Parallel development of Civ6 and Civ7?

[Patine]

I generally agree the post-apocalypse is over done.

I think a more interesting direction would be something like the end of Seven Eves by Neil Stephenson. Basically, the Earth has been scorched following an unexplained destruction of the Moon, resulting in devastating hail of debris over hundreds of earth. What’s left of Mankind (not much) escaped and survived in orbit, and is now returning to earth to recolonise.

I think that’s a more interesting direction, because you basically carve out most of the cliche sci fi stuff - FTL, Aliens, multiple human supporting planets - and you can also start from basically current human technology levels and can more directly connect to existing nations and cultures (which is where FXS / Civ is naturally stronger). Instead of Beyond Earth, you’re playing Return to Earth.

But hey, I like my Sci-Fi the way I like my drinking - hard.

SMAC forever!

 

[KayAU]

Post-apocalyptic, sci-fi, or fantasy, I would appreciate a spin-off in either category. Either would allow for a more narratively focused game, with stronger environmental factors to provide challenges through both earlier and later game stages.

 

[Kwami]

I generally agree the post-apocalypse is over done.

I think a more interesting direction would be something like the end of Seven Eves by Neil Stephenson. Basically, the Earth has been scorched following an unexplained destruction of the Moon, resulting in devastating hail of debris over hundreds of earth. What’s left of Mankind (not much) escaped and survived in orbit, and is now returning to earth to recolonise.

I think that’s a more interesting direction, because you basically carve out most of the cliche sci fi stuff - FTL, Aliens, multiple human supporting planets - and you can also start from basically current human technology levels and can more directly connect to existing nations and cultures (which is where FXS / Civ is naturally stronger). Instead of Beyond Earth, you’re playing Return to Earth.

But hey, I like my Sci-Fi the way I like my drinking - hard.

Sounds like WALL-E to me! I would totally play a Wall-E game where we all came back to Earth and had to refigure out stuff using slightly advanced technology, but lacking a lot of what we once had.

 

[Smity2k1]

What would Civ7 bring that couldn't be added to Civ6? Is there some limitation in the game engine? Is there some other limitation? Expansions, patches, and DLCs can change the rules or add whole new rule types (scenarios, red death) so why build a whole game from scratch?

I think that Firaxis and Aspyr have put so many resources into porting Civ6 to all these different platforms whatever they do next will be a continuation of that project, not something totally new. Perhaps a Beyond Earth 2 on the Civ6 engine could be 'totally new' but I suspect it would make cross platform rollout much easier.

 

[KayAU]

What would Civ7 bring that couldn't be added to Civ6? Is there some limitation in the game engine? Is there some other limitation? Expansions, patches, and DLCs can change the rules or add whole new rule types (scenarios, red death) so why build a whole game from scratch?

Most of the things you could imagine could probably be fit into the same engine, but not necessarily everything. For example, they could decide to go for a spherical map, or a more sophisticated system for elevation (*glances over at SMAC again*). In any case, I'm sure they will do some major revisions to just about every system in the game, which means that even if they were to build it on the same engine, or an improved version of it, it would make sense to call it Civ 7.

 

[UWHabs]

Most of the things you could imagine could probably be fit into the same engine, but not necessarily everything. For example, they could decide to go for a spherical map, or a more sophisticated system for elevation (*glances over at SMAC again*). In any case, I'm sure they will do some major revisions to just about every system in the game, which means that even if they were to build it on the same engine, or an improved version of it, it would make sense to call it Civ 7.

Yeah, a completely separate and new version is the best way to throw out a game mechanism from this version and completely redo it. Sure, they can rework things heavily in an expansion, but there's still a difference between that and doing something that's a fundamental shift. As you said, changes to the core map that aren't simply a new feature they can throw on top of things they have, or changes to movement rules, or even a larger shift in how districts function, are all things that would likely need more major rework.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

Among the things that could be done very differently in Civ VII are the things that people have been discussing in this Forum's Threads for Years, and things already being 'shown off' in the new historical 4X game Humankind:
From the Forums:

