Little things you'd like to see in Civilization VII

[civilizationfanatic2000]

But I mean... would cities be displayed like now, owning tiles around it and citizens working them ?

display of cities

cities get displayed like in EU4. so do towns and villages, all the way down to 3 huts in the middle of nowhere. separate this into tiers that can be toggled off and on to display empty tiles when you need them.

owning tiles around it, citizens work them

the first part is to calculate the population of the tile. all of it. then, count their occupations. their religion(s), their age distribution, their class distribution, their gender distribution (also use this to calculate manpower).

simulate the transport of food (and other things) to the city, because no city is self sustaining. every city automatically generates farmland around it that could be consumed by other projects, or by the expanding city. only when transportation tech level 8 (railroads) and agriculture level 6 (metal plows, drill plows, fertilizer) is reached can you have farmland separate from cities. like thousands of kilometers level of separate.

from the principles used here, use this to build an economy system as well as many other systems.

player control

what do players have control over? the more structured and centralized the polity is, the more they can do through acting through a leader. however, these actions are big, and have a good amount of risk to them. another alternative is to decentralize the polity, so the player may act from below. smaller, but much less risky actions. also, more things are automated.

call this dichotomy Big Actions vs Small Actions

the player must balance between controlling the masses and a select few individuals.

 

[civilizationfanatic2000]

before you think this is crazy: if 20 amateurs can make MEIOU AND TAXES, which blows these mechanics out of the water in terms of depth, then so can Firaxis.

 

[Naokaukodem]

I'm not familiar with Europa Universalis 4... at all. But from what you describe, it could go away too much from Civ, I mean the "pushing units" philosophy. In another way, it's one of my ideas too, although I didn't determinate how citizens would work. (because I have no clue) By the "pushing unit" philosophy, I however would still like the player, although citizens are not units per se (but could become, see my sig) be able to assignate 1 pop (or up to 3 ?) to 1 tile or location. Mines that deplete seems an idea, but we could assume that in Civ, one mine correspond to a range of rich hills which get depleted successively to a point there's no need of more until the end of the game, athough that seems a bit of a stretch. Every mine could deplete sometimes, I mean entire regions that tiles are supposed to represent. Something to dig ( ) maybe.

 

[Patine]

Even Americas is a generalization. Despite the massive mortality from conquest and disease the native population of New Spain was always more numerous than Criollos, Mestizos and Africans combined. By the start of Mexican War of Independence the last Spanish census reported >60% of the population as natives that did NOT speak Spanish.
An ignored fact is that once independent from Spain most Latin American governments implemented policies of land dispossession and forced acculturation in the name of "national unity" and "social progress" in the best cases, to plain genocide in the worse. Also remember the significative immigration from Europe (also some from Asia) at middle 19th to early 20th century that sped up the dissolution of the native element. Finally the fast urbanization of Latin America in 20th-21th century pushed most natives to look for opportunities in the big cities were their identity disappear under a discriminatory system.

Still the ideologies of the imperialist powers have a role here. For example Latin rule was definitely racist, but in a way that facilitated the mixing of the different castes, these played a role were the mixed population tended to identify themselves with the more priviliged ancestry. Meanwhile Germanic rule used to be more segregationist ironically helping to keep the native identity. So is not strange that for example the Phillippines colonized by Spain have more ethinic and cultural colonial legacy than the SEA nations "colonized" by Netherlands or UK. Or also remember that Spain was obsessed about the conversion to catholicism of the local population, obviously turning more defensive such populations. Meanwhile others like English and Dutch achieved local cooperation by keeping distance from religious affairs.

I still feel strongly this is territory that is unmarketable. I'm really surprised none of you can see why. But I am without a shadow of a doubt certain it will be transparent to a Firaxis marketing department, and CERTAINLY to those who buy and review such a game. You can jazz it up all you want with, "anonymous, fictional lesser nations," - it's still blatantly transparent for what it is, and far exceeds what the City-States and Barbarian mechaniics already cover. Civ might have gotten away with it in the '90's, but probably not today.

And, to boot, GS and it's disaster mechanics was just sheer obnoxiouness, and I'm not nearly alone in believing that. Having rampant disease wipe-out vast populations, and the even bigger capitalization on disasters that @civilizationfanatic2000 seems hung up on, I believe will only diminish and hurt, not enhance, a gameplay experience.

