Little things you'd like to see in Civilization VII

[Bonyduck Campersang]

Future Era shenanigans should be optional. (I like them, personally.)

 

[Naokaukodem]

I'm not opposed to there being console versions, I just want the design vision to be primarily focused on computers with a mouse and keyboard first design philosophy.

If they then want to take that and somehow adapt it and port it to mobile or console that is fine.

It has been my experience - however - that when games are either enveloped for simultaneous release or for mobile or console audiences first, it results in user interfaces and design philosophies that are less complex, big with too much dead space, and generally are less appealing on the PC.

Sid Meier's Civilization started on the PC in 1991. The PC should continue to be the development priority. I don't want to be a gatekeeper or exclude anyone, as long as their inclusion doesn't result in a lesser product for PC users.

It's a rather backwarded opinion. Consoles do not make the game less complex. Design philosophy has nothing to do with it. Still, I could wait some time after PC release. (just because I wonder how Civ6 is playable on consoles, not to speak about Civ1 and Civ2)

6. PC ONLY. Moble (or Nintendo Switch or anything similiar) platform requires different Civ games made simplified entirely.

This has been proved wrong with Civ1, Civ2 and Civ6. No clue why Civ3, Civ4 nor Civ5 haven't been ported. Maybe because console-specific versions were in the work ? (to avoid auto-concurrence) In the end, we had Civ6 on basicaly every platform...

 

[Krajzen]

05.) Somehow fix the late game doldrums. Early game is always exciting with much to explore and many dynamic opponents to encounter, but then once the era of having discovered the entire world starts, it usually just becomes a really long and boring resource race, unless you are going for a domination victory. Something really needs to be done to make late game more interesting and mix it up a bit. Maybe make the game map realistic and HUGE so that there are always a very large number of CIV's left to interact with, even late game. With modern CPU power this should be doable.

I don't understand why Civ games don't just go along the most obvious path possible, and just try to make late game interesting by straight depicting some interesting events of 19th - 20th century, such as
- industrialization dramatically changing the way economy works, and turning some underdogs into winners and some empires into losers
- colonialism and anti - colonialism (major empires race to control the world, fight each other and resistance along the way)
- world wars (seriously how tf does this game completely lack basic feature of "big cool war of big alliance vs big alliance"?)
- clash of ideologies (civ5 did this and it was awesome even if very basic system, then civ6 removed it for some crazy reason )
- especially the core clash of capitalism and communism
- cold war (power blocs, MAD with nukes, espionage, coups)
- revolutions and civil wars resulting from social and ethnic strife; worker's rights, independence movements etc

Like seriously. Civ6's only idea to spice up late game was to introduce climate change, which honestly has only been really big topic for past10 -15 years, while not depicting almost any major 'theme' of the past 150 or so years of global history. Imagine trying to describe past 150 years of IRL history without referring to any of those topics above - yeah I bet it would sound boring if you had to focus on just random 'wars' and 'tourism' and 'science'. Civ6 doesn't have any of the actual Big Drama topics of real life modern era.

 

[Malexander]

Wonders and major city improvements being visible even when in world view. Don’t remember if this was already implemented but if it was, make it more spectacular.

 

[BuchiTaton]

I don't understand why Civ games don't just go along the most obvious path possible, and just try to make late game interesting by straight depicting some interesting events of 19th - 20th century, such as
- industrialization dramatically changing the way economy works, and turning some underdogs into winners and some empires into losers
- colonialism and anti - colonialism (major empires race to control the world, fight each other and resistance along the way)
- world wars (seriously how tf does this game completely lack basic feature of "big cool war of big alliance vs big alliance"?)
- clash of ideologies (civ5 did this and it was awesome even if very basic system, then civ6 removed it for some crazy reason )
- especially the core clash of capitalism and communism
- cold war (power blocs, MAD with nukes, espionage, coups)
- revolutions and civil wars resulting from social and ethnic strife; worker's rights, independence movements etc

Like seriously. Civ6's only idea to spice up late game was to introduce climate change, which honestly has only been really big topic for past10 -15 years, while not depicting almost any major 'theme' of the past 150 or so years of global history. Imagine trying to describe past 150 years of IRL history without referring to any of those topics above - yeah I bet it would sound boring if you had to focus on just random 'wars' and 'tourism' and 'science'. Civ6 doesn't have any of the actual Big Drama topics of real life modern era.

