Thoughts on Civ 6 and the future of the series

[Scrabbler]

We can’t be sure, but development of Civ 6 might well be complete, so I’m just trying to gather my thoughts on the game as it stands and the future of the series, even if most have been mentioned many times before. It goes without saying that everyone has different priorities about what makes a Civilization game great; what follows comes from my perspective that Civ works best when there is maximum historical immersion within the constraints of a turn-based game and when most of the game decisions feel like those a real leader would make.


What worked well in my opinion

I think Civ 6 got most things right in general. Ed and the team have done a great job and the game feels polished and addictive. The music and artwork are first class and there are lots of little details such as naming of geographic features which make the world come alive.

The huge variety of abilities (civs, city states, wonders, natural wonders, etc.) is one of the best parts of Civ 6. It feels great to have a different mix every game, for example, today I just happen to be playing with Spanish missions and La Venta colossal heads, but next game will be completely different.

I also really like the new Great Person system – every person is slightly different, and you don't have complete control over which people you get – but to me that makes sense in a game about historical immersion.

Other things I like include the trade route system and road building, the combat system, eurekas/inspirations and having wonders on separate tiles.

Districts

The new district system generally works well and allows for planning. That said, I would probably prefer a slightly more sophisticated system for Civ 7. For example, the main district available in the ancient area could be the town (cannot be adjacent to a city centre) with suburbs (must be adjacent to a city centre) available later. Within each city centre and town you would then have limited slots for buildings which could interact with each other and with adjacent tiles and resources in interesting ways, depending what is on the map. This means that the optimal mix of districts and buildings in a city flows organically from its unique geography.

I think I would remove science and culture districts from the early game, partly because it seems immersion-breaking to have huge US-style campuses in the ancient era, but also because it would make it harder to gain a science lead early on, making the main decision in the early game which technologies to focus on, not overall science output. I think it is fine to have districts like harbours, encampments, etc., and to have specialist science and culture districts appearing in the late game.

Policy cards

I feel the policy card system was successfully implemented, although it’s perhaps a bit too gamey. More could be done to make government types feel unique - perhaps each government should have its own unique policies but fewer total cards to choose from?

Loyalty

The loyalty system is generally a great addition, although I would like to see internal factors that influence loyalty, instead of just external factors. We need better ways to discourage settling as many cities as possible as the optimal strategy and to make small empires more competitive. Loyalty seems one of the ways to do that. Large empires should be harder to hold together than small empires, but in the Civ 6 system it’s the other way around.



Next, we come to aspects of Civ 6 that didn't work as well in my opinion.

Variety/choices

As stated, variety of game experiences is a priority for me. I would like to avoid situations where you are presented with a long list of choices that are the same every game. This can be bewildering on a first game and for an experienced player the same choices are optimal every time. Instead, randomise the choices or give them different costs every game. The pantheon is one of the mechanics that stands out as not being a great game design.

Difficulty/challenge

The lack of challenge due to AI difficulty has to be mentioned. The AI can’t cope well with the increased complexity of the game.

Religion

The religion mechanics in Civ 5/6, where each Civ founds and then "owns" a religion, are not great in my opinion. It is far, far more interesting from an immersion point of view to have religions as independent entities that can be founded, spread, enhanced or influenced by anyone. We didn’t have owned religions in Civ 4 - why change it? You can still have unique abilities for each religion (this is a good innovation), but these can be influenced by any Civ. This could easily be implemented by giving great prophets the ability to either found a new religion or to enhance an existing one that has spread to your empire. This is perhaps the number one change I would like the designers to consider for Civ 7. The effect of religion on diplomacy could also make a comeback.

Governors and government plaza

The governor system works but to me it feels too much like a strategy boardgame, and this is coming from a big fan of strategy boardgames. Moving the generic cartoon governors around, each with a fixed ability tree every game, feels like a poor choice in terms of immersive game design. Earning governors as great people (perhaps from the palace or a government/admin district), although much more random, would have felt more thematic.

