HWP2001

Chieftain
Joined
May 23, 2020
Messages
11
New-ish to this site, wanted to write down my jumbled ideas for a future civ game and hear other people's thoughts. Thanks for reading!

Ages and Strategic Resources:
In order to clear up the confusion regarding the names of eras (e.g. "Renaissance" and "Modern" making no sense), I think that Civ 7 should revamp this system. My suggestion is the idea of "Ages", which represent general eras of technology without reference to real life Western-centric history. The Ages are separated based on the discovery of new strategic resources which, like in Gathering Storm, can now be stockpiled for future use as they are now far more important:
  • Stone Age - analogous to the Ancient Era. This Age automatically begins at the start of the game. Stone is a highly useful resource as it is required to construct most buildings throughout the game, but only basic units can be recruited at this point (note that horses are no longer a strategic resource, as this would remove the consistency of every strategic resource being 'mined').
  • Bronze Age - analogous to the Classical Era. Bronze unlocks proper military units, including swordsmen, bowmen, catapults, etc, as well as a larger variety of naval ships. Bronze is later used to make bullets for modern infantry.
  • Iron Age - analogous to the Medieval Era. Iron allows further development of military tactics and units, as well as proper ocean-faring warships. The jump from "Classical" to "Medieval" does not make sense as it ignores the existence of the Middle/Dark ages, so this new system allows for a more neutral and contextually-sensical progression. Iron is used throughout the game for buildings and units.
  • Gunpowder Age - analogous to the Renaissance Era (also non-sensical naming as no Dark/Middle Age occurs in any civ's timeline). Better ranged and siege weapons now possible. Gunpowder is used continuously throughout the game for military units up until the Helium Age.
  • Coal Age - analogous to the Industrial Era. Electricity generation allows for significantly increased production whilst allowing steamships and ironclads to rule the seas. Coal is used for energy throughout the game but later on competes with other energy sources.
  • Oil Age - analogous to the Modern Era (again, non-sensically named). Oil is rarer than coal but allows for faster moving units and higher energy production. This Age is roughly situated around the late 19th century stretching past WW1.
  • Uranium Age - analogous to the Atomic Era, roughly 1940-1970. Although most units continue to use oil, uranium is used to produce units such as nuclear aircraft carriers and submarines, whilst also providing high-yield clean energy.
  • Silicon Age - analogous to the Information Era. Silicon allows for advanced transistor-based electronics to be produced, allowing for advanced military units and the Internet.
  • Helium Age - analogous to the Future Era. Helium-3, mined from the surface of the Moon, allows for expensive but high-yield electricity generation in the form of nuclear fusion. Energy weapons dominate the battlefield, and civilisations begin to set their eyes on Mars as the next target for colonisation after the Moon.
All previous techs must be completed before a new Age can begin, and discovering a tech boosts it for other civs, the boost being proportional to the time between you finishing it and them finishing it. This prevents ridiculous beelines as well as preventing absurd tech leads (without having to directly harm tech-focused players).

Government systems and politicians:
Instead of Civ 6 where government systems are purely superficial, my ideal Civ 7 would make them a core function of the game. In the Stone Age, every civ is simply titled a 'chiefdom'. However, upon unlocking the relevant Bronze Age civic, civilizations may choose one of four governmental systems: autocracy, monarchy, republic, or democracy. These all represent a 'tree' - as the game progresses, players can continue down the tree they began on, replacing their government system with more modern ones:

Autocracy -> Despotic Autocracy -> Imperial Autocracy -> Fascist Autocracy

Monarchy -> Feudal Monarchy -> Constitutional Monarchy -> Parliamentary Monarchy

Republic -> Merchant Republic -> Classical Republic -> Capitalist Republic

Democracy -> Direct Democracy -> Worker Democracy -> Digital Democracy

Civs play through the Stone Age with a default leader (e.g. George Washington for America or William the Conqueror for England), but upon choosing a government system can gain access to that civilization's pool of politicians, unlocked progressively by civics (e.g. Thomas Jefferson in the Bronze Age, Abraham Lincoln in the Gunpowder Age, George W. Bush in the Silicon Age, etc.) and each possessing a unique trait. Traits can be focused towards science, military, culture, gold, production, food/housing/happiness, etc. Since a civ can only have one leader, other politicians may be selected as Governors, each representing a different city. Whilst Governors' traits only apply to their city, the leader's traits apply to the entire civ, making careful selection of politicians highly important. A Governor can only be appointed to a city if a Governor's Estate has been constructed, and the limit as to how many Estates can be built in one civ increases with each tier of government (e.g. a monarchy can build 2 estates, but a feudal monarchy can build 4 and a parliamentary monarchy can build 8).