Some ideas I have about these:
- Industrialization, Factories and the whole Industrial district should be different from the earlier district Worshops are. Factories could produce new resources (like Cars and Electronics) and synthetic versions of natural resources (like Dyes and Nitrate), turning these factories in a real force that change the economic and productive power ballance.
- Colonialism, for the 16th-19th colonialism we need a map that mimic historical geographic conditions. This mean have half the map for the main civs (playables) in a core comunicated continent, plus the rest occupied by minor civs (non playables) in smaller continents separated by ocean or deserts. These oversea land should also have some valuable natural resources/luxuries.
- Ideologies, revolutions and wars between political blocks need governments to be something more than a list of unrelated (even contradictory) bonus to pick like ingredients for a sandwich. The idea here is to have population basic units (denizens) with three identitarian parameters; Heritage, Belief and Class. These generate a synergy of events and decisions to gain your ideologies in a more natural and immersive way. Of course there would be diplomatic implications from all these, allowing to build alliance blocks for proxy, cold and world wars.

 

[Patine]

- Colonialism, for the 16th-19th colonialism we need a map that mimic historical geographic conditions. This mean have half the map for the main civs (playables) in a core comunicated continent, plus the rest occupied by minor civs (non playables) in smaller continents separated by ocean or deserts. These oversea land should also have some valuable natural resources/luxuries.

Have you looked at the list of civ's in Civ6, and the popular spread of civ's suggested on this sub-forum, including by yourself? I don't think such a scheme really makes sense. Plus, enshrining a, "guaranteed," colonial era with, "lesser," purely non-playable civ's solely there to conquer, exploit, and colonize is one of those things that will go over like a lead balloon.

 

[BuchiTaton]

Have you looked at the list of civ's in Civ6, and the popular spread of civ's suggested on this sub-forum, including by yourself? I don't think such a scheme really makes sense. Plus, enshrining a, "guaranteed," colonial era with, "lesser," purely non-playable civ's solely there to conquer, exploit, and colonize is one of those things that will go over like a lead balloon.

Care to explain each point?

 

[Evie]

I'm not saying I agree with the idea (it's a bastardization of history, not the reality of it - native populations were in many ways closer to mid-apocalyptic than so-called "primitive" - and the "wide open land" to colonize were wide open because mass die-off occured.), but I think there are a couple ways to make it work, if you make the minor civs" use either civs that are on the CS list, OR civs that are on the main playable civ list, but not actually in the current game. So all civs in the game can be "natives", but no civ in the game is reduced to only ever being natives.

 

[BuchiTaton]

I'm not saying I agree with the idea (it's a bastardization of history, not the reality of it - native populations were in many ways closer to mid-apocalyptic than so-called "primitive" - and the "wide open land" to colonize were wide open because mass die-off occured.), but I think there are a couple ways to make it work, if you make the minor civs" use either civs that are on the CS list, OR civs that are on the main playable civ list, but not actually in the current game. So all civs in the game can be "natives", but no civ in the game is reduced to only ever being natives.

OK, I guess something like this is the first point from @Patine (?)

Well the idea is to use non-playable "minor" civs that are a mix of CityStates+BarbarianClans. Should remind that I call these "minor civs" Nations to differentiate them from the playable Empires "major" civs (remeber like CIV use to say "X lead the Y empire"). Some of these Nations also appears in the core initial continent since the first era.

