Little things you'd like to see in Civilization VII

[vorlon_mi]

Building on the elevation idea, I would like a return to mountains that are not "impassable." Civ2 and Civ3 had this feature; I thought it was a bad idea in Civ4 and Civ5. Civ6 made an attempt to address this with Military Engineers being able to build mountain tunnels. That comes pretty late; people have been traveling over mountains for millennia, well before they could build tunnels through them.

 

[Leucarum]

I like the idea of elevation, but humankind put me off a little bit. The challenge is going to probably be making everything visually distinct enough that the player can still parse the map at a glance. It's probably not an insurmountable problem, but I do think it puts a cap on how many levels of elevation are still going to be fun to include, and I definitely don't want elevation changes in combination with "realistic" terrain (as a graphical style). That seems like a recipe for making the map harder to read at a glance.

 

[Lonecat Nekophrodite]

Casually this 1700 ±10 fit better my proposed 1700 than CiV6´s 1725 or CIV5's 1800. Same for Pike+Shoot in my "Renaissance" when CIV5-6's Renaissance take many more years that did not used that warfare model.

Considering that iconic uniforms from the Franco-Prussian and Anglo-Zulu war were still quite colorfull and gallant and that in game the combat animations cant realy show significative difference in troop formations (just units shooting the face of the others) we can jump to the next era right into the full mecanized war with trenches, helmets and dull uniforms.

For the many intermediate innovations Im not sure how profitable could be for Firaxis to implement small visual equipment upgrades but in gameplay terms could be possible to research things like Flintlock, Bayonets, Rifling, Breechloader, Minie Ball, Smokeless Powder, and even (I hope) things like Machine Guns and Bazookas that are not supposed to be a whole militar unit but an equipment for regular troops. For example this upgrades could simulate historical combat changes like:
1- Shock Infantry is the regular "meele" infantry for 1900-1960.
2- The previous Rifleman is upgraded to Shock Infantry by the early and cheap Replaceable Parts tech, this new unit have the new Entrenchment defensive stand that visualy put the unit in a trench with a machine gun. This stand turn "suicide" enemy attemps to charge with previous cavalry and infantry units (included also enemy Shock Infantry).
3- The more expensive and locked (but still 1900-1960 era) tech Gasoline Motor allow to build Tanks to charge safely against trenched Shock Infantry.
4- A even later (but still 1900-1960 era) Rocketry tech provide Shock Infantry the ability to do the "AT-nest" stand (maybe limited to urban and forest terrain for ballance reasons) visualy using a AT-Rocket Luncher when attacked by Tanks.

So we have some of the main early 20th century changes on the battlefield in a more natural way without too many eras and mainly without absurd overspecific units.

Wait wait!
What is a increased number factors of Infantry of 1915 ('Trenchers' with helmet and either khaki, gray, or raw wool uniforms) survivability (and thus combat strenghts) compared to Infantry with magazine rifles and MGs of 1890s ('Magazine Rifleman')? did they worths a separate unit entirely? (Civ6 rules. with Melee and Anticav class converged by Earlymodern Era).

 

[BuchiTaton]

Wait wait!
What is a increased number factors of Infantry of 1915 ('Trenchers' with helmet and either khaki, gray, or raw wool uniforms) survivability (and thus combat strenghts) compared to Infantry with magazine rifles and MGs of 1890s ('Magazine Rifleman')? did they worths a separate unit entirely? (Civ6 rules. with Melee and Anticav class converged by Earlymodern Era).

Not sure if I get the question, but to clarify this my suggestion is under a model that actually reduce the number of regular unit lines.
The Shock Infatry is supposed to be the regular infantry (1900-1960) that gain new combat abilities from techs instead of have mechine guns or AT rockets as separated units.

 

[civilizationfanatic2000]

the option for dangerous natural events that could exterminate civilizations or humanity. a super volcano. a gamma ray burst. a solar flare. a meteor. technically all of human civilization could have been wiped out by any of those at any time. this of course would vary in tiers from I to V, where I are at most regional scale disasters (floods) and V are the sole domain of humanity-wiping events (everything I just said earlier).

 

[Patine]

the option for dangerous natural events that could exterminate civilizations or humanity. a super volcano. a gamma ray burst. a solar flare. a meteor. technically all of human civilization could have been wiped out by any of those at any time. this of course would vary in tiers from I to V, where I are at most regional scale disasters (floods) and V are the sole domain of humanity-wiping events (everything I just said earlier).

