suggestions for civ 7

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

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.

That's basically what I said above however I think that the generic Elephant Unit should only be given access to the civ who owns an ivory monopoly/corporation. That way it ends up turning into a competition. The other alternative is you could possibly befriend or ally with the civ that owns the ivory corporation and have them given to you as a gift.

 

[BuchiTaton]

> Build your own civ with specific quests would produce a worse faceless mess civ than Humankind stack of 6 cultures and turn pointless the design of unique gamestyle for each civ/leader.
> Start as the Indonesians far from the sea is a bad world generation, not a bad civ design neither a bad gameplay style. There are civs supposed to exploit some enviroment or game mechanic, others are more flexible but that is matter of balance and flavor.
> Late game UU are by nature less relevant since the vast majority of civs could use earlier options. Also recent units are the product of a common pragmatic and mechanized way of warfare, at most influenced by modern socioeconomic ideologies.
>Regional Units ≠ Unique Units.

Some cultures developed traditions when a local resource turned to be of strategic value.

Regular War Elephant need natives with access to wild elephants to tame.
Regular Camel Rider need natives that could breed camels in their optimal environment.
Regular Horse Archer need natives that grow up on horseback.

On the last example is obvious that own horses would not produce only Horse Archer neither should give you the best Horse Archer. So even when we know that many nations around the world used some kind of mounted archers, war camels or elephants give it to everyone just because the resource would be something similar to give the many UU on CIV series that could be also more widespread. So it is needed other limitation but one that is easy to understand.

The option here is to have clear and easy to recognize Regional Units is to link them to something that the player can control, "the people and their traditions":
- City States and Barbarians are clear elements on the map, who already interact and could be desired by the players.
- The game already use others elements that the player accumulate to gain bonus like Wonders and Great Works, these are more unique that others sources like techs, civics and resources fitting a clear class and adding flavor, Traditions would be similar while still come from something already on game (CS and BC).
- To enjoy the benefits from traditions you need to control the people, so is a bonus that need not just to get it, it also need to keep it and can be taken by a rival. Because this they are more balanced since it is not permanent and promotes a more dynamic gameplay to appropiate them (included means like migration appeal).
- Even they are a nice remider than the "big civilizations" learned and used a lot "minor cultures", some X empire not just found elephants and decided to use them on warfare they hired and/or learned it from the natives, or than get "usefull" crops took literally millenia of selective breeding. These kind of traditional knowledge even now are the found of modern medicines and important tourist attractions.

 

[dagriggstar]

I still think the answer is to get away from this expectation that all civs will research all technologies. Technology should become another factor in making your civilization more unique. Have access to elephants great - research armoured elephants, get better elephants. Don't have Iron, research obsidian weapons instead. Like, there should be 40 ish (okay random number) technologies per era, all of them optional.
I mean, I would keep UU's, I might even be tempted to introduce a unique given tech mechanic, like on entry to the Modern era Japan might automatically get Shale Oil, which provides 1 oil for every 20 mines they have in their empire. Like anyone could research Shale Oil, but Japan starts the new era with it, from a gameplay perspective to allow them to make a later fighter UU.

The question then is how to advance through the eras - which is one of the reasons I want an age up button. But we could even say, research any 10 technologies from the classical era to advance to the medieval era. Or maybe you advance when you unlock serfdom with culture.

 

[Eddie Verdde]

It's hard to believe that after six iterations of the game, no one came up with the idea of trading tiles through diplomacy. Although it's possible to trade cities or to demand a city to make peace, it should be interesting to negotiate individual tiles or groups of tiles as a way to define borders.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

It's hard to believe that after six iterations of the game, no one came up with the idea of trading tiles through diplomacy. Although it's possible to trade cities or to demand a city to make peace, it should be interesting to negotiate individual tiles or groups of tiles as a way to define borders.

Perfect way to have Thomas Jefferson as the American leader in civ 7.

 

[Naokaukodem]

Perfect way to have Thomas Jefferson as the American leader in civ 7.

