Thoughts on Civ 6 and the future of the series

BuchiTaton

Prince
Joined
Jul 8, 2019
Messages
576
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.
IF the idea is to have Schisms like this as a more natural/dynamic event. OK :thumbsup:

BUT what I think is NOT OK :nono: is to have schism as a Theocracy unique ability, in any case should be an option for anybody since it actualy would be useful way to play againts "religious" civs. :D

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).
I mean the famous/classic/average idea of "Theocratic"states are either Ancient ones with religions based on local deities (make sense since no other nations would have your gods), small nations (that are more City-States material on CIV) or ones like Iran (who for CIV would probably be the only playable Shia civ so still fit the idea of not be contested when claim the Theocracy title).
 

Zaarin

Diplomatic Attaché to Londo Mollari
Joined
May 14, 2016
Messages
10,410
Location
Babylon 5
BUT what I think is NOT OK :nono: is to have schism as a Theocracy unique ability, in any case should be an option for anybody since it actualy would be useful way to play againts "religious" civs. :D
No, no, that wasn't what I was suggesting. I was suggesting that Theocracy's could form a schism without rejecting an ecumenical council--a sort of "reform your religion for free" card, presumably at the cost of the approval of your coreligionists. There would have to be another cost as well, probably a Faith cost.
 

BuchiTaton

Prince
Joined
Jul 8, 2019
Messages
576
Well you would have to convert others to the same religion, so that part would be easy for some at least. :p
Since you said "to participate" it would need to convert both religion and government . Double effort for something that could work and be fun just by have the same main religion. While historically non proper Theocratic nations still use at some degree their representatives to push their interest on others.

What I see natural to have with Theocracy on these is a default bonus to push your opinion. By the logic that your "very religious" nation have prestige on the matter being an example to others.
 
Joined
Oct 17, 2017
Messages
8,094
Location
Texas
Since you said "to participate" it would need to convert both religion and government . Double effort for something that could work and be fun just by have the same main religion. While historically non proper Theocratic nations still use at some degree their representatives to push their interest on others.

What I see natural to have with Theocracy on these is a default bonus to push your opinion. By the logic that your "very religious" nation have prestige on the matter being an example to others.
I was just trying to come up with abilities ideas for a Theocracy considering I'd want governents to be more dynamic. But I do like the idea that @Zaarin suggested where you can "reform" your current religion under a Theocracy without having to deal with other civs of the same religion.
 

Chekko

Warlord
Joined
Mar 26, 2011
Messages
158
Location
Sweden
There are many things I love in Civ 6, but one thing I did not like in Civ 6 was the 'wide is always better' mindset. With each city being individual and there being no real penalty for going wide, playing tall just made you hurt. I loved playing tall in Civ 5 and go for those real huge cities.

What I can think of is to add a 'Focus' policy card category where you put a card that benefit tall or wide gameplay with bonuses similar to Tradition and Liberty in Civ 5.
 

mitsho

Deity
Joined
Nov 3, 2003
Messages
8,182
Location
Europe, more or less
There are many things I love in Civ 6, but one thing I did not like in Civ 6 was the 'wide is always better' mindset. With each city being individual and there being no real penalty for going wide, playing tall just made you hurt. I loved playing tall in Civ 5 and go for those real huge cities.

What I can think of is to add a 'Focus' policy card category where you put a card that benefit tall or wide gameplay with bonuses similar to Tradition and Liberty in Civ 5.

Wide and Tall should in my mind also depend on the map. You spawn in a low yield Tundra and Steppe? Go wide like Russia did. You spawn in a fertile river valley in between a lot of cities, tribes and goody hut? Go Tall like Babylon did. You spawn on a small infertile cape on the coast? Go spread out like the Greeks did.

Yes, I just introduced a third type in the middle. It could be a lot of fun to spread around the map and that playstyle obviously needs different perks to work: a navy that can move around quickly to defend far away cities for example.

And a last factor I want to see introduced into Tall vs Wide is the government system or control. Are you a Kingdom, a federation of city states or a tribal nomadic society?

There's lots of stuff they can do - and I agree that this area will receive some sort of overhaul. I'll be okay (probably) with any way they chose :)
 

civac

Prince
Joined
Oct 22, 2010
Messages
518
There is no natural conflict between wide and tall. The answer to 'wide or tall?' is 'Both' unless the game has specific (and usually artificial and restrictive) mechanisms that enforce that conflict (like Civ5 global happiness).
 

