Next Civ game most likely will be a fantasy game

[God of Kings]

It's time to bring back solid clouds. Units can walk on soft fluffy clouds. MLP:FiM has solid clouds and the show's popular. Avatar: The Last Airbender (and its spinoff The Legend of Korra) has solid clouds and the show's popular. Mario has solid clouds and the video game series is popular. Kirby has solid clouds and the video game series is popular. Even Journey to the West has solid clouds and Sun Wukong, a major character from that novel, is known to walk on clouds and is in Civ VI.

Before anyone here says the idea of solid cloud platforms is too silly for even a fantasy spinoff of Civ, let me remind all of you that Civ II: Test of Time has solid clouds:

Even Civ V has units walking on solid clouds:

Therefore, solid clouds have precedence in the Civ series.

 

[Duke William of Normandy]

It's time to bring back solid clouds. Units can walk on soft fluffy clouds. MLP:FiM has solid clouds and the show's popular. Mario has solid clouds and the video game series is popular. Kirby has solid clouds and the video game series is popular. Even Journey to the West has solid clouds and Sun Wukong, a major character from that novel, is known to walk on clouds and is in Civ VI.

Before anyone here says it's too silly for even a fantasy spinoff of Civ, let me remind all of you that Civ II: Test of Time has solid clouds:

Even Civ V has units walking on solid clouds:

Therefore, solid clouds have precedence in the Civ series.

It appears in this timeline the Airbenders didn't get yeeted out of existence by Fire Lord Sozin. And Appa isn't the only one of his species left.

 

[God of Kings]

It appears in this timeline the Airbenders didn't get yeeted out of existence by Fire Lord Sozin. And Appa isn't the only one of his species left.

Thanks for reminding me that Avatar: The Last Airbender has solid clouds (for Airbenders). I have updated my post reflecting that.

 

[TheSpaceCowboy]

I'm definitely wanting a mythology spin-off. Ideally it'd be just a few Civilizations and their respective pantheons, but each having highly asymmetrical gameplay. I'm thinking:

• Babylon
• Egypt
• Greece
• India
• Japan
• Maya
• Norse

 

[AntSou]

Malazan

I'm hoping for Roshar or another of Brandon Sanderson's worlds. I think his stories have wider appeal than Erikson's and he puts more emphasis on the cultures, the biology, technology and weather systems of the worlds he paints, which in turn makes it more appropriate to be adapted into a 4x game imo.

Trying to imagine the Book of the Fallen translated into a 4x game doesn't really work for me. It's basically magic nukes from turn 1.

In any case, I don't think an adaptation is likely, but I can hope.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

I've been reading fantasy since before anybody in the USA had ever heard of Tolkien, but the fantasy genre makes, IMHO, for poor game design. That's because each fantasy book or set of books is based on a specific author's vision of a fantasy world - 99% of which are based loosely on Medieval European Mythology of some kind, and therefore become Numbingly Similar very quickly: same dwarf, same elf, same Great Dark Lord of Evil off in the corner in a mountain/volcano/pit/tower/condominium. I can read each of them once, sometimes, I'm certainly not going to be able to maintain any interest through multiple plays of the same thing in a game.

Fantasy is a particularly bad choice when compared to actual history. An extremely good science fiction writer, Spider Robinson, was once asked why he didn't write fantasy. He said he would as soon as he could come up with a fantasy setting that was even half as fascinating as what actually happened in history.

My version of that (when I was lecturing at gaming conventions) was to task the audience with a 'classical' Fantasy Character: the Dark Lord of evil. He attacks all his neighbors, destroys their palaces and cities with fire and brimstone, enslaves their armies and lays waste their lands, breaks any agreements at his whim . . .
- And also plays the flute, writes opera, and corresponds with most of the intellectuals in Europe: I just described Friedrich II of Prussia as seen by his contemporaries and several historians. Find a fantasy author with the imagination (and chutzpah) to come up with a character that unbelievable.

- And that's without even invoking Alcibiades, the most unbelievable character in western history. I read a lot about him in and since university, and I still find it hard to believe in him . . .