 

[BuchiTaton]

Humankind already have CS like "minor civs" called Independent People these are even classified as Violent or Paceful and they have specific identies like for example Mississipian, Thai and Yoruba on the "violent" type and there is NO controverys about it.

How is my suggestion worse than base CIV6 encouraging "barbarian" genocide or the game allowing you to conquer and raze a city state like for example LaVenta?
My suggestion include the elimination of this concept of "barbarian" and a system that impede blatant genocide plus reward more friendly relations with the ALREADY ON GAME "minor civs". The identity of these CIV6s "minor civs" is either evident (CS names) or veiled (BC civilopedia) while my suggestion want to give them unique bonus unlocked by the incoporation of these Nations to your Empire (and is NOT only by direct conquest, protectorates, puppet or even "client states" by immigration, trade and diplomacy still are modern ways empires put smaller nations under their sphere of incluence for their geopolitical interests).

I am suggesting a system were these "minor civs" would have more value, deeper represetation and interactions closer to the regular playable civs at a level never seen before in CIV series. But that somehow is "unmarketable"?!

Also why ignore the part I clearly said...

Diseases is one of the concepts that are historicaly very significative but hard to incorporate in game, since would need a system to simulate pandemics/endemics and immunity. Also, it should be a relevant threat but in a way that the player should be able to manage in some way.

My suggested abstraction of clear geographic barriers was also to ease the need to portrait diseases with a whole mechanic, and to give historical context that justify the asymmetric conditions of "new world" continents.
The later point about Ideologies spread was a "two birds with one stone" opportunity in case disease still could be implemented in some way, how relevant these diseases would be in-game is matter of ballance but their addition would be cheaper and easier if this system is used for Ideologies anyway.

 

[Patine]

My suggested abstraction of clear geographic barriers was also to ease the need to portrait diseases with a whole mechanic, and to give historical context that justify the asymmetric conditions of "new world" continents.

Asymetical conditions tied to affairs and circumstances in real history, tragically, but should not be mandated or built into the mechanics of a game where ALTERNATE history is a central feature. Something I used to criticize @luca 83 about, though he was, admittedly, portrayed a much more chained to the real timeline view. There is no need - or benefit - from a built-in, asymetical, "New World," mechanic populated by minor nations with artificially stunted development, and THAT is where I foresee the inevitable controversy. Not just in the City-State-style mechanic in Civ6 or Humankind, as they are, alone. Am I clear, here?

 

[BuchiTaton]

As @Evie already pointed CIV6's Terra map that portraits two massive contienents, the "old world" with all the playable civs and a second "new world" with CS. Still seems like nobody think this is "problematic" in politics terms. The real issues with CIV6 Terra map are all about how whole game works like:

- The lack of space in the "old world" for playable civs, that is result of the reduced size of maps in CIV6 plus the district system that cram the avaible tiles.​

- AI is not realy well programmed to settle the "new world".​

- Lack of luxury resources reserved for the "new world" as motivation to claim them.​

In fact this Terra map is different from my suggestion since I want various smaller contienents in a way that is:

- More ballanced for the players in the "old world" since there are more directions to find new lands.​

- Being smaller these continets justify the lack of "main" civs, since the whole set of resources would be incomplete and limited (this is under the idea CIV7 maps are bigger).​

Just think about it, if playable civs are allowed in these continents without resources like horses, would this be ballanced?
There is not need to put a playable civs there just to let be down.

By the way this highlights another absurd element of CIV. Most tech being reserched by every civ by their own. Usualy this didnt work like this in real history. Before recent time most technologies arose in few places and then propagated in a more organic way by trade networks and conquest, actual instituted research is a very modern thing and diplomatic share was more occasional. That real and common propagation of knowledge by proximity and trade is another reason why the top historical world powers are from Eurasia+NorthAfrica. So a more realistic early technology advance system would also make pretty obvious why be in an isolated region play against those civs.
From the traditional way civs portrait research its reforced a false notions that every civ reached contemporary levels of development just by themselves in chosen isolation (like you can do in CIV) and that could be seen as "controversial" for some people.

