suggestions for civ 7

[Boris Gudenuf]

Humankind doesn't have Civics though does it?
And while getting a nice thematic name is important for what a tech or civic does, it's less the names I'm interested in, in regards to pacing, and more the numbers of both, in 6 vs the number of techs in 5 and before.

Yes, Humankind does have Civics, but they are Civics Choices, and there are at least 40 of them in the game, giving 80 different Civic results, including 10 different government types and choices related to Taxes, Mercenaries, Religion, Judiciary, Trade, Culture, etc - very similar to the subjects addressed with Civ VI's Civics

I don't think the number of techs or civics is a big pacing problem though. With less, they should cost more. With more they should cost less, in both cases to get a similar pace. Obviously if someone goes gung-ho on science then they'll race through and vise versa. It's not that some games shouldn't be longer or shorter... It's that you'd hope the average game is not too far off the desired turn limit.

The problem, as I've said before, is not entirely with the number of Techs or Civics, but with the combination of decisions to both reduce the umber of Techs and provide bonuses in rthe form of Eurekas to make researching them even faster. I am convinced it was the combination far more than either separate decision that resulted in the Pace of Research outstripping the planned Pace of the game so badly.
Since I think the Eureka research bonus system is a good basic idea, if for no other reason than it makes what your Civ is doing in the game reflect on what they are Researching and the path they are taking in technology, then I focus on number of Technologies - but I also think the actual Eurekas themselves need some serious revision, because many of them are not really related to the causes of some research being undertaken.

 

[dagriggstar]

Generally speaking, as the civilization series is an entry level strategy game, if your wicked new mechanic takes more than a sentence to explain how it works it is a mechanic that is too complicated for the civilization series.

I have no problem with eurekas/inspirations, I think the problem lies in "MORE SCIENCE = MORE FAST". I think that pacing would be solved if
a) We had an "age up" (or era gate) mechanic. I would prefer this be a button you click that causes some event society changing event to happen. But I could also see like the game says once x civilizations have hit the golden age threshold, the game just jumps into the next era.
b) Technology is given out on a set predetermined "schedule", the tech leader gets a new technology every 5 turns, regardless of how much or little science they are generating. Then you kind of know how fast the game could potentially end (Say 80 technologies would be turn 400 in this example) and design around that.

 

[luca 83]

Why not put a kind of provinces that unites a series of cities into a sub-section of the cities?

 

[nzcamel]

The problem, as I've said before, is not entirely with the number of Techs or Civics, but with the combination of decisions to both reduce the umber of Techs and provide bonuses in rthe form of Eurekas to make researching them even faster. I am convinced it was the combination far more than either separate decision that resulted in the Pace of Research outstripping the planned Pace of the game so badly.
Since I think the Eureka research bonus system is a good basic idea, if for no other reason than it makes what your Civ is doing in the game reflect on what they are Researching and the path they are taking in technology, then I focus on number of Technologies - but I also think the actual Eurekas themselves need some serious revision, because many of them are not really related to the causes of some research being undertaken.

I guess the two trees can add pacing problems as both do effect how fast you move through the game; but I still think eurekas and inspirations are a bigger problem for pacing, neat as they are. For anyone who is very efficient with them, they'll easily chop 25% of the research time off each tree, give or take. Whereas another player will only knock off 15% that way, and yet the game at the same speed has to be paced for both.
I agree that a few are too random for the tech they are associated with, and I wonder if keeping them, but making them harder to get across the board will improve the pacing...

Generally speaking, as the civilization series is an entry level strategy game, if your wicked new mechanic takes more than a sentence to explain how it works it is a mechanic that is too complicated for the civilization series.

I have no problem with eurekas/inspirations, I think the problem lies in "MORE SCIENCE = MORE FAST". I think that pacing would be solved if
a) We had an "age up" (or era gate) mechanic. I would prefer this be a button you click that causes some event society changing event to happen. But I could also see like the game says once x civilizations have hit the golden age threshold, the game just jumps into the next era.
b) Technology is given out on a set predetermined "schedule", the tech leader gets a new technology every 5 turns, regardless of how much or little science they are generating. Then you kind of know how fast the game could potentially end (Say 80 technologies would be turn 400 in this example) and design around that.

