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

[Voidwalkin]

They will only attack if your army is distracted elsewhere. They will attack opportunistically (as you suggest) when you become at war elsewhere. Or when you have a revolt or famine or disease.

What makes this unrealistic is that they'll take no notice of what happens to the powers that fail.

"he's distracted, get em!" is fine. But then you prove you have the ability to retaliate decisively and annihilate your attacker completely and utterly. 4 turns later, another civ, "he's distracted! Get em!"

The game turns into utterly suicidal attackers and in the end, you still win without trouble. It hasn't behaved as a human would. Human would take note of the ability to retaliate.

and expansive AI, angry and reactive AI, you know what I mean.

Don't program in ai hostility if you can't program an ai that can simulate successful gamesmanship.

 

[Trav'ling Canuck]

Why is it unrealistic, if you've taken half the map, for the remaining people to be like... Hmmm.... Maybe I want that land.
The more you expand, the more 'personal space' you should be violating, and hence the more disliked you are.

When England controlled a quarter of the world's land area, I'm sure everyone else just said "nope, not gonna fight that", right?

In real life, empires that expand aggressively find it harder and harder to defend what they have, let alone expand further. Civ has never modelled that well. The pure 4x model says they shouldn't, that big should get bigger should get biggest. Personally, I hope Civ 7 finds a way to reflect in an interesting way the problems that come with expansion-by-conquest.

 

[Gorbles]

Don't program in ai hostility if you can't program an ai that can simulate successful gamesmanship.

This really isn't good advice. Frustration with AI has been a (valid) longstanding thing, but "don't do it if you can't do it to a specific level of success" just means no AI, not better AI.

 

[Voidwalkin]

This really isn't good advice. Frustration with AI has been a (valid) longstanding thing, but "don't do it if you can't do it to a specific level of success" just means no AI, not better AI.

The AI already behaves differently when its evaluated info suggests it should.

It just doesn't weigh what the likely outcomes of its late game hostility are. Denouncing a player who went wide in the stone age in 1600 AD makes it more likely to lose, not less.

 

[SupremacyKing2]

I have a controversial counter opinion: I don't like razing at all. I know it should be an option due to the game's free settling format and AI propensity to settle terrible locations, but it is simply ahistorical and immersion breaking for me for entire areas of civilization to just disappear into empty anarchy.... even in the 20th century. "Razing" as done by Mongols did mean drastic collapse in population in given area, but not Central Asia being reclaimed by steppes and removed from any state control back to the state of nature...

How many historical examples do we have of civilization being completely obliterated from an entire region by the invader, to the point of forests and wild animals reclaiming it? I'm not even sure many parts of Roman empire would qualify under civ idea of razing. Mayas don't count - it was not because of a conquest.

I would enjoy a mod for myself to disable razing after classical or medieval era, so I can remove stupid AI cities but not see half of Europe casually disappear and turn into the forest in the year 2000 AD.

Perhaps the answer is to keep the raze option but nerf it. So razing could just reduce the pop down to 1 and remove all buildings, but the city would still remain on the map.

 

[pokiehl]

I think razing is a really important option to keep. I hate it when the AI settles a dumb city, ruining my plans for the land there.

Keeping razing in the game also opens up different options for bonus abilities based on it.

I do think razing shouldn’t simply be a “click and done” thing like it is in Civ 6. It needs some consequence beyond diplomatic penalties—at the very least it needs to be a multi-turn affair like in Civ 5.

 

[Pedro P]

Districts. Look ugly, makes every civ look samey and all the land to look as packed and urbanized as Tokyo metropolitan. I am not entirely against some cities having multi-tile spreads. But universities and museums shouldn't take a tile each either.

 

[GeneralZift]

My idea for razing would be to make it multi-turn and then turn it into a unique improvement that provides Culture called 'City Ruins'.

You can't settle on City Ruins unless you remove with a builder.

Then, you have both aspects. You can remove Cities and settle somewhere else. You have a reason to raze. Plus, you have a distinct indicator that a city was once there.

 

[fluffy465]

Perhaps the answer is to keep the raze option but nerf it. So razing could just reduce the pop down to 1 and remove all buildings, but the city would still remain on the map.

