Will there actually be a Civ 7?

[SammyKhalifa]

What really didn't help, along with the length of the UAs, was that every Civ has both a Civ UA and a Leader UA, doubling the amount of abilities that you need to remember. I know why they decided to go that route, but if you're going to double the required info, you can't also make that info lengthier as well. Clear, concise UAs would go a long way to making CIV 7 more palatable to players like me that A) don't play day-long sessions, but rather 1-2 hour sessions each night after the wife and kid are in bed, and B) don't have the greatest of memories to be able to retain all the necessary information.

This would upset some people but the easiest way would be to have one leader per civ. It would go a way towards making them a bit more cohesive and would probably allow for more civs too.

 

[Eagle Pursuit]

This would upset some people but the easiest way would be to have one leader per civ. It would go a way towards making them a bit more cohesive and would probably allow for more civs too.

Yes, I expect that the reason they had both leader and civ abilities is because they allowed for multiple leaders per civ. In order to make them not feel redundant, they gave the leaders different abilities.

The obvious way to overcome ability creep is to only have one leader per civ. Alternatively, they could do away with the civ-based ability entirely and only have leader abilities.

Although personally, I prefer both having multiple leaders and having extensive ability suites. It helps immersion for me.

 

[TheMarshmallowBear]

Yes, I expect that the reason they had both leader and civ abilities is because they allowed for multiple leaders per civ. In order to make them not feel redundant, they gave the leaders different abilities.

The obvious way to overcome ability creep is to only have one leader per civ. Alternatively, they could do away with the civ-based ability entirely and only have leader abilities.

Although personally, I prefer both having multiple leaders and having extensive ability suites. It helps immersion for me.

I prefer simpler abilities, maybe 2 unique things a leader/civ can do.

Although the way Civ 5 did leaders wasn't bad either, something they could do is move away from "blob" civilizations, so that if they DO want different leaders leading similiar empires, they can

Like Bismarck leading Germany and Barbarossa leading Holy Roman Empire.

Gorgo leading Spartans with Pericles leading Athens.

Most civs ended up with only a single leader anyways (since it felt like a door to open for modders anyway)

 

[SupremacyKing2]

Put me in the "shorter UA" camp. I think civ abilities need to be short but also more active. I don't like passive abilities like +1 food, +2 culture or -10% cost to X buildings. Those abilities are too passive and are hard for the player to actually feel. I prefer active abilities like "legions can build forts" or "walls can shoot twice" or "builders can use charges to speed up wonders". These are abilities that the player can use.

 

[Leyrann]

I think, based on the above conversation, that this is an unpopular opinion, but I don't mind complex abilities, or more abilities. It's fun, and it makes you feel strong, even if it's balanced against each other. It also makes different civs more unique, which increases replay value and gives more incentive to try something new.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

I think, based on the above conversation, that this is an unpopular opinion, but I don't mind complex abilities, or more abilities. It's fun, and it makes you feel strong, even if it's balanced against each other. It also makes different civs more unique, which increases replay value and gives more incentive to try something new.

I'm all for making civs more unique, but I agree with above that we don't need long paragraphs of abilities. The Maori themselves are unique enough with their ocean start, without even mentioning all the other bonuses. Same with the Ottomans and their unique governor. Short, but unique bonuses, are fine with me as long if civs get that one bonus makes them really stand out.

 

[TheMarshmallowBear]

I'm all for making civs more unique, but I agree with above that we don't need long paragraphs of abilities. The Maori themselves are unique enough with their ocean start, without even mentioning all the other bonuses. Same with the Ottomans and their unique governor. Short, but unique bonuses, are fine with me as long if civs get that one bonus makes them really stand out.

I've noticed that late expansion packs are always better when it came to abilities.

You had Canada that could farm Tundra Tiles, Maori with Ocean start, Incas with their magnificent Terrace Farms (And workable mountains), Hungary that made City States interesting.

In Civ 5 you had: One City Venice, Shaka with unique promotions for units, Indonesia with unique luxury resource.

I also think the reliance on Malus abilities in Gathering Storm made them even more interesting.

 

[canadamufc]

I've noticed that late expansion packs are always better when it came to abilities.

I agree. Gathering Storm for me, was the "peak" in which they hit the right spot on how unique each civ should be.

I think we should make civ and leader bonuses in Civ VII
a) more interactive (have the player have a direct affect on how the ability is used)
b) more impactful
c) Shorter, more concise.

