Thoughts on Civ 6 and the future of the series

BuchiTaton

Prince
Joined
Jul 8, 2019
Messages
576
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.
Agree, districs are great as mechanic but I would like to limit their number and distance by/from the city center especially before industrialization, have the map covered by visually isolated districs looks horrendous.

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
Rethink the classification of buildings by district would be good also. For example most historical city centers had things like their main temple there, while cities with "holy site" are just a minority that actually are "holy". Also occupy a whole district for centurires just for a library feel cheap when apart from few specific examples that could be covered by wonders most libraries where a relatively small part of temples, monasteries, palaces and administravite buildings.
Or how common is to have a contemporary stadium next to classical arena? Even any decent city should forbid to build a loud stadium next to a zoo, by the way what about a proper Urban Park district to have better health and enviroment, and a Hospital building anyone?

I think early Neigborhood should be the traditional early district where you can build Workshops to produce luxury resources like Textiles, Cosmetics and Ceramics. Later you have both proper Industrial districts to produce things like Electronics and Automotives, and apart of the Suburbs with service buildings.

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)
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.)
For me is clearest to have Theater, Gallery and Studio for the different kinds of works of art and Museum for the archeological artifacts.
By the way, what about Natural Science Museum?
Give Naturalists their proper role related to Science and let them found Research Facilities over/next to jungles, reefs, volcanos, natural wonders, elephants, oil, amber, etc. To produce Specimens from the types Geological, Paleontological, Botanical and Zoological and collect them in Universities and museums.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Oct 17, 2017
Messages
8,094
Location
Texas
Or how common is to have a contemporary stadium next to classical arena? Even any decent city should forbid to build a loud stadium next to a zoo, by the way what about a proper Urban Park district to have better health and enviroment, and a Hospital building anyone?
In the U.S. having a jousting arena next to a stadium isn't common at all unless there is a Renaissance Faire going on, which I kind of imagine that's the case in Civ 6, at least to justify it in my mind.

Yeah if a health mechanic would come back I think a medical district with an apothecary, hospital and public clinic is necessary.

For me is clearest to have Theater, Gallery and Studio for the different kinds of works of art and Museum for the archeological artifacts.
I was thinking an Opera House though would have slots for both works of Writing and works of Music. The problem with GWAM in Civ 6 is the limited amount of space, especially for music and writing late game, so a building that helped out would be fantastic. A Broadcast Center instead would focus less on great work tourism and focus on rock band/traveling musician tourism for those that want a less passive way to play the culture game. I wouldn't mind calling an Art Museum a Gallery instead either.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Mar 11, 2012
Messages
4,596
Location
north of Steilacoom, WA
Yeah if a health mechanic would come back I think a medical district with an apothecary, hospital and public clinic is necessary.

This actually makes more sense than some of the other 'specialized' districts. Both Seattle and Tacoma near where I live have areas called "Pill Hill" because of the concentration of Hospitals, Clinics, and medical facilities there.


I was thinking an Opera House though would have slots for both works of Writing and works of Music. The problem with GWAM in Civ 6 is the limited amount of space, especially for music and writing late game, so a building that helped out would be fantastic. A Broadcast Center instead would focus less on great work tourism and focus on rock band/traveling musician tourism for those that want a less passive way to play the culture game. I wouldn't mind calling an Art Museum a Gallery instead either.

Not only an Opera House combining Music and Writing GW slots, but a culminating La Scala Opera House Wonder with extra slots and a bonus to producing more GW of Music and Writing.

I've always thought that a mechanic for Rock Bands should be the ability to get Tourism/Culture out of a Stadium, since so many major concerts are now staged in Sports arenas, or have them boost Amphitheaters to keep it all in the "Theater Square" District. Nbody really builds venues specifically for massive concerts any more, they just re-use any other place with a capacity large enough, and that would make an interesting mechanism for the late game.
 
Joined
Oct 17, 2017
Messages
8,094
Location
Texas
This actually makes more sense than some of the other 'specialized' districts. Both Seattle and Tacoma near where I live have areas called "Pill Hill" because of the concentration of Hospitals, Clinics, and medical facilities there.
Also Houston has the Texas Medical Center, a district filled with 54 different institutions ranging from hospitals, medical schools, and public health organizations.

