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

[blackbutterfly]

Yeah that's a unit, not a gameplay mechanic. I actually wish the XCOM Squad had made a comeback in Civ 6, but alas.

A card based combat system can solve the late game snowball "too many units to move in the time limit" problem in MP.

Really previous versions of Civ have been a great single-player experience...but this is frequently at the expense of multiplayer.
I don't play Civ VI MP anymore b'cos it's increasingly unbalanced (with new additions like Unifier Qin) but I still play Civ:BE MP. In fact I played a game this weekend. (Russians seem to love it!)

I digress. When all players have the same number of moves and "card plays" per turn, it levels the playing field between wide and tall players.
RN it's go wide fast & furious. That's it.

Whomever snowballs the fastest wins. Frequently I've seen Trajan do this in MP. Also neo Khmer (post re-balance).

 

[TreVor_ish]

You will never have a balanced multiplayer game in a 4x strategy if:
- everyone has a different place on map with different terrain and resources
- everyone has a different set of bonuses.

Old World has Orders as a way to tackle a snowball which in multiplayer might be some sort of a solution for that.
But cards? Please, no.
I would rather have a unbalanced game with a bigger depth and scale than to make it feel even more board like.

 

[The_goggles_do_nothing]

You will never have a balanced multiplayer game in a 4x strategy if:
- everyone has a different place on map with different terrain and resources
- everyone has a different set of bonuses.

I would like to see an option to generate maps based on each set of civ's bonus rather then placing a civ after generating the map.

 

[pokiehl]

I would like to see an option to generate maps based on each set of civ's bonus rather then placing a civ after generating the map.

I would like to see Civ bonuses stop being paragraphs of tile bonuses for specific terrain. No other game in this series has had factions so dependent on their starting location. I really dislike it.

 

[blackbutterfly]

Old World has Orders as a way to tackle a snowball which in multiplayer might be some sort of a solution for that.

Yeah, moves + card plays.

But cards? Please, no.
I would rather have a unbalanced game with a bigger depth and scale than to make it feel even more board like.

You know many thought that Marvel's Midnight Suns card system would be heavily criticised and disliked but no...it's the weird friendship building in the Abbey that's pretty universally disliked and most called out.
In fact, you really grow to like the card system

I mean we have cards in Civ VI: policies.
Nobody seems to complain about that.

In that Facebook game Firaxis are trying hard to erase from our collective memory CivWorld there were also cards for combat.
Though I forget how it worked. How long ago was that? 2010?

 

[pokiehl]

I mean we have cards in Civ VI: policies.
Nobody seems to complain about that.

A lot of people complain about them. You can see some of the debate in the Ideas subforum. I certainly don’t like policy cards.

 

[blackbutterfly]

A lot of people complain about them. You can see some of the debate in the Ideas subforum. I certainly don’t like policy cards.

Yeah, I agree the cards for policies isn't the greatest idea.
In fact it's probably a step back from Civ V's policies.

HUMANKIND's civics and policies are much better.
You can pick a policy then later repeal it if you change your mind.

Rather like how laws work. (I hope I'm not triggering anyone by citing Roe v Wade?)

Anyway...cards are a simple metaphor and one that is universally understood.
Old World's order system is complicated. (How many people are playing it RN?)

Here's how a card based combat system could work:

Units will have have a deck of cards for actions. E.g: Fortify. Garrison. Charge. Heal. Siege (for catapults/etc. attacking cities) or Grapeshot (for attacking units). Sentry. Raid/Pillage.
No matter how many units you have, each player has same number of card plays + moves + redraws each turn.

 

[Zegangani]

I would like to see an option to generate maps based on each set of civ's bonus rather then placing a civ after generating the map.

It is much much easier to code the game to assign Players based on their start Biases than to rework all Map Types to be generated based on the active Civs. It would be too much unnecessary work for something that can be fixed much easier/faster.

I think People got used to bad starts that they start to think that the whole Idea of Civs getting a start based on the already generated Map should be reconsidered and changed. But there is no Problem with that, at all. The Problem is that the Devs didn't put enough effort to improve the script that assigns the Players at the start of the Game.

Admittedly, improving that Script requires a lot of time and testing, I know because I have tried it myself. So, I think it's just another one of those mechanics/features that the Devs know could be improved, but bc of Time and Resource constraints they have to set priorities. Like, as long as it works then no need to spend more Time on it.

Anyway, you can try my Origin mod if you haven't already, it improves that Script, and I have seen lots of positive Feedback on it. Nonetheless, it's not perfect, hence I'm currently working on updating it, making it more consistent, give better results, and also adding some new options and customization. (Though, I don't know when the new update will be finished)

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

Anyway...cards are a simple metaphor and one that is universally understood.
Old World's order system is complicated. (How many people are playing it RN?)

