Hello everybody
I made this little (maybe not so little) brainstorming post about CIV6. I made similar posts about a few other games before but I never did one about the civilization series. I made a separate topic for it because I dont want to lose it.
Basically in this post I like to share a few ideas and game concepts. Also I will speak about a few difficult topic where I try to find a good answer for a problematic subject (civilization list, controversial leaders, etc.)
My English is still not perfect so if you find misspelling, Im sorry.
Civilizations
What are the civilizations?
Probably one of the hardest thing is to choose what civilization should be in the game. This is because there arent any good definition of the word civilization. We can think civilizations as nations but the national ideology didnt exist until the 18th century. For example India is definitely a civilization today but in the ancient age there were multiple kingdoms who ruled the Indian subcontinent. So I think we need to establish a few rules which will make our (or the developers) life easier.
1. Civilization =/= state. We dont need Holy Roman Empire all over again because then they could include the USSR, the Han Dynasty or the Mauryan Empire as well. And that would be unnecessary.
2. The word civilization is a wide term in real life but in the game it cant be that wide.
3. In the CIV games a civilization should be a culture which actually built cities.
4. Therefore the in-game civilizations cant be nomadic hunter-gatherer tribes. Because they didnt build cities.
5. Also a civilization should be more than just a few random independent state. A civilization only can be in the game if at least one point of the history it was a confederacy or more.
6. This one is kinda obvious: All of the civilizations should be historically important (at least in the sense of local history).
So, what is a civilizations? I would say its a major culture which built cities. We cant pick civilization based on language or state so the culture is the only good option. Of course it wont solve all the problems but it makes things a little easier. But before that one extra thing. The devs shouldnt call the civilizations empire. They should call them people or culture (no American empire but American culture or American people).
Problematic Civilizations
Celts: There are multiple thread about this topic. The Celts werent a unified, single state. That is true but I dont know if its relevant. They can consider the Celts as a single culture. Yeah, it is weird to seeing Boudica leads Gaul warriors into battles but its not a terrible decision. They can keep the Celt civilization or they can split it into Gauls and Britons. Both decisions are fine.
Vikings: The Vikings isnt a civilization. They are pirates, raiders and merchants from Denmark, Norway and Sweden. These Scandinavian nations have similar culture and language, but I think CIV5 did it right. There should be a Danish and a Swedish civilization.
Polynesians: The Polynesian civilization is an interesting one and I think it should be in the game, but here is my problem: There were only a few Polynesian kingdoms like the Tul Tonga Empire or the Kingdom of Hawaii but they never united as Polynesian empire. In CIV 5 the civilization had a Hawaii king with a New Zealand Unique unit, and the unique improvement was from the Eastern Island. While I said, they could split up the Celts, Im not sure about the Polynesian civ. I think these state were too small and insignificant and therefore they shouldnt be in a CIV game. So maybe it would better to keep a single Polynesian civ.
Greeks: Here the argument is similar. There were multiple city states and they rarely united. But there are two things: first we speak about cultures not city states and the Greek city states had similar culture. Second: being Greek was more like a quality status instead of a national status (remember, no nationalism.) This is why I can accept Alexander as a Greece leader and this is why I can accept the Greeks as a single civilization.
Indians: The cultural argument worked until this point but not anymore. The only reason why we think India as a single civilization because there is a (mostly) united modern Indian state. But in India there are a lot of various cultures. You can say this about China as well but that country unified as a single nation multiple times through the history, India didnt. Probably the clearest but most complicated solution would be this: For the Indo-Aryan people there should be Indus civilization, for the Dravidian people there should be a Tamil civilization and there should be a modern Indian civilization as well. As I said its a little complicated. A simpler solution would be this: make an Indus and a Tamil civilization and the Indus civilization would represent the Modern India as well. Its not perfect but a viable option.
Italians: Here is the question does the Italian culture differ from roman culture? Yes and no. Certainly the Italians doesnt consider themselves Romans anymore. Yes, their culture uses a lot from the Roman culture but it flourished by its own right. Also a civilization which represents the renaissance and modern Italy would be nice.
Native American civilizations: First thing first: Nobody want to see the Native American Empire again, nobody. So they should split it up. But which civilization should be in the game? The Iroquois civ is a no brainer but its hard to pick from the rest. The Sioux, Apaches and Comanche were nomadic tribes. The Cherokees are too similar to the Iroquois. The Haida and Inuit peoples would be interesting but even in the local history they are too insignificant also there were mostly independent tribes. The Powhatan people died early. The Pueblos and the Mississippians would be interesting because they actually had cities but most of them died even before the settlers have arrived so in the big pictures they werent really significant either. So I dont know if I can pick an another Native American tribe as a major civilization (I will speak about this latter).
Most of the African civilizations: Previous games had a few North African civilizations like the Egyptians and the Moors but there were only a few civilization from the southern and eastern parts. The Zulus were the only one (which I would replace with the Ngunis. They are a bigger cultural/ethic group and they could represent Zulus and the modern South-Africa as well). There are more important African civs which should be in the games. For examples: The Shonas, Swahillis, Congolese, Somalians.
Colonial civilizations: A lot of people say America isnt a civilization because it was a colony but I disagree. I think if a modern civilization is important it can be in the game even if it were a colony.
