What is missing in civ6 that you would like in civ7?

must simulate the historical processes not the original history which may vary! And proposing non-European civilizations or discussing what a Black or White people is like you do instead of game mechanics does not improve the game or the forum!
The, "White-and-Black," argument is Henri's hang-up. I am most trying to talk sense into him. If you read.

And, I am against Continent quotas and caps, and argue as such, but advocate for a more wholistic distribution, which, yes, does include more Non-European ones, but not what your accuisng me of. If you read.

But thank-you so much for accusing me of being a major source of a lot I try to talk reason against. It really shows my posts are actually being READ! :confused:
 
1 keyboard controls for every option including numpad support for unit movement
2 better in game mod incompatibility reporter not "a mod is incompatible with this game version please remove one or more mods before playing"
instead it should have. "A mod is incompatible with this game version " Real Vampire" is conflict with the current game version consider removing or " Real Vampire" is in conflict with Real Roads consider removing or changing mod priority.

The, "White-and-Black," argument is Henri's hang-up. I am most trying to talk sense into him. If you read.

And, I am against Continent quotas and caps, and argue as such, but advocate for a more wholistic distribution, which, yes, does include more Non-European ones, but not what your accuisng me of. If you read.

But thank-you so much for accusing me of being a major source of a lot I try to talk reason against. It really shows my posts are actually being READ! :confused:
They need more. Game mechanics and less woke and politically correct culture
 
They need more. Game mechanics and less woke and politically correct culture
So, I'm still being accused of advocating, "woke and politically correct culture," despite what I said above, and despite my own posts, which I work to hold a measured and balanced. If you are not going to READ my posts, and accuse me of viewpoints I don't hold, even after I make things clear in a new post, one really has to wonder what YOUR goals are.
 
So, I'm still being accused of advocating, "woke and politically correct culture," despite what I said above, and despite my own posts, which I work to hold a measured and balanced. If you are not going to READ my posts, and accuse me of viewpoints I don't hold, even after I make things clear in a new post, one really has to wonder what YOUR goals are.
simulate it?
The use of the term, "REAL slavery," and marking an arbitrary start date to the 1500's, is quite insulting and uninformed, scholastically, morally, and humanistically, when the institution of declared, "ownership," of other human beings, and forcing them into unskilled labour or other endeavours (including unsavoury ones) for the benefit of their, "owner and master," predates recorded history and has plagued every corner of the globe in numerous guises, forms, institutions, justifications, and names throughout human history. And it is ALL REAL slavery. And it is sill happening TODAY, in seedy pockets of the world.

  • Like
    you don't have a politically correct culture you're a conformist: you can't understand slavery in America and its consequences in the USA, Cuba, Jamaica, the Republic, the Dominican Republic, Haiti, Toussaint Lovetour and son of that system
 
The use of the term, "REAL slavery," and marking an arbitrary start date to the 1500's, is quite insulting and uninformed, scholastically, morally, and humanistically, when the institution of declared, "ownership," of other human beings, and forcing them into unskilled labour or other endeavours (including unsavoury ones) for the benefit of their, "owner and master," predates recorded history and has plagued every corner of the globe in numerous guises, forms, institutions, justifications, and names throughout human history. And it is ALL REAL slavery. And it is sill happening TODAY, in seedy pockets of the world.

  • View attachment 662472you don't have a politically correct culture you're a conformist: you can't understand slavery in America and its consequences in the USA, Cuba, Jamaica, the Republic, the Dominican Republic, Haiti, Toussaint Lovetour and son of that system
Okay, this is just downright insulting and disingenuous. You're literally conjuring motivations for me, and telling me what I do and don't understand, for me, completely against what I've actually been saying. These seem to be the kind of tactics you feel the need to resort to in arguments you're badly losing and didn't even need to start. I am done with you.
 
I have never agreed with Patine once
We've fought on like seventy-five different fronts
But when all is said and all is done
Patine's not woke. Luca's wrong.

(Okay, never agreed once is somethign of an exaggeration, we do actually have points we agree on. But I couldn't resist riffing on Hamilton)

Again, a lot of us like those discussion of what civilization should or shouldn't be added. For us, having discussion of what civilizations we want in the game does in fact improve the forum. The idea that removing those discussion to take exclusively about gameplay elements would be better is a viewpoint you're not exactly in large company on.

And you do not get to tell the rest of us what we should or shouldn't discuss.

(Though I do agree this thread could stand to not have civ suggestions).
 
Speaking about civ who should be add, I am missing a lot civ from the tier Blacks Outside Africa.
An important empire as Haiti never was in game before, and I also they could add others civs as Palmares or Ahmadnagar Sultanate.
Haiti, absolutely. Palmares, maybe as a city-state. Same with Ahmadnagar, but I don't agree with your statements in the past that Ahmadnagar should be in the civ game alongside or even ahead of the Mayura, Chola, Mughal, Dehli, Marathai, and others.
Also could have Seminoles leading by Black people as John Horse.
John Horse would be better as an alternate leader for the Seminoles. Osceola is better to focus as the primary leader.
 
I have never agreed with Patine once
We've fought on like seventy-five different fronts
But when all is said and all is done
Patine's not woke. Luca's wrong.

