Hint at 3rd expansion from Firaxis??

[SammyKhalifa]

I think there is a lot more that could be done around Ideologies (certainly a lot of mechanics from Civ 5 that still haven’t been brought across) and there’s a lot from RnF that could use more work, i.e. Governors, Government Plaza, Loyalty.

Most of that is patch level though.

And I'm still confused and haven't gotten a real answer--what is the real difference between "idelogies" and plain old modern day government types? In the game it was marginally different but it really just a way to push diplomacy in a different way. Other than that they do not do much that gov-specific policy cards wouldn't. They were fine in V but I still think would be superfluous in 6. It would be more just for the sake of having more.

 

[Anno]

I’d like to see current systems addressed both through patching over the next year and eventually by a third expansion that “only” adds in one or two more. I just can’t really imagine being super excited for Civ 7 if it’s mostly in the same vein as 5 and 6. Keep fleshing out 6 and try something noticeably different in 7, imo.

 

[DJ_Tanner]

The thing about a 3rd expansion is that it would need to improve the quality of the game, not just the quantity of features. Simply stuffing more stuff in the game does not necessarily make the game better. With Gathering Storm, I feel like the game has almost reached a saturation point of new mechanics but there are existing mechanics that definitely need some love. So, I would prefer a rework of some existing features to make them better rather than just adding a ton of new mechanics. The loyalty mechanic is one area that definitely needs to be fleshed out.

I would hope if would add some new stuff, I mean I am all on board for economic vic, but with all the new toys that R&F and now GS have added there is plenty of room to sit back and tighten those up. I absoultely LOVE the loyalty mechanic, however it still doesn't feel right to me yet and I think there is plenty of design room, now that it has had a chance to breathe, to tighten it way up. A little more overhaul of trade and lux resources now that strategic have been spruced up a but would be great (and would go nicely with an EC). And certainty the global effects that GS is going to drop in on us will showcase their newness for sure, so tweaks would be welcomed.

 

[SammyKhalifa]

I’d like to see current systems addressed both through patching over the next year and eventually by a third expansion that “only” adds in one or two more. I just can’t really imagine being super excited for Civ 7 if it’s mostly in the same vein as 5 and 6. Keep fleshing out 6 and try something noticeably different in 7, imo.

It would probably not be popular but I think a next neat step would be the canning of "Civ specific abilities" altogether, picking up your traits bases solely on things you do and places you are. That of course would almost impossible to balance or sell expansions for though.

 

[Wizard-Bob]

TV will be cheaper, but that is a passive entertainment /QUOTE]
Not so sure. For me, our cable TV bill is over $100 per month for all we can watch. But for just $60 (once, not monthly), I can play all the Civ I want!

 

[DJ_Tanner]

Oof, $100 for cable? You are stuck paying a 100 to watch commercials that ALSO pay the cable company?

I think you are far past cord cutting time. Live sports were always my sticking point, but there are plenty of options out there now so that you can still get decent live feeds to complement the streaming services.

 

[acluewithout]

Most of that is patch level though.

And I'm still confused and haven't gotten a real answer--what is the real difference between "idelogies" and plain old modern day government types? In the game it was marginally different but it really just a way to push diplomacy in a different way. Other than that they do not do much that gov-specific policy cards wouldn't. They were fine in V but I still think would be superfluous in 6. It would be more just for the sake of having more.

I’m not sure I quite get your question, but I’ll try to answer it as best I can.

First, I think Civ VI could draw a distinction between institutional systems and ideologies. Currently, the first two government tiers actually represent institutional systems of governance. But the third tier don’t. Really, in principle, you could have an elected Facist Government. In some ways, you could even sort of have an unelected Democracy, provided the people in charge were responsive to the people or demos (that’s sort of what’s going on in a constitutional monarchy if you close your eyes and squint). So, what FXS could do is make the tier 3 Governments institutional systems (say, Republic, Constitutional Monarchy and Dictatorship), and then have Ideolgies as a separate layer.

Second, except if you found a Religion, there’s no real way to shape your Empire and its peoples beliefs and culture. Ideologies might be a way to do that, perhaps working a bit like Civ 5 Social Policies again and letting you choose tenets for your people.

Third, I think Ideologies would be a good thematic umbrella letting FXS rework a bunch of existing mechanics, eg Government Plaza, Governors, and also reintroduce previous mechanics like Corporations or Cultural influences.