I've always thought that a mechanic for Rock Bands should be the ability to get Tourism/Culture out of a Stadium, since so many major concerts are now staged in Sports arenas, or have them boost Amphitheaters to keep it all in the "Theater Square" District. Nbody really builds venues specifically for massive concerts any more, they just re-use any other place with a capacity large enough, and that would make an interesting mechanism for the late game.
That would be great if you could perform them in your own civ. However, since you have to send them away to different civs, it makes more sense that whatever tourism and culture you obtain by their performances, would go directly to your Broadcast Centers, by broadcasting their performance over the radio. :)
However you'd definitely be able to send them to other civs Stadiums and Ampitheaters to perform, like you can currently do.
 

BuchiTaton

Prince
Joined
Jul 8, 2019
Messages
576
>ARTS SQUARE (cultural district)
- Theater, represent "performing arts" with slots for music and writing.
- Gallery, represent "visual arts" with slots for portrait, lanscape, sculpture, etc.
- Studio, represent "mass media" with 3 slots for any kind of great work. But also produce Luxury resources that add to Cultural victory.
* Album, from have 3 music.
* Film, from have 1 writing, 1 music and 1 visual art.
* Game, from have 1 music and 2 visual art.​

>ENTERTAINMENT COMPLEX (amenities district)
- Arena, bonus to Military. Each X number a Tournament is held between all your cities with Arenas the more you have the bigger the bonus for the Champion city, for example free promotions for the units produced on that city.
- Fair, bonus to Economy. Each fair can choose a Luxury produced locally to win a Gold bonus from any city with trade routes.
- Stadium, bonus to Culture. Has slots for Great Musician*, but also add to held the World Cup each X number of turns, the more nations participate (Diplomacy related) the bigger the Turism bonus you get.

The TOURISTIC RESORT district could have a great synergy being next to the Entertaiment Complex (for example have already the Resort gives bigger chances to held the World Cup).

I think the Zoo must be part of a CITY PARK district. For the Hospital I am not sure where to put it (Campus?) but for me is a MUST for CIV7 Health mechanic. Maybe a "Sanatorium"* district with the Baths, Hospital and something else? Or since parks are related to Health we can have Baths + Hospital + Park. :confused:
 
Last edited:
Joined
Mar 23, 2006
Messages
703
Location
Adelaide, Australia
Are we thinking theming and building slots will be back in 7 ? Why not just make the game easier for the AI and have unlimited great works, without needing to assign them to a city/building ? They just appear in a national gallery ?

Also related small suggestion - we should be getting artifacts from natural disasters like floods etc
 
Joined
Oct 17, 2017
Messages
8,094
Location
Texas
For the Hospital I am not sure where to put it (Campus?) but for me is a MUST for CIV7 Health mechanic. Maybe a "Sanatorium"* district with the Baths, Hospital and something else? Or since parks are related to Health we can have Baths + Hospital + Park. :confused:
I'm sure if health were to come back we'd have a specific health district instead an aqueduct district that added housing.
The aqueduct could still be part of the district as a building or a separate improvement.
 
Joined
Mar 11, 2012
Messages
4,596
Location
north of Steilacoom, WA
I'm sure if health were to come back we'd have a specific health district instead an aqueduct district that added housing.
The aqueduct could still be part of the district as a building or a separate improvement.

I've always felt that the Aqueduct should be an Improvement, like roads, that can be built through X number of tiles from a Water Source (river, mountain, lake, etc) to Irrigated Fields or a city District. Every District it passes through or adjacent to should get both a population increase bonus (better health = more people living long enough to become Population) and, if Health is a Thing in the game, Health bonuses as well.

Other possible "Health Buildings" in a city could be Sewer System, Apothecary, Hospital, Public Bath (UB = Hamam)

And, of course, the Health Wonder could be the Institut Pasteur (Industrial), still one of the foremost biomedical and infectious disease research centers in the world. A National Project or special structure could also be a National Health Service.

And in the Early Modern Era (IRL, around 1600 CE) the anti-Plague device called 'Quarantine' was developed, which could be a Civic or Social Policy in the game, depending on how such things are handled in Civ VII . . .