You guys only think about the next iteration as leaders roster ? Firaxis should do a Civilization Smash Bros. Melee instead. Or Street Civilization 7. Heck, they don't even have to make it a game, just release the leaders animations and voices, action figures and play with them in your bedroom / forum.

 

[Chekko]

I want the idea of how some Civs come into the game later than others. Having City States develop into Civs I guess, but that would be just as annoying as having another Civ capture a City State from you. One way I see is if a rebel city turns into one.

The late game having competition and 'wars' in other ways. Corporations, spies, propaganda, monopolies, politics etc.

 

[Alexey86]

I want more difference between each civs. More unique units/buildings/abilities,artstyle. Balance issues can be fixed with patches, expansions or mods.

I also want some civs to have a totally different feeling when playing it like Venice did(having just 1 city plus city states).

 

[bene_legionary]

I'd love to see cities being less of a focus, and tiles becoming more unique. It could be that every tile has it's own city-like system or devolved interface - each tile has its own population, resources, yield specialisation and buildings, instead of the city having the population and buildings being built in it. Instead of a city having to place a district onto a tile, the tile itself is designated as a specialist area (not unlike districts) and has the same system of adjacencies, workers, etc. The amount of these specialised areas are limited by population or something like it, so that every tile isn't just one of those districts. City centres would be gone in its current form, they'd be represented more by the amount of population a tile has or even as their own specialised area. I'm aware it's a huge shift away from Civ and it'd be fit for another series of games - it's like an EU4 system of provinces without all the horrible gaminess of development and stuff - but I'd also like to hear other people talk about it.

 

[luca 83]

it is necessary to be able to simulate everything the Middle Ages for example: the liberation of the cities it should be donedo it to be able to simulate the rise and fall of the empires and the fall of roman empire , and of the nations and governments: the Roman Empire became the Holy Roman Empire then it was divided into many Italian states, and states of germany
therefore in my opinion it is need necessary an excellent artificial intelligence, and the release not only of city-states, but of entire states. then better simulate wars, trade, revolts, religion, the Middle Ages were complex: a little regional state like Portugal can become an empire

 

[Zaarin]

it is necessary to be able to simulate everything the Middle Ages for example: the liberation of the cities it should be donedo it to be able to simulate the rise and fall of the empires and the fall of roman empire , and of the nations and governments: the Roman Empire became the Holy Roman Empire then it was divided into many Italian states, and states of germany
therefore in my opinion it is need necessary an excellent artificial intelligence, and the release not only of city-states, but of entire states. then better simulate wars, trade, revolts, religion, the Middle Ages were complex: a little regional state like Portugal can become an empire

I think the game you want is Crusader Kings 3.

 

[luca 83]

I think the game you want is Crusader Kings 3.

it was an example of the difficulty of simulating an epoch, if the game is to simulate millennia. in 2022 it must be an adequate game

 

[Zaarin]

it was an example of the difficulty of simulating an epoch, if the game is to simulate millennia. in 2022 it must be an adequate game

Civ is very emphatically not a historical simulator; it is a historically flavored 4X game. Big difference.

 

[Naokaukodem]

Civ is very emphatically not a historical simulator; it is a historically flavored 4X game. Big difference.

Well, since it invented the 4X genre, we can assume it's at least a "what if" historical game... or historically flavoured if you will.

EDIT : As to me, my péché-mignon of a wish would be to emulate better the Americas conquest. Civ3 did it very well in its expansion, but it was just about that (a mode)... I wish there could be similar situations in every "normal" game. But, I might still be redundant after some games. Well, not much redundant than a game without probably.

 

[Zaarin]

Well, since it invented the 4X genre, we can assume it's at least a "what if" historical game... or historically flavoured if you will.

I agree. I'm just saying that Civ is not and is not trying to be a simulation game like Crusader Kings or Europa Universalis. That's a very different style of game. There's definitely room for Civ to improve in its emulation of history.

