GameRant: 10 Forgotten Features That Should Return In Civilization 7

aieeegrunt

Emperor
Joined
Jan 8, 2021
Messages
1,192
I don't understand this. You can raze cities and pillage improvements, which implies that civilians are murdered. You can launch inquisitions to wipe out religions you dislike, you can nuke cities, inflicting massive civilian casualties (the population drops). Also, you have the fascist and communist government along with the totalitarianism policy. The themes you mention are already in the game. There's only one glaring omission. If someone is outraged for the inclusion of slavery but has nothing to say on the fact that you can start nuking another civ, razing all its cities and wiping out its religion, then I don't know what to say. There's no need to make explicit, just a policy that gives extra gold to plantations or any other kind of bonus and giving unhappiness or slave revolts.

It’s ridiculous, but that’s identity politics for you.

Slavery should be a mechanic in the game. I’d make it a policy card that boosts the output of farms and mines, but also periodically you get a Slave Revolt that spawns barbarians inside your borders.

Puppet Cities and Vassals badly need to return as an anti snowball mechanic to prevent the Mindless Borg Blob effect where you take cities, and after a token unrest they Borgify into being your obedient little drones.

Any city you capture that you didn’t found automatically becomes a puppet city. It can easily flip back to the original owner using the culture flip mechanics from previous Civ titles

As well as the diplomatic route, capturing the capitol of a civ causes it to automatically become your vassal. Usual vassal mechanics apply

The above gives you more “natural” rise and fall mechanics than the blob we have now
 

pokiehl

Deity
Joined
Mar 5, 2017
Messages
2,085
Here’s what I DON’T want to return: Governors and Policy Cards.

Both of these require so much more gamey micromanagement than the more permanent choices we had in prior games. The Social Policy tree in 5 was far superior IMO.
 

TheMarshmallowBear

Benelovent Chieftain of the Ursu Kingdom
Joined
Dec 27, 2006
Messages
8,087
Location
Inside a Ziggurat
Here’s what I DON’T want to return: Governors and Policy Cards.

Both of these require so much more gamey micromanagement than the more permanent choices we had in prior games. The Social Policy tree in 5 was far superior IMO.
I disagree, one flaw I always had with the Social 5 Policy Trees is that there was little opportunity cost, you could, in essence, have every policy active in 5, yes you had the opportunity in choosing now or later, but for the most part, that choice was minimal, most people would follow the Tradition/Liberty/Rationalism and neglect most of the other trees.
 

pokiehl

Deity
Joined
Mar 5, 2017
Messages
2,085
I disagree, one flaw I always had with the Social 5 Policy Trees is that there was little opportunity cost, you could, in essence, have every policy active in 5, yes you had the opportunity in choosing now or later, but for the most part, that choice was minimal, most people would follow the Tradition/Liberty/Rationalism and neglect most of the other trees.
Yes, late game you could have every policy, just like late game you can have every governor filled out in 6. The opportunity cost comes from the time value of a given bonus among other factors.

Just because people pick Tradition a lot doesn’t negate my point. Same thing with VI: people jump for the same policies and governors constantly. The existence of a meta just means it should be balanced better.
 

Zaarin

Diplomatic Attaché to Londo Mollari
Joined
May 14, 2016
Messages
11,493
Location
Babylon 5
Here’s what I DON’T want to return: Governors and Policy Cards.

Both of these require so much more gamey micromanagement than the more permanent choices we had in prior games. The Social Policy tree in 5 was far superior IMO.
I agree about governors. I have mixed feelings about policy cards. I feel like the cards were a decent idea to make governments more interesting that was implemented very poorly because a fixed subset of cards are just obviously superior while other cards aren't even situationally useful. The cards need more pros and cons, more situational benefits, and ideally cards that are specific to specific governments.
 
Joined
Oct 17, 2017
Messages
9,043
Location
Texas
I really doubt that. There are already more obvious references to slavery in the game.
I meant as far as giving us negative aspects of it in game.
 

Zegangani

King
Joined
Oct 9, 2020
Messages
846
The last Article from that Online Gaming Journal I read was about the comparison between Victoria 3 and Civ6, how Victoria faces competition from Civ6 and how it mesures to it, especially in terms of Warfare and Diplomacy. The Article mentions the exact reasons why those Games differ so much, and why they can't be compared, but still emphasizes on the "good Fight" Victoria 3 puts up against Civ6. Whoever wrote that Article clearly has no Idea about both Games and their Genres IMO. I wouldn't even compare OldWorld (which is the closer Game to Civ6 but still not very comparable), not to mention a Paradox Grand Strategy Game that not just puts much less emphasize on the 4X aspect of Strategy, but also can't be directly compared to other Paradox Games, except Victoria 2 and 1.