If you want a really fantastic game, make it more historical, not less.

 

[GenyaArikado]

I would avoid the Gods-Gods themselves, except in stuff like Egypt where they actually literallt ruled the land for a while. I'd something like:
Greece - Heracles
Rome - Romulus and/or Remus
Atlantis - King Atlas or Queen Basileia
Britain - King Arthur
Japan - Himiko
Hungary - Elizabeth Bathory
Transylvania - Vlad Tepes
Egypt - Osiris

 

[aieeegrunt]

I've been reading fantasy since before anybody in the USA had ever heard of Tolkien, but the fantasy genre makes, IMHO, for poor game design. That's because each fantasy book or set of books is based on a specific author's vision of a fantasy world - 99% of which are based loosely on Medieval European Mythology of some kind, and therefore become Numbingly Similar very quickly: same dwarf, same elf, same Great Dark Lord of Evil off in the corner in a mountain/volcano/pit/tower/condominium. I can read each of them once, sometimes, I'm certainly not going to be able to maintain any interest through multiple plays of the same thing in a game.

Fantasy is a particularly bad choice when compared to actual history. An extremely good science fiction writer, Spider Robinson, was once asked why he didn't write fantasy. He said he would as soon as he could come up with a fantasy setting that was even half as fascinating as what actually happened in history.

My version of that (when I was lecturing at gaming conventions) was to task the audience with a 'classical' Fantasy Character: the Dark Lord of evil. He attacks all his neighbors, destroys their palaces and cities with fire and brimstone, enslaves their armies and lays waste their lands, breaks any agreements at his whim . . .
- And also plays the flute, writes opera, and corresponds with most of the intellectuals in Europe: I just described Friedrich II of Prussia as seen by his contemporaries and several historians. Find a fantasy author with the imagination (and chutzpah) to come up with a character that unbelievable.

- And that's without even invoking Alcibiades, the most unbelievable character in western history. I read a lot about him in and since university, and I still find it hard to believe in him . . .

If you want a really fantastic game, make it more historical, not less.

Frederick is the ultimate supervillain. I mean this is the guy that took on basically all the great powers of Europe at the same time and stomped them while composing a hundred flute sonatas while reading the three thousand works in his private library and having Voltaire publish his essays

Acibiades is...fudging bronze age Han Solo or something. Like if I put the actual events of his life in a fictional story people would be reeeeeeee so hard about this unrealistic Gary Stu

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

Frederick is the ultimate supervillain. I mean this is the guy that took on basically all the great powers of Europe at the same time and stomped them while composing a hundred flute sonatas while reading the three thousand works in his private library and having Voltaire publish his essays

Acibiades is...******* bronze age Han Solo or something. Like if I put the actual events of his life in a fictional story people would be reeeeeeee so hard about this unrealistic Gary Stu

But, to belabor my point, History is full of these characters: Augustus the Strong of Saxony and his son Maurice de Saxe (one of France's best generals ever, who traveled on campaign with a troup of 'actresses'), Hassan as-Sabbah (look up Hashashin), or even the better-known Henry VIII of England or Louis XIV of France - we think those are 'normal' monarchs because European monarchs are as a rule Not Normal People. Then look up the real Aaron Burr and you realize that Monarchy is not a prerequisite for Not Normal People and behavior.

This is why I've argued for another Great People category: Great Felons, representing the people in history who are, basically, the Monkey Wrenches thrown into the machinery of civilization to make it interesting . . .

 

[Linklite]

This is why I've argued for another Great People category: Great Felons, representing the people in history who are, basically, the Monkey Wrenches thrown into the machinery of civilization to make it interesting . . .

I imagine that would get very contentious, very quickly!

 

[God of Kings]

This is why I've argued for another Great People category: Great Felons, representing the people in history who are, basically, the Monkey Wrenches thrown into the machinery of civilization to make it interesting . . .

