My suggestion

[Naokaukodem]

There is multiple ways I suppose. You could do it like Humankind regions, except that the regions wouldn't be pre-determined and grow slowly like cities. Then you would have your country, and regions attached to it. Visually, it would be like grossly "France" put in adaptated caracters on the map, and the regions on another layer, like Normandy, Aquitaine or Provence-Alpes-Côte-d'Azur. The founded stuff could always be cities however, that's an option. (just because Paris is in the center of Île-de-France. However, with a system of regions, nothing prevents you to put your first district/city in the middle of it) The core base of production would be the regions, that would act like cities in old Civs. To access the queue, just click on any tile that belongs to the region. (or double-click if all the tiles are occupied with units)

So that you would rather "play the country" than the cities in it. You could create a region as a city first, to simulate a city-State.

 

[luca 83]

Because the city has always been the production base of the game and not the province with more cities as a production base must be changed, but how?

 

[Naokaukodem]

What are you doing Luca, deleting/reposting ?

 

[luca 83]

There is multiple ways I suppose. You could do it like Humankind regions, except that the regions wouldn't be pre-determined and grow slowly like cities. Then you would have your country, and regions attached to it. Visually, it would be like grossly "France" put in adaptated caracters on the map, and the regions on another layer, like Normandy, Aquitaine or Provence-Alpes-Côte-d'Azur. The founded stuff could always be cities however, that's an option. (just because Paris is in the center of Île-de-France. However, with a system of regions, nothing prevents you to put your first district/city in the middle of it) The core base of production would be the regions, that would act like cities in old Civs. To access the queue, just click on any tile that belongs to the region. (or double-click if all the tiles are occupied with units)

So that you would rather "play the country" than the cities in it. You could create a region as a city first, to simulate a city-State.

you could manually enter the regions sure! but when do they end? you should divide into provinces and regions administratively speaking

 

[Naokaukodem]

Well in a sense, that's just replacing city names with region names... so that we could see "city-States" (not in the sense of Civ5 or 6 though) being important civs (IRL) in the map.

 

[luca 83]

In civ should be reintroduced the culture of civilization And the percentage in its territory as in 4. To create ethnic and religious tensions as in the Balkans for example and create. So as to have possible uprisings and revolutions, but not to completely destroy if civilization is defeated, for possible restorations: historically the Aztec culture. It is not over after the Spanish conquest

 

[luca 83]

should also be possible to peacefully annex nations and city-states with subversions provoked or peaceful revolutions desired.

 

[Naokaukodem]

should also be possible to peacefully annex nations and city-states with subversions provoked or peaceful revolutions desired.

All I see here is CIA dirty work. (spies) It's a good idea.

 

[luca 83]

think that the resources should be worked as in civil colonization: the Pellice in clothes, the tobacco in cigarettes, the plastic, and the rubber, the machines: this especially in the industrial era, but it is valid for all eras

 

[Henri Christophe]

believe that a society, a civilization should not only create a society on continental empires but also a society with a more limited civilization. Like Switzerland, or Luxembourg, small but of great influence in economic terms. Even smaller companies such as Caribbean countries or Madagascar would be interesting with a more complex internal system, instead civ always tends to create colossal empires that are not small or medium-sized states.

The way this game is played, in order to win, you need to found a giant empire. That combine more with real life giant empires then with small countries as Luxembourg or Switzerland.
But that don't mean should be fun to play with small nations, I'm a stronger support, for example, of Haiti. Who isn't a symbol of the greatest empire since it's maximum extention was just the all extention of Hispaniola island.But the island was united just a few amount of time, because in the time of Henri Christophe e Alexandre Petión the island was divided in North and South. And now a days the Republic Dominican is a free country. At least at the time the Toussaint L'Ouverture the island was united as only country and should fit better to a game propose.

 

[luca 83]

The way this game is played, in order to win, you need to found a giant empire. That combine more with real life giant empires then with small countries as Luxembourg or Switzerland.
But that don't mean should be fun to play with small nations, I'm a stronger support, for example, of Haiti. Who isn't a symbol of the greatest empire since it's maximum extention was just the all extention of Hispaniola island.But the island was united just a few amount of time, because in the time of Henri Christophe e Alexandre Petión the island was divided in North and South. And now a days the Republic Dominican is a free country. At least at the time the Toussaint L'Ouverture the island was united as only country and should fit better to a game propose.

better a small state like switzerland. but very rich: this country is better than a decadent empire like austria and turkey. china, in 1900 or unstable like russia

 

[Henri Christophe]

better a small state like switzerland. but very rich: this country is better than a decadent empire like austria and turkey. china, in 1900 or unstable like russia

Austria and Turkey had their moment of glory. I think Turkey is essential in every civilization game, meanwhile Austria can take some turns outside of Civilizations game since we already have a lot of Europeans. For the same reason I don't think in Switerzeland as possible civ, it can be rich. But who should be it leader? And Unique Unit? And Unique Improvement. That details are very important to think befoe draw a civ.