The government plaza also does not feel like a great design. Many of the buildings feel created especially for particular strategies rather than buildings that a real leader might build in this situation. Great for a boardgame but personally I see Civ as being more than this.

Diplomacy

Diplomacy is mainly OK, but the alliance system feels gamey. Also, once a leader's attitude towards you goes green there are no surprises and it is too easy to game the system.

Streamline currencies and systems

Too many currencies were introduced during Civ 6’s development and it feels a bit bloated. For diplomatic relations alone we have envoy points, alliance points, diplomatic favour, etc. It all works well but I can’t help but think that it could have been better thought through.

Game modes

The game modes were a good idea but for me they did not really get used past a single fun playthrough of each. I may well be wrong but the impression I got was that there were too many junior designers pushing for fantasy/sci-fi game modes and scenarios. I don’t object to this, but we need a lead designer who is dedicated to the core historical game with laser-like focus.



Next, what innovations would I like to see for Civ 7?

Resources

I would like to see more interesting use of biomes and resources, particularly the food and bonus resources, which are underutilised in Civ 6. Food resources could be plantable. For example, you should not be able to build a generic farm. To build a farm or plantation you need to find (or trade for) a wild source and plant it in a suitable biome. You might start in a warm, wet area that is ideal for rice production, but there are no wild sources of rice nearby, so you cannot build rice farms unless you can find a source. There should then be bonuses for having as many types of food as possible in your city (similar to the current housing bonus).

Internal politics/ personalities

The complete lack of internal politics in Civ stands out. A possible radical idea would be to have fewer total civilisations but each with a large cast of characters (with 2D portraits). For example, you might play Napoleon of France but every time one of your founded cities reaches population level 2 a new personality appears: Jeanne d'Arc, De Gaulle, Louis XIV, Richelieu, etc. Each has a different home city and conflicting set of agendas and preferences to balance. They can join your government, act as a general, spy or governor, or they have the potential to rebel against you. One might be obsessed with Buddhism; one might want specific infrastructure for his home city and one might want your job as leader. You could also engage with personalities in an opposing civ to encourage them to help your cause and if you conquer territory you have to deal with hostile foreign personalities who live within your empire. Leaders of other empires can also change, forcing you to keep alert to all possibilities.

Victory conditions

The way victory conditions are implemented means that you usually have to pick a victory type early and stick to it. This often leads to the second half of the game being a slog where you slowly work towards your chosen victory with few surprises and without interacting with game mechanics outside your victory type. For example, I've noticed that you can watch a playthrough on YouTube and if you miss an hour-long episode, barring declarations of war, you are unlikely to miss much in the general storyline of the player working towards their goal. I would like more surprises that can change a player's focus or direction throughout the game.

The tourism victory is particularly obscure – I am not even sure I understand it properly after playing the game for over 1000 hours. I wonder if there is a way to model culture by looking at the spread of cultural ideas in three categories. For example, there could be separate lenses to view the dominant culture for each of literature, visual arts and performance arts. It maybe wouldn’t work but I had visions of Greek sculpture, Egyptian architecture and Dutch painting battling each other for world dominance in visual arts in a similar way as religion is handled now.

What we probably need are more creative victory conditions that encourage focusing on more than one system, such as periodic scoring. For example, you would know civs will be ranked and awarded victory points sometime in the next 5-10 turns, but you are not told if it will be based on science, culture, number of cities, etc., so you have to choose which micro goals to focus on as well as the bigger picture of how to develop your civilisation.



Anyway, there are many ways to design a Civ game and everyone will have different ideas. What would be your priorities for Civ 7?

