• We need to know your opinion about our social media accounts! Tell us here if you follow us on social media and what we could improve.

Little things you'd like to see in Civilization VII

You can still snowball in a tall victory by compounding your good decisions... So I don't think wide vs tall is the real dichotomy here...

The best solution I can think of would be to have the map expand woth each age, adding new civs on a roughly equal power level to the player... But I don't think that would feel much loke cov any more.... So maybe it's not a good problem to try and fix?
 
You can still snowball in a tall victory by compounding your good decisions... So I don't think wide vs tall is the real dichotomy here...

The best solution I can think of would be to have the map expand woth each age, adding new civs on a roughly equal power level to the player... But I don't think that would feel much loke cov any more.... So maybe it's not a good problem to try and fix?




The problem is that civilizations begin in the same epoch, first they should start on different continents then larger maps, then civilizations separate : United states, South America, or unite, Germany, Italy, or change government, or create new states, post-colonial africa. Do you know that Simpsons episode where a civilization is accidentally created? The right principle and that!
 
The best solution I can think of would be to have the map expand woth each age, adding new civs on a roughly equal power level to the player...
That is quite the complicated and far-impacting solution to a simple problem.

Snowballing to some degree is inevitable but it can be mitigated quite well with expansion-checking mechanics like corruption. There can also be mechanics that don’t punish expanders but rather help those lagging behind to catch up. I do think random events have a role in civ games because they’re fun to some people (like myself) and help contribute to the emergent storytelling of your game.
 
That is quite the complicated and far-impacting solution to a simple problem.

Snowballing to some degree is inevitable but it can be mitigated quite well with expansion-checking mechanics like corruption. There can also be mechanics that don’t punish expanders but rather help those lagging behind to catch up. I do think random events have a role in civ games because they’re fun to some people (like myself) and help contribute to the emergent storytelling of your game.
I agree that it's not a good idea, more trying to think about how far you could go if you wanted to really try and tackle it...

Random events depend on how significant they are... As long as they aren't too hugely impactful I think they work...
 
I agree that it's not a good idea, more trying to think about how far you could go if you wanted to really try and tackle it...

Random events depend on how significant they are... As long as they aren't too hugely impactful I think they work...




Yes, but some events are inevitable and create, consequences, a small glaciation to favored the barbarian invasions , the Huns pushed the other barbarian populations to the west, helping the decay of the west , a tsunami helped stop the Mongols in the invasion of Japan
 
Huns pushed the other barbarian populations to the west, helping the decay of the west , a tsunami helped stop the Mongols in the invasion of Japan
We literally have both of those things already. Barbarians are in the game and so are storm natural disasters. (the Japanese bit history you’re referring to involved a typhoon not a tsunami)

Those things can happen randomly and influence the game. That’s better than having some scripted event force it, which seems pretty hokey to me. It’s just kinda silly to expect civ to be so absolutely on-the-nose about historical events.
 
It would be always easy to goes around overexpansion rules if their parameters are unidirectional and apply to anyone in the same magnitude.
If the player is forced to take decisions that affect in both positive and negative ways to different groups in addition that those choices could be adverse in the long term the game would be more dynamic and flavorous.
Governments, civics and policies are so detached from anything resembling a narrative and personalized empire. The pure acumulation of increasing better bonus from gratuitous and even contraditory social reforms without any negative side are a fest for autopilot gameplay.

The struggle between social castes like Labourers, Warriors, Scholars, Clerics, Merchants and Artisians, or between the different religious and ethnic groups. The distribution of taxes, the political privileges, the status of cities as states, provinces, colonies vassals, protectorates and client states. Give preference to one noble family, tribal clan, militar branch, religious order, ministry or corporation over another should affect their loyalty and corruption.

So if we stop having an unidirectional gemeplay were you can make everyone happy and ideologies are only stacking of bonus, then we could have a less predictable game.

The best part is that these decisions comes from players actions, there are not random factors beyond the traditonal world generation and some times the small disasters events we also already have.
 
Last edited:
Responding to all . . .