I came up with that idea first:

https://forums.civfanatics.com/threads/great-felons.635080/

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

I came up with that idea first:

https://forums.civfanatics.com/threads/great-felons.635080/

So you did, and I should have credited you, but, frankly, couldn't find the original Thread when I was posting. My bad.

 

[aieeegrunt]

But, to belabor my point, History is full of these characters: Augustus the Strong of Saxony and his son Maurice de Saxe (one of France's best generals ever, who traveled on campaign with a troup of 'actresses'), Hassan as-Sabbah (look up Hashashin), or even the better-known Henry VIII of England or Louis XIV of France - we think those are 'normal' monarchs because European monarchs are as a rule Not Normal People. Then look up the real Aaron Burr and you realize that Monarchy is not a prerequisite for Not Normal People and behavior.

This is why I've argued for another Great People category: Great Felons, representing the people in history who are, basically, the Monkey Wrenches thrown into the machinery of civilization to make it interesting . . .

So are the Great Felons kind of like Super Spies that you get and then unleash on another civ?

Or more like a catastrophe that happens to your civ

I mean there is an interesting mechanic there, especially if there were certain feedback mechanisms, like the longer you spend at war or in say Fascism the higher the chances of spawning a Saddam Hussein that forces a government change to autocracy or something

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

So are the Great Felons kind of like Super Spies that you get and then unleash on another civ?

Or more like a catastrophe that happens to your civ

I mean there is an interesting mechanic there, especially if there were certain feedback mechanisms, like the longer you spend at war or in say Fascism the higher the chances of spawning a Saddam Hussein that forces a government change to autocracy or something

If you'll look back at @God of Kings original thread: https://forums.civfanatics.com/threads/great-felons.635080/, you'll see that several options were discussed there. I'd like to see a variety of possibilities, just as you have a variety of 'bonuses' with the other Great People (Great Generals who provide Corps, or Bombards; Great Merchants who provide extra Trade routes, or Luxury Resources, etc)

Given the variety of potential "Great Felons" the game could really go wild here:

Alcibiades - a Great General OR Great Admiral (can be either or both) who provides extra Movement and Combat bonuses compared to 'normal' Great Generals/Admirals, BUT changes sides at Random and joins your opponent
Hassan-i-Sabbah (The founder of the 'Assassin' cult) could provide Spies that remove Great People and Governors, but unless you keep paying him increasing amounts of Cash, could start taking out your own Governors or Great People
Guy Fawkes - (English explosive assassin) You lose all the Uniques from your Leader for X turns.
Stenka Razin (River pirate and rebel) can destroy overland Trade Routes or, if in a city, instantly turns it into a Free City (historically, his revolt took and held Astrakhan, Samara, Saratov and Tsaritsyn - all the cities along the Volga - for a time)
William Kidd, Henry Avery - pirates
Rob Roy - exceedingly unreliable ally. His specialty was looting his own side's baggage trains, so perhaps a Great General who, at random, damages his own units.
Mikhail Bakunin - one of the founders of the Anarchist movement. Removes all the bonuses from your form of government - regardless of the government type - for X turns OR at random, may migrate and do the same to your neighboring Civs.
Jesse James, Cole Younger, Ned Kelly - outlaw robbers who remove Gold from your Markets, Trade Routes, or Banks at random
Charles Ponzi - the most notorious of con men, removes Gold directly from your Civ's treasury
Pretty Boy Floyd - bank robber. Removes Gold bonuses from your banks for X turns.

The basic concept is not so much Catastrophic as Exceedingly Annoying, and of course this list is just a sample and pretty Euro-Centric.

 

[MisterBoomBoom]

Maybe we get Kaiju...and they smartly add a unique GDR unit to Japan. That would be fun to say the very least.

 

[maconnolly]

The discussion has meandered throughout this thread; but purely in terms of fantasy versus historical representation: I hope and expect the Civilization series to continue to represent real history.

Of course, it’s not a history simulator - it is a game - but the concepts, flow and scope of technologies, units, buildings and so on are generally realistic.