Now if there are people thinking the only "minor civs" to appear in these oversea new continents are historical ones, they are NOT. Nations could include ones like Norse or Elamite "minor" nations that as CS have already a place in CIV series and could appears in both "old" and "new" world. They are not differentiated in which of these continents they could appears, one game could be in "old world" and the next one in the "new world".

Consider that the "major" playable Empires also have a history in civ being adjusted to a very rigid model and very symetrical design between them, so there is as much difference between Sioux to Denmark as is between Denmark to England. Also the design is very WesternCentric (in advance this is logical and simple design desicion, Im not complaining about it) and in some degree every civ is adapted to that model. Then in the world of civ each new game you can have in the Ancient Era next ot each other the Inca, American and Chinese civilizations sharing hundred of centuries of technologies. So why whe should worry about an Inca colonial power (especially when Inca were imperialists) discovering an oversea Frisian native nations to trade or conquer?

 

[civilizationfanatic2000]

Have you looked at the list of civ's in Civ6, and the popular spread of civ's suggested on this sub-forum, including by yourself? I don't think such a scheme really makes sense. Plus, enshrining a, "guaranteed," colonial era with, "lesser," purely non-playable civ's solely there to conquer, exploit, and colonize is one of those things that will go over like a lead balloon.

a better solution is to have a map slightly more in depth and realistic so that the differences between New World and Old World civs can actually be explained to the audience as well as treated realistically. you could also have it so that every continent is on a 'eurasia' level of conductiveness to civilization. and colonization instead comes from a meteor hitting the 'new world' and really messing things up there (disasters idea) or something else.

 

[Patine]

OK, I guess something like this is the first point from @Patine (?)

Well the idea is to use non-playable "minor" civs that are a mix of CityStates+BarbarianClans. Should remind that I call these "minor civs" Nations to differentiate them from the playable Empires "major" civs (remeber like CIV use to say "X lead the Y empire"). Some of these Nations also appears in the core initial continent since the first era.

Now if there are people thinking the only "minor civs" to appear in these oversea new continents are historical ones, they are NOT. Nations could include ones like Norse or Elamite "minor" nations that as CS have already a place in CIV series and could appears in both "old" and "new" world. They are not differentiated in which of these continents they could appears, one game could be in "old world" and the next one in the "new world".

Consider that the "major" playable Empires also have a history in civ being adjusted to a very rigid model and very symetrical design between them, so there is as much difference between Sioux to Denmark as is between Denmark to England. Also the design is very WesternCentric (in advance this is logical and simple design desicion, Im not complaining about it) and in some degree every civ is adapted to that model. Then in the world of civ each new game you can have in the Ancient Era next ot each other the Inca, American and Chinese civilizations sharing hundred of centuries of technologies. So why whe should worry about an Inca colonial power (especially when Inca were imperialists) discovering an oversea Frisian native nations to trade or conquer?

So, arbitrarily saying certain civ's have different tiers of possible and achievable caps and motivation to advancement that are possible, and this is based on an artificial determination of the unfortunate way the dice rolled and the deck played in actual history (when history is supposed to be mutable in civ, as one of the game's charms)? It reeks of obsolete and odious notions of unequal development between human nationalities as being an inherent and ingrained thing, and would likely be torn apart - and rightfully so - in the modern market.

 

[BuchiTaton]

a better solution is to have a map slightly more in depth and realistic so that the differences between New World and Old World civs can actually be explained to the audience as well as treated realistically. you could also have it so that every continent is on a 'eurasia' level of conductiveness to civilization. and colonization instead comes from a meteor hitting the 'new world' and really messing things up there (disasters idea) or something else.

Yep something like this.
All the playable Empires (plus some non playable Nations) start on an "Old World" greater continent, then with the Renaissance Era techs (part of the western history based design) there are more isolated "New World" continents to expand populated by Nations (NOT limited to historical ones).

 

[Evie]

Essentially you're describing a Terra map but with minor civs/nations on the second continent.