Random Events leading to a gamer-managed (or Mis-Managed) change of direction immediately reminded me of the Civ V mod "Events and Decisions", which was, as I remember (we're talking about 6 years ago here) an attempt to get random events similar to those in EU into a Civ game.
Basically, there were a series of Random Events, divided into Religious Events, Core Events, and Civ Events. Some Events were peculiar to each individual Civ, so if you were playing, say, Arabia, you did not get the same events that Russia got.

In every Event case, you had a set of decisions to make, and what you decided to do gave a different outcome.

As I remember, the results of some decisions could appear to be neutral or negative or positive, but turn out very different in the Long Run. Some opened up certain Buildings, added mercenary soldiers, changed the Happiness/Loyalty level of parts of the population, etc.

In other words, this mechanic, properly developed, could change a great deal of how your Civilization is operating within the game, and while the initial Event might be largely Random, the actual Effect it had was dependent on the gamer's own actions. This, it seems to me, is a much, much better way to introduce 'negative' or anti-Steam-rolling effects into the game. How can you complain that the game randomly shot your perfect game plan to bits if the shooting was directed by your own decision?
 
It would be always easy to goes around overexpansion rules if their parameters are unidirectional and apply to anyone in the same magnitude.
If the player is forced to take decisions that affect in both positive and negative ways to different groups in addition that those choices could be adverse in the long term the game would be more dynamic and flavorous.
Governments, civics and policies are so detached from anything resembling a narrative and personalized empire. The pure acumulation of increasing better bonus from gratuitous and even contraditory social reforms without any negative side are a fest for autopilot gameplay.

The struggle between social castes like Labourers, Warriors, Scholars, Clerics, Merchants and Artisians, or between the different religious and ethnic groups. The distribution of taxes, the political privileges, the status of cities as states, provinces, colonies vassals, protectorates and client states. Give preference to one noble family, tribal clan, militar branch, religious order, ministry or corporation over another should affect their loyalty and corruption.

So if we stop having an unidirectional gemeplay were you can make everyone happy and ideologies are only stacking of bonus, then we could have a less predictable game.

The best part is that these decisions comes from players actions, there are not random factors beyond the traditonal world generation and some times the small disasters events we also already have.



I agree to put more politics and ideology into the game , revolutions, must and can, be simulated, for example cause and effect, or more factors, bankruptcy, wars, parasitic nobility contributed to the French revolution , war, hunger and wrong policy, and workers ' revolts contributed to the February revolution in Russia, and just a matter of simulation, AI, and a die from the different combinations
 
While I'm wary of your (BuchiTaton)'s population/economic model, as it seems to have a high level of minutiae, and I feel could probably be simplified to a more civ like level, I think the general idea of advancing at a cost is the most promising idea put forward so far. It has limits in its implementation (a good player is going to be able to plan ahead for the decisions and limit their impact, though not negate it entirely), the adoption of a new way of doing things should first come at the expanse of the old, and many past investment would have to be sacrificed in order to unlock the potential of new advances. A population model could certain be part of that, if perhaps a somewhat simplified one compared to your suggestions.

Making change (progress, from certain point of views) come at the cost of a struggle to adapt may be the best way to introduce setbacks in the game.
 
Definitely, any chance to simplify the mechanics should be considered.

I must clarify that some aspects are not mean to be as complex as they could seem, for example:
* Despite have population as a core mechanic the purpose is not to make the game into a management simulator. Population would be a logical way to link and interact for most of game's elements, notably justifying ideological changes. Additionally an expansive empire would need to deal with the complications of manage not only a more extense territory but also a more diverse and complex population, working as a natural way to moderate wide gameplay.
* The decision events are not supposed to be happening every turn, neither be random. These events can be showed in a list of missions with their trigger conditions, so player can work to try to achieve (or avoid) them. Of course some events (your decisions) could link to others in a natural chain of events and in their base some are random-world-generation and disaster dependant.
One of the objetives here is to have less but more significative and narratively justified ideological changes. The current civic/policies system feel really soules as a second "tech tree" to acumulate small bonus, unidirectional without real choices with pros and cons and no mechanical differences in how each ideology affects your empire.
* Simplification and "CIV-ication" are main directives that I am not sure of fully achieve but still try to. One example are the denizens classes, I ended reducing them to only 6 that are mean to cover both traditional CIV aspects and main historical groups, so Labourers are "non-specialist" that work in Food and Production, Artisans emphasized in the artistic aspect as both crafters and performancers creators of popular-identitarian culture, Clerics since religion is too relevant, Scholars for science, Merchants for economy and trade, and Warriors for most militar units.
At some point others groups like separated nobility, farmers or industrial workers were considered but for sake of simplicity those were the only groups.

