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

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

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.

That's because the lead for most of the expansions left Firaxis at the beginning of last year.

 

[Eagle Pursuit]

That's because the lead for most of the expansions left Firaxis at the beginning of last year.

But did Strenger leave because someone made the call that Ed Beach would continue to be lead designer for the series, and he went elsewhere seeking the advancement he didn't receive at Firaxis?

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

But did Strenger leave because someone made the call that Ed Beach would continue to be lead designer for the series, and he went elsewhere seeking the advancement he didn't receive at Firaxis?

Who knows?
Then again, he did design the most polarizing ones, R&F and NFP, while Ed remained the lead on GS which seemed to get the most praise.

 

[Xandinho]

I particularly found R&F to be too bland and most of its mechanics didn't bring major transformations to the game, it just doesn't sound like an expansion to me. Also, most R&F Civs are boring to play and with not very engaging bonuses - Georgia, for example, had to go through several changes before it became reasonably fun to play.

 

[Mogloth]

I do like the idea of tribes eventually forming a new culture, ie a civ that is not being used in the current game, and founding cities of their own. Maybe put a cap on how many they can found. And a certain amount of in game time would have to pass before they become a culture.

Also, what are people's thoughts on something else from Humankind that "limited" the maximum number of cities you could build based on tech research?

 

[pokiehl]

Also, what are people's thoughts on something else from Humankind that "limited" the maximum number of cities you could build based on tech research?

This is one of the few ideas from Humankind that I thought was brilliant. The systems in Humankind to organically limit and challenge infinite city-spam were very compelling, IMO. The system you're referring to - Influence - was great and I'd love to see the return of it.
I also really liked the way that new settlements could either be their own city or be subsumed into a larger city, and I REALLY liked that the map was divided into territories with only 1 settlement allowed per territory.

All of this reduced city-spam and was a novel way of dealing with wide vs tall. I'd love for Civ 7 to take these approaches.

 

[kaspergm]

Also, what are people's thoughts on something else from Humankind that "limited" the maximum number of cities you could build based on tech research?

I'm not against limiting the number of cities, but linking it to research seems extremely gamey and immersion breaking.

An empire stability handle through stuff like corruption, happiness and/or gold maintenance would be much better tools to limit city spam imo.

 

[pokiehl]

I'm not against limiting the number of cities, but linking it to research seems extremely gamey and immersion breaking.

An empire stability handle through stuff like corruption, happiness and/or gold maintenance would be much better tools to limit city spam imo.

I believe the Influence yield in humankind is acquired through civics, not technologies (among other sources). It makes sense to me well enough. No different than Civ 6 civics giving governor titles or envoys.

 

[TempusFugit]

I do think Civ 6 is “gamified“ enough already. Personally I would like the next iteration to have a stronger simulation feeling, like the older games.

 

[Thormodr]

This is one of the few ideas from Humankind that I thought was brilliant. The systems in Humankind to organically limit and challenge infinite city-spam were very compelling, IMO. The system you're referring to - Influence - was great and I'd love to see the return of it.
I also really liked the way that new settlements could either be their own city or be subsumed into a larger city, and I REALLY liked that the map was divided into territories with only 1 settlement allowed per territory.

All of this reduced city-spam and was a novel way of dealing with wide vs tall. I'd love for Civ 7 to take these approaches.

I agree with that. It was a quite elegant way to deal with rexing. Much more so than corruption in Civ III or the horrendous glo-bull happiness in Civilization 5.

It was also nice to be able to nurse a new city along by subsuming it to a larger city for awhile until it could get it's legs, so to speak.

 

[Thormodr]

I'm not against limiting the number of cities, but linking it to research seems extremely gamey and immersion breaking.

An empire stability handle through stuff like corruption, happiness and/or gold maintenance would be much better tools to limit city spam imo.

Absolutely not. Well, at least for the first two suggestions. Civ III used corruption and it was bad. Civiization 5 used glo-bull happiness and it was horrendous.

Civ IV made it take a while for a city to be able to pay for itself so that worked. If you recklessly expanded, you could bankrupt yourself. So, at least that one worked well.

 

[TempusFugit]

Absolutely not. Well, at least for the first two suggestions. Civ III used corruption and it was bad. Civiization 5 used glo-bull happiness and it was horrendous.

Civ IV made it take a while for a city to be able to pay for itself so that worked. If you recklessly expanded, you could bankrupt yourself. So, at least that one worked well.

Corruption in Civ 3 was flawed and could have been resolved in a better way, but it wasn’t the big problem you make it out to be. Civ 2 also used corruption.

The global happiness in Civ 5 was a stupid mechanic, but at least it gave that a game a unique identity where few cities are stronger than many cities. It doesn’t make much sense, but it put that game on the opposite end of the spectrum of Civ 2 and Civ 3 where you can easily build a global empire. I prefer being able to build huge empires in these games, but I find it fun to play a civilization with just a few cities in Civ 5 once in a while. It makes for quicker games too.

 

[pokiehl]

Corruption in Civ 3 was flawed and could have been resolved in a better way, but it wasn’t the big problem you make it out to be.

If anything, he's underselling how bad it was! Corruption was so incredibly tedious and bad. I'd rather stare at a wall than play Civ 3 again.

The global happiness in Civ 5 was a stupid mechanic, but at least it gave that a game a unique identity where few cities are stronger than many cities. It doesn’t make much sense, but it put that game on the opposite end of the spectrum of Civ 2 and Civ 3 where you can easily build a global empire. I prefer being able to build huge empires in these games, but I find it fun to play a civilization with just a few cities in Civ 5 once in a while. It makes for quicker games too.

Odd defense. You can say that about anything. Many of the things you hate about Civ 6 and it's "gameyness" also give it a unique identity.

 

[SammyKhalifa]

I do think Civ 6 is “gamified“ enough already. Personally I would like the next iteration to have a stronger simulation feeling, like the older games.

The older games were bases on a board game.

 

[pokiehl]

The older games were bases on a board game.

None of the civ games have felt particulary "simulation-like" to me...

 

[Nikolai II]

If anything, he's underselling how bad it was! Corruption was so incredibly tedious and bad. I'd rather stare at a wall than play Civ 3 again.

Amen, brother.

 

[TempusFugit]

Odd defense. You can say that about anything. Many of the things you hate about Civ 6 and it's "gameyness" also give it a unique identity.

I don’t hate Civ 6 at all. I have had a lot of fun playing it. Just not as much as the other games in the series.

I like Civ 5 quite a lot, but I have mixed feelings about where it led the franchise. Both Civ 5 and Civ 6 took several steps which “gamified” the franchise and lessened the pretense of simulation it has always had. I’m not saying that is intrinsically bad. You gain some and you lose some. I would just like the series to go a bit more in the “simulation” and “realism” direction, that is all.

 

[TempusFugit]

Odd defense. You can say that about anything. Many of the things you hate about Civ 6 and it's "gameyness" also give it a unique identity.

Well we’ll just have to disagree about that. No game in this series is perfect or bad, but Civilization 3 is certainly the best one so far.

 

[vorlon_mi]

As a big fan of Civ3, I'll just say I disagree. Discussing what I like about that game (and how I view the corruption model) is off-topic in this forum.

I will say that I loved -- and still love -- building an EMPIRE, that covers a lot of the map. I would love for Civ7 to bring back the sheer scale of Civ3 and Civ4, where one could control more than 50% of the map and own dozens of cities. That was nearly impossible in Civ5; I do it frequently in BERT; I don't have enough experience with warring in Civ6 to know how to do it there.

 

[Mogloth]

What does simulation in a game like Civ look like?