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

The religion mechanics in Civ 5/6, where each Civ founds and then "owns" a religion, are not great in my opinion. It is far, far more interesting from an immersion point of view to have religions as independent entities that can be founded, spread, enhanced or influenced by anyone. We didn’t have owned religions in Civ 4 - why change it? You can still have unique abilities for each religion (this is a good innovation), but these can be influenced by any Civ. This could easily be implemented by giving great prophets the ability to either found a new religion or to enhance an existing one that has spread to your empire. This is perhaps the number one change I would like the designers to consider for Civ 7. The effect of religion on diplomacy could also make a comeback.

I'm fine with owning a certain religion and spreading it to others. Though I do agree that later game those civs that did not happen to found a religion should get the opportunity to reform an existing religion that they have in their empire for themselves, by changing one or two abilities and renaming it.

The complete lack of internal politics in Civ stands out. A possible radical idea would be to have fewer total civilisations but each with a large cast of characters (with 2D portraits). For example, you might play Napoleon of France but every time one of your founded cities reaches population level 2 a new personality appears: Jeanne d'Arc, De Gaulle, Louis XIV, Richelieu, etc. Each has a different home city and conflicting set of agendas and preferences to balance. They can join your government, act as a general, spy or governor, or they have the potential to rebel against you. One might be obsessed with Buddhism; one might want specific infrastructure for his home city and one might want your job as leader. You could also engage with personalities in an opposing civ to encourage them to help your cause and if you conquer territory you have to deal with hostile foreign personalities who live within your empire. Leaders of other empires can also change, forcing you to keep alert to all possibilities.

All those French people and no Robespierre for this radical idea?
I'd rather just have different leaders for civs and limit them to at most 3 for each civ, with the possibility of them undergoing a "revolution" when changing governments. I don't want it at the cost of more civs however. Of course the other problem with the idea is finding enough multiple leaders for every civ.

The tourism victory is particularly obscure – I am not even sure I understand it properly after playing the game for over 1000 hours. I wonder if there is a way to model culture by looking at the spread of cultural ideas in three categories. For example, there could be separate lenses to view the dominant culture for each of literature, visual arts and performance arts. It maybe wouldn’t work but I had visions of Greek sculpture, Egyptian architecture and Dutch painting battling each other for world dominance in visual arts in a similar way as religion is handled now.

Since it's called cultural victory in game, I think it would be nice if the religion you founded became one component of the culture victory. I don't think the primary goal should be spreading it to others, but at least keeping it as your dominant religion. The other component would be the tourism, which wouldn't trigger unless you met the religious criteria too.

 

[Zaarin]

I agree with most of your points. In particular I've been saying for some time that religion needs to be divorced from civilizations as an independent force. I disagree, however, that diplomacy is working fine; I think diplomacy is another area that needs a lot of improvement. My other main wishes for Civ7 are a return of Civ5-style AI personalities, ethnicity, more terrain diversity (a logical growth from Civ6's "play the map" focus), and overall more tightly integrated systems.

Since it's called cultural victory in game, I think it would be nice if the religion you founded became one component of the culture victory. I don't think the primary goal should be spreading it to others, but at least keeping it as your dominant religion. The other component would be the tourism, which wouldn't trigger unless you met the religious criteria too.

So is Israel or Rome winning the culture victory?

I think religion should contribute to any victory condition but shouldn't actually be a direct component of any of them. I also don't think the player or civilization should actively be founding religions. I think religion should be on a layer that transcends the civilization, and civilizations can then choose their reaction to a religion: endorse it, tolerate it, persecute it, or trigger a reformation or schism. Once adopted, the civilization could attempt to refine a religion's doctrines, but this could potentially cause a schism if other adherents don't accept the new doctrines (e.g., the Oriental Orthodox churches' rejection of the Council of Chalcedon). Reformations would allow more thorough changes and would require a different triggering mechanism, I think.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

So is Israel or Rome winning the culture victory?

If Israel magically gets in the game then the answer is yes.

