Discussion in 'Civ - Ideas & Suggestions' started by GandhisRevenge, Feb 12, 2019.
I supposed it was made on purpose to have units stay longer
Probably since if there are too many units, then players complain that they don't get enough turns to use each unit. But I do think there should be a good middle ground. For me, it's still really weird that the melee unit goes from a swordsman to a musketman. That's a pretty big jump from the classical era to the Renaissance era. There should be a longsworsdman unit to cover the middle ages.
I always found it a silly argument. If the game is progressing too fast slow down the speed!
To leave the gaps is just immersion breaking, I did not care that in civ v you got great war infantry for such a short time, it was actually nice and it felt like warfare was evolving quickly and was ultimately fun to have ww1 units and ww2 units along with marines and paratroopers.
The only middle ground I see is to at least upgrade the look of units like city centres change with eras.
Imagine a knight looking like a Reiter in the renaissance or a musketmen changing to line infantry and so on.
The gaps are a bit immersion breaking for me, yes. And the gaps are made even worse when you lack a strategic resource. I would love to see more units to fill on those gaps.
I could go either way on the 3rd xpack/Civ7 question. I don’t need Mayans/Portugal/Babylonians/etc. for the game to be complete, as I feel like the game is getting to peak content. However, there are mechanics that I could see Civ6 benefiting from:
- Plague/disease: The new scenario intrigues me, as I want to see how the mechanics work to spread the plague. I think it would be an interesting twist to trade route mechanics if plague spread from city to city via trade routes. So far, there are no direct negative effects to trade routes. You set them (or receive them), and reap the benefits. However, creating a system of negative trade route externalties, like the plague, would be a fun challenge.
- Migration: I am torn on how to implement this, but I wish there was a mechanic to show how people come and go from your civ based on its success. A civ that has strong economic and cultural growth should see pop growth, whereas a weak, struggling one should see pop decline. Culture and loyalty seems to be a backdoor depiction for this, but I feel like more could be done to demonstrate how citizens judge your capabilities with their feet.
- Economics: It seems like Anton is working on some sort of economic victory mechanic (the question is whether it is for Civ 6 or 7). I doubt it is as simple as “amass 1 billion gold” and you win. Corporations are interesting, and I liked how they were implemented in earlier Civs, but something different would be nice. Clearly, an interesting late-game mechanic would be to replicate the interconnected global economy of today, where it is to your detriment if the other civs’ economies collapse. It will be fun to see what Anton whips up.
I second the idea of an option to let players start a game before selecting a civ. There are so many amazing starts, but not always for the civ you are playing!
Just reading through the first few pages of this thread and I've alread "liked" tons of posts.
I'm really excited for GS this week, but with all the ideas here so far I think it helps to show there is still enough possible content for another full expansion.
Maybe more control over barbarian settings than just on/off would also be nice. There's no more boring a way to start the game than spending the first 30 turns batting off an endless swarm of barbarians.... Well, apart from Indonesia's TSL location...
Don't forget longswordsmen!
Civ VI - Vox Populi
The focus of the expansion would be you, as a leader, more directly dealing with your citizens, and the citizens of the world in general. Hence the name 'Vox Populi', which literally translates to 'voice of the people'.
Migration. Citizens will now migrate from city to city and civ to civ. This migration is based on the desirability of the 'target' city and the origin city, which is in-turn based on housing, amenities, appeal, loyalty, health, and job availability and ideology. The bolded factors are based on mechanics below. Religion it calculated as a multiplicative factor on top of this, say 1.5 for majority religion being the same as the citizens, 0.75 for it being different. Better-managed civs will naturally attract more immigrants, which can be a benefit for obvious reasons, but can also cause problems if populations get too large. New cities lacking in proper infrastructure can also suffer from emigration - an indirect nerf to wide and buff to tall. Obviously, immigration/emigration can be affected by policies.
Specialists. Specialists are completely reworked to be much more useful. They are no longer citizens, and instead will naturally be created over time (if there are open slots). You can set your specialists to focus on one of multiple areas: associated great people point generation; associated yield generation; outreach, to gain new associated specialists faster; training course, to become a *super specialist*, which basically just does everything better, faster; lobbying, to generate new specialist slots (if the cap hasn't been reached). These roles are assigned automatically if not set manually. So, with proper management, you can support an entire network of specialists in a city. Specialists are trained faster with their associated buildings (a library will have scientists train faster, etc). As is the case now, buildings will create new specialist slots, but they will also raise the *cap* on specialist slots available in the city. The specialist cap will rise exponentially with city population, as will rate of specialist production: an incentive to go tall. Some final notes: do not require housing, as they live in their district. Also, specialists are a fussy bunch, though, and are much more likely to migrate than regular citizens.
