[GS] Future Update?

[Deggial]

How much are current game mechanics (which all came with full expansions) interrelated, though?
Not super heavily, as far as I am aware.
Sure, atmospher decarbonization (for example) does afffect diplomacy. But it's "just" an additional modifier that is applied together with others. It could easily be omitted, it the climate change would have come witth a separate DLC instead of a full expansion.

I mean ... everybody hopes for interrelated game mechanics in future updates.
But how realistic is this actually?

 

[RohirrimElf]

Maybe a silly suggestion. But would any of you be interested if firaxis added 2 more era`s into the game and make this a third expansion.
Coupled with an economic victory and 8-10 leaders. + a overhaul of a couple of things and overall balance. The usual stuff.
It might be possible to split the midieval era into early/late. Call it an exploration era in late medieval times or enlightment era.
Instead of modern and atomic. We could further split it into more ww1 and ww2 era`s while keeping atomic but making it a more late tech.
I would like to keep building on city states on the civics tree. Perhaps making some choices more permanent like civ 5.

 

[nauberry]

-snip-

In my opinion the eras past medieval go too fast compared to the earlier eras even on marathon speeds. Adding a couple eras in between would make the game better in my mind. Maybe the focus on that Colonial era could be between colonialism and isolationism with some permanent choise options you mentioned. If the ww1 and ww2 eras would be separated, that would play well with improved diplomacy and ideologies leading to world wars. In my opinion most of the wars in the late game start, when everyone already has modern tanks and maybe a GDR or two. While that is exiting in its own, having some ww-era world wars would be dman nice.

 

[WillowBrook]

Maybe a silly suggestion. But would any of you be interested if firaxis added 2 more era`s into the game and make this a third expansion.
Coupled with an economic victory and 8-10 leaders. + a overhaul of a couple of things and overall balance. The usual stuff.
It might be possible to split the midieval era into early/late. Call it an exploration era in late medieval times or enlightment era.
Instead of modern and atomic. We could further split it into more ww1 and ww2 era`s while keeping atomic but making it a more late tech.
I would like to keep building on city states on the civics tree. Perhaps making some choices more permanent like civ 5.

I can see something like that. I was thinking a new enlightenment era after the renaissance with some colonization mechanics, an overhaul to trade (including how bonus and lux resources work) and an economic victory to go with the usual new civs/ leaders. It seems right up Ed Beach's alley and he's been out of sight for the past year.

 

[Gedemo]

I'm having trouble understanding how "Plague & Health" would make the game more fun? would that be just another variable (like housing, amenities, loyalty...) with a district and a few more buildings? not really exciting. That would be the random side of the thing that could be fun? but for that there are already natural disasters. No, I think that for a third expansion, we would need a completely original idea!

 

[WillowBrook]

I'm having trouble understanding how "Plague & Health" would make the game more fun? would that be just another variable (like housing, amenities, loyalty...) with a district and a few more buildings? not really exciting. That would be the random side of the thing that could be fun? but for that there are already natural disasters. No, I think that for a third expansion, we would need a completely original idea!

If it were up to me, I'd replace housing with health. Things that currently provide housing would provide health instead, and there would be more ways to get health as well at ways to lose it.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

Maybe a silly suggestion. But would any of you be interested if firaxis added 2 more era`s into the game and make this a third expansion.
Coupled with an economic victory and 8-10 leaders. + a overhaul of a couple of things and overall balance. The usual stuff.
It might be possible to split the midieval era into early/late. Call it an exploration era in late medieval times or enlightment era.
Instead of modern and atomic. We could further split it into more ww1 and ww2 era`s while keeping atomic but making it a more late tech.
I would like to keep building on city states on the civics tree. Perhaps making some choices more permanent like civ 5.

Enlightenment Era would be the only one I would add between Renaissance and Industrial, if we were to get another one but it's not necessary for me.
If I had to put in another I'd like an era before the ancient era, Prehistoric era, sort of how Humankind would work with you not being able to settle cities on the first turn, but that would be better saved for another game by adding the hunter/gathering nomadic starts.

I'm having trouble understanding how "Plague & Health" would make the game more fun? would that be just another variable (like housing, amenities, loyalty...) with a district and a few more buildings? not really exciting. That would be the random side of the thing that could be fun? but for that there are already natural disasters. No, I think that for a third expansion, we would need a completely original idea!

I'd also like to be able name the diseases, just like the Rock Bands.
I also like playing the Pandemic board game, so that has some influence, and would like a Pandemic Emergency when a named disease gets out of control.

 

[Nerevatar]

In my opinion, what civ really need is mechanics that can destabilize your empire, even late game. If the ai cant challenge us, then make successfully managing an empire the challenge. This could also easily scale with difficulty to not scare away people who dont want a hard challenge. This could also add some much needed spice for end game, so it is exiciting to finish a game, and not just become a slog since you for all intents and purposes won by midgame.

 

[Jeppetto]

I'd also like to be able name the diseases, just like the Rock Bands.

And it needs the randomized default name function.
Give me them 'Cultured Blisters', 'Denouncing Gangrene' and 'Cavalry Plague'

 

[Duuk]

I'm having trouble understanding how "Plague & Health" would make the game more fun? would that be just another variable (like housing, amenities, loyalty...) with a district and a few more buildings? not really exciting. That would be the random side of the thing that could be fun? but for that there are already natural disasters. No, I think that for a third expansion, we would need a completely original idea!