I think religion should contribute to any victory condition but shouldn't actually be a direct component of any of them. I also don't think the player or civilization should actively be founding religions. I think religion should be on a layer that transcends the civilization, and civilizations can then choose their reaction to a religion: endorse it, tolerate it, persecute it, or trigger a reformation or schism. Once adopted, the civilization could attempt to refine a religion's doctrines, but this could potentially cause a schism if other adherents don't accept the new doctrines (e.g., the Oriental Orthodox churches' rejection of the Council of Chalcedon). Reformations would allow more thorough changes and would require a different triggering mechanism, I think.

I'm curious on how you want religions to be established? Would Great Prophets still be needed or do they trigger somehow else?

 

[Zaarin]

I'm curious on how you want religions to be established? Would Great Prophets still be needed or do they trigger somehow else?

I'd imagine them being founded independently (but in a specific place) when certain conditions are met; such religions would spread passively unless actively supported or suppressed by a civilization. (Incidentally, I'd view suppression as being more effective at spreading a religion than actually eliminating it; cf. how persecution spread Christianity all over the Roman Empire--and might have done the same for Judaism had Judaism sought converts. The only instances I can think of off the top of my head where persecution actually succeeded at eradicating a religion are the suppression of the Cathars in France and the suppression of the Mandaeans in Ming China.)

I think there's still a place for Great Prophets, though. They could reform and enhance religions in various ways, serve as super-effective missionaries (like they did in Civ5), reduce foreign religions, etc.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

There's been some discussion of Internal Politics being a factor in the game that you have to deal with: congresses, factions, even minority groups. Here we seem to be moving towards Religion (and, presumably, Religious Institutions) as a Non-Civ Institution or even a Supra-Civ Institution in which you cannot control where and when a Religion emerges and what precise form it might take by the time it impacts your Civ.

I would argue that Religion is only one of several potential NCIs (Non-Civ Institutions) that could be in the game. The International Banking Families of the Early Modern/Late Medieval Era, for instance, or the International Corporations hat began to form in the Industrial Era - both transcended any individual government, and could have enormous influence on those governments, both good and bad - and, arguably, were much more important in their time than any 'World Congress"

So, as was asked, how to start a Religion without Government/Civ Intervention.

I suggest that Great Prophets could still be used, but they could spawn anywhere - including among Barbarian Clans or City States. They might establish a religion there, or they might travel to the nearest 'Big City' (possibly Yours) and start preaching/converting (Founding) there.
That would be where your Civ's progress and in-game attributes take a hand. If you have no religious influence at all - no Shrines, no Holy Site, no Unique religiousity - then Drogo the Devine of Dogggerland could start a religion with any initial Pantheon (or whatever term Civ VII decides to use) Trait or Belief - and you may be stuck with it. If, as would be more normal, you have some religious presence already: a Holy Site, a religioush Natural Wonder (I would argue that most Volcanoes have religious significance to people nearby, for instance) or even have already gotten an initial Pantheon, then that will, along with other aspects of your Civ's state, affect what other Pantheons/Beliefs Drogo promulgates. The point is, though, that you do not Control Your Religion as utterly as you do now - rather, you have to React to what Religion throws at you, and that could include some serious Internal Politics/Movements that you also have to deal with.

Likewise, there are a lot of Non-Government, Not Completely Conrollable elements in history that I would love to see in the game.
For instance, the Banking 'families' hat from the late Medieval Era were bankrolling a lot of states and princes in Europe - a Gift of Gold if you had the collateral, but if you reneged on a debt, could also be a major hit to your finances and reputation - and they might, of course, also bankroll your enemies. Same goes for the international Corporations of the 19th to 21st centuries - anyone who thinks that even the most powerful government really controls what they do under any form of capitalism hasn't been paying attention: for my favorite example, Ford and General Motors invested hugely in the German automotive industries in the 1930s, to the point where the German General Staff was afraid to invest heavily in production orders to the biggest German trucking firms for fear that the US firms that held most of their stock might find out exactly what the German Army was getting and pass that information to the US Military and others - the Corporations were to an extent controlling what the German military could do!
And, of course, it was American companies that built a great many of the larges industrial plants in the USSR in he 1930s, including their largest tank/tractor factories and their largest steel works, and earlier, it was British industrial firms and capital that built the majority of non-European. non-North American railroads around the world in the 1840s to 1880s.