Here's how a card based combat system could work:

Units will have have a deck of cards for actions. E.g: Fortify. Garrison. Charge. Heal. Siege (for catapults/etc. attacking cities) or Grapeshot (for attacking units). Sentry. Raid/Pillage.
No matter how many units you have, each player has same number of card plays + moves + redraws each turn.

So, let me see if I understand you.
In order to artificially limit what my units can do, the game will introduce an artificial game mechanic that tries to give the same command and control problems to ALL Civs, regardless of their technology, policies, size of armies, or training of their men, units, officers, etc.

Introduce that, and I'll go back to playing poker: at least that's a card system that makes sense in its context.

If you want to limit the options of civs and armies and units, there are numerous far less 'gamey' methods. As ridiculous as the implementation of Old World's 'orders' system is, it is a better base on which to build a working limitation system (for starters, don't allow multiple moves to a single unit so that 'armies' actually move as a group instead of like a set of grasshoppers).

Another limiting system, used for at least 50 years in board games, would be to make individual units moveable, but stacks of units ('armies') can only move, and no unit can attack, unless they are accompanied (within range of) a General. Then limit the number of Generals by technologies, policies, number of Military Schools, etc and the massively important Soft Factors of Leadership and Command and Control in warfare become immediately apparent in the game - and the gamer is instantly aware of what his limitations are, because the Generals are On The Map and he knows what he has to do to get more of them.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

I would like to see Civ bonuses stop being paragraphs of tile bonuses for specific terrain. No other game in this series has had factions so dependent on their starting location. I really dislike it.

I certainly think that there needs to be some at least. Maybe the best solution would be to at least limit to one civ with bonuses towards each type of terrain: Inca for Mountains, Egypt or Babylon for Rivers, Polynesia civ for Ocean start etc.

 

[pokiehl]

I certainly think that there needs to be some at least. Maybe the best solution would be to at least limit to one civ with bonuses towards each type of terrain: Inca for Mountains, Egypt or Babylon for Rivers, Polynesia civ for Ocean start etc.

Why?? None of those civs had such specific terrain-dependent bonuses like that in Civ 5 and they were great. Only exception being Polynesia which could cross oceans earlier, but that wasn’t even a tile yield vonus.

I have never spent so much time rerolling (or reading about others complaining about rerolling) as I have in civ 6.

 

[TreVor_ish]

Yeah, moves + card plays.

Orders for moving units isn't bad. Cards for technology progress/free units is one of the things I dislike the most in Old World.

I mean we have cards in Civ VI: policies.
Nobody seems to complain about that.

I don't like it. You can basically change every one of them every single turn (for some small gold amount).

HUMANKIND's civics and policies are much better.
You can pick a policy then later repeal it if you change your mind.

This is something similar to what CIV V had, but with an option to change (not every turn and certainly not all of them at once), which is what I would like to see in CIV VII.

Old World's order system is complicated. (How many people are playing it RN?)

I feel there are a lot of systems in Old World complex for complexity's sake.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

Why?? None of those civs had such specific terrain-dependent bonuses like that in Civ 5 and they were great. Only exception being Polynesia which could cross oceans earlier, but that wasn’t even a tile yield vonus.

I have never spent so much time rerolling (or reading about others complaining about rerolling) as I have in civ 6.

I would assume in the case of the Inca, you'd want them to at least be the mountain civ when playing, so that was my main point. I never really played Civ 5 though but looking them up they, along with the terrace farm, were still heavily dependent on hills for their bonuses, and even better when built next to mountains.

I am agreeing with you though that Civ 6 took it overboard though. My idea was at least limiting it to a handful of civs.

 

[Zegangani]

I certainly think that there needs to be some at least. Maybe the best solution would be to at least limit to one civ with bonuses towards each type of terrain: Inca for Mountains, Egypt or Babylon for Rivers, Polynesia civ for Ocean start etc.

I agree. But why keep it to 1 terrain type start bias in the Game? Like why only have Phoenicia have a Coastal Start Bias but not Indonesia? If a Civ/Leader has an Ability based on a Terrain/Feature then it should get a start based on that.

I really hope that Civ7 doesn't remove Terrain/Feature/Map specific Abilities for Civs/Leaders. In my Opinion, Map dependent Abilities were amongst the most fun/unique abilities in the Game. Removing them would just make the Civs/Leaders bland/generic again. On the other hand, if Civ7 introduces a Mechanic where a Civ/Leader gets an Ability based on its surroundings/Environment, then I'm all for it.