Health and disease. This introduces the 'medical ward' district. Unhealthy citizens will produce lower yields, will eventually stop working, and can even die if things get bad enough. The healthier a city, the faster it will produce specialists. Health is calculated in a way similar civ Civ IV. Diseases will be naturally born in cities that are unhealthy enough, and will spread among citizens within a city, along trade routes, downstream through rivers, through units passing near a city, through migration, and through tourism. Fully healthy citizens are immune from disease. Needless to say, diseases will gradually make a city more and more unhealthy, and can be disastrous to population if improperly managed. Units like apothecaries, herbalists, doctors etc can be trained in medical wards and will help treat/prevent disease. Diseases can also be used offensively: through spies sabotaging a water supply, by infecting a river as it goes downstream, through malicious trade routes, etc. This is a powerful tool to cripple your enemy but will come with major diplomatic modifiers if caught.
Some sort of mechanic whereby your policies are influenced by the will of the people. Choose policies the people want and you can keep them happy and loyal; ignore and anger them too much, and you will have loyalty problems, emigration, anarchy, and, if things get bad enough, even a coup, which makes you lose the game. Manage your citizens well enough, to the extent that they adore you, and you can win a new victory condition: the 'People's Victory'. Haven't put too much thought into this final section, but think it could be awesome if handled correctly.
It'd also be cool to add corporations too, although I'm not sure if it fits thematically.
So you prefer another start from the ground, taking 4 years to reach the point where we are now, instead of improving on what is a solid base. If they put one more year getting rid of the bugs, rebalancing some issues, improving AI, bref listening to the comunity here. It could lead to something really good.
I agree the price for expansions is too much, but with a new version you will pay more, for less features than we have now...
Really I don't think it makes sense. A new version for them it's good, more sales, more money. For us it means another imperfect game. What would bring a new version according to you ? New Graphics again ? Civ is much more about game mechanics, It needs time and a lot playtesting to get it right, so I much prefer that they continue on this one that still leaves a taste of unbalanced, unfinished.
Reworked ideologies, pops and politics:
- Make every pop in one of your citizens an actual citizen with opinions, with a life and without thoughts, for example: "this pop works the rice farm". He's a farmer, is a rural person who lives quite isolated and has conservative ideas. He wants agrarians to be supported (or his farm to be supported). He likes his farm to be improved (non-improved tiles generate unhappinness when being worked on). The way your civilization is improved or worked on, will eventually determine what kind of empire sociologically will. If you have many farms in your empires, your cities / empire might be conservative. If you have in almost every city an industrial district, you'll have a huge social movement (or be at risk of socialism or even communism if your citizens are unhappy with the progress of implementation of social rights). If you have a lot of commercial districts (and harbors), you'll have a lot of liberals or have more capitalists (which want to stimulate the economy). If you have a lot of encampments you'll have a lot of pops who are nationalists. If you have a lot of holy districts you'll have a lot of social conservative citizens. Theater squares and Campuses could increase the rate of new ideas spreading throughout your empire. Cities inside your government might depending on how you distribute your districts or tiles you work on, even hold a grudge towards the center parts of your empire, like if your capital has a lot of districts, and your outer cities have like an encampment or holy district, your empire might become very polarized (and unstable). Of course, citizens can't work districts, but those districts will apply to all pops in a certain city the district is active for (but also to a slighter extent the cities throughout your entire empire, and esp. if it's the nature of your district (a certain building in an entertainment complex having an effect to all pops 6 tiles away, or industrial districts with one of magnus bonuses (vertical integration). The possibilities are endless.
- Make political parties something that's a real thing when your converting to a third tier ideology (or around 1750, but optional), with several ideologies: liberalism, anarchism, conservatism, fascism, nationalism, socialism, communism, ecologism who all have or might have demands of you, while you need to satisfy them or you risk them making unhappy, but they could also force you to deal with foreign civilizations differently, or use policy cards you would otherwise not use, or demand you to use more international trade routes (or more domestic: internationalism vs protectionism). Make those ideologies have benefits (advantages) and disadvantages, even for the controversial ones: fascism having benefits for domination victory or militarist approaches.