Note that the Religion As Outside Influence (compared to you da Gamer and Gummint) should not be Absolute: if you want to play the way the game allows at present, just pick a Leader or Civ with a serious Religious set of Uniques: Phillip II or Saladin as in Civ VI, or the state of Israel/Judeah if it were in the game. Civ VII could even add some Institutions for a Civ that would 'direct' or at least influence what you had to deal with in Religion, like the Divine Monarchial governments of 17th - 18th century Europe or the Egyptian Pharaoh As God concept. The point is that some historical Civs/States were religious, intensely so, and the government would have very great influence over the religion - and vice versa, which is what the game omits now.

 

[Zaarin]

Civ VII could even add some Institutions for a Civ that would 'direct' or at least influence what you had to deal with in Religion, like the Divine Monarchial governments of 17th - 18th century Europe or the Egyptian Pharaoh As God concept. The point is that some historical Civs/States were religious, intensely so, and the government would have very great influence over the religion - and vice versa, which is what the game omits now.

I think this still fits the model I proposed as both the Egyptian religion and Christianity were much older than the pharaohs/Divine Right monarchs that dominated them. Rather than tying it directly to specific civs, I'd propose that any civ could obtain more direct control over its religion by adopting a theocratic government.

 

[Thormodr]

Some interesting ideas but you state you want more of a challenge. Can the AI handle all of your new ideas?

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

I think this still fits the model I proposed as both the Egyptian religion and Christianity were much older than the pharaohs/Divine Right monarchs that dominated them. Rather than tying it directly to specific civs, I'd propose that any civ could obtain more direct control over its religion by adopting a theocratic government.

I think for immersion/identification sake you might have to at least give the Pharonich Egyptian Leader the option of a Religious Unique - the concept of Pharaoh as God goes back so far - unless we get a Neolithic Start, in which case I agree that everything is up for grabs at Start of Game.

I would also think that a Theocratic Government might not be the only 'path' to Intimate Entwining of Religion and Government: a great many governments that could not be called Theocratic - like, to re-use an example, the Divine Right Monarchies of Early Modern Europe, were not Theocratic but made enormous use of Religion to 'reinforce' and legitimize their rule - and as a result, came into conflict with the nominal Head of that Religion, rthe Pope - another example of Religion Not Entirely Under Your Control that I'd like to see in the game..

Some interesting ideas but you state you want more of a challenge. Can the AI handle all of your new ideas?

The AI can't handle the old ideas, so worrying about whether it can handle anything is, IMHO, waste of time. Unless someone in the Development Process sees a commercial reason and is willing to put the resources into developing a better AI, I don't really expect the AI to have more than a minimal effect on the game - as now.

Frankly, that's one reason to put in elements of Non-Government and Internal "opposition" for the gamer - you can't really expect your AI "opponents" to be much of an opposition.

 

[Zaarin]

I think for immersion/identification sake you might have to at least give the Pharonich Egyptian Leader the option of a Religious Unique - the concept of Pharaoh as God goes back so far - unless we get a Neolithic Start, in which case I agree that everything is up for grabs at Start of Game.

I think it goes without saying that virtually any Egyptian unique infrastructure is going to generate faith--pyramids, mortuary temples, sphinxes, etc.

I would also think that a Theocratic Government might not be the only 'path' to Intimate Entwining of Religion and Government: a great many governments that could not be called Theocratic - like, to re-use an example, the Divine Right Monarchies of Early Modern Europe, were not Theocratic but made enormous use of Religion to 'reinforce' and legitimize their rule - and as a result, came into conflict with the nominal Head of that Religion, rthe Pope - another example of Religion Not Entirely Under Your Control that I'd like to see in the game..

