With the first modern age reveals just around the corner what is your big wish / hope?

It could work if they become an “independent power”, but I think that is less satisfying and does not work as well as the state becoming a true power/new civilization.
I've disliked the idea of city states and independent powers being separate, pre-determined sub states in the last few games tbh. I think having a roster that could spin off variations from a civ with the same bonuses would be fun (not just in the modern era), and I think having a free for all where many more civs start the game would be fun too, where independent power mechanics are more implied from the power imbalance between large and small nations would be much more fun.

But maybe I've just played too much EU4, I'd just love to see a historical hybrid between the two approaches like Stellaris is for sci fi.
 
I'd like to see modern transportation be represented in more depth. Or at least the civilian economy in some way.

Prior Civ games have largely been about military production. Yes, there are also buildings like theaters and cathedrals and they are important. But civilian production was largely a one-off, "I'll build an entertainment district and a few arenas and zoos/a temple and a cathedral, and the people will be happy." And there are luxuries. But luxuries have either been there or they haven't been in terms of happiness (VI did introduce developing them economically into more vibrant industries).

Modern consumerism has been missing.

Where are the toasters? Refigerators? Television factories? Japan had an electronics factory as its unique building in IV, but that was just a passing reference to the concept. Having developed civilian industries has been a key driver of economies, and having access to a sufficient number of consumer goods affects whether people think their leadership is doing a good job. It isn't just having a theater in your city, it's about being able to afford a shiny new pickup truck.

It can't go into minute detail or it would be a different game, but I'd like to see a step towards representing that to some degree.

And on the transportation side, it's always been all about military and trade routes. Civ VI (and V BNW) has tourism, and people going places, but the infrastructure in terms of how you get there is not a part of it, although historically being able to take a train and later a plane to get somewhere quickly was a key part of enabling higher levels of tourism. Civ VI's global warming model is focused almost exclusively on power plants and military transportation (with a side helping of soothsayers), whereas in reality civilian transportation is a significant part of that, and decarbonizing it would fit well thematically with the present day. Civ has also stepped back from railroads as an economic engine since Civ III (where they gave a major boost when constructed), and IMO they should be transformative again.
 
I think they should focus on making it early modern, ending around the world wars time period, especially with many of the modern age civs we know about. Then, a future age could be added, with more weird/speculative civs
 
Unit gifting and more independent people/ city state dimplomatic interactions, I would love proxy wars to be more fleshed out to represent the Cold War better.

The plague crisis makes me hope for more disease/ pandemic gameplay and WMDs options. It would be interesting to have more "special" weapons prior to nukes such as chemical weapons both to make late game warfare more interesting and to give the equivalent of the world congress more ways to impac / interact with warfare by regulating / banning special weapons use, it is arguably the one thing such organizations managed IRL.

In general, more ways for players to influence warfare through diplomacy and the world congress would be nice.
 
I'm hoping for no global warming/pollution mechanic. No way to make that fun.

Make the worldwide issue be nuclear proliferation or something like that. I don't want to fight against the sun.
I believe climate change have been confirmed. And maybe it will only become a big problem if it end up being the crisis you get on modern age, and it being something mostly negative you have to deal with makes sense for a crisis, so it would fit well.
Modern consumerism has been missing.

Where are the toasters? Refigerators? Television factories? Japan had an electronics factory as its unique building in IV, but that was just a passing reference to the concept. Having developed civilian industries has been a key driver of economies, and having access to a sufficient number of consumer goods affects whether people think their leadership is doing a good job. It isn't just having a theater in your city, it's about being able to afford a shiny new pickup truck.
I wouldn't like something like this, it is too micro of a scale for a game that is too macro, which can become very daunting when you try to mix the two. I prefer more detail on things like production lines in games that are on a smaller scale and more focused on that, like the ANNO series, for example.
 
I believe climate change have been confirmed. And maybe it will only become a big problem if it end up being the crisis you get on modern age, and it being something mostly negative you have to deal with makes sense for a crisis, so it would fit well.

I wouldn't like something like this, it is too micro of a scale for a game that is too macro, which can become very daunting when you try to mix the two. I prefer more detail on things like production lines in games that are on a smaller scale and more focused on that, like the ANNO series, for example.
I think it could be macro….a city can devote a portion of production into “consumer goods”. That makes it the source of X “consumer goods” resources (say for every 200 production, you lose 150 production and get 1 resource*) as long as it devotes production into that. Those resources then add happiness to cities they are assigned to.