I'm okay with both a leader and a civ ability. As I think that even if we do go 1 leader per civ (which imo is better, but that's another discussion) it's better to differentiate a bonus that pertains to what the Civilization achieved versus what the Leader achieved. These bonuses though need to be concise. Have a couple (2-3) strong, interactive, and impactful bonuses for the kit instead of many little small yields or percentage bonuses. This will not only make the abilities less of a paragraph but also more interactive. Sometimes I find it hard to enjoy a civ as they are more or less the same except for a lot of small sized changes. So, revamping the abilities to be more impactful and concise is a step in the right direction.

 

[kaspergm]

I think, based on the above conversation, that this is an unpopular opinion, but I don't mind complex abilities, or more abilities.

Well then I’m going to place myself in the extreme minority group here and say: I actually think civs became too unique in Civ6. Reason I think this is because most Civ6 in 6 shoehorned you into one and only one valid strategy. When I pick a civ when starting a game, I literally pick what type of game I play: Do I want to play religion, science, culture, military or navy as my focus? This works against the idea of playing the map and reduces replayability: Starting the game as Babylon, Russia, Mali or most of the other Civ6, I’m always going to pursue exactly the same strategy.

Now I acknowledge there’s a balance to strike here, because the unique districts, abilities and improvements do make the game fun. My suggestion would be to cut down on features locked with civilisation choice and increase “random” elements linked to stuff like city states (5 had unique units from Civ6 not in the game, 6 had certain improvements for certain city states, both ideas that could be kept) and natural wonders (Terra Mirabillis mod does a bit of this). This for me is fun because it’s something that evolves differently in each game. Also I’m very open for civs unlocking and choosing from different abilities through the game, a bit like Humankind does with it’s culture choice, although this always has the danger of imbalance and cookie cutter builds, so maybe that’s not a good idea with a global pool, unless it picks a random subset of abilities each game. Alternatively unique evolution trees for each civ, but obviously that would be a massive work to create.

 

[Leyrann]

Well then I’m going to place myself in the extreme minority group here and say: I actually think civs became too unique in Civ6. Reason I think this is because most Civ6 in 6 shoehorned you into one and only one valid strategy. When I pick a civ when starting a game, I literally pick what type of game I play: Do I want to play religion, science, culture, military or navy as my focus? This works against the idea of playing the map and reduces replayability: Starting the game as Babylon, Russia, Mali or most of the other Civ6, I’m always going to pursue exactly the same strategy.

Can't say I feel like that. There are a few games where I decide on my strategy before the game ever starts, but in most of my games, I just fool around for the first 100 or so turns, building whatever districts have good placements on the map I get, and then I really start thinking about the victory I want to go for.

In fact, speaking of Babylon, I did a religious victory with them just a few weeks ago. In a one-city challenge, in fact. Why? Well, I was originally planning a science victory with the Great Library, but then I found Yerevan on turn 3.

That's the kind of thing that determines what kind of victory I pursue.

Also, for Mali I'm not even sure what victory you're supposed to be focusing on? They're great at earning gold, which probably gives them a lot of general strength, but that general strength tends to translate most directly to a science victory, which I'm assuming they're not great at considering they have penalties towards production. If I played them, I'd probably be 100-150 turns in before having an idea of which victory I'd want. (do note that I've never actually played them and don't remember every little detail of their abilities)

 

[aieeegrunt]

Can't say I feel like that. There are a few games where I decide on my strategy before the game ever starts, but in most of my games, I just fool around for the first 100 or so turns, building whatever districts have good placements on the map I get, and then I really start thinking about the victory I want to go for.

In fact, speaking of Babylon, I did a religious victory with them just a few weeks ago. In a one-city challenge, in fact. Why? Well, I was originally planning a science victory with the Great Library, but then I found Yerevan on turn 3.

That's the kind of thing that determines what kind of victory I pursue.

Also, for Mali I'm not even sure what victory you're supposed to be focusing on? They're great at earning gold, which probably gives them a lot of general strength, but that general strength tends to translate most directly to a science victory, which I'm assuming they're not great at considering they have penalties towards production. If I played them, I'd probably be 100-150 turns in before having an idea of which victory I'd want. (do note that I've never actually played them and don't remember every little detail of their abilities)

There seems to be a good mix of “generalist” civs like Germany or Rome and then ones that certainly seem to have a focus

Like look at Colombia. If you are not at war just about all of their traits except the +1 move are useless.

That +1 move is a crazy QOL upgrade though, almost makes Civ6’s implementation of 1UPT bearable

There being a ton of civs in this game makes this a non issue. If you don’t want to be pigeon holed, don’t play a gimmick civ

 

[TheMarshmallowBear]

Also, for Mali I'm not even sure what victory you're supposed to be focusing on? They're great at earning gold, which probably gives them a lot of general strength, but that general strength tends to translate most directly to a science victory, which I'm assuming they're not great at considering they have penalties towards production. If I played them, I'd probably be 100-150 turns in before having an idea of which victory I'd want. (do note that I've never actually played them and don't remember every little detail of their abilities)

Fairly sure Mali does not get a penalty to Projects, the only penalty is the loss of Production from Mines but there's still plenty of ways to get a high enough Production for projects.