Sorry, I was unclear. I didn't mean explicitly Theocracy. I was thinking that any government could incorporate theocratic or religious elements--so incorporating those into monarchy gives you the Divine Right of Kings. Taking it a step further gives you god-kings.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

I think this still fits the model I proposed as both the Egyptian religion and Christianity were much older than the pharaohs/Divine Right monarchs that dominated them. Rather than tying it directly to specific civs, I'd propose that any civ could obtain more direct control over its religion by adopting a theocratic government.

And Egypt could get that ability at the start of the game without having to establish a theocracy.

I would also think that a Theocratic Government might not be the only 'path' to Intimate Entwining of Religion and Government: a great many governments that could not be called Theocratic - like, to re-use an example, the Divine Right Monarchies of Early Modern Europe, were not Theocratic but made enormous use of Religion to 'reinforce' and legitimize their rule - and as a result, came into conflict with the nominal Head of that Religion, rthe Pope - another example of Religion Not Entirely Under Your Control that I'd like to see in the game..

I've said this before but I'd love for the differences between governments to be more emphasis. To do that means not giving any religious components to a Monarchy, even if it is historically accurate for many cases.
I'd much rather see the focus to form alliances by marrying off "noble" citizens to other civs helping out in the diplomacy department, to crush other rivals. In turns those citizens that you marry off can relay information back to you.

As for a Merchant/Maritime Republic an emphasis on gold and trade should be at the forefront. Maybe a focus on individual merchants founding banking families, and as a result a burst of normal citizens spawning into various Great People?

 

[Zaarin]

To do that means not giving any religious components to a Monarchy, even if it is historically accurate for many cases.
I'd much rather see the focus to form alliances by marrying off "noble" citizens to other civs helping out in the diplomacy department, to crush other rivals. In turns those citizens that you marry off can relay information back to you.

In which case it should be renamed "Feudalism" or "Feudal Monarchy," since not all monarchies are or were feudal. This isn't a bad idea anyway as it would allow for an "Absolute Monarchy" in the Early Modern period and "God-King" or "Priest-King" to be an option in the Ancient/Classical era--perfect for the pharaoh, lugal, sharru (kibratu arbaim), shahanshah, huangdi, or caesar among us.

Like I said, though, while Theocracy should still be a government type, I think theocratic/religious elements should be able to be incorporated into any government type.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

And Egypt could get that ability at the start of the game without having to establish a theocracy.


I've said this before but I'd love for the differences between governments to be more emphasis. To do that means not giving any religious components to a Monarchy, even if it is historically accurate for many cases.
I'd much rather see the focus to form alliances by marrying off "noble" citizens to other civs helping out in the diplomacy department, to crush other rivals. In turns those citizens that you marry off can relay information back to you.

As for a Merchant/Maritime Republic an emphasis on gold and trade should be at the forefront. Maybe a focus on individual merchants founding banking families, and as a result a burst of normal citizens spawning into various Great People?

Let's see if I can find a 'meld' between @Zaarin and @Alexander's Hetaroi's concepts.

Each government type would have one Major Thing that is related specifically to it.
Theocracy = Religion. As in, possibly lower cost Religious structures of all kinds, choose a specific Religious Wonder associated with your religion, great resistance to other religions spreading in your Civ (which could be either good or bad!)
Monarchy = Dynastic Ties. Can gain Diplomatic advantages up to and including Alliances through 'marriage'. Also may get internal advantages in military from Loyal Aristocracy
Oligarchy = The "Oligarchs" could be Great Merchants, Great Landowners, or some other group, so this government produces more Great People of whatever type, but has trouble changing to some other emphasis or Bonus because of the Entrenched Opposition from the established Oligarchy
Merchant Republic is the Great Merchant form of Oligarchy. The 'Republic' part invariably simply meant no dynastic/hereditary King or Ruler but also no input desired or accepted from anybody but the Great Merchants. As mentioned, increased production of Great Merchants, but also, through Patronage from the filthy Rich, increased production of Great Artists, and possibly Great Writers and/or Great Musicians. Might get bonus to production of certain Wonders designed to inflate the prestige of their Builders.
Aristocracy = The Leader is simply the Temporarily most powerful of the Great Nobles, so this government produces Great Generals by the handful, but any of them may contest the Leadership and produce schism BUT at the same time it has serious bonuses producing military Units and potentially, Expansionist bonuses.