By the way many tedious and redundant aspects of current civ model could be simplified like the worker, militar engineer, the many kind of artists and many others civilian units, even the whole combat system is now a annoying mess not only for realism but also gameplay and performance.
 
Definitely, any chance to simplify the mechanics should be considered.

I must clarify that some aspects are not mean to be as complex as they could seem, for example:
* Despite have population as a core mechanic the purpose is not to make the game into a management simulator. Population would be a logical way to link and interact for most of game's elements, notably justifying ideological changes. Additionally an expansive empire would need to deal with the complications of manage not only a more extense territory but also a more diverse and complex population, working as a natural way to moderate wide gameplay.
* The decision events are not supposed to be happening every turn, neither be random. These events can be showed in a list of missions with their trigger conditions, so player can work to try to achieve (or avoid) them. Of course some events (your decisions) could link to others in a natural chain of events and in their base some are random-world-generation and disaster dependant.
One of the objetives here is to have less but more significative and narratively justified ideological changes. The current civic/policies system feel really soules as a second "tech tree" to acumulate small bonus, unidirectional without real choices with pros and cons and no mechanical differences in how each ideology affects your empire.
* Simplification and "CIV-ication" are main directives that I am not sure of fully achieve but still try to. One example are the denizens classes, I ended reducing them to only 6 that are mean to cover both traditional CIV aspects and main historical groups, so Labourers are "non-specialist" that work in Food and Production, Artisans emphasized in the artistic aspect as both crafters and performancers creators of popular-identitarian culture, Clerics since religion is too relevant, Scholars for science, Merchants for economy and trade, and Warriors for most militar units.
At some point others groups like separated nobility, farmers or industrial workers were considered but for sake of simplicity those were the only groups.

By the way many tedious and redundant aspects of current civ model could be simplified like the worker, militar engineer, the many kind of artists and many others civilian units, even the whole combat system is now a annoying mess not only for realism but also gameplay and performance.
A possible solution would be to be able to create other cities under certain conditions, technological, building materials, productive, population this could limit the expansion, from the point of view of expansion for. Ancient age as a limit, then there are politics, le. Revolutions, the splits, in ancient Greece the expansion towards my land , Sicily and was dictated economic, political, and social motives, similarly, the foundation of the colonies of North America , the mayflower
 
A possible solution would be to be able to create other cities under certain conditions, technological, building materials, productive, population this could limit the expansion, from the point of view of expansion for. Ancient age as a limit, then there are politics, le. Revolutions, the splits, in ancient Greece the expansion towards my land , Sicily and was dictated economic, political, and social motives, similarly, the foundation of the colonies of North America , the mayflower
Why does your state have to be an empire ? it can be limited like Switzerland , maybe rich, like Lichtenstein , or an average country like , Albania , or be a large state , and end up as a state, small or medium!
 
Why does your state have to be an empire ? it can be limited like Switzerland , maybe rich, like Lichtenstein , or an average country like , Albania , or be a large state , and end up as a state, small or medium!
This is already the case though…you’re free to settle as few cities as you want.
 
A state of small size as a city, like Austria from empire to territorially limited state
 
I’m not entirely sure what clarity that is adding. You can already do that in the game.
 