When selecting a new leader or governor (as they can die of old age or even be assassinated), autocratic civs may appoint any successor at will, without an election. However, autocratic civs suffer a significant happiness penalty to all cities. Monarchical civs may appoint a successive leader at will, but governors are elected by the population, which can often disrupt a player's long-term plans, but at the benefit of a reduced happiness penalty. Republics have elections for both governors and their leader, with a small happiness benefit to compensate. Democracies do not have leaders, instead being led by a council of their elected governors, but with a major happiness boost to counter the lack of a leader's civ-wide trait. Players must therefore choose between having the freedom to appoint politicians and having high happiness, as either could outweigh the other in certain circumstances. Once a player has started a tree they can switch to other trees (provided they have unlocked the necessary civics), albeit with a penalty. Moving 'downwards' (e.g. autocracy to republic) causes a period of anarchy in which the player's cities have zero production and growth. Moving the other direction causes multiple rebellions to occur - the more drastic the shift, the more severe the penalty. Each civ and its current leader is given a title based on their government system (e.g. Emperor Washington of the Autocracy of America, Queen Victoria of the Kingdom of England, President Caesar of the Roman Republic, etc).

The new cultural victory is inspired by the way culture and ideology interfaced in Civ 5 - i.e. civs with different government systems cause cultural pressure on each other, and culturally submissive civs suffer increased unrest as a result. This idea is expanded so that a cultural victory requires converting every other civ in the world to your government tree (autocracy, monarchy, republic, or democracy) by becoming culturally dominant over them and thus causing massive unhappiness until they convert. However, this restricts the number of culture-focused players in a game to just 4 - the players who first found each ideology.

Happiness:
The happiness system is a blend of Civ 5's happiness system and Civ 6's amenities system. Happiness is represented by a number between -100 and +100 and is localised to each city. It is highly important to maintain as this number represents the percentage boost to the output of a city - i.e. a city at +100 happiness will produce double hammers/gold/science/etc, whilst a city at -50 happiness will have its output halved. Below -50 happiness, a city will experience occasional riots/anarchy which prevents production and growth for several turns. Below -75 happiness, rebellions will occur. Happiness is determined by a large number of factors, including government system, food surplus, housing, access to luxuries, war weariness, leader/minister traits, and others. This system solves the Civ 5 problem of random cities revolting due to slight over-expansions, whilst preventing Civ 6-style snowballing where there is no penalty to settling/conquering new cities.

Macro-tiles and micro-tiles:
A new feature introduced to solve problems regarding cities and units-per-tile is the system of macro and micro hex tiles, as seen here: https://preview.redd.it/rv3fomawbk7...bp&s=d686f44475996ed120af9355100791aa8fdc659a. Each group of 7 micro-tiles is joined together to create one large macro-tile, for the purposes outlined in the next couple sections. Whilst features such as rivers/forests/bonus resources can be different within a macro-tile, the general terrain of each hex within one is the same (i.e. either all land, all sea, all coast, all mountain, etc).

Land combat:
In a complete shift away from Stacks of Doom and 1-unit-per-tile, my ideal combat system is inspired by games such as Total War and Call to Power 2. Units are grouped together into Armies, similar to TW, which take up an entire macro-tile. However, there is still a limit of 1 unit per each micro-tile within an army, which means that the maximum size of an Army is 7 units. Furthermore, in the style of CTP2, it is largely the unit composition and placement within an Army which determines its strength. Land units are divided into 5 categories:
  • Offensive units, e.g. warrior, swordsman, arquebusier, infantry, are the main foot-soldiers of an Army and should be placed on its front-line as they can only attack adjacent units.
  • Flanking units, e.g. horseman, chariot, knight, tank, move around to the sides of an opposing Army in order to attack their weaker units.
  • Defensive units, e.g. spearman, pikeman, anti-tank gun, mobile SAM, protect the sides and rear of their army, and do extra damage against flanking units.
  • Ranged units, e.g. bowman, rifleman, machine gun, mortar, do high damage against all other units but have weak defence, and so should be placed at the rear of an army.
  • Siege units, e.g. catapult, trebuchet, cannon, artillery, are the same as ranged units but do high damage to city walls instead of units, which they are weak against.
It is highly important to have a balance of different units within one Army (e.g. 2 offensive in front, 1 defensive in the centre, 2 flanking on either side, 2 ranged/siege at the rear), and unit composition can often be far more important than a technological lead. Higher level play involves using more specialised Armies in conjunction with each other (e.g. siege Army defended by an offensive Army, with multiple smaller flanking Armies to surround opponents). The placement of units within an Army is done automatically by the computer, but can be easily manually adjusted for potentially better results.