Naokaukodem

Millenary King
Joined
Aug 8, 2003
Messages
3,573
I repeat myself but I once did posted some "civics" that had to be choosen along Civ5 terms :
  • Nomadism (Basics for all)
  • City-State (Unlocks Agriculture / Ability to have at least one city beyond size 3.)
  • Clans (Unlocks ability to have allied cities (sharing everything, victory included))
  • Organization (Ability to build and manage directly several cities)
  • Colonialism (Unlocks Settlers)
  • Barbarism (Unlocks Military Tech tree 1 (prevalent at about AD 400))
  • Pastoralism (Unlocks Military Tech Tree 2 (prevalent at about AD 1200))
Now that would be some real techs that directly influences the gameplay instead of mere bonuses here and there !

Maybe there would be small trees a la Civ5, and that the above abilities would be unlocked at the end of the tree. But what to put before the ability hits ? Maybe it could be done by levels until no limit (of population, cities, units or allies)

Or, there could be a detailled civics tree a la Civ6, with possibly much more possibilities than that. (especially when it comes to army prevalence)

You could go to either one direction depending on your map start as stated above.

I first thought some would be mutually exclusive, but there's no need. Ideally you want all of them, and you can skip some in order to go faster in the tree. You can choose to ignore "City-State" and grab as much territory as possible, for an "ICS" ("Infinite City Sprawl", see Civ3) tactic that see those numerous cities improved with time. (must I say that we should be able to construct cities directly from a city production queue, directly on the map, just like we do with districts in Civ6 ? I'd say the only limit here would be 5 tiles away from city center, but you can create a city "right next" to another if you want - the traditional way with settlers would be way way suboptimal, buy hey you could create colonies - "Colonialism" added)

There could be some interesting combos, like "City-State" and "Colonialism", that would allow you to create city-States you do not control. (but are befriend with in a first time ? Or at least have 1 or 3 envoys. Maybe you could even choose the type of city-State : you are isolated and don't have trade partners ? Boom ! Gold C-S. You want more science and there's no scientific C-S on the map ? Boom ! Science C-S. You want to forward-settle an ennemy by blocking his way to expand ? C-S of any kind. Maybe also that those C-S would be linked with advancements ? If you can create a city with 10 pop, they could do alike, making their power and usefulness better - if considering their bonuses scale on size)
Or yet more "Colonialism" and "Clans", the fun fact is that you would remain nomad while having allied cities/civs.
 

criZp

Emperor
Joined
Jul 19, 2013
Messages
1,951
Location
Nidaros, Norway
There is no natural conflict between wide and tall. The answer to 'wide or tall?' is 'Both' unless the game has specific (and usually artificial and restrictive) mechanisms that enforce that conflict (like Civ5 global happiness).
Man, I wish more people would have realized this.
 

Krajzen

Deity
Joined
Oct 23, 2013
Messages
3,258
Location
Poland
In theory there should be no tall vs wide dichotomy because of history worked, where you could have all sorts of strong states: enormous empires with largest cities in the world, small civilizations with crazy cities (Khmer, Maya, Italy, classical Greece), giant empires with stupidly low pop density and very few big cities (steppe nomads but also Tibet, part of Russian history worked like this except Moscow and Petersburg etc), and entities with very few people and area under control kicking ass (countless nomads and tribes, city states and small countries in general).

In practice you unfortunately have to somehow balance that, because the series is not yet on the level making crazy asymmetric empires. Good luck modelling global power Dutch colonial empire in 17th century in civ using proportional size of area and population. And giant empire crushing everybody effortlessly due to its size and economy. And ridiculously empty yet gigantic and militarily powerful empire. And China with its giant size and cities. Over the course of one session of one game with no settings adjusted, so it all feels natural.
 

criZp

Emperor
Joined
Jul 19, 2013
Messages
1,951
Location
Nidaros, Norway
Building big cities should be beneficial because centralization means efficiency. At the same time, settling more land should be beneficial because it means better access to resources and easier control over areas of military importance. Throughout the game the player must decide what to focus on, which would change with their resource/military situation and their technological/industrial situation. More than balancing city spam vs building spam, it would be more about balancing resource access vs resource processing.
 
Joined
Oct 26, 2021
Messages
44
In practice you unfortunately have to somehow balance that, because the series is not yet on the level making crazy asymmetric empires. Good luck modelling global power Dutch colonial empire in 17th century in civ using proportional size of area and population.

Civ6 has a chicken and egg problem with trading empires. You acquire trade routes by building cities with CH/HD and wonders, so to get to the point where you can grow you empire with trade it's already gown.
 

MeganovaStella

Chieftain
Joined
Jan 13, 2022
Messages
86
please make government more complex and more differentiated

Playing a feudal kingdom should be different than playing a more centralized government like a imperial bureaucracy, in more ways than just "I get bonuses" please
 
Top Bottom