So, what do you expect from Civ7 ?

[Naokaukodem]

I want features to be integrated. If I place a pin for a campus the build queue advisor should suggest campus and place it for me. If I denounce someone let me know in the top UI when formal war is available

Then you want an evolution rather than a revolution.

So far there is 20 votes for "evolution" and 17 for "revolution". Evolution wins but not by a fair margin. Anyway, as there is about 80% who would still buy the game if it is revolutionary, we can affirm that Civ7, if it is revolutionary, would still be puchased by the majority of players here.

 

[aieeegrunt]

I don’t want to call anyone out specifically or hurt peoples’ feelings. Just go read the Ideas subforum.

There are long diatribes about very specific, granular details, like modeling soil health or overcomplicating any given system of the game for the sake of realism.

I appreciate that the feedback is enthusiastic and stems from peoples’ excitement about their pet subject or whatever, but the average fan just doesn’t have a background in game design or enough experience to give actionable and realistic
feedback.

Knowing a bunch of facts about history doesn’t make your videogame ideas good, unfortunately.

One of the key questions of game design should be “does this sub system need to be there?”

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

One of the key questions of game design should be “does this sub system need to be there?”

Without forgetting that a perfectly valid reason for anything in a commercial game is:

"People think it's cool (so they are more likely to buy it)"

I am personally convinced that is the major reason why Trebuchets are included in games at all. In European military history, at least, there is no evidence that they made any difference in siege warfare or the construction of defenses, castles, city walls, etc. but everybody loves the cool graphic of that long arm swinging up and forward, in some games even slinging carcasses through the air. A simple catapult just cannot compete . . .

 

[aieeegrunt]

Without forgetting that a perfectly valid reason for anything in a commercial game is:

"People think it's cool (so they are more likely to buy it)"

I am personally convinced that is the major reason why Trebuchets are included in games at all. In European military history, at least, there is no evidence that they made any difference in siege warfare or the construction of defenses, castles, city walls, etc. but everybody loves the cool graphic of that long arm swinging up and forward, in some games even slinging carcasses through the air. A simple catapult just cannot compete . . .

In game design terms that is what is often called “Chrome”

Chrome most certainty does not need to be there for the car to function, but it does boost curbside appeal.

 

[Krajzen]

I expect it to be released before I die of old age

 

[aieeegrunt]

I expect it to be released before I die of old age

Far better bet than another Fallout

 

[Nikolai II]

I am sure it will be a blast. But it comes when it comes.

 

[reddishrecue]

I am sure it will be a blast. But it comes when it comes.

I feel like it'll be a blast as well at first that is...

 

[Luís Felipe Silva Pinto]

If they scrap the turn-based system, I would guarantee a purchase from me. After decades and several new 4x games being released, it made my head that turn-based greatly limits the possible mechanics. But if the same thing continues, I'll at least wait until it's released to draw my conclusions.

 

[Hellenism Salesman]

If they scrap the turn-based system

I have bad news…

 

[Nikolai II]

If they scrap the turn-based system, I would guarantee a purchase from me. After decades and several new 4x games being released, it made my head that turn-based greatly limits the possible mechanics. But if the same thing continues, I'll at least wait until it's released to draw my conclusions.

If they did, me and most fans would boycott.

 

[aieeegrunt]

If they scrap the turn-based system, I would guarantee a purchase from me. After decades and several new 4x games being released, it made my head that turn-based greatly limits the possible mechanics. But if the same thing continues, I'll at least wait until it's released to draw my conclusions.

It’s way way too central of a mechanic to change

 

[Vandlys]

If they scrap the turn-based system, I would guarantee a purchase from me. After decades and several new 4x games being released, it made my head that turn-based greatly limits the possible mechanics. But if the same thing continues, I'll at least wait until it's released to draw my conclusions.

So does making it not turn-based. Do you have any arguments why you think Civ would serve better as not being turn-based? I'm genuinely interested because to me it's like saying Red Alert should become turn-based; it would change the game in such a fundamental way I wouldn't recognise it as the same game. In fact, Civilization in Real-time would seem more like something like Rise of Nations?

 

[UWHabs]

So does making it not turn-based. Do you have any arguments why you think Civ would serve better as not being turn-based? I'm genuinely interested because to me it's like saying Red Alert should become turn-based; it would change the game in such a fundamental way I wouldn't recognise it as the same game. In fact, Civilization in Real-time would seem more like something like Rise of Nations?