A battle occurs when an Army is moved to attack an opposing Army. All 7 units move as one cohesive unit that is constrained to moving between macro-tiles. Battle takes place over multiple turns, giving each player the choice to change strategies before all of their units are dead. The defending Army has the choice of either also attacking (leading to an even battle), retreating (which deals a limited amount of damage), or fortifying (which minimises losses but also deals minimal damage to the attacker, useful for holding out until reinforcements arrive). An Army can only face one direction at a time, which means that a player using multiple Armies to attack one opposing Army has a significant flanking advantage (e.g. their offensive units can easily outnumber and destroy the opponent's defensive units). The aim of this system is to allow a more grand-strategy-type form of combat, where your leader is commanding entire Armies instead of individual units, as each unit in a battle carries out its function automatically. This, hopefully, leads to a less tedious and larger-scale-feeling game, as well as a superior AI.

Naval and air combat:
Naval units are also grouped into offensive (bireme, galleon, ironclad, battleship, etc), flanking (trireme, caravel, torpedo boat, submarine, etc), and defensive (fire-thrower, gunboat, corvette, destroyer, etc) ships, and form Fleets instead of Armies. However, ranged and siege units are replaced by a Transport category, which includes cargo ships, cogs, steamships, aircraft carriers, etc, and which replaces the previous embarkment system. Whilst any single naval unit can 'carry' a single land unit onboard, transport ships can carry an entire 7-unit Army onboard, drastically reducing the hassle and tedium of moving Armies overseas one at a time. Transports also provide a healing bonus to adjacent ships, making them highly useful in the centre of any Fleet. Navies are much more effective in Civ 7 than in previous games, as even basic offensive units can deal high damage to city walls.

Later transports, such as the aircraft carrier and its upgraded versions, can also carry air units. Air units function separately to land and naval units, represented as individual squadrons launched from cities/aerodromes/carriers. Air forces are also much more effective compared to previous games, as they can attack units inside city walls and deal extremely high damage. This reflects the increasing real-life focus towards air superiority that has taken place since the invention of flight. Navies eventually become focused around 'carrier strike groups', moving mobile marine forces and air squadrons around the world to quickly destroy enemy forces.

Cities:
Cities are revamped to be more in-depth and immersive. When a city is settled, it creates the 'city centre' - a 7 tile area which takes up an entire macro-tile, and is surrounded by a 6-sided wall. The city can of course grow to micro-tiles outside this area, but the 7-tile region will always remain the city centre. The central tile in the centre automatically becomes a 'government district'. The remaining 6 tiles are used to build other districts (when researched), such as commercial, scientific, religious, military, or factory districts. These districts provide significant yields to a city and more than one of the same kind can be built in a city centre, allowing high levels of specialisation, although the maximum number of districts allowed in a city at one time is determined by its population. The maximum radius of a city is one macro-tile, which means the largest possible city size is 42 micro-tiles excluding the central 7. Improvements can be built outside of the city centre and then upgraded over time to increase their yield. For example:

Trading post -> Trading village -> Commercial town -> Commercial zone

Farm/Mine -> Farming/Mining village -> Agricultural/Industrial town -> Agricultural/Industrial zone

Outpost -> Encampment -> Fort -> Base

Fishing village -> Fishing town -> Port -> International harbour

Builders no longer exist as the city works on improvements by itself, and roads are built by traders. Cities are more visually impressive, as each improvement also adds new houses - a fully developed city can become a high-density metropolis.

As stated previously, each city settled starts with a wall surrounding the city centre, which can be upgraded over time. In order to capture a city, the player must break down at least once section of the wall and then kill any garrisoned units - i.e. there is no city health, and the only way a city can defend itself is via a garrison and supporting Armies (since the city centre is one macro-tile, the maximum size of a garrison is 7 units / one Army). This system favours the defender as it is somewhat difficult to capture a city; offensive/defensive/flanking units cannot harm garrisoned units without first destroying a section of the city's walls, and only siege units can do significant damage to walls. Naval units can also attack coastal cities from a coastal macro-tile, and have an advantage over land invasions because most naval units are strong against walls.

