So anyway, place your bets: when will civ7 arrive?

[ThunderLizard2]

No interest in Civ VII after they failed to fix Civ VI.

 

[Abaxial]

You know, if I were put in charge of Civ 7 development, I would not know where to begin. It seems an almost impossible task. Where do you take the game so that the result is genuinely Civ 7 and not Civ 6.5? All the things people have aired on this forum have mostly been fixes to Civ 6, not a road map to Civ 7. What will it look like? Will it be bright like Civ 6 or more subdued like Civ 5? What will the leaders look like? More animations or static art? These issues may not affect gameplay but they are vastly important to how the game is received. What you do NOT want is a game such that reviewers say, "This is just Civ 6 with a haircut."

 

[blackbutterfly]

You know, if I were put in charge of Civ 7 development, I would not know where to begin. It seems an almost impossible task. Where do you take the game so that the result is genuinely Civ 7 and not Civ 6.5? All the things people have aired on this forum have mostly been fixes to Civ 6, not a road map to Civ 7.

Well, have you played HUMANKIND?

In it battles are tactical XCOM like and waged in a turn based mini-game-within-a-game manner.
Amplitude did what Firaxis should have thought of first.

For Civ VII (that is '7') imagine zooming into battles so they play out XCOM style.
It does warrant earlier formations, or stacks, of units.

 

[pokiehl]

Please, no. Keep Humankind/Amplitude-style combat out of Civ. Can’t stand it.

 

[Abaxial]

Similarly with Fallen Enchantress, where the units in combat transfer to a mini-map to fight. Heck, even Master of Magic did the same. Yes it could be done in Civ 7, but that doesn't solve the question of what the game looks like, what cities are like, what leaders are like, and all the other things that add up to the Civ experience.

 

[Leucarum]

Please, no. Keep Humankind/Amplitude-style combat out of Civ. Can’t stand it.

Yup. This is absolutely the worst part of that franchise. No mini games for critical gameplay systems please!

 

[blackbutterfly]

Yup. This is absolutely the worst part of that franchise. No mini games for critical gameplay systems please!

Don't panic @pokiehl

TBH it is a little jarring switching between turn based tactical battles and the real time map.
With expertise in XCOM and Midnight Suns, if anyone can get it right it's Firaxis.

I think what Amplitude did get right was armies. IMO it's the right balance between Civ IV's stacks-o-doom and Civ V/VI's 1UT.

 

[Leucarum]

Don't panic @pokiehl

TBH it is a little jarring switching between turn based tactical battles and the real time map.
With expertise in XCOM and Midnight Suns, if anyone can get it right it's Firaxis.

I think what Amplitude did get right was armies. IMO it's the right balance between Civ IV's stacks-o-doom and Civ V/VI's 1UT.

I get that people want to get away from the 1UPT for both AI and realism reasons, but jumping from a very macro-level game to a micro-battle really gets on my nerves.

Maybe something like the combat width concept from paradox games, where there is a limit on how many units can participate (probably terrain related) in a combat regardless of the number of them in an army could be a way to allow some stacking without things going overboard and turning into doomstacks.

 

[Zegangani]

You know, if I were put in charge of Civ 7 development, I would not know where to begin. It seems an almost impossible task. Where do you take the game so that the result is genuinely Civ 7 and not Civ 6.5?

Good Question.

I agree with you, it would be very hard to make Civ7 not a Civ 6.5, or an Ideas Theaf "stealing/copying" Concepts from other Strategy Games. Because let's face it, there is not much room for Innovation as much as for Improvement. Like, if the new Concepts introduced in Humankind and Old World would be the ones to be introduced in Civ7 (Imaging OW and HK didn't exist and we never saw their Features), they wouldn't be Game Changing enough for me to merit Civ7. Which doesn't mean that there can't be any Unique Ideas that would change how you play a 4X Historical Strategy Game, but the contrary, I think that there is a lot that can be done to shake up this Genre, but first, let us see how Games usually introduce new "Innovative Ideas" to us. Most of those new Innovations/Concepts either:
- have already existed in some shape or form and were just remodeled and repurposed,
- reworks of something that was already working fine or at least okeyish,
- a good Idea/Concept that worked in a different Game (even from a different Genre) taken and improved upon to fit a given Game and/or to solve a specific problem of the Game/Genre .
- or, rarely, a Concept that at first look makes you question the "why", bc more often than not it doesn't just affect the Gameplay, but it also changes the Game completely, which might not appeal to everyone.

