matros
Chieftain
Spoiler :
Before I start with ideas on specific areas of the game, I want to say something up-front: Some of you might say that the changes are not "ambitious" enough and I do not propose Civ6, but merely a Civ4.5. And maybe you are right
I think Civ4 is the game which got the most things right and I took the most inspiration from it. But I am not shy to take ideas from later games (Civ5 or CivBE) or other franchises (HoMaM), where I feel like it can improve the game. I think that Civ6 does not need to reinvent the wheel in all areas. Instead, it can (and should) take inspiration from previous games in cases where the system works. Feel free to disagree in the comments Also, I have not covered all possible topics in maximum detail. Feel free to comment below on what you think might improve the proposal
The Basics
- Map: When the hex map was introduced in Civ5, I didn't like the change very much initially, but I must admit it grew on me. Both systems (squares/hexes) have their pros and cons but I think hexes work a little better overall. It works better from strategic point of view and also helps make the map feel more organic and realistic. Also, I think the 3 tile radius for cities works just fine. Natural wonders are a great addition to the game (but are not super important) and I would like to keep them.
- Civics/Policies: I propose a system which is a hybrid between civics and policies. You would have let say 4 basic civic options (let call these government, focus, economy and ideology) - in each you can choose only one option (civic). For example, under the government civic, you could be a monarchy, a republic or an empire. Under focus civic, you can focus on trade, religion, science or culture (or exploration?). Under economy civic, you can have slavery, feudalism, free market or socialism. Under ideology, you can focus on freedom, order or autocracy (yes, like Civ5). Civics will become available via progression in the technology tree. You can then purchase (with culture) individual policies under these civics which give you more bonuses. But, if you are a republic, you can only purchase republic policies (i.e. not monarchy/empire civics). You can revolt in which case, you would lose a portion (e.g. 5%) of the culture invested in the `respective civic. Under such system, you need to actually think about which civic to choose bad decisions (or change of circumstances) can be remedied by switching later, but not without cost.
- Health and Happiness: Yes, I propose to go back to health/happiness system as in Civ4 (see also the section on resources). I know some of you will argue that in Civ4 the health and luxury resources and their associated health/happiness systems were basically the same things. In all honesty, I don't mind that. I think it is a good thing if the game forces you to balance more than one variable (i.e. you need to watch your health as well as happiness). Local or global? Both have their pros and cons, but I tend to incline towards a global system (similar to Civ5/BE). Going negative should lead to penalties (e.g. minus growth and production for negative health and minus ideas and gold for negative happiness) and if you stay negative for a long time, there should be a gradually increasing chance of a disaster with significant consequences (e.g. city revolting/empire split for negative happiness and plague/epidemic for negative health). Negative happiness/health could perhaps also influence your military negatively? On the other hand, both positive health and happiness should give you points towards golden ages (as in Civ5). This way, you could go negative for a while when you need it, but it should not be a viable strategy long-term.
- Quests/Events: I think that having quests and/or random events is not the most important feature but it can certainly add some flavour to the game. I like how quests are implemented in CivBE and would like if a similar system (including building quests) is included in Civ6.
Civs/Leaders
- Civs/Leaders: I might be in a minority here, but I loved how Civ4 had 2-3 leaders for some civs and I would rather see 20 civs with two leaders each than 40 civs. Otherwise, there is nothing revolutionary in my proposed system - each civ would have 3 unique things: one building, one unit and one special ability (Civ5 style). In addition, each leader would have 2 (or 3?) traits (Civ4 style) i.e. some kind of bonus to military, growth, science, culture, etc
(which should also affect diplomacy, see below) Of course, the Achilles' heel of such system is the balance and it probably wouldn't be perfect on launch day, but given time, I think it would work fine.
- Minor civs: I love the idea of city states, but think the implementation in Civ5 was terrible. Thus, I would not include them at all. Instead, I would like to enhance the role of barbarians. Various tribes should have various "flavours" (e.g. native American, Asian, European, etc.) and unique units. They should have their own cities also be able to conquer cities. Perhaps, you could also have some limited diplomacy/trading options towards them, so they are not "always war" with you? Spreading your religion to these barbarian tribes could be a good way how to make them less hostile and eventually friendly enough to join your empire
and would make the religion in early game much more interesting.