Some multiplayer versions have allowed simultaneous turns. It was good for speeding things up, but given it was still turn-based, when the turn rolled over sometimes it turned into who could click to get their attack in first.

If you fully removed it from being turn-based, it would have to be some sort of RTS system and would then become like a Command and Conquer. But that's not really "civ" anymore, so I really couldn't imagine them go down that route.

 

[Vandlys]

Some multiplayer versions have allowed simultaneous turns. It was good for speeding things up, but given it was still turn-based, when the turn rolled over sometimes it turned into who could click to get their attack in first.

If you fully removed it from being turn-based, it would have to be some sort of RTS system and would then become like a Command and Conquer. But that's not really "civ" anymore, so I really couldn't imagine them go down that route.

Yeah, like Humankind. I would very much still call that a turn-based game though, even if it has simultaneous turn aspects. Your C&C comparison is what I wanted to make at first too, and then I remembered RoN, which I think is more apt because at least there you still progress through various stages of civilization.

 

[aieeegrunt]

I think the closest you could get without making it an RTS, which would be a big enough change it’s no longer Civ, would be simultaneous turn resolution.

So in a turn everyone gives their orders to their units, and then the computer resolves the outcome of all those moves happening at the same time. Depending on how enemy units meet each other means a different type of combat.

Say I order a unit to move to a hex and a hostile unit also wants to move there. This turns into a fight for that hex. Winner keeps the hex, loses either gets retreated or dies. Game treats this as a Meeting Engagement.

I order a unit to hold a hex and my enemy orders a unit to attack it. This gets treated as an Assault. If the defender wins, loser retreats back to their origin hex. If the Attacker wins, defender retreats and the attacker gets the hex.

I order a unit to leave a hex and the enemy has ordered a unit to enter it. This becomes a Pursuit.

There are probably factors I’m not considering but you see how this gets both complicated but also has the potential to make combat a hell of a lot more interesting

For example, unit types, the terrain, and the type of combat should have a big impact on resolution

A heavy cavalry unit Assaulting infantry in a forest should almost certainly be at a hilarious disadvantage. A heavy cavalry unit doing a Pursuit of infantry in clear terrain is probably going to destroy it. A heavy Cavalry unit being Pursued is going to escape unscathed from anything other than light cavalry.

 

[vorlon_mi]

Simultaneous turn resolution (as you described) would extend cleanly to human multi-player as well as human-vs-AI single player.

 

[aieeegrunt]

Simultaneous turn resolution (as you described) would extend cleanly to human multi-player as well as human-vs-AI single player.

It’s one of the areas where being on a computer instead of cardboard makes things so much easier, like implementing Fog of War was.

You could get rid of a lot of tired tropes as well, like cavalry having more movement points even though that makes zero sense on a strategic level.

I’ve played a few games, theatre level WW2 ones with a system like this and it has amazing potential but is a higher bar design wise to get right

 

[UWHabs]

Diplomacy you have simultaneous turn resolution, but that has a very simple system, each unit can either move, hold, or support another unit's move. I don't think it could ever work for a game as complex as civ. It would mean that every unit could only do one thing, you couldn't ever move and then retreat, and you really get complicated if you ever have to control the order of operations. Just trying to figure out if my builder has to clear a forest to let one of my troops through, but another civ attacks my builder, the order you attempt those 3 units in can really change. You couldn't really allow multiple tile movement since you'd need complicated rules for whether I'm allowed to "jump" over a unit that suddenly moved in to block my path, etc...

With enough planning and strategy you can make it work. But if you don't like how the current AI works in regards to combat, I can't imagine it handling any setup like that with any reasonable effectiveness. The reason those true strategy games can work is the complicated chains that humans build out and handle. If the AI has to try to build out its combat mechanism while also accounting for the opponent sabotaging it in the middle of its current plan, that won't end well.

 

[LastSword]

I would like either a revolution or a perfection. I expect neither.

Considering how all "rivals" spectacularly allign their faces with the floor the civ franchise has no need for a revolution. Theoretically if a development started in a time where those "rivals" looked more prominent there may be something bold included.

They shared their 33-33-33 philosophy which practically means the same, yet different, yet the same. It will be evolutionary at best.
Well, there are people who think that civ6 is radically different than civ5. For me, it is not.

As for perfection. Learning from mistakes and improving weak elements is not an american way. Let's make it shiny.

There is also a probability that there will be the same lead designer. Even the vision may remain unchanged.

I will obviously buy it no matter what, eventually.