Possible civilizations list
Color code: Never included before, Included before but with different name
North America: Iroquois, Americans, Canadians
Central America: Aztecs, Mayans, Mexicans
South America: Incans, Brazils, Columbians
Western Asia: Arabs, Turks, Hittites, Mesopotamians (Sumerians, Babylonians, Assyrians), Phoenicians, Hebrews
Central Asia: Scythians
South Asia: Indians (Indus, Tamils), Persians
East Asia: Chinese, Koreans, Mongols, Japanese
Southeast Asia: Khmers, Vietnamese, Thais, Indonesians
West Africa: Mandinka, Congolese
North Africa: Moors, Egyptians, Carthagians
East Africa: Swahilis, Somalis, Ethiopians
Southern Africa: Shona, Nguni
Australia and Oceania: Polynesians (Tonga, Hawaii), Australians
Northern Europe: English, Scottish, Britons, Danish, Swedish
Mediterranean: Portuguese, Spanish, Romans, Italians, Greeks
West Europe: Gauls, Franks, French, Dutch, Germans, Goths
East Europe: Poles, Hungarians, Russians
Nomadic civilizations
As I said some of the civilizations cant be in the game as major civilizations. But I think they could include a new civilization type. Introduce the nomadic civilizations. These nations dont have cities and they are not playable. But they have units and territory and you can establish diplomatic relations with them. They are mostly peaceful but sometime they can actually go to war (and they have a lot of units). With this kind of improvement they could include Sioux, Huns, Comanches etc.
Minor civilizations
CIV 5 introduced the city states but I like to see minor nations in the CIV6. They would work similarly to the city-states but their roles would be less and more important at the same time. The Minor civilizations wouldnt give you presents but you have the option to establish diplomatic relations with them (trade, alliance etc.) and unlike the City States they could found extra cities (however it would be rare).
Leaders
I would like to see Civilizations with more than 1 leader. It makes easier to pick leaders for the game, also its good to have more options. But in the same time I wouldnt like to see the unique power of civilizations go. It would be nice if you have a power from the Civ and one from the leader and with that basically you would have two traits just like in CIV4.
Problematic leaders
Dictators: The CIV series has a long history of including dictators. And they are not even small-time dictators but mass murderers like Stalin or Mao. So are they should include men like these as leaders? First of all I like to say they are not the only leaders in the series who killed a lot of people. I think for example Genghis Khan. Technically he isnt a dictator just a cruel conquer who killed a lot of people but in the same time he made a few nomadic tribes into the strongest empire of his age. I think as long the dictator actually makes its country kinda stronger or more powerful, I can get along with them. Yes they were terrible and evil men but because this is an empire building game I think they can be included. So who can be in the game from the Big 3? I would include Hitler because he made Germany stronger than ever before but its not going to happen because the Germans are picky when Nazis in a game. With Stalin there is no problem. The Russians are less picky about their history and thanks to Stalin Russia became a super power. Mao is more problematic because he wasnt even a good leader (Great Leap Forward and Cultural Revolution) also the Chinese dont really like him. So I would say no to Mao. Also if someone would crazy enough, no Pol Pot either. That man was even more terrible leader than Mao.
Foreign Leaders: Some of leader wasnt born in the country which (s)he eventually ruled. For example Catherine was German but she led Russia. Or Saladin was Kurd but he led an Egyptian sultanate. When is this OK? We can accept Catherine as a Russian leader but we have problem Kublai Khan as a leader of China. Why? Because the Mongols invaded China. It would be like Alexander as the leader of Persia. I think this should be the only rule.
Not well-known leaders: Here I wont protect anybody. A civ game should be fun and educational at the same time. So there is no reason not to include leaders who doesnt well-known in the US or Europe.
Female Leaders: OK, thats hard subject. Sometimes the people at Firaxis really want to include female leaders which is OK but sometimes they include leaders just because there are females. In CIV II they even made up female leaders just for to sake of female leaders. But sadly there arent many famous and good female leader in the history. There is nothing wrong with the powerful female leaders like Elizabeth, Wu or Catherin, but there shouldnt be any bad or unimportant leader in the game just because they are female. For example Maria I? Why?
A few leader ideas
- Khufu of Egypt Builder of the Great Pyramids
- Constantine of Rome or Byzant Founder of the Byzantine Empire
- Meiji of Japan The emperor who led out japan from feudalism.
- Abbas I of Persia a modern Persian leader.
- T. Roosevelt of America to have a more imperialistic leader for the Americans
- Mongkut of Siam A very famous Thai king.
- Philip II of Spain Under his rule the Iberian Union ruled more territory than ever before.
- Mavia of Arab A pre-Islamic warrior-queen.
Battle System
Well, this is a top one. When CIV V came out I loved the battle system but now I think it has flaws. Maybe its better than the previous system but not by a much. The CIV 5 battle system works best for a war game, but the Civilization games are empire building games not war games. Having 5 hex for England or having 5000 hex for England is not the same. Constantly micromanaging the movements of the units is not fun. However with a few upgrades this system could work better. I can image two ways to improve the system.
1. Easier one
Tweaking the 1UPT rule. It should allow multiple unit (up to 3) in the same title as long its not from the same unit type. This would made easier to move the units but it would not allow too much staking.
2. Battle map
This is the solution which require more work. On the world map you wouldnt control units but armies. When your army meet with the enemy army the game would load a battle map where you would get an improved CIV 5 battle system (or you would be able to play an auto-battle instead). This would be similar to the Total War games but instead of being real time it would be turn-based.
Government, Civic, Social Policy
I was highly disappointed when the civic system didnt return. It was an improved variant of the government system while the Social Policy is a fixed, perk-like system. It is a good system but I miss the dynamics of civics (however the name social policy sounds better than civic). So I would like to see the return of the civic system although it could use a few improvements.
