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

[Thormodr]

The name will probably be ditched at some point, whereupon there will be some angry discussions here and elsewhere where people protest the name change.

I think tribe is better, because it is a better description of whom it represents. But barbarian is more colorful and evocative, so some people will probably take offense at Firaxis, when and if they change it.

I don't mind "barbarian" since it was the mindset of pretty well all ancient cultures towards other non-Empires/supposedly un-civilized folk. A bit of snobbery on their part.

This changed over time and I think the game should reflect that.

 

[Naokaukodem]

It's quite funny as the discussion slipped to childish jokes when I posted how early empires could work.

As to ongoing quote wars, I'm too old for this crap.

I'll just say a word on expansion and war. Developers wanted to limit overexpansion by hindering it. If we don't go to war, it's useless because we have now less space to expand. (civs are quite close to each others except if you move out some slots at start, not to mention the "spreadout" map generator that make you start near the ocean, the pole, impassable mountains ranges or desert, or all of this at the same time, which is ridiculous. There, the reroll option comes in handy, but it's always feels a little like cheating using it) If we go to war, we will acquire more luxury resources to "finance" this expansion. (but I never went to war in Deity, because the AI units are so much more advanced than yours and I have limited time to catch up in science and everything, so no time to build an army. Yeah I'm that bad at playing ) Anyway, all in all war seems a little bit the hardest way to win the game, which maybe shouldn't because after all we are talking about a megalomaniac game. Not to mention that moving units is a tiny little bit more engaging than just sit there and press "next turn" button. Add up the loyalty system and it can be very frustrating. Let science and other victories for the egg heads, not the contrary.

 

[TempusFugit]

I don't mind "barbarian" since it was the mindset of pretty well all ancient cultures towards other non-Empires/supposedly un-civilized folk. A bit of snobbery on their part.

This changed over time and I think the game should reflect that.

Your suggestion sounds like a good idea. I don't mind "barbarian" either, and I like that the series have kept this anachronism from the time of the Ancient Greeks. It gives the games a nice historical flavor. I just find it hard to argue against using a more descriptive term. Besides, the spirit of the age is to change things up, and with all the other things happening like the modern edits of Roald Dahl's books, I don't think the civ barbarians is the hill I want to fight on. Though admittedly, in Civ 3 fighting on hills gives you a very nice 50% boost to defense. And even more so if you are fighting against barbarians.

 

[InsidiousMage]

The game could be designed in such a way that Maya wouldn't be at a disadvantage. But it isn't.

Which is the point! The game is designed in a certain way and therefore certain playstyles are advantaged or disadvantaged which means that there is an intended way to play the game i.e., wide is favored over tall.

My position is that territory should be a factor, but not the overwhelmingly defining one as it is presently. Thus granting VP for the completion of wonders, rather than owning wonders, would be an example of such redesign.

I mean, that's how the score victory already works! Your era score is part of your score in a victory score. You can argue about the balancing of points but you get score for building a wonder in the game already.

That Civs should gain VP based on their achievements. The examples you give still do not support your position. I'm the one arguing that the builder of the Colosseum should be the one to gain VP from it, not whomever happens to own it after. The owner will inherit the Wonder effect, not the VP from constructing it. I'm the one arguing that "Athens" should gain VP from its philosophers, regardless if the city is controlled by some uncivilised brute from up north.

You are still missing the point. Public works projects, the funding of monumental architecture, the patronizing of arts, literature and science, and so on all cost money. Lots of it! Where do you think that kind of money comes from? It comes conquests, either in the form of loot taken immediately during and after said conquests or from the taxes and wealth generated by ruling over such a large empire. Baghdad didn't just sprout up from the ground, it was created because of the wealth of a massive empire. Said wealth then allowed the Caliphs to create a magnificent city that attracted people from all over the world. That wealth then allowed them to create magnificent palaces and libraries, create fund the construction of public amenities, and to patronize artists and scholars. Same with Athens. It funded public theater competitions, built magnificent temples, and even paid its citizens to participate in government, all of which costed a lot of money. That money largely came from the Delian League, which was an Athenian empire in all but name. And that's the point. These things don't happen spontaneously, they happen because of the wealth generated by ruling over a large empire.

Not necessarily. Wonders certainly. I'm not sure how to feel about points from districts and buildings.

Really? The basic buildings of your civilization don't give you score? How is that not an arbitrary decision?

Sure, in the scenario that wonders, buildings and districts grant points, building things in conquered cities would grant points. It does not follow that expansion is the "one best way" and that all others are sub-optimal. They're suboptimal if they are made to be suboptimal, which is the case at present.