Note also that some of the Resources in the game now have potential Health Bonuses:
Olive Oil
Wine (antiseptic)
Spices (many are insecticides or repellents)
 

Thormodr

Servant of Civ
Supporter
Joined
Feb 15, 2005
Messages
5,000
Location
Vancouver, Canada
The player had the option to choose a state religion, which was interesting, even at the diplomacy level. I don't know why they dropped that concept.

Agreed. At the very least, have it for a Theocracy.
 

Zaarin

Diplomatic Attaché to Londo Mollari
Joined
May 14, 2016
Messages
10,410
Location
Babylon 5
Agreed. At the very least, have it for a Theocracy.
Theocracy should be able to interact with religion in unique ways, but every government should be able to set a state religion. Every government in the world had a state religion until a couple hundred years ago--and even in the United States, the state of Massachusetts held on to its state church until the mid 19th century. And this is +1 reason to divorce religion from civilizations; it prevents the formation of the kind of religious blocs we see in actual history.
 

Thormodr

Servant of Civ
Supporter
Joined
Feb 15, 2005
Messages
5,000
Location
Vancouver, Canada
Theocracy should be able to interact with religion in unique ways, but every government should be able to set a state religion. Every government in the world had a state religion until a couple hundred years ago--and even in the United States, the state of Massachusetts held on to its state church until the mid 19th century. And this is +1 reason to divorce religion from civilizations; it prevents the formation of the kind of religious blocs we see in actual history.

The Mongols didn't have a state religion. Well, at least during their initial Empire. Yes, they had Tengrism but they officially valued religious tolerance as a unifying factor. (Or getting them to play off against each other, anyway.) Not until much later when various Mongol dominated areas picked a religion. ie. Buddhism or Islam.

The Romans just mashed everything together religion wise and later on had Emperor worship. Finally they adopted Christianity as their state religion.

Anyway, I don't have a problem with having a State Religion. It should take some time and investment, though, IMHO.
 

Zaarin

Diplomatic Attaché to Londo Mollari
Joined
May 14, 2016
Messages
10,410
Location
Babylon 5
The Mongols didn't have a state religion. Well, at least during their initial Empire. Yes, they had Tengrism but they officially valued religious tolerance as a unifying factor. (Or getting them to play off against each other, anyway.) Not until much later when various Mongol dominated areas picked a religion. ie. Buddhism or Islam.
Tolerance and state religions aren't mutually exclusive. To this day in Sweden, probably the most secular nation in the world, you can practice any religion or none, but your taxes still support the Church of Sweden. Early Khans patronized Tengri shamans; later the Yuan formally adopted Mahayana Buddhism. If the state is patronizing a religion, it's a state religion, regardless of how they treat other religions in their realm.

The Romans just mashed everything together religion wise and later on had Emperor worship. Finally they adopted Christianity as their state religion.
I mean, yes and no. Nothing you said is incorrect, but it is an oversimplification. The deification of the emperor was a logical extension of traditional Roman religion, which was essentially an ancestral cult. Their tendency to say, "Ah, yes, you call your god Lugus? We call him Mercury. Oh, your god is Baal? We call him Jupiter," was a matter of pragmatism--and hardly original to Rome. The Persians had been very free in making proclamations in the name of local gods. In Babylon, Cyrus made his decrees in the name of Marduk; to the Jews he made his decrees in the name of YHWH. Even so both had limitations to their tolerance. Rome persecuted monotheists for undermining the authority of the emperor (and later persecuted pagans and non-Western Christians for the same reason). Roman tolerance was predicated on accepting Roman religion.

Anyway, I don't have a problem with having a State Religion. It should take some time and investment, though, IMHO.
I don't think it should require either given that historically it generally just required a king saying so--as the Reformation-era saying went, "Un roi, une loi, une foi"--"One king, one law, one faith." You should get more out of it if you invest in it by building temples, converting your citizens, etc.
 
