What are the essential requirements of the civ formula?

[0urBall]

8) Just One More Turn

Is the right/only answer

 

[Maiq]

Now im one of the biggest whingers aroynd about civ switching, but im not sure id say this is how I'd describe the immutable part of Civ that it has butchered.

Yes the flavour should be built around the civilization (ergo, and not the leader first and foremost).

Yes you should lead the same entity from stone age to information age (at least, but I don't think from earlier or to later would be an issue)

"The civ can get new bonuses or change some bonuses but the core identity of that civ should remain. The player should feel like they are playing their civilization from start to finish."
- absolutely

"This means that the art, flag, name, unique buildings, unique units and primary civ trait should remain the same throughout the game."
- this is where my core disagreement comes in. I think as long as you have agency, and the options you can pick to make changes are laid out from the start and specific to the Civ you've chosen I would be happy. It might be fun to switch Civ, if I chose to, and if I feel it fits with what I'm going with. But it should feel like a natural flow from the previous Civ, and other Civs should also only change in a way that feels natural. That's of course hugely subjective and a crowd will now tell me Egypt to Songhai is natural because rivers or something. That's more than anything why they should either steer well clear or over deliver on Civ options at an affordable price.

After all, how many polities is EUV launching with now? Firaxis need to compete with their competition. Lower the costs of delivering and price for selling more Civs and just pump out Civs, and maybe you'd win around your audience

Paradox is really taking their lunch at both historical and alt-history

 

[Gorbles]

I would add that the game should involve a sandbox gameplay. The game should not contain quests or anything like that that could "railroad" the player's gameplay into any "forced" path

You mean like victories?

I get that you probably didn't mean it like that, you meant "quests that you personally don't want to see in the game". But to my mind, there's no difference between win conditions (and while I started with Civ 1, I mostly grew up with SMAC and winning by Transcendence rather than outright military dominance) and smaller versions of that that incentivise certain decisions while rewarding you with positive outcomes for making those decisions.

(honourable mention to Beyond Earth, specifically BERT, for the questlines it introduced combined with early-game map exploration that made that part of the game highly enjoyable for me)

Anything the game tells you to do is technically "forcing" you. This includes: founding cities, building a military, and pursuing victory-related objectives. Are you saying that an essential requirement for Civilisation is that it should not, at all, stray beyond these absolute basics (build cities, build military, pursue win conditions), and never include any other way of incentivising specific mechanics or outcomes? I feel like there needs to be a clearer line than listing a few things from VII you didn't like.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

Here are several which I think are crucial:
1. Historical figures as your avatar or opponents.
2. Civilizations that need to stand the test of time
3. 4X
4. Turn based
5. Multiple victory conditions

 

[aieeegrunt]

You mean like victories?

I get that you probably didn't mean it like that, you meant "quests that you personally don't want to see in the game". But to my mind, there's no difference between win conditions (and while I started with Civ 1, I mostly grew up with SMAC and winning by Transcendence rather than outright military dominance) and smaller versions of that that incentivise certain decisions while rewarding you with positive outcomes for making those decisions.

(honourable mention to Beyond Earth, specifically BERT, for the questlines it introduced combined with early-game map exploration that made that part of the game highly enjoyable for me)

Anything the game tells you to do is technically "forcing" you. This includes: founding cities, building a military, and pursuing victory-related objectives. Are you saying that an essential requirement for Civilisation is that it should not, at all, stray beyond these absolute basics (build cities, build military, pursue win conditions), and never include any other way of incentivising specific mechanics or outcomes? I feel like there needs to be a clearer line than listing a few things from VII you didn't like.

You can outright ignore victory conditions and do your own thing in previous Civ titles, you were’nt being railroaded so severely even map generation was distorted

 

[CivKirk64]

I'm curious to see what people say, my feeling is this is evolving, so I'll list my ideas as generally as possible, and in roughly the order they joined the mix as essential.
I'll stress that how any particular title addresses a particular feature is allowed to vary slightly, but inclusion I feel is now essential to feeling like civ, and many have improved gradually or at times dramatically over the iterations.

Turn Based.
Illustrated/Animated avatars matching historic leaders
Exploring a (Usually but not always) randomly generated map
Identifying optimal or strategic city locations
A Tech tree representing your progress through history
Growing and improving your territory (Later resources with bonuses)
Cities that produce buildings and units.
Building wonders that provide a unique bonus.
Diplomacy and negotiation with other civs/leaders
Launching and /or defending yourself in war.
Balancing various yields at city level and Civ level (Not allow too much unhappiness/pollution in pursuit of other yields)
Goodie Huts

Adopting various governmental styles with various bon/mal-usi
Differentiated Civilizations with unique units (Then Buildings, then other abilities/buffs)
Trade mechanics
Great People Mechanic
Religion Mechanic
1UPT
Hexes
Building and Wonder map placement (AKA Districts/Quarters)

I'm hoping some form of Civ switching or ability and cultural evolution sticks but my hopes aren't high.