What I miss here is the lack of "New" things. Which frankly, isn't necessary, but a Game that doesn't add anything "New" to the Genre can't be described as "Innovative". Stacks to 1UPT was innovative, Squares to Hexes was Innovative, unstacking Cities was innovative, but changing cultures mid-game isn't (bc we already have similar things that unlock throughout the Game, like Dedications), and Dynasties, although Innovative when you make them work in a Game that lasts not just for centuries but for millennia, take the Game too much in a different direction, and add RPG elements that I personally don't want to see in a 4X Historical Game (which makes OW a different kind of 4X Strategy Game, definitely not your usual Game about Civilization like Civ and Humankind are, and which I prefer to stay as. But even as a different Game, there seems to be varying opinions on what OW brought to the table, like discussed in this Thread), I would play CK if I wanted that.

But to get back to Civ7 (and Civ6), Yes, Civ6 has solved a lot of the Issues of the previous titles, but it also ruined/reverted things that the previous titles already had fixed/done well. So there is a long way before considering Civ6 a Complete Civ Game, which I would call it if it didn't have left some gaps in the Gameplay and lackluster/unpolished Mechanics, especially things that older Titles already have done a great job at.

So, for Civ7 to convince me as a Cosutomer, and satisfy me as a Civ Fan, I would expect nothing less than:
1) Base Game being more or less Civ6 Complete (like how base Civ6 was basically Civ 5 + Expansions)
2) Improving the Things that have room for improvement and Potential to be great Mechanics (Like Combined Units, Governors, Civics Tree, Loyalty, Emergencies...etc.).
3) Rework of the Stuff that left much to be desired in Civ6 or prior Titles, or that they haven't done well (Like World Congress, (Micro)Religion, Diplo Victory...etc.).
4) Reintroducing great features from previous Games or other 4X Strategy Titles that served a purpose and improved a specific aspect of the Game (I have no Idea why Ideologies or Puppet Cities where left out from Civ6 (a Combo between Civ 5's and Humankind's Ideologies would be neat), or Vassals from both latest titles).
5) An overall more balanced Gameplay Design (Wide vs Tall, Micro vs Macro, more ways for specialization, no penalizing a specific Gamelay style due to some Mechanic that doesn't allow it (like Loyalty preventing Colonisation and penalizing small Empires)...etc.).
6) A better Late Game (Is it through something done in 1,2,3,4,5 and/or 6, or with a new Mechanic).
7) Something(s) Game Changing, something(s) that set Civ7 apart from any previous Title and other 4X Titles.

I can live with just 1,3,5 and 7, or 1,2,4,5 and 7, but if there is no 7, then I can't accept anything less than 1,2,3,4,5 and 6.

What I would also like to note, is that the "Keep a Third, rework/improve a Third, the rest is should be new" Design Philosophy of Civ should be changed to "Keep everything that works great and doesn't need a change/improvement, improve the things that have room for improvement and/or potential to be great, rework anything that doesn't work or is lackluster, introduce some new things to solve specific Issues or fill the empty gaps". Changes for changes sake is totally unnecessary IMHO, if you want to change something, then change the Graphics, bc that's necessary in any case.

 

[Abaxial]

Incidentally, I'm never so opposed to 1UPT as folk here call it, as I go back to hex wargaming in the 1970s when single-stacking was commonplace in games like Napoleon at Waterlooo, Blue and Gray Quad, and so on. So I'm used to it. But in fact in Civ 6 you can do some stacking - a leader on a combat unit for instance. So one possibility would be to allow stacking a missile unit on a melee unit as a compromise.

 

[SammyKhalifa]

You know, if I were put in charge of Civ 7 development, I would not know where to begin. It seems an almost impossible task. Where do you take the game so that the result is genuinely Civ 7 and not Civ 6.5? All the things people have aired on this forum have mostly been fixes to Civ 6, not a road map to Civ 7. What will it look like? Will it be bright like Civ 6 or more subdued like Civ 5? What will the leaders look like? More animations or static art? These issues may not affect gameplay but they are vastly important to how the game is received. What you do NOT want is a game such that reviewers say, "This is just Civ 6 with a haircut."

I mean, yeah, I guess, but at that same time you could call civ6 Civ 1.6. I'm trying really hard (and failing) to keep from dropping a "no need to reinvent the wheel" joke.

I could see a rework of how maps are. Still hexes, still 1UPT, but with many MORE hexes, with units just taking a one or a few spaces and things like cities being larger. This would probabably alleviate the issues with 1UPT but regain benefits like military formations, organically expanding cities, etc. Processing power might be an issue.

