So if the even numbered Civs are the better ones, your expectations for 7

[Quoth the Raven]

Anyway, these are my hopes for Civ 7 in regards to armies and districts:
- Partial stacking, where the type and amount of units you can stack together are decided by military culture and other factors other than science (the Civs with the most technologically advanced militaries won't necessarily be the ones with the most effective traditions). Some types of stacking would be unique or unlocked earlier by certain cultures (e.g. a full stack of light cavalry for the Mongols) -> From Europa Universalis, Humankind and Through the Ages.

Not to hijack the thread but that is not true. The more advanced military wins almost every time in a straight up battle. The Samurai or Zulu military culture only went so far when facing more advanced weaponry. Guerilla warfare would not involve stacks of units on the side practicing it anyway.

It feels like a board game in how everything is unstacked. I don't want to play a tactical mini game of battle and city improvement planning. That gets very tedious on larger maps and you can't play real world maps. Your 1 city in Spain takes up the whole area, and your 2 units that can fit through to France sit and battle it out with artillery that shoots half a country.

 

[_ViKinG_]

Well, for me i only want 7 too have much better AI military fighting, i want too have a challenge and feel the threath inn modern eras. I played 4-5 alot. But civ 6 i gave up even its a good bulding game. When i see other AI civs with 0 military long into the game and they had a big empire, that was when i quit civ 6. Its sad. So civ 7 give me more diplomacy and harder difficulty fighting the AI.

 

[AntSou]

Not to hijack the thread but that is not true. The more advanced military wins almost every time in a straight up battle. The Samurai or Zulu military culture only went so far when facing more advanced weaponry. Guerilla warfare would not involve stacks of units on the side practicing it anyway.

You're handpicking examples to support your point and exclude everything else. You also contradict yourself with the statement "only went so far" which supports my position, not yours, since it is a concession that there are other factors involved. And I'm not sure why you mentioned Guerrilla warfare.

I'm by no means versed in the matter, but off the top of my head, other factors include:

- Leadership (e.g. the Spanish Armada was led by an appointed inexperienced aristocrat) -> this isn't just a matter of having more or less experience, which already exists in Civ. The practice of appointing commanders based on social rank rather than merit is a cultural factor;
- Tactics / Innovative ideas on how to conduct war and more effectively apply existing means (e.g. the pike square);
- Doctrines and formal military education (staff colleges, etc);
- Military Logistics;
- Tradition and culture (I gave the example of the Mongols. You don't get a capable horse archer by simply handing him a bow and a horse, and it's also not simply a matter of military training. The military capabilities of the Mongols reflected their culture and lifestyle).

I think Civ should better reflect such distinctions and look at other games for inspiration. It already does it somewhat, but it's pretty limited. But bottom line is that I think this would make it more fun and immersive. Again, I say this based on the experience from other games. I prefer if systems are better interconnected, and that includes linking military to culture.

 

[Quoth the Raven]

You're handpicking examples to support your point and exclude everything else. You also contradict yourself with the statement "only went so far" which supports my position, not yours, since it is a concession that there are other factors involved. And I'm not sure why you mentioned Guerrilla warfare.

I'm by no means versed in the matter, but off the top of my head, other factors include:

- Leadership (e.g. the Spanish Armada was led by an appointed inexperienced aristocrat) -> this isn't just a matter of having more or less experience, which already exists in Civ. The practice of appointing commanders based on social rank rather than merit is a cultural factor;
- Tactics / Innovative ideas on how to conduct war and more effectively apply existing means (e.g. the pike square);
- Doctrines and formal military education (staff colleges, etc);
- Military Logistics;
- Tradition and culture (I gave the example of the Mongols. You don't get a capable horse archer by simply handing him a bow and a horse, and it's also not simply a matter of military training. The military capabilities of the Mongols reflected their culture and lifestyle).

I think Civ should better reflect such distinctions and look at other games for inspiration. It already does it somewhat, but it's pretty limited. But bottom line is that I think this would make it more fun and immersive. Again, I say this based on the experience from other games. I prefer if systems are better interconnected, and that includes linking military to culture.

I mentioned guerilla warfare because that is one of the few ways that a side that is technologically inferior can win. If a side is technologically superior that side wins almost always in a straight up war. Of course more things factor in, but in most wars technology isn't that much of a factor as the combatants have relatively equal technology (like in your example of the Spanish vs English ships), so things like leadership and military culture matter more. Do you want me to give more examples?

Spanish vs Aztecs and Inca
Any colonial power vs natives
Germany vs Austria
Napoleon vs Mamlukes

 

[aieeegrunt]

I think Civ6 has a lot of good ideas and concepts, it’s just a lot of them are implemented poorly and the bug factor is high

If Civ7 is a more polished and refined version of Civ6, which given the latter’s financial success is a good possibility, my expectations are actually fairly high

One big caveat, which is that they keep the “modular” approach with modes etc. This is the one area where the Board Game Approach is a plus, because if I was stuck with Gathering Storm mechanics then Civ6 drops from second place to dead last in my rankings

 

[kaspergm]

One big caveat, which is that they keep the “modular” approach with modes etc. This is the one area where the Board Game Approach is a plus, because if I was stuck with Gathering Storm mechanics then Civ6 drops from second place to dead last in my rankings

Am I understanding you correctly that you thing the game mode approach was a GOOD thing?

If so, all I can say is: ???
Game modes was imo. one of the worst things that ever happened to the game, and definitely the low point of Civ6. I mean, there is a reason many members here agree NFP actively made the game WORSE than it was before its release.

