• Civilization 7 has been announced. For more info please check the forum here .

Genius Design in Civ5 should come to Civ7

GeneralZIft

Enigma
Joined
Feb 25, 2019
Messages
465
One of my lowkey favourite aspects of Civ5 is the Cultural pressure produced from Ideologies
Unlike Civ6, the choice of Ideology in Civ5 makes for intensely interesting gameplay.
Get an ideology first gives you a bonus; which encourages players to spread out across different Ideologies
But, being the odd one out puts you at a disadvantage. If your culture is not strong enough your people will resist the Ideology you have.

Balancing the ideology you want for your ideal victory, your surrounding players and their likely ideologies and the ideologies of the most influential civilisations is what makes for great diplomatic gameplay.
To me, I consider this great game design. Civ5 really nailed this type of diplomatic tension by forcing their players to butt heads; and this is why only in Civ5 can you get "Cold War" style tensions (and not in Civ6)

What do you guys think?
 
Some sort of "cultural pressure" fighting, whether it's V's ideology or just something vaguely similar, would be great. And trade wars, and heck as we've seen with the US vs China, straight up tech wars would make late game a lot more interesting. Civ VI had some definite improvements, and a few regressions, from V. The smaller map size (again) made the combat worse, with units just piling up against each other in a traffic jam to try and take down any decently fortified city.

Hope VII is all improvements.
 
The smaller map size
4 of the 6 map sizes are actually bigger in Civ 6 than they were in Civ 5.

Traffic jams are bad in 6 but they’re better than they were in 5. Putting religious units on a different “layer” was smart (removing all religious units period would be smarter but I digress).
 
Last edited:
Maybe smaller map scale is actually better; units get where they're going faster, the action is closer together?
 
Happiness pressure from Ideologies is something I could do without... it forces Ideologies switches and soon everyone is friend, or would be if the game wouldn't end before.
Realistically the states with ideologies had enough power in their lands to influence the population and convince it it is the best choice. (propaganda)
Sure, propaganda could be of some influence in countries without an ideology, but not in countries with an ideology. Having an ideology should be an immunity totem against others.

Now I have no idea why USSR collapsed, I mean this seems so complicated. I heard that America wasn't stranger to this collapse, working secretly in this way. But that's very specific to America, meddling with foreign countries politics and economics in order to achieve their "goals". America has the skills for influencing other countries more than any other country, eventhough they were not part of the colonization because they are a colonized country, or maybe because of that ? Like memory of tradition.

Some american groups tried to devaluate the Euro too, because they thought that the Euro worthing better than the dollar was ??? A menace ? Just something to put their teeth in ? Everything before the Euro was paid in dollars in the world, maybe it had an advantage on America's economy ? I'm not an economist. But maybe they have kind of succeeded... (not by a far margin though) Maybe the nowaday inflation is because of them ? Who knows... Maybe if Ukraine were in the NATO they wouldn't be invaded... (one of the possible causes invoked for the worldwide inflation)

Anyway, what I'm saying is that happiness hits from different ideologies shouldn't be. I do think that the capitalism relative uniformization IRL is not due to people/ideology pressure but to human nature. Even China plays the game of capitalism it seems. Nobody can escape it, it is by the nature of capitalism itself and human nature. (individualism, divided by elites, while communism just tries to unite everyone in a coherent and vertuous system, and as system are inevitable to live in society, better find a good one - so yes, capitalism and USA are the bad guys in that story for me - and it's winning)
Maybe smaller map scale is actually better; units get where they're going faster, the action is closer together?
Problem is that in the meantime mountains have become impassable and more numerous. And there is lakes, too. And city-States. All those changes are not really adaptated to tinier maps. And that's just an example of the incompatibility many changes in the games create from an iteration to the other.
 
Last edited:
Problem is that in the meantime mountains have become impassable and more numerous. And there is lakes, too. And city-States. All those changes are not really adaptated to tinier maps. And that's just an example of the incompatibility many changes in the games create from an iteration to the other.

Civ 6 has a way to pass through mountains. Civ 5 doesn’t. Civ 5 has lakes and city-states too.
 
Not that its too relevant to this post, but I liked 5's size more than 6. I think 6 had to be bigger for the sake of districts. Also with 6 it feels there's so much space that you just HAVE to fill with hundreds of cities. It feels too opposite the scale of 5 which encouraged much less cities.

You can always devise solutions to map cramping problems. In a theoretical Civ7, there would be nothing wrong with having 5's size with 6's armies and ability to cross mountains.
Maybe you could add a system that lets Mounted units 'carry' unmounted units for extra mobility for example.
Maybe you could add systems that lets units die faster so that there is less clogging.
Maybe the city states could be dealt with easier.

All examples. Not necessarily instant solutions.

As for the Happiness thing. Again, another case where I think in moderation it could be good. In civ5 it was maybe too strong.
Maybe in a theoretical Civ7, they could have something like that, plus some policy or gov card that lets you reduce the impact of enemy culture on your ideology (propaganda as you described it)
 
I want to go back to V map sizes for the exact opposite reason: because the larger maps in VI are insultingly small (and the devs refused to patch out bugs that made the really good custom sizes possible).

I'm tired of the obsession with small maps that shove everyone at everyone else's face and massively diminish the first two of the four X (Explore, Expand). Give me space to grow my empire FFS.

(And the idea of mounted units carrying other units is hilarious for all the wrong reasons).
 