So, it doesn't strike me surprising to see this "10 forgotten features that should return in Civ7" List from that same Online Journal, as just some random Ideas, probably gathered from a quick search in the Civ Wiki fandom, or perhaps even from a Reddit Post where they randomly picked some mentioned features that they thought would be a nice to have in Civ7.
From that list I would pick 2-3 Features at most in my top 10, and most of the rest wouldn't even be in my top 25. There are so many (unmentioned) good Features/Mechanics in the previous Games that would really benefit Civ6 or Civ7, but 6-7 of the Items in that list wouldn't have any meaningful impact on the Gameplay. Don't get me wrong, most of those Features could really improve the Game, but I'm critisizing how the Ideas were presented, why they are proposed, and why they chose those over others. I'm just getting the feeling that they just mentioned them for the sake of having them, no justification of why Civ7 should have them or how they would improve the Game/solve some Issues of the Game. Honestly, I'm really surprised that they didn't add Corruption to that list.

PCGamer and PCGamesN, although I disagree with many of their Ideas/Thoughts, they seem to know the Civ Games, or at least play them, and offer reasoned justifications when they propose Ideas and share Thoughts about Civ Games.
 

aieeegrunt

Emperor
Joined
Jan 8, 2021
Messages
1,192
I agree about governors. I have mixed feelings about policy cards. I feel like the cards were a decent idea to make governments more interesting that was implemented very poorly because a fixed subset of cards are just obviously superior while other cards aren't even situationally useful. The cards need more pros and cons, more situational benefits, and ideally cards that are specific to specific governments.

Seems to be the theme eh? Good idea, terrible execution


Try that
 

Riekopo

Chieftain
Joined
Feb 21, 2022
Messages
9
I personally wish they would add more types of missiles/rockets and missile/rocket defenses. As well as satellite weapons and anti-satellite weapons maybe.

 

Zaarin

Diplomatic Attaché to Londo Mollari
Joined
May 14, 2016
Messages
11,493
Location
Babylon 5
PCGamer and PCGamesN, although I disagree with many of their Ideas/Thoughts, they seem to know the Civ Games, or at least play them, and offer reasoned justifications when they propose Ideas and share Thoughts about Civ Games.
I continue visiting PCGamer (for news--couldn't care less about professional reviews) because their writers seem to actually play games, know a little about the industry, and actually post corrections to articles when they get something wrong. It's not much, but it's still better than most of their competitors. (PCGamesN is a little more interested in the techy side of PC gaming, which I am not, but they also seem decent.)
 

bbbt

Deity
Joined
Oct 21, 2013
Messages
2,580
It’s ridiculous, but that’s identity politics for you.

Slavery should be a mechanic in the game. I’d make it a policy card that boosts the output of farms and mines, but also periodically you get a Slave Revolt that spawns barbarians inside your borders.
It is actually in the game. Aztecs explicitly - Monty literally says "Do you want your people taken as slaves?" and then his eagle warriors - take your people as slaves. Then implicitly, "Triangular Trade" (the policy card) - primarily references the Atlantic Slave Trade. This approach as compared to Civ 4 - the the only other civ game that uses slavery explicitly iirc - means Civ 6 essentially ends up with "no downsides" slavery so to speak which I dunno if that's ideal. Your card idea is interesting.

Civ as a series doesn't really deal with class/social stratification as a game mechanic in general. A basic such mechanic in Civ 7 - say being able to influence your city more stratified into like Elites - Plebeians - Slaves or less stratified - and corresponding issues could be interesting. Could be tied into government types.

I find the omission of a Conscription mechanic pretty glaring personally (though I know it's referenced in a policy card).

Here’s what I DON’T want to return: Governors and Policy Cards.

Both of these require so much more gamey micromanagement than the more permanent choices we had in prior games. The Social Policy tree in 5 was far superior IMO.

I hate the governors as well. Way too much micromanagement. I don't want to have to constantly move them, and then remember and then go move them again.

I wouldn't mind something between Civ 5's policy tree and Civ 6's social policies. I.e. fewer policies that are more significant, you can change them but not that frequently - maybe when you change governments or doing so plunges you into some turns of anarchy or the like.
 

HktkNban

Chieftain
Joined
Jan 20, 2022
Messages
9
Location
Tokyo, Japan
The problem in Civ6 is not the amount of micromanagement, but the inability to automate micromanagement.
Thus, if there are too many governors and policy cards to manage, the problem can be solved by adding an "auto manage" button.