Mali buys Spacesports using the Financer Governor, then uses the Trade Routes earned through Golden Ages and all the Markets and Lighthouses to get production flowing into the city building.

Mali's goal is to utilize Gold instead of Production where possible.

Not to mention Mali is designed to be an absolute beast of gold making machine, so even recruiting Great People won't be a problem, you exchange pretty much everything that produces something (Production and People Points) and use Gold instead.

 

[kaspergm]

In fact, speaking of Babylon, I did a religious victory with them just a few weeks ago. In a one-city challenge, in fact. Why? Well, I was originally planning a science victory with the Great Library, but then I found Yerevan on turn 3.

Well one city challenge is going to play differently from normal game no matter which civ you choose.

But anyway, your point about Yerevan is exactly what I want more of, your game path actually adapting to specific events rather than just a predetermined set of abilities.

 

[kaspergm]

Like look at Colombia. (…) That +1 move is a crazy QOL upgrade though, almost makes Civ6’s implementation of 1UPT bearable

Agree, there’s a mod called faster movement that increases all unit movement by 1, and I can’t live without it.

 

[aieeegrunt]

Agree, there’s a mod called faster movement that increases all unit movement by 1, and I can’t live without it.

*cries in iOS/console*

Although my google fu seems to indicate I might be able to get none graphics/UI mods on my phone using iTunes, so I may molest my girlfriend’s computer at some point to try it

She’s the financial controller for a pretty huge company, what could possibly go wrong?

 

[Naokaukodem]

1. Naval (as well as land in some extent) sovereignty :

Maybe armies, floats and the like should start to become more abstract ?
I agree that there is already such abstraction in the thing of controlled territory vision, but that's just vision. (kind of low budget scouts but with ubiquity, in other words : the Unseen Population That Covers The Map Since The Start) Maybe we could extend it to some kind of attack/defense ?

2. Regions :

The thing I don't like in Endless Legends and Humankind is the region system. I feel it totally counter-intuitive and limiting. And, by the freedom it takes out from you, a little sad too. Maybe I just cannot adapt, but I think Civ should continue its philosophy of settling (and freely).
For who finds city management boring, maybe we could however, unite several cities production queues into one. For example, in Antiquity, the ones that share the same river or coast. With water, there would be maybe only 10% waste. (more with pirates) In modern times or with roads in Antiquity, the waste could span up to 60% to say 20%, depending the type of roads/railroads. Percents of what ? I have no clue, except it should be made so that the final output is always bigger that the separated ones.
As I'm at it, Firaxis should find a way to represent roads, railroads and highways cohabiting in the same tile. All roads shouldn't be highways. One thing comes to mind : rocket parts transportation. IRL, they often go through normal roads for more security. They are too big for plane travel, or even train travel. The fact that spaceship parts should travel by normal roads could add some spice to the science victory. Other than that, railroads and highways should be built, they wouldn't upgrade automatically from old routes to new ones. They should be kept as national projects. (Projects ? Maybe they should be done through the "projects" panel bottom the building list. Like : railroad from this city to : which one ? And a subpanel opens with the list of all your and your allies cities)

3. Uniques :

If it was just about me, I would do as in good old Civ1 and Civ2 where the only uniques are city names and names in general. (and maybe "agendas" too, at least in the way they were implemented in those games)
As I'm at it, I would cancel all the "flat choices", you know, 1 choice to make among a list of a ton of indigestible options. (since Civ4 religion IIRC, while leader treats were generic, but a step in the wrong direction still)
I would look for the fun elsewhere as a good game designer.
But I know. Uniques are popular, to the point I've been said "Civ without uniques is not Civ, if such a game would come I wouldn't buy it, DO YOU HEAR ME DEVELOPERS ?" Ah ah, that was funny.

 

[Zegangani]

The thing I don't like in Endless Legends and Humankind is the region system. I feel it totally counter-intuitive and limiting. And, by the freedom it takes out from you, a little sad too. Maybe I just cannot adapt, but I think Civ should continue its philosophy of settling (and freely).

I totally agree with this one. Before OldWorld and Humankind were available, I thought a Region System would be fun and also more immersive and realistic, but having experienced the region system in OldWorld a bit and followed multiple Streams of Humankind games, now I'm pretty sure that a Region System, while potentially balanced and realistic, takes away a lot of the fun and player control from the Game. I enjoy building settlers and sending them to distant Lands too much to sacrifice them to a boring limiting system. There are other ways to represent a Region System, like in the Ideas you have represented, City shared Production/Projects (similar to Humankind), regional Governors...etc.