So, basically, just an exaggerated and more melodramatic version of the chaotic mess that impedes playability that came with GS?

 

[civilizationfanatic2000]

So, basically, just an exaggerated and more melodramatic version of the chaotic mess that impedes playability that came with GS?

yes

 

[Patine]

yes

Then i must fervently disagree.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

the option for dangerous natural events that could exterminate civilizations or humanity. a super volcano. a gamma ray burst. a solar flare. a meteor. technically all of human civilization could have been wiped out by any of those at any time. this of course would vary in tiers from I to V, where I are at most regional scale disasters (floods) and V are the sole domain of humanity-wiping events (everything I just said earlier).

Let's see. I'm supposed to spend several hours playing a game that ends catastrophically and randomly at any time, wiping out everything I've done.

Why would I bother to play that crap?

More importantly, why would I bother to buy it in the first place, or recommend it to anyone else?

If you are trying to end the franchise, this is the sort of idiot game design that will do it.

 

[civilizationfanatic2000]

Let's see. I'm supposed to spend several hours playing a game that ends catastrophically and randomly at any time, wiping out everything I've done.

Why would I bother to play that crap?

More importantly, why would I bother to buy it in the first place, or recommend it to anyone else?

If you are trying to end the franchise, this is the sort of idiot game design that will do it.

it would be an option, off by default. it would exist to attract not you, but certain types of youtubers who will make ALL CAPS video titles and flashy thumbnails in order to attract thousands or millions of people to their video. I can see it:

'CIVILIZATION SEVEN HAS A NEW RANDOM DISASTER GAME MODE!'

'TRYING TO GET TO THE MEDIEVAL ERA IN CIVILIZATION SEVEN WITHOUT BEING HIT BY A METEOR!'

of course, to make it more gradual, i would like the ability to select the exact maximum tier of disaster you want. you think major floods and earthquakes are all you want? go to Tier III. or don't do disasters at all.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

it would be an option, off by default. it would exist to attract not you, but certain types of youtubers who will make ALL CAPS video titles and flashy thumbnails in order to attract thousands or millions of people to their video. I can see it:

'CIVILIZATION SEVEN HAS A NEW RANDOM DISASTER GAME MODE!'

'TRYING TO GET TO THE MEDIEVAL ERA IN CIVILIZATION SEVEN WITHOUT BEING HIT BY A METEOR!'

of course, to make it more gradual, i would like the ability to select the exact maximum tier of disaster you want. you think major floods and earthquakes are all you want? go to Tier III. or don't do disasters at all.

That makes more sense

So, let me add some data to the concept:

Volcanic eruptions are measured by the VEI (Volcanic Eruption Index), which measures the amount of 'ejecta' - material thrown into the atmosphere by the volcanic explosion. This isn't a perfect measure, because volcanoes like those in Hawaii produce lots of lava but don't explode much, so they measure very low on the VEI while the amount of molten rock they produce obliterates large portions of the surrounding land.

The highest VEI recorded/estimated is VEI 8, and the last such eruption was about 27,000 years ago. Since there is only one data point, there's no telling if we are 'overdue' for another one. A VEI 8 is one that produces 1000 cubic kilometers of ejecta -ash, rocks, etc. That's enough to cover a continent with a layer of volcanic ash and rock 100 or more meters deep, destroying just about everything underneath that isn't already rock.

Each VEI number is 10 times the previous one in scale, so, for example, the eruption of Vesuvius that covered Pompei and Herculaneum in 79 CE was a VEI 5 - producing 1 cubic kilometer of solid volcanic ejecta and also clouds of superheated gases. Officially this level is labeled "colossal' but realistically has only regional/local effect. VEI 6 (10 cubic km) and 7 (100 cubic km) are much, much rarer. There have only been 7 VEI 7 explosions since 6400 BCE, and they included the Mount Mazama blast in 5680 BCE that created Crater Lake in Oregon, the Thera disaster around 1680 BCE north of Crete that fatally crippled the Minoan civilization and spread volcanic ash all the way to Egypt and Tambora in 1815 in Indonesia that threw so much volcanic dust into the atmosphere that it created a "year without summer" throughout Europe that year.