Because managing your empire IS fun to many, many players of civ. And having to balance the trade-off of "Do I open borders to trade with everyone, which gives me the best trade routes with the best gold, research drift, and rewards, but also can spread plagues" with "internal mercantilism only, which is less effective as a trade market but less likely to spread plagues" which also partly explains Britain's Rise to Empire in Civ terms: They ran mercantilism but cheated by conquering half the world to exploit the fact that, technically speaking, they were still all "internal" trade routes so the game never noticed that it was a global trade empire. British h4xorz.

 

[SammyKhalifa]

If it were up to me, I'd replace housing with health. Things that currently provide housing would provide health instead, and there would be more ways to get health as well at ways to lose it.

Some people are really hung up on the change of terminology in Civ 6. Housing IS health, eh? People don't live in aqueducts.

If they're so dead set on making plagues a thing, make it a stiffer penalty for neglecting housing. Please not a new mechanic.

 

[UWHabs]

In my opinion, what civ really need is mechanics that can destabilize your empire, even late game. If the ai cant challenge us, then make successfully managing an empire the challenge. This could also easily scale with difficulty to not scare away people who dont want a hard challenge. This could also add some much needed spice for end game, so it is exiciting to finish a game, and not just become a slog since you for all intents and purposes won by midgame.

IMO the biggest change needed is some way so that you can't just continually war. Once you have your standing army, you can basically start a thousand years war of your troops all across the planet, while everyone at home is like "why yes, we do need an amphitheatre". There's not enough penalty to war, that it's too easy to snowball, and thus cascade golden ages, while in reality your civ should be floundering as all its able-bodied workers are killed in foreign wars.

 

[MrRadar]

IMO the biggest change needed is some way so that you can't just continually war. Once you have your standing army, you can basically start a thousand years war of your troops all across the planet, while everyone at home is like "why yes, we do need an amphitheatre". There's not enough penalty to war, that it's too easy to snowball, and thus cascade golden ages, while in reality your civ should be floundering as all its able-bodied workers are killed in foreign wars.

Civ could take a page from Colonization and try some cross-over options: cities produce not units, but weapons into a local or global pool, and then a population point would be drawn from a city to combine with some amount of weapons and form a military unit. That would cause some WW. If the unit dies in fight, more serious WW. Rebels could also not just appear out of thin air, but be represented by a pop unit drawn from a city and having seized whatever weapons they could lay hands on. In that case protracted wars could actually depopulate your empire and plunge it in civil unrest.

 

[Cerilis]

Civ could take a page from Colonization and try some cross-over options: cities produce not units, but weapons into a local or global pool, and then a population point would be drawn from a city to combine with some amount of weapons and form a military unit. That would cause some WW. If the unit dies in fight, more serious WW. Rebels could also not just appear out of thin air, but be represented by a pop unit drawn from a city and having seized whatever weapons they could lay hands on. In that case protracted wars could actually depopulate your empire and plunge it in civil unrest.

later techs/policies could also diminish that effect on WW to a degree then when stuff like standing armies should become more popular.

 

[clapyourhands]

Your post did not address the issue at all of multiple mechanics separated behind a pay wall. Option A is just a "what if" you created that dodges the question. Option B assumes a single DLC.

Great. So what happens when you have three or four DLC with different mechanics in each and you wanted them all to interact?

Are you going to code interactions for all possible combinations? Of course not. The solution is to make them not really interact, like Paradox does, which is the issue he was talking about.

This is why we're hoping we either get new mechanics bundled in a single expansion, or in case of DLC, the new/updated mechanics are part of a free update released along new DLC packs containing new Civs and Leaders.

They could also do the "early access" method where they release something like a 2 Civ bundle + a new mechanic and charge a bit more than the civ bundles cost in the past. The new mechanic would be released for free in 6 months/when the next new DLC comes out, but if you want to play with it early then you need to get the Civ bundle, presumably featuring Civs that focus around the mechanic. And after the mechanic is released for free, if you want the Civs that actually focus around it, you'd still need to get the bundle (which could very well stay at the inflated price). Still lets them squeeze some extra dough out of the playerbase.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

still fast travel at that time period. . .

Ironically (or perhaps a definitive example of Historical "Black Humor") the spread was made faster and easier by the fact that the Mongolian Empire had a "pony express' service that allowed messages, small packages, and (inadvertently) germs to travel from one end of Asia to the other in a couple of weeks instead of months or years, and ship technology had improved (cogs, hulks, early galleasses) so that the same germs could be carried from the Crimea to Italy without degrading, so the plague spread virtually uninterruptedly from Mongolia to Europe.

Technology, unfortunately, sometimes enhances Disaster more than it Alleviates it . . .

 

[shaglio]

If it were up to me, I'd replace housing with health. Things that currently provide housing would provide health instead, and there would be more ways to get health as well at ways to lose it.

That would certainly stop people from making fun of getting "Housing" from Sewers and conjuring up images of the 1984 horror classic C.H.U.D.

 

[AsH2]

I'm having trouble understanding how "Plague & Health" would make the game more fun? would that be just another variable (like housing, amenities, loyalty...) with a district and a few more buildings? not really exciting. That would be the random side of the thing that could be fun? but for that there are already natural disasters. No, I think that for a third expansion, we would need a completely original idea!

I'm thinking of also adding "People Class & Ethnicity" to that.

 

[AntSou]

Class and Ethnicity would be great. Don't really think they can add class, but Ethnicity/Nationality is doable, along with migration mechanics.

Migration is the big thing for me.

God, why won't Paradox just make Victoria 3 already?

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

Class and Ethnicity would be great. Don't really think they can add class, but Ethnicity/Nationality is doable, along with migration mechanics.

Migration is the big thing for me.

God, why won't Paradox just make Victoria 3 already?

Ethnicity and migration would be great.
Class is already in the game: There's you (the leader) and then everyone else below you (citizens).