I half understand (I think lol) what you're saying with (a). Care to flesh that out a bit?
(b) sounds a bit to extreme a change for my liking, but I definitely recognise how that could make pacing easier.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

I guess the two trees can add pacing problems as both do effect how fast you move through the game; but I still think eurekas and inspirations are a bigger problem for pacing, neat as they are. For anyone who is very efficient with them, they'll easily chop 25% of the research time off each tree, give or take. Whereas another player will only knock off 15% that way, and yet the game at the same speed has to be paced for both.
I agree that a few are too random for the tech they are associated with, and I wonder if keeping them, but making them harder to get across the board will improve the pacing...

The Eurekas make the pace of research very different for different Civs in-game based on their in-game actions, which (to me, at least) is exactly what they were supposed to do. I agree, however, that the current crop of Eurekas does not require enough from the gamer or the AI: they do not reward real specialization enough, and are in too many cases much too easy to get just by wandering through the game and not by taking specific actions.

One solution I proposed some time ago in another context was to have 'progressive Eurekas'. There would be 3 Eurekas for each Technology, and the first one you achieved would give you a 10% Bonus to the research, the second 15%, the third 20%, so the total bonus would be 45% BUT you'd have to accomplish three different things to get that, and so would have to specialize a lot more to progress with that speed.

Examples:
Sailing Tech: the Eurekas might be:
Have 2 Sea Resources within a city radius
Have 2 or more Cities on the Coast
Discover a foreign city on the same coast as one of your cities
Horseback Riding Tech:
Build Pastures on 2 Horse Resources
Have 3 Chariot Units
Have a unit attacked by a Mounted non-Chariot unit

The sequence in which you get the Eurekas doesn't matter: the first one achieved will always give 10% bonus no matter which one it is.

Now, it's possible that the same Civ could get all 6 of those Eurekas, but not likely, and to get the full Bonus for either Tech will require some serious specialization in City placement and Resource exploitation and type of Resources available. - And that, I submit, is the point of Eurekas in the first place, or should have been.

 

[nzcamel]

The Eurekas make the pace of research very different for different Civs in-game based on their in-game actions, which (to me, at least) is exactly what they were supposed to do. I agree, however, that the current crop of Eurekas does not require enough from the gamer or the AI: they do not reward real specialization enough, and are in too many cases much too easy to get just by wandering through the game and not by taking specific actions.

One solution I proposed some time ago in another context was to have 'progressive Eurekas'. There would be 3 Eurekas for each Technology, and the first one you achieved would give you a 10% Bonus to the research, the second 15%, the third 20%, so the total bonus would be 45% BUT you'd have to accomplish three different things to get that, and so would have to specialize a lot more to progress with that speed.

Examples:
Sailing Tech: the Eurekas might be:
Have 2 Sea Resources within a city radius
Have 2 or more Cities on the Coast
Discover a foreign city on the same coast as one of your cities
Horseback Riding Tech:
Build Pastures on 2 Horse Resources
Have 3 Chariot Units
Have a unit attacked by a Mounted non-Chariot unit

The sequence in which you get the Eurekas doesn't matter: the first one achieved will always give 10% bonus no matter which one it is.

Now, it's possible that the same Civ could get all 6 of those Eurekas, but not likely, and to get the full Bonus for either Tech will require some serious specialization in City placement and Resource exploitation and type of Resources available. - And that, I submit, is the point of Eurekas in the first place, or should have been.

And if they're much harder to get, whether a one off that is really hard; or several bite sized discounts as you propose (which I really like the idea of btw), it should make the pacing a bit easier to predict for the average game.

 

[dagriggstar]

I half understand (I think lol) what you're saying with (a). Care to flesh that out a bit?
(b) sounds a bit to extreme a change for my liking, but I definitely recognise how that could make pacing easier.

Well I couldn't explain it in a sentence so I guess it's too complicated to be implemented. I just imagine clicking to age up, then having an event trigger to signify the new age (barbarian migrations, disease, religious crisis or whatever), something to deter factions from simply going all out science and racing through everything.