 

[luca 83]

Austria and Turkey had their moment of glory. I think Turkey is essential in every civilization game, meanwhile Austria can take some turns outside of Civilizations game since we already have a lot of Europeans. For the same reason I don't think in Switerzeland as possible civ, it can be rich. But who should be it leader? And Unique Unit? And Unique Improvement. That details are very important to think befoe draw a civ.

Better a small or medium-sized state such as Switzerland or Lichenstein than a large but poor state that is decadent and technologically backward: prestige and wealth matter much more than size. It is not Switzerland itself, it is power and prestige and wealth that count, not territorial grandeur. And then super states are not realistic: there are hundreds of medium and small states in the world

 

[BuchiTaton]

better a small state like switzerland. but very rich: this country is better than a decadent empire like austria and turkey. china, in 1900 or unstable like russia

I am all for either a Global Victory (the most powerfull nation that control the most by a mix diplomacy, military, culture/religion, economy, science, etc.), an Economic Victory and/or Welfare Victory (about population life expectancy, earnings, education, etc. Plus some diplomatic weight).

Still a game winning Switzetland would be imposible just by doing what real Switzerland did. Now Switzerland have a great society but it is not the world power in economy, culture, military, etc. Neither was at 1900. A game winning Switzerland should be agressive, force their diplomatic and economic interest like Venice, Netherland or Portugal did. Same for Haiti or Cree, in game they must try to do more to win than they historical versions.

 

[luca 83]

Keep in mind that those are just ideas, ideally completed by yourself or another folk. I could see "territory grab" to replace settlers, and in this new territory you could also build districts. I don't know how would the UI be however.
Just what I wanna suggest, is that "type of factions" as we know them from now on could be a little more porosive and indistinguishable from one step to the next. I mean... you could "switch" from one to another at least, and it may not even be so "visible" on the map or in term of gameplay, because firstable you could incarnate them, which is the main difference with old Civs.

nation like switzerland was rich in 1900 thanks to banks and railways. to the arms industries above all. Florence in the Middle Ages was relatively small like Venice but it was more powerful than Byzantium in economic terms, so much so that it was economically subdued. Florence lent money to France and England, doctors, strangers lent money. to all of europe

 

[Henri Christophe]

nation like switzerland was rich in 1900 thanks to banks and railways. to the arms industries above all. Florence in the Middle Ages was relatively small like Venice but it was more powerful than Byzantium in economic terms, so much so that it was economically subdued. Florence lent money to France and England, doctors, strangers lent money. to all of europe

Do you will really make a case for Switzerland? do you really think is a good idea a Switzerland civ? Who should be it leader? Unique Unit and Unique improvment? Banks and Railways is so generique to be something unique to Switezerland

 

[luca 83]

Keep in mind that those are just ideas, ideally completed by yourself or another folk. I could see "territory grab" to replace settlers, and in this new territory you could also build districts. I don't know how would the UI be however.
Just what I wanna suggest, is that "type of factions" as we know them from now on could be a little more porosive and indistinguishable from one step to the next. I mean... you could "switch" from one to another at least, and it may not even be so "visible" on the map or in term of gameplay, because firstable you could incarnate them, which is the main difference with old Civs.

It is not Switzerland as a state, but a large territorial state similar to Switzerland not. Huge but rich and technologically advanced more than a Russia or a China, or Turkey in 1900. Another example is Japan not great but thanks to the reforms and the introduction of the railway and gunpowder it was able to conquer. Korea, Manchuria and Russia beat Russia in 1901

 

[Henri Christophe]

It is not Switzerland as a state, but a large territorial state similar to Switzerland not. Huge but rich and technologically advanced more than a Russia or a China, or Turkey in 1900. Another example is Japan not great but thanks to the reforms and the introduction of the railway and gunpowder it was able to conquer. Korea, Manchuria and Russia beat Russia in 1901
Korea, Manchuria and Russia beat

Japan is very diferent case, it's have good leaders, unique features easy to draw and is a big powerhouse, I think today is the 3rd most important economy in the globe. China, Russia and Turkey are also very distinctiv civs, have unique civilization, easy to choice unique units and unique improvments.
But Switzerland or Luxembourg is just more one european nation, if we want to choice some small european nation to this game it can be Austria, Portugal or even Venice as in civ 5. But Switerzland is too much to handle.

 

[luca 83]

wish there were more engaging alliances between states like in WWI and WWII, not each for himself. And if a player asks to attack a city the computer should do it, he might ask the computer too

 

[luca 83]

in civ 7 the concept of politics should be better introduced: in 4, for example, everything was vague if not wrong, for example the penalty for those who did not have the emancipation government was absurd! under fascism or communism there is no emancipation, in the game communism or fascism could prevail as an ideology, one cannot choose state ownership as in 4 and have the monarchical form or theocracy at the same time