Vassalage:
Since taking cities is difficult, causes over-extension, and incurs large diplomatic penalties, the domination victory condition has been revamped. In order to win a domination victory, a player must now make every other civ in the world their vassal. Civs and city states will agree to be vassals in a peace deal if they have faced significant destruction of their land and/or military. The master civ can demand different forms of tribute from the vassal, but severe terms can cause them to eventually attempt to revolt, in an attempt to force the master to end the vassalage in a peace treaty. Due to the new and improved diplomacy system outlined later on, as well as the better-defended nature of cities and improved AI, domination is nevertheless a highly difficult victory condition, but is now far more realistic.

Trade routes:
As in Civ 6, traders construct roads when sent onto a trade route. However, instead of the player moving a small number of traders around their empire, each trade route is essentially permanent, as part of the new trade network system - cities must be actively connected to the capital (or to another city connected to the capital) in order to be considered part of a civ's trade network. This means that, once a trader is sent on a trade route between two cities, new trade routes can only be created by either creating new traders (for which there is no limit) or by moving the currently existing trader onto a new trade route (removing the trade route they originally created). Since trade networks are effectively essential for a functioning economy, this enables trade route pillaging to become an extremely effective way of destabilising an opposing civ. In addition to the usual benefits, trade networks also automatically distribute resources around the player's cities (i.e. food and luxury resources are moved from well-fed/happy cities to starving/unhappy cities). The yield of a trade route is determined by the time it takes the trader to complete the journey each way. This means that naval trade routes are often much more beneficial than land routes, and that all trade routes will increase in yield as roads/naval technology improve.

Globe:
Instead of a flat cylindrical map, the game now takes place on a proper earth-like sphere. For the geometry to work, 12 equidistant tiles must be pentagons - these can be impassible tiles, such as mountains, as well as the North and South poles. This enables tactically interesting scenarios where invasions occur over the arctic, and there could potentially be civs with UUs or UAs that allow them to traverse the ice. The minimap is rendered somewhat irrelevant as the player can now simply zoom out to see a large part of the globe's surface, although it is still available and can be used to produce a time-lapse at the end of a game. Exploration is now more rewarding as discovering that the world is round gives a significant early boost to science and culture. Furthermore, there is now interplanetary colonisation - the player can send colonies to the Moon, which also has proper spherical geometry (and is sized proportionally to the size of the 'earth' map), in order to mine helium-3 for nuclear fusion. In fact, the science victory condition involves launching Moon-based fusion-powered colony ships towards Mars (although this can be complicated by opponents upon the development of energy-based weaponry in the Helium Age).

Currency:
At the start of the game, all civs use gold as their generic currency. However, when the player unlocks the currency civic in the Bronze Age, they can switch to using a custom currency which replaces gold (e.g. dollars, pounds, euros, yen, etc). Gold per turn is equal to currency per turn - a tile that yields 1 GPT will also yield 1 dollar per turn, but the currency can increase in value relative to gold. This allows cheaper purchases and superior trading deals given a fixed GPT. The value of each currency is dependent on how much of that currency is produced per turn all over the world, and currency values can be tracked on a world graph. One of the best ways to improve the value of your currency is to become the suzerain of city states, as they produce large amounts of gold per turn and will adopt the currency of their suzerain. Other methods include dominating other civs and then, when bargaining for peace, forcing them to adopt your currency. In the early game, the differences between currencies are small, but later on they can widen significantly. Civs with non-valuable currencies can easily begin to suffer recessions, once their currencies begin to clash with more powerful ones, and subsequently will switch back to gold or to a more dominant currency. Players can achieve economic victories by having their currency be the sole remaining currency in the game (apart from gold).

Taxation:
GPT now reflects the total performance of the economy, and civs must use taxation in order to add money to their treasury. The tax rate can be set at intervals of 10%, ranging from 0% to 100%, either globally or at the local level. At zero taxation, the player will lose money due to the inherent maintenance costs of cities. Increasing the tax rate by 10% will decrease happiness in each city by 5, meaning that a city taxed at 100% will never rise above 50 happiness. Players must find the most effective tax rate for their specific situation.