Why does your state have to be an empire ? it can be limited like Switzerland , maybe rich, like Lichtenstein , or an average country like , Albania , or be a large state , and end up as a state, small or medium!
Part of the answer lies in the manual for Civ1, where Sid wrote, "You are challenged in Civilization to build an empire that stands the test of time." In the first two games in the franchise, the only victory conditions were Conquest and Space. Empire was an integral part of the game.

With the additional VC's in later games, it became possible to win an OCC (One City Challenge) or a 5CC (Five City Challenge). Many people won games of Civ5 with only 4 cities; trying to win a 5CC game in any of Civ3/4/5/6 would be emulating Switzerland or Albania from real life. I used to make a joke -- "Building a civilization with only 4 cities is not an empire to stand the test of time... it's Ohio!"

The challenge for game design -- in the 4X genre -- is to choose mechanics and victory conditions so that it's both *possible* to win the game with 4 cities but also *fun* to win the game with only 4 cities.

Luca, you clearly want to see a game that goes beyond "empire" as a goal, even though building a large empire has been part of the Civ franchise's core mechanics in every iteration. I hope that you get to play a game that fulfills your dream.
 
Part of the answer lies in the manual for Civ1, where Sid wrote, "You are challenged in Civilization to build an empire that stands the test of time." In the first two games in the franchise, the only victory conditions were Conquest and Space. Empire was an integral part of the game.

With the additional VC's in later games, it became possible to win an OCC (One City Challenge) or a 5CC (Five City Challenge). Many people won games of Civ5 with only 4 cities; trying to win a 5CC game in any of Civ3/4/5/6 would be emulating Switzerland or Albania from real life. I used to make a joke -- "Building a civilization with only 4 cities is not an empire to stand the test of time... it's Ohio!"
Both a friend of mine I visually observed playing on a computer in the same room, and myself, won a Space Race with three cities several times in Civ2. I've seen mention of a Civ2 OCC with a Space Race. Self-handicapping to a tiny number of citiies and the possibility of victory did not start with Civ3. I'm just saying.
 
Part of the answer lies in the manual for Civ1, where Sid wrote, "You are challenged in Civilization to build an empire that stands the test of time." In the first two games in the franchise, the only victory conditions were Conquest and Space. Empire was an integral part of the game.

With the additional VC's in later games, it became possible to win an OCC (One City Challenge) or a 5CC (Five City Challenge). Many people won games of Civ5 with only 4 cities; trying to win a 5CC game in any of Civ3/4/5/6 would be emulating Switzerland or Albania from real life. I used to make a joke -- "Building a civilization with only 4 cities is not an empire to stand the test of time... it's Ohio!"

The challenge for game design -- in the 4X genre -- is to choose mechanics and victory conditions so that it's both *possible* to win the game with 4 cities but also *fun* to win the game with only 4 cities.

Luca, you clearly want to see a game that goes beyond "empire" as a goal, even though building a large empire has been part of the Civ franchise's core mechanics in every iteration. I hope that you get to play a game that fulfills your dream.




The rise and fall of civilization is not foreseen in any civ, you can also win with a few cities but at the price of wars and tributes , I propose a possible state like Lichtenstain or Switzerland small but rich enough to influence and be left alone I also repeat the history of Austria and a good example : even if invaded by Hitler and was then returned , Bavaria in the 19 century and another example of a surviving state, even if then absorbed by Prussia,: a customs union should also be created like Prussia , and peaceful annexation as a possibility
 
* Simplification and "CIV-ication" are main directives that I am not sure of fully achieve but still try to. One example are the denizens classes, I ended reducing them to only 6 that are mean to cover both traditional CIV aspects and main historical groups, so Labourers are "non-specialist" that work in Food and Production, Artisans emphasized in the artistic aspect as both crafters and performancers creators of popular-identitarian culture, Clerics since religion is too relevant, Scholars for science, Merchants for economy and trade, and Warriors for most militar units.
Some of the denizen classes that you mentioned I believe shouldn't be pigeonholed into one yield. Scholars I could see producing both science and culture, similar to what Pingala does.
 
Top Bottom