There are a few on here that I debated including, namely religion that I could do without if they aren't implemented in a fun way.
6 was the best version of it and that is while loathing the whack a mole missionary spam & the apostle slapfights
I'd rather they skip it,if it isn't fun.
In VII I wish trade worked better, they've simplified it but also I don't know how to improve range, or why one city I can get to, and another that is closer I can't get to even with diplomatic level raised. I like how it worked in 5 and 6

 

[Gorbles]

You can outright ignore victory conditions

How can you ignore them? I mean, except by intentionally losing the game I guess.

 

[Krikkit1]

Are worker/builder units an important part of the civ formula? I know they were a big part of previous civ games. In a way, they were sort of iconic to the franchise. And they allowed players control over what time improvement is built in each tile. Civ7 not just got rid of builders but also got rid of the decision of what to build on each tile. I think you could make a case that while worker/builder units are not essential to the civ formula, the ability to decide what is built on each tile is essential to the civ formula. Personally, I don't mind not having to micro builder units but I do wish there was a way to decide what to build on a tile.

The decision of what to build is "improvement, building, or Wonder."
There is more than 1 type of Wonder/building that can go on Most tiles. for improvement there is only the add unique or not.


An essential part of the Civ formula is generally opaque UI,

 

[CivKirk64]

How can you ignore them? I mean, except by intentionally losing the game I guess.

You can absolutely ignore the victory conditions. Define Losing? What game?

I've never thought of civ as a game to win. Its a software based fun machine.

The other thing I'll refute about what is fundamental to civ is the 4X label.
A) I've never even heard of this label until like 6 years ago
B) I don't think it applies to Civ. You can play a whole match of civ without going to war, so the eXterminate isn't a goal; eXploit also sounds harsh for Civ, you are building, nurturing growing improving, you aren't ever(Or rarely) Exhausting any resources. Its more of a 2X game and even then I'd rather we coin a different categorization for it. Its always been a TBS to me.

 

[Gori the Grey]

Goodie Huts

I like your list in general, but this one in particular made me smile. Yes, goodie huts!

 

[Xandinho]

1. Civilizations that stand the test of time: you need to feel victorious when taking Egypt, which built the Pyramids in ancient times, all the way into space in the modern era. This has always been the soul of the game, and it should never be lost.

2. Identification and immersion: the player needs to feel connected to the civ they are playing from the beginning of the match to the very end.

3. Fun mechanics: this is crucial for the game’s commercial success and for attracting new players.

4. Historical accuracy: even though it’s an alternate-history game where you can build the Eiffel Tower while playing as China, having accurate historical elements is what attracts history fans. After all, if I choose to play as France, I really want to feel like I’m playing with historical France.

5. Competent AI: I want to feel challenged and sense that the weight of my decisions truly matters for my survival or downfall.

6. Diversity: this includes diversity of civs, leaders, wonders… It’s always great to have elements from all around the world. Being able to play with unique civilizations that are often not mainstream has always been one of this game’s greatest appeals.

7. Beautiful and realistic graphics: while important, this is the least critical of the points above, because I believe a game can still be great even without highly attractive graphics. That said, having appealing art is always a nice addition to the overall experience.

 

[Calcifer]

You can outright ignore victory conditions and do your own thing in previous Civ titles, you were’nt being railroaded so severely even map generation was distorted

You can also ignore legacy paths and do your own thing in civ 7. How does the mechanic of distant lands and treasure fleets limit your gameplay exactly? Is it just worse map scripts?

 

[Gorbles]

You can absolutely ignore the victory conditions. Define Losing? What game?

I've never thought of civ as a game to win. Its a software based fun machine.

Well, you can absolutely do this in VII as well. Which is why I was asking.

 

[CivKirk64]

Well, you can absolutely do this in VII as well. Which is why I was asking.

You can do this in all Civ games, which makes me wonder if you can add "Casual" to any list of core tenets. I get that that is a dirty word in some circles but I dare to say Civ has always been a causal pastime.
You can play in a way where you optimize and rush your way through to the win condition, or you can just ignore it all and enjoy the ride all the way to a score victory, + one more turn.