It is probably more of a discussion for ‘how does Civ evolve from here?’, but my main hope is that they continue to make progressive gameplay changes and eke out ‘a new game’ rather than a carbon-copy of the last. For Civ 6, they significantly changed the art style, they introduced districts, they brought in loyalty, they reworked Golden/Dark Ages, they introduced geography more prominently.

These were all things that made me think ‘this is a great new game.’ I remain interested to see what things they overhaul or introduce for the next instalment. I think there is plenty more game to make, with huge opportunity to develop (among other things):

- a sense of scale
- diplomacy and AI
- the wonders and projects dynamics
- further individualising of each civilization
- making the map a challenge in its own right
- geography as a way to spread science, religion, culture and knowledge more seamlessly
- representing the non-military population on the map

I’m not a fantasy fan - or, at least, I want a non-fantasy Civ game to still be part of my gaming rotation, so I hope efforts go into continuing and improving the next instalment and pushing the capability of what is in the game as far as possible and playable.

I simplistically think with a game that is, effectively, a database of information and a fairly static display of that information, there is room to upscale significantly given the current technological climate we all operate in.

 

[God of Kings]

Bawon Samedi (also known as Baron Samedi) would be an interesting hero. Yes, I know that he's a Loa (similar divine beings are already in Civ VI such as Hercules, Maui, and Sun Wukong).

He can have zombies join your side, but you have to provide him with wine (the closest Civ has to rum), sugar (rum is made from sugar), and tobacco.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

The discussion has meandered throughout this thread; but purely in terms of fantasy versus historical representation: I hope and expect the Civilization series to continue to represent real history.

Of course, it’s not a history simulator - it is a game - but the concepts, flow and scope of technologies, units, buildings and so on are generally realistic.

I think a majority of us, including me, want the main games of civ to remain a mainly rooted in history.

This thread is more dealing with the fact of a possibility spin-off fantasy game which they could do, similar to how they did a sci-fi spin off of Beyond Earth. And I certainly wouldn't mind. I'm more a fan of fantasy than sci-fi anyway.

That being said I expect whenever a Civ 7 will come out to be basically 100% historical based, which it should.

 

[Zaarin]

An extremely good science fiction writer, Spider Robinson, was once asked why he didn't write fantasy. He said he would as soon as he could come up with a fantasy setting that was even half as fascinating as what actually happened in history.

The shift away from treating sci-fi and fantasy as separate genres has called his bluff: he was already writing fantasy--just fantasy in space. The appeal of fantasy, except the very cheapest kind of fantasy (hello, Game of Thrones), isn't that it's fantastic IMO. The appeal of speculative fiction of any kind, fantasy or sci-fi, is its juxtaposition with reality and ability to make intelligent commentary on the human condition in the real world--in short its mythic quality. Ursula K. Le Guin and J.R.R. Tolkien both said as much (in the foreword to The Left Hand of Darkness and "On Fairy-stories" respectively).

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

The shift away from treating sci-fi and fantasy as separate genres has called his bluff: he was already writing fantasy--just fantasy in space. The appeal of fantasy, except the very cheapest kind of fantasy (hello, Game of Thrones), isn't that it's fantastic IMO. The appeal of speculative fiction of any kind, fantasy or sci-fi, is its juxtaposition with reality and ability to make intelligent commentary on the human condition in the real world--in short its mythic quality. Ursula K. Le Guin and J.R.R. Tolkien both said as much (in the foreword to The Left Hand of Darkness and "On Fairy-stories" respectively).

In fact, Robinson's first published story, in Analog (a magazine devoted entirely to 'hard' science fiction), received a lot of irate reader comments because it had "no science fiction" in it: he had simply taken the classic trope of Time Travel and turned it around: instead of a person traveling in time, what if time traveled and the person didn't? His point in the comment I mentioned was that the published fantasy had become all too often, also standardized and therefore not much fantasy at all.
Any game that pretends to be 'fantasy' while using common tropes or already-published works runs the risk of also being regurgitated fantasy and therefore not fantastic, just familiar - and all too often comfortable and Dull.