But in addition to Government Type, there should be Civ and Leader Uniques that also 'bend' rthe play in certain directions.

As mentioned, Egypt should probably have a Civ Unique related to Religion In Government, because it is such an Iconic part of the Popular History View of Ancient/Classical Egypt.

Louis XIV of France as a Leader (to take a blazingly Obvious Example!) would have a Leader Unique towards Divine Right Monarchy - and he wouldn't, of course, be the only such Leader.

Venice, if included as a Civ, would have a serious Civ Unique towards Merchant Republic - which government type might, in fact, Require a Great Merchant to establish it, so Venice's Unique could be related to getting Great Merchants extremely fast with all the consequences of that.

And so on . . .

By mixing and matching Civ, Leader, and Government Type bonuses and Uniques, and making all of them more specific and, in the case of Governments, more powerful and specific, the game should have a lot more 'uniquess' in each Civ, model the Civ somewhat towards its Historical (or Popular History, at any rate) vision, but still allow Variations based on what happens in game: having a Merchant Republic busily building grandiose monuments to the Great Merchants and patronizing Artists might not be the best move if you are next to, say, Shaka Zulu, Genghis Khan, Charles XII of Sweden, and Friedrich II of Prussia!

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

In which case it should be renamed "Feudalism" or "Feudal Monarchy," since not all monarchies are or were feudal. This isn't a bad idea anyway as it would allow for an "Absolute Monarchy" in the Early Modern period and "God-King" or "Priest-King" to be an option in the Ancient/Classical era--perfect for the pharaoh, lugal, sharru (kibratu arbaim), shahanshah, huangdi, or caesar among us.

Then Constitutional Monarchy in Industrial Era because the people then get tired of their Monarchs.

As mentioned, Egypt should probably have a Civ Unique related to Religion In Government, because it is such an Iconic part of the Popular History View of Ancient/Classical Egypt.

Louis XIV of France as a Leader (to take a blazingly Obvious Example!) would have a Leader Unique towards Divine Right Monarchy - and he wouldn't, of course, be the only such Leader.

Venice, if included as a Civ, would have a serious Civ Unique towards Merchant Republic - which government type might, in fact, Require a Great Merchant to establish it, so Venice's Unique could be related to getting Great Merchants extremely fast with all the consequences of that.

And so on . . .

And Maria Theresa gets the Dynastic Ties as part of her leader ability, without having to establish a Monarchy, due to all of her children.

 

[Zaarin]

Then Constitutional Monarchy in Industrial Era because the people then get tired of their Monarchs.

*coughs in Magna Carta*

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

*coughs in Magna Carta*

Well yeah England is special in that regard, adopting one much earlier than the rest of the world. I think it was Poland who was the first to adopt one in Continental Europe in 1791, and the French briefly had one during the early years of the Revolution. The idea started to spread soon afterwards.

For England I was thinking maybe they can have access to it in the Medieval Era, while everyone else would have wait.

 

[Zaarin]

I think it was Poland who was the first to adopt one in Continental Europe in 1791

Poland was being carved up like a Thanksgiving turkey in 1791. The Sejm was established in 1386 and grew in power with the power of the Szlachta; it would definitely be very fair to give Poland bonuses to limited crown authority governments.