1. Switch-on, switch-off civics. For Example: Slavery, Environmental Law, etc.
2. Civics that need an other civic as a prerequisite (Religious Law needs Theocracy)
3. A few civic mixes would be more stable or less stable. For example if one of your civics supports free speech than it would be less stable with slavery.
4. A civic can modify your diplomatic relations (for example pacifist civilizations come along better.)
5. Unique civics as unique features.
A few city category ideas: Government, Power, Ruling Class, Organization, Legal System, Society, Economy, Welfare, Culture, Church, Religious Dogma, Armed Forces, Military Doctrine.
Ministers
I actually stole this from the Empire: Total war, and maybe its a too far-fetched idea which would make the game too complicated but here is my take. You can pick your ministers who would give you a few bonuses. The method of picking the ministers is based on your civics. For example if you rule like an absolute monarch then you can choose your own ministers. If you run a representative republic the ministers would randomly replace every once in a while. These bonuses would be minor compared to the effects of the civics.
Religions and Ideologies
Religions
I think the religion system in the next game should be a mix between the CIV IV and G&K. In CIV IV the religions were important diplomatic powers but basically they were all the same. In G&K you were able to modify the religions to become more unique but they hardly had any diplomatic power. So I like to see religions which are more unique but also can be important for war and peace. But first here is a few changes which would be nice:
- The religions founded by prophets but every religions need one or two already researched techs (for example Judaism would require Monotheism, Daoism would require Meditation and Philosophy)
- In every city you would able to see how many people follow each religion (percentage or G&K numbers). In this system you would see paganism and atheism as a religion.
- You would able to choose the tenets of your religion but nevertheless every religion would have a unique feature by itself (extra culture, unique unit etc.)
- You would able to use your religions as a sword or as a shield. If you choose your religion being intolerant you would be stronger against other religions but you can change your religion to preach tolerance and you would get diplomatic bonuses.
- Papacy: Similar to the BTS. It would functional as an early world congress with the civs who share the same religion.
- Reformation: In the middle-late game you would able to change the tenets of your religion but it could cause schism.
- Schism: Religious split.
- Dead religions: Civilizations never used dead religions before but I think if an old religion was important then it should be in the game. For example Hellenism was very important to form the culture of Europe. However during the game some of religions can completely abolish other religions if they dont strong enough.
- Minor religions: Basically I would split the religions into two category (major and minor). The minor religions would have stronger passive powers but they wouldnt spread as fast and they wouldnt have missionaries. Minor religions: Judaism, Amun-ra, Shinto etc.
Ideologies
BNW was the first game in the series which introduced to us the ideologies but in that game the ideologies were only a little more than social policy branches (actually they started as social policy branches) but I think the system should be similar to the Religions:
- Ideologies would spread as religion but they would have no holy cities.
- You would able to see how many of your people follow the ideologies.
- Most of the ideologies would show up at the early industrial era. A notable exception would be the Confucianism which I consider more as an ideology than a religion.
- Ideologies would be: Liberalism, conservatism, communism etc.
- If an ideology strong enough you would be force to change civics otherwise you have to face with a revolution.
- You cant have a state religion and a state ideology at the same time.
- To adopt state ideology you need specific civics (For example for Confucianism you need Monarchy, for communism you need some kind of dictatorship or a specific economy civic.)
- If you have a state ideology you get production and diplomatic bonuses from it.
Corporations
It would be nice to see the corporation system to return. The CIV 4 model was good but I would include a few improvements.
- The corporation system would kick-in a little earlier. In CIV4 you can found corporations in the late 19th and the early 20th century which is the end game. I would start them in the late-middle game (17th century) which would be parallel to the real world corporations. The first big joint-stock corporation founded in that time period (for example Dutch Indian Company)
- Corporation would spread differently. Just like religions, corporations would spread automatically. Usually they would spread to cities where you can find the resources needed by the corporation.
City Management
Happiness
Various CIV games had various system of happiness. The CIV III system was a little too complicated while in CIV V the system was only present to keep the players from over expanding (or at least it tried). The CIV IV system was great and I had only a few complains with it. In that game when the unhappiness level in a city was higher than the happiness level a few people refused to work, but I always find it weird. They rather starve to death instead of working. My suggestion: the angry citizens should product 1 food, which would enough to self-preservation.
Health
This system was only in CIV4, and I would like to see the return of it. It doesnt really need an upgrade. The system was a good. Maybe they could include an epidemic system which would occurred by high level of unhealthiness and would spread from city to city. (Healthy cities would suffer less penalty from a possible epidemic).
Upkeep, Corruption
Various games try with different methods to keep the civilizations from over expanding. The first 3 games had the corruption system which worked to some extent. However the city upkeep was a great solution. The small, unimproved cities didnt make an income and they just cost money. You needed to improve the city also you really needed a good location to your city. It worked great so the upkeep system should return.
The corruption system could be included but its not really necessary. I can just assume upkeep means corruption in the same time. Maybe if they would include a system where you can send the product or food from one city to an other then it could work. Thanks to the corruption some of those food and product would go into waste.
Crime rate
This would be a new system. Unlike the city upkeep where a low amount is always better, the crime rate would work differently. With a lower rate the people are happier and the upkeep is lower but with a higher rate you would able to purchase special units. So basically the crime rate would be a two-edged sword.
Revolution
High unhappiness, unhealthiness, crime rate, incompatible civics or even religious/ideology unrest could cause riots and eventually rebellion or even worse revolution. If a city rioting it doesnt product anything. If there is rebellion an army would spawn near to the rebelling city. If a revolution kicks in the city would flip to the rebels and sometime the revolution would spread to other cities. Eventually the rebels will found an another state (same civ with an another leader, or a different civ).