As a separate, alternative, era gate system, I thought about using the era scores to determine what age everyone is in. So we might say the first 25% of civilizations to achieve a golden age, actually get a golden age, then when the next 50% have achieved normal ages (That is, 75% of civilization have achieved a normal or golden age), the game advances to the next era with the last 25% in a dark age.

More generally, I think technology should act more like civ 5 social policies, where you expect not to be able to research every single technology, more the technology you do research reflects your civilizations expertise. For instance, on turn one of the medieval period, every faction could build a unit of pikemen and you could research halberds to gain +5 combat strength for all your pikemen.

 

[Eddie Verdde]

One thing that probably made this harder for the devs to get right in Civ 6 was the addition of the eurekas and inspirations. I love them as a concept, and like their implementation, but suspect that if they're retained in 7 it will make it all the harder for the average game to be "paced" right.

In the last few days I've been using JOSHMANISDABOMB's mod "Take your time Ultimate", which allows you to choose not only the base tech cost but also the scaling for each era in the advanced setup (available on Steam, see printscreen below).

I don't know if any of you guys tried it already, but I think it's great. So far it seems balanced and helps to compensate for snowballing in the middle game. Now I reach the Medieval Era around 600 AD, about 1000 years later than without the mod.

But even with the slower research and the scaling by era, I keep feeling that something's missing in the Ancient and Classic Eras, so maybe the problem isn't just the pace, but also the number of events in those eras. I think I would like to see more wars, more wonders and more buildings being available sooner in the game. For example, I don't understand why wonders like Machu Pichu and Angkor Wat are only available close to the medieval era. It's a fact that they were built when Europe was going through the Medieval or Renaissance Eras, but those eras would mean nothing to the Inca or the Khmer, so they should be available sooner for any civ that specialized in living in the mountains or developed complex systems of irrigation.

 

[The_goggles_do_nothing]

For game pace it seemed like at the release of Civ6 you were limited how much income you had. There's a lot of "free" yields - adjacencies, unit promotions, city state bonuses - that made income less of a limiting factor. There's also no scaling of happiness or housing as you progress the eras.

There could be a bonus for all techs based on how many total Eurekas you have. Even if you don't need Military Tactics killing a spearman could give you some small boost.

But even with the slower research and the scaling by era, I keep feeling that something's missing in the Ancient and Classic Eras, so maybe the problem isn't just the pace, but also the number of events in those eras.

There's also not many negatives in to skipping the events there are in those eras.

 

[AlanH11]

A more in-depth tribal stage, before you settle down your first city. It always seemed that unless you got a great instant start the game is an uphill struggle. I'd like a few turns to explore about that doesn't hugely delay my later tech advances etc.

Great idea. I would stretch out the earlier eras. At present the late eras drag on for far too long and can become just plain dull.

 

[AlanH11]

1 artificial intelligence improvement

Above all else, this. Make the game HARD..
But I'm afraid what we will get is another game that panders to the Disney brigade: all frills & special effects, with a mind-control, ocean-shifting death-blaster robot.

 

[Zaarin]

But I'm afraid what we will get is another game that panders to the Disney brigade: all frills & special effects, with a mind-control, ocean-shifting death-blaster robot.

Yes, because they have their artists program the AI.

 

[Krajzen]

In the last few days I've been using JOSHMANISDABOMB's mod "Take your time Ultimate", which allows you to choose not only the base tech cost but also the scaling for each era in the advanced setup (available on Steam, see printscreen below).

I don't know if any of you guys tried it already, but I think it's great. So far it seems balanced and helps to compensate for snowballing in the middle game. Now I reach the Medieval Era around 600 AD, about 1000 years later than without the mod.

But even with the slower research and the scaling by era, I keep feeling that something's missing in the Ancient and Classic Eras, so maybe the problem isn't just the pace, but also the number of events in those eras. I think I would like to see more wars, more wonders and more buildings being available sooner in the game. For example, I don't understand why wonders like Machu Pichu and Angkor Wat are only available in the medieval era. It's a fact that they were built when Europe was going through the Medieval or Renaissance Eras, but those eras would mean nothing to the Inca or the Khmer, so they should be available sooner for any civ that specialized in living in the mountains or developed complex systems of irrigation.