 

[The_goggles_do_nothing]

What would be your priorities for Civ 7?

UI - There's a lot of UI improvements that can be made. I would really like be able to see the effects of civ wide bonuses such as policies during the game as well as some post game summaries of how well i used the bonus.

Trade - There needs to be more reasons for international trade then just the increased gold. Tourism could be a tourism-like system where the the number of luxuries you send with your trade routes is totaled up earning you the economic victory. That would open the door to more complex designs for luxuries where strategics like horses become luxuries, manufactured luxuries, etc..

Streamline currencies and systems - I've had the thought that "governor titles" should apply to not just governors but leader and civ unique abilities. This would balance out the advantages of early abilities.

 

[dagriggstar]

Overall I would say the game is still too static, like if you are going for science/cultural win, the game almost locks itself into how it will play out like in the medieval era. In 5, you had to seriously consider other factions ideology choices and how that would create new alliances etc.

More broadly I like the concept of building cities out. I hope for 7 they get rid of districts though and buildings can only be placed on the corners/edges of map tiles. Just to have more room on the map.
Housing is a mechanic I enjoy thinking about and makes historic sense.
The happiness system, I actually enjoyed 5s concept of civilization happiness and how the happiness bucket could get you into a golden age. One of my issues with happiness in 6 is that, because luxuries get moved around automatically, the result is that your cities almost always all have the same level of happiness anyway. I think a change is needed here...
Builders and workers I think can be made obsolete. Your citizens improve terrain for you as they live in certain spots on the map.
I like eurekas and inspirations.
Religion micro is painful
Science still lords over everything else.
I enjoy the appeal system whenever the game makes me think about it, which unfortunately is not often.
I agree that there are too many currencies/yields. Culture to me feels like science 2.0, but less good. I think we could fold tourism, faith, loyalty and the envoy system all into culture as a start.
As mentioned above, the victory conditions feel isolated from each other.
Combat I don't find engaging
I like barbarian behaviour
I like the concept of the age system, but it could be better implemented. Dark ages should be a lot worse....
Governors are too micro based for me
Power (Anything mid-late game) has minimal impact on my games.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

Here are more ideas:
Currencies: I've never found the amount of currencies to be a huge problem. That being said there is no reason why we couldn't streamline some. I think that Diplo Favor, Envoys, Influence Points, and maybe Alliance Points, should all be consolidated at least into one kind of diplomacy currency.

I love the idea of the district system and would like to keep that. On the other hand finding a way to keep districts not looking disjointed from the city is also a priority for me. I have two possible solutions:
1) Have the city have separate hex map in order to place districts and wonders
2) Restrict certain districts to be built adjacent to the city center (Campus, Theater Square and Commercial Hub) until you reach the Industrial Era, or make it unlock with Urbanization.

I'd also love most districts to have a pair of mutually exclusive buildings for more variety in your cities and allow for customization:
Campus: Biological Research Lab (science based on rainforests, marsh, reefs, and geothermal fissures), Chemical Research Lab (science based on mineable resources in city), Physics Research Lab (science based on power sources)
Holy Site: same as before with alternate worship buildings
Theater Square: Opera House (for Great works) or Broadcast Center (spread culture or tourism from Rock bands/Musician unit). The Archeological and Art Museum could go back to being a regular Museum, but you can choose which to slot in, or a mix of both.
Commercial Hub: Market (for gold) or Caravanserai (for trade routes)
Industrial Zone: same as before with Coal, Oil, and Nuclear Power Plant
Encampment: same as before with Barracks or Stable
Harbor: Naval Base (for naval military units) or Cargo Port (for naval trade).
Entertainment Complex: Zoo (science and amenities) or Circus (culture and amenities)
Neighborhood: Supermarket (food and production based on population), Shopping Mall (gold based on population and amenities), Public School (science and culture based on population), Police Station (reduces partisans in Neighborhood and adjacent districts)