 

[SupremacyKing2]

And I'm still confused and haven't gotten a real answer--what is the real difference between "idelogies" and plain old modern day government types? In the game it was marginally different but it really just a way to push diplomacy in a different way. Other than that they do not do much that gov-specific policy cards wouldn't. They were fine in V but I still think would be superfluous in 6. It would be more just for the sake of having more.

Well, civ5 did not have governments so ideologies served the purpose as modern governments. civ6's modern governments do serve the same purpose as ideologies so they are not needed IMO. I think you could implement ideological blocs with the current modern governments by just tweaking the existing diplomatic.
1) Have stronger diplomatic modifiers if you share the same modern government and have stronger negative diplomatic modifiers if you are a different modern government. So democracy will hate fascism and communism. Communism will hate democracy and fascism. And fascism will hate democracy and communism. But fascist civs will love other fascist civs. Communist civs will love other communist civs and democracies will love other democracies.
2) I would add a new alliance type (ideological alliance) that you can only adopt with a civ with the same government. These alliances could even be unique to the government. So fascist alliances would grant bonus military strength to civs in the alliance, communist alliance would grant bonus production to their allies and democratic alliance would grant extra amenities to their allies.
3) And I would make it so that allies would automatically join a war declared on one member.

I think this would adequately represent the ideological bloc system but using the existing modern governments.

 

[Trav'ling Canuck]

The core aspect of ideology is to unite people who share it and divide them from the people who don't. In game terms, it's main effect would be to create a constant shifting of alliances, while also giving some era-specific options to how you want to structure your empire.

Each era could have it's core ideological question: for example, Divine right of kings or Will of the people? How you choose to come down on the issue would then both impact how the other leaders view you, and have some in game effects. Will of the people could give you +1 amenity per city but at a cost of -8 loyalty per city; Divine right of kings could give you +2 faith per city at a cost of -1 science and -1 culture. Modest changes where you may have a reason to lean one way or the other, but not so significant that you don't also need to weigh what enemies you'll make based on your choice.

Eventually that issue gets consigned to the dustbin of history and we get a new ideological debate for the next era.

 

[durfal]

What I found very interesting in the new diplomatic victory movie, were the flags chosen in front of the "world congress" building.
All were from existing countries but non were from any of the existing civs in game as if they did't want to show favoritism toward any of them.
There are 12 total and if they have decided which civs to put in an eventual 3rth expansion they wouldn't have put them in there either
The flags are from the following countries.
Top row: Mexico, Nigeria, Kenya, Thailand, Argentina and South Africa.
Bottom row: Iceland, Kazachstan, Czech Republic, Papua New Guinea, Morocco and Sri Lanka.
To me it looks like they were explicit chosen for global cover, to be reasonable known countries, but non would be considered to be a civ in game at that time they made the movie.
To me that means I would exclude Mexico, Thailand/Siam, Argentina and Morocco from the ones that are named regularly for possible civs in exp 3.
Also interesting is the ones not shown but with the same perimeters could be considered to be included like Portugal, Ethiopia, Vietnam, Ireland, Belgium, Austria etc.
I'm probably over thinking it but found it still interesting.

Flags at 0:20

 

[The Kingmaker]

Make religion/ideology a customizable card-based feature like w/ government.

(Religious forms from ancient to modern)

Ancestor Worship
Animism
Fertility Cult

Polytheism
Monotheism
Henotheism

Syncretism
Organized Religion
Hierocracy

Freedom of Religion
Secular Humanism
Militant Atheism
Fundamentalism

You place different cards in the matrix with the different beliefs from the religions and pantheons (stone circles, warrior monks, etc.).

You can still found a religion, but how you relate to it is defined by your religion matrix.

Your religion + government matrices together could form your ideology.

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

Most of that is patch level though.

And I'm still confused and haven't gotten a real answer--what is the real difference between "idelogies" and plain old modern day government types? In the game it was marginally different but it really just a way to push diplomacy in a different way. Other than that they do not do much that gov-specific policy cards wouldn't. They were fine in V but I still think would be superfluous in 6. It would be more just for the sake of having more.

I hate to say it, but I do feel that the stuff that needs more love constitutes more than a mere patch.