 

[Patine]

As @Evie already pointed CIV6's Terra map that portraits two massive contienents, the "old world" with all the playable civs and a second "new world" with CS. Still seems like nobody think this is "problematic" in politics terms. The real issues with CIV6 Terra map are all about how whole game works like:

- The lack of space in the "old world" for playable civs, that is result of the reduced size of maps in CIV6 plus the district system that cram the avaible tiles.​

- AI is not realy well programmed to settle the "new world".​

- Lack of luxury resources reserved for the "new world" as motivation to claim them.​

In fact this Terra map is different from my suggestion since I want various smaller contienents in a way that is:

- More ballanced for the players in the "old world" since there are more directions to find new lands.​

- Being smaller these continets justify the lack of "main" civs, since the whole set of resources would be incomplete and limited (this is under the idea CIV7 maps are bigger).​

Just think about it, if playable civs are allowed in these continents without resources like horses, would this be ballanced?
There is not need to put a playable civs there just to let be down.

I don't think my point is being grasped here. What you're proposing goes beyond a simple map script, among many, which uses the already present city-state mechanic as is. What you seem to be proposing is much more integrally involved with the issue - and the problems - of the colonial era, and expecting the same lack of criticism as a simple map script on a menu is proabably highly naive, especially in today's zeitgeist.

 

[jsciv69]

Realistic time pace and more accurate starting date.

As we know from History, most of the planet was reached by roughly 10,000 years ago. Camps became towns. Towns became cities. A starting point of 8000-6000 BCE might be more historically accurate.
The time pace of the Ancient to Industrial Eras seemed very rushed in Civ VI. I think we an accept a more gradual pace. Say no more than 10 years per turn up to the Industrial Era. Then change to a slower pace heading to the Modern Era's.

 

[vorlon_mi]

I love building an *empire*, not just a collection of cities. That was my main objection to Civ5; one of the most-recommended and most-often-used strategies was to found only 3 or 4 cities. I would like to see all 4 of the "X" in 4X games be enhanced.

My wishes for little things in Civ7 include ability to trade lots of things: techs as well as resources, maps, as well as all the things that we can trade now. I'd like the ability to build roads with workers/builders, starting in the ancient age. Think of new/innovative ways to grow my empire... add those.

In the earlier Civ games, which were primarily single player games, the game included an opponent who was not trying to win, but was always at war with the human player. This opponent was intended as a challenge, a somewhat random barrier to overcome. As a game concept, I'm okay with that. Calling that opponent the "barbarians", meaning a group of violent actors not associated with a playable civ... I'm probably okay with that, too. Calling these groups "hostiles", or "renegades", or some other term might be useful. In the game, they represent a "kill or be killed" group; I don't consider it genocide to defeat them when they attack.

I would rather see them remain anonymous, rather than associate them with any historical group. These opponents will attack at any time; citizens of AI-led civs, human-led civs, or city-states (whatever form they take), none of them are safe. The in-game purpose of this opponent is to provide some challenge or risk for a player, before any of the playable civs have had a chance to become a threat. As we observed in nearly all the games in the franchise, this mechanic becomes much less important as more and more land is claimed by the larger civs. That's OK. They have served their purpose. I am less interested in having them linked to anything historical.

I would like to see Civ7 continue the path which Civ6 took, to include many playable civs, as well as the path that Civ4 began, to include multiple leaders for playable civs. In the Leader Pack, Civ6 also moved in this direction.

 

[tehart]

1. Israel as a playable civilization.
2. Changes in strategic resources. Copper should be strategic during the Bronze Age. Rare earths should be strategic in the Information Age or earlier.
3. Expand the buildings in districts. Some mods already do that. Buy the rights, and incorporate the mods.
4. The modes don't really do much. There is no penalty for attacking someone in the same secret society, for example. The monopoly and corporation mode doesn't affect victory.
5. I find the premise of GS really bad. Nuclear power reactors are a lot safer in real life than in the game. Even coal plants can be cleaner than portrayed in the game. Solar and wind power have vulnerabilities that are not even noticed in the game. For example, they don't work well, cause damage to birds and seagoing mammals (whales). The good parts are the technologies and some of the units, but military units really should go past Modern Armor.
6. Some of the leaders need to be replaced, or modified. Gorgo is unimportant. She gets a line or two in Herodotus, but that's it. Replace her with Leonidas. Dido is largely the creation of Vergil. Replace her with Hannibal. Eleanor of Aquitaine should be replaced with Henry II (for England), and whoever her French husband was.