Specialist, Great People
- New specialists: Medic (health bonus), Noble (cultural and scientific bonuses but gold penalty)
- New Great people: Great Medic, Great Statesman
Wonders and Projects
The wonders are probably the most iconic parts of the Civilization series. They are highly unrealistic but this is how it works and there is not really a reason to change it. Beside that there isnt a really balanced way to do it.
However I would like to see more projects. For me the projects are basically wonders which are no buildings. For example Encyclopedia, Cure for Cancer, Theory of Evolution, Internet etc.
+Natural wonders should return but not fountain of youth or anything similar.
Resources
Telling the truth I would remove the food resources. Why? Because it doesnt make any sense. Rice and wheat doesnt require rare, specific locations to harvest. And what do they cultivate on a farm where is no food resource. Its a minor thing but I would change it (maybe they should make a new terrain type: rich soil)
So basically there would be only strategic and luxury resources. But these would work a little differently. Like in CIV5 you need a certain number of strategic resources to upkeep your units but I would use this method for luxury resources as well. You need a certain number of luxuries to keep all of your cities healthy or happy. Without that only a few cities would get health or happiness bonuses.
Also they should include a depleting system. It wouldnt happen too often but it would courage you to explore and found colonies.
I would also including products (made resource). The products would be resources what you product (duh). Most of them need another resources and they are mostly weapons. Basically I would like to represent the weapon trading with this system.
Resource list/ideas
Mines: Cooper, Tin, Lead, Iron, Bauxite, Salt, Coal, Sulfur, Uranium, Titanium, Gems, Gold, Silver
Masonry: Limestone, Marble
Well, Offshore Platform: Oil, Natural Gas
Camp: Horse, Camel, Elephant
Plantation: Rubber, Tea, Coffee, Cocoa, Spice, Tobacco, Sugar, Cotton, Tropical Fruits, Incense, Wine, Olives, Opium, Indigo Dye
Workboat: Whale, Pearl, Purple Dye
Silk farm: Silk
Products: Bronze Weapons, Iron weapons, Steel Weapons, Firearms, Automobiles, Automatic weapons, Computers, Hit movies/singles/musicals/plays
Technology and Culture
Technology
Because the game should start between 5000 and 4000BC a lot of technology already existed long before. So the game shouldnt have technology like agriculture, fishing, hunting etc. CIV5 already started to remove these kind of technology. But other than that there is not really a thing which should be change.
Culture
The culture system was a huge improvement of CIV3. BNW also included tourism. However tourism was a rather simple system and the culture system was also a little strange. For example I dont really understand why culture point would cost as social policy points. Well it doesnt really matters because I still prefer the civic system over the social policy system.
The culture should do these:
- Spread ethnicity flip titles and cities.
- Would help in cultural victory.
- Tourism wouldnt be a separate system but the part of the cultural system. They basically would help you to get money from culture.
Espionage and Diplomacy
Espionage
The G&K toke a good turn with the improved espionage system but it still not perfect. For me the standard espionage system is from an obscure 4x game called Imperium Galactica 2 (a space strategy from my country) which has a similar system to G&K but it has more options and works more functionally. So my espionage system borrow a few idea from it.
- Espionage should start in the ancient era already. There is no reason to waiting until the renaissance age.
- You need to build special buildings to have more spies. You dont get spies from entering a new era.
List of actions could be performed by a spy
- Get info: of the state (military power, economic power, numbers of cities), of a specific city (buildings, happiness etc.), of technology level (which techs researched by the enemy)
- Stealing: Money, technology (some time just technological points)
- Sabotage: Building, improvement
- Counter-spying: Passive action. The spy perform this action until the next order. Counter spying help to capture enemy spies operating in your country. If you capture an enemy spy you can execute, release, try to turn (switching side) or try to make a double-agent from him. If you trying to perform the last two actions the enemy spy may escape.
- Cause pollution, Cause revolt
- Assassinate: Units, great peoples, enemy spies and political leaders.
- Assuming control (see Victory types)
Diplomacy
The diplomatic system needs some serious improvements. I think since CIV3 from instalment to instalment you have less and less options which is kinda shame. Diplomacy should be an important part of the game.
- Trade Agreement the civilizations install trade routes. Also the merchant units (caravans, trade ships) can enter the territory of the other civ, Right to Passage non-military units (settlers, workers, scouts) can enter, Military Access all units can enter.
- Install Embassy with this you can engage more complex diplomatic deals. Also with embassy you can start diplomatic speak even if you dont see the other civilization (like in RFC).
- Non-aggression pact the two states doesnt declare war on each other (violating pact would lead to serious diplomatic consequences), Defensive Pact - if one of the civs gets into a defensive war the other civ has to help him, Military Alliance - if one of civs gets into any war the other civ has to help him, Collective Security Military alliance between more than 2 Civ. Not easy to quit from it.
- Union Conclude between more than 2 civs. All members of the Union get Trade Agreement, RTP and Defensive Pact. Not easy to quit from it.
- Contact with another civilization
- Trading units, resources, maps, technology, territory (including cities), money (lump sum or per turn)
- Trade Embargo the civs suspend any kind of trade and trading agreement with a common enemy, Declare war against the common enemy Self-explanatory, the player can ask for delay.
- Ceasefire, Peace Treaty, Capitulation (+vassalage), Calling Peace Conference With this you can make more complex peace treaty with all of the civs who in the same war. For example civ A and CIV B are in war against CIV X and CIV Y. In a common Civilization game they would need 4 peace treaties but with a peace conference all of the civ can call for a peace at the same time.
The last two topics in the next post.