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

Well, civ5 did not have governments so ideologies served the purpose as modern governments. civ6's modern governments do serve the same purpose as ideologies so they are not needed IMO. I think you could implement ideological blocs with the current modern governments by just tweaking the existing diplomatic.
1) Have stronger diplomatic modifiers if you share the same modern government and have stronger negative diplomatic modifiers if you are a different modern government. So democracy will hate fascism and communism. Communism will hate democracy and fascism. And fascism will hate democracy and communism. But fascist civs will love other fascist civs. Communist civs will love other communist civs and democracies will love other democracies.
2) I would add a new alliance type (ideological alliance) that you can only adopt with a civ with the same government. These alliances could even be unique to the government. So fascist alliances would grant bonus military strength to civs in the alliance, communist alliance would grant bonus production to their allies and democratic alliance would grant extra amenities to their allies.
3) And I would make it so that allies would automatically join a war declared on one member.

I think this would adequately represent the ideological bloc system but using the existing modern governments.

I do not fundamentally agree with you there. Part of the problem is that we have Communism & Fascism-which are ideologies-& Democracy, which is a government type. 3rd Tier governments should really comprise of Democracy, Dictatorship....& a 3rd government type I cannot think of off the top of my head (a modern day version of Oligarchy I guess, that is half way between the two extremes....maybe Plutocracy?!?!). Then the 3 government types can be further defined by the ideology-Fascist, Fundamentalist, Communist, Socialist, Capitalist etc......each with a set of Tenets that define them, as selected by the player....& which potentially limit which Policy Cards you can utilise.

Religion, too needs a major overhaul IMHO, in particular we need a use for Prophet points once all the Religions are founded. I think JFD was on the right track with his Great Theologians in that respect. Also, though I do not 100% agree with Kingmaker in regards to a religion matrix, I do think a way to determine the State's relationship to the dominant religion is required-perhaps be bringing back the State/Non-State religion system of CIV.

 

[SupremacyKing2]

I do not fundamentally agree with you there. Part of the problem is that we have Communism & Fascism-which are ideologies-& Democracy, which is a government type. 3rd Tier governments should really comprise of Democracy, Dictatorship....& a 3rd government type I cannot think of off the top of my head (a modern day version of Oligarchy I guess, that is half way between the two extremes). Then the 3 government types can be further defined by the ideology-Fascist, Fundamentalist, Communist, Socialist, Capitalist etc......each with a set of Tenets that define then....& which potentially limit which Policy Cards you can utilise).

Well, I just trying to describe the simplest way to implement ideologies in civ6 within the scope of the existing governments. If we keep governments as they are, we can look at democracy as a catch-all name for countries who embrace personal freedoms and capitalism. Looking at the Cold War for our simplistic model, you had the communist bloc and you had the "democracy" bloc of countries like the US that valued capitalism and personal freedoms.

Perhaps a better system would be to assign each government, an ideology type?

You make a good point though about the difference between a government system and an ideology. What you are describing would be a bigger overhaul of the government system which I am not necessarily opposed to.

 

[Casworon]

I also think religion needs a bit of a rework. I would like to see great theologians and also more ways to spread religion 'peacefully' that doesn't involve relgious units and religious warfare. Religious units and warfare being one part of the religion game rather than all of it. Also more bonuses for actually spreading it. Most of the religions that you make have zero benefit to spreading them if you are not interested in a religious victory.

Another area of the game i feel needs to be looked at is colonial play. Since this has gotten a big nerf since the introduction of loyalty. I do really miss the ideologies of civ v and felt they really spiced up the end game. I would like colonialism to spice up the mid game. Having lots more ways to improve loyalty on foreign continents rather than a golden age dedication and some policy cards. Maybe having these loyalty bonuses be connected to only coastal cities. Think it would be interesting to have more colonial civs suddenly show up with a load of coastal cities on your continent in the mid game

Basically i want each era in the game to feel more unique. I think we are moving in that direction with the different golden era bonuses and now world congress resolutions being different. But i would like more mechanics that make each era feel different

 

[SupremacyKing2]

Basically i want each era in the game to feel more unique. I think we are moving in that direction with the different golden era bonuses and now world congress resolutions being different. But i would like more mechanics that make each era feel different

Yes! I've been thinking about this too. I would love for each era to feel more unique. I have not really fleshed out how I would implement it. But something like adding special events or special rules to each era might be the way to go.