If you get points from wonders, buildings, and districts then how is expansion not the best strategy given that you can only have so many wonders, buildings, and districts per city? Even you remove per city limits, having more cities still means you can build more because you can only build one thing at a time per city. Obviously, you don't have to conquer all of those cities but how is having more cities not the best strategy in that situation?

 

[Thormodr]

Your suggestion sounds like a good idea. I don't mind "barbarian" either, and I like that the series have kept this anachronism from the time of the Ancient Greeks. It gives the games a nice historical flavor. I just find it hard to argue against using a more descriptive term. Besides, the spirit of the age is to change things up, and with all the other things happening like the modern edits of Roald Dahl's books, I don't think the civ barbarians is the hill I want to fight on. Though admittedly, in Civ 3 fighting on hills gives you a very nice 50% boost to defense. And even more so if you are fighting against barbarians.

I think barbarians (from your and other civs point of view) is fine in the beginning of the game.

Meeting "barbarians" with nuclear submarines or artillery in 1900, however. Lol.

 

[TempusFugit]

Meeting "barbarians" with nuclear submarines or artillery in 1900, however. Lol.

Yeah, you have to frame it as something entirely different, like a terrorist group or some kind of rebels.

But I never had much of a problem with the spearmen sometimes winning against tanks. I imagined it not as spearmen, but as some kind of ill-equipped but ingenious guerilla using unconventional tactics.

 

[Thormodr]

Yeah, you have to frame it as something entirely different, like a terrorist group or some kind of rebels.

But I never had much of a problem with the spearmen sometimes winning against tanks. I imagined it not as spearmen, but as some kind of ill-equipped but ingenious guerilla using unconventional tactics.

I once lost a battleship to a diplomat in Civ I. Lol.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

I once lost a battleship to a diplomat in Civ I. Lol.

Sounds like diplomat was doing it's job.

 

[TempusFugit]

I once lost a battleship to a diplomat in Civ I. Lol.

Nice. That could be interpreted in a number of interesting and funny ways. Perhaps the diplomat was Frank Drebin?

 

[Thormodr]

Sounds like diplomat was doing it's job.

It didn't bribe my battleship. I attacked it with my battleship and lost to the 0 strength diplomat. Diplomats had 0 strength and 0 defense in Civ 1.

Diplomat (Civ1)

Back to the list of units Diplomats may ignore adjacent enemy unit's Zone of Control during movement. They have no maintenance cost and do not cause unhappiness when away from their home city under Republic and Democracy. The Diplomat is possibly the most versatile unit in the game. Upon...

civilization.fandom.com

I dunno how it happened.

 

[Eagle Pursuit]

Sounds like diplomat was doing it's job.

Diplomat: What's a kingston valve? *turns handle*

*the sound of flowing water followed by muffled screams can be heard from the lower decks*

Diplomat: Oh dear!

 

[Daniel Boone]

Yeah, you have to frame it as something entirely different, like a terrorist group or some kind of rebels.

But I never had much of a problem with the spearmen sometimes winning against tanks. I imagined it not as spearmen, but as some kind of ill-equipped but ingenious guerilla using unconventional tactics.

Like in Indiana Jones, when he sticks a rock into the gun of the tank?

 

[TempusFugit]

Like in Indiana Jones, when he sticks a rock into the gun of the tank?

Yes something like that Of course, if you imagine the tank unit as a tank company instead of a lone tank, you might need something different.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

Like in Indiana Jones, when he sticks a rock into the gun of the tank?

The Ethiopian Brigade in the Korean War, part of the United Nations force there, included men who wore a rectangular badge, depicting a silver spear on a blue background. It meant they had defended their country armed only with a spear, during the Italian invasion and occupation of the late 1930s.
Every time somebody brings up "spearmen against tanks" I think of those men . . .

 

[PiR]

Crucially, as I've pointed out before: my position is not to restrict expansion. That's what Civ 5 did, while still designing victory paths around the need for territory. My position is that territory should be a factor, but not the overwhelmingly defining one as it is presently. Thus granting VP for the completion of wonders, rather than owning wonders, would be an example of such redesign.

Same could be for territory.
How much you owned in the past could still count towards your score.
Your score could be the addition of all "score turns", where a score turn would take the picture of your current state (including territory owned, number of wonders) and evaluate you at this moment.
This could be another way to trigger dark ages, if you score decelerates too much. I think ages are in Civ 6 only trigerred by events, not really the state of your empire (score).

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

Why do I worry about maintaining my health if I'll end up dead from choking on food after reading some off-handed humorous remark on an online discussion board?