I also like the idea of an evolution of the eurekas and inspirations, where it helps what your civ is going forward. Maybe you gain a new trait with the new eras based on what you spent your time doing the era before. Did you fight all the time? Maybe a military trait. Trading? Maybe something with trade routes. Etc.

 

[Sherlock]

I wonder how many people, like me, come out here about once a week to see if there's been an announcement.

This is getting so old.

 

[TheMarshmallowBear]

I could see a rework of how maps are. Still hexes, still 1UPT, but with many MORE hexes, with units just taking a one or a few spaces and things like cities being larger. This would probabably alleviate the issues with 1UPT but regain benefits like military formations, organically expanding cities, etc. Processing power might be an issue.

Honestly? I hate the idea of "more hexes". That doesn't solve the problem, it just creates a temporary solution to something that will become a bigger problem.

Sure you could technically include a "general" unit that combines a number of units and fight armies, but I also don't want it to become a Humankind clone either (honestly, Humankind was a failure for me and I cannot get into it, primarily because of its combat mechanics).

Maybe the issue isn't the "map size", but the number of units required to achieve a goal? If someone can come up with a solution to the stack of dooms, you'd be on your way without having to push for hexes inside hexes.

I would however like more "features" on the map as well as possibly elevation.

 

[Zegangani]

I second @TheMarshmallowBear re "more hexes" not solving 1UPT Issues, though I still don't like how Civ Maps are getting smaller and smaller

Anyway, I have been thinking of what Civ 7 could introduce to make it worth it and that also sets it apart from the other titles, and I came up with these Possibilities:
- 2-3 New/Innovative Mechanics: Like improved Resources (perhaps with a M&C Mechanic in the base Game) and Trade, a Dynamic Techs/Civics Tree, or a new Mechanic like for Colonization, or a late Game Mechnic like Unions.
- Better Map Graphics/Gameplay: Biomes like in Humankind, More Buildings in Districts, better City Sprawl, Larger Rivers...etc.
- Some kind of Government Mechanic that is responsible for Empire Management: like Stability and/or Bureacracy and a better Policy System.
- Improved 1UPT: this one is a must be. Like Civ6's 1UPT is better than Civ 5's, Civ 7 should also double down on this, maybe even allowing small Stacks of different Units, easier Movement/Management, passing through friendly City Centers and sharing a Tile with friendly Units...etc.
- Better Multiplayer (with much less desyncs and maybe even stable Cross Platform play)
- Mods for other Platforms (Console and Mobile).
- All of that + a released DLL .

Though I don't think Civ7 will forget about the "Keep a third, rework/improve a third, the rest is new" formula (which I'm not a Fan of), so I would love if Civ7 only removes the Mechanics in Civ6 that were truly bad or not very impactful/useful, and reworks the ones that really need improvement. And my hopes for that are:
Third to remove (what to replace them with is speculative):
- Loyalty (it's fun, for sure, but it comes at the risk of killing Colonisation and it also breaks immersion)
- Governors (a Nice have, but I can sacrifice it)
- World Congress (I can live without it, it's not fun and impactful enough to justify its presence)
- Natural Disasters/Climate Change (Admittedly, I was never a fan of this, tho I still think they're 2 of Civ 6's best Mechanics, so they should stay in Civ6, just like Ideologies stayed in Civ 5 )
- Agendas (no more to say)
- Ages and Historic Moments (the Idea behind them is cool, but as with many things in the Game, the implimentation wasn't)
- Espionage (was never implemented as I imagined it to be, like to get Intel on what a Player is planning/plotting).
- Game Modes (even if it's not fantasy stuff, this just makes the Game more unbalanced and less interconnected).
(Yep, most of my least favorite Mechanics are from the Expansions)

Third to improve/rework:
- Energy/Power (it only plays a very minor role in Civ6 where it should be the most important Resource n the late Game that keeps your Empire running)
- Trade Deals/Trade Routes (they shouldn't be separated. The TR System in Civ6 is relly good, it just needs to be less micromanagy, like permanent and only disabled by Embargoes, include River and Air Trade, and also Resource Trade)
- CivicsTree (If it stays like Techs Tree 2.0 then you can just make them a single Tree again, but I would still prefer a seperate Civics Tree to keep Culture an important Resource, but maybe make it more dynamic/branching out)
- Emergencies (perhaps this time more diplomatically important, where at the end of one, Players might form Unions/Coalitions, leading in Ideological wars in the late Game)
- Specialists (what do I need to say here, maybe make them have an Identity, generate GPP and maybe even migrate between Cities)
- Religion (please no more religious Units micro-management, we can barely handle Military Units and Civilians, so make it mainly or solely passive instead)