(Okay, never agreed once is somethign of an exaggeration, we do actually have points we agree on. But I couldn't resist riffing on Hamilton)

Again, a lot of us like those discussion of what civilization should or shouldn't be added. For us, having discussion of what civilizations we want in the game does in fact improve the forum. The idea that removing those discussion to take exclusively about gameplay elements would be better is a viewpoint you're not exactly in large company on.

And you do not get to tell the rest of us what we should or shouldn't discuss.

(Though I do agree this thread could stand to not have civ suggestions).
We should have a Civ Ideas and Suggestions version of Hamilton.

Also, on what you were saying, you are absolutely right.
 
If India gets, "deblobbed," it will likely only still be into 3 or 4 civ's and a few key city-states, and the Ahmadnagar Sultanate doesn't even remotely compete for such a slot in any historical relvance, importance, or well-known quality. I imagine such an inclusion with only a few slots would be unpopular in India.
I can't see it being divided into more than 2 different civs, at least for civ 7.
And proposing non-European civilizations or discussing what a Black or White people is like you do instead of game mechanics does not improve the game or the forum!
Why not discuss both like many do on these forums? That is civilizations they want and game mechanics.
 
Doesn’t your point 3 sort of address your point 5, or vice versa?
Point 3 is a benefit of population growth. Just an idea. As population grows. Maybe a certain number of citizens form camps within city territory. Those camps grow to towns and eventually become new cities. With the player choosing a certain area for the city. Point 5 is a function that we had in Civ-III. Where any plot of land is fair game to be settled. No matter how close to another Civ's border. I'd like to see that return. As well as settling cities within one's own borders.
 
Civ 7 should have a no mercy AI in Deity that should wipe off the player at all costs. Only the truly world elite should be able to beat Deity AI. Its clear that it seems that there have been complaints on difficult of Deity AI before and now that Deity AI is easier people complain. We should just let Deity AI back to its difficult self like it used to be on civ 4 BTS unmodded version.
 
Civ 7 should have a no mercy AI in Deity that should wipe off the player at all costs. Only the truly world elite should be able to beat Deity AI. Its clear that it seems that there have been complaints on difficult of Deity AI before and now that Deity AI is easier people complain. We should just let Deity AI back to its difficult self like it used to be on civ 4 BTS unmodded version.
This should theoretically be possible without cheats if they pony up the dough. AI can beat everyone at all the other games, so modern machine learning AI should be able to do it with Civ
 
This should theoretically be possible without cheats if they pony up the dough. AI can beat everyone at all the other games, so modern machine learning AI should be able to do it with Civ
Why cant it do it with civ 6? The devs could do it but players on civfans often complained about the difficulty.
 
Do people actually complain about difficulty on deity? I think people complain more about the late game being dreadfully easy once you get over the initial early game hump.
 
medium territories plus medium nations such as Switzerland or Poland can and should survive ,2 creation of territories creation by conquest, or revolutions of territories , type kingdom of westphalia , 3 best of 4 in case of revolutions creation of republics , kingdoms, empires ., possibly leaderless , 5 introduction of factions then politics and consequences required and revolutions 5 restoring army stacking or possibly forts with strategic intent , better ideologies and tech tree and future technologies

You're veering into scripted history territory, again.
Wait a minute. I think @luca 83 is suggesting to have non-playable civs that are bigger than City States included ones that can be created from revolution/separatists movements. Names like Switzerland or Westphalia are just examples (though Poland-Lithuania was a big power for a while).

That is the reason for this.
must simulate the historical processes not the original history which may vary!
After that the discussion was derailed by the rest of the post. But the orignal idea itself dont seem to be "scripted history", since the mechanic seems to be to have revolutions events not "THE American Revolution" event.

It was suggested before to have such events. I think the key is to allow them only under evident and justified circumstances like badly neglected cities, oppressive policies and foreing influences. This could add a challenge mostly at late game (that is usually already dominated in CIV6) justified by the historical spread of humanist and nationalist ideals around the world from the last couple of centuries.

For me a good design could be that players gets notifications of unrest, an average player would need to do some changes to manage that unrest likely preventing the start of the actual revolution, while a careless player (depending the difficulty) would have some nasty uprisings. This issues could be controled in different ways like more militar presence, changes in your civics, more amenities, or even the creation of free "linked" nations like the Bristish Commonwealth that turn to be diplomatically very supportive.
 
Yes, that's a classic example of Eurocentrism; not many people realise the Indian subcontinent is almost as large as Europe, and just as, if not more, ethno-linguistically diverse:
View attachment 662559
Sadly the iconic (meme like) figure of Gandhi in CIV series is a significative impediment to have more civs from the subcontinent, since Gandhi himself is a figure of Indian unification.

Personally I would be happy with at least these three civ from the region:
- MAGADHI civ, the northeastern classical Indo-Aryan empires based on Pataliputra like Nanda, Maurya and Pala. Covering the apogee of buddhism in what is now not just India but also Bangladesh.
- TAMIL civ, the southern medieval Dravidian empires like Chera, Chola and Pandya. Mostly devoted hinduists with a focus on naval trade expanded beyond India and Sri Lanka to SEA.
- GURKANI civ, the northwestern modern Turkic-Iranian empires with core on the Indus River Valley, mainly representing the Mughal but also the Tughlaq and Lodi dynasties. The period of the expansion of islamic dynasties from Central Asia, Iran and Afghanistan over the subcontinent, the reason now most of the river that give the name to India is currently in a different country, Pakistan.
 
Back
Top Bottom