I made this little (maybe not so little) brainstorming post about CIV6. I made similar posts about a few other games before but I never did one about the civilization series. I made a separate topic for it because I dont want to lose it.
Basically in this post I like to share a few ideas and game concepts. Also I will speak about a few difficult topic where I try to find a good answer for a problematic subject (civilization list, controversial leaders, etc.)
My English is still not perfect so if you find misspelling, Im sorry.
Civilizations
What are the civilizations?
Probably one of the hardest thing is to choose what civilization should be in the game. This is because there arent any good definition of the word civilization. We can think civilizations as nations but the national ideology didnt exist until the 18th century. For example India is definitely a civilization today but in the ancient age there were multiple kingdoms who ruled the Indian subcontinent. So I think we need to establish a few rules which will make our (or the developers) life easier.
1. Civilization =/= state. We dont need Holy Roman Empire all over again because then they could include the USSR, the Han Dynasty or the Mauryan Empire as well. And that would be unnecessary.
2. The word civilization is a wide term in real life but in the game it cant be that wide.
3. In the CIV games a civilization should be a culture which actually built cities.
4. Therefore the in-game civilizations cant be nomadic hunter-gatherer tribes. Because they didnt build cities.
5. Also a civilization should be more than just a few random independent state. A civilization only can be in the game if at least one point of the history it was a confederacy or more.
6. This one is kinda obvious: All of the civilizations should be historically important (at least in the sense of local history).
So, what is a civilizations? I would say its a major culture which built cities. We cant pick civilization based on language or state so the culture is the only good option. Of course it wont solve all the problems but it makes things a little easier. But before that one extra thing. The devs shouldnt call the civilizations empire. They should call them people or culture (no American empire but American culture or American people).
Problematic Civilizations
Celts: There are multiple thread about this topic. The Celts werent a unified, single state. That is true but I dont know if its relevant. They can consider the Celts as a single culture. Yeah, it is weird to seeing Boudica leads Gaul warriors into battles but its not a terrible decision. They can keep the Celt civilization or they can split it into Gauls and Britons. Both decisions are fine.
Vikings: The Vikings isnt a civilization. They are pirates, raiders and merchants from Denmark, Norway and Sweden. These Scandinavian nations have similar culture and language, but I think CIV5 did it right. There should be a Danish and a Swedish civilization.
Polynesians: The Polynesian civilization is an interesting one and I think it should be in the game, but here is my problem: There were only a few Polynesian kingdoms like the Tul Tonga Empire or the Kingdom of Hawaii but they never united as Polynesian empire. In CIV 5 the civilization had a Hawaii king with a New Zealand Unique unit, and the unique improvement was from the Eastern Island. While I said, they could split up the Celts, Im not sure about the Polynesian civ. I think these state were too small and insignificant and therefore they shouldnt be in a CIV game. So maybe it would better to keep a single Polynesian civ.
Greeks: Here the argument is similar. There were multiple city states and they rarely united. But there are two things: first we speak about cultures not city states and the Greek city states had similar culture. Second: being Greek was more like a quality status instead of a national status (remember, no nationalism.) This is why I can accept Alexander as a Greece leader and this is why I can accept the Greeks as a single civilization.
Indians: The cultural argument worked until this point but not anymore. The only reason why we think India as a single civilization because there is a (mostly) united modern Indian state. But in India there are a lot of various cultures. You can say this about China as well but that country unified as a single nation multiple times through the history, India didnt. Probably the clearest but most complicated solution would be this: For the Indo-Aryan people there should be Indus civilization, for the Dravidian people there should be a Tamil civilization and there should be a modern Indian civilization as well. As I said its a little complicated. A simpler solution would be this: make an Indus and a Tamil civilization and the Indus civilization would represent the Modern India as well. Its not perfect but a viable option.
Italians: Here is the question does the Italian culture differ from roman culture? Yes and no. Certainly the Italians doesnt consider themselves Romans anymore. Yes, their culture uses a lot from the Roman culture but it flourished by its own right. Also a civilization which represents the renaissance and modern Italy would be nice.
Native American civilizations: First thing first: Nobody want to see the Native American Empire again, nobody. So they should split it up. But which civilization should be in the game? The Iroquois civ is a no brainer but its hard to pick from the rest. The Sioux, Apaches and Comanche were nomadic tribes. The Cherokees are too similar to the Iroquois. The Haida and Inuit peoples would be interesting but even in the local history they are too insignificant also there were mostly independent tribes. The Powhatan people died early. The Pueblos and the Mississippians would be interesting because they actually had cities but most of them died even before the settlers have arrived so in the big pictures they werent really significant either. So I dont know if I can pick an another Native American tribe as a major civilization (I will speak about this latter).
Most of the African civilizations: Previous games had a few North African civilizations like the Egyptians and the Moors but there were only a few civilization from the southern and eastern parts. The Zulus were the only one (which I would replace with the Ngunis. They are a bigger cultural/ethic group and they could represent Zulus and the modern South-Africa as well). There are more important African civs which should be in the games. For examples: The Shonas, Swahillis, Congolese, Somalians.
Colonial civilizations: A lot of people say America isnt a civilization because it was a colony but I disagree. I think if a modern civilization is important it can be in the game even if it were a colony.