View attachment 615738

1) Pacing of eras in civ6 is also really messed by the fact you have two shorter parallel tech trees instead of one longer one.
In civ5 you have one coherent ancient era with many technologies. In civ6 you actually have two separate ancient eras with shorter separate tech trees; those two eras don't connect at all. So weirdly enough each era feels much shorter for me, because I look at each free separately. Those are gameplay reasons of why I think two tech trees are a terrible idea, but you can also argue that grom realism and history standpoints (culture is inseparable from tech & science).
2) Two tech trees have two progress yields, and those yields diverge much more in civ5 than in civ6, because there is much more ways to get extra yields from terrain. So you cannot balance overall speed of AI research at all, and they all vary wildly in their blue AND purple eras.
3) Eurekas also totally mess the pacing, because it is unpredictable how many of them player or AI will get (and again, two tech trees diverge greatly, doubling the problem) . They also give that subjective feeling of techs passing by quickly.

Basically devs have designed a tech system, which made them unable to clearly establish pacing of the game, and which has elements subjectively speeding up everything. The problem is kind of similar to the AI problem, where devs first design stuff and only then realize it is technically horribly difficult to build AI which can handle it.

 

[luca 83]

an example of a realistic trade that I would like in civilization

 

[chrisgatt7]

Dare I say a real wrapping map. North and south poles lol

 

[AlexM29]

[QUOTE="

One solution I proposed some time ago in another context was to have 'progressive Eurekas'. There would be 3 Eurekas for each Technology, and the first one you achieved would give you a 10% Bonus to the research, the second 15%, the third 20%, so the total bonus would be 45% BUT you'd have to accomplish three different things to get that, and so would have to specialize a lot more to progress with that speed.
[/QUOTE]

I like this. One other thing that should happen is that there should be a simple gateway condition to researching ancient and classical era technologies. For example, sailing cannot be researched at all unless you have access to water. It can be a lake, ocean, or even a river, but your civilization wouldn't be even bothering to learn how to build ships if it has no access to any body of water. Another example is that researching horseback riding or iron working should not be possible unless you have access to horses or iron resources in your empire. They don't haev to necessarily be improved, but if they do not exist within your empire, why would your empire research them. This access can also be accomplished via trade, so you can trade for horses or iron, but again, your civ would have to be exposed to something in order to research things about it. Or you cannot research irrigation until you build any farm. You get the boost when you improve a food resource. These should be simple to achieve, even simpler, than the eurekas, but there should be some kind of barrier to some of the ancient/classical era technologies when your civ has no exposure to certain things,

In the event of lack of exposure to any technology, there should be a catch-all method to passively research things by trading with civs who have certain technologies you don't have. I.E. a minor passive science output towards techs that civs you have trade routes when civs have that tech and you do not have the unlock condition.



Another thing that should change is that civilizations should not have unique units, but rather they should be the product of achieving certain conditions first. Be the first to improve the ivory tiles, you gain access to the war elephant as a unique unit. Be the first to build four tanks, you unlock the panzer. Be the first to build three stables in your encampments, you unlock the winged hussair. Be the first to build three airports, you unlock the unique bomber unit. That kind of thing. Allow the player to build their own civs identity, rather than have the player choose a civ with its own pre-built identity. Not saying civs shouldn't have unique abilities of their own, but giving the player some agency over the unique units really gives a sense of ownership to the identity of what kind of game you want to play.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

[

Another thing that should change is that civilizations should not have unique units, but rather they should be the product of achieving certain conditions first. Be the first to improve the ivory tiles, you gain access to the war elephant as a unique unit. Be the first to build four tanks, you unlock the panzer. Be the first to build three stables in your encampments, you unlock the winged hussair. Be the first to build three airports, you unlock the unique bomber unit. That kind of thing. Allow the player to build their own civs identity, rather than have the player choose a civ with its own pre-built identity. Not saying civs shouldn't have unique abilities of their own, but giving the player some agency over the unique units really gives a sense of ownership to the identity of what kind of game you want to play.

