Official announcement: Hot off the presses. Next Civ game in development!!!!!!!

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

I can't see them adding modern Ukraine with all the pandering to dictatorships (see the line about rewriting history in Yongle's intro). They could and probably will add Kievan Rus tho.

Isn't Kievan Rus usually what people mean when they want a Ukranian civ? Still, I think it might be a political minefield to include them too.

 

[Bonyduck Campersang]

Sooner a Tatar civ than a Ukrainian one

 

[Bonyduck Campersang]

Isn't Kievan Rus usually what people mean when they want a Ukranian civ? Still, I think it might be a political minefield to include them too.

It's just bad history to link Kievan Rus exclusively to Ukraine. Also, considering how the conflict seems to have broken some people's minds, I would prefer the series not touch Ukraine or Kiev for at least a decade.

 

[TheMarshmallowBear]

All i want is the diplomacy of Civ IV back, and the trade system... please, please, please! One could trade any commodity from food, to copper, wool etc. After Civ V that went all down hill.

In Fairness, Civ 5 lost the accessiblity of Health, so there was nothing to gain from trading Bonus resources.

Tech Trade was replaced by Research Agreement, probably as a form of balance to prevent people hoarding and making tech progress more difficult for the player.

 

[Kwami]

This is realistic, though. Co-religionists may or may not get along, but it takes something extraordinary to form an alliance across religious boundaries (like France's and the Ottomans' mutual loathing of the Habsburgs). I definitely want to see state religions and the formation of religious diplomatic blocs return. I also want to see a more nuanced religious system overall--one that feels more like a religion and less like an RPG skill tree.

Realism isn't synonymous with fun. The rest of the diplomacy system in IV might as well have not existed because the religion modifiers were so strong, especially in the early game.

 

[pokiehl]

There are plenty of European civs more deserving of a turn than a relatively modern Ukrainian state: Serbia, Bulgaria, Lithuania...

What does "deserving" even mean? Inclusion in Civ isn't some objective declaration of "historical relevance."

 

[Bonyduck Campersang]

What does "deserving" even mean? Inclusion in Civ isn't some objective declaration of "historical relevance."

'Deserving' in the same sense that an Armenian civ would be prioritised over, say, an Azeri one, or Poland over Belarus.

 

[SirNovelty]

Policy trees were lame, though. You always took the same ones or else you just made the game harder for yourself. There wasn't really any choice or strategy there.

I mean, that was a balancing problem, and I'd say it's a given that we want the game to be at least reasonably well-balanced. Furthermore, I wouldn't even really say that it was a problem with the balance of the Policy Trees in V for the most part, but rather the core mechanics: 1. Happiness sources were so limited that Tradition made more sense than Liberty in 90% of games, with Honor and Piety both being openers for only very niche strategies. 2. Science was such a dominant yield that a policy tree built on maximizing it (Rationalism) was going to be overpowered assuming it wasn't so weak as to be meaningless. 3. Freedom and Order were actually balanced okay if I recall, but Autocracy was weak simply because the late game was never scientifically or militarily played in a way that devs had accounted for, at least against the AI, so the war tree ended up weaker outside of HCA.

Now, the fact that Civ VI's similar mechanic (Governors) are about as unbalanced as Policy Trees were might indicate that keeping this kind of permanent progression tree "balanced" in a 4X is extremely difficult, but mods in Civ V did it, and Governors could be made much more balanced with only a few minor changes. Furthermore, if Civ's gonna keep pushing the completely parallel playstyles, it only makes sense to let the player further customize they're empire-wide bonuses on a permanent basis, and it would certainly add a lot of depth to the Civ designs.

 

[KayAU]

Civ5 is only better than Civ3 IMHO. Almost all Civ games is better, although the game in itself is good, after Ed took over that is. I liked Civ5 when it came out, but it has not aged well and Civ6 is superior in every way.

I think Civ 5 is better in most ways, and still play it regularly (with Vox Populi). Some examples of things I find better in Civ 5:

• A much better World Congress where you can influence what is being voted on, as well as know exactly what you yourself are voting for
• Less late game micromanagement
• Ideologies making the late game much more interesting
• Cooperative projects
• It has a bonus tree (Social Policies)
• Systems are far more integrated, so that for instance, your actions in the World Congress affect diplomacy, and cultural influence affects support for your ideology
• Better mod support
• This is subjective, but I find the art in Civ 5 to be nicer, be it the more realistic map visuals, the art deco UI, the leader scenes, or the wonder paintings

Civ 5 also has the Vox Populi complete overhaul, which improves and expands just about every aspect of the game while adding a host of new features. For instance, it has a system for resource monopolies and corporations which in my opinion is far superior to Civ 6's implementation.

Civ 6 has a few strengths, such as the civ designs and music, and I rather like the loyalty system. Unique great people and city states are good. I find the early game enjoyable. The main problem with it is that it has so much of the game becomes tedious busywork very quickly. Civ 6 has more content than any other civ game, but that doesn't necessarily make it better.