Possible civilizations list
Color code: Never included before, Included before but with different name
North America: Iroquois, Americans, Canadians
Central America: Aztecs, Mayans, Mexicans
South America: Incans, Brazils, Columbians
Western Asia: Arabs, Turks, Hittites, Mesopotamians (Sumerians, Babylonians, Assyrians), Phoenicians, Hebrews
Central Asia: Scythians
South Asia: Indians (Indus, Tamils), Persians
East Asia: Chinese, Koreans, Mongols, Japanese
Southeast Asia: Khmers, Vietnamese, Thais, Indonesians
West Africa: Mandinka, Congolese
North Africa: Moors, Egyptians, Carthagians
East Africa: Swahilis, Somalis, Ethiopians
Southern Africa: Shona, Nguni
Australia and Oceania: Polynesians (Tonga, Hawaii), Australians
Northern Europe: English, Scottish, Britons, Danish, Swedish
Mediterranean: Portuguese, Spanish, Romans, Italians, Greeks
West Europe: Gauls, Franks, French, Dutch, Germans, Goths
East Europe: Poles, Hungarians, Russians
Nomadic civilizations
As I said some of the civilizations cant be in the game as major civilizations. But I think they could include a new civilization type. Introduce the nomadic civilizations. These nations dont have cities and they are not playable. But they have units and territory and you can establish diplomatic relations with them. They are mostly peaceful but sometime they can actually go to war (and they have a lot of units). With this kind of improvement they could include Sioux, Huns, Comanches etc.
Minor civilizations
CIV 5 introduced the city states but I like to see minor nations in the CIV6. They would work similarly to the city-states but their roles would be less and more important at the same time. The Minor civilizations wouldnt give you presents but you have the option to establish diplomatic relations with them (trade, alliance etc.) and unlike the City States they could found extra cities (however it would be rare).
Leaders
I would like to see Civilizations with more than 1 leader. It makes easier to pick leaders for the game, also its good to have more options. But in the same time I wouldnt like to see the unique power of civilizations go. It would be nice if you have a power from the Civ and one from the leader and with that basically you would have two traits just like in CIV4.
Problematic leaders
Dictators: The CIV series has a long history of including dictators. And they are not even small-time dictators but mass murderers like Stalin or Mao. So are they should include men like these as leaders? First of all I like to say they are not the only leaders in the series who killed a lot of people. I think for example Genghis Khan. Technically he isnt a dictator just a cruel conquer who killed a lot of people but in the same time he made a few nomadic tribes into the strongest empire of his age. I think as long the dictator actually makes its country kinda stronger or more powerful, I can get along with them. Yes they were terrible and evil men but because this is an empire building game I think they can be included. So who can be in the game from the Big 3? I would include Hitler because he made Germany stronger than ever before but its not going to happen because the Germans are picky when Nazis in a game. With Stalin there is no problem. The Russians are less picky about their history and thanks to Stalin Russia became a super power. Mao is more problematic because he wasnt even a good leader (Great Leap Forward and Cultural Revolution) also the Chinese dont really like him. So I would say no to Mao. Also if someone would crazy enough, no Pol Pot either. That man was even more terrible leader than Mao.
Foreign Leaders: Some of leader wasnt born in the country which (s)he eventually ruled. For example Catherine was German but she led Russia. Or Saladin was Kurd but he led an Egyptian sultanate. When is this OK? We can accept Catherine as a Russian leader but we have problem Kublai Khan as a leader of China. Why? Because the Mongols invaded China. It would be like Alexander as the leader of Persia. I think this should be the only rule.
Not well-known leaders: Here I wont protect anybody. A civ game should be fun and educational at the same time. So there is no reason not to include leaders who doesnt well-known in the US or Europe.
Female Leaders: OK, thats hard subject. Sometimes the people at Firaxis really want to include female leaders which is OK but sometimes they include leaders just because there are females. In CIV II they even made up female leaders just for to sake of female leaders. But sadly there arent many famous and good female leader in the history. There is nothing wrong with the powerful female leaders like Elizabeth, Wu or Catherin, but there shouldnt be any bad or unimportant leader in the game just because they are female. For example Maria I? Why?
A few leader ideas
- Khufu of Egypt Builder of the Great Pyramids
- Constantine of Rome or Byzant Founder of the Byzantine Empire
- Meiji of Japan The emperor who led out japan from feudalism.
- Abbas I of Persia a modern Persian leader.
- T. Roosevelt of America to have a more imperialistic leader for the Americans
- Mongkut of Siam A very famous Thai king.
- Philip II of Spain Under his rule the Iberian Union ruled more territory than ever before.
- Mavia of Arab A pre-Islamic warrior-queen.
Battle System
Well, this is a top one. When CIV V came out I loved the battle system but now I think it has flaws. Maybe its better than the previous system but not by a much. The CIV 5 battle system works best for a war game, but the Civilization games are empire building games not war games. Having 5 hex for England or having 5000 hex for England is not the same. Constantly micromanaging the movements of the units is not fun. However with a few upgrades this system could work better. I can image two ways to improve the system.
1. Easier one
Tweaking the 1UPT rule. It should allow multiple unit (up to 3) in the same title as long its not from the same unit type. This would made easier to move the units but it would not allow too much staking.
2. Battle map
This is the solution which require more work. On the world map you wouldnt control units but armies. When your army meet with the enemy army the game would load a battle map where you would get an improved CIV 5 battle system (or you would be able to play an auto-battle instead). This would be similar to the Total War games but instead of being real time it would be turn-based.
Government, Civic, Social Policy
I was highly disappointed when the civic system didnt return. It was an improved variant of the government system while the Social Policy is a fixed, perk-like system. It is a good system but I miss the dynamics of civics (however the name social policy sounds better than civic). So I would like to see the return of the civic system although it could use a few improvements.