Though, as I already said above, the Issue isn't in the Abilities or the Maps, it's the script/code that assigns the Civs/Players a start on the Map, and that can be improved without taking a Fun concept out of the Game.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

I agree. But why keep it to 1 terrain type start bias in the Game? Like why only have Phoenicia have a Coastal Start Bias but not Indonesia? If a Civ/Leader has an Ability based on a Terrain/Feature then it should get a start based on that.

Sure maybe limiting it to one might be too limiting. Though civs like Indonesia or Phoenicia in Civ 7 could get start bias towards certain luxuries like spices or dyes, based off of their abilities, instead of coasts.

 

[InsidiousMage]

I would like to see Civ bonuses stop being paragraphs of tile bonuses for specific terrain. No other game in this series has had factions so dependent on their starting location. I really dislike it.

I have never spent so much time rerolling (or reading about others complaining about rerolling) as I have in civ 6.

The worst part of Civ6 is actually getting a decent starting location, whether you have terrain bonuses or not. I generally agree that that terrain bonuses are probably more trouble than they are worth but. . . I still really like them. They add some nice variety to the game that I really appreciate. The biggest problem I have with Old World is that a lot of the games I play tended to feel very similar in ways that is rarely true in Civ6 because you play the map in Civ6 but not in OW. I don't know how you get the best of both worlds but it would be nice if Civ7 manages to do it.

 

[The_goggles_do_nothing]

I think People got used to bad starts that they start to think that the whole Idea of Civs getting a start based on the already generated Map should be reconsidered and changed. But there is no Problem with that, at all. The Problem is that the Devs didn't put enough effort to improve the script that assigns the Players at the start of the Game.

I'm thinking along the lines that a Norwegian civ wants a islands map and a Schytha civ wants a pangea map. I would think there should be a way of that 50% of land that favors forested , and 50% of land that favors being one big continent with flat land.

 

[legalizefreedom]

I'm somewhat confused. The entire purpose of Civ series is to be based around history, it's essentially a historical strategy game*. It's literally the entire purpose and scope of the series and nothing more, and for this reason the majority of players explicitly very much do not want many non - historical elements there - as there are separate games devoted to them (I'm all for great fantasy games btw). What exactly brings you to play Civ if you don't like its fundamental genre, scope and themes? Expecting Civ not being historical is to me like expecting Elden Ring to be realistic and down to earth, or for CoD games to feature pacifist way of playing, it's just knocking to the wrong door.

* - (yeah yeah I know, to be exactly precise I should say it's merely historically inspired game, whatever, you know what I mean, by such strict criteria there are almost no historical games at all, nor could they ever be. Personally I am a fan of using simple categories for video game genres such as historical, sci fi, fantasy etc instead of academic disputes splitting hairs about the concept of realism and whatnot)

Sure. Replace Civ with 4x from Firaxis. It's practically like Coke. I don't mean Coke, I mean soda.
I'm a Civ player because it is a 4x/strategy and I enjoy the mechanics, but I much prefer sci-fi and fantasy settings. I get my fill of real life in real life. Fortunately, historical Civ games are generally animated adaptations and it's practically sci-fi to play the time span of the game.
I do often knock on the wrong door, btw. I enjoy playing Starcraft and Warcraft like turn-based games for example or play shooters very methodically. Any game that is more twitch than strategy, I'll lean into the strategy elements. It's not always the best, but what do you do when developers don't make the game you want to play? If they are otherwise great games, you play them anyway.

 

[Kwami]

No matter how many units you have, each player has same number of card plays + moves + redraws each turn.

That doesn't make any sense. The whole point of having more units is that I can do more things with them. Maybe I want to fight two simultaneous wars, or just one really big war. Why should the guy with two archers get the same number of moves as my army with 25 units? What's the point, then, of building more units?!

I really enjoyed Midnight Suns, but let's leave the card system where it belongs. I don't see if working in Civilization at all. If you want to limit actions somehow, then there are surely better way to do it. I'm not convinced that it's at all necessary, though.

 

[blackbutterfly]

I really enjoyed Midnight Suns, but let's leave the card system where it belongs. I don't see if working in Civilization at all.

One notable point is Marvel's Midnight Suns (MMS) is not MP.
So IDK how will the card combat system work in MP.

In MMS hydra ~ barbs.

But if you insert card combat into HUMANKIND where battles happen Unreal like in a separate "dimension" (like MMS) it'd work perfectly!

Each battle or confrontation will have its own set of card plays + moves + redraws.

I've already called for a whole new technology/foundation for Civ VII b'cos the current engine is falling apart. Escalating bugs and exploits.
I don't envy the Civ dev team. Must be a nightmare to work on it. So many lead devs have burnt out and left after 1 iteration. Ed is the exception, having been promoted instead.
If I were Firaxis I would build Civ VII on Unity. Or even try to license Amplitude's engine for HUMANKIND.

HUMANKIND is already a much better MP game than Civ BTW.