Actually, it was very carefully considered, scarcely 'off hand' - At over 3/4 of a century and still kicking, I figure I might as well acknowledge the fact that I'm Older than Dirt and have been around since the Korean War was Current Events and going to the moon was Science Fiction rather than History.

Barbarians versus Something Else.
I suggest that 'barbarian' should be based on behavior: 'Barbaric' the adjective/adverb rather than Barbarian the noun.
I've posted on this before, but nobody reads or remembers anything on this Forum posted more than a month ago, so here we go again:
Everybody should start the game the way the Civs and City Sates do now: as mobile units. Specifically, as Tribes, Clans, Bands, or whatever neutral title you want to give them.
These will be potentially, Major Civs or Minor Civs - the latter including both mobile Bands and those that settle down into Settlements on the map. The inhabitants of these Settlements may be Neutral, Friendly, or Hostile.

Friendly are like the Goodie Huts so beloved of Civ, except that in most cases, they remain on the map after you meet them - giving the potential for them to grow into City States or some other Less-Than-Major-Civilization Entity on the map, and for them to give you some kind of on-going benefit, like trade, immigration, or spreading technological, cultural, social, or religious tenets.

Hostile are our old 'friends', the Barbarians, except that you may be able to turn them Neutral or Friendly with a lot of diplomatic effort (can you spell "bribe' in Thracian, Cimmerian, or Turkic?).

Neutral are just that, but may turn Friendly or Hostile based on Events, either instigated by you or other players or even Random Events.

Note that this means the game can start with far more Groups on the map than now: the same Bands will represent potential City States, Barbarian Clans, Goodie Huts all at once, and throughout the game the map should be a lot more full of 'other people' than now - something that people have been Posting about for a long time: the Empty Map syndrome prevalent in Civ (and Humankind, for that matter) that does not represent the reality on the map for the last 12 - 15,000 years. Potentially dealing with all those Others could also act as an in-game Brake on massive expansion, because they will force you to make a decision every time you expand: exterminate, incorporate or placate? - with suitable penalties applying if you choose wrong.

To circle back to the Neolithic Discussion, nobody should be forced to immediately slap down a City with their mobile Band, because, frankly, there are a number of things you will probably need before you can make that first City work: a great many early cities Didn't and a great many early collections of cities disappeared until archeologists dug them up several Eras later. Instead, the possibility has to be in the game to achieve various Technological, Social, Cultural advances Before your first city, and grab resources from territory you pass through, so that Not founding a city as soon as possible does not also put you far behind the other players, human or otherwise.
Just about the only thing that you shouldn't be able to do without a city is make war. The best that early bands could do was harass the Heck out of city-builders, to occasionally make them move away (the Cucuteni for example) but there is simply no evidence for the infamous Barbarian Hordes overrunning anybody before they got horses and organization - After 4000 BCE.

If you think about it, that makes this 'Early Prehistory' period one in which you fight the map more than the players. That's a Good Thing, because prior to 4000 BCE the map was apt to change dramatically while you weren't paying attention. As in, century-long droughts because some &^#$% Glacial Lake half-way around the world collapsed, or the local inland sea suddenly expanding to cover your farmlands, or the great marshland you've been getting all your food from turning into a large, shallow, salt-water Sea before your eyes. Early Cities may have to be Less-Than-Permanent if you want your Band to survive and thrive: the last thing you need is Hairy the Barbarian also swinging a club at you.

 

[TempusFugit]

snip

These are some nice suggestions. While I am very fond of the way that Civ has always done this, I wouldn’t be against some big changes for this or another iteration. This way of doing things sounds like it would be good for immersion and historicity as well as providing some interesting gameplay.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

These are some nice suggestions. While I am very fond of the way that Civ has always done this, I wouldn’t be against some big changes for this or another iteration. This way of doing things sounds like it would be good for immersion and historicity as well as providing some interesting gameplay.

I am pretty sure everything and anything we suggest now is pretty much Too Late to be added in the development cycle unless it is pretty ephemeral or just an addition to existing game design features they have already put up in lines and arrows and boxes on the ol' White Board or their equivalent. The only reason I use up the time on it is that most of it is stuff I've posted before, when hopefully it was early enough to worm its way into their design notes in some form . . .

 

[Xur]

It’s still boardgame enthusiast Ed Beach in charge. This is gonna a “hope for the best, expect the worst” kinda game.

 

[shaglio]

It’s still boardgame enthusiast Ed Beach in charge.

What I find most interesting about this is that it breaks the recent "whoever was in charge of the expansions for the current version would become lead designer of the next version" trend.