Players who don't like micromanagement can just automate everything.
Losing game choices and immersion is not a good way to reduce micromanagement.
It is better to automate the placement of the governors and the selection of policy cards.
 

AntSou

Deity
Joined
Jun 8, 2019
Messages
2,722
I disagree, one flaw I always had with the Social 5 Policy Trees is that there was little opportunity cost, you could, in essence, have every policy active in 5, yes you had the opportunity in choosing now or later, but for the most part, that choice was minimal, most people would follow the Tradition/Liberty/Rationalism and neglect most of the other trees.

You did have opportunity costs, and I felt they were more significant than the opportunity costs in Civ 6. P0kiehl already addressed it, but there's other stuff. E.g. why is it so easy to change governments and policy cards in Civ 6? I dislike the design of being able to switch policies every time a new civic is unlocked. Or having no penalty to switch government because my people are excited to try a new form (lol). Having no penalties from government change should be a leader ability.

In any case, I just don't like policy cards at all. Too many bonuses, too much micromanagement. Is it supposed to be fun to coordinate the card Serfdom with building Settlers in your empire, then leaving a civic at 1 turn left to unlock , wait until all cities producing builders complete production, then switch back to the 1 turn left civic to slot out Serfdom the next turn. The whole thing is tiresome.

The equivalent if we had Civ 5 policy trees would be: All Builders have +1 charge. Done. Don't bother me with it again.
 

Josephias

Emperor
Joined
May 8, 2007
Messages
1,284
Not talking about the article quality (obviously lacking as it has been previously commented), but the features themselves


10/10 We love the king day - While, as commented by @bbbt wltk day (and revolting cities) are in the game as the positive/negative amenities boost, maybe some specific event stating some cities celebrate or are against your rule would be nice for flavour. It can't be something that triggers very often (so it should be at the amenities extremes, or depend on more topics), and it does not need to have any specific bonuses (maybe quest-triggering, if quests were a thing, or allowing you to build specific versions of buildings). The boost is good as it is with the current amenities rule.

09/10 Diplomats/Spies - Agreeing spionage/visibility game may need rework. Civ IV BtS intel management was the most enjoyable for me, and it could be mixed with diplomats. Make it integrate with religion so religion is not that one-dimensional (Apostles/Missionaries may also work as diplomats... somehow and depending on the circumstances) and maybe with culture (who says Rock Bands cannot spy or spread propaganda as well :) ). Really, creating a "civil" unit layer were all these kind of units (plus bards/troubadors, merchants, scholars,...) interact might work in interesting ways.

08/10 Unique great people - Not that fan of unique great people for civs. I prefer unique great people as currently, maybe with a "bonus" for certain civs to get their great people (e.g. England needing half g.p.p to get Newton, or Rome-Italy needing less points to get renaissance artists, if it can be properly balanced). But if you build a "civil" layer like explained in 09/10 there might be quite a lot of room for Unique civil units.

07/10 Scenarios - Saying the "strenght" of Civ were scenarios says much of the article quality, IMHO... the strenght of Civ is the main game and scenarios are just fine as long as they do not detract from the main game development.

06/10 Slavery The concept of spending population to rush buildings does not fit that well with Civ5-6 model of buy-or-build (but not rush in the middle of production). As with other topic, you can consider it is still present if you allocate population to production generation disregarding food, in example. Some "dark" policy increasing greatly production at the cost of other yields might be nice, but slavery for the sake of it, as it has been commented is such a controversial topic that does not need to be brought to the table, as it is still well simulated by specific game mechanics/decitios.

05/10 Attack and defense values. As said in the initial post, with bonuses to attack/defense for some units this is more or less available already. Would be just cosmetic splitting the stats and I don't think would make things really easier.

04/10 Puppeting a Conquered city - I'd say yes, and it really does not need to involve anything more than letting the city to be AI-controlled: the best thing is to avoid the micro-management of cities that, on the other hand, are just buffer space between your core and your enemies. If that comes with different loyalty challenges/rules (maybe less impact of foreign loyalty pressure, but at the same time, less spread of loyalty to your empire) it could be an interesting twist. Puppet cities should not count towards district cost inflation also, in example.

03/10 Plague. I liked health mechanics in Civ 4 and how they . Habitation in Civ6 tries to model that but I think fails to consider many positives and downsides and has no major negative impact: plague could be one. I think health is something that could be extended and have different ramifications, not only in the part of plague, but also in the diplomatic/cultural game and overall victory conditions.