- Elections would determine who is in power and you need to work together with party of power, but when picking policy cards, congress (or the pops) would have to vote on them if you implement them in a democracy. In a dictatorship, you have the control of what policy cards to choose from, but only a select amount of policy cards is available, depending on your ideology.
Civil & labor rights mechanics, implementation of slavery
- When the game progresses, populations will have more demands, and will demand you to change some laws. This could happen if you have a lot of industrial districts (with labourers), or also when you have a lot of theatres, campuses or international trade routes to civilizations where those ideas also have spread (not only religion spreads, but ideology could spread as well). Both civil rights and labour rights will spread. If you don't satisfy them, uprisings could occur, changing your ideology system or policy cards without you agreeing with it too. Implementation of civil rights could spread your tourism. Migration could be affected by your policy decisions.
More dynamic empires: vassalisation, semi-independent colonies, empires in a dynamic state
- It's maybe more an idea to rework in civ 7, but the next expansion could have some basic (and not complex mechanics) but oriented on making civilizations more dynamic. Add vazzals and add colonies that are semi-independent to yours, and you will have to continue to satisfy them or keep them loyal too or they could break apart and become a free colony. Rework free colonies / free cities. They could join a different empire, but they could also become an independent city-state or civilization (and create generic colonial names for it).
Reduce micromanagement late-game
Such a mechanic (as stated above) might also reduce micro-management in super large empires (which is annoying late game if you have literally 30 cities). It would be good if you could decide for yourself how much control you want to keep over your empire. The central part should always be under your control. Maybe the map should not only be divided in continents but in superregions that could contain multiple continents. But some centralization vs decentralization mechanic could be nice, similar to sectors in Stellaris where you could decide what a sector should focus on (food, production, science, culture, gold, faith and ...). Another idea is that those sectors work autonomically for you but that you could intervene whenever you need too.
Could be affected by loyalty, by international trade, by ideology, by housing and amenity (lack of housing -> people move to different empires, and vice versa, lack of amenity -> people move to a different empire where amenities are widely available).
Diseases, pandemics and health crisises:
Implement in a similar way as natural disasters when done (which was done fantastically)
Economic victory and corporations
And ideology (capitalism, liberalism) could also play a huge role with this. Has so much potential.
8 civs + 1 leader
Just make sure to add Maya, Babylon and Ethiopia, potentially Portugal.
Other ideas are Muisca (or Colombia), maybe Vietnam or Burma, a new Native American civ and maybe a Balkan country like Bulgaria or Romania, maybe Austria, Italy, Ireland, Gauls.
WOW! Those are some great ideas!
Yep, well said.
This is the last expansion,you might see a final patch to tune the build but this is it for civ 6.Theres no more room left.all the slots are full so to speak.
I'd primarily like to see changes to AI and pacing of the game. I feel Standard speed runs through the ages a bit too quickly. But these changes won't sell copies.
I would like to see:
Land grabbing as part of warfare and peace agreements (without taking cities).
Maybe a "claim land" feature in which you can claim lands for future expansion (which other civs can dispute).
More depth to diplomacy.
Re-work of the policy system.
i'd like to see a district rework so they look like part of the city and not some random buildings in the middle of nowhere
I think all the major bits are now there. Time to focus on the AI, put some serious thought into improving the UI (eg fix the new production queue, reduce excessive clicking to do stuff, and make the city screen less annoying), fine tune various mechanics and release the DLL for modders already to carry Civ6 the rest of the way.
I have a feeling we’re not going to see anymore major expansion packs. We’ll probably see updates and additional civilisation/alternate leader DLC’s.
The jersey system is an improvement, but the color palette seems like it is limiting options. We have ROYGBP, plus aqua and magenta and white, plus the prismatic mod added a much needed "sand" color. These generally have a light, medium, and dark variant, but that still only leaves us with only "true" versions of certain colors.
I would like us to get a few more secondary colors to give civs more to work with. In rough order of importance, I would say:
* Limon/chartreuse - green/yellow
* Amber/gold - yellow/orange
* Indigo - blue/purple
* Jade - green/aqua
* Vermilion - red/orange
* Rose - red/magenta
It just feels weird that Arabia has a mustard color or China doesn't have a jade color, and just a few subtle additions would make civ palettes feel much more differentiated.
Separate names with a comma.