I think having some kind of nerf that isn't just drowning in grievances is the way to go. However this suggestion I think keeps all of the issues with razing, because the issue that razing is supposed to solve is that cities otherwise have an extreme level of permanence on the map. In a way, razing is the only "undo" button on city/district placement, and any removal of that without some other feature taking that place effectively makes razing a waste of time for both sides.

If I were to propose my own idea, I think razing should keep tile improvements (farms/mines/etc.; kinda absurd in my opinion that it doesn't do this), and cities/districts should be replaced with "ruins" of some kind if it's beyond the medieval era or so. Then, if a city or district tile is placed on the ruins of the same type of tile, you'd get a production bonus towards building things that were there before it was razed. I'm not sure how historical that would be but I think it would make razing somewhat more engaging at least.

 

[SupremacyKing2]

the issue that razing is supposed to solve is that cities otherwise have an extreme level of permanence on the map.

I get that from a gameplay perspective, you don't want cities to be permanent. The player needs that option to get rid of badly placed cities. But I think larger cities should be harder to raze than smaller cities. A small city in the classical era, should be relatively easy to raze off the map. Historically, invading armies did raze small cities off the map in the ancient and classical era. But in the modern era, it should much harder or even impossible to completely remove a big city. I mean, could we completely raze a large city like NYC, Beijing or London? Short of dropping a few nukes on them, no. The way the game does it where an invading army can just decide to a raze the city, should not be possible. No invading army could just raze a large city like NYC off the map in 1 turn (1 year).

 

[Leyrann]

Short of dropping a few nukes on them, no.

Hiroshima: "Even that ain't gonna cut it, mate."

 

[UWHabs]

I get that from a gameplay perspective, you don't want cities to be permanent. The player needs that option to get rid of badly placed cities. But I think larger cities should be harder to raze than smaller cities. A small city in the classical era, should be relatively easy to raze off the map. Historically, invading armies did raze small cities off the map in the ancient and classical era. But in the modern era, it should much harder or even impossible to completely remove a big city. I mean, could we completely raze a large city like NYC, Beijing or London? Short of dropping a few nukes on them, no. The way the game does it where an invading army can just decide to a raze the city, should not be possible. No invading army could just raze a large city like NYC off the map in 1 turn (1 year).

I forget which version it was, but didn't one of the earlier civ games have the raze mechanism where the city lost one pop per turn until it disappeared? That to me is sort of the balance you are looking for - a small city will only take a couple turns to poof out of the way, but if you captured a big city, waiting for like 15 turns for it to slowly go away probably gives some balance.

The other massive feature of that is that it actually gives you a chance to counter. Like the current mechanism if you get a lucky rush in, you can sneak in and just wipe out a major production centre of a rival, without having to actually defend it.

 

[SupremacyKing2]

Hiroshima: "Even that ain't gonna cut it, mate."

To be fair, the bomb dropped on Hiroshima was a small nuke compared to what we have today. We have much bigger nukes now that could completely wipe out a city like NYC.

 

[reddishrecue]

To be fair, the bomb dropped on Hiroshima was a small nuke compared to what we have today. We have much bigger nukes now that could completely wipe out a city like NYC.

Yup, back then they were atomic bombs and were less weaker than today's nukes.

 

[Mekkh]

One more thing I discovered that I really don't like about VI is the absurd ranged strength cities and encampents have. I don't mind cities having hit points or being hard to siege, but when they can wipe out your entire army sitting far away in the field then that feels so out of scope for what 'city defenses' actually are and makes warring a slog. I usually have the biggest army around but if someone declares war on me I usually do not retaliate but pillage a few tiles. Not because I am scared or couldnt defeat their armies, but because I am scared of their cities, and that makes no sense to me.

Again, I understand a city center tile hurting you if you attack it with urban warfare and all but just randomly taking out a unit every or every other turn seems extreme. As for encampments, they already have defensive bonuses and zone of control. Stick a crossbowman in there and it will be an invaluable improvement during war. But it shouldn't on it's own kill your army.

 

[Askia Muhammad]

One more thing I discovered that I really don't like about VI is the absurd ranged strength cities and encampents have. I don't mind cities having hit points or being hard to siege, but when they can wipe out your entire army sitting far away in the field then that feels so out of scope for what 'city defenses' actually are and makes warring a slog. I usually have the biggest army around but if someone declares war on me I usually do not retaliate but pillage a few tiles. Not because I am scared or couldnt defeat their armies, but because I am scared of their cities, and that makes no sense to me.