 

[luca 83]

Civ is very emphatically not a historical simulator; it is a historically flavored 4X game. Big difference.

civ does not simulate the real events but the phases of universal history yes

 

[Naokaukodem]

I'm just saying that Civ is not and is not trying to be a simulation game like Crusader Kings or Europa Universalis. That's a very different style of game.

Well those are kind of "what if" games too no ? Because if you must play the true History, you play once and basta. Well, maybe a couple to update yourself, just like an History book. They are just more attached to mechanics that depicts reality, and are less upside down, hence they unfold in shorter periods. Civ is special (and fascinating) in that it describes the entire History of humankind. IMO that's that that prevents it to be like the games you mention. And also, the "pushing units" philosophy, to make it clear that you have one unit, you have to move it to explore / settle / make wars. Civ is very simple to understand. Even in the 4X genre there are far more complex games to apprehend. Old World is too complex for me for example. I find its interface horrible. You have to search for data. Civ is designed to have the fewest data possible, and all displayed more or less clearly on the screen, if only to open a new screen dedicated to a specific, clear and simple area of the gameplay immediately understandable.

 

[Zaarin]

Well those are kind of "what if" games too no ? Because if you must play the true History, you play once and basta. Well, maybe a couple to update yourself, just like an History book. They are just more attached to mechanics that depicts reality, and are less upside down, hence they unfold in shorter periods. Civ is special (and fascinating) in that it describes the entire History of humankind. IMO that's that that prevents it to be like the games you mention. And also, the "pushing units" philosophy, to make it clear that you have one unit, you have to move it to explore / settle / make wars. Civ is very simple to understand. Even in the 4X genre there are far more complex games to apprehend. Old World is too complex for me for example. I find its interface horrible. You have to search for data. Civ is designed to have the fewest data possible, and all displayed more or less clearly on the screen, if only to open a new screen dedicated to a specific, clear and simple area of the gameplay immediately understandable.

Yes, precisely. CK3, despite being equally ahistorical (going over the religions regularly makes me angry because Miaphysitism is not iconoclastic and...and...and... ), is aiming to emulate the forces of history in a much deeper degree than games like Civ or Humankind.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

Yes, precisely. CK3, despite being equally ahistorical (going over the religions regularly makes me angry because Miaphysitism is not iconoclastic and...and...and... ), is aiming to emulate the forces of history in a much deeper degree than games like Civ or Humankind.

That is because CK3 is only trying to model a single relatively narrow 'slice' of history both geographically and temporally compared to either Civ or HK, which 'model' history with a much broader brush, covering far more variety of cultures and a far broader time-scale.

One is ahistorical deeply, the others ahistorical broadly.

The recent games like CK3 and Old World show what can - and cannot - be done by going 'deep' into a single Era and area, just as EU in all of its permutations shows just how deep you can go with a single Era even when you try to extend it world-wide in geography.

CK3, OW, EU are all very good games and show what can be done on their strictly-defined platforms, but they also illustrate the difference between themselves and a wide-ranging 4X like Humankind or Civ: imagine trying to implement the family interactions of CK or OW or the myriad diplomatic factors of EU on a 6000 + year time scale: trying to combine 'deep' and 'broad' is trying to be All Things At Once, and therefore Nothing Done Well.

- and, IMHO, the balance in a broad 4X hasn't been adequately solved by anyone yet . . .

 

[Zaarin]

CK3, OW, EU are all very good games and show what can be done on their strictly-defined platforms, but they also illustrate the difference between themselves and a wide-ranging 4X like Humankind or Civ: imagine trying to implement the family interactions of CK or OW or the myriad diplomatic factors of EU on a 6000 + year time scale: trying to combine 'deep' and 'broad' is trying to be All Things At Once, and therefore Nothing Done Well.

Yes, this is precisely the point I was trying to make. CK3 does what it does very well, but its goals are very different from those of a game like Civ.

- and, IMHO, the balance in a broad 4X hasn't been adequately solved by anyone yet . . .

Also true.