So, VEI 7 would be at the least Civilization Disturbing and in the 'right' conditions (like Thera) potentially Civilization Ending, but still with much lower Global effects. I'd have to say that the chances of a VEI 8 Civilization Ending eruption are a guess but should be low enough that there is at least a chance of 0 occuring during the span of the game, even if the start date is pushed back to 6 - 15,000 BCE.

Other disasters, like a comet or asteroid hitting, are much more random, but the effects have been studied almost as thoroughly (see Niven and Pournelle's novel Lucifer's Hammer for a good description of the effects of a Comet hitting one of earth's oceans: the two authors both had the technical training to accurately describe the consequences).

 

[Lonecat Nekophrodite]

Not sure if I get the question, but to clarify this my suggestion is under a model that actually reduce the number of regular unit lines.
The Shock Infatry is supposed to be the regular infantry (1900-1960) that gain new combat abilities from techs instead of have mechine guns or AT rockets as separated units.

Do you think that this Russo-Japanese War era infantrymen and soldiers of 1915 have any significant differences in combat performance and by any number ? are these men of the two different wars fit well with Civ6 'Infantry' or did the former fits better with 'Rifleman' ?

 

[Lonecat Nekophrodite]

Rifleman - late Industrial Era infantry

1. What should 'generic' rifle looks like?
A. Rifled Musket OR breechloading conversions (trapdoors of any kind).
B. Various breechloading rifles (2nd generation)
C. Bolt Action single shot like Mauser Modelle 1871
D. Lever Action repeaters.
2. Uniforms.particularly heddress, should anyone still wear Shakoes by this time?
3. should there be 'cowboy' ammo belts?

 

[Patine]

Do you think that this Russo-Japanese War era infantrymen and soldiers of 1915 have any significant differences in combat performance and by any number ? are these men of the two different wars fit well with Civ6 'Infantry' or did the former fits better with 'Rifleman' ?

The Russo-Japanese War infantry of 1905 you mean. The correct year on your video title.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

The Russo-Japanese War infantry of 1905 you mean. The correct year on your video title.

I believe his original post was "Russo-Japanese War era infantry and soldiers of 1915" - two different groups, if I remember the rules about English Conjunctives correctly.

And to answer the original question, up until 1914 ALL armies' infantry were still primarily riflemen with bolt-action magazine-fed smokeless powder rifles and a relatively very small number of machineguns in support.

By 1916, and especially by 1917 - 1918, the civs fighting WWI had added many, many more machineguns to their infantry companies, battalions, regiments and divisions and were adding medium and heavy 'trench' mortars (indirect fire explosive direct support under the infantry's direct control) to their infantry units.

It has been remarked by several academics researching the effects of World War One (Corum, Citino) that the infantry of 1918 was almost completely different in their appearance (uniforms, helmets), tactics, and weaponry from that of 1914, not even considering the massive changes to the Armies in the amount and efficiency of artillery support and new weapons like ground-attack aviation and tanks.

Consequently, to gather all the various questions and considerations, if Civ VII were to divide up the Unit Mix into Riflemen and 'Shock' or 20th century infantry, I would put the dividing line at 1916 give or take a few years, and the Rifleman graphic would be the late 19th century in 'semi-dull' uniforms including, say, the Russian and Japanese white, French red and blue, US dark blue and khaki - not quite as colorful as the previous fusiliers or Napoleonic infantry of the 18th century, but not yet trying to be as invisible as massed firepower forced them to be after 1915.

The initial factors of the Infantry would be only marginally better than the Rifleman (the rifles are a little better and faster firing than previous breechloaders and each battalion has 2 - 4 machineguns added), but they could very quickly be Upgraded with Machinegun Companies, squad automatic weapons (by 1918 Everybody had them), light and medium Mortars, and even Infantry Guns - very light and short-ranged 37mm to 75mm 'pack' weapons for direct support.
Even without any change to the basic rifle, the Infantry firepower man for man more than doubles in the 20 years after 1915 with all the potential Upgrades to the individual Units.

 

[reddishrecue]

I'll just go default on this one because there's so many things that will make civ 7 nice and I would have to adjust to the new style of play. Sort of like the workers where in civ 5 they wouldn't run out and in civ 6 they did. The workers had to be rebuild in order to get them to keep building improvements throughout the land when there was expansion.