AI improvements and alliances:
Improving the AI's tactical ability is easier said than done, so there is now an entirely new alliance system to boost the effectiveness of the AI outside of combat. Alliances are highly complex voluntary organisations of players formed in order to curb the success of dominant players, and are based around one or more focuses:
  • Military alliance: formed by militarily weak civs to prevent a civ from achieving a domination victory.
  • Economic alliance: formed by economically-weak civs who adopt a common currency in order to prevent a civ from achieving an economic victory.
  • Research alliance: formed by scientifically-weak civs who combine their total science into one common fund, in order to prevent a civ from achieving a science victory.
  • Religious alliance: formed by religiously-weak civs who adopt a common religion in order to prevent a civ from achieving a religious victory.
  • Political alliance: formed by culturally-weak civs who adopt a common ideology/government system in order to prevent a civ from achieving a cultural victory.
Alliances have complex internal politics and hold regular votes (similar to the world congress, which no longer exists) on particular courses of actions (e.g. which tech to research, which currency/religion to adopt, which civs to attack/embargo, etc). If a player makes no attempt to prevent alliances forming against them, it will be almost impossible for them to achieve their intended victory condition on any difficulty higher than prince. Therefore, every victory condition requires a significant level of skilled diplomacy in order to prevent powerful coalitions from rising up against you. If an alliance is able to succeed in its goal, it will typically disband, although new alliances can be formed at any time and with any combination of focuses, whilst dysfunctional alliances can fall apart catastrophically. Alliances also have unique names determined by their focus and the location/size of their membership (e.g. Trans-Atlantic Military Alliance, Pan-European Economic Coalition, etc).

City states:
As with other civs, the player's favour with city states is tracked numerically, with zero representing neutrality, positive numbers representing friendliness, and negative numbers representing unfriendliness. In order to make a city state your protectorate, you must increase your reputation with them up to at least 100, although there is no upper bound on reputation and civs can battle for suzerainty indefinitely. Methods to increase reputation are similar to Civ 5, but now with a much larger focus on quests - buying/bribing city states to make them your protectorate is now extremely costly, whereas each completed quest yields 25 reputation points (and unlike Civ 5, reputation does not decay passively over time). However, civs that are geographically near city states have a significant advantage, as incorporating a city state into your trade network yields 50 reputation points - this prevents civs on the other side of the world from stealing city states next to your borders. Alongside the usual benefits, the protected city state will adopt your currency, which will give a significant boost to its value, since city states have very large gold production per turn (albeit with low taxes).

Miscellaneous:
  • New cities can be converted into colonies, which removes their maintenance costs but also gives them autonomy over what they produce. Colonies provide tax revenue and strategic resources to their owner, but will revolt if the tax rate is too high. Colonies allow civs to expand quickly and improve their economy without suffering high maintenance costs.
  • Bordering cities can use their culture to 'battle' for tiles, as in Civ 4, and a city become useless or even flip over to the opposing civ if it loses all of its surrounding tiles.
  • Cities experiencing high levels of homelessness can develop diseases which will slowly kill off the population, and require special medical buildings to be built in order to remedy. Diseases can also spread to other cities, although this can be reduced by cutting off the city from the trade network and by garrisoning units there in order to enforce lockdown (topical as of June 2020).
  • If a city rebels without a garrison, it automatically becomes a rebel-controlled city, as there is nothing to stop them from controlling the city centre. If a garrison is present, the rebels will spawn outside of the city centre and will attempt to pillage the city's improvements. Therefore, it is always a good idea to place garrisons in your cities.
  • The trade deal screen is much more complex, with many more trading options and requests. Trading technologies and maps returns from Civ 4.
 
Last edited:
Gold per turn is equal to currency per turn - a tile that yields 1 GPT will also yield 1 dollar per turn, but the currency can increase in value relative to gold. This allows cheaper purchases and superior trading deals given a fixed GPT. The value of each currency is dependent on how much of that currency is produced per turn all over the world, and currency values can be tracked on a world graph. One of the best ways to improve the value of your currency is to become the suzerain of city states, as they produce large amounts of gold per turn and will adopt the currency of their suzerain.

I think this is the most problematic part of your idea. The increase in the amount of currency usually decreases (and not increases) the value of the currency (see inflation).
 
I think this is the most problematic part of your idea. The increase in the amount of currency usually decreases (and not increases) the value of the currency (see inflation).
Yep, unfortunately it's difficult to make a realistic economy work and also be enjoyable/easy to understand. I think it's intuitive that a stronger economy = a stronger currency and vice versa, but this of course doesn't apply to the real world. The rest of my post still stands, though.

Edit: my headcanon is that a currency belonging to a richer and more stable civ is more desirable, which leads to increased demand and thus a higher value.
 