Joined
Oct 17, 2017
Messages
8,094
Location
Texas
Theocracy should be able to interact with religion in unique ways, but every government should be able to set a state religion. Every government in the world had a state religion until a couple hundred years ago--and even in the United States, the state of Massachusetts held on to its state church until the mid 19th century. And this is +1 reason to divorce religion from civilizations; it prevents the formation of the kind of religious blocs we see in actual history.
Maybe make it to where those that choose a Theocracy have the ability to participate in special Ecumenical Councils with others of the same state religion. :dunno:
 

Zaarin

Diplomatic Attaché to Londo Mollari
Joined
May 14, 2016
Messages
10,410
Location
Babylon 5
Maybe make it to where those that choose a Theocracy have the ability to participate in special Ecumenical Councils with others of the same state religion. :dunno:
I also think ecumenical councils shouldn't be restricted to Theocracies. In fact, a better ability for Theocracies might be the ability to create a schismatic sect without an ecumenical council.
 

BuchiTaton

Prince
Joined
Jul 8, 2019
Messages
576
Maybe make it to where those that choose a Theocracy have the ability to participate in special Ecumenical Councils with others of the same state religion. :dunno:
This would need regular games where many civs choose the same religon and theocracy government, something unlikely for the average CIV iteration.

I also think ecumenical councils shouldn't be restricted to Theocracies. In fact, a better ability for Theocracies might be the ability to create a schismatic sect without an ecumenical council.
On game terms go the Theocracy way should mean full "Deus Vult" route to Religious Victory. Meanwhile schims were used by not-so religious nations as a political strategy to escape the authority of actual theocratic powers. These "defensive schism" would be more useful as a way to limit the power of player going for a Religious Victory.

By the way another interesting way to make more dinamic the Religious game is to Claim the Authority of an already formed religions like:
- A religion already grew a lot.
- Your militar CIV take over their Holy Site and Relics.
- Have very good relation with some player with that religion as main.
- Procede to convert to that religion as your main and then go Theocracy (in that order) to Claim the Authority of that religion.
- Now you have a lot of cities even on others civs that would be under your influence.

That way promotes a more strategic and dynamic game of both conquest and diplomacy to control holy cities and build factions in favor or againts the claims of authority. Especially if religions born and spread on a more organic way.
 
Last edited:

Zaarin

Diplomatic Attaché to Londo Mollari
Joined
May 14, 2016
Messages
10,410
Location
Babylon 5
On game terms go the Theocracy way should mean full "Deus Vult" route to Religious Victory.
There shouldn't be a Religious Victory IMO.

Meanwhile schims were used by not-so religious nations as a political strategy to escape the authority of actual theocratic powers.
That's a very cynical view of it. I'm not well enough versed to talk about the history of schisms in Buddhism or Hinduism, for instance, but it would be hard to make that case for Christianity. The earliest major schism at Chalcedon involved the state-sanctioned Christology put forward by Constantine and the non-state supported position of the non-Chalcedonian churches. The non-Chalcedonian churches then further split between the Syriac Orthodox Church and its allies and the Nestorian Church of the East, neither of which was supported by any state. The next major schism between Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy again had no direct relationship to states. I'd say the majority of schisms happen from the natural reforming impulses of the faithful, not from the political schemes of the moderates. In fact, the only instance of the latter I can think of is Henry VIII--and his religious views are very, very complicated. NB this is a man who had previously been named "Defender of the Faith" by the pope.

I did have a specific instance in mind when I suggested that theocratic government's could form schisms without ecumenical councils, though: Jean Calvin's Reformed Geneva. (Reformed Protestantism existed before Calvin, but Calvin made it what it is today far more than Zwingli and other earlier Reformed reformers.)

By the way another interesting way to make more dinamic the Religious game is to Claim the Authority of an already formed religions like:
- A religion already grew a lot.
- Your militar CIV take over their Holy Site and Relics.
- Have very good relation with some player with that religion as main.
- Procede to convert to that religion as your main and then go Theocracy (in that order) to Claim the Authority of that religion.
- Now you have a lot of cities even on others civs that would be under your influence.

That way promotes a more strategic and dynamic game of both conquest and diplomacy to control holy cities and build factions in favor or againts the claims of authority. Especially if religions born and spread on a more organic way.
Yes, this would be good.
 

