Things you *don't* want to see in Civ7 and its expansions

[UWHabs]

Actually I think this is still possible in newer games, I always find myself pivoting to random win conditions I wasn't aiming for, in both Civ5 and Civ6.

Although, perhaps you are right about it. I get this idea where if I want a science victory for example in Civ6, I need to plan ahead where all the campuses are going to go for max adjacency and such.

I think 6 has plenty of flexibility. The only times I sometimes need to plan that far ahead is if my capital/production city only has like one flat tile, I might loosely pin that tile to avoid accidentally killing my on spaceport site. Sure, obviously if I aim for a culture victory I tend to want to get theatres out earlier than otherwise, and I'd probably chop a little less and start to think about where I might eventually want national parks. But there's multiple ways into the culture victory that often I will have just been playing normally and then when I get to the mid-game just accidentally realize that culture might be an easier win than space, even if I have a science-focused civ, just due to whatever random reasons of my land and area.

But definitely I would hate to have things so restrictive that if I don't have a theatre built in the first 50 turns I don't realistically have a chance at a culture victory, or if I don't start optimizing my diplo favor then I don't have a chance at diplomatic victory, etc...

 

[Leyrann]

I don't want a rigid win system where I have to decide early on what victory I'm going for, and then orient the entire game around it. That's one reason I stick to Civ 3 most of the time -- it's prettty free-wheeling. Culture is the only one that requires a lot of planning before. A lot of times I've planned for a peaceful UN or space victory, but then medieval wars to get resources put me on a path to conquest or domination - or, I was going for conquest and got tired of fighting, so I just expanded my empire to a point and then sat back and waited for space.

Imma be honest. I usually play (Civ VI) until the Industrial Era before I even start thinking about my victory condition. Before that, I'll build districts and stuff mostly based on whatever adjacencies are available (ok, and which ones are best in general).

The exception is when I'm playing a civ to play a particular strategy, or if I'm going for a domination victory (because that tends to take a lot of time - although on the other hand I tend to win those games quite early so perhaps I could afford to not make the decision until later).

 

[Blue whale]

And if Belgium does find its way to civ, they could be represented easily with Walonian leader AND a separate Flanders leader.

Let’s compromise and have them be lead by a german ;D

 

[Patine]

Let’s compromise and have them be lead by a german ;D

Or a Spanish Habsburg Governor from the 80 years war.

 

[Vandlys]

In-game micro transactions.

 

[Leyrann]

Or a Spanish Habsburg Governor from the 80 years war.

To be fair, they did remain loyal to them in the 80 years war. That's what has led to the Netherlands being split into two in the first place; the Northern Netherlands (now just called Netherlands) and the Southern Netherlands (now called Belgium).

 

[zwei833]

1UPT, unstacked cities.

 

[Foxforch]

• World Congress, at least in the capacity it was in VI. Should be a late game mechanic
• Gandhi and India (though I expect both will return)
• Cleopatra
• I'll echo what @Lord Lakely said on religious combat
• Late game micromanagement? Not sure how to word that, but managing 20+ cities in the late game is extremely tedious. There needs to be some kind of delegation system introduced where you can split off parts of your empire
• No leaders changing outfits throughout eras
• Ridiculous grievances and penalties imposed on you for a war your opponent started

Big agreement on this!

 

[Foxforch]

* World Congress in the Medieval Era
* Modern Swedish for Swedish leader (if they make it to the game)

 

[BackseatTyrant]

What is correct, and I think possibly more pertinent to Civ, is that at the game's Start Date, 4000 BCE, even Egypt (first dynasty) was 850 years in the future and the earliest non-mythical Chinese Dynasty was almost 2000 years away, and all the others on your list are not only a millenia or more in the future, most of them aren't within 1000 km of where they were when they started being 'civilizations' - in 4000 BCE there were no Germans, Greeks, or Romans in Europe!

The old Start a City wherever you are in 4000 BCE is a very bad beginning for Civ, and alway s has been. We need to find a way to change it into something else as valid in a competitive game.

I'm 1½ months late to reply, but my solution would be to simply get rid of the historical dates. No more BCs or ADs, not even BCEs or CEs, just the number of turns passed since the start of each game

 

[Patine]

I'm 1½ months late to reply, but my solution would be to simply get rid of the historical dates. No more BCs or ADs, not even BCEs or CEs, just the number of turns passed since the start of each game

I think that would detach from the feel of a game like Civ, and prevent players from the favourite passtime of comparing their achievements with historical dates.