Last edited:
what civs should they add
Under the government/politician system I talked about, each civ would need a lot more individual work than in previous games (as rather than having one leader, they would have at least dozens of different politicians). So I would assume the total number of civs would be somewhat reduced, maybe from the usual 40 to between 15 and 25. This means that the civs would likely be the most popular ones from previous games, rather than adding lots of new ones, with the variety coming in the form of the many different leaders possible for each individual civ. TL;DR less civs overall but each one is much more unique and re-playable.
 
Dunno what I was expecting when I clicked, but these ideas are actually really well thought out and would make a much more intricate and detailed civ than civ 6. Really like the micro-hex idea too
 
Thanks!

Another idea I've had is to completely revamp the cultural victory as well, since it's currently lacking. My ideal victory is inspired by the way culture and ideology interfaced in Civ 5 - i.e. civs with different government systems cause cultural pressure on each other, and culturally submissive civs suffer increased unrest as a result. In Civ 7 this could be expanded so that a cultural victory requires converting every other civ in the world to your government tree (autocracy, monarchy, republic, or democracy) by becoming culturally dominant over them and thus causing massive unhappiness until they convert. Although, this would restrict the number of culture-focused players in a game to just 4 - the players who first found each ideology.

This type of victory would also allow for Political Alliances, where culturally-weak civs choose a common ideology and combine their culture output in order to counter a culturally-strong player.
 
Last edited:
A couple notes. First, the definition of the Classical Age varies, but by virtually any definition it comes centuries after the discovery of iron working. The Bronze Age is prehistory in Europe and proto- or early history in the Middle East. Second, I think the Civ franchise would be really foolish to move away from the centrality of leaders, especially when their competitors are doing exactly that. The leaders have always been a big part of Civ's appeal for me, especially when from a gameplay standpoint there are certainly better 4X games out there; Civ7 would be wise to double down on, not move away from, that feature.
 
A couple notes. First, the definition of the Classical Age varies, but by virtually any definition it comes centuries after the discovery of iron working. The Bronze Age is prehistory in Europe and proto- or early history in the Middle East. Second, I think the Civ franchise would be really foolish to move away from the centrality of leaders, especially when their competitors are doing exactly that. The leaders have always been a big part of Civ's appeal for me, especially when from a gameplay standpoint there are certainly better 4X games out there; Civ7 would be wise to double down on, not move away from, that feature.

Well firstly, I think the issue of ages is pretty easily rectifiable. Either the ages could be renamed (e.g. iron age then steel age, or any other resource to represent the medieval era), or just kept as separate canon to real life history. For example, AFAIK Ancient Greece predominantly used bronze rather than iron, since iron was difficult to smelt, and this is what my idea for the Bronze Age represents. Therefore, 'Iron Age' kinda represents both the Roman Empire and the Medieval Era - just without a dark age in-between. A lot of the technology used by the Roman Empire was similar to that used in the Medieval Era, but without a dark age between the two it doesn't make too much sense to me to keep them separated. Specifically, I think that the next major Roman invention, had they not collapsed, would have likely been gunpowder - this is why it makes sense to me for the Iron Age to precede the Gunpowder Age, given that the history of a given civ is completely separate the actual history of their real-life counterparts. "Classical" and "Renaissance" only make sense within a cultural context, but the technological progression of Ages is more neutral and therefore more believable IMO.

Secondly, I don't think the leader centrality has always been very strict, for example with alternative leaders in Civ 4. My system still has a good degree of centrality - you always start each game with the same Stone Age leader (e.g. George Washington or William the Conqueror), and you'd only change your leader a couple times throughout the game (when they are either assassinated or die of old age). I think this system would be beneficial for two main reasons:
1) It makes interaction with different leaders much more varied and interesting. Instead of developing a hatred for a civ because of their fixed leader with fixed traits, this system would allow for much more interesting diplomacy, where you have to cater to the traits and aims of each successive AI leader. This would make the game far more replayable IMO.
2) The 'realistic' aspect of Civ 5 appears to be a highly popular feature of it, and many people dislike the game-boardy feel of Civ 6 in contrast. I think that this system expands on Civ 6's game-boardy policy card system, whilst also being more immersive and 'realistic'. Currently, being able to actually change your government is a largely absent feature that many people feel should be included in some way, and I think it's specifically Civ's focus on Great People (Great Politicians in this case) which would allow for a unique and easy to understand government/ideology system.
 
For example, AFAIK Ancient Greece predominantly used bronze rather than iron, since iron was difficult to smelt, and this is what my idea for the Bronze Age represents.
They used bronze, but they also used iron. It's one of the ways the Iliad and Odyssey can be dated: they were clearly written by someone who was accustomed to using iron in warfare and was therefore unfamiliar with some of the conventions of bronze warfare. Check the foreword to Lombardo's translation to the Iliad, for example.