 

[SupremacyKing2]

Distant Lands and Treassure Fleet are a problem because it restrict players. You suddenly cant have a true Pangea map, and if you dont have "rewards" for those systems, then they have no points

You could always Settle in another continent. That feature was always in place. What Distant Lands and Treasure Fleet does is turn something you already had the OPTION to do it and turn it into a quest, into a chore. Another case where the previous design was superior than the current one

Distant lands and treasure fleets are not quests. They are game mechanics. The legacy paths are the quests. If you turn off the legacy paths, then distant lands and treasure fleets are not forced at all. My suggestion is keep distant lands and treasure fleets with rewards but without legacy paths so you don't need to do them to "win" that Age, you can do them just for the rewards. Specifically, treasure fleets can give you gold. If you are able to colonize the distant lands and get treasure fleet resources, then you can get lots of extra gold, like in real history. But the player is not forced to do them to win that Age. And you can give the player other ways to get lots of gold, without treasure fleets, through religion or diplomacy or war. This way, the player that does not colonize distant lands or do treasure fleets can still get extra gold and is not at a huge disadvantage.

 

[aieeegrunt]

You can outright ignore some, all or none of the victory conditions in previous titles and do your own thing if you wanted.

I play like this all the time.

I cannot ignore my civ getting deleted and replaced via developer fiat regardless of the situation on the board.

Twice

I can’t ignore the godawful map scripts that hard forces two blocky continent clumps and one or more vertical island chains, all to cram this hilariously Eurocentric “New World and Caribbean Islands” mechanic down my throat.

 

[Gorbles]

You can outright ignore some, all or none of the victory conditions in previous titles and do your own thing if you wanted.

I play like this all the time.

I cannot ignore my civ getting deleted and replaced via developer fiat regardless of the situation on the board.

Twice

I can’t ignore the godawful map scripts that hard forces two blocky continent clumps and one or more vertical island chains, all to cram this hilariously Eurocentric “New World and Caribbean Islands” mechanic down my throat.

You're moving the goalposts from victory conditions, here, to two other things.

Heck, even I want map generation to get better (and it has been getting better, even though there's still room for improvement).

But claiming something about victory conditions, to have that refuted, and to then pivot to talking about age transitions and history in layers (or civ switching, if you prefer), is to pivot to a different argument.

 

[Crashdummy]

Distant lands and treasure fleets are not quests. They are game mechanics. The legacy paths are the quests. If you turn off the legacy paths, then distant lands and treasure fleets are not forced at all. My suggestion is keep distant lands and treasure fleets with rewards but without legacy paths so you don't need to do them to "win" that Age, you can do them just for the rewards. Specifically, treasure fleets can give you gold. If you are able to colonize the distant lands and get treasure fleet resources, then you can get lots of extra gold, like in real history. But the player is not forced to do them to win that Age. And you can give the player other ways to get lots of gold, without treasure fleets, through religion or diplomacy or war. This way, the player that does not colonize distant lands or do treasure fleets can still get extra gold and is not at a huge disadvantage.

Keeping those mechanics disable a real Pangea map

And if the rewards are too big, they srtop being optional which is why i say they are quests. I dont know, i think they add too little to justify killing a whole map, making other map generation more complicated and adding yet another big thing to balance

 

[CivKirk64]

You can outright ignore some, all or none of the victory conditions in previous titles and do your own thing if you wanted.

I play like this all the time.

I cannot ignore my civ getting deleted and replaced via developer fiat regardless of the situation on the board.

Twice

I can’t ignore the godawful map scripts that hard forces two blocky continent clumps and one or more vertical island chains, all to cram this hilariously Eurocentric “New World and Caribbean Islands” mechanic down my throat.

Your civ is never deleted or replaced everything is still there after age transition some buildings become obsolete just like past titles, they just stop to load the new assets.

 

[SupremacyKing2]

Keeping those mechanics disable a real Pangea map

They don't kill Pangea maps. You can still play on a Pangea map if you want, it just won't have those game mechanics. That would be your choice. And players who choose a Pangea map now don't get the option of exploring another continent. That does not kill Pangea maps just because they can't explore another continent. Different map types offer different game experiences.

And if the rewards are too big, they srtop being optional which is why i say they are quests. I dont know, i think they add too little to justify killing a whole map, making other map generation more complicated and adding yet another big thing to balance

Who says the rewards have to be big? The rewards would be balanced so that they are good but not required.

By that logic is pillaging a quest because it gives you a reward? Of course not! I don't think you understand what a quest is. A quest is not anything that gives you a reward. A quest is a mission that gives the player a special reward for doing a specific action that they cannot get with normal gameplay. For example, a quest is the pop up that says "if you build 3 monuments, you get +50 culture.". That is a quest because it is asking the player to do something outside of their strategy for a special extra bonus.