 

[pokiehl]

'Deserving' in the same sense that an Armenian civ would be prioritised over, say, an Azeri one, or Poland over Belarus.

Why?

 

[UWHabs]

If we're talking some wish-list items, I think the stuff that I would want most (I mean, not really "most", but like "stuff that I think had potential but could use a good amount of re-work):
-Make Appeal Great Again. Honestly, I find the appeal mini-system is a lot of fun. In theory. But like, it's just hardly used at all. A couple of civs have some good ways to interact with it, but other than that, it just doesn't work for me. Never mind that the whole "neighbourhoods get more housing from appeal" is one of those items that sounds great in theory, but when you actually dig into it, you're better to put a neighbourhood in the middle of the tundra because trees and coastlines, rather than right next to your city centre/industrial zone.
-Make more parts of the game change as you go through. I think one of the missing aspects is the sort of lack opportunity cost decisions. If you place a +5 campus early, it's more or less still a +5 campus late. Like, it would be cool if you could find a balance in the system where, say, a campus has +1 adjacency per mountain in the early eras, but in the later eras, its adjacency shifts to the reef/geotherm/rainforest. So if you place a +3 campus early because it's near a bunch of mountains, that's great, but long term it's not going to be as good as another one.
-Give you more decisions on shaping your empire. Another awesome early "mini-game" is the Pantheon rush. It's like, how much do you have to rush to get your top choice, before it's gone. Religion is similar - who can found the first religion and get their top pick. Other than that, I mean you have the usual wonder rushes, but you just don't have the options. I know people have mentioned the events system above - honestly, I would love to expand that out more. Like, it would be really awesome if you have a volcano go off in your territory early in the game and you are given a popup decision - "Your people are worried that you have angered their Gods", and you get 2 choices. Maybe one choice is like "we will declare that area off-limits", you gain +1 faith per volcanic soil tile, but you cannot build cities or districts on volcanic soil. Or if you choose to ignore the pleas, maybe you get -1 amenity for each district or city placed on volcanic soil. I dunno, give me more ways to choose! Or even like sometime early in the game, you have to make a choice of how you want your empire to grow - do you want to focus on farming or fishing? If you focus on farming you get +1 food per farm. If you focus on fishing you unlock Fisheries as a tile improvement.
-Reduce the late-game micromanagement. I know some people we talking about builders above, and for me, I both love and hate builders. Early game, I think they give you some real opportunity cost, and I think it makes a lot of sense. But once you get to the mid-game, they're just a pain. I'm basically just going to spend X gold for a builder with Y charges, who will go and spend those charges. It just feels needlessly complicated. Even if they just changed it so that once you got to Civil Engineering, you could simply buy tile improvements with gold from the map directly, that would be oh so much better. Similarly with city management late. Early on I really do want to micro-manage things. But later on, I wish I could just pin the districts I want on the map, and let my cities just manage themselves. Governors too - early on it can make all the difference in the world. But once I get to the mid to late game, it's a lot more "set it and forget it". Honestly sometimes I get a governor kicked out of my city and it takes me 15 turns to remember to put them back, because I just don't care. It really feels like once you get to the mid-game, I wish I could just like draw some lines on the map, and be like "here is a 'state' of my empire, and you just assign the governors to the states with a generic bonus, rather than city by city. So maybe Pingala as a state governor gives you +10% science and culture to all cities in the state, rather than the larger bonus for just the one city.
-Simplify the systems. I don't mind it, but I can see it being hard for newer people. Having a diplo favor counter, an envoy counter, free envoys at some places in the culture tree, free governor titles, free spy titles, etc... I kind of wouldn't mind if virtually all those system just fed into one. So when the bucket rolls over, you choose if you want a free envoy, if you want a governor title, if you want another spy slot, etc...You'd have to rebalance them, but I think that would also give you another decision. If you want the governor titles, you won't be as high in relations with city-states. Or if you want to focus on espionage, you have to give up another part of your empire.

Anyways, just a few items that are on my personal wish-list for the 1/3 of the game that I think could be "changed" for the better.

 

[Kwami]

'Deserving' in the same sense that an Armenian civ would be prioritised over, say, an Azeri one, or Poland over Belarus.

But why is Armenia more "deserving" than than Azeri? Why Poland over Belarus? How arbitrary.

Furthermore, if Civ's gonna keep pushing the completely parallel playstyles, it only makes sense to let the player further customize they're empire-wide bonuses on a permanent basis, and it would certainly add a lot of depth to the Civ designs.

But why do we want more permanent bonuses? Civilizations, empires, and peoples change over time and adapt to their circumstances. If your neighbors are aggressive, then you devote more resources into military matters. If you have peaceful neighbors, then perhaps you look into culture or science. If you acquire coastal territory, then you might devote some time to learning more about exploiting that terrain. And so on. Permanent bonuses are actually kind of boring.