 

[BuchiTaton]

Do you think that this Russo-Japanese War era infantrymen and soldiers of 1915 have any significant differences in combat performance and by any number ? are these men of the two different wars fit well with Civ6 'Infantry' or did the former fits better with 'Rifleman' ?

The infantry from around 1885 to 1915 certainly has some distinctive aspects, but looking to the whole picture I dont see it as a priority (like many other periods).

Maybe the use of "Rifleman" is causing a confusion, considering that infantry mainly using Rifles was in reality a thing of the late 19th century. Personally I justify the use of the "Rifleman" earlier in the 19th century from units like British 95th Rifles. I know they were not Line Infantry or the main unit of their time, but they used bayonets* some times and in terms of uniform fit a middle point for Industrial Era.

The whole time period from 1700-1900 (as any other like 1500-1700 or 1900-1960) could be divided in smaller ones like the mentioned huge changes in weapons and tactics in this time, even in uniforms "Industrial" see the transition from Tricorne to Shako to Cap wearing infantry. Also the problem of late17th to early18th Fisilier show us the complications of inovative units. Again this is why I prefer "middle point" units like in this case a mix of Fisilier+Rifleman (Line Infantry) from the Napoleonic Wars.

 

[Lonecat Nekophrodite]

I believe his original post was "Russo-Japanese War era infantry and soldiers of 1915" - two different groups, if I remember the rules about English Conjunctives correctly.

And to answer the original question, up until 1914 ALL armies' infantry were still primarily riflemen with bolt-action magazine-fed smokeless powder rifles and a relatively very small number of machineguns in support.

By 1916, and especially by 1917 - 1918, the civs fighting WWI had added many, many more machineguns to their infantry companies, battalions, regiments and divisions and were adding medium and heavy 'trench' mortars (indirect fire explosive direct support under the infantry's direct control) to their infantry units.

It has been remarked by several academics researching the effects of World War One (Corum, Citino) that the infantry of 1918 was almost completely different in their appearance (uniforms, helmets), tactics, and weaponry from that of 1914, not even considering the massive changes to the Armies in the amount and efficiency of artillery support and new weapons like ground-attack aviation and tanks.

Consequently, to gather all the various questions and considerations, if Civ VII were to divide up the Unit Mix into Riflemen and 'Shock' or 20th century infantry, I would put the dividing line at 1916 give or take a few years, and the Rifleman graphic would be the late 19th century in 'semi-dull' uniforms including, say, the Russian and Japanese white, French red and blue, US dark blue and khaki - not quite as colorful as the previous fusiliers or Napoleonic infantry of the 18th century, but not yet trying to be as invisible as massed firepower forced them to be after 1915.

The initial factors of the Infantry would be only marginally better than the Rifleman (the rifles are a little better and faster firing than previous breechloaders and each battalion has 2 - 4 machineguns added), but they could very quickly be Upgraded with Machinegun Companies, squad automatic weapons (by 1918 Everybody had them), light and medium Mortars, and even Infantry Guns - very light and short-ranged 37mm to 75mm 'pack' weapons for direct support.
Even without any change to the basic rifle, the Infantry firepower man for man more than doubles in the 20 years after 1915 with all the potential Upgrades to the individual Units.

Yes. 1915 is when steel helmets are reintroduced. this time as Bessemer-Krupp steel instead of pre-industrial wrought irons of any kind.
Japanese Army in 1905 wears white uniform?

 

[Bonyduck Campersang]

Option to put your turn at the end, or in whatever order you like, instead of the start

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

Yes. 1915 is when steel helmets are reintroduced. this time as Bessemer-Krupp steel instead of pre-industrial wrought irons of any kind.
Japanese Army in 1905 wears white uniform?

The basic Japanese uniform was a dark blue tunic and trousers, but there were white 'fatigue' trousers worn in summer and white puttees or leggings that came up to just below the knee. I have also seen illustrations of a white fatigue uniform, tunic and rousers both, worn by artillery troops in summer. Officially, the Japanese had adopted a new khaki uniform just before the war in 1904, but very few troops appear to have gotten any issue of it until very late in the war (1906) or after the war.

The Russian infantry had a white tunic for summer wear also, and some of the regular Russian cavalry wore white tunics.

The 'lessons' of the war pushed both armies into the khaki - dull uniforms. In fact, the Japanese 1904 khaki was the first 'camouflage' (dull colored) uniform issued generally to any nation's troops.