"Classical" and "Renaissance" only make sense within a cultural context
And even then only from a Renaissance perspective, which is why modern historians tend to prefer Early Modern for the latter.

The 'realistic' aspect of Civ 5 appears to be a highly popular feature of it, and many people dislike the game-boardy feel of Civ 6 in contrast.
I think it's fairer to say Civ6's critics have been vocal. I hated Civ5's attempt at realism, especially as it's aged very poorly (I mean, it was ugly when it released; it's only gotten uglier in the intervening decade). Civ7 is free to pick a different style than Civ6's, but I think a move away from stylization would be a poor choice.

The biggest strike against your approach to leaders, though, is that leader screens are the most expensive part of creating a civ; the more leaders you attach to a civ, the fewer civs we're going to get. I don't know about you, but I'd rather have ten more civs than ten leaders per civ. That sort of thing is better left to Paradox games (which isn't meant as a slight towards Paradox; they're simply a different genre of game).
 
They used bronze, but they also used iron. It's one of the ways the Iliad and Odyssey can be dated: they were clearly written by someone who was accustomed to using iron in warfare and was therefore unfamiliar with some of the conventions of bronze warfare. Check the foreword to Lombardo's translation to the Iliad, for example.

And even then only from a Renaissance perspective, which is why modern historians tend to prefer Early Modern for the latter.
But again you run into issues with defining terms like "modern" which are, again, entirely culturally dependent. For example, historians in 1500 wouldn't have referred to it as such, nor would they in the year 3000. There's also the issue of "Early Modern Period" being overly vague and hard to roll off the tongue. Even if "Bronze Age" and "Iron Age" aren't the best options, I still think that a timeline based off technology is superior to one based off cultural significance or one with overly vague terminology. It also has the added bonus of fitting in neatly with the strategic resource system, IMO.
I think it's fairer to say Civ6's critics have been vocal. I hated Civ5's attempt at realism, especially as it's aged very poorly (I mean, it was ugly when it released; it's only gotten uglier in the intervening decade). Civ7 is free to pick a different style than Civ6's, but I think a move away from stylization would be a poor choice.
Yeah absolutely true regarding the art style, I was more so referring to the game mechanics - e.g. the maths of adjacency bonuses, worker charges, districts/units/wonders being the same size as entire cities, policy cards, and a bunch of other stuff I can't remember rn. A lot of this stuff did exist in past games but I think it's largely agreed upon that Civ 6 has the most game-boardy feel out of all the well-known civ games. I think a more immersive and 'realistic' approach would be a lot more accepted, as long as it remains simple and easy to understand.
The biggest strike against your approach to leaders, though, is that leader screens are the most expensive part of creating a civ; the more leaders you attach to a civ, the fewer civs we're going to get. I don't know about you, but I'd rather have ten more civs than ten leaders per civ. That sort of thing is better left to Paradox games (which isn't meant as a slight towards Paradox; they're simply a different genre of game).
I think leader screens are currently expensive because the animation team puts a huge amount of time into getting each leader's animations perfect. The only problem is, these animations are largely gonna be skipped by most players after seeing them the first few times. Therefore, I think putting a lot of work into fewer leaders is somewhat a wasted effort (not entirely wasted, but at least to a degree). I'm also not sure that less leaders + more civs is necessarily better than fewer civs with more replayability. A large number of players like to stick with a few favourite civs with a lot of the others going to waste. I'd personally prefer to play as the same civ but have a completely different experience - I suppose this is dependent on who you talk to, but from personal experience it seems that having each playthrough of the same civ be different each time lends itself a lot more to replayability than adding more and more civs with less and less differentiating cultures/units/abilities/whatever. You can only have so much specialisation between civs before they start to blend together, ironically. I also don't think such a system has to deviate at all from Civ tradition - there's nothing particularly complex about it, and it neatly interfaces with the policy card system (picking and choosing bonuses) and the city system (having politicians linked to specific cities and having their bonuses applied to said cities).
 
All previous techs must be completed before a new Age can begin, and discovering a tech boosts it for other civs, the boost being proportional to the time between you finishing it and them finishing it. This prevents ridiculous beelines as well as preventing absurd tech leads (without having to directly harm tech-focused players).