And I think that's exactly the right use for this model: on a specific map script.

 

[BuchiTaton]

So, arbitrarily saying certain civ's have different tiers of possible and achievable caps and motivation to advancement that are possible, and this is based on an artificial determination of the unfortunate way the dice rolled and the deck played in actual history (when history is supposed to be mutable in civ, as one of the game's charms)? You probably couldn't make Thomas Malthus and Francis Galton more proud with the notion, but it would likely be torn apart - and rightfully so - in the modern market.

Wait what?

CIV have a long history having City States unable to become a main players with their own identity. Not forget Barbarian Clans that when you look to in-game info are explained to represent certain groups of historical peoples.
The "tiers" are already in CIV! And they also have a practical reason to be, it would be impossible for developers to allow all of these nations to be playable civs since that would need a lot of work, these "minor civs" are a way to even have some kind of representation of civs that would be very unlikely to be on game overshadowed by the regular picks.

Artificial Determination?
Then ask Firaxis why we have Classical >Medieval >Renaissance>Industrial Eras in the first place and civics like Colonialism fixed to an era, between many others things.

Smaller isolated continents, with a difficult geological distribution and lack of some biological resources vs a bigger communicated continent with available key resources should have not impact on the chances of a civ to be a main power?

I know the CIVs "no horses=restart" is exaggerated considering horses are animals that ideally should be possible to be propagated from a neighbor civ, BUT at least be a civ isolated many eras without horses should have some effect in the long term, shouldnt it?

 

[BuchiTaton]

Essentially you're describing a Terra map but with minor civs/nations on the second continent.

And I think that's exactly the right use for this model: on a specific map script.

Exactly.

By the way your previous idea of allow the "major" playable civs to be in some games as "minor" civs is also a good option. Actually it could be implemented nicely with the model of population with Heritage and their related unique Tradition to gain. So settlements with Chinese or Arab identity as "minor" civs could appears in either "old" or "new" continents.

 

[Patine]

Wait what?

CIV have a long history having City States unable to become a main players with their own identity. Not forget Barbarian Clans that when you look to in-game info are explained to represent certain groups of historical peoples.
The "tiers" are already in CIV! And they also have a practical reason to be, it would be impossible for developers to allow all of these nations to be playable civs since that would need a lot of work, these "minor civs" are a way to even have some kind of representation of civs that would be very unlikely to be on game overshadowed by the regular picks.

Artificial Determination?
Then ask Firaxis why we have Classical >Medieval >Renaissance>Industrial Eras in the first place and civics like Colonialism fixed to an era, between many others things.

Smaller isolated continents, with a difficult geological distribution and lack of some biological resources vs a bigger communicated continent with available key resources should have not impact on the chances of a civ to be a main power?

I know the CIVs "no horses=restart" is exaggerated considering horses are animals that ideally should be possible to be propagated from a neighbor civ, BUT at least be a civ isolated many eras without horses should have some effect in the long term, shouldnt it?

City-States are not typically conquered (as a rule), but courted as allies or for beneficiary vassals/protectectorates, at least in Civ6 (I don't know about Civ4 or Civ5, and the concept didn't exist in Civ1-3). Barbarians have always been kind of an abstract, not quite what you're referring to. What you're proposing sounds like revisiting the, "Indian Tribes," mechanic of Colonization. Unless there's something I'm misunderstanding that you have stated unclearly.

 

[civilizationfanatic2000]

The "tiers" are already in CIV! And they also have a practical reason to be, it would be impossible for developers to allow all of these nations to be playable civs since that would need a lot of work, these "minor civs" are a way to even have some kind of representation of civs that would be very unlikely to be on game overshadowed by the regular picks.

I have a way...but it's really radical

 

[BuchiTaton]

Its not hard to see protectorates pretty much as a collaborative form of imperialism, an asymmetric relationship some times facilitated by the rivalry between colonial powers. For the game CS could accept your suzeranity under different circunstances (I already used the example of trade as an interaction option NOT just conquest) included commercial and defensive pacts.