 

[Patine]

1. Israel as a playable civilization.

I'd say Judea (the Hasamoneans, probably, MAYBE Herod, even though he was a vassal of the Romans, he's still quite fascinating in his own right) could work, but not the Kingdom of Israel (hard historical information is difficult to separate from Scripture, and thus it suffers from other civ's and leaders I've termed, "mythologized), and not modern Israel, as that's a real nasty can of contentious worms, and civ's that only exist in such a recent timeframe (20th and 21st Century only) should be avoided for anyone.

 

[civilizationfanatic2000]

Asymetical conditions tied to affairs and circumstances in real history, tragically, but should not be mandated or built into the mechanics of a game where ALTERNATE history is a central feature. Something I used to criticize @luca 83 about, though he was, admittedly, portrayed a much more chained to the real timeline view. There is no need - or benefit - from a built-in, asymetical, "New World," mechanic populated by minor nations with artificially stunted development, and THAT is where I foresee the inevitable controversy. Not just in the City-State-style mechanic in Civ6 or Humankind, as they are, alone. Am I clear, here?

would you accept assymetrical conditions rising from an in-depth simulation of geography?

for instance, if CIV 7 had the most in-depth and realistic planet simulation (plates, koppen climates, wind, water currents, axial tilt, ice age, rock formation, soil, etc) and from that you would have more and less optimal places to raise a civilization?

i disagree that some civs should be unplayable. All civs should be playable. Those that could exist and those that did.

 

[Lonecat Nekophrodite]

I'd say Judea (the Hasamoneans, probably, MAYBE Herod, even though he was a vassal of the Romans, he's still quite fascinating in his own right) could work, but not the Kingdom of Israel (hard historical information is difficult to separate from Scripture, and thus it suffers from other civ's and leaders I've termed, "mythologized), and not modern Israel, as that's a real nasty can of contentious worms, and civ's that only exist in such a recent timeframe (20th and 21st Century only) should be avoided for anyone.

Herod is a very bad bad leader.
I'd go for Solomon the Wiseman.

 

[jsciv69]

Herod is a very bad bad leader.
I'd go for Solomon the Wiseman.

With King Solomon you can have Harems. And since he, according to the story, built temples for the different gods his people worshipped. The freedom of worship can be part of his rep.

 

[Patine]

Herod is a very bad bad leader.
I'd go for Solomon the Wiseman.

With King Solomon you can have Harems. And since he, according to the story, built temples for the different gods his people worshipped. The freedom of worship can be part of his rep.

Again, it's very difficult to separate historical fact from Scripture. We know next to nothing, in hard recorded fact from contemporary sources, about him in the former way.

 

[Patine]

would you accept assymetrical conditions rising from an in-depth simulation of geography?

for instance, if CIV 7 had the most in-depth and realistic planet simulation (plates, koppen climates, wind, water currents, axial tilt, ice age, rock formation, soil, etc) and from that you would have more and less optimal places to raise a civilization?

I don't see how such a mechanic would be of any benefit, and only arbitrary detriment, to a Civ iteration.

 

[civilizationfanatic2000]

I don't see how such a mechanic would be of any benefit, and only arbitrary detriment, to a Civ iteration.

Explain why you think that.

 

[Bonyduck Campersang]

1. Israel as a playable civilization

There's another thread for talking about civilizations you'd want to see in Civ7

 

[luca 83]

Asymetical conditions tied to affairs and circumstances in real history, tragically, but should not be mandated or built into the mechanics of a game where ALTERNATE history is a central feature. Something I used to criticize @luca 83 about, though he was, admittedly, portrayed a much more chained to the real timeline view. There is no need - or benefit - from a built-in, asymetical, "New World," mechanic populated by minor nations with artificially stunted development, and THAT is where I foresee the inevitable controversy. Not just in the City-State-style mechanic in Civ6 or Humankind, as they are, alone. Am I clear, here?

What you still don't understand is that you don't have to simulate events but conditions: can colonies rebel under certain conditions? Can an empire collapse without invasions? Under what conditions? Or a set of political, military, religious factors. Here serves a very good ai and historical work