- Diplomacy basics: I think that the system of Civ4 could be the base on which a solid basic diplomacy system could be built. I strongly believe that the game needs to show you very clearly how other leaders feel about you and why (i.e. I hated the original Civ5 system in which everything was hidden). I also think it is perfectly ok (and realistic) if civs which are more alike are also more friendly towards each other. Thus, you should get positive attitude points for things like common religion, similar civics, common trade, helping each other in peace or war, etc. Each aspect should have a base point value (e.g. common religion equals to +5 points), which could be tweaked based on the traits of the leader (if it is religious leader, you would get +2 more point for sharing the same religion). Points for trade should be based on how much trade you actually have (e.g. 1 point for one trade route, 5 points for 5 trade routes). Points for things like war should start with some basic number (e.g. -5), which should increase (the more you kill, the more they hate you) and decrease over time after signing peace. Getting leaders to friendly/allied/whatever should increase the international trade routes yields for both parties. Espionage should also play a bigger role (see below).
- Trade: This one is hard, because no Civ game has ever done a really good job at this. As regards, resource trading, only strategic resources would be traded via contact with leaders. Health/happiness resources would be traded automatically based on your external trade routes. There would be no technology trading. Instead, there would a number of agreements focusing on various things (gold, religion, science
) that you sign with other leaders that would benefit both parties proportionally (i.e. no diplo capital as in CivBE). For example, you sign an agreement "knowledge exchange" which adds +2 science and one more scientist slot in all of your and their universities. Another example signing free trade agreement would increase gold yields of all trade routes between these two civs. There should also be basic agreements like open boarders, defensive alliance, etc. Of course, willingness to sign such agreements would depend on how the leader feels about you.
- Espionage: This is nothing revolutionary mainly based on Civ5/BE with some additions. Espionage should unlock early in the game with limited options, which should be broadened as you go on. There would be no spy units i.e. there will be an interface system instead. As soon as you meet a civ (and discover appropriate tech), you can establish an embassy with them for a cost (gold) by doing so, you gain a spy in that civ's capital (there will be only one spy per civ). Your spies could perform various missions, e.g. stealing stuff (gold, science, etc.), spreading intrigues (making the target civ like you more, or making them like a third civ less, building support for a specific idea such as war/embargo against third civ, etc.), gathering info (about military units placement, constructions in cities, research, etc.) or sabotaging stuff. Depending on the mission, there will be a chance of success or failure. If caught, there will be negative attitude points.
Economy
- Slider comeback: The slider system of Civ4 has its flaws (mainly mixing gold with science), but I think the fixed yields system of Civ5 is even worse. Thus, I propose a kind of hybrid system. You gain food, gold and production from working land (or specialists) as in Civ5. But, I propose to introduce a new yield ideas. Each of your citizens produces 1 idea per turn. Here the slider comes into play you can decide how many of these ideas should be science, culture or faith by setting an appropriate focus on the slider. This makes the gold system independent from the ideas, but also gives you a way to change the focus of your civ as needed.
- Science: Honestly, I think the system works well as is. You gain science to unlock new technologies. Simple and elegant. This will certainly be the strongest option anyway, thus it does not need any further incentives. No technology trading allowed.
- Culture: Yes, you unlock policies based on culture just like in Civ5 (but can only purchase policies in selected civics, as mentioned above). Yes, culture will also expand your borders, just like in Civ4/5 but, you will not be able to purchase tiles with gold instead you would purchase tiles with accumulated culture i.e. if you want to speed things up, you need to sink some of the culture for that. This is to give you more incentive to not run 100% science the whole game. In addition, running more science could give bonus to e.g. wonder production?
- Faith: Actually, I admit this is one of the weak spots of my system making the faith a viable option compared to science/culture. Focusing on faith should probably give you significant happiness (e.g. +1 happiness per city per 10% religion on the slider) and military related benefits. You should be able to purchase or upgrade military units with faith, etc. At the same time, the benefits should decrease over time (so not everybody is running theocracy in the modern age Any ideas are welcomed
Resources, Improvements, Buildings
- Resources: I propose to go back to the system of strategic/health/luxury resources for reasons I explained above. I also strongly believe that the availability of resources at a certain spot should greatly influence your city placement choices thus, benefits of resources should be significant (think more Civ4 than Civ5).