1. Switch-on, switch-off civics. For Example: Slavery, Environmental Law, etc.
2. Civics that need an other civic as a prerequisite (Religious Law needs Theocracy)
3. A few civic mixes would be more stable or less stable. For example if one of your civics supports free speech than it would be less stable with slavery.
4. A civic can modify your diplomatic relations (for example pacifist civilizations come along better.)
5. Unique civics as unique features.
A few city category ideas: Government, Power, Ruling Class, Organization, Legal System, Society, Economy, Welfare, Culture, Church, Religious Dogma, Armed Forces, Military Doctrine.
Ministers
I actually stole this from the Empire: Total war, and maybe its a too far-fetched idea which would make the game too complicated but here is my take. You can pick your ministers who would give you a few bonuses. The method of picking the ministers is based on your civics. For example if you rule like an absolute monarch then you can choose your own ministers. If you run a representative republic the ministers would randomly replace every once in a while. These bonuses would be minor compared to the effects of the civics.
Religions and Ideologies
Religions
I think the religion system in the next game should be a mix between the CIV IV and G&K. In CIV IV the religions were important diplomatic powers but basically they were all the same. In G&K you were able to modify the religions to become more unique but they hardly had any diplomatic power. So I like to see religions which are more unique but also can be important for war and peace. But first here is a few changes which would be nice:
- The religions founded by prophets but every religions need one or two already researched techs (for example Judaism would require Monotheism, Daoism would require Meditation and Philosophy)
- In every city you would able to see how many people follow each religion (percentage or G&K numbers). In this system you would see paganism and atheism as a religion.
- You would able to choose the tenets of your religion but nevertheless every religion would have a unique feature by itself (extra culture, unique unit etc.)
- You would able to use your religions as a sword or as a shield. If you choose your religion being intolerant you would be stronger against other religions but you can change your religion to preach tolerance and you would get diplomatic bonuses.
- Papacy: Similar to the BTS. It would functional as an early world congress with the civs who share the same religion.
- Reformation: In the middle-late game you would able to change the tenets of your religion but it could cause schism.
- Schism: Religious split.
- Dead religions: Civilizations never used dead religions before but I think if an old religion was important then it should be in the game. For example Hellenism was very important to form the culture of Europe. However during the game some of religions can completely abolish other religions if they dont strong enough.
- Minor religions: Basically I would split the religions into two category (major and minor). The minor religions would have stronger passive powers but they wouldnt spread as fast and they wouldnt have missionaries. Minor religions: Judaism, Amun-ra, Shinto etc.
Ideologies
BNW was the first game in the series which introduced to us the ideologies but in that game the ideologies were only a little more than social policy branches (actually they started as social policy branches) but I think the system should be similar to the Religions:
- Ideologies would spread as religion but they would have no holy cities.
- You would able to see how many of your people follow the ideologies.
- Most of the ideologies would show up at the early industrial era. A notable exception would be the Confucianism which I consider more as an ideology than a religion.
- Ideologies would be: Liberalism, conservatism, communism etc.
- If an ideology strong enough you would be force to change civics otherwise you have to face with a revolution.
- You cant have a state religion and a state ideology at the same time.
- To adopt state ideology you need specific civics (For example for Confucianism you need Monarchy, for communism you need some kind of dictatorship or a specific economy civic.)
- If you have a state ideology you get production and diplomatic bonuses from it.
Corporations
It would be nice to see the corporation system to return. The CIV 4 model was good but I would include a few improvements.
- The corporation system would kick-in a little earlier. In CIV4 you can found corporations in the late 19th and the early 20th century which is the end game. I would start them in the late-middle game (17th century) which would be parallel to the real world corporations. The first big joint-stock corporation founded in that time period (for example Dutch Indian Company)
- Corporation would spread differently. Just like religions, corporations would spread automatically. Usually they would spread to cities where you can find the resources needed by the corporation.
City Management
Happiness
Various CIV games had various system of happiness. The CIV III system was a little too complicated while in CIV V the system was only present to keep the players from over expanding (or at least it tried). The CIV IV system was great and I had only a few complains with it. In that game when the unhappiness level in a city was higher than the happiness level a few people refused to work, but I always find it weird. They rather starve to death instead of working. My suggestion: the angry citizens should product 1 food, which would enough to self-preservation.
Health
This system was only in CIV4, and I would like to see the return of it. It doesnt really need an upgrade. The system was a good. Maybe they could include an epidemic system which would occurred by high level of unhealthiness and would spread from city to city. (Healthy cities would suffer less penalty from a possible epidemic).
Upkeep, Corruption
Various games try with different methods to keep the civilizations from over expanding. The first 3 games had the corruption system which worked to some extent. However the city upkeep was a great solution. The small, unimproved cities didnt make an income and they just cost money. You needed to improve the city also you really needed a good location to your city. It worked great so the upkeep system should return.
The corruption system could be included but its not really necessary. I can just assume upkeep means corruption in the same time. Maybe if they would include a system where you can send the product or food from one city to an other then it could work. Thanks to the corruption some of those food and product would go into waste.
Crime rate
This would be a new system. Unlike the city upkeep where a low amount is always better, the crime rate would work differently. With a lower rate the people are happier and the upkeep is lower but with a higher rate you would able to purchase special units. So basically the crime rate would be a two-edged sword.
Revolution
High unhappiness, unhealthiness, crime rate, incompatible civics or even religious/ideology unrest could cause riots and eventually rebellion or even worse revolution. If a city rioting it doesnt product anything. If there is rebellion an army would spawn near to the rebelling city. If a revolution kicks in the city would flip to the rebels and sometime the revolution would spread to other cities. Eventually the rebels will found an another state (same civ with an another leader, or a different civ).