This is a system that looks good on paper but is completely unworkable in practice - believe me, I've tried it in campaign miniatures games, and it never works for several reasons:

1. Many 'unique' or special units are the result of very peculiar combinations of Social Policies and Civics as well as Technologies or available Resources so that the requirements for each specific unit get insanely complicated.
2. Despite any amount of complexity, Gamers will warp their entire society/Civ/playing entity to get the 'special' units they want.
3. Unless you make each unique unit strictly First Come, First and Only Served so that no two players can get the same unique unit, you will have Longbows or Winged Hussars or Panzers all over the map in a dozen different Civilization liveries. That's both a graphic and game playing nightmare.
- And of course, with a system of One Unique per customer it turns each Era into a race for the supposedly most OP Unique Unit, which both makes the race to complete a given Wonder in the game now look tame by comparison and also results in everyone playing a warped version of their Civ.

Instead, I'd prefer a wider number of 'unique' units, some of them 'generic' to the Era and others specific to a given Civ. Which ones you actually wind up with would depend a lot on your in-game situation with regard to Social Policies, Civics, Technologies, Resources, Politics and Enemies. This would both 'solve' the problem of a late-game Civ like, say, the USSR or USA whose Unique Unit doesn't appear until the last 10 - 20% of the game if ever, and the problem of a Civ that has a terrain-specific Unique Unit and gets rorfed on their Starting Position: I have on occasion restarted 9 or more times trying to get a Norse civ with its Longship on a starting position anywhere near a coast, and failing. If I had the option of a Norse Unique Unit of, say, a Great Axe-wielding Swordsman Replacement (an alternate and Medieval-Specific Era Norse Unique) or a Generic Classical Unique Unit of Heavy Spearman who has both Sword and Spear and heavy Shield and so combines Melee and Anti-Cav attributes, the iv wuld be much more playable regardless of the terrain at start.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

Another thing that should change is that civilizations should not have unique units, but rather they should be the product of achieving certain conditions first. Be the first to improve the ivory tiles, you gain access to the war elephant as a unique unit. Be the first to build four tanks, you unlock the panzer. Be the first to build three stables in your encampments, you unlock the winged hussair. Be the first to build three airports, you unlock the unique bomber unit. That kind of thing. Allow the player to build their own civs identity, rather than have the player choose a civ with its own pre-built identity. Not saying civs shouldn't have unique abilities of their own, but giving the player some agency over the unique units really gives a sense of ownership to the identity of what kind of game you want to play.

I agree with some of this, however I still think civs should get UUs as I'm all for civs still being more unique.

What I've proposed already is having several UUs being universal under certain situations, but still being unique to their home civ. For example, regarding the war elephant, I'd love for monopolies and corporations to come back but even better by having each resource have it's own unique bonus. The bonus for owning an ivory corporation would be to construct a generic war elephant unit. However if someone else ended up with more ivory resources then they would end up getting access and you would lose the abiltiy to build them.
However a civ like India would be able to build their elephant UU, which would be similar, without needing to have a ivory monopoly/corporation.

Other universal uniques would come from befriending minor tribes/ city-states such as horse archers (also a unique unit for some Eurasian steppe civ) etc.

 

[AlexM29]

This is a system that looks good on paper but is completely unworkable in practice - believe me, I've tried it in campaign miniatures games, and it never works for several reasons:

1. Many 'unique' or special units are the result of very peculiar combinations of Social Policies and Civics as well as Technologies or available Resources so that the requirements for each specific unit get insanely complicated.
2. Despite any amount of complexity, Gamers will warp their entire society/Civ/playing entity to get the 'special' units they want.
3. Unless you make each unique unit strictly First Come, First and Only Served so that no two players can get the same unique unit, you will have Longbows or Winged Hussars or Panzers all over the map in a dozen different Civilization liveries. That's both a graphic and game playing nightmare.
- And of course, with a system of One Unique per customer it turns each Era into a race for the supposedly most OP Unique Unit, which both makes the race to complete a given Wonder in the game now look tame by comparison and also results in everyone playing a warped version of their Civ.