Third to keep (and slightly improve/reajust for Civ7):
- Stackable Resources (AI not making good use of it doesn't mean it's a bad Mechanic, just train the AI to use it properly)
- Districts
- Corps/Armies (I good Idea and a step forward in improving 1UPT, maybe another step will make 1UPT acceptable at minimun)
- Housing/Amenities (not interactive enough in Civ6, but as simple Mechanics they are actually good, and just need some refinement/tweaks)
- Policies (one of my favorite Civ 6 Mechanics, although it needs some adjustment to take Governments into account)
- Grievances (it's not the fault of Grievances that Diplomacy in general is bad in Civ6)
- Barbarian Clans
- I would Ideally have the rest of the Game Features stay and improved rather than scrapped for some new things just to make the Game feel unique. We can have new things on top.

 

[SammyKhalifa]

I second @TheMarshmallowBear re "more hexes" not solving 1UPT Issues, though I still don't like how Civ Maps are getting smaller and smaller

Well, with more granular hexes the units will have plenty of space to go around each other. Of course you'd have to add in AOC and adjust movement etc. I'm not sold on it either even though it was my thought, but it could work. CIties, farms, all of the the other things we have on the map could then be multiple tiles and maybe different shapes (or just be seven hexes, which is still a hex after al).

 

[HorseshoeHermit]

No interest in Civ VII after they failed to fix Civ VI.

Sell the IP.

 

[TheSpaceCowboy]

You know, if I were put in charge of Civ 7 development, I would not know where to begin. It seems an almost impossible task. Where do you take the game so that the result is genuinely Civ 7 and not Civ 6.5? All the things people have aired on this forum have mostly been fixes to Civ 6, not a road map to Civ 7. What will it look like? Will it be bright like Civ 6 or more subdued like Civ 5? What will the leaders look like? More animations or static art? These issues may not affect gameplay but they are vastly important to how the game is received. What you do NOT want is a game such that reviewers say, "This is just Civ 6 with a haircut."

One way to radically revolutionize Civilization VII is to deprioritize multiplayer so as to all for the civilizations to be purposefully imbalanced. It works well for Crusader Kings III and allows players another option for adjusting the difficulty by playing as a smaller, handicapped civ.

 

[reddishrecue]

One way to radically revolutionize Civilization VII is to deprioritize multiplayer so as to all for the civilizations to be purposefully imbalanced. It works well for Crusader Kings III and allows players another option for adjusting the difficulty by playing as a smaller, handicapped civ.

There's different civilizations that used to thrive smaller than larger in civ 5. Civ 6 didn't do that anymore.

 

[Krajzen]

One way to radically revolutionize Civilization VII is to deprioritize multiplayer so as to all for the civilizations to be purposefully imbalanced. It works well for Crusader Kings III and allows players another option for adjusting the difficulty by playing as a smaller, handicapped civ.

Ck3 (and in other pdox games) is something very different though: you start the game with preset historical geography and geographic factors (starting power, neighbors, relative power, sea access, economic geography, friendly cultures and religions etc) by their very nature throw the concept of balance out of the window. Especially in ck3 where particular factions innate national bonuses are much weaker than in eu4 (but even there I'd say starting setup makes for like 80% of difficultt level; Wallachia has some great bonuses, but it's still very hard to play due to geography).

So its different expectations entirely. On the other hand, the world in pdox games is so big and so chaotic that faction bonuses aren't very glaring thing because there is a ton of ways to outlast powerful enemy thanks to this chaos. So what if France is infinitely stronger if I am extremely far away and and fighting like 20 other countries.

Meanwhile civ games play in tabula rasa world where everybody becomes alive at the same time and power level in the empty world free to colonise, and where you have not 300 but like 8 - 12 factions on the map (20 tops without mods), and where you have direct competetive victory goals instead of pdox games sandbox. This makes balance between factions much more visible, glaring, important and unpleasant if you play as some miser and your neighbor starting from the same points has crushingly more power thanks to nothing but its innate nature. You don't expect historical geographic unfairness and you have much smaller room to run away from any unfairness.

 

[Chekko]

Should Civ 7 have that board game style or should they try something new? Being a board game has been Civs style pretty much and I wonder how their fans would react if Firaxis made things more complex. Also making things more complex would probably remove how repetitive things end up being in mid game and beyond. I think diplomacy should be more of a thing in the mid game.