Again, I understand a city center tile hurting you if you attack it with urban warfare and all but just randomly taking out a unit every or every other turn seems extreme. As for encampments, they already have defensive bonuses and zone of control. Stick a crossbowman in there and it will be an invaluable improvement during war. But it shouldn't on it's own kill your army.

City defense was definitely too easy in VI. The strong ranged attacks were a big reason for that. I think they should rebalance or change that for sure.

I know I used some mods to weaken walls and also remove city ranged strikes and suddenly the AI actually posed a threat for once.

 

[Voidwalkin]

One more thing I discovered that I really don't like about VI is the absurd ranged strength cities and encampents have.

It effectively turned every attack on a city into an assault. There were no sieges in 6. Surrounding the city alone has no effect on defenses and you'd be destroyed quickly if you even tried. It's just exclusively storm the walls asap.

I think they wanted to represent the historical strength of fortifications, particularly in the medieval and Renaissance eras, where in game there aren't any ways to outrange the city and bombard at leisure. The way this is modeled makes it impossible to besiege a city, which was nearly always how European medieval militaries met the challenge.

 

[Krajzen]

One more thing I discovered that I really don't like about VI is the absurd ranged strength cities and encampents have. I don't mind cities having hit points or being hard to siege, but when they can wipe out your entire army sitting far away in the field then that feels so out of scope for what 'city defenses' actually are and makes warring a slog. I usually have the biggest army around but if someone declares war on me I usually do not retaliate but pillage a few tiles. Not because I am scared or couldnt defeat their armies, but because I am scared of their cities, and that makes no sense to me.

Again, I understand a city center tile hurting you if you attack it with urban warfare and all but just randomly taking out a unit every or every other turn seems extreme. As for encampments, they already have defensive bonuses and zone of control. Stick a crossbowman in there and it will be an invaluable improvement during war. But it shouldn't on it's own kill your army.

One of the smallest bad decisions of civ6 design, yet with the worst consequences - it makes the entire affair of warfare even more exhausting for the human player, and makes AI largely unable to conquer both player and other AI civs, therefore making the game a) too easy and b) the entire geopolitical realm becoming too static and boring in the later eras, as AI struggles to take any land using force.

I really hope civ7 has no encampments at all and no city attacks at all, civ should defend territory with an army, not tower defense automatic turrets. Assuming they keep 1UPT (I hope they don't) cities imo should have "passive" health and offer defense bonus to garrison unit stationed in it, being unable to be entered at all before hp falls, but the game would be better if they didn't shoot on their own.

 

[SupremacyKing2]

I also support getting rid of ranged attacks for cities. I assume they were introduced in civ5 because 1upt made cities too vulnerable. So ranged attacks were added to give cities a needed buff. But ranged attacks had some unintended consequences. IMO, the only ranged attack should be if you garrison a ranged unit in the city. And city walls should buff the ranged unit in the city to represent the ranged unit being able to fire from the protection and height of the city walls. Also, city walls would have hit points that have to be knocked down before you can take the city. This would make city walls a powerful defensive building in the early game since it would make cities tough to take unless the invading army brings some siege weapons. So I think city walls can make cities tough without giving cities a ranged attack of their own. That's just overkill IMO. Furthermore, I would reintroduce true sieges. If an invading army does not have siege weapons to take down the walls, the player could click the "lay siege" option. Cities would only get food and production from the city center during the siege, resulting in famine and low production. The other player could choose to surrender the city rather than wait for the entire population to die. If the pop dropped too low, the city would automatically surrender. The defending player could always try to break the siege by attacking the invader with the garrisoned unit or by sending other units to come back and attack the invader. I do think that an emphasis should be placed on building an army to protect your cities. That should be your first line of defense. And some cities should be weak. For example, an invading army should be able to just walk in and take a small city without walls.

 

[GeneralZift]

I think this is an issue of balance rather than design.

I'm perfectly happy to have city attacks, as long as you have Walls. Just make them fairly weak attacks. The defending player does need some advantage.

The population should increase the defending strength of the city (i.e. its health), but not increase the damage of the ranged attack.

Don't give them free city attack in the late game. Have cities require a military base in the late game for stronger city attacks. Each level of city wall should match the appropriate tech level, and you shouldn't need to build them all in the late game, should just skip straight to the most recent wall type.