 

[CivLuvah]

Could easy accessibility by Steam also be a contributing factor? I'm not quite sure when Steam started to be honest and if that was the main way to play Civ 4 back when it was released, or not?

I think so. I remember Steam slowly becoming a thing in 2007, but for me was unreachable because (1) you need a constant, reliable internet connection, which at the time my house growing up did not have (and even then internet in the Philippines was and is generally crappy) and (2) a credit card, which my father, a banker, didn't trust me enough to own one until I moved to Canada ten years later.

As for Civ4, the only way I could play it was on CD-ROM installed into the computer.

 

[Bonyduck Campersang]

Why?

Armenian history is far older than the history of the Turkics-of-the-Caucasus, who, if I recall correctly, only settled there in the wake of the Mongol conquests and were a bunch of squabbling petty kingdoms until the last Russo-Persian war. Armenians, on the other hand, have been influential and relevant in history for a very long period of time.
Isn't Belarus a convenient invention of the early 1900s? The closest approximation to a pre-modern state I can think is Polotsk, an obscure state that pales in significance to Poland, a major player in East European politics for a great period of time.

 

[Bonyduck Campersang]

But why is Armenia more "deserving" than than Azeri? Why Poland over Belarus? How arbitrary.

As arbitrary as not admitting the possibility of having Pakistan in the game

 

[Gorbles]

It's just bad history to link Kievan Rus exclusively to Ukraine. Also, considering how the conflict seems to have broken some people's minds, I would prefer the series not touch Ukraine or Kiev for at least a decade.

I think if we can have Russia, we can have Ukraine.

Avoiding politics for the sake of off-topic, there definitely used to be an argument about how long something has to exist to be historically-relevant. I don't think it matters as much anymore. I think it still matters when talking about leaders, but civ choices are both pretty high-level and abstracted to serve that purpose.

"but they should pick the most iconic of the bunch"

Yeah, maybe. But that's been the done thing since the first Civ game, and for every new game that's released people want more civ-based representation. We're looking at Civ 7. More granularity is expected.

I don't want it to turn into something like Europa Universalis, taking on all of Europe with a noble from a historically-accurate province of France. Some abstraction will always be required for something with the timeline Civ has.

 

[shaglio]

Oh I looooove where this thread is going. What started as a simple "Civ 7 has been announced" thread devolved into a "version war" thread and is now becoming mired in "which Civs deserve to be in the game." Can we please get back on track before the thread gets shut down completely?

 

[Bonyduck Campersang]

I think if we can have Russia, we can have Ukraine.

Russian history is far larger than their interactions with Ukraine as well as having a much greater impact on world history. On the other hand, the history of Ukraine is almost exclusively a story of resistance against the Russians. I would rather Ukraine not be included in the game for sanity's sake, at least not in this geopolitical climate, and certainly not by an American company who have shown in the past how little they care for accurate historical representation.

 

[UWHabs]

But why is Armenia more "deserving" than than Azeri? Why Poland over Belarus? How arbitrary.

But why do we want more permanent bonuses? Civilizations, empires, and peoples change over time and adapt to their circumstances. If your neighbors are aggressive, then you devote more resources into military matters. If you have peaceful neighbors, then perhaps you look into culture or science. If you acquire coastal territory, then you might devote some time to learning more about exploiting that terrain. And so on. Permanent bonuses are actually kind of boring.

I'm torn a little on flexible vs permanent bonuses. While I like being able to adjust over time, and think some things should be flexible, forcing you into a permanent decision does make you pause and consider, and you have to live with the consequences of that decision. If you discover a new island next to your mainland that has 20 sheep tiles on it, yeah, I'm sure you wished you could trade in your original pantheon choice for a new one. But if you can change your choices, it kind of makes your decision less consequential, because you can always switch later. Like if civ 6 governments in each tier were fully mutually exclusive, it would be a much longer decision of whether you switch to Monarchy earlier, vs holding out for one of the later T2 governments when they unlock. If there's no "penalty" for adopting the government early, then there's much less decision involved.

Is that the better way to do it, though? I don't know. As I said, I think there's some pieces that are good to be flexible on. But I do think forcing a few permanent decisions along the road could allow for different strategy options you make in the course of the game. Like, say you were given the choice on turn 20 of a game for +1 production in all forest tiles for the rest of the game, but you don't get the one-time bonus from chopping them. Would you take that? Which decision you take will shape the way your empire grows. But if suddenly you are given that same choice but can change your mind on it (even if you can only change your mind every 20 turns), then suddenly the choice matters less, and it's just going to swap back and forth based on what's going on at that moment in time.

 

[Bonyduck Campersang]

I would like greater diplomatic interactions with city-states (or Independent Peoples, as I've heard them lumped together with 'barbarians' on this forum, which is an idea I like) such as being able to negotiate passage through their borders, or demanding tribute.