1. A Resource, Research, Development scheme that allows a 'Civ' to start and play for part of the game as Pastoral or Nomadic without being so penalized that it is suicidal. We've discussed this at length, but there is new urgency in the research that now shows massive population and culture shifts since the Neolithic all the way down to the Renaissance: "Migration Theory" that was discredited for most of the 20th century is now back in full force, backed by DNA and physical archeological sources, and the Civ Franchise utterly ignores it. The 'classic' Civ model of City-Only Advancement is now a recipe for a Fantasy game, not Historical.
2. A more dynamic model for Resources in general: Civ VI started the move towards 'manufactured' or artificial resources later in the game (mostly tied to Great People): this needs to expand, and the variability of resource use needs to expand, and the substitution of one resource for another needs to be included in the game: This alone would make a dramatic change in the game play from the mid-game on, as you would have to keep developing or substituting resources to stay in the game, the way the technological advance of the Haber Process allowed 'niter' to be manufactured in any quantity desired, or converting from coal to oil-fired boilers made Coal irrelevant as a resource for navies. . .
3. A greater variety of Civilization types. Nomadic/Pastoral is a big one, but there has to be a better model for the City State or Multiple Government type of state, which includes such all-time Civ Favorites as Classical Greece and almost every other culture at one time or the other.

From Humankind.

1. A better-looking map, including more variety of landforms, better handling of elevation (as mentioned in the earlier Post here) and, I would add, more variation in the map during the game. I just finished reading an archeological report on the finding of a Sea Wall made of stone protecting a neolithic village from the rising Mediterranean - built around 2000 BCE, so in game terms, Climate/Terrain Change happens throughout the game, not just in the last Era or two.
2. Better handling of Cultural change/diversity. Humankind seems to be trying for a Progressive Culture mechanism which may or may not work well (I don't think we have enough information to be sure yet, but I, for one, am dubious). There has to be something better than putting a culture like Egypt or China that covers several thousand years into a strait-jacket with 1 - 2 Leaders and a single set of Culture traits.
3. Better handling of military action. 1UPT gives a nice tactical feel to the battles, but it is grossly out of scale with the rest of the map, the AI has not been able to handle it in two game renditions now (Civ V and Civ VI). Humankind is using the Endless Legend style of turning the game map into a temporary Tactical Map, apparently. This, at least, is something different from the interminable Civ debate over 1UPT versus Stack of Doom that we've been locked in since Civ V. Whatever it winds up being, it is time to try something new for Battles in Civ VII.

 

[Patine]

Among the things that could be done very differently in Civ VII are the things that people have been discussing in this Forum's Threads for Years, and things already being 'shown off' in the new historical 4X game Humankind:
From the Forums:

1. A Resource, Research, Development scheme that allows a 'Civ' to start and play for part of the game as Pastoral or Nomadic without being so penalized that it is suicidal. We've discussed this at length, but there is new urgency in the research that now shows massive population and culture shifts since the Neolithic all the way down to the Renaissance: "Migration Theory" that was discredited for most of the 20th century is now back in full force, backed by DNA and physical archeological sources, and the Civ Franchise utterly ignores it. The 'classic' Civ model of City-Only Advancement is now a recipe for a Fantasy game, not Historical.
2. A more dynamic model for Resources in general: Civ VI started the move towards 'manufactured' or artificial resources later in the game (mostly tied to Great People): this needs to expand, and the variability of resource use needs to expand, and the substitution of one resource for another needs to be included in the game: This alone would make a dramatic change in the game play from the mid-game on, as you would have to keep developing or substituting resources to stay in the game, the way the technological advance of the Haber Process allowed 'niter' to be manufactured in any quantity desired, or converting from coal to oil-fired boilers made Coal irrelevant as a resource for navies. . .
3. A greater variety of Civilization types. Nomadic/Pastoral is a big one, but there has to be a better model for the City State or Multiple Government type of state, which includes such all-time Civ Favorites as Classical Greece and almost every other culture at one time or the other.

From Humankind.