- Terrain improvements: Again, I might be in a minority here (or not?), but I hate how Civ5/BE implemented terrain improvements. Why would I want to build e.g. academies as terrain improvements? It feels completely arbitrary and unrealistic (and possibly OP as academies in CivBE). The terrain improvements in my opinion should remain simple farms for food, mines for production, towns for money and some two/three more improvements which give some combination of the three basic yields (e.g. windmills for food and gold, something for forests, etc.). Plus specific improvements for specific resources, of course (e.g. quarry, planation). The yield given by the improvements should improve based on technologies (e.g. "crop rotation" and "biology" give +1 food to all farms each) or based on time worked (yes, towns would develop exactly as in Civ4) or possibly also based on civics/policies (e.g. freedom gives +1 ideas to all towns, order gives +1 production to all towns, etc.)? With minor exceptions, no improvements would produce science/culture/faith.
- Buildings: Buildings generally work fine in my opinion. One idea that was kind of introduced in Civ4 but was never really developed is what I call "tiered buildings". For example, a library or a school (i.e. science tier 1 building) can be built in all cities. But in order to build a university or observatory (i.e. science tier 2 buildings), you need to have at least 3 tier 1 buildings. The same would be true for buildings producing vulture, faith, gold, production etc. This is to ensure that you do not simply build all buildings in all cities but instead specialise your cities for specific roles. Not all of the buildings need to be a part of the tier system, of course. There should also be buildings that you can only build in a city with access to specific resource within its area (e.g. mint for cities with gold/silver) ideally each resource should have one such building. I also quite like the building quests introduced in CivBE, so I propose to keep these (e.g. basic yield of library is +2 science and +10% science, in a quest you can choose additional +1 science or +1 culture).
- Wonders: Wonders (including national wonders) also generally work fine in my opinion. The only important thing is to get the balance right (i.e. the wonders powerful enough but not game-breaking and also relatively equal in power), but I will not propose individual wonders here. I also like the idea of some wonders being exclusive to certain civics (as in Civ5 after expansions).
Combat
- 1UPT or Stacks? Combat is definitely one of the hardest areas, since neither civ4 nor Civ5 got this completely right (in my opinion). Both the stacks and the 1UPT have their pros and cons, but in all honesty, I find the 1UPT system really clumsy (or at least not well implemented in its current form the fact that you can't even group a settler with its guarding unit and send them off together is absolutely crazy IMHO). In addition, the AI seems to have a really hard time utilising it. I propose to go with a completely new system, which is similar to Heroes of Might and Magic series (minus the combat screen).
- HOMAM explained: For those of you unfamiliar with HOMAM series, firstly you should go give it a try right now, its a great game series, and secondly let me explain how units work in that game: You have your town producing units (similar to Civ). These units do not generally move around the map on their own, but instead are grouped under one or more "heroes". Heroes lead their units to combat and perform supporting actions (casting spells, etc.). Each hero can only lead a limited number of unit types (e.g. archer, elf, dragon) but within these types, the number of units is unlimited. Units themselves do not gain experience instead, it is the hero who gains the experience and though it, specific skills and abilities affecting the units he leads. The combat itself takes place on a specific combat map, but I do NOT propose to include this in Civ6.
- Implementation: Firstly, the new system would not affect the civilian units (settler, workers, etc.) or explorers, who would work just like they did in Civ4 (i.e. you can stack them). However, the combat units could only be positioned in cities and forts or move around the map as part of armies under individual "leaders" there would be 1LPT (leader per tile) limit. The units themselves would no longer gain experience. Instead, leaders would gain experience and gain promotions (similar to Civ4/5 system) benefiting all units under their command. Each leader could only lead 3 unit types (e.g. archer, spearman and chariot) and a limited number of units in each stack (cities and forts would have their own appropriate limitations). You would not build leaders, instead, you would gain them depending on some criteria (number of cities? population?) and could increase that number further by focusing on appropriate civics/policies/religion upgrades (some wonders and technologies should also grant additional leaders). The combat itself should stay simple IMHO i.e. the combat result would be determined automatically as in Civ4/5.