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

I also think religion needs a bit of a rework. I would like to see great theologians and also more ways to spread religion 'peacefully' that doesn't involve relgious units and religious warfare. Religious units and warfare being one part of the religion game rather than all of it. Also more bonuses for actually spreading it. Most of the religions that you make have zero benefit to spreading them if you are not interested in a religious victory.

Another area of the game i feel needs to be looked at is colonial play. Since this has gotten a big nerf since the introduction of loyalty. I do really miss the ideologies of civ v and felt they really spiced up the end game. I would like colonialism to spice up the mid game. Having lots more ways to improve loyalty on foreign continents rather than a golden age dedication and some policy cards. Maybe having these loyalty bonuses be connected to only coastal cities. Think it would be interesting to have more colonial civs suddenly show up with a load of coastal cities on your continent in the mid game

Basically i want each era in the game to feel more unique. I think we are moving in that direction with the different golden era bonuses and now world congress resolutions being different. But i would like more mechanics that make each era feel different

I'd also like peaceful ways of slowing down the spread of foreign religions into my cities, maybe a religious specific "Closed Border" system that causes religious units to lose health when in the borders of a Civ with a different Dominant Religion. Shared & Different Religion should also be a bigger factor in Diplomacy-especially prior to the modern era, with the level of bonus/penalty growing or shrinking based on how actively the player promotes or restricts the AI's religion.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

I feel like ideologies are already somewhat tied to the government and social policies that you choose. Also they are now making some cards government specific and along with the legacy cards I think that covers it fine.
I am however on board for the possible health and disease mechanics that could be coming to the main game. I could see an emergency pop up in the World Congress when a plague breaks out and you would have to send relief.
As for corporations it would be cool if you would be able to customize it when you start them. If they want to tie it into an economic victory as well it would be great.

 

[Hatchie]

I have been thinking for a while what I’d like to add in possible 3rd expansion. I agree I would like more or less to tighten up already existing mechanics. So I think the new mechanic that could be great expansion theme, be interlinked with most existing features, fixing some of the oversights in design and represent a major historical phenomen that shaped the human history would be migration!