Anyway in game terms CS are second class entities incapables to achive "victory" like the playable civs, and Barbarian Clans mode gives names related to the different "tribes" in their Civilopedia entries. Meanwhile my proposed Nations system provide some advanteges:
- The vision of "Barbarians" as an indesirable threat to exterminate, is replaced by not necessarily urban but still recognizable and negotiable organized peoples.
- Like the BC mode they can found cities, and not only by the kindness of a playable civ like in BC but by their own circumstances.
- Each Nation can potentialy produce multiple cities.
- Nations like Empires would have their own Heritage (culture) and related unique Tradition (like bonus, unit, district, resource, etc.) avaible to gain from their integration.
This would bring "minor civs" (already CS+BC) closer to the status of the playable "main civs" in significance, interaction and flavor. But turn them into equal would require to be worked as a full regular civ something that is not viable for Firaxis.

We must remember that this topic came up from the representation of the Colonial Era, a period characterized by the modern model of oversea empires, covering different forms of interactions. In most CIV games and maps the "feeling" of an explosive expansion over distant lands is barely present when in previous eras you explore and expand in a constant rate to the point most of the map is already quite well populated with metropolies. A colonial feeling need a colonial world, even the historical massive impact of diseases (both introduced and endemic ones) would make sense only under a model of significative biogeographic limitations making possible to represent both deadly pandemics over isolated populations and endemic diseases as an isolating factor.

So the first half of the game your "old world" greater continent would be ballanced to provide all the basics for the playable CIV, then at middle game the "Age of Exploration" allows you to have new lands to explore and expand, NOT empty but at some points less crowded (like if for example Mesoamerica wasnt way more densely populated than Canada) with more variable geographic elements. Of course "minor civs" would be present in both "old" and "new" worlds and the identity of those would be variated and random, not limited to any historical region.

 

[civilizationfanatic2000]

Its not hard to see protectorates pretty much as a collaborative form of imperialism, an asymmetric relationship some times facilitated by the rivalry between colonial powers. For the game CS could accept your suzeranity under different circunstances (I already used the example of trade as an interaction option NOT just conquest) included commercial and defensive pacts.

Anyway in game terms CS are second class entities incapables to achive "victory" like the playable civs, and Barbarian Clans mode gives names related to the different "tribes" in their Civilopedia entries. Meanwhile my proposed Nations system provide some advanteges:
- The vision of "Barbarians" as an indesirable threat to exterminate, is replaced by not necessarily urban but still recognizable and negotiable organized peoples.
- Like the BC mode they can found cities, and not only by the kindness of a playable civ like in BC but by their own circumstances.
- Each Nation can potentialy produce multiple cities.
- Nations like Empires would have their own Heritage (culture) and related unique Tradition (like bonus, unit, district, resource, etc.) avaible to gain from their integration.
This would bring "minor civs" (already CS+BC) closer to the status of the playable "main civs" in significance, interaction and flavor. But turn them into equal would require to be worked as a full regular civ something that is not viable for Firaxis.

We must remember that this topic came up from the representation of the Colonial Era, a period characterized by the modern model of oversea empires, covering different forms of interactions. In most CIV games and maps the "feeling" of an explosive expansion over distant lands is barely present when in previous eras you explore and expand in a constant rate to the point most of the map is already quite well populated with metropolies. A colonial feeling need a colonial world, even the historical massive impact of diseases (both introduced and endemic ones) would make sense only under a model of significative biogeographic limitations making possible to represent both deadly pandemics over isolated populations and endemic diseases as an isolting factor.

YES! i love itr

 

[codacman]

More complex diplomacy with other civs, more advanced espionage system, more aggressive AI towards their winning conditions, more units, more difficult game in general with less exploits (like the trade for gold etc)