*Excess production then goes to whatever the city is actually building
 
I think it could be macro….a city can devote a portion of production into “consumer goods”. That makes it the source of X “consumer goods” resources (say for every 200 production, you lose 150 production and get 1 resource*) as long as it devotes production into that. Those resources then add happiness to cities they are assigned to.

*Excess production then goes to whatever the city is actually building
What would justify a separate mechanism when something similar could be done with a possible Happiness city project?
 
The First World War put an end to the last time modern Westerners have had a remotely palatable sense of aesthetics so offense is duly intended. :p (That being said, the convoluted mess that is the start of WW1 is actually kind of interesting--especially since post-WW2 a lot of it has gotten glossed over as "Germany did it," which is obviously the cause of the second war but much more dubious of the first, where there's lots of blame to go around.)
"Art Deco flourished in the 20s and 30s"
-Wikipedia.
 
I'm thorn on that last idea - the mechanics of it make sense (relentlessly pursuing a specific victory condition lead to increased struggle and challenges - but I fundamentally disagree with "more culture = disinformation" (indeed, the cultural milieu and the social media and corporate media conglomerates that spread fake news are usually in stark opposition to one another), and while overuse of anitibiotics and superbacterias are real things, "labs spread disease" tend to be firmly in the speculation/conspiracy range.

All in all, it might make far better sense for an imbalance in focus to cause you to suffer from penalties in the areas you DON'T focus on. Insufficient science = pandemic catastrophe, insufficient culture = fake news, and so forth. That way you still get hardship for overfocusing on one area, but the punishment has more to do with insufficient focus on other areas than questionable notion that investing too much in one field make you likely to suffer in that field.
If it wasn't for scientific recklessness, no one would know about the names Fukushima, Chernobyl, or Wuhan.

As for culture, it is often the cultural elites that drive social change - or as interpreted from the viewpoint of the other elites: unrest, riots, and terrorism.
 
Both Chernobyl and Fukushima resulted from management mistakes in well-established industrial concerns (power plans) - insisting on adhering to a schedule when there were questions about safety conditions, and cutting back on safety measures in the name of saving money - and not on science recklessness, or on science experiments. To go around calling that science recklessness is irresponsible anti-science claptrap.

Then again, the fact that you include Wuhan on that list pretty much made that clear already.
 
They both possess this inestimable quality called "Not Brutalism".

(Mind, even Brutalism has produced the occasional gem, but it seems to be more in spite of the limitations of the style than thanks to them).
 
They both possess this inestimable quality called "Not Brutalism".

(Mind, even Brutalism has produced the occasional gem, but it seems to be more in spite of the limitations of the style than thanks to them).
As a person living in former Yugoslavia, I could say local brutalism produced a lot of gems.
 
  • Like
Reactions: j51
In these parts, they're largely overshadowed by "here is concrete block #121212 ,same as the 121211 before it" Brutalist design, but we do indeed exist. Nothing, not even Brutalism, can extinguish human creativity XD
 
They both possess this inestimable quality called "Not Brutalism".

(Mind, even Brutalism has produced the occasional gem, but it seems to be more in spite of the limitations of the style than thanks to them).
I love that Andor made Sci-Fi Brutalism the Empire's aesthetic. It fit so (un)beautifully.
 
Both Chernobyl and Fukushima resulted from management mistakes in well-established industrial concerns (power plans) - insisting on adhering to a schedule when there were questions about safety conditions, and cutting back on safety measures in the name of saving money - and not on science recklessness, or on science experiments. To go around calling that science recklessness is irresponsible anti-science claptrap.

Then again, the fact that you include Wuhan on that list pretty much made that clear already.
That is an unscientific approach.

I can see you're much more emotional than rational about this topic, so there's not much of a point engaging, if only to reiterate that, were it not for nuclear technology, there would be no nuclear catastrophe.

(Disclaimer: that doesn't make me anti-nuclear)
 
Your claim was not a testable scientific hypothesis, so I don't know why you expected a scientific response to it.

Rather, you made demonstrably wrong claims about historical event, so I gave you an answer founded on history: scientists had nothing to do with the decisions that led to the disasters at Chernobyl and Fukushima.

The exceptional nature of Fukushima and Chernobyl against the backdrop of how many power plants are in operation (and, particularly, the extraordinary circumstances that were required to setoff Fukushima) do not speak of scientific recklesness or a particularly unsafe technology: they speak of a largely mature technology that can (like all technologies) be mishandled by imprudent people.
 
In these parts, they're largely overshadowed by "here is concrete block #121212 ,same as the 121211 before it" Brutalist design, but we do indeed exist. Nothing, not even Brutalism, can extinguish human creativity XD

Your province is home to one of its few masterpieces: Habitat 67
 
Back
Top Bottom