Citizens would get their “nationality” when created based on the population of city they were born in and they would keep it throughout the game. And it would be possible for citizens to migrate to another city - never directly controlled by the player but there would be plenty of ways to encourage or discourage the process. By baseline it wouldn’t be very common and citizens wouldn’t wander very often just for the pleasure of it. Basic mechanics that would make a citizen “want to move” would be lack of housing and amenities in their city. Then they would look for a city to move to, attracted to free housing and amenities and culture output. It would be possible for citizen to move inside the same empire and it would indeed be the preferable option for the citizen especialy early in the game. Other things encouraging migration to particular cities would include trade routes, open borders and later alliances.
Importantly, citizens would keep their religion when moving, making migration linked to religion. There would also be “assimilation” mechanic that would slowly (dozens of turns for one citizen) turn foreign citizens in your cities to “your” citizens, working faster if you generate a lot of culture. More citizens from the same nationality in the same city would however slow down the proccess as they’d have their communities.
Migration would also be tied to Grievences and Loyalty. If you generate Grievences against another empire, “their” citizens in your empire wouldn’t like that! They would cause increased loyalty pressure, sabotage buidings and improvements and even become partisan units similar to how current recruit partisans spy operation works. Meaning you should thread carefuly with civilizations that have larger communities in your empire.
This mechanic would also impact war waging as the loosing side could see their citizens migrating to happier places at least until peace is achieved (not sure if it’s the case now but war weariness would apply localy, meaning the cities that are having tiles pillaged and see the defending armies being defeated nearby would incur it much more and as such would be desserted faster). At the same time the conquerors would have a harder time keeping the captured cities especially in unjustified wars (Grievences) as the citizens wouldn’t have it and would become defiant, commiting acts of resistance by sabotaging things and creating partisan units.
Also, citizens of your empire in foreign cities slightly improve effectivness of your spies in that city (the spy have easier time blending in and establish contacts).
So far you might think “why would I ever want a foreign citizen in my empire?”. Glad you asked! Similarly to how Gathering Storm makes industrialization and later buildings requiring power to be efficient, the new expansion would make those buildings effectivness tied to number of specialists in the appropriate district. Thats right, Civ VI would finaly reward tall cities! You could wait for your citizens to grow naturaly and hope they keep pace with your rate of industrialization... or you could try to attract citizens from other parts of the world! There would also be bonuses for Science, Culture and maybe GPP generation for having diverse population in a city!
Another mechanic rewarding taller cities would be rebalance of citizen base production. Currently, citizens by default produce a little Science and Culture. Gold would be added to that - and in larger amount than the other yields and it would all be progressive throughout the game tied to civic tree. Several civics would increase these citizen base yields for all citizens in your cities. Catch is, citizens would split all these yields in half: half for the owner of city they live in, half for “their nation”. Most of the time it would be the same player and nothing would change, however this would make for an interesting dynamic during industrialization: the more advanced nations would be in dire need of more population and the less advanced nations would be keen to provide them since their citizens in such cities could send back gold and scientific and cultural knowledge (unless they are assimilated by their new nation). Best way to achieve that is by good relationships, trade routes, open borders, alliances. And as the people create their communities in new homes it makes the diplomatic relation more important for the more developed civs as well as they wouldn’t like to make their new citizens discontent by treating their home countries poorly.
This whole mechanic would probably call for entirely new policy cards category - lets call those National. Both the cards and the slots would start appearing around reneissance and most of the cards would unlock around Ideology and T3 governments. Dedicated slots for those cards would be similarly to wild cards quite rare and would probably apper only in T3 and T4 governments. These new policies would affect the matter of citizens nationality in many ways: from cards like “Melting pot”, “Guest workers”, “Xenophobia” or “Iron Curtain” that increase/decrase migration in or out from your empire, things like “Fifth Column”, “Religious Authority”, “Money Lines” or “Industrial Espionage” to affect your citizens in foreign lands, “Internation Camps”, “State Donations” or “Assimilation Courses” to affect foreign citizens in your lands.
Also since some of the mechanics change the core balance of game there would be further tweeks to not break the game: definitely gold and maybe even science and culture rebalance due to the increased passive generation by citizens and overall more citizens in the world. There would also need to be rebalance for Loyalty as foreign citizens should be common later in the game and I wouldn’t them to make it too easy flipping an enemy city (and too hard keeping a conquered one)! I think actually flipping a city to a free city should be really hard and quite easily preventable, but disloyalty could often manifest in form of sabotages and partisan units (the spy operation to recruit partisans would become redundant as reducing loyalty would lead to similar result based on the exact numbers). Maybe the only way city could actually become free city would be if partisan units conquered the city center and more and more disloyalty would give partisans a combat bonus (showing the popular support). Also due to this mechanic leading to possibly taller cities especialy late game, housing and especialy amenities would require rebalance! Given how more developed countries should be more attractive there should be more amenities available post industrialization. Maybe slight tweeks to Neigbourhoods and their buildings so these districts become an important part of working modern cities would be enough?
A lot more could be done with this especialy with the National policy cards, but I would certainly love to see migration represented in Civilization VI as after diplomacy and natural dissasters have been added, this seems like the one historicaly very impactful force not represented in the game!

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

So to simplify, I would have 3 tier 3 governments-Dictatorship, Plutocracy & Democracy. Then have 5 Ideologies-Communism, Socialism, Liberalism, Capitalism & Fascism (moving from Far Left to Far Right on the Spectrum).

As with Civ5, each Ideology would have its own set of Tenets (though some Ideologies might share some tenets) & these Tenets could act like (a) permanent "wild card" policies, (b) an enhancer of specific policy cards and/or a blocker of other specific policy cards, (c) an enhancer of specific districts/buildings-perhaps at the detriment of another building/district. Preferably the tenets would contain a mix of all 3.

Ideology could also impact on Culture/Tourism, Migration, Loyalty, City State Diplomacy & Major Civilization Diplomacy.

I also thought of.something else I would love to see in a 3rd expansion, expanded Barbarian mechanics & Independant City Mechanics. I would like to be able to engage in very limited Diplomacy with Barbarians & Independant Cities, & would like to see Barbarians able to capture cities.....thus turning them into Independant cities.

I would also like to see a situation where, if a cluster of cities becomes independant around the same time, they can actually form into a new Civilization.