1. A better-looking map, including more variety of landforms, better handling of elevation (as mentioned in the earlier Post here) and, I would add, more variation in the map during the game. I just finished reading an archeological report on the finding of a Sea Wall made of stone protecting a neolithic village from the rising Mediterranean - built around 2000 BCE, so in game terms, Climate/Terrain Change happens throughout the game, not just in the last Era or two.
2. Better handling of Cultural change/diversity. Humankind seems to be trying for a Progressive Culture mechanism which may or may not work well (I don't think we have enough information to be sure yet, but I, for one, am dubious). There has to be something better than putting a culture like Egypt or China that covers several thousand years into a strait-jacket with 1 - 2 Leaders and a single set of Culture traits.
3. Better handling of military action. 1UPT gives a nice tactical feel to the battles, but it is grossly out of scale with the rest of the map, the AI has not been able to handle it in two game renditions now (Civ V and Civ VI). Humankind is using the Endless Legend style of turning the game map into a temporary Tactical Map, apparently. This, at least, is something different from the interminable Civ debate over 1UPT versus Stack of Doom that we've been locked in since Civ V. Whatever it winds up being, it is time to try something new for Battles in Civ VII.

Forgive my clumsy terminology ignorance here, but I've seen the term "4X game" used several times on this thread. What exactly does that MEAN?

 

[Ondolindë]

Forgive my clumsy terminology ignorance here, but I've seen the term "4X game" used several times on this thread. What exactly does that MEAN?

It’s a genre of strategy-based games in which you can "eXplore, eXpand, eXploit, and eXterminate: the 4X.

 

[Patine]

It’s a genre of strategy-based games in which you can "eXplore, eXpand, eXploit, and eXterminate: the 4X.

Thank-you! It must be a term that's newer than the actual game genre.

 

[Sherlock]

I think the history of Red Death is pretty well-known now thanks to an official dev stream, but I can certainly see them standing back from it and going "Hey, this could be a good spin-off for VI". Instead of settling another planet, we have to deal with a world torn asunder by nuclear and even conventional war, or climate change.

I didn't buy their last 'climate change' game, I'm certainly not looking for another.

 

[The googles do nothing]

What would Civ7 bring that couldn't be added to Civ6?

Automated testing. The fact that it took so long to fix all the trading exploits indicates to me they don't have any time or cost effective way make the game play the large number of possible combinations of choices you can make in the game to spot these issues.

AI Clients. Separate the game engine out from the AI that makes decisions for the AI civs. Day 1 a modder should be able to write there own AI program.

 

[Browd]

Thank-you! It must be a term that's newer than the actual game genre.

According to wikipedia, the term dates from 1993, and was first used in relation to Master of Orion: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/4X

 

[Tabarnak]

According to wikipedia, the term dates from 1993, and was first used in relation to Master of Orion: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/4X

''Civilization 4 2nd best pc game of all time according to IGN'' from this article.

Civilization 4 had keep Sid Meier alive. Imagine civ5 instead of civ4 right after civ 3...That would have been catastrophic.

Civ 5 was so bad at release. People would have fled away. But civ4 saved their ass. The fanatics base was already created.

 

[Patine]

''Civilization 4 2nd best pc game of all time according to IGN'' from this article.

Civilization 4 had keep Sid Meier alive. Imagine civ5 instead of civ4 right after civ 3...That would have been catastrophic.

Civ 5 was so bad at release. People would have fled away. But civ4 saved their ass. The fanatics base was already created.

I haven't played Civ4 or Civ5. I went Civ1, Civ2 (my personal favourite of the series), Civ3, and then spent awhile with MMO's, RTS games, and continuing with Civ2 and SMAC (all of which I still play, as well), and then re-emerged to have a look at Civ6.

 

[DJ_Tanner]

What would Civ7 bring that couldn't be added to Civ6? Is there some limitation in the game engine? Is there some other limitation? Expansions, patches, and DLCs can change the rules or add whole new rule types (scenarios, red death) so why build a whole game from scratch?

I think that Firaxis and Aspyr have put so many resources into porting Civ6 to all these different platforms whatever they do next will be a continuation of that project, not something totally new. Perhaps a Beyond Earth 2 on the Civ6 engine could be 'totally new' but I suspect it would make cross platform rollout much easier.

The bigger issue over engine is you become limited by design space. For instance, when they started they had, at least, a rough idea of what all was going in the game and when. So like districts were a day 1 thing, but loyalty was not. However with things like loyalty the design space was left open for some mechanic that would operate in that manner. However, now, if after seeing how everything works if they wanted to tweak loyalty they are limited in how they can do so, it must still fit within that design window created at the beginning of production. So the best way to address that is a new game with a new foundation that would creates a different design window. Since game mechanics tend to lean on each other you can mess around with values and other small interactions, but the bones are there from day 1 so that does limit the ability to make some mechanics shine.