 

[Zegangani]

While I agree that it would be nice to have certain features togglable, it would be too much work to make mojar Features/Systems modular. And I'd rather have the devs improve the systems than simplifying them and make them less connected with other systems.

For example, if you're going to make the Distaster Events a togglable option that you can turn on/off, then Climate change is practically useless, Volcanoes will goint to be just mountains so they need some change or get removed, you gotta come up with new traits for the leaders that make use of Disasters or give them their base game traits, the Disaster Emergency Aid needs to be taken down...etc.

So, if the devs would consider making more things modular like the NFP Modes, then don't expect any deep mechanics that interact with many game systems. They will mostly be surface level Mechanics.

I think the Reason why Barbarians where togglable even on the release of the Game, is because they don't interact with many game systems, and they don't need to either (it's ok IMO if the policies and the other few abilities that enteract with barbarians are useless when you turn Barbs off).

What I would love to have instead is, more setting options like the Disaster Intensity Level Setting, so you can customize them a little more to your likings. Like Imaging having a Setting for the Monopoly Benefits and requirements (similar to Leugi's Setting in his Monopolies rework Mod).

 

[Leucarum]

I think this has been debated quite a bit on here, and there's definitely a split in terms of what people thought of game modes.

I find a lot of people's opinions are more a question of whether people liked the actual game modes that were implemented versus the concept of game modes in general though...

I personally like the variety of being able to shake up the game in different ways, so I'm generally pro-game modes... But they definitely have a limit on how far they can be taken, since you can't really design civs around features that are only present in a single mode...

 

[reddishrecue]

Well, for me i only want 7 too have much better AI military fighting, i want too have a challenge and feel the threath inn modern eras. I played 4-5 alot. But civ 6 i gave up even its a good bulding game. When i see other AI civs with 0 military long into the game and they had a big empire, that was when i quit civ 6. Its sad. So civ 7 give me more diplomacy and harder difficulty fighting the AI.

Yeah, AI modern fighting can be entertaining. Civ 4 had a lot of that in the easier levels but didn't in Deity since their medieval units were already more advanced than a stack of axes or catapults.

 

[Linklite]

I liked the idea of game modes and the customisability of the game with them before NFP. I was even an advocate for them, even if not very vocal. NFP has convinced me that Firaxis at least isn't willing to put thr money and resources into doing them properly, and a lot of the game modes introduce problems. Maybe they could do it properly if it's part of the base game of Civ 7 with more resources to hand and the primary focus on the game (as opposed to slapping things together to make a quick buck during the pandemic), but I'm not convinced. I'm against game modes now.

 

[Alexadamz]

I like Civ6, but I also agree some of its ideas were not well developed, and could be more polished for Civ7.

2 ideas that I read here and could possibly work for Civ7, as a deeper mechanic than it is implemented in Civ6:

- Districts could be more generalistic, like one extra tile of the city center. You could specialize some of the extra city tiles, as newer districts, for example one of those could be scientific or commercial, and so it would yield more of something. Besides, it would give more slots to build buildings, and those would not be restricted from the district type. That could also rewards more tall play, possibly making specialists relevant once again.

- Tech and Civic Trees should be merged once again, but keeping both different yields for the "techs" in the tree. Some "techs" would need more culture than science, others more science than culture.

 

[Xur]

I like districts as an idea, but hate how it is ingame. In my opinion no building or unit should be locked to a district - the AI is too stupid to handle it. I actually think Firaxis should design the game, so that a stupid AI can be competative.

You could say that you needed 1 district per 10 pop or the city wouldn’t grow. Simple rules in a complex game is good.

 

[aieeegrunt]

Am I understanding you correctly that you thing the game mode approach was a GOOD thing?

If so, all I can say is: ???
Game modes was imo. one of the worst things that ever happened to the game, and definitely the low point of Civ6. I mean, there is a reason many members here agree NFP actively made the game WORSE than it was before its release.

So many of the modes are broken that I am glad they can be turned off.

 

[AntSou]

Germany vs Austria
Napoleon vs Mamlukes

Prussia had technological advantages over Austria but its success is also linked to the laws of conscription and the culture of military drilling, as well as other non-military technological factors such as better railways, which allowed for faster mobilization.

Napoleon's success is linked to the effectiveness of mass conscription, which in turn required a competent central bureaucracy, which in turn requires a competent body of trained bureaucrats and a common administrative language. It links technology, such as the speed of communication/movement over a territory as large as France's, with cultural/institutional factors, such as the development of a competent central bureaucracy during the preceding centuries. On the other hand, the Mamelukes practice of charging with mass of light cavalry was completely inadequate for the type of warfare being conducted by Napoleon, heavily reliant on musket infantry in infantry square formations. The musket is as important a factor as the formation for Napoleon's success. Furthermore, Mamluks were used effectively later on by Napoleon himself, in more appropriate roles.

Tactics/Doctrine often inform the path that military technology takes. A need for, for instance, manoeuvrable artillery, leads to the development of better field artillery. So this is not necessarily an inevitable technological development, but reflects perceived needs on the battlefield. The culture of warfare, how it is conducted, both informs and is informed by technological developments. It's not a one way street.

I don't know why you insist on giving examples of technological superiority being very important. I never denied that. You're the one insisting other things are pretty much irrelevant in comparison. I agree that when the technological distance is significant, other factors have considerably lesser weight. That may be the case in your example of industrial powers vs native populations, but lesser so in the examples I quoted above.

Colonial warfare is also peculiar. Most warfare in history was conducted against neighbours who likely weren't too distant in terms of technology.