somewhere to make a profit.

It's why a lot of indy games have stronger design and execution. The margins aren't necessarily better, but the makers are creating more limited content within the funding envelope they have.

Power blocks

power block

Yes please. Seems like the natural progression for the existing Alliance mechanics.

The game already feels quite bloated to me.

Obviously subjective, but I don't think the game is bloated at all. I actually think most of it hangs together pretty well, with many mechanics being very thoughtfully implemented.

The only areas I think the game could use a trim - and a very small trim it would be - is spy missions and promotions, diplomatic currencies (diplo favour, diplo points, and envoys), and quests (city state quests, agenda quests, eureka and inspiration quests, era score quests, dedication quests). But I go back and forwards on that, and sometimes I think even those points are fine.

Post GS, I think the gaps left to fill are getting much smaller. But not, the game isn't bloated. But understand that YMMV.

 

[SammyKhalifa]

Making diplomacy tied more closely to religion would bring us back closer to CivIV (and backwards in my opinion).

 

[nauberry]

Making diplomacy tied more closely to religion would bring us back closer to CivIV (and backwards in my opinion).

How was that done in CivIV? I never played it.

 

[Starwars]

In IV, relationships between civs were heavily influenced by which religion they follow. If you had a different state religion than another civ, then you would generally not get along well. But religions themselves were just the names (Buddhism, Christianity and so forth), there were no customization and bonuses to them like what you see in V and VI. Spreading it to cities gave you access to building some nice buildings in those cities, mostly related to happiness.

I guess I like the customization in V and VI but I don't particularly enjoy the gameplay of it, in VI especially. But on the whole, the way diplomacy works is a bigger issue for me personally and I think that was a *lot* better in IV. More clearly defined, and definitely something that you would consider more carefully because the AI could actually be a real threat if you didn't watch yourself.

 

[SammyKhalifa]

How was that done in CivIV? I never played it.

1. Beeline meditation
2. spread out your religion before anyone else can get one
3. be everyone's friend

I mean i'm sure there's be more to it in newer games but it's something to be wary of.

 

[MrRadar]

How was that done in CivIV? I never played it.

It sort of created the first division into camps, a bit like ideologies in Civ V. Leaders were given different stats for how much they cared about religion - some were kinda indifferent or tolerated differences, others were outright religious nuts, like Isabella of Spain. And as military AI was much more of a threat, sometimes you really had to think hard which camp to pick, whom to side with and who you could afford to alienate and antagonize. Wars of religion were a thing. Switching state religions and therefore camps to save your skin was a thing. Then later, with more modern civics, the role of religion faded, it stopped being a diplomacy factor, but gained role more as a cultural factor. Nothing like that, as importance for diplomacy is concerned, was left in V, nothing like that is present in VI. We have bonus shopping and wizard battles instead.

 

[Alucard648]

Plus a higher cost, of course. The smaller DLCs provide far less content per dollar than the large expansions do.

You can`t introduce brand new mechanics within DLC scope.

 

[nauberry]

-snip-

That actually sounds damn good. I still fear that nothing like that would be included, if we just get a set of DLC.