One of my lowkey favourite aspects of Civ5 is the Cultural pressure produced from Ideologies
Unlike Civ6, the choice of Ideology in Civ5 makes for intensely interesting gameplay.
Get an ideology first gives you a bonus; which encourages players to spread out across different Ideologies
But, being the odd one out puts you at a disadvantage. If your culture is not strong enough your people will resist the Ideology you have.

Balancing the ideology you want for your ideal victory, your surrounding players and their likely ideologies and the ideologies of the most influential civilisations is what makes for great diplomatic gameplay.
To me, I consider this great game design. Civ5 really nailed this type of diplomatic tension by forcing their players to butt heads; and this is why only in Civ5 can you get "Cold War" style tensions (and not in Civ6)

What do you guys think?
Although I haven't played Civ5, I will say this. On key matters of mechanics like the matter in the post quoted, every Civ iteration has developed a new system for nex game, and not, "brought back," the system of a previous one, effectively. I don't see how this should change. It should not neither be based on the Civ5 or Civ6 system, because that has never been the case. But, I sense a subtle, implied fear or suspicion of the unknown of innovation and grand new designed game mechanics.
 
One problem with Religion in Civ 6 is that at least in theory you didn't want someone else religion to be dominate because they could possibly win a religious victory. Is that the case with idologies?
 
One problem with Religion in Civ 6 is that at least in theory you didn't want someone else religion to be dominate because they could possibly win a religious victory. Is that the case with idologies?
Religion is my least favourite mechanic, as it's done in Civ6. It's just ridiculous. It, too, needs a completely new, innovative, comprehensive, more realistic, and respectful mechanic created for Civ7.
 
One problem with Religion in Civ 6 is that at least in theory you didn't want someone else religion to be dominate because they could possibly win a religious victory. Is that the case with idologies?
Nope, not the same. There are only 3 ideologies and everyone has to pick one. They do indirectly influence stuff like tourism (less tourism from civs with opposed ideologies) but it’s not comparable with the Civ 6 religious victory dynamic.
 
I want to go back to V map sizes for the exact opposite reason: because the larger maps in VI are insultingly small (and the devs refused to patch out bugs that made the really good custom sizes possible).

I'm tired of the obsession with small maps that shove everyone at everyone else's face and massively diminish the first two of the four X (Explore, Expand). Give me space to grow my empire FFS.

(And the idea of mounted units carrying other units is hilarious for all the wrong reasons).
This. I regularly play on Huge maps with one AI opponent removed to leave some extra space.

Maps can be made effectively larger by more ways than just increasing the number of tiles, though:
* Making city radii smaller or increasing the utility of each District so that fewer distinct Districts are required effectively increases the size of map on which you can build cities. Of course, removing Districts entirely and going back to the One Tile City would work even better, but that, IMHO, makes every city more visually Boring.
* Reducing the average speed of units makes the map effectively larger
* Reducing the amount of relatively useless land on the map increases the effective map size: I occasionally play on 'Hot' maps and automatically gain 5 - 10% more usable tiles on every map from reducing the snow and ice 'barrens' that you can't do much with until the late game.
* Reducing the numbers of separate units that have to find placement and movement space effectively increases the size of the map. A well-thought-out alternative to 1UPT would alone effectively increase the size of the Civ VI maps enormously.
* Increasing or decreasing the amount of the map you can actually move and build on changes the effective map size: ability to move in some way over or through Mountains (call it the 'Ice man' or 'Hannibal' Effect) to sustain a city in Tundra, Ice, Snow or Desert without Unique abilities, to move earlier across water (coastal) tiles, all would increase the map size, while limiting Ice/Snow movement to Scouts only until you have modern vehicles and fibers to protect against the cold would reduce the effective map size.

In short, there are lots of ways the maps can be manipulated by Rules rather than raw numbers of tiles. Frankly, I would love to see a game that used more of these to 'game' the map sizes than simply providing a larger number of tiles that starts to stress your computer in the late game - which vanilla Civ VI did to my old computer on the largest map size when the game first came out - I could not play on that size map at all until I upgraded my computer, which was annoying, to say the least.
 
Nope, not the same. There are only 3 ideologies and everyone has to pick one. They do indirectly influence stuff like tourism (less tourism from civs with opposed ideologies) but it’s not comparable with the Civ 6 religious victory dynamic.
There's only three, and they have to be picked solidly, with no hybriding? Well, then I reiterate that a new, expanded, and innovative system is needed for Civ7.
 
There's only three, and they have to be picked solidly, with no hybriding? Well, then I reiterate that a new, expanded, and innovative system is needed for Civ7.
Well the point was to divide the world into blocs. Excessive hybridization or customization would defeat that, I think, and worse, just make the mechanic yet another pool of handpicked bonuses for the player.

I do see your point but I think the ideology in civ 5 was quite elegant in total.
 
Well the point was to divide the world into blocs. Excessive hybridization or customization would defeat that, I think, and worse, just make the mechanic yet another pool of handpicked bonuses for the player.

I do see your point but I think the ideology in civ 5 was quite elegant in total.
Still, it could easily use being more nuanced (although, better, a new mechanic, like every other Civ iteration has had). Even the historical WW2 and Cold War periods were not that cut-and-dry.
 
One thought I had is that government could be assigned into three categories: militaristic, religious, and trade. I've not thought of them as factions but that label certainly could fit. There would be some way of accumulating use of each category which would place you into a faction at some point.
 
Top Bottom