Instead, I'd prefer a wider number of 'unique' units, some of them 'generic' to the Era and others specific to a given Civ. Which ones you actually wind up with would depend a lot on your in-game situation with regard to Social Policies, Civics, Technologies, Resources, Politics and Enemies. This would both 'solve' the problem of a late-game Civ like, say, the USSR or USA whose Unique Unit doesn't appear until the last 10 - 20% of the game if ever, and the problem of a Civ that has a terrain-specific Unique Unit and gets rorfed on their Starting Position: I have on occasion restarted 9 or more times trying to get a Norse civ with its Longship on a starting position anywhere near a coast, and failing. If I had the option of a Norse Unique Unit of, say, a Great Axe-wielding Swordsman Replacement (an alternate and Medieval-Specific Era Norse Unique) or a Generic Classical Unique Unit of Heavy Spearman who has both Sword and Spear and heavy Shield and so combines Melee and Anti-Cav attributes, the iv wuld be much more playable regardless of the terrain at start.

1. Let me deal with number 3 first. Yes, I should have specified, each unique unit would be unique only to the civilization that unlocks it. Meaning if I am the first to unlock it, no one else will have access to that unique unit. That takes care of that problem.
2. Number 2, not necessarily. For example, look at my idea with war elephants. Being the first to get three ivory resources is likely only possible for one or two civs, as each luxury resource like that is isolated to one region of the map. So if I do not spawn in area near ivory, there is no way I will get that unique unit. Unique archer units would also be relatively difficult to get. For example, sometimes it is hard enough to get even one kill with a slinger to get the archery upgrade. But imagine having to be the first with three slinger kills to unlock a unique archer. You probably couldn't do it on barbarians alone unless you got completely rushed by a nearby camp. You would have to actively declare war very early in the game. Unless that is your actual plan, most players won't upend their plan to declare a turn 20 war just to get a unique archer. If you are going for a culture or science win, you probably aren't focused on late game military units either and are unlikely to build 4 tanks because you are too busy knocking out archeologists, broadcast towers, research labs, or campus research grants, going for your victory condition. So there may be a few in the mid game that people may push for, but that isn't going to be much different than going for certain wonders/techs.
3. Number 1, things are only as complicated as the devs make the requirements. None of the requirements I suggested are that complicated. None of them need to be that complicated. They would be nothing more than expanded eurekas.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

Ivory is a good example of the problem with Resource-Based Unique Units. "Ivory" or access to elephants, was not all that limited. Since the Classical Era (mid-6th century BCE, to be more precise) elephants have been used in war by states in southern China, Southeastern Asia, India, the Middle East, North Africa and parts of Central Asia. With various types of troops and weapons carried, elephants have been 'war machines' from Classical to Industrial Eras, and useful Production 'Machines' from about 2000 BCE to 1945 CE and the present day.
Safely useful elephants (the African bush elephant, Loxodonta africana, is NOT one of those!) were available in historical times from the Mediterranean coast of North Africa to the Indian sub-continent, most of Southeast Asia, and as far north as southern China. They were traded from those areas to Mesopotamia, Anatolia, Rome, and Central Asia.

Quite simply, while certain types of military elephant units are Unique, anybody or any Civ with access to elephants through trade or direct access to their habitat used them either as ranged weapon platforms or assault 'vehicles'. What makes some Civs produce Unique Elephant units, on the other hand, is hard to determine:
What was the difference between Classical Indian elephants, with 2 - 3 archers riding on board, and the Burmese elephants that had u to 16 archers hanging off the elephant on all sides?
Why dd the Mughuls, almost alone among elephant users, develop elaborate metal suits of armor for their elephants?
Aside from having a lot of elephants in their territory, why did the Thais still use elephants mounting machineguns right into the late Industrial Era?

This is actually one of the prime examples that led me to propose Generic 'Unique Units': anybody with access to Elephants/Ivory Resource should be able to form Elephant Units, but they would be either Ranged or Assault/Melee, both with the extra effect of reducing the factors of any enemy cavalry. Some Civs, however, would have truely Unique Elephant units - Burmese Super Ranged Elephant Archers, Mughul Armored Assault Elephants, Thai Machine Gun Elephants, etc.