I think Regions should be just Map Territories that mainly have 2 Gameplay roles and a visual one:
- Terrain/Features appearance should change based on Region (Visual) + same variation in the resources and Yields between Regions (Gameplay).
- Influence (Gameplay): Players spawned in a Region will have more influence in that Region, making them easier to influence minor Cities, and new cities they settle there are more resistant to foreign influence (like Identity/cultural pressure). Fighting in home Region increases Combat Strength and conquering a Capital City in a foreign Region is an act of Dominance and allows for more influence over that Territory (making Conquest more strategic).

 

[aieeegrunt]

I totally agree with this one. Before OldWorld and Humankind were available, I thought a Region System would be fun and also more immersive and realistic, but having experienced the region system in OldWorld a bit and followed multiple Streams of Humankind games, now I'm pretty sure that a Region System, while potentially balanced and realistic, takes away a lot of the fun and player control from the Game. I enjoy building settlers and sending them to distant Lands too much to sacrifice them to a boring limiting system. There are other ways to represent a Region System, like in the Ideas you have represented, City shared Production/Projects (similar to Humankind), regional Governors...etc.

I think Regions should be just Map Territories that mainly have 2 Gameplay roles and a visual one:
- Terrain/Features appearance should change based on Region (Visual) + same variation in the resources and Yields between Regions (Gameplay).
- Influence (Gameplay): Players spawned in a Region will have more influence in that Region, making them easier to influence minor Cities, and new cities they settle there are more resistant to foreign influence (like Identity/cultural pressure). Fighting in home Region increases Combat Strength and conquering a Capital City in a foreign Region is an act of Dominance and allows for more influence over that Territory (making Conquest more strategic).

We already have something like this with continents

I agree that it’s not Civ without the grid

 

[SupremacyKing2]

I totally agree with this one. Before OldWorld and Humankind were available, I thought a Region System would be fun and also more immersive and realistic, but having experienced the region system in OldWorld a bit and followed multiple Streams of Humankind games, now I'm pretty sure that a Region System, while potentially balanced and realistic, takes away a lot of the fun and player control from the Game. I enjoy building settlers and sending them to distant Lands too much to sacrifice them to a boring limiting system. There are other ways to represent a Region System, like in the Ideas you have represented, City shared Production/Projects (similar to Humankind), regional Governors...etc.

Big regions will indeed limit the player. But if you make the regions smaller, I think it can work better. Smaller regions will mean more regions per map. More regions will give the player more freedom to where to settle.

I am a supportive of a region system for a several regions:
1) it fits better with the scale of the game. With regions, in a few turns, I can colonize an entire area which makes sense when turns represent decades or centuries. With hexes, things take too long. In a 100 years, all you do is move units a few hexes.
2) Regions are an intuitive way of dividing the map and doing borders. With regions, my empire can be a coherent territory instead of the weird patch work of hexes in the civ6. I don't like that borders in civ6 expand 1 hex at a time. It makes border expansion too slow. Regions fix that.
3) Regions also make combat faster and more strategic. I can move my army from one region to another and fight. Regions eliminate the micro of moving units hex by hex.
4) Regions also solve ICS.

What I am proposing would be different from Humankind because there would just be regions, no hexes at all. The map would be like RISK or Axis & Allies, but with smaller regions, so more regions per map.

If you don't do regions and stick with hexes then I would want some tweaks:
1) faster unit movement so that units don't take as long to get places.
2) Bring back limited stacks so that player can stack units and move them together to save on micro.
3) Faster border expansion so that your cities can be connected faster. Either have 2-3 hexes expand at the same time or do border expansion like in civ4 where it expands in all directions in concentric circles. Or have borders automatically expand along natural boundaries like mountains and rivers.

 

[kaspergm]

There's no denying that Humankind has cooled my enthusiasm for regions somewhat, but I still think there are aspects of this idea worth exploring. I think the regions in Humankind were generally way too big, and I think it was much too easy to claim and hold regions even far from your nearest cities - sure, you needed to expand from a city, but you could have multiple "empty" regions connected to each other, which made it easy to lay claim to vast areas of land and only populate it later. So I think one thing Civ needs to do, if it goes with regions in some form, is to have some culture/loyalty push on empty regions, and I think you should require a military presence in a region to uphold your claim on it - and other civs should be able to challenge you for an unsettled region without making a real war, a bit like border skirmishes was a thing in Humankind (which I think was a really cool detail).

The thing I think regions CAN add to the game is some better control on city placement for balance reasons and a good tool to allow you to claim areas and harvest resources from them without actually settling a city, something I think makes sense historically and game play wise.