It doesn't, actually. The Age-lock undermines the prevention of absurd tech leads, that is. Taking away research options means fewer, and then ultimately zero, available choices within which to outplay the tech leader in prioritizing a high-impact tech, when a tech disparity has occurred. This fixation on locking tech progression is common but I never see any decent analysis of how mechanically it will do what the designer wants it to do. (Then, neither, I have seen defined what the problem was in the first place; that is, I don't understand what people are even fighting against. The game is already alternative history?)

Regarding your tech boost, I understand you mean that the quantity "finished tech accumulation" - "current tech accumulation" is multiplied by a fraction and this is given to advance the tech progress. I wonder if there is a difference between giving that boost vs. assigning a research multiplier. It would seem not, but, maybe there's a distinction in interaction with another science effect the game could impose? So, my point being, consider replacing the eureka with just a multiplier; they both make the "required number of beakers to finish from here" adjust the same. (For example, what does not do the same thing is reducing the final cost of the tech, in Civ5.)


Macro-tiles and micro-tiles:
A new feature introduced to solve problems regarding cities and units-per-tile is the system of macro and micro hex tiles, as seen here: https://preview.redd.it/rv3fomawbk7...bp&s=d686f44475996ed120af9355100791aa8fdc659a. Each group of 7 micro-tiles is joined together to create one large macro-tile, for the purposes outlined in the next couple sections. Whilst features such as rivers/forests/bonus resources can be different within a macro-tile, the general terrain of each hex within one is the same (i.e. either all land, all sea, all coast, all mountain, etc).
So, these micro-tiles... there is no change to the tile attributes / yield values, or how they are exploited, given the rules for tile yields as indicated:
Cities:
Cities are revamped to be more in-depth and immersive. When a city is settled, it creates the 'city centre' - a 7 tile area which takes up an entire macro-tile, and is surrounded by a 6-sided wall. The city can of course grow to micro-tiles outside this area, but the 7-tile region will always remain the city centre. The central tile in the centre automatically becomes a 'government district'. The remaining 6 tiles are used to build other districts (when researched), such as commercial, scientific, religious, military, or factory districts. These districts provide significant yields to a city and more than one of the same kind can be built in a city centre, allowing high levels of specialisation, although the maximum number of districts allowed in a city at one time is determined by its population. The maximum radius of a city is one macro-tile, which means the largest possible city size is 42 micro-tiles excluding the central 7. Improvements [are built on micro-tiles]
In the linked picture, the microtiles are just tiles. You could take any Civ hex map and call them micro-tiles. The macro-tiles exist as the boundaries of the rules for the army system, which is, you make 7 units (separately?) which can then fight in a unitary and part automated fashion with other macro-tiles, with the addition of multi-army attacks (in one action) and I think you meant an army could defend through flanking too. Ok sure, it definitely needs to become multi-combatant, single-action attacks to get decent tactical playability. Here's a frustration: Either (1) the micro-tiles have no tactical attribute differences from each other, anywhere, in which case, what even is choosing your battle; or (2) the micro-tiles have tactical attribute differences from each other, in which case, the game's imposition of the sets of 7 that position your armies is arbitrary, and will be felt to be strangling, when players frequently picture the way the system would work if they could slot their army along a different cut. They will, in every turn of making a posture assessment, see a set of meanings that is undeniable, yet the game rule does not acknowledge as real.


I made the mistake of quoting before writing my preamble, so of course the input form now makes it impossible to put the cursor behind the quote box. I wanted to open with saying the approach to sorting technological eras by the unlock of a specific (single) material advance is quite inspiring. It makes me feel like there's a thought process I can move from there into other parts of the game design. It goes beyond the elegance of it, can't even put my finger on it. But certainly, the way you paint it as being "this is the core of the qualitative change in what you can do and why it changes your relation to other civs" and also how the ability unlocked echoes through the further advances like a layer instead of an event, it all just looks proper. But OTOH, I'm the kind of guy who likes strongly typed programming, for which there is no justification in programming, so who knows what that sentiment is.
 
Some good ideas sprinkled in there, but some that might be problematic or anti-intuitive. I really like the take on happiness but macro/micro tiles might be stretching the complexity of Civ. And custom taxation seems interesting. As for combat, anything that's besides Civ5 or 6 would not work in my opinion.

Changing currencies makes no real difference. The new names for the Ages do not really roll off the tongue so to speak.
Also a Globe would be cool but the implications for the tiles might be a bit weird. Nevertheless, they can work with it, but to be honest, it also would make little difference to the game, but would be cool for immersion.
 
Top Bottom