Your game changing feature

[Head_North]

Improved Legacy Paths + Victories
Improvements to existing features

and most of all, Hall of fame… can’t believe we still have no tracking of our played games… I’ve kept all my last turn save games just in case it does appear one day, like they did in civ 6

I´v thougth about doing that. But how do you deal with the games after patches. Do you reload all of you "last-turn-saves" and save them again and hope they work in the new patch?

 

[tedhebert]

I´v thougth about doing that. But how do you deal with the games after patches. Do you reload all of you "last-turn-saves" and save them again and hope they work in the new patch?

I honestly think they are supported, just wouldn't be able to use new features

 

[Arcaian]

I would've voted for Age Transition, as I think crises are the area of the game that have the most promise for improvement in a way that really changes the feel of the game in a good way. But I have below 0 interest in 1-civ playthroughs, so my vote went elsewhere

 

[UWHabs]

I would've voted for Age Transition, as I think crises are the area of the game that have the most promise for improvement in a way that really changes the feel of the game in a good way. But I have below 0 interest in 1-civ playthroughs, so my vote went elsewhere

My last game I had an interesting crisis situation. Got the barbarian crisis, which initially I thought was a great thing, since it gave a good chance to get some more levels on my commanders. But to handle the barbarians, I actually ended up leaving some of my towns exposed, so when Napoleon declared war, I couldn't defend against his elephants and ended up losing one town. Almost gave up on the game, but thankfully a few turns later he pulled his troops back (not sure if it was to fight off a hostile camp on the other side of his empire, or to try to grab a city from my ally) and I just snuck in a couple of my cavalry to reclaim the city and get peace with the turn timer of the era ticking down. It's a legit case where the crisis potentially turned the game. And frankly, that's how it should be. Far too often though the crisis ends up not mattering much. Or worse, if I didn't have an aggressive opponent, I would have just milked those new camps for XP and it would have been a massive net positive for me.

 

[MutilationWave]

It's always Napoleon.

He's been my enemy since the game came out. I enjoyed my game playing as Revolutionary Napoleon after they buffed him though.

 

[marius_kaparius]

We need more leaders. At this point I'm having a visceral reaction when "Je suis Napoleon" pops up.

 

[timmychompchomp]

I am hopeful that the original civs are reworked, leaning hard into asymmetrical design.

 

[Barbarian King]

Map editor and scenarios is my number one requested feature. Scenarios have always been my favorite part of Civ.

 

[Gedemo]

My biggest disappointment stemmed from the fact that I felt the game lacked content at launch. Give me a medieval Age (or a new split in ancient time, not modern), plenty of civilizations and leaders, and I'll be happy!

 

[m_mus]

Didn't see it in the list, but what about giving modders the ability and tools to implement 3D-assets?
There are already whole new civilisations present in the Steam-Workshop, but if I am not mistaken they all have to use placeholder models even if they'd be able to create fitting assets for buildings, units and the like.
At least for me mods are a significant part of what keeps me playing.

 

[Lebo44]

Didn't see it in the list, but what about giving modders the ability and tools to implement 3D-assets?

Vote for #1 then, its about the customization

 

[Ornen]

seems funny to group 'improved civ switching' and 'one civ whole game' as these are fairly opposed directions they could take it

anyway my vote is for improved legacies & improved civ switching / crises. legacies are super railroaded and many of them are not fun (culture ). crises seem less than half baked atm, but I love the potential for these (though also kind of doubt at this point Firaxis will make this element more substantial)

if I had a 3rd vote I would vote for expanding the timeline. I don't really want a "4th age", but there is a big timeline gap 1650-1850 and that is one of the most interesting periods in world history. in some ways this game feels very unfinished – hundreds of years missing, 8 civs max, whatever was going on with maps on launch.

 

[Krikkit1]

seems funny to group 'improved civ switching' and 'one civ whole game' as these are fairly opposed directions they could take it

anyway my vote is for improved legacies & improved civ switching / crises. legacies are super railroaded and many of them are not fun (culture ). crises seem less than half baked atm, but I love the potential for these (though also kind of doubt at this point Firaxis will make this element more substantial)

if I had a 3rd vote I would vote for expanding the timeline. I don't really want a "4th age", but there is a big timeline gap 1650-1850 and that is one of the most interesting periods in world history. in some ways this game feels very unfinished – hundreds of years missing, 8 civs max, whatever was going on with maps on launch.

I think that timeline issue is best fixed by making Exploration last longer and Make Modern earlier (and Longer)
Instead of Tier 2=WW1, Tier3=WW2, it should be
Tier2=late 1800s, Tier3=WW period (Infantry and Artillery reach Tier3 before Cavalry and Air)

 

[UWHabs]

I think that timeline issue is best fixed by making Exploration last longer and Make Modern earlier (and Longer)
Instead of Tier 2=WW1, Tier3=WW2, it should be
Tier2=late 1800s, Tier3=WW period (Infantry and Artillery reach Tier3 before Cavalry and Air)

Yeah, I think Modern age definitely moves into the WW1 era units way too quickly. I know they kind of want the oil and coal and stuff to matter, but the fact that you can unlock landships within like 3 techs if you beeline it means you really get no time really to build out. I think it would be better balance overall if factories were more industrial revolution factories, and unlocked within the first couple techs. So the early part is about building your rail, ports, factories, and getting started there. So maybe you have T1 and T2 units for those pre-war times, and then WW1 becomes T3 units, and WW2 becomes like a T4.

 

[NoCure]

Definitely don't want a fourth Age - Modern already feels unnecessary much of the time.
I really want the Ages linked together more organically. I liked this idea very much:

And I think we have enough Civs. It seems like the developers have really been hitting it out of the park with recent Civ changes and new Civs. In general, I think the "break a rule" concept for each Civ works really well, and the current Civs that fail to do this (Rome, Han in Antiquity, for example) are just less fun. Instead of more Civs and leaders, I'd like to see some more big revamps (a la Egypt) and tweaks to current Civs.

 

[j51]

Didn't see it in the list, but what about giving modders the ability and tools to implement 3D-assets?
There are already whole new civilisations present in the Steam-Workshop, but if I am not mistaken they all have to use placeholder models even if they'd be able to create fitting assets for buildings, units and the like.
At least for me mods are a significant part of what keeps me playing.

This is my number 2 thing after improving the victories and legacies honestly, but I voted for improved crises/transitions. I really want them to matter more, and to occasionally be able to play a civ outside of its age. Although I’d almost never play a single civ the whole way through. I’d get bored.