BuchiTaton

Prince
Joined
Jul 8, 2019
Messages
576
That's a very cynical view of it. I'm not well enough versed to talk about the history of schisms in Buddhism or Hinduism, for instance, but it would be hard to make that case for Christianity. The earliest major schism at Chalcedon involved the state-sanctioned Christology put forward by Constantine and the non-state supported position of the non-Chalcedonian churches. The non-Chalcedonian churches then further split between the Syriac Orthodox Church and its allies and the Nestorian Church of the East, neither of which was supported by any state. The next major schism between Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy again had no direct relationship to states. I'd say the majority of schisms happen from the natural reforming impulses of the faithful, not from the political schemes of the moderates. In fact, the only instance of the latter I can think of is Henry VIII--and his religious views are very, very complicated. NB this is a man who had previously been named "Defender of the Faith" by the pope.

I did have a specific instance in mind when I suggested that theocratic government's could form schisms without ecumenical councils, though: Jean Calvin's Reformed Geneva. (Reformed Protestantism existed before Calvin, but Calvin made it what it is today far more than Zwingli and other earlier Reformed reformers.)
That is why I said "On game terms" and did not use ONLY with "were used by".
Most people would not expect neither England or Switzerland to be religious/theocratic designed in game.
East-West Schism only make sense IN-GAME as civs claiming the authority over/making their own religion.
The schisms that historicaly were not supported by states are pointless on regular CIV mechanics since religion is a tool for civs.
For the Theocracy a schism mean fail to assert their authority either with ideas or by pure force, the ones leaving the main rites would be a detriment to their power.
Actually, become a Theocracy should need to not be disputed by any civ with the same state religion. Then promote a schism would be a strategy before become a Theocracy instead of be an act by the Theocracy.

PLAYER 1
Gain support > Claim Authority > Become Theocracy > Control the whole Religion

PLAYER 2
Dont like to be controled > Promote schism > New Religion > Do what they want
 

Zaarin

Diplomatic Attaché to Londo Mollari
Joined
May 14, 2016
Messages
10,410
Location
Babylon 5
That is why I said "On game terms" and did not use ONLY with "were used by".
Most people would not expect neither England or Switzerland to be religious/theocratic designed in game.
East-West Schism only make sense IN-GAME as civs claiming the authority over/making their own religion.
The schisms that historicaly were not supported by states are pointless on regular CIV mechanics since religion is a tool for civs.
For the Theocracy a schism mean fail to assert their authority either with ideas or by pure force, the ones leaving the main rites would be a detriment to their power.
Actually, become a Theocracy should need to not be disputed by any civ with the same state religion. Then promote a schism would be a strategy before become a Theocracy instead of be an act by the Theocracy.

PLAYER 1
Gain support > Claim Authority > Become Theocracy > Control the whole Religion

PLAYER 2
Dont like to be controled > Promote schism > New Religion > Do what they want
Personally, I think schisms should generally be the result of failure to achieve consensus at an ecumenical council. To put this in terms of how Civ6 does religion, half the council wants Choral Music to be a doctrine, and the other half wants Work Ethic. The Work Ethic crowd rejects the conclusion of the council to adopt Choral Music and becomes a schismatic sect endorsing Work Ethic instead.

Actually, become a Theocracy should need to not be disputed by any civ with the same state religion.
I don't particularly see why this should be a restriction. A theocracy is simply a government run by priests or the ecclesiastical apparatus; it doesn't have to be orthodox. E.g., Iran is one of the few theocracies left, and its state religion is Twelver Shi'a, which is endorsed by no other nation in the world (although it has a majority following in Azerbaijan and Iraq and a majority of the Muslim population of Lebanon).
 
Joined
Oct 17, 2017
Messages
8,094
Location
Texas
I also think ecumenical councils shouldn't be restricted to Theocracies. In fact, a better ability for Theocracies might be the ability to create a schismatic sect without an ecumenical council.
That also makes sense. I could also see that as a Byzantine ability.

This would need regular games where many civs choose the same religon and theocracy government, something unlikely for the average CIV iteration.
Well you would have to convert others to the same religion, so that part would be easy for some at least. :p
 
Top Bottom