02/10 Vassalage. As with puppets, as a way of making domination game less cumbersome, is something to be considered. I think it has been pointed out as well (maybe not in this topic) but bringing civil war mechanics where part of an enemy empire surrenders and other stand against you (specially if same-civ or similar-civ leaders are available), is something that could be interesting.

01/10 National wonders. I would not reintroduce national wonders per-se. They might not be even fitting with current wonder-in-tiles system. But if number of major wonders increase, impact of the last ones to be build could be decreased to work akin to national wonders. And it might be interesting as well to have "supercharged" districts functioning as some of the Civ V national wonders (so your civ could have its main campus, its main CH, etc... providing increased benefits to that of an standard district).
 

aieeegrunt

Emperor
Joined
Jan 8, 2021
Messages
1,192
You did have opportunity costs, and I felt they were more significant than the opportunity costs in Civ 6. P0kiehl already addressed it, but there's other stuff. E.g. why is it so easy to change governments and policy cards in Civ 6? I dislike the design of being able to switch policies every time a new civic is unlocked. Or having no penalty to switch government because my people are excited to try a new form (lol). Having no penalties from government change should be a leader ability.

In any case, I just don't like policy cards at all. Too many bonuses, too much micromanagement. Is it supposed to be fun to coordinate the card Serfdom with building Settlers in your empire, then leaving a civic at 1 turn left to unlock , wait until all cities producing builders complete production, then switch back to the 1 turn left civic to slot out Serfdom the next turn. The whole thing is tiresome.

The equivalent if we had Civ 5 policy trees would be: All Builders have +1 charge. Done. Don't bother me with it again.

This game was clearly designed by micromanaging munchkin gamers. Look at Era Score where efficient play requires deliberaly NOT scoring points once you reach the threshold, so you force Magellen to pause his journey for two hundred years, switch off a wonder that will be done too soon, build a ship in a one tile lake etc
 

AntSou

Deity
Joined
Jun 8, 2019
Messages
2,722
Look at Era Score where efficient play requires deliberaly NOT scoring points once you reach the threshold, so you force Magellen to pause his journey for two hundred years, switch off a wonder that will be done too soon, build a ship in a one tile lake etc
I really dislike that aspect of the game. It is one of the reasons I don't play Deity, as I simply can't be bothered to micromanage and optimize this type of stuff. Also the main reason why I got tired of the Dramatic Ages mode. Cards over Dedications is fine, the AI not handling the mode so well is bad, but having to suddenly put so much more effort into gaming the Era Score is really the thing I can't stand. Sure you get a citizen pressure bonus from going over the limit, but you're still penalized in future eras if you do too well in the previous era.
 

Krajzen

Deity
Joined
Oct 23, 2013
Messages
3,341
Location
Poland
I don't give a damn about any of those things besides vassalage and unique great people, and even those aren't some sort of awesome necessity I'd put in the top 10 of desirable features

But again, gaming journalism is in the utterly desolate condition

Vassalage seems really cool, but I'm also not sure how would you implement that in civ context, where you have very few players in the map, and enormous problems with exponential snowballing making catching up impossible. Vassalage only makes sense if you can figure out how
1) Make it useful to the domineering party (instead of conquest or peace)
2) Make it useful to the dominated party (instead of fight at all cost always being better option)
3) Make it capable for the vassalized player to be realistically able to sometimes break free and catch up
4) Make it interesting for third party diplomacy (support independence, secret talks, espionage etc)
 
Last edited:

Zegangani

King
Joined
Oct 9, 2020
Messages
846
Vassalage seems really cool, but I'm also not sure how would you implement that in civ context, where you have very few players in the map, and enormous problems with exponential snowballing making catching up impossible. Vassalage only makes sense if you can figure out how
1) Make it useful to the domineering party (instead of conquest or peace)
2) Make it useful to the dominated party (instead of fight at all cost always being better option)
3) Make it capable for the vassalized player to be realistically able to sometimes break free and catch up
4) Make it interesting for third party diplomacy (support independence, secret talks, espionage etc)
I agree with all of that. I had been working on a Vassalage/Client States Mod since quite some Time, and I tried to incorporate all of those 4 "Ingredients", and some more. I don't know if I succeeded in that, only in some of it, or nothing at all, but for anyone interested, here is the link to the Concept if you want to leave some Feedback and Suggestions. Just bear in mind that that Concept is a bit outdated (so, I haven't updated it yet), and I changed some things since then (tweaks to Tributary States, a bit simplified Vassalage, and reworked Puppet-States), but the overall design is still the same.
 
Top Bottom