Specialist, Great People
- New specialists: Medic (health bonus), Noble (cultural and scientific bonuses but gold penalty)
- New Great people: Great Medic, Great Statesman
Wonders and Projects
The wonders are probably the most iconic parts of the Civilization series. They are highly unrealistic but this is how it works and there is not really a reason to change it. Beside that there isnt a really balanced way to do it.
However I would like to see more projects. For me the projects are basically wonders which are no buildings. For example Encyclopedia, Cure for Cancer, Theory of Evolution, Internet etc.
+Natural wonders should return but not fountain of youth or anything similar.
Resources
Telling the truth I would remove the food resources. Why? Because it doesnt make any sense. Rice and wheat doesnt require rare, specific locations to harvest. And what do they cultivate on a farm where is no food resource. Its a minor thing but I would change it (maybe they should make a new terrain type: rich soil)
So basically there would be only strategic and luxury resources. But these would work a little differently. Like in CIV5 you need a certain number of strategic resources to upkeep your units but I would use this method for luxury resources as well. You need a certain number of luxuries to keep all of your cities healthy or happy. Without that only a few cities would get health or happiness bonuses.
Also they should include a depleting system. It wouldnt happen too often but it would courage you to explore and found colonies.
I would also including products (made resource). The products would be resources what you product (duh). Most of them need another resources and they are mostly weapons. Basically I would like to represent the weapon trading with this system.
Resource list/ideas
Mines: Cooper, Tin, Lead, Iron, Bauxite, Salt, Coal, Sulfur, Uranium, Titanium, Gems, Gold, Silver
Masonry: Limestone, Marble
Well, Offshore Platform: Oil, Natural Gas
Camp: Horse, Camel, Elephant
Plantation: Rubber, Tea, Coffee, Cocoa, Spice, Tobacco, Sugar, Cotton, Tropical Fruits, Incense, Wine, Olives, Opium, Indigo Dye
Workboat: Whale, Pearl, Purple Dye
Silk farm: Silk
Products: Bronze Weapons, Iron weapons, Steel Weapons, Firearms, Automobiles, Automatic weapons, Computers, Hit movies/singles/musicals/plays
Technology and Culture
Technology
Because the game should start between 5000 and 4000BC a lot of technology already existed long before. So the game shouldnt have technology like agriculture, fishing, hunting etc. CIV5 already started to remove these kind of technology. But other than that there is not really a thing which should be change.
Culture
The culture system was a huge improvement of CIV3. BNW also included tourism. However tourism was a rather simple system and the culture system was also a little strange. For example I dont really understand why culture point would cost as social policy points. Well it doesnt really matters because I still prefer the civic system over the social policy system.
The culture should do these:
- Spread ethnicity flip titles and cities.
- Would help in cultural victory.
- Tourism wouldnt be a separate system but the part of the cultural system. They basically would help you to get money from culture.
Espionage and Diplomacy
Espionage
The G&K toke a good turn with the improved espionage system but it still not perfect. For me the standard espionage system is from an obscure 4x game called Imperium Galactica 2 (a space strategy from my country) which has a similar system to G&K but it has more options and works more functionally. So my espionage system borrow a few idea from it.
- Espionage should start in the ancient era already. There is no reason to waiting until the renaissance age.
- You need to build special buildings to have more spies. You dont get spies from entering a new era.
List of actions could be performed by a spy
- Get info: of the state (military power, economic power, numbers of cities), of a specific city (buildings, happiness etc.), of technology level (which techs researched by the enemy)
- Stealing: Money, technology (some time just technological points)
- Sabotage: Building, improvement
- Counter-spying: Passive action. The spy perform this action until the next order. Counter spying help to capture enemy spies operating in your country. If you capture an enemy spy you can execute, release, try to turn (switching side) or try to make a double-agent from him. If you trying to perform the last two actions the enemy spy may escape.
- Cause pollution, Cause revolt
- Assassinate: Units, great peoples, enemy spies and political leaders.
- Assuming control (see Victory types)
Diplomacy
The diplomatic system needs some serious improvements. I think since CIV3 from instalment to instalment you have less and less options which is kinda shame. Diplomacy should be an important part of the game.
- Trade Agreement the civilizations install trade routes. Also the merchant units (caravans, trade ships) can enter the territory of the other civ, Right to Passage non-military units (settlers, workers, scouts) can enter, Military Access all units can enter.
- Install Embassy with this you can engage more complex diplomatic deals. Also with embassy you can start diplomatic speak even if you dont see the other civilization (like in RFC).
- Non-aggression pact the two states doesnt declare war on each other (violating pact would lead to serious diplomatic consequences), Defensive Pact - if one of the civs gets into a defensive war the other civ has to help him, Military Alliance - if one of civs gets into any war the other civ has to help him, Collective Security Military alliance between more than 2 Civ. Not easy to quit from it.
- Union Conclude between more than 2 civs. All members of the Union get Trade Agreement, RTP and Defensive Pact. Not easy to quit from it.
- Contact with another civilization
- Trading units, resources, maps, technology, territory (including cities), money (lump sum or per turn)
- Trade Embargo the civs suspend any kind of trade and trading agreement with a common enemy, Declare war against the common enemy Self-explanatory, the player can ask for delay.
- Ceasefire, Peace Treaty, Capitulation (+vassalage), Calling Peace Conference With this you can make more complex peace treaty with all of the civs who in the same war. For example civ A and CIV B are in war against CIV X and CIV Y. In a common Civilization game they would need 4 peace treaties but with a peace conference all of the civ can call for a peace at the same time.
The last two topics in the next post.
